Rss 360° Read online

  Enough has been read and seen about Ram Janmabhoomi movement by my generation. However, the current young generation is only aware of demolition of Babri structure and riots that followed, because of the propaganda surrounding this movement. In later part of the book I have covered the intellectual exercise and efforts of the secular-Marxist parivaar to obfuscate real historical issues defaming the Sangh and Hindutva by pushing the truth successfully under the carpet that made the agitation what it was.

  Never, in the history of India, has a public movement seen such mobilisation of people at large or witnessed the support of large sections of the society. People went to the extent of providing food and shelter to the satyagrahis who were stopped mid-tracks by railways and hounded by the police on the instructions of the secular governments during its first satyagrah or ‘karseva’ (voluntary religious service) at Ayodhya for rebuilding the Ram temple Ram is the creator of the moral and ethical framework of the Hindu society. The message of Ram has permeated other societies around the world through migrant Hindus. However hard the secularists may try to insult Hindus and make them believe that Ram was only a mythological figure and forward arguments that he is there only in minds and hearts of the people, the faith of people built on oral history of thousands of years cannot be trifled with.

  Never, was a mass campaign sustained and guided through so many phases involving more and more Hindus on a matter that shook their conscience, and firmed their resolve that their dearest Lord Ram must have a temple where it already existed for centuries. For a country where every fifth or sixth person’s name from South to North carries ‘Ram’ in it, it was a natural desire. Lord Ram is one of the three most popular deities in Hindu pantheon viz. Krishna, Shiva and Ram. So, one cannot treat this eternal faith in a dismissive manner.

  If the secular cabal had been more thoughtful and the political leadership more pragmatic, it could have created a deep sense of mutual trust and love by persuading Muslims to give up their claim on a defunct structure that signified the atrocities and insults Mughal invaders like Babar and rulers like Aurangzeb had heaped on Hindus by demolishing their temples, converting them into mosques. Insults were heaped on their most revered Gods in Mathura, Kashi and Ayodhya apart from thousands of other places. A section of Muslims had clearly shown an inclination to give up its claim on the Babri structure as a gesture of goodwill to the Hindu society and decided to balm centuries old wounds. But, their leadership chose the path of immediate gains, pandering to shallower sentiments egged on by anti-religious anti-Hindu intellectuals goaded by inverse communalism of the Marxist parivar.

  The Ram Janmabhoomi Movement reached out various sections and strata of Hindu society across the country. For the first time, historians, social scientists, Indologists, and journalists aired their views on the subject courageously and honestly. The Marxist-secular cabal was exposed for its inability to confront the truth that didn’t suit it. It is regrettable that the group of unbiased intellectuals suffered in the aftermath due to a vice like grip of the dominant Left lobby, as also for the failure of BJP, RSS and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to support them. I shall return to the former’s fascist ways later.

  Koenrad Elst notes in his thesis ‘Ayodhya, The Finale – Science vs. Secularism, the Excavation Debate’ that “the secularist historians have been bluffing their way through the controversy. In December 1990, the government of Chandra Shekhar invited the two lobbying groups involved, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Babri Masjid Action Committee, to discuss the historical truth of the matter. Misled by the media into believing that the Hindu claims were pure fantasy, the BMAC office-bearers arrived ill-prepared. They were speechless when the VHP team presented dozens of documents supporting its case. For the next meeting, they invited a team of proper historians chaired by Marxist professor RS Sharma, who declared that they hadn’t studied the evidence yet. This was a strange statement from people who had just led 42 academicians in signing a petition confirming once and for all that there was no evidence whatsoever for a temple. At the meeting scheduled for 25 January 1991, they simply didn’t show up. In a booklet issued months later, pompously called ‘A Historians’ Report to the Nation’, they tried to save face by nibbling at the evidential value of a few of the numerous documents presented by their opponents (and of course, historical evidence is rarely absolute), but failed to offer even one piece of evidence for any alternative scenario.”

  Elst continues his observations: “During the demolition, an inscription tentatively dated to circa 1140 came to light. It detailed how it was part of a temple to “‘Vishnu, slayer of Bali and of the ten-headed one”. Rama is considered an incarnation of Vishnu, and the two enemies he defeated were king Bali and king Ravana, often depicted as ten-headed in recognition of his brilliant mind. This evidence too was locked away and strictly ignored by the secularists until 2003, when People’s Democracy, the paper of the Marxwadi Communist Party, alleged foul play. It seemed that the Lucknow State Museum mentioned in its catalogue a 20-line inscription dedicated to Vishnu, satisfying the description of the piece discovered during the demolition, and missing since the late 1980s. However, museum director Jitendra Kumar declared that the piece had never left the museum, even though it had not been on display, and he showed it at a press conference for all to see (Hindustan Times, 8 May 2003). In spite of many similarities, it differed from the Ayodhya find in shape, colour and text contents.”

  The judgement in the case has been delivered by the Allahabad High Court. It has vindicated the stand of Hindus that the place under dispute is, indeed, place of birth of Lord Ram. The judgement has tried to balance facts and faith in equal measure and has tried to achieve what political and religious leaders failed to achieve all these years, that is, try to bring about reconciliation that can heal the wounds of injustice – festering for Hindus for centuries because of destructions of their holy places of worship, and for Muslims for decades since demolition of the disputed structure. It is amusing to see worthies like Irfan Habib crawling out of woodworks picking holes in archeological findings of scholars of Archeological Society of India. They forget that this team was appointed by the court and did its work in the presence of judges, experts and witnesses. Each and every finding has been meticulously recorded and presented as expected from such experts. This same group of historians had evaded meetings of historians and archeologists through good offices of central government two decades back when they found that the evidence presented by pro-temple historians and archeologists was overwhelming in comparison to their oft repeated posturing built around British and later leftist interpretation of history.

  Another peeve of secularists is that decision seems to have been taken more on the basis of faith than facts, facts that they dispute too. Hinduism has lived its traditions, culture and religions mostly through oral propagation. Even the Vedas – the fountainhead of universal knowledge were carried through generations with oral traditions. It is the tradition of ‘shruti’ that is oral transmission of knowledge. It is only now that so called myths of Hinduism are being proven through archeological proofs or, what law calls corroborative evidence. Limitation is with our current knowledge of research tools, not with Hindu history and its off shoots in field of science. One cannot hold this weakness of Hinduism against it. It is also true that every religion or belief system is basically born out of faith and sustains itself on faith. Going by the same yard stick of scientific evidence, should critics of Islam doubt whether Prophet Mohammad did indeed hear words of God or Allah? Should cynics doubt Immaculate Conception? Should we doubt whether Moses actually received Ten Commandments from the Lord? Should we doubt whether the hair recovered in Srinagar after its mysterious disappearance some years back was, indeed, Hazrat Saheb’s hair? No Hindu would raise such doubts. Nor do our secular friends do so in case of other religions either. But, faith of Hindus can be challenged and ridiculed. Only secularists’ interpretation of history or faith can be the gospel truth, as if they have a monopoly on tr
uth. It is sad that instead of helping society move ahead with a positive spirit as indicated by the judgement and close this chapter, they are out again re-opening wounds to prove themselves right and satisfy their egos. None of these secular worthies have countered the views expressed by fanatic Indian Muslim leaders who claim that no mosque can be shifted though their land of inspiration, the epicenter of Wahhabism, has seen umpteen mosques being demolished or shifted to new places in Saudi Arabia, and also in Pakistan. But, they do not tire of spouting ‘enlightened noble’ views like “Ram lives in heart, why are you fighting for a temple in his name?” It is but a small example of their biased mindset.

  This movement brought Hindutva firmly on the centre stage of national discourse and it became a mainstream ideology. It is not a mere coincidence that the present phase of India’s growth story coincides with the new resurgent Hindu society that emerged out of this period of Janmabhoomi movement This confidence was further bolstered by a government run by people close to RSS who went ahead with nuclear tests inspite of global pressure and got overwhelming support from global Indian community to overcome US sanctions. This accelerated growth strengthens the premise of RSS that a society can progress well only if its members are confident of themselves and proud of their culture and nation.

  I am not sure if the by-product of all this mobilisation was as good. The rise of militant groups like Bajrang Dal could be called a necessity of times when there is a clear scenario of clash of civilisations. I don’t wish to quote lofty ideals of Hinduism to say that this clash is a mythical one as this clash is a reality. However, such groups tasted the muscle power at that time and its manifestation, sometimes, in undesirable agitations and actions. I could sense a departure from spiritual, reformist style of working to a more agitational and muscular way of working during those times. This may have led to addition of more people in the ranks of the Hindutva movement, however it also led to a dilution of the normal working style of the Sangh. But, I guess, this is a part of social churning that the society is going through. Ultimately, the constructive style of working in RSS will succeed and these groups will also channelise their energies in positive social work and reforms.

  These years also saw many ‘outsiders’ getting converted to the cause of Hinduism. Leading Marxists like M G Bokare turned Swadeshi and wrote a book ‘Hindu Economics’. Many leading journalists and intellectuals openly spoke against the secular-Marxist parivar. Some nationalist Muslims like Muzaffar Hussein started working with RSS related organisations. Many Christians and Muslims joined different organisations too that were connected to the Sangh. In all, the Sangh grew out of its shakha structure and became a social movement in the real sense.

  While studying various Sangh bans, I find some leftist and ‘secular’ writers deriding ‘duplicity’ of RSS in engaging the government in negotiations or launching ‘satyagraha’ democratically to lift the ban while sustaining its organisational work silently. Ironically, the same group of writers go to any length to ask government to ‘engage’ violent anti-state Naxalites in talks, advocate cease fire while decrying any action against them under the garb of human rights. In this case it is a matter of ‘strategy’ against an ‘exploitative state’. It is easy for the reader to judge who plays games of duplicity.

  In recent years the RSS has networked with various other organisations working in the public domain: religious, voluntary and reforms movements. It believes that it doesn’t have a monopoly on nation building or man building. So, it co-operates with various organisations with an optimistic approach towards nation building and social awakening wherever possible. It believes that all well meaning positive forces of national re-construction must work together, because there is so much to do, and the speed at which this is happening is too slow. This is the vision that drives the RSS today.

  PART I

  THE SPIRIT

  “This nation of ours is a Hindu Nation (Hindu Rashtra). We wish to rebuild its paramount status and a sovereign prosperous life for it. We are striving to this end only and this exercise will continue till we are successful in this endeavor. It is true that people try to create confusion about word ‘Hindu’. In many places, motivated by selfish motives Hindu is shown as being anti-Muslim, anti-Christian and now even anti-Sikh, anti-Jain, anti-Harijan. People perpetrating such propaganda do not do so with proper information. They have their vested political interests. It is not that they made these statements after studying dharma, culture and history.”

  “….Hindu philosophy and systems of living one’s life have been present in this country, when Islamic and Christian communities did not even exist in this world. One may ask then, how can Hindu mean to be anti-Muslim? Similarly, Sikh and Jain sects etc. come within the purview of Hindu. If one were to think about opposing them when one speaks of ‘Hindu’, it would be akin to cutting one’s own limbs. Then, how is Hindu against them? All these are falsehoods. ‘Hindu’ is not against anybody. This is a completely emotional thought, not against anybody at all”

  “….Therefore, we must assert with complete resolve that, yes, we are Hindus. This is our dharma, our culture, our society; and built from all this is our nation. That is all. Our birth is only to build a powerful, capable, grand, radiant sovereign life for it. Therefore, we must motivate people for this mission. There is no need to be embarrassed or be afraid in declaring this belief.”

  – M S Golwalkar, 1972

  Extracts from RSS Constitution

  (Translated from original in Hindi)

  Preamble:

  Whereas in the disintegrated condition of the country it was considered necessary to have an Organization:

  (a)To eradicate the fissiparous tendencies arising from diversities of sect, faith, caste and creed and from political, economic, linguistic and provincial differences amongst Hindus;

  (b)To make them realize the greatness of their past;

  (c)To inculcate in them a spirit of service, sacrifice and selfless devotion to the Society;

  (d)To build up an organized and well-disciplined corporate life; and

  (e)To bring about an all-round regeneration of the Hindu Samaaj on the basis of its Dharma and Sanskriti.

  Aims & Objective:

  The aims and objects of the Sangh are to organize and weld together the various diverse groups within the Hindu Samaaj and to revitalize and rejuvenate the same on the basis of its Dharma and Sanskriti, so that it may achieve an all-round development of Bharat Varsh.

  Policy:

  (a)Sangh believes in the orderly evolution of society and adheres to peaceful and legitimate means of realization of its ideals.

  (b)In consonance of the cultural heritage of the Hindu Samaaj Sangh has abiding faith in the fundamental principle of respect towards all faiths.

  (c)Sangh is aloof from politics and is devoted to social and cultural fields only. However, the swayamsevaks are free, as individuals, to join any party, institution or front, political or otherwise except such parties, institutions or fronts which subscribe to or believe in extra-national loyalties, or resort to violent and/or secret activities to achieve their ends, or which promote or attempt to promote, or have the object of promoting any feeling of enmity or hatred towards any other community or creed or religious denomination. Persons owing allegiance to the above mentioned undesirable elements and methods or working shall have no place in Sangh.

  Other articles of the Constitution define its flag, swayamsevak, shakha, programmes, finances, appointment of Sarsanghchaalak, Sarkaaryavaah, elections – their periodicity and mode of election, e.g. qualifications for voters and candidates, delegates, its set up of its policy making bodies – Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha and Akhil Bharatiya Kendriya Kaaryakaarini Mandal, local kaaryakaari mandals, prachaaraks, and methodology to be followed for amendment to its constitution.

  III

  What Defines India

  Let us just think about what defines India in eyes of the world. The top global Indian brands are:


  Yoga

  Ayurveda

  Sanskrit

  Spirituality

  Matchless ancient literature – Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagwad Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata

  All the brands and ideas noted above flow from Hindu or Indic civilisation. There is no dispute about it. While RSS was propagating and supporting institutions which supported these ideas for decades, only recently has our entrenched, established intellectuals and elite class reluctantly recognised this fact. This probably is a result of the international recognition of these contributions of India to the world civilisation. Today, India is also known as a global information Technology power. The success has come from our same age old knowledge pools of mathematics, science, astronomy, Manufacturing skills and culture. A recent book by an American author that tries to decipher the success of Indian Americans, notes that a robust family system is one of the key reasons for this success. The report of the United States Census Bureau also comes to the same conclusion that the joint family system has roots in ancient Hindu traditions.

  India is recognised and respected for its non-aggressive way of life. It may have spread its influence far and wide with its philosophies, whether Vedic or Buddhist; but never did it resort to violence, looting, murders to spread its religions or faith. It has an innate inclusive nature that flows from its philosophy: “ekam sat, vipraha bahuda vadanti” (There is one truth, wise ones speak of it in different ways that adopts or absorbs other ideas and philosophies over time).

  Why should we Indians or Hindus feel apologetic for being proud of these facts? There has been an intellectual exercise for some years to play around with facts that give identity to Hindu society. These intellectual gymnastics of our honourable leftist intellectuals propose that all things good belong to ‘ancient Indian heritage’ – not ‘Hindu’ and all things bad (casteism, untouchability etc.) belong to Hindus. Thus, Hindu spirituality is encashed with impunity by well known media houses professing to be ‘secular’ by selling mantras, bhajans, yoga CDs etc., as ‘Indian culture and Indian spiritualism’ and not as priceless Hindu heritage, as it is supposed to be. Yoga is presented as a ‘non-religious’ discipline though it is clearly a spiritual, rather than a physical exercise, rooted in highly evolved Hindu philosophy. Unfortunately many of such ‘secular’ media houses also broadcast programmes promoting half-baked beliefs that promote superstition. Such programmes are conveniently presented as Hindu belief systems. It is difficult to fathom what triggers such strange view point: is it a lack of understanding of Hinduism? Or maybe, it is a lack of sincerity in understanding ancient Hindu or Indian heritage and history, and owning it in its entirety – whether good or even bad