Why Hindus must rule India: The RSS conception of the Hindu as God

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is celebrating its centenary — and its epic successes in the social, cultural and, especially, political fields. Readers who are familiar with the organisation, the font of Hindutva ideology, but unclear about what it specifically stands for might benefit from this column.

The RSS’s longest-serving (33 years from 1940 to 1973) leader was M.S. Golwalkar. Two books are attributed to him, of which one he disowned. The other one, Bunch of Thoughts, is the subject here and we will look at what it says. It must be noted that it is not actually a book — in the sense that it is not a separate written work, but only a compilation of Golwalkar’s speeches and interviews, and some are only excerpts thereof. This gives it a jumpy and sporadic feel, but it is worth going through nonetheless. What follows is your columnist’s representation of Golwalkar’s views, in as unbiased a fashion as is possible.

Golwalkar highlights that the RSS called itself the ‘Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’ and not the ‘Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh’. This was because ‘Rashtriya’ naturally meant ‘Hindu’, and therefore the word ‘Hindu’ did not need to be used. The first RSS head, Keshav Hedgewar, had said: “If we use the word Hindu, it will only mean that we consider ourselves only as one of the innumerable communities in this land and that we do not realise our natural status as the nationals of this country.”

Savarkar’s Hindu Mahasabha was wrong in once having passed a resolution that the Congress should not give up its nationalist position by holding talks with the Muslim League, and instead asking the Hindu Mahasabha to do so. This ceded equal position to the Muslims, according to Savarkar and his followers, and was a perversion of the reality that India was wholly and only a Hindu rashtra.

Federalism was another problem, it was felt, and the only way out was to be courageous enough to declare a unitary type of government by amending the Constitution. The country was one, the people were one, and therefore India ought to have only a single government and a single legislature according to these proponents of Hindu nationalism.

Executive authority could be distributed, but legislative authority should be one and only one, and not allowed to devolve to the states. One central legislature for the whole of the country should satisfy the demands of democracy.

India was special in the world, it was understood, because it offered something nobody else could — and that was Hindu thought. The excellence of Hindu thought was that it alone knew something about the nature of the soul. This could be proved because it was only in India that, from ancient times, individuals rose to unravel the mystery of human nature, the “science of the spirit”. Golwalkar says Jesus saw Satan and the Prophet met Gabriel, but it was only in India that the sages actually saw God. Westerners, no matter how much they understood the science of matter, would remain ignorant of the science of spirit, he held.

This unique offering was under threat, however, because Hindus were abandoning their ancient wisdoms, and it was the RSS that must revive them within India and organise Hindu society. It would do this by reversing the things that were damaging Hindus. Progressive societies were permissive societies. They led to licentious behaviour with respect to sex, food, drinks, family life and free social intercourse. These things did not produce real happiness.

The individual must subsume himself into the larger nation, else its social fabric would be destroyed. This was what Hindu philosophy promoted and this was what would make Hindus happy, per Golwalkar (on behalf of the RSS).

All Hindus did not have this special Hindu knowledge, however; only some did. The common mass of people needed to be properly educated and enlightened. Making them merely literate would not serve the purpose, because this special knowledge would still be absent.

People were unequal in other ways also. Democracy was flawed, because it excluded experts and preferred politicians, he said. Panchayats functioned best when run along caste lines to represent the interests of society as a whole. Elections should not be competitive but unanimous. (If this sounds like disjointed rambling, it is because that is how Bunch of Thoughts is put together.)

Knowing Bharat Mata

India is the nation from the oceans to the Himalayas, says Golwalkar — it reaches not just the edge of the mountains, but goes beyond them, which is why the ancients had places of pilgrimage (like Kailash Mansarovar) on the northern side, making these regions “our live boundary”. Tibet is the abode of the gods, and the Hindu epics also give Hindus possession of Afghanistan, Burma (now Myanmar), Iran and (Sri) Lanka. Bharat Mata, for thousands of years, had dipped her arms in the two seas from Iran to Singapore, with Sri Lanka as a lotus petal offered at her sacred feet. Bhoomi poojan was done because the entire earth was sacred, but Bharat Mata was the most sacred. She needed total devotion, and not merely engagement via the intellect.

Partition was unacceptable — because this was not a division of property between brothers and one does not cut up one’s mother by way of settlement. The concept of a Hindu rashtra was not a mere bundle of political and economic rights. It was essentially cultural and not political or legal. It revealed itself through the urge for the realisation of God — a “living” god, and not an idol or immaterial form. “Our people are our god” is what the ancients had said; but they had not meant all our people.

Ramakrishna Paramhans and Vivekanand said, “Serve man”; But ‘man’ in the sense of humanity is too wide and cannot be grasped. It should be an Almighty with certain limitations. Man here means only the Hindu people, as well. The ancients did not use the word ‘Hindu’, but they did say in the Rig Veda that the sun and moon are his eyes, the stars and skies are created from his navel and that the Brahmin is the head of Brahman, the king (Kshatriya) the hands, the Vaishya the thighs and the Shudra the feet. The people who had this fourfold arrangement were themselves the God. Service to and worship of this caste-defined society was, then, service to God.

There is more, and we will take it up another day.

Views are personal.

More of Aakar Patel's writing may be read here.