|
In public space one keeps hearing
many a things which are horrifying, vicious and bad in taste.
K.Sudarshan, the father figure of RSS, recently (November 2010)
stated that Sonia Gandhi was a foreign agent, that she had some
role in the deaths of her mother-in-law and her husband, and that
Rajiv Gandhi had wanted to leave her. This statement was not
carried by the large section of media, and there were only few
commentators who took it up for analysis. While Congress
supporters did outpour their anguish through protests and filing
of some cases, the RSS itself distanced itself from this
statement. Tarun Vijay of BJP, with RSS background, also
dissociated BJP form this statement. Interestingly even while
distancing BJP from Sudarhsan’s statement he made it a point to
pay compliments to the intellect of K.Sudarshan.
Overall even the other people from
RSS stable were mild enough to dissociate themselves from the
outpouring of their ex- Chief and one of the longest serving
leaders of RSS. Still they did not condemn Sudarshan. They
reverentially upheld the high level of his intellect. There is
nothing surprising about RSS combine not condemning him, and there
are deeper reasons for the same. What Sudarshan said was not a
flash in the pan but its’ what RSS probably believes, that’s why
Sudarshan is not condemned, as a matter of fact one can see the
‘logic’ of his saying, this statement of his, is just the further
extension of the ideology of RSS.
RSS core ideology is based around
looking at the society through communal angle. Communal view of
society looks at peoples’ interests, material and otherwise only
through the prism of religion. According to this ideology all
Hindus have similar interests; all Christians have similar
interests and so on. This communal ideology begins with ‘sameness
of the interests’ of one religious community and than goes on so
say that interests of two religious communities are different from
each other. And in the next stage it asserts that the interests
between two religious communities are irreconcilable and hostile
to each other.
According to this ideology a Hindu industrialist and the Hindu
beggar are supposed to have similar interests! A Muslim
entrepreneur and a Muslim sweeper or beggar is supposed to have
similar interests. So a Hindu king in History and poor Hindu
farmer-Shudra are on the same page. It looks at history as unified
Hindu community standing against others and so on, as if all Hindu
Kings were hunky dory with each other and supping with the Shudras
and poor peasants of society. The communal ideology, irrespective
of any religions in whose name it operates, changes the horizontal
social differences into vertical ones’.
The society has divisions according
the rich and poor, privileged and deprived. According to this
ideology what matters is the vertical divisions according to one’s
religion. This ideology as such focuses on issues of identity and
undermines the real worldly problems. It is an attempt to
undermine and sweep under the carpet the unjust social system,
where the major contradiction is social and economic. It is a way
to hide one’s birth based privileges under the guise of religion.
Religion is a potent instrument as faith is its central component.
Abuse of faith for political goals generates blind social
hysteria, which is used to promote the political and social agenda
of communal organizations. This pattern applies to all the
faith-religion based politics.
In India communal ideology, both Muslim and Hindu, developed in
opposition to the democratic secular ideology which looked at
people in their primary Indian identity. The communal ideology
originated from amongst elites, landlords-kings, their associated
clergy and middle class followers and ideologues.
So while these communal ideologies may look hostile to each other
at surface, essentially their roots are same, their values are the
same, they operate on the same social logic and dynamics. Those
elements, entrenched in the social privileges talk of identity
issues while those struggling to make both ends meet talk of the
worldly issues, problems related to daily life. We can see the
rudiments of this in teachings of Lord Gautam Buddha who talked of
the misery of the society, the deprivations of society and against
the caste system. His influence was systematically undone by
projecting that this World is an illusion, (Jagat Mythya: Brahm
Satyam). The attack on Buddhism also symbolized the ascendance of
exploitative caste system and the economic system which went with
it. During medieval period also we see that most of the kings,
irrespective of their religion patronized the clergy (Raj Guru
with Hindu kings, Shahi Imam with Muslim kings, alliance between
King and the Pope in Europe). The clergy is more interested in
rituals and preservation of ‘status quo’ of the system.
Contrary to this, the saints of religions focused on the moral
values and used religions’ moral values as binding glue for the
society, cutting across religious divides. Same saints talked of
‘problems of this world’. Kabir in one of his dohas (couplet)
tells us that if one can get God by worshipping a stone idol, why
not worship the whole mountain. He points out that the Chakki
(Grinding stone) is more important than the idols of God. Same way
he criticizes Mullahs for emphasizing on mosque and shouting to
get people in the mosque. The contrast in the social interests of
exploiters and exploited is reflected in the patterns of clergy on
one side and saints on the other.
Coming back to communal streams, Muslim and Hindu, both harped on
similar things and opposed the process of social change which was
accompanying the freedom movement. Freedom movement, from which
Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha-RSS remained aloof, was aiming not
just to get rid of British rule but was also the harbinger of
caste and gender transformation in the society. It was also the
beginning of the talk of economic justice and was against
imperialism.
So when RSS sees a Sonia Gandhi, at the helm of affairs of the
major rival party, they do not see a person, an Indian citizen,
they only see a Christian. Sudarshan, a die hard RSS ideologue, is
merely telling us the details of RSS belief system. And of course
Sudarshan is the one who has headed RSS for nearly a decade and
has been with this organization he served for close to five
decades! Who can tell us more about RSS belief system than him?
These contradictions, beliefs and overt expression, are bound to
be there for organizations which are communal and want Religion
based state. For Sudarshan-RSS the goal is a Hindu state. At the
same time they want to use the democratic space given by present
Indian Constitution. They have to play a delicate balancing role
most of the times and so many of their swaymasevaks do what is
desired by their politics, but RSS can’t own it overtly. This is
not the first time such a thing has happened. Gandhi murder (Nathuram
Godse), murder of Pastor Stains (Dara Singh), Pramod Mutalik’s
antics (Sri Ram Sene), communal violence and all that is the
outcome of divisive sectarian ideology. RSS wants to usurp
democracy and strengthen communal politics, but it can’t be stated
publicly as the limits of democratic norms will be breached. So
this balance, some one says or does something but the organization
disowns it, overtly only, and that too with due respect for the
person concerned!
|
Comments
98th
Indian Science Congress
|
Quick links