Brotherhood In Saffron Cow politics and a mob attack: A window to the Sangh Parivar's rise in West Bengal An attack on a police station fuels the latest round of hostilities between the ruling.

1. The Brotherhood In Saffron Pdf Writer Download
2. The Brotherhood In Saffron Pdf Writer Free
3. Shridhar D Damle

The Brotherhood In Saffron Pdf Writer Download

What is this Hindu Rashtra? By Sitaram Yechuri 1993 (originally published by, Madras, 12-3-1993) WHAT IS THIS HINDU RASHTRA?

On Golwalkar's Fascistic Ideology and the Saffron Brigade's Practice by Sitaram Yechuri Considerable controversy has been generated, once again, around M.S.Golwalkar's book, We or Our Nationhood defined (Bharat Publications, 1939, Re. The controversy centers on the embarrassment of the Saffron Brigade which finds its real mission of establishing a Hindu Rashtra being exposed in all its fascistic glory by this book. Thus, puncturing its efforts to mislead the Indian people by posing as adherents of democracy becomes important. Various advocates of the Saffron Brigade, in various tones, assert that it was not Golwalkar who actually wrote this book; that it was not republished after 1942, and so on.

Interestingly, however, not one of them makes any substantiative point by retracting any position that Golwalkar has taken. For the benefit of those who say that this book was not written by Golwalkar but was merely a translation of the Martha work Rashtra Meemansa by Babarao G.D. Savarkar, brother of V.D.

Savarkar ( as claimed by a senior official of the RSS-run Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Research Center, New Delhi, in Jansatta. January 7, 1993) here is a quote from the preface written by Golwalkar on March '), 1939 to the first edition of the book: ' In compiling this work, I have received help from numerous quarters, too many to mention.

I thank them all heartily; but I cannot help separately naming one and expressing my gratefulness to him. Deshbhakta G.D. His work Rashtra Meemansa in Marathi has been one of my chief sources of inspiration and help. An English translation of this is due to be shortly out and 1 take this opportunity of directing the reader to that book for a more exhaustive study of the subject. The manuscript of this book was ready as early as the first week of November1938, but its appearance earlier, however desirable, was not possible due to many difficulties.' (Golwalkar, 1939, p.4).

The authorship thus being beyond dispute, we can say quite certainly that the book was neither barred from re-publication nor withdrawn after 1942 (on the basis of such a claim by the same RSS, official in lansatta, the editor of Navbharat Times went to the unethical extent of appending a comment to one of my articles that the RSS claims that it has withdrawn this book! We have in our possession the fourth edition of the book published in 1947 (Golwalkar, 1947).

Certain advocates of fascistic Hindu Rashtra themselves, however, concede this and admit the fact that the book was re-published in several editions after 1942 (Modak, 1993).The fourth edition in certain places modifies the offensive language used in the first (for example, 'idiots' is replaced by 'misguided', etc.) but the content remains the same. Such modification, however, was considered so marginal that the author does not mention it in his preface; neither is it discernible unless closely scrutinized.

An important omission from the latter edition was the foreword to the book by one 'Lok Nayak' M.S.Aney. The reasons are not far to see.

Aney says: 'I also desire to add that the strong and impassioned language used by the author towards those who do not subscribe to his theory of nationalism is also not in keeping with the dignity with which the scientific study of a complex problem like the Nationalism deserves to be pursued. It pains me to make these observations in this foreword' (Golwalkar, 1939, p.

Such views could not have been allowed to be propagated at a time when the RSS was reaping most of the benefit of the growing communal tensions and strife preceding Partition. The inflammatory propaganda value of the book could not be undermined.

The disinformation 1 that the advocates of the Saffron Brigade are now spreading is to conceal their ideological foundations, as Golwalkar's book continues to be the clearest expression of the real nature of the Saffron Brigade's mission today. The RSS 'Bible' We can do no better than quote a very sympathetic account of the RSS, J.A. Curran's Militant Hinduism in Indian Politics - A Study of the RSS: 'The genuine ideology of the Sangh is based upon principles formulated. By its founder, Dr. These principles have been consolidated and amplified by the present leader in a small book called WE OR OUR NATIONHOOD DEFINED, written in 1939. 'WE' can be described as the RSS 'Bible'.

It is the basic primer in the indoctrination of Sangh volunteers. Although this book was written twelve years ago, in a national context different from the contemporary one, the principles contained in it are still considered entirely applicable by the Sangh membership' (Currant, 1979, p. Emphasis as in the original). The importance of this book for the RSS must be seen also in relation to Golwalkar's role in its history. Golwalkar assumed the reins as the RSS chief in 1940. Two years prior to that, in 1938, he was appointed RSS general secretary by Hedgewar.

Incidentally, the RSS Sarsanghchalak (chief) is always nominated by the outgoing one. He continues in his post till his death. So much for their 'democratic' credentials! Golwalkar served in this capacity till 1973.

His role, particularly in the first phase, from 1930 to 1954, has been summed up thus: 'It (Golwalkar's leadership) remains a historical source today for the RSS and its 'family', called upon to suit specific times and audiences (particularly, during riots). It is also exceptionally helpful for our understanding of precisely what the triumph of Hindutva will mean for our country.' (Basu, Datta, Sarkar, Sarkar and Sen, 1993, p.

25) Golwalkar's abiding influence has been in providing the Saffron Brigade with an ideological formation, not merely in terms of ideas and principles but also in terms of establishing an organizational structure to achieve the aim of a fascistic hindu Rashtra. This is demonstrated sharply in the period following the withdrawal of the ban imposed on the RSS after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. (The ban was in effect from February 4, 1948 to July 12, 1949.) The RSS, eager to negotiate the withdrawal. Of the ban, adopted a course of deceitful compromises. Curran notes: ' Golwalkar's announcement soon after legality had been restored, that he had given no agreement or assurances to the Government was an ineffectual attempt to maintain face'. The provisions for elections within the organization and the promise to denounce communalism and to maintain a tolerant attitude towards other communities were quite contrary to past Sangh practice and obviously had been accepted because of Government insistence. However, these provisions have not been observed; 'm practice, the Sangh membership has consistently ignored them.'

(Curran, 1979, pp. Emphasis as in the original). Forced by the Government, the RSS adopted a constitution (which till date is not available for public scrutiny). Article 3 states: 'The aims and objects of the Sangh are to weld together the diverse groups within the Hindu Samaj and to revitalize and rejuvenate the same on the basis of its Dharma and Sanskriti, that it may achieve an all-sided development of the Bharatavarsha' (quoted by Curran, 1979, p.

But Curran himself adds: 'The Constitution gives no hint of a militant and intolerant advocacy of a hindu state. There is a basic difference between the formal profession of aims embodied in the constitution and actual plans of the Sangh. The Sangh abjures secrecy of ends and means, but the, incompatibility of the tolerant Hindu philosophy of the constitution and the fanatically pro-Hindu and anti-non-Hindu aims instilled in the membership is clear. The proclaimed philosophy is a pale and often deceptive reflection of the real objectives of the Sangh. Too open an expression. Of Sangh ideals would undoubtedly result in repression of RSS activities.

The Sangh leaders are too shrewd to risk an open struggle with the Government while the odds heavily favour the latter' (Curran, 1979, pp. Emphasis as in the original). It is in line with this that Golwalkar in September 1949 publicly voiced in Lucknow the RSS criticism of the Indian Constitution which he termed 'UnBharat'.

There is a similarity indeed here with the present leaders of the VHP who describe it as 'UnHindu'. Apart from such tactical maneuvers, Golwalkar undertook certain organisational initiatives.

Following the agreement with the Government on the withdrawal of the ban, Golwalkar went on to establish the now infamous Sangh Parivar. The strategy was clear. The RSS would in the public eye confine itself to 'cultural activity' while its affiliates would branch out into the various sections spreading the message of 'Hindu Rashtra'. These seemingly independent tentacles were welded together by the RSS. This organizational network is today there for all to see. Golwalkar's important initiative, however, comes in the attempt to organize the Hindu religious leaders in mid-1964 'to discuss ways in which various Hindu sects and tendencies could sink their many dif-ferences, work together and establish contacts with Hindus residing abroad.

Thus was laid the foundations of 'the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and an RSS pracharak, Shivram Shankar Apte, became its first general secretary. The subsequent career of the VHP, today the most ' formidable of the RSS affiliates, demands a separate study' (Basu, Datta, Sarkar,Sarkar, Sen, p. Another organizational measure taken by him was to utilise this organizational structure of the 'family' to create apolitical front which would be always under the leadership and control of the RSS. In 1951, he sent cadres to help Shyama Prasad Mukherjee to start the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, whose later incarnate is today's BJP. Among those who were sent were Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Atal Behari Vajpayee, L.K.Advani and S.S. Bhandari (This fact is mentioned in Basu, Datta, Sarkar, Sarkar and Sen, 1993, p. 48.) It is precisely for this reason that when Advani was arrested after the December 6, 1992 events, it was S.S.Bhandari who was BJP's chief spokesman.

Thus, Golwalkar's role in evolving the present ideological foundations for the Saffron Brigade cannot be underplayed. The entire organizational structure was to establish a political goal, and this was unambiguously articulated in the book We or our Nationhood de fined.

Hence the abiding importance of this book for the Saffron Brigade. A proper understanding of the contents of this book and the intentions of the Saffron Brigade is necessary for all: patriots who do not wish to see India slide into the morass of darkness and medieval theocracy. Golwalkar begins his entire exercise by seeking to understand the word'Swaraj'. He begins by questioning what is 'Swa', meaning 'We'. In the prologue to the book he says: 'We stand for national regeneration and not for the haphazard bundle of political rights - the state. What we want is Swaraj; and we must be definite what this 'Swa' means. 'Our kin doin' - who are we?'

(Golwalkar, 1939, p. The entire book is an elaboration of the thesis that 'we' means the Hindus and hence Swaraj means the Hindu Raj or Hindu Rashtra. Deliberate Distortions The basic purpose of the book was to establish that India was always a Hindu nation and continues to be one. By India here Golwalkar means the 'lands from sea to sea'. In fact, the map on the cover of the book gives the outline of his geographic limitations of India which expands from Afghanistan to Burma and includes Sri Lanka. Golwalkar attempts to achieve this purpose through an ingenious distortion of both history and science. First, the entire diversity of culture, traditions, language and customs of the peoples who inhabited India over centuries is sought to be straitjacketed into a monolithic 'Hinduism'.

Secondly, an external enemy is created (that is, `external' to Hindus), the hate against whom is used to whip up `Hindu' consolidation. Golwalkar here relied heavily on the experience of Hitlerite fascism. Georgi Dimitrov, the indomitable anti-fascist who led the struggle of the international working class, had said: `Fascism acts in the interests of extreme imperialists but presents itself to the masses in the guise of a wronged nation and appeals to outraged 'national' RSS as such a sentiments' (Dimitrov. To present the champion, it was necessary to create a false consciousness that the Hindus have been and are deprived while, at the same time, gener- ate hate against the Muslims (taking the cue from Hitler's rabid, anti- Semitism) to the effect that they are responsible for this. This was the precise purpose of the book. The present-day activities and propaganda of the Saffron Brigade are based precisely on these two points that Golwalkar provided as the ideological input.

To achieve this, it has, perfected the Goebbel-sian technique (Goebbels was Hitler's Propaganda Minister) of telling big enough lies, frequently enough to make them appear as the truth. Its necessary to note, at this stage, that the external enemy was not identified by the RSS as the British, against whom the Indian people were then in struggle. The hate against the Muslim community was sought to be spread much deeper than against the British by the RSS precisely because the Indian people could not be united for their 'Hindu Rashtra' against the British, since their anti-British feel- ings found expression the growing strength of the united freedom movement. It is for this precise reason that the RSS never nailed down the British as its enemy. For that matter, it virtually boycotted and at times opposed the freedom struggle.

Even sympathetic accounts of the RSS (The Brotherhood in Saffron by Walter K. Andersen and Shridhar D. Damle, 1987, amongst others) detail the virtual absence of the RSS in the freedom movement and the consequent concessions it gained from the British. Even Nanaji Deshmukh raises the question: 'Why did the RSS not take part in the liberation strug- gle as an organization?' (Deshmukh, 1979, p. In fact, the Bombay Home Department, during the 1942 Quit India movement, observed: '.

The Sangh has scrupulously kept itself within the law, and in particular, has refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August 1942.' (quoted in Andersen and Damle, 1987, p. This urge to establish a 'Hindu Rashtra' drove the RSS to be a virtual ally of the British.

The freedom struggle and the Congress were regarded as a diversion from their objective. The animosity grew particularly;After the AICC announced that free India would be a secular, democratic republic (at the Karachi Congress, 1931).

This was seen, and correctly from their point of view, as the very antithesis of the RSS conception of a Hindu Rashtra. Mahatma Gandhi, the tallest of devout and practising Hindus, was assassinated because he along with the majority of Indian people embraced secular democracy - rejecting the RSS ideology. Golwalkar, however, had to establish certain points in order to validate his thesis. First, it was necessary to establish that Hindus and Hindus alone were the original inhabitants of India.

This, Golwalkar does by the simple recourse to assertion. He states: 'We Hindus - have been in undisputed and undisturbed possession of this land for over 8 or even 10 thousand y ears before the land was invaded by any foreign race' and therefore, this land, 'came to be known as Hindusthan, the land of the Hindus' (Golwalkar, 1939, p. There is a deliberate total silence on the entire wealth of investigations of ancient Indian history including the possibility of the name Hindusthan originating from people outside India who described this land as the land of the Indus river. Having asserted this, he proceeds to prove' that Hindus did not come here from anywhere else. This is absolutely central to Golwalkar's political project since, if this cannot be proved, then logi- cally the Hindus would be as much of a 'foreign race' as anybody else who came to this land. A remarkably perfidious exercise is employed to prove this point.

All through this book Golwalkar uses the term 'Hindu' and 'Aryan race' synonymously. He thus sets out to show that the Aryans did not migrate to India from anywhere but originated here. All histori- cal evidence to the contrary is dismissed as the 'shady testimony of Western scholars' (Golwalkar 1939, p.

The RSS guru, however, had to contend with Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak's theory of the Arctic origin of the Vedas. However, Golwalkar, unable to reject the thesis of a popular leader, who was also a Hindu, comes up with the incredible assertion that the Arctic zone was originally that part of the world which is today called Bihar and Orissa, '.that then it moved northeast and then by a sometimes westerly, sometimes northward movement, it came to its present position. If this be so, did we leave the Arctic Zone and come to Hindusthan or were we all along here and the Arctic Zone left us and moved away north- wards in its zigzag march? We do not hesitate in affirming that had this fact been discovered during the lifetime of Lok. Tilak, he would unhesitatingly have propounded the proposition that 'The Arctic Home of the Vedas' was verily in Hindusthan itself and that it was not the Hindus who migrated to that land but the Arctic Zone which emigrated and left the Hindus in Hindusthan' (Golwalkar,1939, p. Lunatic logic indeed! Granting the benefit of doubt, that Golwalkar was unaware of the advances in geological sciences and plate-tectonics (which today fairly accurately allow us to map the movement of various land masses over centuries), we ask the simple question: Even by the logic of his own argument, if the Arctic zone moved away from Bihar-Orissa, how could it leave behind the people who were inhabiting that land mass?

When the land mass moves, it moves along with everything on it. People cannot be left hanging in a vacuum only to drop down when and where Golwalkar wishes! Such perfidy is employed to 'establish' that the Aryans originated in India and did not immigrate from anywhere else. This is central to the political aim of establishing a fascistic Hindu Rashtra. In order to achieve an internal consistency for such an incredible theory, Golwalkar had to resort to a gross distortion of history. Presenting the 'glory of Hindu civilisation' till the time of the Mahabharata he says that later, '. We have another gap of many centuries, which the accredited history has not been able to fill.

But we can surmise that the nation lived its usual life without any serious occurrence. Then came Buddha and the great Emperors of the Gupta Dynasty, Asoka, Harshavardhan, Vikramaditya, Pulakeshi, and others of whose rule of peace, power and plenty, we obtain incontrovertible evidence. The invasion of the 'world-conqueror' Alexander was a - mere scratch. In fact he cannot be said to have invaded the country at all, so hasty was his retreat' (Golwalkar, 1939, p. Rejecting Science and History Totally ignoring - in fact rejecting - the recorded history of this period which was available to Golwalkar's generation, he straitjackets these centuries into a static time-frame whose only denominator is 'Hindu kings'. Even amongst the kings he names, why was it that the same Pulakeshin-II stopped the southward march of Harshavardhana and defeated him on the banks of the river Narmada? Both were great Hindu kings according to Golwalkar and members of the same nationhood!

His exercise defies not only history but also the laws of social development. My do kings fight against one another, why do empires rise and fall? Why did the slave system give way to the feudal agrarian order? Or how and why did the British succeed in subjugating 'Hindu kings' through superior arms? Why did the great Hindu nation not produce such firepower?

All such questions are irrelevant to Golwalkar's exercise. In a similar vein, revolts against the oppressive. Hindu rituals and caste order are ignored. Buddhism is described merely as a variant of Hinduism.

In fact, all other religions (especially Sikhism and Jainism) which originated in India are, sought to be appropriated into the Hindu monolith. Indian history for over eight hundred years is depicted as a single thread of along war by the 'Hindu nation as a whole' against the invading Muslims.

Golwalkar, however, says that the Hindu nation, which was finally emerging victorious, was subjugated by a new foe - the British. The First War of Independence against the British in 1857 is depicted as 'the last great nation-wide attempt. To end the long war' (Golwalkar, 1939, p. 11) by the Hindu nation. 'The attempt failed but even in their defeat a whole galaxy of noble Hindu patriots stands out - glorious objects of the Nation's worship.' (Colwalkar, 1939, p.11). Golwalkar conveniently forgets that the symbol of this revolt against the British, even by the heroic and devout Hindu queen, Rani Laxmi Bhai of Jhansi, was the Mughal monarch, Bahadur ShahZafar!

Was this the war of 'Hindus' against Muslim invaders or that of Indians for their freedom? Such facts of history, however, are irrelevant for Golwalkar.

Further, Golwalkar adduces five characteristics (or 'unities') which according to him define the nation. 'Geographical(Country), Racial (Race), Religious (Religion), Cultural (Culture) and Linguistic (Language)' (Golwalkar, 1939, p. The entire exercise that follows is to establish that the Hindus in India possessed all these characteristics and hence have always been a nation. But the task, even for Golwalkar, is not easy. Of all, ' the knotty point is Religion and to a certain extent language' (Golwalkar, 1939, p. Race for Golwalkar is '.

By far the most important ingredi- ent of a Nation' (Golwalkar,1939, p. It is for this reason that he always uses the terms Hindu and Aryan synonymously. Historical evidence, of course, is irrelevant. Appropriating Aryans According to his entire body of argument, the Indus Valley civilisation would be an indigenous Aryan civilisation. In which case, why did it disintegrate? What were the internal causes?

If this civilisation was overrun from outside, who were these people? After coming into this land, did these people continue to live here or did they go back? And if evidence points to the fact that they continued to live here, what was the race that emerged as a result of this admixture? All these questions areas inconvenient for Golwalkar as historical evidence is inconvenient for the Saffron Brigade today.

Such questions are countered by the formidable assertion of `matters of faith'. Noted historian Romila Thapar, for example, says, 'The linguistic evidence of Vedic Sanskrit supports the coming into India of an Indo-European language from Iran but does not support the notion that India was the homeland of the Aryan-speaking people' (Seminar 400, December 1992; also see Seminar 364, December 1989).

Golwalkar dismisses all such historical evidence in a footnote: 'But obsessed with the idea, that Aryans came to Hindusthan from somewhere near the Caspian Sea or the Arctic region or some such place, and invaded this land in bands of marauders, that later they settled down first in the Punjab and gradually spread eastward along the Gunga, forming kingdoms at various places, at Ayodhya among them, the Historian feels it an anachronism, that the kingdom of Ayodhya in the Ramayan should be older than the more western Pandava Empire at Hastinapur. And he, with pedantic ignorance, teaches us that the story of the Mahabharat is the older. Unfortunately such misconceptions are stuffed into the brains of our young ones through text books appointed by various Universities in the country. It is high time that we studied, understood and wrote our history ourselves and discarded such designed or undesigned distortions'(Golwalkar, 1939, pp. The inspiration for the BJP State Governments to change the syllabi and curricula in accordance with such an understanding originates in this source. However untenable this theory may be, on this basis Golwalkar asserts the overall supremacy of religion in social life. This has little to do with religiosity.

This had to reestablished to achieve the political objective Golwalkar sets out for the RSS. He dismisses the modern concept of secularism where religion is separated from both politics and state and treated as an individual question. Treating secularism as virtual blasphemy, he argues: 'There is general tendency to affirm that Religion is an individual question and should have no place in public and political life. This tendency is based upon a misconception of Religion, and has its origin in those, who have,as a people, no religion worth the name' (Golwalkar, 1939, p. Since no other religion is worth its name except Hinduism he asserts: 'Such Religion - and nothing else deserves that name - cannot be ignored in individual or public life. It must have a place in proportion to its vast importance in politics as well.

Indeed politics itself becomes, in the case of such a Religion, a small factor to be considered and followed solely as one of the commands of Religion and in accord with such commands' (Golwalkar, 1939, p. He thus negates the historical experience - different nations having the same state religion, or secular nations having no state religion and the existence of multi-national states - and the scientific validity of the fact that religion has nowhere and at no time cemented national unity. The fact that Islamic Bangladesh separated from Muslim Pakistan as a result of the national struggle of the Bangladeshi people despite a common religion is, of course, uncomfortable for such a standpoint to consider.

But it is necessary for Golwalkar to assert the overall supremacy of religion for his political project. Golwalkar's ingenious perfidy is, however, in relation to language. The multitude of languages that exist in our country, each with its own history, culture and tradition, and the fact that nationalities have emerged on this basis and continue to co-exist is dismissed with contempt. 'It appears as if the Linguistic unity is wanting, and there are not one but many Nations, separated from each other by linguistic differences. But in fact that is not so. There is but one language, Sanskrit, of which these many `languages' are mere offshoots, the children of the mother language.

Sanskrit, the dialect of the Gods, is common to all from the Himalayas to the ocean in the South, from East to West and all the modem sister languages are through it so much interrelated as to be practically one. It needs but little labour to acquire a going acquaintance with any tongue.

And even among the modern languages Hindi is the most commonly understood and used as a medium of expression between persons of different provinces' (Golwalkar, 1939, p.43). Such incredible logic, however, is only applicable to India. Many a European nation uses a common language, or their languages have been the offshoots of a single Indo-European mother. They exist because of different languages and accompanying cultures and traditions as different nations and nationalities today. This is, however, irrelevant for Golwalkar as the purpose of his exercise, divorced from scientific analysis and historical experience, is to straitjacket Indian diversity into a monolithic unity for political purposes.

It is precisely on the basis of this understanding that the Saffron Brigade all along opposed and continues to oppose today the linguistic re-organisation of States. It is, of course, of no concern to them that at least Tamil and Kashmiri have their origin in a non-Sanskrit group of languages. Or for that matter Sanskrit itself was a branch of Indo-European languages which evolved and developed in this part of the world. The Saffron Brigade's opposition to Urdu, a language that completely and thoroughly evolved only in India, and its efforts to impose Hindi, ate also to be traced to this source. Its current slogan, 'Hindu, Hindi, Hindusthan', portends what its political project holds for the future of crores of non-Hindi-speaking people of India. Golwalkar finds himself in complete isolation from both the Western concept of a nation and the concept found in the Indian scriptures. He himself says: 'For the Rashtra concept to be complete it should be composed of 'Desh' country, 'Jati' race and 'Janpad' people' (Golwalkar, 1939, p.

But in order to reconcile his theory he conveniently twists this understanding to assert that though 'no Rabid Intolerance Having thus 'established' that the Hindus were always and continue to remain a nation on the basis of an unscientific and a historical analysis, Golwalkar proceeds to assert the intolerant, theocratic content of such a Hindu nation: '. The conclusion is unquestionably forced upon us that. In Hindusthan exists and must needs exist the ancient Hindu nation and nought else but the Hindu Nation. All those not belonging to the national, i.e., Hindu Race, Religion, Culture and Language naturally fallout of the pale of real `National' life. We repeat: in Hindusthan, the land of the Hindus, lives and should live the Hindu Nation - satisfying all the five essential requirements of the scientific nation concept of the modem world.

Consequently only those movements are truly `National' as aim at re- buildimg, revitalizing and emancipating from its present stupor, the Hindu Nation. Those only are nationalist patriots, who, with the, aspiration to glorify the Hindu race and nation next to their heart, are prompted into activity and strive to achieve that goal. All others are either traitors and enemies to the National cause, or, to take a charitable view, idiots' (Golwalkar, 1939, pp. He continues: 'We must bear in mind that so far as 'nation' is concerned, all those, who fall outside the five-fold limits of that idea, can have no place in the national life unless they abandon their differences, adopt the religion, culture and language of the Nation and completely merge themselves in the National Race. So long, however, as they maintain their racial, religious and cultural differences, they cannot but be only foreigners ' (Golwalkar, 1939, p. And further: '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.

From this standpoint, 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 prefer- ential 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.' (Golwalkar, 1939, pp. Inspiration from Fascism And how should such 'old nations' deal? The adulation of fascist Germany could not have been more naked.

'The ancient Race spirit, which prompted the Germanic tribes to overrun the whole of Europe, has re-risen in modern Germany, with the result that the Nation perforce follows aspirations,predetermined by the traditions left by its depredatory ancestors. Evenso with us: our Race spirit has once again roused itself as is evidenced by the race of spiritual giants we have produced, and who today stalk the world in serene majesty' (Golwalkar, 1939, p.

Further: '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 wellnigh 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 Hindusthan to learn and profit by ' (Golwalkar, 1939, p. Hitler, thus, emerges as the 'Guruji's Guru'. This, in fact, exposes the diabolic nature of the RSS' political project. It has no compunction in borrowing a thoroughly modern and Western concept of fascism, but making it appear in the garb of upholding Hindu religion and all that is ancient.

All other Western concepts and civilisational advances are condemned as 'alien', except for fascism! Certain advocates of fascistic pseudo-Hinduism come up with an ingenious defence of such naked adulation of fascism. `The fact that the information available about German treatment to Jews was scanty in 1939 should lead one to ignore a single reference to this issue then or give benefit of doubt to the person concerned' (Modak, 1993 p. If this were so, pray tell us, why does the 1947 edition contain the same passage unchanged? In 1947, as in 1939, Hitler's crimes were public knowledge.

Why did Golwalkar not delete this passage in later editions? Not because the information was not available, but because Golwalkar and today's Saffron Brigade emulate Hitler's methods. A glaring inconsistency, however, does not seem to bother Golwalkar. If according to him, the Hindus were Aryans, who then were these Aryansthat Hitler was championing?

If those were also Aryans, then did they emigrate from India to Germany or vice versa? According to his theory, both India and Germany should be part of a single nation! The whole exercise, thus, provides the ideological basis for a fascistic Hindu Rashtra which continues to be the kernel of the present-day Saffron Brigade's mission. Hijacking Hinduism In the process, they seek to hijack Hindu religion and its rich diversity to serve their political project.

The RSS agenda then, and the Saffron Brigade's agenda today, has little or nothing to do with religion. It is a communal ideology which utilises the religious divide, engineered and encouraged consciously by it, for its political purpose.

Its advocates, therefore, spew venom on those who expose this. The most potent answer has come from religious leaders themselves (interview with Kundrakudi Adigalar, Frontline, March 12, 1993). The religious sentiments of the people are exploited by them as the main conduit to achieve their political ends.

Thus, by misusing religion, they emerge as the enemies of the humanistic content of Hinduism itself. Two other important aspects of the book must be discussed. The first relates to the question of minorities. Castigating the minority treaties laid down by the League of Nations, Golwalkar says: 'Our modern solution of the minorities problem is far more dangerous. It confers untold rights not only on those who by their number and years of residence (we doubt it) may be considered according to the League as minorities, but also on all else, howsoever few or recent in their settlement - rights and privileges far in excess of the minimum advocated by the League. The natural consequences are even now felt and Hindu National life runs the risk of being shattered. Let us take heed and be prepared' (Golwalkar, 1939, pp.

Seen together with the earlier-toted intolerance against the minorities, this understanding maps out the vision of purges that may well put to shame Nazi fascism if the Saffron Brigade succeeds in establishing its concept of a Hindu Rashtra. Manu's India The second aspect refers to its conception of the social order in its Hindu Rashtra. Golwalkar acclaims Manu as the 'first and greatest lawgiver of the world' who 'lays down in his code, directing all the peoples of the world to go to Hindusthan to learn their duties at the holy feet of 'eldest born' Brahmins of this land.' (Golwalkar, 1939, pp.55-56). Now what does the Manusmriti say? Having firmly established the hereditary division of society into the caste system, the Manusmriti says: 'Serving Brahmins alone is recommended as the best innate activity of a Shudra; for whatever he does other than this bears no fruit for him' (123, Chapter X). 'They should give him (Shudra) the leftovers of their food, their old clothes, the spoiled parts of their grain, and their wom-out household utensils' (125, Chapter X).

'A servant (Shudra) should not amass wealth, even if he has the ability, for a servant (Shudra) who has amassed wealth annoys priests' (129, Chapter X).(All these quotations are from Doniger and Smith, 1991). The Manusmriti then proceeds to define the outcasts and untouchables who have no place in society at all and defines their menial activities. The intolerant caste structure finds echo in Golwalkar and the Saffron Brigade today because the Manusmriti is also based on an exclusively 'Aryan' social organisation. 'Un-Aryan coarseness, cruelty, and habitual failure to perform the rituals are the maninfestations in this world indicating that a man is born of a defiled womb' (58, Chapter X).

The Brotherhood In Saffron Pdf Writer Free

The Brotherhood In Saffron By Walter K. Anderson And Shridhar Damle Sage Price: Rs 150; Pages: 317 The Indian intelligentsia's perception of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has mainly come through the eyes of Jawaharlal Nehru and other Congress leaders. In this perception, the RSS is a communal, reactionary and fascist organisation which wants to take India backwards. Whatever one's views of its beliefs, the RSS is politically too significant to be ignored by scholars and analysts.

But surprisingly, there is little of value to read on the organsisation that is synonymous with radical Hindu aspirations. This gap has now been filled by Anderson and Damle. Despite an academic format, their study is a fascinating one of the rationale of the RSS and its chequered career - it remains a part of the political scene even while opting out of it. The strains of Hindu revivalism are an inevitable part of the birth of the RSS as it seeks to give moral moorings to disoriented persons trying to find a place in a fast-changing society. Combined with this is the belief that disciplined militancy, as against non-violence, holds the key to the regeneration of Hinduism. Hence the drills and other paramilitary activities are meant to give its members an assertiveness to enable them to take their rightful place in the country's life.

The RSS is not backward looking in the sense of wishing to freeze aspects of the religion which have kept Hindu society divided. But particularly in Maharashtra, the Sangh still suffers from its Brahmin origins, although its appeal lies mainly among smaller entrepreneurs. As the authors clearly bring out, the RSS suffers from an ambivalence in its relation to politics and the political authorities. While it classes itself as a cultural organisation, it has had a symbiotic and umbilical link with the old Jan Sangh and the present BJP. Despite its keenness not to provoke the authorities, the RSS has been banned periodically.

But it has always bounced back. It is a little known fact that shortly after Independence the Congress was negotiating with it to forge a relationship. Few know that the RSS participated in the Republic Day parade in 1963 after the Indian debacle in the war with China. More fresh in our memory is the dual membership issue which ostensibly brought the Janata government down; the real reasons for the janata's down fall were linked more to personal ambition and the fear of the other constituents about the old Jan Sangh's strength.

One wishes that the authors had devoted more time and space to the future of the RSS although the dilemmas it faces have been well brought out. So also the extent to which the RSS chief's temperament determines how activist a role it plays. The present chief Balasaheb Deoras, for example, is inclined towards activism. The dilemma for the RSS has, if anything, been sharpened by the state of the nation.

Shridhar D Damle

The Sangh's strength lies in being able to imbue among its members an unquestioning loyalty to its total value system, and on this basis to create bands of workers - the cutting edge of the RSS - versed in paramilitary exercises. Now with communal tendencies coming to the fore, fuelled by regional subnationalism and electoral politics, the RSS is at once more welcome to the body politic and more vulnerable to taunts of communalism.

Thus the dichotomy always existent between the RSS ideal of the regeneration of Hinduism and the temptation to influence events through a political party is further accentuated. One has only to view Deoras' recent statements - particularly the one suggesting that there was for the present no alternative to the Congress(I) at the Centre - and the reactions they provoked to realise the new situation. Anderson and Damle have done well to point out that the RSS is no longer the pariah party - another reason why it has to tread carefully. The basic dilemma for the RSS is that it conceives itself as a moral force to revive Hinduism after centuries of foreign rule. Alignment with the Jan Sangh and the BJP has always presented problems, as lighting partisan political battles inevitably affects the moral message it seeks to convey. It isn't lost on the political establishment that outside the communist parties, nobody has the dedicated cadres the RSS can boast of.

The key question is, how far will this activist phase of the present RSS leadership take it?