Dear Sanghis, everything that Mohan Bhagwat says is not gold
So many new claims and theories emerged during the speech of the RSS chief in Meerut that nonpartisan listeners were left scratching their heads.
Right-wing scholars in India believe that everything the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat says in public meetings is always well thought-out and encapsulates a message for volunteers.
The things the RSS chief says is as important to the volunteers as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are to Communists across the world.
Although, the multifarious aspect of the world of meanings is also a reality.
Therefore, it can’t be ascertained that volunteers would be grasping the objective with which all the things are said. Having said that, the influence that Bhagwat and the RSS wield on right-wing politics of the country cannot be questioned. It , therefore, becomes necessary to seriously study and analyse Bhagwat’s speech at the Rashtroday Samagam function in Meerut on Sunday .
So many new claims and theories emerged during the speech of the RSS chief that nonpartisan listeners were left scratching their heads. Bhagwat’s thoughts were very different from those of the builders of our nation.
For instance, Bhagwat remarked during his speech,“People should frenetic to achieve liberalism and non-violence from within. There is hardly any place for openness and non-violence in any feeling of bigotry in the human imagination.”
Had he used the word ‘commitment’ in place of ‘frenetic’, then perhaps the message would have been clearer. But here the issue is not only the choice of words but also of the flow of language and thought process. The right-wing leaders are not able to conceal their love for the word ‘freneticism’ and it becomes even clearer when they try to hide it.
The speech, which was streaming live on Facebook, was attended by a large number of RSS volunteers.
We should not have any objections to the fact that, today, this crowd of volunteers is much larger in India than most of the other crowds. And we should accept the power of the mob too. And when the RSS chief himself glorifies this power, then the objective behind may well be to send a message across to the supporters and opponents alike.
He said, “These programmes are not merely meant for power display. The display of power in not necessary.”
“When there is power, it itself becomes very apparent. We have to see, how much power we have, how many people we could mobilise and how many we could discipline,” added the RSS chief.
In the speech when he was stressing on the need of the entire society to turn into a ‘swayamsevak sangh’, he perhaps forgot that there are still a large number of Indian who do not subscribe to the ideology of the RSS.
And the presence and need of such people will always remain in this country, which is full of diverse thoughts, lifestyles and cultures.
However, Bhagwat doesn’t seem to be the one who would stand up for diversity, evidenced from certain remarks during his speech,“This truth has been realised in India that despite differences in languages, food habits, communities and faiths, we have one religion and one identity.”
Even intellectuals and religious scholars may have problems in understanding what exactly did he mean. In his zeal, he went on to say, “The world believes that to be one, we should all be alike, but only our country believes that there is no diversity in being diverse.”
Here it becomes very important to appeal to the RSS chief that the meaning of ‘unity in diversity’ is not to be one or to be different, but it means to be together and united by respecting the diversity within. The thoughts expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution are meant to ensure this only. And if the Sangh disagrees with the Constitution, then possibly it disagrees with this perception too.
Mohan Bhagwat discussed history as if it were created by him. “We Hindus have to unite because it is our home from ancient times. We are the people accountable for this country,” he remarked.
Undoubtedly, India has been home to Hindus for centuries, but at the same time it is home to Budhists, Jains, Muslims, Parsis and atheists as well. And the oldness does not reaffirm your claim to your motherland or place of birth.
Had it been so, then the lands of zamindars would not have now gone to the farmers and workers. Hence, it really makes little difference as to when people from different faiths moved to India. What holds significance is the question whether all Indians are united in their effort to move ahead on the path of peace, security and prosperity. And this objective can not be achieved by talking about the Hindu unity alone.
(Translated into English from Hindi by Pragati Saxena)