Last Updated:
Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the RSS for its selfless contribution to nation-building from the ramparts of the Red Fort during his Independence Day speech
RSS is not an organisation in society, but it is organising society. (File pic/PTI)
It is very difficult to understand the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) but very easy to misunderstand it. This is what can be said about the largest voluntary movement in the world that is completing 100 years on this year’s Vijayadashami. That is also the reason for a political debate that has started after Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the RSS for its selfless contribution to nation-building from the ramparts of the Red Fort during his Independence Day speech.
Key to understanding RSS
Let us take a look at 10 key tenets that are key to understanding the RSS:
First, RSS is not an organisation in society, but it is organising society. So, it can’t be looked at from the traditional or any other existing lens of analysing non-governmental organisations or, in fact, any other organisation.
Second, RSS’s only work is to create people with strong character who are committed to the service of the society and nation. Whatever work is done, it is done by the RSS volunteers known as “swayamsevaks”. And as they work closely with society in different fields, the credit for any change or betterment goes to society itself. Thus, neither the RSS nor its volunteers seek recognition for any achievements.
Third, the objective of the RSS is to transform society. This “transformation” would be achieved, according to the RSS, when every individual would get an opportunity to realise their full potential.
Fourth, when this objective is achieved, the RSS should just merge with the whole society and vanish. And when history is recorded, no credit should be given to the RSS, as it is the society that has transformed itself.
Fifth, the RSS believes in a holistic perspective and not a binary vision. It doesn’t believe in the fragmented vision of “majority vs minority” or “left vs right”. For the RSS, all Bharatiyas are part of one nation.
Sixth, when the RSS talks about Hindu unity, it doesn’t associate the word “Hindu” with a religion or a way of worship. For the RSS, the word “Hindu” denotes all those who consider Bharat to be their motherland and are committed to serving her. An individual going to the mosque or a church or even an atheist is as much a “Hindu” for the RSS as an individual going to the temple if he or she is ready to live and die for Bharat.
Seventh, the RSS believes that the concept of “secularism” was picked up from the West and imposed on India in the post-Independence era by politicians and intellectuals who were not rooted in the cultural ethos of Bharat.
The concept of “secularism” as it is applied today was a typical Christian response to intra-Christianity wars and the dominance of the Church in Europe. The Christian wars in the 16th and 17th centuries had ravaged Europe, as the Church was intertwined with the State in such a manner that one couldn’t segregate the two.
The French Revolution laid down the foundation for the principle of laïcité—the separation of religion and the State. In 1905, France formally codified it as a law. The rest of Europe broadly followed this principle. Indian intellectuals and politicians who were in awe of “Western liberalism” or “Marxism” picked up this idea and thrust it upon India. In the Indian civilisational construct dating back several millennia, religion never dominated the State because we were ruled by the concept of “dharma”—a set of eternal values that has nothing to do with any particular way of worship.
Eighth, the RSS associates “religion” with a way of worship and “dharma” with a set of eternal values that have been driving Bharat’s civilisational journey since the beginning. This set of eternal values is “Hindu Dharma”. So, when the RSS talks about the concept of “Hindu Rashtra”, it implies a nation that is constantly guided by “dharma”, not by any “religion”.
Ninth, the RSS believes that we as a “nation” are different from the modern “nation-states”. Our idea of nationalism is different from the West’s idea of nationalism. Noted historian David Sasson, who earned his PhD under Eric Hobsbawm, one of the foremost authorities on Western nationalism, observed in his introduction to a collection of essays and lectures by Hobsbawm, “On Nationalism”, “In Europe, nationalism was the product of the ‘dual revolutions’, the French Revolution and the British Industrial Revolution.
The rise of the ‘White man’s nationalism’ in Europe resulted in colonisation of large parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, civil wars within the Western nation-states, countless military conflicts between nations, at least two world wars and ethnic cleansing of minorities in the Western countries by the dominant political powers who had captured the power riding on the wave of ‘nationalism’. That is why significant sections of the society as well as the academia, media and intelligentsia in the West are wary of ‘nationalism’. In the West, utterance of the word ‘nationalism’ brings back memories of loot, plunder, bloody wars and a quest for material wealth and military superiority.
‘Hindu Nationalism’ is quite different from European or Western Nationalism. The trajectory of European nationalism and Hindu nationalism are altogether different.
Radha Kumud Mookerji, known for his monumental work on history and culture of India. has explained the difference in his seminal work Nationalism in Hindu Culture published in 1921.
According to Mookerji, it is a mistake readily to assume that the origin of that remarkable social phenomenon of nationalism is to be found in the West; that it is a genuinely Western product imported into the Eastern countries long after their growth and development; that the Eastern mind was completely a stranger to the very conception of the mother country, a sense of natural attachment to her, and a corresponding sense of duties and obligations which the children of the soil owe to her. Such misconceptions are due to a colossal ignorance of the culture of the East.
Even in the dim and distant age of remote antiquity, unillumined by the light of historical knowledge, we find the underlying principles of nationalism chanted forth in the hymns of the Rig Veda embodying the very first utterance of humanity itself. That book, one of the oldest literary records of humanity, reveals conscious and fervent attempts made by the Rishis (seers), those profoundly wise organisers of Hindu polity and culture, to visualise the unity of their mother-country, nay, to transfigure the mother earth into a living deity and enshrine her in the loving heart of the worshipper.”
Tenth, and the most interesting tenet of the RSS philosophy, is that there are two kinds of people in our society—those who have joined the RSS and those who would ultimately join it. That is why the RSS doesn’t respond to even its most vicious critiques, and history has been a witness—there is no dearth of RSS-baiters who later became the most committed swayamsevaks.
The writer is an author and columnist. His X handle is @ArunAnandLive. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
Read More
