The RSS has consistently rejected the idea of India enshrined in the Constitution, dismissing it as a Western construct unconnected to Indian traditions like the Manusmriti
Political differences over issues of philosophical conviction are, as Rakesh Sinha says (‘Attack on RSS is a self-goal’, IE, July 3), inevitable and even desirable in democracies. The fact that such differences exist in our country over fundamental understandings of the Hindu religion should be no surprise. It is tendentious, though, for Sinha to suggest that the “articulation at the top” by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi ignores “the collective consciousness of the Indian people”.
The fact is that Hinduism is the faith adhered to by some 80 per cent of the Indian population and therefore by huge majorities in every political party, including both the BJP and Congress. Whereas the RSS-BJP faith is in the political doctrine of “Hindutva”, rather than in the broader philosophical and spiritual underpinnings of Hinduism, Hindus in Congress tend to profess an understanding of the faith taught not by politicians but by religious preceptors. In speaking of Hinduism as a faith of non-violence, acceptance and inclusion, Rahul Gandhi was advancing an understanding of the religion that has been imparted by gurus and rishis for centuries. This view of the faith found its most prominent public articulation in the piety of Mahatma Gandhi, whose advocacy of ahimsa and satyagraha brought Hindu values into the national movement while accommodating all other faiths.
For Sinha to state that the RSS’ Hindutva “is not a political ideology” is risible. It flies in the face of RSS ideologues’ own articulation of their ideology and the BJP’s formal adoption of Hindutva as its guiding political doctrine in its 1989 Palampur resolution. To say, as Sinha does, that all the RSS is doing is “shar[ing] the ideas of Hindu icons like Swami Vivekananda, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and R K Mookerji” glosses over the vast gulf between these icons’ views and the RSS’ selective portrayal of them.
For instance, Swami Vivekananda’s famous line in Chicago, which even Prime Minister Narendra Modi quoted in the Lok Sabha debate while replying to Rahul Gandhi, expressed his pride in “speaking on behalf of a faith which has taught the world not just tolerance but acceptance”. The RSS speaks of tolerance, which Swamiji understood was essentially a patronising idea. The tolerant majority believes in the sanctity of its own truth and merely grants others the right to be wrong. “Acceptance” involves mutual respect for the different truths believed by both the majority and the minority. Nowhere has the RSS or the BJP advocated the principle of “acceptance”.
Similarly, Swami Dayanand Saraswati’s core principles condemned such practices as idol worship, pilgrimages, priestcraft, offerings made in temples, and discrimination against women, all of which are practised and promoted by many of the advocates of Hindutva, including the Prime Minister himself. It is disingenuous to claim that the BJP/RSS merely echoes these great sages when there are such major differences between the beliefs and practices of the two.
What boggles the mind is when Sinha defends the Ram Temple at Ayodhya as freeing “the definition of secularism… from the shackles of political and intellectual elitists”. The temple may well fulfil the dreams of millions of Hindus, but it has nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with religious faith. And its construction followed an act of vandalism and violence that destroyed the masjid that stood there. For Sinha to state that with this episode “the idea of India found the opportunity and space to be redefined” is preposterous. The idea of India is the idea enshrined in the Constitution, of a land of multiple religions, languages and identities all made secure by the sheltering carapace of citizenship. Such an idea can never accommodate any act of violence, as the Supreme Court made clear in its verdict on the Ayodhya case. “Under our Constitution,” its judgement declared, “citizens of all faiths, beliefs and creeds seeking divine provenance are both subject to the law and equality before the law. The Constitution does not make a distinction between the faith and belief of one religion and another. All forms of belief, worship and prayer are equal.” That, Mr Sinha, is the reaffirmed idea of India. It has not been “redefined”.
Sinha avers that “for decades, the Congress has not honestly discussed the expansion of Hindutva and the impact of the RSS”. We have done so at various gatherings, most recently our Udaipur Chintan Shivir, and concluded that Hindutva is not Hinduism, but a political ideology of majoritarian dominance that threatens to undermine our “unity in diversity” — which has long been the most hallowed of our national movement’s principles. To conflate Hindutva with “nationalism and democratic advancement”, as Sinha does, is to equate nationalism with one community and democracy with the exclusion of minorities, neither of which makes either definitional or political sense.
The RSS has consistently rejected the idea of India enshrined in the Constitution, dismissing it as a Western construct unconnected to Indian traditions like the Manusmriti. When Rahul Gandhi takes on the RSS, he does so both from the platform of the Constitution and as a Hindu who cherishes the principles of non-violence, acceptance and inclusion he has learned from his faith. Those who have advocated hatred for, and conducted violence against, Muslims and other minorities betray both Hinduism and the Constitution.
The writer is MP, Lok Sabha and chairman of, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology
