The Freedom Movement & The RSS: A Story of Betrayal
Shamsul Islam
Published by Joshi—Adhikari Institute of Social Studies
Copyright: Shamsul Islam
First Edition August 1999
ISBN : 81-87638-02-8
PREFACE
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) claims to be the greatest embodiment of
nationalism in the country today. There has been a concerted attempt to market it
as being synonymous with patriotism in India. It is also a fact, though, that the
claims of the RSS in this regard have always been challenged by individuals and
organizations who were in the thick of the freedom movement. There is no dearth
of writings exposing the negative role of the RSS during the freedom struggle.
However, this booklet is an attempt to collect facts of the freedom movement era
from the documents of the RSS itself. It has been the intention of the author that
the documents o the RSS should speak for themselves. This booklet is surely going
to disillusion those who believe that the RSS played any role in securing freedom.
They will hear from the horse's mouth that not only was a silence maintained about
the evils of foreign rule but all attempts were made to sabotage the fight against
British imperialism.
This booklet contains a thematic index of references in speeches and writings of
RSS leaders to participation in the freedom struggle. This is published as an
appendix.
Translations from original Hindi texts quoted in the booklet are by the author.
I am greatly indebted to Shri D.R. Goyal for inspiring me to undertake this study. I
would like to express my gratitude to Ms. Neelima Sharma and Ms. Shirin for their
assistance in collecting material and in the preparation of this work. I am also
thankful to Mr. Amar Farooqui of the Joshi-Adhikari Institute of Social Studies for
various suggestions and comments on the draft.
Shamsul Islam August 24, 1999
THE FREEDOM MOVEMENT AND THE RSS
With the dream of unfurling the saffron flag of Hindu Rashtra, the Prime Minister
of India Atal Behari Vajpayee issued a commemorative postage stamp to mark the
110th birth anniversary of 'freedom fighter' and founder of the Rashtriya
Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), Dr. K.B. Hedgewar, on March 18, 1999 in New
Delhi. It was the first instance since India's independence that a postage stamp was
issued commemorating the birthday of the founder of the RSS or any other leader
of this organization. On this occasion, the Prime Minister while addressing mainly
a gathering of RSS cadre, took credit for the fact that by issuing the postage stamp
his government had corrected an injustice whereby the great freedom fighter and
patriot Dr. Hedgewar was denied his due place in the history of independent India.
Rajendar Singh, chief of RSS, and Union Home Minister L.K. Advani too spoke
on the occasion and described Dr. Hedgewar as a great revolutionary.1
This is not the place to go into the issue whether revolutionaries and freedom
fighters who challenged the might of the British rulers need the honours of this
government or for that matter any other government. However, the fact of the
matter is that the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, and the RSS chief were
talking dishonestly. They were trying to pass off a pre-independence political trend
represented by the RSS as a legacy of the anti-colonial struggle whereas in reality
RSS was never part of the anti-imperialist struggle. On the contrary, since its
inception in 1925, the RSS only tried to disrupt the great anti-imperialist struggle
of the Indian people against the British colonial rulers.
Interestingly, the 'contribution' to the freedom struggle for which the BJP
Government honoured Dr. Hedgewar was made by him as a Congressman. It may
not be known to many that he went to jail for the first time for giving an
inflammatory speech in support of the Khilafat Movement (1920-21). He was
subsequently sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. According to his
biography published by the RSS, "the experiences gained by his in the freedom
movement till now, gave rise to a number of questions in his mind. He felt that
some other way should be found".2 In the same book, it is further mentioned that
Dr. Hedgewar was attracted towards Hindutva by 1925 and "through his talent he
found a new method of Shakha, different from the ways then prevalent, of doing
public work and the type of efforts then being made for gaining freedom".3 The
truth is that Dr. Hedgewar by then had openly taken the path, which Mohammed
Ali Jinnah was to later take, of breaking the united movement of the Indian people
against the British rulers and splitting it along religious lines.
Dr. Hedgewar was sent to jail a second time by the British government. This was
the last time that he went to jail. The reason for his second imprisonment has been
described in the same biography in the following words: "[In 1930] Mahatma
Gandhi had called upon the people to break different laws of the government.
Gandhiji himself launched Salt Satyagraha undertaking Dandi Yatra. Dr. Saheb
[Hedgewar] sent information everywhere that the Sangh will not participate in the
Satyagraha. However those wishing to participate individually in it were not
prohibited. This meant that any responsible worker of the Sangh could not
participate in the Satyagraha". 4 However, rather surprisingly, Dr. Saheb decided to
participate in Gandhi's Dandi Salt Satyagraha as an individual. Of course, he had
an ulterior motive. We learn about this from the same biography published by the
RSS: "Dr. Saheb had the confidence that with a freedom loving, self-sacrificing
and reputed group of people inside with him there, he would discuss the Sangh
with them and win them over for its work".5 In this context it is further stated in the
biography, "Doctor Saheb did not let the work of the Sangh get away from his
mind (aankhon se aujhal nahin hone diya) even for a moment during his
imprisonment. He established close links with all the leaders and activists [of the
Congress] who were in prison, made them understand the work of the Sangh and
obtained from them promise of cooperation in work for the future. He came out of
the prison only after making plans for a big leap for work expansion".6 It is clear
that Dr. Hedgewar chose to go to jail his time not because he was convinced of the
cause but in order to break the ranks of the Congress cadre. These cadres were
participating in the Non-Cooperation Movement and going to jails upholding the
banner of united struggle of the people of all religions of the country. In fact, the
Congress leadership soon realized that communal and sectarian organizations were
bent upon using the cadre of Congress for their vicious designs. In 1934, the All
India Congress Committee passed a resolution forbidding Congress members from
becoming members of the RSS, the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Muslim League.
It needs to be underlined that on the two occasions that Dr. Hedgewar went to jail,
it was at the call of the Congress. If it is true that the Vajpayee government has
honoured him for his participation in Congress-led movements this should be
clearly stated. On the other hand if he is being honoured as the founder of the RSS
then the only 'contribution' for which he can claim credit it that of propagating the
communal and disruptive ideology of Hindu Rashtra - an ideology which divided
and undermined the freedom movement.
The people of this country would like to know which movements were launched by
the RSS before 1947, to free India from British imperialism. Who amongst its
leaders and cadres suffered repression under colonial rule? Who amongst them
went to jail or became martyrs for the cause of the freedom of the country?
The truth is that the foundation of anti-imperialist people's unity, especially unity
of the Hindu and Muslim masses, was firmly laid by the great struggle of the
Indian people for independence in 1857. This unity formed the basis of the Non-
Cooperation Movement (1920-22), in the course of which India's struggle for
freedom underwent a qualitative change. The single most important feature of the
immediate post-war period was the politics of mass mobilization which Gandhiji
initiated. The period following the Non-Cooperation Movement witnessed the
growth of workers' and peasants' movements which strengthened the united antiimperialist
struggle.
At the same time an unfortunate feature of the national movement during the mid-
1920s was the growing tendency of some of the prominent leaders to take positions
along communal lines. This was a development which suited the British and the
imperialist rulers left no stone unturned to encourage this trend. Hindu and Muslim
chauvinists undermined the unity which had been built up during the Non-
Cooperation Movement led by Gandhiji. The communal stance of the Hindu
Mahasabha, which had the support of the Congress right-wing, made things
difficult for communal amity. As for the Muslim chauvinists, particularly the more
obscurantist and reactionary sections among them, they tried to project the Khilafat
issue as one concerning the Muslim community alone. By stressing on the religious
aspects of the issue they diluted the political and anti-imperialist content of the
movement. After the Non-Cooperation Movement some of them took to communal
politics, while several others like Maulana Azad and Saifuddin Kitchlew, who
were dedicated to the cause of Hindu - Muslim unity, became part of the Congress
leadership. The Hindu and Muslim communalists thus complemented each other's
politics, and British imperialism nurtured both of them.
It is against this background that Dr. Hedgewar formed the Rashtriya
Swayamsewak Sangh in 1925. Dr. Hedgewar was born in 1889 in Nagpur. After
completing his school education he went to Calcutta (1910-1915) to study
medicine. Although RSS publications claim that he was in touch with
revolutionary terrorist groups there, no independent confirmation of this is
available. Almost nothing is known of his political activities for nearly five years
after he returned to Nagpur in 1915. It seems that Dr. Hedgewar did not set up a
medical practice. The details of the 'formative' period of his political career are
vague. He was briefly associated with the Congress and as we have seen he was
imprisoned during the Non-Cooperation Movement.
In the Congress Dr. Hedgewar was close to the extreme rightwing Hindu
Mahasabha leader Dr. B.S. Moonje. Dr. Moonje was at that time in the Congress,
though he was opposed to Gandhiji's programme for building Hindu - Muslim
unity and was also willing to go in for limited cooperation with the British.
After coming out of prison Dr. Hedgewar criticized Gandhiji for his views on
Hindu-Muslim unity and equated nationalism with Hindu Rashtra. A major theme
of the RSS since its inception was the 'disloyalty' of the Muslims and other
minorities to the nation. According to Dr. Hedgewar, "As a result of the noncooperation
movement of Mahatma Gandhi the enthusiasm in the country was
cooling down and the evils in social life which that movement generated were
menacingly raising their head. As the tide of national struggle came to ebb mutual
ill-will and jealousies came on the surface. Personal quarrels raged all round.
Conflicts between various communities had started. Brahmin-non-Brahmin
conflict was nakedly on view. No organization was integrated or united. The
yavana-snakes [i.e. Muslims] reared on the milk of non-cooperation were
provoking riots in the nation with their poisonous hissing".7
With the aim of propagating these views among youngsters, mainly teenage boys,
he formed the RSS in 1925. The RSS concentrated on disseminating Dr.
Hedgewar's views of Hindu Rashtra among youth. The organization was not
engaged in undertaking any movement or launching any struggle against the
British. Whereas on the one hand the revolutionary activities of Bhagat Singh and
his comrades were shaking the foundations of British rule, on the other hand
official documents of the late twenties contain no reference to any anti-British
activities of the RSS. The main task of the Sangh was to carry on a hate campaign
against the minorities. It sought urban middle-class Maharashtrian Brahmin boys
for their audience, and in the early years this remained the main social base of the
organization. It is pertinent that a spurt in the membership of the organization came
soon after a riot in Nagpur in 1927.
While the RSS embarked on its hate campaign the freedom struggle was, by 1927-
28, ready to enter a new phase. The twenties had witnessed the rise of a left
movement in India with the formation of socialist groups and the founding of the
Communist Party. A strong trade union movement had also come into existence.
Towards the end of the twenties a number of working-class strikes swept the
country. 1927 saw another development. This was the announcement by the British
of another commission to go into the question of constitutional reforms for Indiathe
Simon Commission. The nationalists opposed the Simon Commission and the
Congress gave a call to boycott it. The boycott of the Simon Commission
developed into a major mass agitation. The British relied upon the growing
aggressiveness of Hindu and Muslim communalists to disrupt the unity of the antiimperialist
mass upsurge of the late 1920s and hoped that this would enable them
to impose a constitutional arrangement which would safeguard British interests.
There is a vast amount of archival source material and other documentation which
provides detailed information about the activities of the Congress, the
revolutionary terrorists and various other groups which were engaged in the antiimperialist
struggle. The Communists, who throughout this period had to work
secretly and remained underground due to severe imperialist repression, have
already published a large part of the voluminous source material pertaining to their
activities in this period. The source material is corroborated by the official and
semi-official records, and can be easily verified and cross-checked. The
revolutionary terrorists too, even though they worked in utmost secrecy, have left
behind extensive evidence of their activities. This also holds true for those among
the terrorists who, like V.D. Savarkar, were part of the political right-wing and
whose views on Hindutva were not fundamentally different from those of the RSS.
However no similar documentation has been forthcoming from the RSS. Nor is it
possible to locate material in contemporary records which would shed light on the
anti-British role of the organization. We have to rely exclusively on what we are
told by RSS propagandists in their publications. Is the RSS not in a position to
produce a volume containing documents that have a bearing on the role of the
organization in the freedom struggle?
The contemporary writings and speeches of RSS leaders have a very different story
to tell. These leaders showed little enthusiasm for the anti-British struggle. In the
words of Guru Golwalkar, "There is another reason for the need of always
remaining involved in routine work. There is some unrest in the mind due to the
situation developing in the country from time to time. There was such unrest in
1942. Before that there was the movement in 1930-31. At that time many other
people had gone to Doctorji. This 'delegation' requested Doctorji that this
movement will give independence and Sangh should not lag behind. At that time,
when a gentleman told Doctorji that he was ready to go to jail, Doctorji said,
'Definitely go. But who will take care of your family then? That gentlemen told-'he
has sufficiently arranged resources not only to run the family expenses for two
years but also to pay fines according to the requirements'. Then Doctorji said to
him-'if you have fully arranged for the resources then come out to work for the
Sangh for two years'. After returning home that gentleman neither went to jail nor
came out to work for the Sangh'.8 This incident clearly shows that the RSS
leadership was bent upon demoralising the honest patriotic persons to run away
from the cause of Freedom Movement.
At the time of the Quit India Movement Guru Golwalkar stated: "There are bad
results of struggle. The boys became militant after the 1920-21movement. It is not
an attempt to throw mud at the leaders. But these are inevitable products after the
struggle. The matter is that we could not properly control these results. After 1942,
people often started thinking that there was no need to think of the law".9 After the
1942 Movement Guruji further commented, "In 1942 also there was a strong
sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time too the routine work of Sangh
continued. Sangh decided not to do anything directly".10 However, there is not a
single publication or document of the Sangh which could throw some light on the
great work the RSS did indirectly for the Quit India Movement.
As we have seen, Dr. Hedgewar individually participated in the Salt Satyagraha.
But after this the RSS leaders even in their individual capacity kept away from the
anti-British struggle. The RSS scrupulously avoided any political activity which
might be construed as being against the British authorities: "After establishing
Sangh, Doctor Saheb in his speeches used to talk only of Hindu organization.
Direct comment on Government used to be almost nil".11
Though it is possible, given the mass upsurge of that period, that some members of
the RSS might have individually participated in some anti-British movement, these
would have been isolated instances. The RSS as an organization never launched
any struggle or campaign against British colonial rule or for the rights of the
oppressed people. Nor was the top leadership of the RSS part of the freedom
struggle. The political antecedents of Guru Golwalkar, who headed the
organization after the death of Dr. Hedgewar in 1940, reveal that he too was not
associated with the national movement.
Guru Golwalkar was born in 1906 near Nagpur. After his initial education he went
to Banaras Hindu University (BHU) where he studied zoology and taught at the
University till 1933. He worked briefly for the RSS, but subsequently turned
towards spiritualism. In 1937 he again became active in the RSS and eventually
was named by Dr. Hedgewar as his successor (despite his being relatively junior in
the organization). He took over the leadership of the RSS in 1940, at a time when
the Muslim League's Pakistan resolution had provided fertile ground for
heightened communal propaganda.
During the forties also the RSS aggressively campaigned for Hindu Rashtra, but
stayed aloof from the anti-British struggle. Guru Golwalkar in fact made it clear
that the variety of nationalism which the RSS espoused had no anti-British or antiimperialist
content whatsoever: "The theories of territorial nationalism and of
common danger, which formed the basis for our concept of nation, had deprived us
of the positive and inspiring content of our real Hindu Nationhood and made many
of the 'freedom movements' virtually anti-British movements. Anti-Britishism was
equated with patriotism and nationalism. This reactionary view has had disastrous
effects upon the entire course of the freedom movement, its leaders and the
common people".12
Virulent opposition to Hindu-Muslim unity and to a united people's struggle
against British rule was the programme pursued by the RSS throughout the forties.
Gandhiji was projected as the villain who was a hurdle to the establishment of
Hindu Rashtra. Significantly the British, who encouraged Jinnah's communal
politics and used the Muslim League as a convenient tool for imposing partition on
the Indian subcontinent, were never condemned by the RSS, whereas Gandhiji who
worked ceaselessly to prevent partition was demonized. This demonization of
Gandhiji culminated in his assassination in 1948. The RSS has never been able to
shake-off the allegation that it was involved in the conspiracy to kill the Mahatma.
Apart from its hate campaign directed against the Muslims and other minorities,
the RSS also assumed another role under Guru Golwalkar. Communists and
socialists too became objects of the RSS hate campaign in the forties - precisely at
a time when communist and socialist influence was growing in the national
movement. This role was duly recognized and commended in the early 1950s by a
key player in promoting the Cold War - the CIA. It must be remembered that after
the Second World War the CIA masterminded the anti-communist campaign
worldwide. A CIA - sponsored study of 1950 noted: " If leftist forces in India
should acquire increasing importance or if Communist imperialism should present
a greater threat to India's sovereignty than the Congress Government could
withstand, the RSS might stand to gain. Its extreme Hindu nationalism might easily
become the rallying point for anti-Marxists".13
When, after 1948, the RSS was on the defensive due to a ban imposed on it for its
involvement in the assassination of Gandhiji, the role of the organization in the
anti-communist campaign facilitated its resurrection.
The RSS thus can be seen as having played an extremely dubious role throughout
the freedom struggle. All evidence points towards its disruptiveness and the fact
that the organization and its leadership was not a part of the freedom struggle. The
single most important 'contribution' of the RSS was to consistently disrupt the
unified struggle of the Indian people against British imperialism through its
extreme exclusivist slogan of Hindu Rashtra.
Moreover there is ample proof in the documents of the RSS which conclusively
establishes the fact that RSS denounced movements led by revolutionaries like
Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad and their associates. Not only that, they hated
even the reformist and moderate movements conducted by leaders like Gandhiji
against the British rulers.
Here is a passage from Bunch of Thoughts decrying the whole tradition of martyrs:
"There is no doubt that such men who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and
their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men
who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such
persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their
martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after
all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in
them".14 Could there be a statement more insulting and denigrating to the martyrs
than this?
The study of Prarthana (prayer) and Pratigya (oath) as practised in the shakhas of
the RSS during the British rule, is an example of how nationalism was equated
with Hinduism, in the same way as the Muslim League which had combined Islam
with nationality. Significantly, both the Prarthana and Pratigya are silent on the
issue of the subjugation of the motherland to the British rulers. A perusal of the
relevant portions of the English versions of both will make this very clear:
Prarthana
Affectionate Motherland, I eternally bow to you/O Land of Hindus, you have
reared me in comfort/O Sacred Land, the Great Creator of Good, may this body of
mine be dedicated to you/I again and again bow before you/O God almighty, we
the integral part of the Hindu Rashtra salute you in reverence/For Your cause have
we girded up our loins/Give us Your Blessings for its accomplishment.15
(Translated from Sanskrit)
Pratigya
Before the all-powerful God and my ancestors, I most solemnly take this oath, that
I become a member of the RSS in order to achieve all round greatness of
Bharatvarsha by fostering the growth of my sacred Hindu religion, Hindu society,
and Hindu culture. I shall perform the work of the Sangh honestly, disinterestedly,
with my heart and soul, and I shall adhere to this goal all my life. Bharat Mata Ki
Jai.16
Prior to 1939 the RSS had a different prayer, a combination of Marathi and Hindi.
It revolved round Ram and the Aryan race. In the new prayer all references to Ram
and Aryan race were withdrawn. Also the last slogan Jai Bajrang Bali-Bal Bhim Ki
Jai were deleted.
This equation of Indian nationalism with Hindu religion often drew flak from
many Hindus as is evident from an incident narrated in a publication of the RSS.
The incident occurred at a meeting at Banaras Hindu University, in 1929-30, where
both Dr. Hedgewar and Golwalkar were present:
"Doctorji explained to the gathering the meaning of the oath and asked those who
were in agreement with its aims to take the oath. Doctorji used to keep always a
small iron idol of Hanuman and a saffron flag. After the meeting, in the presence
of Hanuman idol and saffron flag he used to go through the process of oath taking
for the willing persons. The same day he used to appoint Sanghchalak and
Karyavah also.
When the time for the oath taking ceremony approached, some people got
impatient. In the meeting some college professors and scholars were present. They
said Sangh is undoubtedly good but they cannot agree to the mention of Hindu
Rashtra. Doctorji refused to make any change in the oath. When people present in
the meeting stressed on changing the text of the oath and offered to take the oath
only after the changes were affected [Golwalkar intervened and said]. "Doctorji
has put before us a definite work and programme. Those who feel good about it
should accept it, otherwise they should refuse. But there is no need to teach lessons
to Doctorji. If he starts implementing all those suggestions which he receives while
touring the country, then the coming into existence of the organization will be
impossible".17
After the meeting Golwalkar was appointed the Sanghchalak of the shakha of
Banaras Hindu University.
It is revealing that there is not a single line challenging, exposing, criticizing or
confronting the inhuman rule of the British masters in the entire literature of the
RSS from 1925 to 1947. It seems it had only one task to accomplish and that was
minority-bashing or to be more specific, Muslim-bashing.
Guru Golwalkar's book We or Our Nationhood Defined, which Golwalkar
published in the year 1938, gives an insight into the thinking of the RSS
leadership. In this book he idealized the Nazi cultural nationalism of Hitler in the
following words: "German Race pride has now become the topic of the day. To
keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her
purging the country of the Semitic Races - the Jews. Race pride at its highest has
been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for
Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one
united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by".18
Golwalkar unhesitatingly wanted to model his Hindu Rashtra on Hitler's
totalitarian and fascist pattern as is clear from the following words of his in the
same book: "It is worth bearing well in mind how these old Nations solve their
minorities problem. They do not undertake to recognize any separate element in
their polity. Emigrants have to get themselves naturally assimilated in the principal
mass of the population, the National Race, by adopting its culture and language
and sharing in its aspirations, by losing all consciousness of their separate
existence, forgetting their foreign origin. If they do not do so, they live merely as
outsiders, bound by all the codes and conventions of the Nation, at the sufferance
of the Nation and deserving no special protection, far less any privilege or rights.
There are only two courses open to the foreign elements, either to merge
themselves in the national race and adopt its culture, or to live at its mercy so long
as the national race may allow them to do so and to quit the country at the sweet
will of the national race. That is the only sound view on the minorities problem.
That is the only logical and correct solution. That alone keeps the national life
healthy and undisturbed. That alone keeps the nation safe from the danger of a
cancer developing into its body politic of the creation of a state within a state.
"From this stand point, sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations, the
foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language,
must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea
but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation
and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in
the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving
no privileges, far less any preferential treatment not even citizen's rights. There is,
at least should be, no other course for them to adopt. We are an old nation: let us
deal, as old nations ought to and do deal, with the foreign races who have chosen
to live in our country".19
There is not a single word about the British rulers who were then plundering the
Indian people and nation. The book outlines only one programme, namely, to
subjugate the minorities who neither controlled the state nor shared any political or
economic power. More than 95 percent of them were artisans, poor peasants,
landless agricultural labour or wage-earners. Golwalkar's Super Hindu Race
seemed to have no antagonism towards the British rulers who in fact were
foreigners in the real sense of the term and who had given only misery, hunger,
poverty, and death to multitudes of Indians, the vast majority of whom were
Hindus.
In the post-independence era it has not been possible for pro-RSS elements to
defend such shameless fascist attitudes towards minorities and neutrality towards
the British masters. The book We or Our Nationhood Defined, which was openly
circulated by the RSS during British rule and had gone into four editions, was now
suddenly presented as if its authorship was disputed. The RSS machinery started
spreading different theories about the authorship according to their own
requirements. Interestingly, even though this book glorified the German dictator
Adolf Hitler at a time when the British were engaged in a life and death struggle
against him during World War II, the British authorities did not ban it. The obvious
reason for allowing the book to be freely circulated was that such literature was
essential for the imperialist policy of 'divide and rule'.
The 'Operation Authorship Cover-up' still continues. Former Prime Minister
Chandrashekhar while participating in the confidence motion debate in Lok Sabha
on 28.3.93raised the issue of this book once again. He was perturbed by the fact
that the BJP Government was following the diktat of the RSS whose ideological
guru had authored the above book, which contained fascist ideas and preached
hatred for the minorities which was extremely detrimental for the democratic polity
of the country. Home Minister L.K. Advani intervened to say that the author of the
book, Guruji had distanced himself from the book and declared to have no relation
with the book. This is Mask One. Subsequently the mouthpiece of the RSS,
Organiser, carried a story titled 'The Fascist Identified' by David Frawley. The
story gave another interpretation to the issue of authorship. It said, "Those who call
the RSS Fascist emphasize one book to prove it. We or Our Nationhood Defined,
by B.S. Savarkar, the elder brother of the great Indian revolutionary Veer Savarkar.
The book in places expresses some sympathy with Germany of the times, the
nineteen thirties, which appeared to be making great strides as a nation. Guruji
Golwalkar, who later became the leader of the RSS in 1940 translated the book in
1938. Leftists like to pretend the book was written by Golwalkar and expresses
long term Sangh policy, though it was only part of the general literature of the
times that he was examining".20 This explanation is all the more intriguing since
the title of the original book has the following words about the author: M.S.
Golwalkar, M.Sc., LL.B. (Sometime Professor Banaras Hindu University). Would
this mean that Golwalkar was simply a translator and dishonestly got his name
printed as author? However, this is Mask Two. This is for the consumption of the
liberals and the democrats. Such explanations may help the RSS to show a humane
face the world over, where Hitler is still regarded as the anti-thesis of all that is
good in civilization and held responsible for the annihilation of Jews and millions
of toiling people in Germany and elsewhere. It is also worth mentioning that B.S.
Savarkar, the elder brother of V.D. Savarkar, was a very close associate of Dr.
Hedgewar. B.S. Savarkar had formed an organisation called Tarun Hindu Sabha
which he merged with the RSS in 1931. Therefore whoever is the real author of
We or Our Nationhood Defined, the views contained in it represent the ideology of
the RSS leadership.
For the die-hard believer in the cause of Hindu Rashtra and cadre of the RSS, they
have another mask, Mask Three: This appears in an affidavit which two important
officials of the RSS, Bhausaheb Deoras (brother of the former chief of the RSS)
and Rajender Singh (the present chief) submitted before the Charity
Commissioner, Nagpur. The affidavit read: "With a view to give scientific base to
propagate the idea - India being historically from time immemorial a Hindu Nation
- late Shri M.S. Golwalkar had written a book entitled We or Our Nationhood
Defined, which was published in 1938".
Whatever may be the controversy over the authorship of We or Our Nationhood
Defined, the crucial thing is that the RSS has never modified its views about the
cleansing of the minorities in India, especially Muslims. Left untouched by the
British rulers they developed the organizational capability to attempt blood-bath of
Muslims in many parts of the country. The following passage from the
autobiography of the first Home Secretary of UP, Rajeshwar Dayal, ICS, clearly
shows the sinister designs of the RSS to break the unity of the country just on the
eve of Independence.
"I must record an episode of a very grave nature when the procrastination and
indecision of the UP Cabinet led to dire consequences. When communal tension
was still at fever pitch, the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Western
Range, a very seasoned and capable officer, B.B.L. Jaitley, arrived at my house in
great secrecy. He was accompanied by two of his officers who brought with them
two large steel trunks securely locked. When the trunks were opened, they revealed
incontrovertible evidence of a dastardly conspiracy to create a communal holocaust
throughout the Western districts of the province. The trunks were crammed with
blueprints of great accuracy and professionalism of every town and village in that
vast area, prominently marking out the Muslim localities and habitations. There
were also detailed instructions regarding access to the various locations, and other
matters which amply revealed the sinister purport.
"Greatly alarmed by those revelations, I immediately took the police party to the
Premier's [chief minister's] house. There, in a closed room, Jaitley gave a full
report of his discovery, backed by all the evidence contained in the steel trunks.
Timely raids conducted on the premises of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayam Sevak
Sangh) had brought the massive conspiracy to light. The whole plot had been
concerted under the direction and supervision of the Supremo of the organization
himself. Both Jaitley and I pressed for the immediate arrest of the prime accused,
Shri Golwalkar, who was still in the area.
"Pantji [G.B. Pant] could not but accept the evidence of his eyes and ears and
expressed deep concern. But instead of agreeing to the immediate arrest of the
ringleader as we had hoped, and as Kidwai would have done, he asked for the
matter to be placed for consideration by the Cabinet at its next meeting. It was no
doubt a matter of political delicacy as the roots of the RSS had gone deep into the
body politic. There were also other political compulsions as RSS sympathizers,
both covert and overt, were to be found in the Congress Party itself and even in the
Cabinet. It was no secret that the presiding officer of the Upper House. Atma
Govind Kher, was himself an adherent and his sons were openly members of the
RSS.
"At the Cabinet meeting there was the usual procrastination and much irrelevant
talk. The fact that the police had unearthed a conspiracy which would have set the
whole province in flames and that the officers concerned deserved warm
commendation hardly seemed to figure in the discussion. What ultimately emerged
was that a letter should be issued to Shri Golwalkar pointing out the contents and
nature of the evidence which had been gathered and demanding an explanation
thereof. At my insistence, such a letter if it were to be sent, should be issued by the
Premier himself to carry greater weight. Panditji asked me to prepare a draft, which
I did in imitation of his own characteristic style. The letter was to be delivered
forthwith and two police officers were assigned for the purpose.
"Golwalkar, however, had been tipped off and he was nowhere to be found in the
area. He was tracked down southwards but he managed to elude the couriers in
pursuit. This infructuous chase continue from place to place and weeks passed.
"Came January 30, 1948 when the Mahatma, that supreme apostle of peace, fell to
a bullet fired by an RSS fanatic. The tragic episode left me sick at heart".21
The RSS during the freedom struggle hated anything which symbolized the united
struggle of the Indian people against British rule. The case of the tricolour is the
most pertinent one. In December 1929 Congress at its Lahore session adopted
Purna Swaraj as the national goal and called upon the people to observe January
26, 1930 as Independence Day by displaying and honouring the Tricolour (the
Tricolour was by consensus considered the flag of the national movement by this
time). In response to this Dr. Hedgewar as Sarsanghchalak issued a circular to all
the RSS Shakhas to worship the Bhagwan Jhande (Saffron flag). The important
point is that nowhere in the functioning of the RSS is the tricolour or national flag
used even today. The RSS leaders like Marla Manohar Joshi may go to unfurl the
tricolour at Lal Chow of Srinagar, Kashmir, in order to hypocritically demonstrate
their 'patriotism', but the fact is that the RSS openly dishonours and denigrates the
national flag. Golwalkar while addressing a Gurupurnima gathering in Nagpur on
July 14, 1946, stated that is was the saffron flag which in totality represented their
great culture. It was the embodiment of God: "We firmly believe that in the end the
whole nation will bow before this saffron flag".22 Even after independence when
the tricolour became the national flag, it was the RSS which refused to accept it as
the national flag. Golwalkar while discussing the issue of the national flag in an
essay entitled 'Drifting and Drifting' in Bunch of Thoughts has the following to
say: "Our leaders have set up a new flag for our country. Why did they do so? It
just is a case of drifting and imitating. Ours is an ancient and great nation with a
glorious past. Then, had we no flag of our own? Had we no national emblem at all
these thousands of years? Undoubtedly we had. Then why this utter void, this utter
vaccum in our minds?".23
These were the anti-national activities of the RSS due to which the organization
was banned on February 4, 1948. The government communiqué, banning the RSS
was self-explanatory:
"In their resolution of February 2, 1948 the Government of India declared their
determination to root out the forces of hate and violence that are at work in our
country and imperil the freedom of the Nation and darken her fair name. In
pursuance of this policy the Government of India have decided to declare unlawful
the RSS". The communiqué went on to disclose that he ban on the RSS was
imposed because, "undesirable and even dangerous activities have been carried on
by members of the Sangh. It has been found that in several parts of the country
individual members of the RSS have indulged in acts of violence arson, robbery,
dacoity, and murder and have collected illicit arms and ammunition. They have
been found circulating leaflets exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods, to
collect firearms, to create disaffection against the government and suborn the
police and the military".
Within a few months of the ban a move was initiated by sympathizers of the RSS
within the Congress to lift the ban. However, the Union Home Ministry through a
communiqué, dated November 14, 1948, once again emphasized, that "the
information received by the Government of India shows that the activities carried
on in various forms and ways by the people associated with the RSS tend to be
anti-national and often subversive and violent and that persistent attempts are being
made by the RSS to receive an atmosphere in the country which was productive of
such disastrous consequences in the past". While rejecting all pleas of Golwalkar
the communiqué continued: "He has written letters both to the Prime Minister and
the Home Minister explaining inter alia that the RSS agrees entirely in the
conception of a secular state for India and that it accepts the National Flag of the
country and requesting that the ban imposed on the organization in February
should now be lifted. These professions of the RSS leader are, however, quite
inconsistent with the practice of his followers and for the reasons already explained
above, the Government of India find themselves unable to advise provincial
governments to lift the ban. The Prime Minister has, therefore, declined the
interview which Mr. Golwalkar had sought". Government of India decided to lift
the ban on RSS on July 11, 1949, only after Golwalkar gave an undertaking to be
loyal to the Constitution of India and respect the National Flag.
It is well-known that the then Home Minister, Sardar Patel, had a soft-corner for
the RSS. Sardar Patel continues to be a favourite with the RSS and references to
him are invariably for the purpose of denigrating Gandhi and Nehru. However
even Patel found it difficult to defend the RSS in the aftermath of Gandhiji's
assassination. In a letter written to Golwalkar, dated 11 September 1948, Sardar
Patel stated:
"Organizing the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for
its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another
thing.
"Apart from this, their opposition to the Congress, that too of such virulence,
disregarding all considerations of personality, decency or decorum, created a kind
of unrest among the people. All their speeches were full of communal poison. It
was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for
their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the
sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of the sympathy of the
Government, or of the people, no more remained for the RSS. In fact opposition
grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and
distributed sweets after Gandhiji's death. Under these conditions it became
inevitable for the Government to take action against the RSS.
"Since then, over six months have elapsed. We had hoped that after this lapse of
time, with full and proper consideration the RSS persons would come to the right
path. But from the reports that come to me, it is evident that attempts to put fresh
life into their same old activities are afoot". (Justice on Trial: Historic Documents
of Guruji-Government Correspondence, Delhi).
In all fairness to Guru Golwalkar, he did not claim that the RSS had been opposed
to the British. During the course of a speech at Indore in 1960 he said, "Many
people worked with the inspiration to free the country by throwing the British out.
After formal departure of the British this inspiration slackened. In fact there was no
need to have this much inspiration. We should remember that in our pledge we
have talked of the freedom of the country through defending religion and culture.
These is no mention of departure of the British in that".24
Guruji, the Sarsanghchalak of the RSS, was never able to hide his opposition to
any movement against foreign rule. As late as March 1947when the British had
decided to go away from India, Guruji while addressing the annual day function of
the RSS at Delhi, declared that leaders with narrow vision were trying to opposed
the state power of the British. While elaborating the point he said that it was wrong
to hold the powerful foreigners responsible for all our ills. He decried the tendency
of "initiating the political movements on the basis of our hatred towards our
victors".25 While narrating an incident in the course of his speech he got more
original on the issue: "Once a respectable senior gentleman came to our shakha
(the drill). He had brought a new message for the volunteers of the RSS. When
given an opportunity to address the volunteers of the shakha, he spoke in a very
impressive tone, 'Now do only one work. Catch hold of the British, bash them and
throw them out. Whatever happens we will see late on'. He said this much and sat
down. Behind this ideology is a feeling of anger and sorrow towards state power
and reactionary tendency based on hatred. The evil with today's political
sentimentalism is that its basis is reaction, sorrow and anger, and opposition to the
victors forgetting friendliness. Somebody went to the extent of saying that, 'it is
through opposition that national life builds up and only through it power of
organization appears'. And if a question is put before them that what is the basis of
the opposition? Then the reason is told that we are being exploited economically.
We get fewer jobs in armed forces, government offices. Freedom is required so
that lot of wealth is gotten, there is no shortage of employment and food and water.
In other words 'freedom is freedom from poverty' in other words if get rich we will
be free. If a dog procures lots of fresh bread then it is sufficient. Their ideal is that
India should become dog of a rich person, and face no shortage of food water and
shelter".26
The RSS was not even willing to regard colonial domination as an injustice. In a
speech of June 8, 1942, Golwalkar had declared: "Sangh does not want to blame
anybody else for the present degraded state of the society. When the people start
blaming others, then there is weakness in them. It is futile to blame the strong for
the injustice done to the weak... Sangh does not want to waste its invaluable time
in abusing or criticizing other. If we know that large fish eat the smaller ones, it is
outright madness to blame the big fish. Law of nature whether good or bad is true
all the time. This rule does not change by terming it unjust".27
The RSS leadership has always tried to defend its inactivity against British rule by
taking the plea that theirs was a cultural organisation and could not have possibly
taken up political issues. Pro-RSS people in the media work overtime to strengthen
this impression. The RSS keeps on changing its face as per their political
convenience. On the issue of minorities, secularism and Hindu nationalism, they
are extremely political. But the moment the issue of the inhuman British Raj crops
up, they are transformed into a cultural organization. Irrespective of the public
postures of the RSS leadership it may be worthwhile to know the ideas of Guruji
on the subject of participation in political activities. While addressing senior
activists of the RSS in a training camp, he said, "We know this also that some of
our volunteers work in politics. There according to the needs of the work they have
to organize public meetings, processions etc., have to raise slogans. All these
things have no place in our work. However, the actor should portray the character
given to him to the best of his capability. But sometimes volunteers go beyond the
role assigned to an actor as they develop over-zealousness in their hearts, to the
extent that they become useless for this work. This is not good".28
It will be shocking for any Indian who loves the martyrs of the freedom movement
to know what Dr. Hedgewar and the RSS felt about the revolutionaries fighting
against the British. According to his biography published by the RSS, "Patriotism
is not only going to prison. It is not correct to be carried away by such superficial
patriotism. He used to urge that while remaining prepared to die of the country
when the time came, it is very necessary to have a desire to live while organizing
for the freedom of the country".29 It is indeed a pity that 'fools' like Bhagat Singh,
Rajguru, Sukhdev, Ashfaqullah, Chandrashekhar Azad did not come into contact
with this 'great patriotic thinker'. If they had the great opportunity to meet him,
these martyrs could have been saved from giving their lives for "superficial
patriotism". This also must be the reason that RSS produced no martyrs during the
freedom movement.
Even the word 'shameful' is not appropriate to describe the attitude of the RSS
leadership towards those who had sacrificed everything in the struggle against the
British rulers. The last Mughal ruler of India, Bahadur Zafar, had emerged as the
rallying point and symbol of the Great War of Independence of 1857. Golwalkar
wrote thus while making fun of him: "In 1857, the so-called last emperor of India
had given the clarion call - Gazio mein bu rahegi jub talak eeman ki/takhte London
tak chalegi tegh Hindustan ki (Till the warriors remain faithful to their task/Indian
swords will reach London.) But ultimately what happened? Everybody knows
that".30 What Golwalkar thought of the people sacrificing their lot for the country
is obvious from the following words also. He had the temerity to ask the great
revolutionaries who wished to lay down their lives for the freedom of the
motherland the following question as if he was representing the British: "But one
should think whether complete national interest is accomplished by that? Sacrifice
does not lead to increase in the thinking of the society of giving all for the interest
of the nation. It is borne by the experience upto now that this fire in the heart is
unbearable to the common people".31
What did the British rule mean to an average patriotic Indian? It symbolized
repression, plunder, and pauperization of the people of this country. It meant the
divide and rule policy of the foreign rulers through which they encouraged
communal and sectarian divisions in Indian society. And what could be the moving
spirit behind any struggle against such a British rule? What could have been the
essence of the freedom movement against British rule? It could not have been
anything other than a call to throw the British out.
The BJP leadership is very keen to project the RSS as a component of the freedom
struggle. This is an attempt to gain greater respectability and wider acceptance. For
a party which claims to be the touchstone of patriotism this is an important
consideration. The BJP finds it embarrassing that the RSS - to which the top
leadership as well as the overwhelming majority of the cadre of the BJP belong -
was not a part of the freedom movement. It is politically inconvenient for an
organization which constantly refers to its glorious past, that it has no legacy of an
anti-colonial struggle - the mightiest struggle of the Indian people in this century.
The RSS lacks the courage to categorically state that it did not participate in the
freedom struggle because its ideology prevented it from doing so. The political
stream of the Hindu rightwing has, of course, accumulated enormous experience in
falsifying history. It is hardly surprising then that all manner of falsehoods are
resorted to with the aim of distorting the history of the freedom struggle. Will a
great nation which has a glorious tradition of anti-imperialist struggles fall prey to
this attempt?
References
1. The Hindu, March 19, 1999.
2. C.P. Bhishikar, Sanghavriksh Ke Beej: Dr. Keshav Rao Hedgewar, New Delhi,
1994, p. 9.
3. Ibid, p.11.
4. Ibid, p.20.
5. Ibid, p.20.
6. Ibid, p.21.
7. C.P. Bhishikar, Keshav Sangh Nirmata, Pune, 1979, p. 7.
8. Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan, Vol. IV, Nagpur, n.d., p. 39-40 (henceforth
S.G.S.D.).
9. Ibid, p.41.
10. Ibid, p.41.
11. Bhishikar, Sanghavriksh Ke Beej, p. 24.
12. M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Bangalore, 1996, p. 138.
13. J.A. Curran, Militant Hinduism in Indian Politics: A Study of RSS, New York,
1951, p.99.
14. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, p.283.
15. Shakha Darshikha, Jaipur, p.1.
16. Ibid, p.66.
17. S.G.S.D., Vol. I, pp. 173-174.
18. M.S. Golwalkar, We or Our Nationhood Defined, 1938, p.35.
19. Ibid, pp.47-48.
20. The Organiser, May 31, 1998.
21. Rajeshwar Dayal, A Life of Our Times, New Delhi, 1999, pp.93-94.
22. S.G.S.D., Vol. I, p. 98.
23. Bunch of Thoughts. 1996, pp. 237-238.
24. S.G.S.D., Vol. IV, P. 2.
25. Ibid, Vol. I, p. 109.
26. Ibid, pp. 109-110.
27. Ibid, pp. 11-12.
28. Ibid, Vol. IV, pp. 4-5.
29. Bhishikar, 1994, p. 21.
30. S.G.S.D., Vol. I. p. 121.
31. Ibid, pp. 61-62.
APPENDIX
In order to examine the role of the RSS in the freedom struggle a method of
thematic indexing of its available literature, pertaining generally to that period, was
adopted. For the purpose of thematic indexing the literature was scrutinized
keeping in view certain themes relevant for this study. For instance we looked for
references where the RSS might have given a call to the British rulers to leave
India or supported the fight of the revolutionaries against the British imperialists or
written something on events which proved to be milestones in the history of the
freedom struggle like Jallianwala Bagh tragedy, martyrdom of Bhagat Singh,
Rajguru, Sukhdev and other revolutionaries. The final picture which emerges from
this exercise is presented below with astonishing results which are selfexplanatory.
References Critical of British Rule - Nil
References Glorifying British Rule - 16
References to singing Vande Mataram to
symbolize opposition to British Rule - Nil
References Decrying/Attacking Minorities - 74
References Decrying the Freedom Movement - 16
References Appreciating the Freedom Movement - Nil
References to any call of the RSS to
the British to Leave India - Nil
References to any Milestone of the Freedom Movement
[Like Kakori Bomb Case, Jallianwala Bagh Tragedy,
Ghadar Movement etc.] - Nil
References Appreciating Any Martyr for
Laying Down Life Against British Rule - Nil
References Decrying the Martyrs/Martyrdom - 10
References Upholding the Constitution of India
and the National Flag - Nil
References Decrying the Constitution of India
and the National Flag - 10
References Appreciating Swadeshi - Nil
FROM BACK-COVER
"There is another reason for the need of always remaining involved in routine
works. There is some unrest in the mind due to the situation developing in the
country from time to time. There was such unrest in 1942. Before that there was
the movement in 1930-31. At that time many other people had gone to Doctorji
(Hedgewar). This delegation requested Doctorji that this movement will give
independence and Sangh should not lag behind. At that time, when a gentleman
told Doctorji that he was ready to go to jail, Doctorji said, 'Definitely go. But who
will take care of your family then? That gentleman told he has sufficiently
arranged resources not only to run the family expenses for two years but also to
pay fines according to the requirements'. Then Doctorji said to him - 'if you have
fully arranged for the resources then come out to work for the Sangh for two years'.
After returning home that gentleman neither went to jail nor came out to work for
the Sangh".
"There are bad results of struggle. The boys became militant after the 1920-21
movement. It is not an attempt to throw mud at the leaders. But these are inevitable
products after the struggle. The matter is that we could not properly control these
results. After 1942, people often started thinking that there was no need to think of
the law... In 1942 also there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that
time too the routine work of Sangh continued. Sangh decided not to do anything
directly".
(Guru Golwalkar on RSS attitude towards Freedom Movement in 1930s and
1940s)
It has been the intention of the author that the documents of the RSS should speak
for themselves. This booklet is surely going to disillusion those who believe that
the RSS played any role in securing freedom. They will hear from the horse's
mouth that not only was a silence maintained about the evils of foreign rule but all
attempts were made to sabotage the fight against British imperialism.
ISBN: 81-87638-02-8
