An article by Ayush Nadimpalli, Hyderabad
Apropos the article titled “The Forgotten Promise of 1949″ in “The Hindu” (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-forgotten-promise-of-1949/article5211026.ece) by Vidya Subrahmaniam.
Please find below a rejoinder to the same. While there are too many issues that the author has raised, we would stick to her attempts to malign the RSS since that his her core contention. At the face of it, it seems that she has taken Jairam Ramesh’s recent statement that the 2014 elections will be fought between the Congress and RSS seriously.
The article begins with the attempt to force a commitment on RSS that it ‘made’ – “The RSS wrote a non-political role for itself as part of an undertaking it gave Sardar Patel. The overt political role it has assumed in 2013 is a breach of that agreement and its own constitution”
The facts :
1. Firstly, it must be remembered that Mahatma Gandhi himself wanted the Congress to be disbanded. In the The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi — Volume 90, Gandhi says “Though split into two, India having attained political independence through means devised by the Indian National Congress, the Congress in its present shape and form, i.e., as a propaganda vehicle and parliamentary machine had outlived its use.” What must be first questioned is the breach of trust of Mahatma Gandhi by Nehru. Nehru and company conveniently brushed Gandhi aside and continued with the propaganda vehicle,i.e. Congress into Independent India trying to crush all opposition that came their way.
2. Patel was one of the first persons to ask RSS to merge into the Congress and join politics. This was immediately after Independence. It was Guruji Golwalkar who politely refused saying that there are many ways of serviing the country and RSS has no intention to join politics. This is much before the “so-called 1949 promise” Vidya refers to.
3. Nehru was indeed a politically insecure person. Refer his many attempts to sideline strong leaders and movements. If the Congress indeed coerced RSS into such a commitment, does it not reveal their political insecurity? Which law justifies the ban and coercion of RSS other than Nehru’s insecurity with growing influence of RSS?
4. Nehru’s audacity in 1949 stood corrected when he invited RSS for Republic Day parade and having convinced himself that RSS is not a political rival – that alone remained his insecurity after all. And that alone remains the insecurity of anti-Hindu establishment in India today.
The Hindu writes : “The governments of 1977-1979 and 1998-2004 became possible only because the RSS agreed to keep out of sight.”
The Fact : The possibility of the 1977 government was owing to the Lok Sangarsha Samiti and the RSS backing it. Over 80,000 swayamsevaks went to jail against the Indira Gandhi imposed emergency. The fall of it had everything to do with the party in power distancing itself from RSS.
It must be remembered that the Jan Sangh members left the Janata Party because they were informed that they cannot be a member of the Janata Party if they are also members of RSS. The then leaders of Jana Sangh refused to give such a commitment and decided to give up political office and later formed the BJP. To assume that the leadership of BJP can be maneuvered shows the lack of understanding of the author regarding the relationship of RSS and BJP. Whenever the BJP leadership has asked the RSS leaders to offer some suggestions , they are willing to do so. In fact, even if any other political party asks suggestions , the RSS is willing to offer it.
The author then goes back to 1948-49 when RSS was banned without legal validity. While having to concede the fact that RSS had nothing to do with Gandhi murder, Nehru-Patel’s antagonism to RSS coming down in the form of a ban is legitimized with vague allegations: “Then Sarsanghchalak Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar pleaded not guilty and Patel himself was clear that the RSS was not involved in the assassination. He said this in his February 27, 1948 letter to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and reiterated it later too. However, Patel was strong in the belief that the Sangh’s “violent” ways contributed to the climate in which Gandhiji was killed.”
Does this author think the country does not know the “violent” situation of 1945-50 in the subcontinent and that RSS rose in *defense* of Hindus during what can be easily the most violent period of India in the last century? Does this author think that India is still in 1949 when you can hoodwink people by appealing to peace in wake of unprecedented frauds on Hindus such as the partition? Does the author not think the country today, at least with the benefit of information coming out in spite of congress propaganda, knows that violence was not created but limited and fought by RSS & HMS?
Does this author think the country can still be fooled by saying RSS contributed to violence and that justifies a ban on RSS instead of those who actually partitioned the country and were responsible for half a million deaths during riots?
And look at the audacity: “On November 14, 1948, the Home Ministry held by Patel issued a press note which said Golwalkar wanted the ban lifted without agreeing to the government’s demand that the RSS reform itself.”
‘reform’ to what? To stop being a potential threat to Nehru’s power? Could anyone, including Nehru, establish any of the serious charges such as quoted:
“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 revive an atmosphere in the country which was productive of such disastrous consequences in the past”.
The dishonesty of the author is more than visible, because the author hides the fact that Nehru actually made a U-turn and praised RSS in his later days. Gandhi praised RSS in his life time and Nehru’s realization was around his own 1962 debacle. During the Prime Ministership in 1963, RSS participated in the 1963 Republic Day parade. I do not see any articles that The Hindu brings out, to this effect. Reason? Obvious, isn’t it?
Leaving all this, the author slights the intelligence of readers assuming they do not know the fact that ‘political role’ and politics in India is legitimized after India became a republic in 1950, and that congress itself gets its legitimacy as a political entity after that.
The bottom-line of course, can be guessed –
“The RSS has gone back on the promise to keep off politics.”
And as mentioned, this is a crib that rises from the insecurity of cong-commie-media losing their fiefdom. There is no locus-standi to demand that RSS should keep off politics. It is a lie that RSS turned political – its activity remains socio-cultural, and the extent to which these are directly affected by politics it cannot remain aloof.
But a reader with humor cannot miss being pleased at the level of insecurity of those who had been anything but truthful and had been active causes behind today’s plight of the country. “The Hindu”, keep them coming!