“What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the ‘consolation’ of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it.”

Lenin stated this fact in context of Marxism but this has a universal connotation. Such whittling down has been common to the ideas, contribution and sacrifices of Indian revolutionary Bhagat Singh. The latest contributor to this venture is a self-acclaimed liberal, Bhagwan Josh. He contributed an article, ‘Why Bhagat Singh was not a Marxist thinker’ (The Tribune, March 23, 2026).[1] He ended his derogatory piece with the words: “The fact remains that Bhagat Singh was hanged not for his revolutionary ideas but for committing a murder of a British officer.” It is notable that The Tribune chose to publish it on the 95^th anniversary of the martyrdom of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, Rajguru and Sukhdev. This act also reveals what has happened to even a publication, which had previously remained supportive of the revolutionaries when they were alive.

Bhagwan Josh, not confident of his current take on Bhagat Singh, goes hunting for names like Antonio Gramsci, Bipin Chandra and Harish Puri to add weight to his diatribe. Gramsci and Bipin Chandra are not alive to clarify but Professor Harish Puri needs to share with his fans like me whether he too believes that Bhagat Singh was not a revolutionary. Thanks to Harish Jain who responded by penning ‘Why Bhagat Singh defies easy labels’ (The Tribune, March 26, 2026) in which Bhagwan Josh in one of his earlier Punjabi works, (Bhagat Singh da Markasvad) located “Bhagat Singh within the distinct Leninist current that was emerging in Punjab between 1928 and 1931 an intellectual formation grounded in study, debate and ideological seriousness and set apart from what he saw as the more pragmatic and often anti-intellectual strands within Indian communism”.[2]

A serious problem with armchair Professors is that they live in ivory towers but believe that they and only they are authorised to explain ground realities. Bhagat Singh was not a thinker because he was unable to produce in his writings, “the perfunctory references to the sources or books from which these notes and quotes were taken have left a rather perplexing question mark with regard to the authentic source. That is, from which editions of which books, by which particular authors, were these taken?” They do not know that Bhagat Singh was not a doctoral candidate in some university but chose to work to liberate his motherland from the colonial subjugation. According to British official documents, he was in jail for 716 days, consulted/read approximately 302 books and was well versed in English, Urdu, Hindi, and Punjabi. When he was not in jail, he was both a researcher and a journalist. He followed the Gramscian dictum (without reading him) that “It is necessary to think and study even under the most difficult conditions…to keep the risk of intellectual degradation at bay”.

Bhagat Singh was not reading books for the purposes of writing a doctoral proposal for enrolling at Oxford or Cambridge but for understanding the world and India so that he could challenge the mightiest imperial power and replace it with a system in India where ‘men do not exploit men’. This is what a thinker does. I am sure if Bhagat Singh had met Professors like Bhagwan Josh there would have been no need commemorating his Martyrdom Day, he would have retired as a teacher-receiving pension from the British masters!

Bhagwan Josh makes another problematic claim: “But what sort of Marxism did Bhagat Singh imbibe from his readings? Did this Marxism help him in any way to get some insight into the contemporary politics of Indian nationalism, working class movements and the immediate historical social reality around him? A mastery of Marxism that is merely an exercise in the appropriation of textual discourse must remain a ‘Brahmanical Marxism’…”

This from a Professor who — we are told, has taught at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)! Can such an armed academic be so ignorant of the written word, so oblivious of facts available in the public domain? This does not bode well for future of JNU. Bhagat Singh who died at the age of 23 years, authored the following major documents, Universal Love (Hindi 1924), Youth (Hindi 1925), Religious Riots and their Solution (Punjabi 1927), Religion and our Freedom Struggle (Punjabi 1928), The Issue of Untouchability (Punjabi 1928), Satyagrah and Strikes (Punjabi 1928), Students and Politics (Punjabi 1928), New leaders and their Duties (Punjabi 1928), Lala Lajpat Rai and the Youth (Punjabi 1928), What is Anarchism part 1, 2, 3 (Punjabi 1928), The Revolutionary Nihilist of Russia (Punjabi 1928), Ideal of Indian Revolution (English 1930), Why I am an Atheist (English 1930), The First Rise of Punjab in the Freedom Struggle (Urdu 1931), Introduction to Dreamland (English 1931), and Young Political Workers (English 1931).

The Manifesto of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha and the Manifesto of Hindustan Socialist Republican Army were written by Bhagwati Charan Vohra and finalised after consultation with Bhagat Singh.

Shame on those who call this ‘Brahmanical Marxism’. Bhagat Singh developed Marxism in the context of Indian realities. Marx said that future generations would come and prove us wrong; this is how Marxism as a science survives.

Bhagwan Josh also declares the Ghadar movement as a failed movement and declares that Bhagat singh “instead of learning a lesson from its tragic failure, he blindly followed the example of the Ghadarites”. This sweeping conclusion reveals on whose side Professor the worthy stands while evaluating two among the greatest milestones in the glorious anti-colonial history of Indian freedom struggle in the 20^th century. Failure does not mean that any resistance was faulty or not required. To hail the victor is, in fact, a typical Brahmanical characteristic. Bhagwan must be glad to know that he is not alone in holding such a debased idea. The most prominent ideologue of RSS, MS Golwalkar while denigrating the tradition of martyrdom had similarly, brazenly stated:

“There is no doubt that such man who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them.” [‘Martyr, great but not ideal’, Bunch of Thoughts, the collection of writings of MS Golwalkar.]

Last but not the least, Bhagwan Josh indulges in peddling another falsehood when states that 1857 Mutiny (which in fact was a nation-wide liberation war which continued for more than 3 years), was defeated by British forces and Sikh troops. There are abundant contemporary documents which conclusively prove that Punjab and Sikhs played significant role in 1857 liberation war. These were not only Sikh ruling families in Punjab who supported the British but also well-known rich families amongst Hindus and Muslims who joined the British campaign against the 1857 rebellion. This reality was no different from the rest of India, where rulers of Gwalior, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Bhopal, Dhar and many more native states joined hands with the British in crushing the great War of Independence.

If Bhagat Singh is simply a murderer, Professor Bhagwan Josh why do you bother with him? The fact is that he with his comrades continue to be synonymous with Indian revolution, and this troubles those intellectually subservient to imperialism who then come forth to denigrate them.

Marxism survives as so will Bhagat Singh’s heritage.

March 27, 2026

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

[1] https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/why-bhagat-singh-was-not-a-marxist-thinker/

[2] https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/why-bhagat-singh-defies-easy-labels/

Related:

Denigration of martyrs like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev – a peep into RSS archives

78th Martyrdom Anniversary of Gandhi & Identity of his Assassins: Sardar Patel

November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly

The post Bhagat Singh sent to gallows once again! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Here is a passage from the chapter, ‘Martyr, great but not ideal’ of Bunch of Thoughts, the collection of writings of MS Golwalkar decrying the whole tradition of martyrs. After declaring that his objects of worship have always been successful lives and that ‘Bhartiya culture’ [which surely –for him –means RSS culture] does not adore and idealize martyrdom and do not treat “such martyrs as their heroes”, he went on to philosophise that,

“There is no doubt that such man who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them.” [Bunch of Thoughts, p. 283.]

Could there be a statement more insulting and denigrating to the martyrs than this?

This will or should be shocking for any Indian who admires the martyrs of the Freedom Movement to know what Hedgewar, founder of RSS felt about the revolutionaries fighting against the British. According to his biography published by the RSS,

“Patriotism is not only going to prison. It is not correct to be carried away by such superficial patriotism. He used to urge that while remaining prepared to die for the country when the time came, it is very necessary to have a desire to live while organizing for the freedom of the country.”

[CP Bhishikar, Sanghavariksh Ke Beej: Dr. Keshavrao Hedgewar, p. 21.]

It is indeed a pity that Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev, Ashfaqullah Khan and Chandrashekhar Azad did not come into contact with this contemporary great patriotic thinker. If they had the great opportunity to meet him, these martyrs could have been saved from giving their lives for ‘superficial patriotism’.

Even the word ‘shameful’ is not appropriate to describe the attitude of the RSS leadership towards those who had sacrificed everything in the struggle against the British. The last Mughal ruler of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar had emerged as the rallying point for patriotic Indians and symbol of the Great War of Independence of 1857.

Golwalkar wrote thus while mocking him:

“In 1857, the so-called last emperor of India had given the clarion call-Gazio mein bu rahegi jub talak eeman ki/takhte London tak chalegi tegh Hindustan ki (Till the warriors remain faithful to their commitment/Indian swords will reach throne of London.) But ultimately what happened? Everybody knows that. [Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagar Darshan (collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi)

Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd., volume 1, p. 121.]

What Golwalkar thought of the people sacrificing their lot for the country is obvious from other observations and recollections. He had the temerity to question the great revolutionaries who wished to lay down their lives for the freedom of the motherland the following question as if he was representing the British:

“But one should think whether complete national interest is accomplished by that? Sacrifice does not lead to increase in the thinking of the society of giving all for the interest of the nation. It is borne by the experience up to now that this fire in the heart is unbearable to the common people.”

[Ibid. pp. 61-62.]

Is this also the reason that RSS produced no fighters or martyrs during the Freedom Movement?

Is it not the duty of every patriotic Indian who respects these great martyrs to share these anti-national and degenerate ideas of the RSS against both the anti-colonial freedom struggle in general and martyrs in particular?

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

78th Martyrdom Anniversary of Gandhi & Identity of his Assassins: Sardar Patel

November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly

How Hindutva forces colluded with both the British & Jinnah against the historic ‘Quit India’ movement: Archives

The post Denigration of martyrs like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev – a peep into RSS archives appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The gun-wielding terrorists and conspirators who assassinated Gandhiji not only shared the ideological world-view of the Hindu Mahasabha (HMS),  led by VD Savarkar and the RSS’ own brand of Hindu nationalism but were also closely connected with these organisations. Instead of being ashamed of such this heinous crime, the inheritors of this worldview resort to lies —the pot calling the kettle black!

Let us compare the RSS’ claim of innocence in Gandhiji’s assassination with the views of the first home minister and deputy Prime Minister (PM) of Independent India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on the perpetrators of this crime. It needs no reminding that Sardar continues to be a favourite of both the RSS and the present prime minister, Narendra Modi. Modi got Patel’s statue erected in Gujarat, the tallest in the world. Modi did not ever think Gandhi befitting of such a monument. Though a vocal proponent of ‘atma-nirbhar Bharat’ (self-relying India, ‘Make in India’) Sardar Patel’s statue was moulded in an iron foundry of China!

Following is the compilation, in chronological order, of the communication between the Indian Home Ministry under Sardar Patel, to Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, Syama Prasad Mookerjee (the then head of Hindu Mahasabha) and MS Golwalkar (the then Supremo of the RSS) on and after Gandhiji’s assassination.

This chronological presentation clearly reveals how Sardar Patel developed his understanding (based on facts supplied by his officials) on the Role of the Organisations Involved/Responsible for Gandhiji’s Assassination:

(1) February 4, 1948, Government of India Communique Banning the RSS

The order banning the RSS issued by Sardar’s Home Ministry was unequivocal in holding the former responsible for terror activities.

It read:

“Undesirable and even dangerous activities have been carried on by members of the Sangh. It has been found that in several parts of the country individual members of the RSS have indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity, and murder and have collected illicit arms and ammunition. They have been found circulating leaflets exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods, to collect firearms, to create disaffection against the government and suborn the police and the military.”

[Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp. 65-66.]

(2) February 27, 1948: Sardar Patel letter to Prime Minister Nehru

In the early days of investigation when not all facts were known Sardar told Nehru:

“All the main accused have given long and detailed statements of their activities. In one case, the statement extends to ninety typed pages. From their statements, it is quite clear that no part of the conspiracy took place in Delhi…It also clearly emerges from these statements that the RSS was not involved at all. It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that (hatched) the conspiracy and saw it through. It also appears that the conspiracy was limited to some ten men, of whom all except two have been got hold of.” [Bold for emphasis]

The RSS and its supporters quote a part of the above letter, which read: “It also clearly emerges from these statements that the RSS was not involved at all” but hides the following text of the same letter, which is very significant. The letter continues:

“In the case of secret organisation like the RSS which has no records, registers, etc. securing of authentic information whether a particular individual is active worker or not is rendered a very difficult task.”

[Shankar, V., Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence 1945-50, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977, p. 283-85.]

How does one identify a member of the RSS?

Sardar Patel raised a highly significant question about knowing whether a criminal or terrorist is a member of RSS or not. Whenever a linkage between a criminal activity and RSS is exposed, the latter comes out with the patent answer that the criminal is not RSS member. How do we know it? Is there an authenticated list of RSS members, which can be perused for such an investigation by the State? If it is not there, how RSS can file cases against those who find RSS members indulging in the assassinations and terrorist activities.  In such cases, the police and judiciary should demand from RSS proof that such persons were not its members.

(3) July 18, 1948: Sardar Patel’s letter to Shyama Prasad Mookerjee

As investigation progressed, Sardar found that Hindu Mahasabha and RSS were jointly responsible for the murder of Gandhiji, which was corroborated by him in a letter to a prominent leader of Hindu Mahasabha, Syama Prasad Mookerjee. On July 18, 1948, Sardar wrote:

“As regards the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, the case relating to Gandhiji’s murder is sub judice and I should not like to say anything about the participation of the two organisations, but our reports do confirm that, as a result of the activities of these two bodies, particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in the conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of Government and the State. Our reports show that those activities, despite the ban, have not died down. Indeed, as time has marched on, the RSS circles are becoming more defiant and are indulging in their subversive activities in an increasing measure. ”

[Letter 64 in Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence1945-1950, volume 2, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1977, pp. 276-77.]

(4) September 19, 1948: sardar Patel letter to MS Golwalkar, RSS Sarsanghchalak

By September 19 (1948), exactly 214 days after the murder of Gandhiji when Sardar wrote this letter, the role of the organisations in the assassination of Gandhiji was clearer to him. Without mincing words, he told Golwalkar:

“Organising the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing…Apart from this, their opposition to the Congress,that too of such virulence, disregarding all considerations of personality, decency or decorum, created a kind of unrest among the people. All their speeches were full of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of the sympathy of the Government, or of the people, no more remained for the RSS. In fact opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death. Under these conditions it became inevitable for the Government to take action against the RSS…Since then, over six months have elapsed. We had hoped that after this lapse of time, with full and proper consideration the RSS persons would come to the right path.” But from the reports that come to me, it is evident that attempts to put fresh life into their same old activities are afoot.”

[Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp. 26-28.]

Do we need more proof to prove the RSS involvement in the murder of Gandhiji?

Another contemporary, a senior member of the Indian Civil Service (ICS)–predecessor of IAS– who was the first home secretary of Uttar Pradesh corroborated the fact that RSS was involved in this anti-national heinous crime. According to him:

“Came January 30, 1948 when the Mahatma, that supreme apostle of peace, felt to a bullet fired by an RSS fanatic. The tragic episode left me sick at heart.”

[Rajeshwar Dayal, A Life of Our Times, Orient Longman, 94.]

Hatred for Gandhiji is a fundamental element in the Hindutva-RSS discourse

The RSS’ hatred for Gandhi is as old as the formation of the RSS itself. Dr K.B. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, was a Congress leader but parted company with the latter in 1925. After meeting the Hindutva icon V.D. Savarkar, he realised that Gandhi was the biggest hurdle in the Hindutva project of organising Hindus separately. According to an RSS publication, since Gandhi worked for Hindu-Muslim unity,

“Doctorji sensed danger in that move. In fact, he did not even relish the new-fangled slogan of ‘Hindu-Muslim unity”. Another RSS publication corroborates the fact that the main reason behind Hedgewar’s parting with the Congress and formation of the RSS was because the “Congress believed in Hindu-Muslim unity”.

[Seshadri, H.V. (ed.), Dr Hedgewar, the Epoch-Maker: A Biography, p. 61. & Pingle, H.V. (ed.), Smritikan: Parm Pujiye Dr Hedgewar ke Jeevan kee Vibhinn Ghatnaon kaa Sankalan, p. 93.]

The RSS launched its English organ, Organiser, in July 1947 and a perusal of its issues until the murder of Gandhi on January 30, 1948 shows a flood of articles and sketches full of hatred for Gandhiji. The RSS seemed to be competing with the Hindu Mahasabha leader, Savarkar, and the Muslim League English organ, The Dawn, in denigrating Gandhi.

Modi as Chief Minister, Gujarat sent congratulatory messages to Janajagruti Hindu Samiti, Goa Conference held with the Objective of turning India into a Hindu State. The Conference celebrated ‘Vadh’ –Killing of Gandhiji.

Modi was in Goa in June 2013 for the BJP executive committee meeting. He as Gujarat CM sent a message to the ‘All India Hindu Convention for Establishment of Hindu Nation’ organized by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) at Goa from June 7. Modi’s message lauding the conference for establishing a Hindu nation read:

“It is our tradition to remain alert and raise a voice against persecution…Only by protecting our culture, can the flag of ‘dharma’ and unity be kept intact. Organisations inspired by nationalism, patriotism and devotion for the Nation are true manifestations of people’s power.”

[ORIGINAL LETTER REPRODUCED AT THE END]

On the third day from the same podium in this convention from where Modi’s felicitation message was read, one of the prominent speakers, K.V. Sitaramiah, a seasoned RSS cadre declared that Gandhi was ‘terrible, wicked and most sinful’. Rejoicing the killing of M.K. Gandhi, he went on to declare,

“As Bhagwan Shri Krishna said in the Gita, Paritranaya SadhunamVinashaya Cha Dushkritam/ DharamasansthapnayaSambhavamiYuge-Yuge (For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age) On…30th January 1948 evening, Shriram came in the form of Nathuram Godse and ended the life of Gandhi.”

[ORIGINAL DOCUMENT REPRODUCED AT THE END]

It is to be noted that K.V. Sitaramaiah has also authored two books titled ‘Gandhi was Dharma Drohi [anti-religion] and Desa Drohi [anti-religion]’ and ‘Gandhi was Murderer of Gandhi’ in which the back cover text of the first book, quoting from the epic Mahabharat, demands “Dharma Drohis must be killed“, “Not killing the deserved to be killed is great sin” and “where the members of Parliament seeing clearly allow to kill Dharma & truth as untruth, those members will be called dead“.

The death-knell of democratic-secular India, established after a rigorous and robust freedom struggle, is to be ruled by those very forces that militate against inclusive nationalism, values that Gandhiji lived, and eventually died for. The forces that rule today were born out of a hatred for him, many played a lead role in Gandhiji’s assassination and continue to celebrate his ‘vadh’; sacrifice done for a good cause.

Let us take a firm vow on the 78^th martyrdom anniversary of Gandhiji. That all of us will rise up to challenge this Hindutva juggernaut.

January 30, 2026

Documentary Evidence

Before Gandhi’s assassination, Hindutva organizations, in their publications, especially through cartoons, portrayed him as anti-Hindu and a stooge of Muslims. This created an atmosphere of hatred and violence against him, a fact Sardar Patel also mentioned in his letter mentioned above. Some examples of these cartoons:

Related:

Busted: ‘Hindu’ Narratives of Desecration of Somnath, Buddhist & Jain Temples in India

November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly

On the 50th anniversary of India’s formal ‘Emergency’, how the RSS betrayed the anti-emergency struggle

The post 78th Martyrdom Anniversary of Gandhi & Identity of his Assassins: Sardar Patel appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The latest outburst was on January 11, 2026, when inaugurating the Swabhiman Parv (self-respect event) in Somnath, he declared that “every particle of the soil of Prabhas Patan is a witness to valor, courage, and heroism, and that countless devotees of Shiva sacrificed their lives for the preservation of Somnath’s form. He said that on the occasion of Somnath Swabhiman Parv, he bows first to every brave man and woman who dedicated their lives to the protection and reconstruction of Somnath, offering everything to Lord Mahadeva.”[1]

Shri Modi further stated that “when invaders from Ghazni to Aurangzeb attacked Somnath, they believed their swords were conquering eternal Somnath, but those fanatics failed to understand that the very name ‘Som’ carries the essence of nectar, the idea of remaining immortal even after consuming poison. He added that within Somnath resides the conscious power of Sadashiva Mahadev, who is both benevolent and the fierce ‘Prachanda Tandava Shiva’.”

[‘PM addresses the Somnath Swabhiman Parv in Somnath, Gujarat’, 11 Jan, 2026, https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pm-addresses-the-somnath-swabhiman-parv-in-somnath-gujarat/?comment=disable]

The senior most security advisor of the RSS-BJP government and close confidant of PM Modi, Ajit Doval was at his best seeking revenge for the religious crimes of Muslim rulers.  Speaking at the opening ceremony of Viksit Bharat Young Leaders Dialogue, at Delhi on January 9, 2026, Doval said, “This independent India wasn’t always as free as it appears now. Our ancestors made great sacrifices for it. They endured great humiliation and experienced periods of profound helplessness. Many people faced the gallows… Our villages were burned. Our civilisation was destroyed. Our temples were looted, and we watched helplessly as silent spectators. This history presents us with a challenge that every young person in India today should have the fire within them. The word ‘revenge’ isn’t ideal, but revenge itself is a powerful force. We have to take revenge for our history. We have to take this country back to where we can build a great India based on our rights, our ideas, and our beliefs.”[2]

[‘NSA Ajit Doval urges youth to learn from history, rebuild a strong India’ 10 Jan-2026, https://firstindia.co.in/news/delhi/nsa-ajit-doval-urges-youth-to-learn-from-history-rebuild-a-strong-india]

The gist of the speeches of both Modi and Doval was that Muslims destroyed Hindu temples. The revenge has to be taken from Indian Muslims who are necessarily children of the Muslim rulers. These calls were nothing but brazen demonizing the largest religious minority of India. PM Modi and NSA chief, in fact, were dog-whistling for cleansing of Muslims. However, we need to compare the above-mentioned claims with the ‘Hindu’ narratives of destruction of Somnath Temple.

No sane person can deny that Somnath Temple in Gujarat was desecrated, looted and razed by an army led by Mahmud Ghazi (Mahmud Ghaznavi) in 1026. But a crucial fact remains buried that it was done with the active help and participation of local Hindu chieftains. The most prominent ideologue of RSS, MS Golwalkar while referring to the desecration and destruction of Somnath Temple by Mahmud Ghazi in the RSS English organ, Organizer (January 4, 1950) stated:

“He crossed the Khyber Pass and set foot in Bharat to plunder the wealth of Somnath. He had to cross the great desert of Rajasthan. There was a time when he had no food, and no water for his army, and even for himself left to his fate, he would have perished…But no, Mahmud Ghazi made the local chieftains to believe that Saurashtra had expansionist designs against them. In their folly and pettiness, they believed him. And they joined him. When Mahmud Ghazi launched his assault on the great temple, it was the Hindu, blood of our blood, flesh of our flesh, soul of our soul-who stood in the vanguard of his army. Somnath was desecrated with the active help of the Hindus. These are facts of history.”

[Organizer, January 4, 1950.]

So far as valour of defenders of Somnath Temple against ‘idol-breaker’ Ghazni was concerned founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayananda Sarswati in his fundamental work, Satyarth Prakash, a Bible for Arya Samajists, stated that instead of resisting the army of defilers, the then priests, “made offering, called on gods and prayed: ‘O Mahadeva kill this infidel and protect us!’ They advised their royal followers to have patience as Mahadeva would send Bhairava or Bhadra who would kill all the infidels (mlechhas) or blinden them…Many popish astrologers said that it was not astrologically proper for their advance…Thus the warriors were misled and delayed.  The army of infidels soon came and surrounded them. They fled in disgrace.”  [Swami Dayananda Sarswati, Light of Truth (English translation of Satyarth Prakash), Dayanand Sansthan, Delhi, 1908, p. 328.]

PM, Ajit Doval and the entire Hindutva tribe instead of calling for revenge against Muslims need to do a serious introspection about the guilty-men responsible for the desecration of Somnath Temple. It is generally accepted that Mahmud entered India as aggressor seventeen times between 1000 AD and 1027 AD. He travelled approximately 2000 kilometres from Ghazni to reach Somnath Temple in 1025, covering almost 1000 kilometres in the region which fell in India. According to ‘Hindu’ narrative after destroying the Temple he travelled back with huge precious booty laden on hundreds of camels and horses. Those who are telling stories of valour at Somnath need to tell the nation: Who allowed his journey back? Why were he and his gang of robbers not liquidated despite destroying one of the holiest temples of India? The horrendous reality is that our ancestors miserably failed in resisting one of the meanest aggressors in Indian history.

Desecration of Buddhist and Jain Temples by ‘Hindus’

These were not ‘Muslim’ rulers only who were defiling Hindu temples. Swami Vivekananda shared the fact that, “Temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them. We shall have to do many things like that yet”.

[The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 3, 264.]

It has been corroborated by another darling of the Hindutva fraternity, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. According to him the Rath Yatra, an integral part of the rituals connected with Jagganath Temple was originally a Buddhist ritual. Bankim Chndra Chatterjee wrote:

“I am aware that another and a very reasonable, account of the origin of the festival of Rath [at Jagganath Temple] has been given by General Cunningham in his work on the Bhilsa Topes. He there traces it to a similar festival of the Buddhists, in which the three symbols of the Buddhist faith, Buddha, Dharmma, and Sangha, were drawn in a car in the same fashion, and I believe about the same season as the Rath. It is a fact greatly in support of the theory, that the images of Jagannath, Balaram, and Subhadra, which now figure in the Rath, are near copies of the representations of Buddha, Dharmma, and Sangha, and appear to have been modelled upon them.”[Chatterjee, Bankim Chandra, ‘On the origin of Hindu festivals’ in Essays & Letters, Rupa, Delhi, 2010, pp. 8-9.]

Conversion of Buddhist monasteries into Hindu temples was a common occurrence after Buddhist rulers were gradually overthrown by Brahmins. This process began when the last of Maurya dynasty’s Buddhist king (Ashoka being one), Brihadratha was assassinated by Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin in 184 BCE thus ending the rule of a renowned Buddhist dynasty and establishing the rule of Brahman Shunga dynasty. It was corroborated by Bankim in his controversial novel Anandmath, Bible of the Hindu nationalism. He described the scene of a temple used by Hindu army in the following words:

“Within this wood there stood a large monastery on a large piece of land with broken stones all around. Antiquarians would perhaps say that it was a Buddhist monastery in old days and was subsequently converted into a Hindu one.” [Sen-Gupta, Nares Chandra (translator Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s Anandamath), Abbey of Bliss, Padmini Mohan Neogi, Calcutta, nd, 16]

Many of Jain temples too met the same tragic fate. Swami Dayanand Saraswati regarded as a Prophet of Hindutva while dealing with the contribution of Adi Shankaracharya (8^TH CENTURY) in his tome, Satyarth Prakash wrote:

“For ten years he toured all over the country, refuted Jainism and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that are now-a-days dug out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst those that are found whole (unbroken) here and there under the ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of their being broken.” [Swami Dayananda Sarswati, Light of Truth (English translation of Satyarth Prakash), Dayanand Sansthan, Delhi, 1908, p. 294.]

Crimes of Maratha ‘Hindu’ armies against Hindus

Sir Jadunath Sarkar (1870-1958), a renowned historian, held no brief for Islam or Muslim rulers in India. In fact, he is regarded as a Hindu historian, narrator of the history of India from a Hindu point of view. His description of the Maratha invasion of Bengal in early 1740s, makes it clear that this army of ‘Hindu nation’ cared least about honour and property of Hindus of Bengal. According to Sarkar, “the roving Maratha bands committed wanton destruction and unspeakable outrage”. [Jadunath Sarkar (ed.), The History of Bengal-Volume II Muslim Period 1200 A.D.–1757 A.D. (Delhi: BR Publishing, 2003), (first edition 1948), p. 457.]

Sarkar, in his monumental work on the history of Bengal, reproduced eyewitness accounts of the sufferings of Bengali Hindus at the hands of Marathas. According to one such eyewitness, Gangaram,

“The Marathas snatched away gold and silver, rejecting everything else. Of some people they cut off the hands, of some the nose and ear; some they killed outright. They dragged away the beautiful women and freed them only after raping them”. [Jadunath Sarkar (ed.), The History of Bengal-Volume II Muslim Period 1200 A.D.–1757 A.D. (Delhi: BR Publishing, 2003), (first edition 1948), 457.]

Another eyewitness, Vaneshwar Vidyalankar, the court Pandit of the Maharaja of Bardwan, narrated the horrifying tales of atrocities committed by the Marathas against Hindus in the following words:

“Shahu Raja’s troops are niggard of pity, slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmans and the poor, fierce of spirit, expert in robbing the property of everyone and committing every kind of sinful act.” [Ibid., 458.]

Another crucial fact which is consciously kept under wrap is that despite more than 500 hundred years of ‘Muslim’/Mughal rule which according to Hindutva historians was nothing but a project of annihilating Hindus or forcibly converting the latter to Islam, India remained a nation with an almost 2/3 majority of Hindus at the historical juncture when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. The British rulers held first census in 1871-72. According to the Census report:

“The population of British India is, in round numbers, divided into 140½ millions [sic] of Hindoos (including Sikhs), or 73½ per cent., 40¾ millions of Mahomedans, or 21½ per cent. And 9¼ millions of others, or barely 5 per cent., including under this title Buddhists and Jains, Christians, Jews, Parsees, Brahmoes…”

This happened because Hindu dominent Castes with few exceptions decided to serve the Muslim rulers for hundreds of years which is known as a relationship of roti-beti (bread and daughter).

[Memorandum on the Census of British India of 1871-72: Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty London, George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 1875, 16.]

The linking of crimes committed by rulers with Muslim names in the pre-modern India to their religion is going to create serious unthinkable consequences even for ‘Hindu’ history as narrated by the RSS.

Take for example, Ravana, the king of Lanka who according to again ‘Hindu’ narrative committed unspeakable crimes against Sita, her husband Lord Rama and his companions for 14 years long vanvaas or exile. This Ravana, according to the same narrative, was a learned Brahman who also happened to be one of the greatest worshippers of Lord Shiva.

The epic Mahabharata is a story of a great war between two families known as Pandavas and Kauravas (both Kashtriyas) not between Hindus and Muslims but between two ‘Hindu’ armies in which, if you go by the ‘Hindu’ version 1.2 billion (120 crore) people, all Hindus are stated to have been slaughtered. Draupadi joint wife of Pandavas was disrobed by Kauravas, all Hindus. Modi and Doval must be aware that if the crimes of Ravana and Kauravas, are linked to their religion then India country will lose 80% of the population. And if revenge is to be taken from the present descendants of the past perpetrators then beginning must be made from the beginning of the Indian civilization; turn of the Indian Muslims will come far later!

[1] ‘PM addresses the Somnath Swabhiman Parv in Somnath, Gujarat’, 11 Jan, 2026, https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pm-addresses-the-somnath-swabhiman-parv-in-somnath-gujarat/?comment=disable

[2] ‘NSA Ajit Doval urges youth to learn from history, rebuild a strong India’ 10 Jan-2026, https://firstindia.co.in/news/delhi/nsa-ajit-doval-urges-youth-to-learn-from-history-rebuild-a-strong-india

Related:

Babri Mosque Demolition: When the Indian State succumbed to majoritarian propaganda

November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly

NCERT’s ‘Partition Horrors’: A brazen exercise in white-washing the ‘crimes’ of the Hindu Mahasabha & RSS

The post Busted: ‘Hindu’ Narratives of Desecration of Somnath, Buddhist & Jain Temples in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Friends in India and abroad wished to have a compilation of documentary evidence of how both the Indian State and Supreme Court succumbed to a majoritarian project of obliterating a historic mosque at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. The following description and timeline examines the Hindutva propaganda falsehood with irrefutable facts which were conspicuously overlooked by the most crucial institutions of the Indian state.

Falsehood 1: Babri mosque built after destroying Ram birthplace temple

The supremacist Hindutva lot claimed that the new Ram temple was built on an ancient site of Hindu worship; the Ram birthplace temple which was destroyed in the early 16th century (1528-29) during the reign of the first Mughal emperor, Babar by one of his commanders, Mir Baqi. Archaeological evidence proves the mosque had no foundations of its own and was built upon a Hindu temple. They even identified the exact place of birth of Ram; under the central dome (approximately measuring 150 cm x 150 cm) of the Babri Mosque.

This falsehood has been repeated by none less than Narendra Modi several times since 2014 when he took over as Prime Minister of India, the latest pccasion being at Ayodhya on November 25, 2025, when he stated: “The wounds of centuries are healing, the pain of centuries is finding an end today, the resolution of centuries is achieving success today. Today marks the final offering of a yajna whose fire burned for 500 years.”[1]

Truth 1: This is a brazen falsehood propagated by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) with no historical or legal proof, nor any corroboration even in the ‘Hindu’ narratives of history. There is no mention of the destruction of Ram Temple even in the writings of the most prominent Ram worshiper to date, Goswami Tulsidas (1511-1623), who penned the Epic Ramcharitmanas (Lake of the Deeds of Ram) in the Avadhi language in 1575-76. It was this work which made Ram the most popular God in Northern India. According to the Hindutva version, Ram’s birthplace temple was destroyed in the period 1528-1529. It would be surprising indeed if the Ramcharitmanas, written almost 48 years after the so-called destruction of Ram’s birthplace temple, did not mention such a momentous event. Does the Hindutva lot mean to argue that the revered Saint, Goswami Tulsidas was a coward?!

For the RSS, Aurobindo Ghosh, Swami Vivekananda, and Swami Dayanand Saraswati were the saints who contributed immensely to the cause of Vedic religion and the growth of the Hindu nation. None of these Vedic saints ever referred to this destruction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya by Mughal King Babar or his agents in any of their writings.

Today, Ayodhya is referred to as one of the oldest and holiest places for Hindus. It is interesting to note that Adi Shankaracharya (788-820), who toured India preaching Vedas and refuting Buddhism and Jainism for more than a decade, who established 5 Peetams [main centres of Sanatan Hinduism] at Badrinath in the North, Puri in the East, Dwarka in the West and Sringeri and Kanchi in the South for the revival of the Vedic religion but did not consider Ayodhya as one.

It is true that traditionally, Hindus believe that Ram was born in the city of Ayodhya, but the issue is whether he was born exactly under the central dome (approximately measuring 150 cm x 150 cm) of the Babri Mosque as is claimed now by Hindutva’s flag-bearers.

Moreover, the Indian Supreme Court, in its 1,045-page Ayodhya Judgment (November 9, 2019), has, nowhere in the Judgment agreed with the claim that the Babri Mosque was constructed after destroying any temple.

Indian Supreme Court, in the said judgment made two other observations demolishing the RSS claim on the Mosque. Firstly, the SC stated: “The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship.” [Supreme Court Judgment dated November 9, 2019, pp. 921-22]

Secondly, at pages 913-14, the SC stated that “On 6 December 1992, the structure of the mosque was brought down and the mosque was destroyed. The destruction of the mosque took place in breach of the order of status quo and an assurance given to this Court. The destruction of the mosque and the obliteration of the Islamic structure was an egregious violation of the rule of law.”

However, Mother India ought to be aghast to find Indian Supreme Court, despite all the above findings in its own verdict handed over a historic building which was a protected monument under Article 49 of Indian Constitution to supremacists. Arguably, what a supremacist mob could not achieve on December 6, 1992, the Supreme Court of India handed them on November 9, 2019.

It is worth mentioning here that the RSS—which initiated the bloody, violent campaign to build the Ram Temple at the end of the decade of the 1980s, never advanced this demand during the period of its founding (1925) until India attained Independence. Even after Independence, it was only in 1989 that the political appendage of the RSS, the BJP, began to focus on this issue.

The views of two RSS luminaries who initiated the Ram Temple movement reveal the preposterousness of the claim that Ram himself was born under the dome.

Rama Vilas Vedanti, a prominent Hindu clergyman of the Ram Birthplace Trust (an RSS front), stated, “We will build a temple at Ramjanam Bhoomi even if Lord Rama says he was not born there” [Outlook, Delhi, 7 July 2003). Similarly, L. K. Advani, who rode a chariot (Rath Yatra) as part of an aggressive Ram Temple campaign in 1990 said, “It did not matter whether the historical Rama was actually born at the spot in Ayodhya. What mattered was that Hindus believed that he was born there. Faith took precedence over history” [The Hindustan Times, Delhi, 20 July 2003.]

Falsehood 2: Ram Temple at the site of the Babri Mosque was essential to seek ‘restorative justice’

According to RSS the Ram Mandir has great symbolic and emotional resonance for Hindus in contemporary times and that the trauma that this destruction brought has been passed down through generations and continues to impact the psyche of Hindus and contributed historically and continues to contribute to Hindu-Muslim tensions in India to this day.

Truth 2: According to this logic, the rule by rulers with Muslim names in India was the Islamic rule of idol-breakers. This narrative of Muslim history developed only at the beginning of the 19^th century is in absolute contradiction with historical facts and even common sense. To understand the lies behind this fabricated Medieval past, one needs to examine the nature of this ‘Muslim’ rule.

Despite ‘Muslim’ rule of almost one thousand years, approximately 75% of Indians did not convert to Islam, as was made clear by the first Census held by the British in 1871-72 when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. Hindus and Sikhs constituted 73.5 percent of the population, and Muslims numbered 21.5 percent only. [Memorandum on the Census Of British India of 1871-72: Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty London, George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 1875, 16.]

In fact, this period of ‘Muslim rule’ was also the rule of the Hindu High Castes. According to contemporary ‘Hindu’ narratives, Aurangzeb never faced Shivaji in the battlefield; these were his two Rajput commanders, Jay Singh I and Jai Singh II, who fought against Shivaji on Aurangzeb’s behalf. Akbar personally never fought any battle against Rana Pratap of Mewar; Man Singh, brother-in-law of Akbar fought all battles against Rana. The Deewan Ala (prime minister) of both Shahjahan and Aurangzeb was Raghunath Bahadur, a Kayasth Hindu.[2]

It is nobody’s argument that Aurangzeb or many other ‘Muslim’ rulers were not religious bigots or tolerant. Aurangzeb did not spare his father, brothers, and many smaller ‘Muslim’ kingdoms of his times. There are also contemporary records that prove that Aurangzeb donated lands, money, and resources to many temples throughout India. Anybody who has visited Delhi’s Red Fort must have seen two temples; Jain Lal Mandir [Red Temple] and Gauri Shanker Temple, just across the Red Fort towards Chandni Chowk side. These temples were built before the rule of Aurangzeb and continued to function during his time and later.

Falsehood 3: According to RSS building of the Ram Temple was an important event for Hindus of all traditions 

Truth 3: They did not explain to the Nation why 4 Shankaracharyas of the Peetams (out of 5) established by Adi Shankaracharya boycotted the inauguration of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya. The most revered living Hindu saints of the Sanatan Dharm declared Ayodhya’s inauguration to be in contravention of Vedic scriptures, calling it Hinduism done for petty electoral gains.

It was sad to see the RSS run roughshod over the diversity of Hinduism. In its attempt to prove the homogenous character of Hindus, it turned a debate on the nature of the Ayodhya inauguration into Hindus versus others. The founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1824-83), is glorified by RSS as a pillar of the Hindu nation. But Swami was an ardent opponent of the Brahmanical rituals like Pran Pratishtha, putting life into a lifeless idol (in Ayodhya case by Prime Minister Modi) and did not mince words in decrying this very ritual. He stated (in Satyarth Prakash or Light of Truth, chapter 11), “The fact of the matter is that the All-pervading Spirit [God] can neither come into an idol, nor, leave it. If your mantras are efficacious that you can summon God, why can you not infuse life into your dead son by the force of the very same mantras? Again why can you not bide the soul depart from the body of your enemy? There is not a single verse in the Vedas to sanction the invocation of the Deity and vitalization of the idol, likewise, there is nothing to indicate that it is right to invoke idols, to bathe them, install them in temples, and apply sandal paste to them.” 

Falsehood 4: According to the Hindutva narrative Ayodhya represents a five hundred years long war between Hindus and Muslims of India

Those who defend the demolition of Babri mosque argue that though sometimes presented as being a recent conflict, the fact is that this site has a long history of Hindus and Sikhs attempting to reclaim it, dating back to the early 19th century. Furthermore, the conflict has been ongoing regardless of the political party in power following India’s independence.

Truth 4: Ayodhya is presented as a place of perennial war between Hindus and Muslims, and the central dome of the Babri Mosque claimed to be the exact place where Ram was born, are modern ‘constructs’ as we will see in the following.

There cannot be a shoddier lie than this that Ayodhya was a place of perpetual war between Hindus against Muslims. During India’s War of Independence 1857, Ayodhya was the place where Maulvis and Mahants and ordinary Hindus and Muslims stood united in rebelling against the British rule and kissed the hangman’s noose together. Maulana Ameer Ali was a famous Maulvi of Ayodhya, and when Ayodhya’s well-known Hanuman Garhi’s (Hanuman Temple) priest, Baba Ramcharan Das, took the lead in organising the armed resistance to the British rule. Both of them were captured and hanged together on the same tree. In another instance of the glorious unity of Hindus and Muslims against the colonial rule at Ayodhya, Acchhan Khan and Shambhu Prasad Shukla led the army of Raja Devibaksh Singh in the area. Due to the treachery of Hindu and Muslim lackeys of the British, they were captured and killed together. The British rulers hated this unity and created narratives of perennial Hindu-Muslim conflict not only in Ayodhya but the whole of India.

Iqbal a renowned poet much maligned by the Hindutva ideologues whose poetry has been removed from textbooks wrote a peerless poem in praise of Ram in 1908 titled “Imam-e-Hind”. For Iqbal, Ram was not merely a Hindu God but “Imam-e-Hind” (spiritual leader of India). The first two lines of the poem read: Hai Raam ke wajood pe Hindustaan ko naaz/
Ahl-e-Nazar samajhte hain us ko Imam-e-Hind
(India is proud of the existence of Ram
Spiritual people consider him prelate of India).

The flag-bearers of Hindutva working overtime to undo a composite and all-inclusive India are using the Sikh factor as a bluff to legitimize its illegal project. Sikhs who do not believe in idol worship of Ram or any other Hindu God/Goddesses; we are told that on 28 November 1858, a Nihang Sikh [member of a warrior order within Sikhism] organized Pooja [worship] and havan [a Brahmanical ritual offering of grains, pure ghee and other such items to fire] in the Babri Mosque. It is unbelievable for a Sikh to perform Brahmanical rituals and would invite immediate ex-communication. Why Hindus at that time did not enter the Mosque is a mystery!

Aggrieved Muslims chose legal recourse and not community mobilisation, were they betrayed by the Judiciary?

Supremacist forces within Hindutva must understand that Ram was never the cause of perpetual conflict between Hindus and Muslims until RSS invented it as a convenient tool for religious polarization. Muslims of Ayodhya stopped going to Babri Mosque once the idol of Ram Lalla (child Ram) was smuggled into the Babri Mosque on the night of December 22/23 1949 with the connivance of local senior officials. Local Muslims did not try to break into the usurped Mosque, and there was no bloodshed engineered by Muslims of Ayodhya who were in substantial numbers in Faizabad, now rechristened as Ayodhya Dham despite the Indian Supreme Court declaring that “the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols.”

The RSS and its affiliates instead of being ashamed of the carnage celebrate the demolition on December 6 as Shauriya Divas, day of bravery. These criminals have succeeded since 1990, RSS and its appendages had organized an aggressive campaign for demolishing the Babri Mosque, targeting Indian Muslims as Baber-zade/Haram-zade (children of Babar/illegitimate children). For more than two years, Hindus in India and abroad were asked to come to Ayodhya to tear down the mosque as kar-sevaks.

Babri mosque demolition was not a Hindu-Muslim battle but a seminal conflict between the RSS and the Secular Indian State

Did Muslims call for counter-mobilisation to save the mosque or reach the site on December 6 to confront the Hindutva mobs? Never! In fact, they trusted the RSS to honor the commitment made to the then-Indian Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao and the Indian Supreme Court that its appendages and cadres would not harm the mosque. RSS reneged on all commitments shamelessly. Indian State and judiciary remained silent spectators. How critically and fundamentally Indian Muslims were let down and even betrayed would be evident by the fact that Rao promised to rebuild Babri Mosque at its original place twice (once in Parliament and second time while addressing the nation from Red Fort on August 15, 1993), which were both promises that stand reneged on!

A detailed Video Narration of the sordid Ram Temple saga may be viewed here and here.

[1] PM’s speech during the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir Dhwajarohan Utsav, November 25, 2025, https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pms-speech-during-the-shri-ram-janmabhoomi-mandir-dhwajarohan-utsav/

[2] ‘Fallacy of the Hindutva project’ May 4, 2022, Chennai, link: https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/fallacy-of-the-hindutva-project-aurangzeb-mughals-islamophobia/article38484103.ece

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

Babri demolition to Ram Temple: A trajectory of Indian politics

Invites to Ayodhya temple inauguration extended to judges who gave the verdict in Babri Masjid demolition-Ram Janmabhoomi case

31 years after Babri Mosque demolition perpetrators in power

The post Babri Mosque Demolition: When the Indian State succumbed to majoritarian propaganda appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute   India into a      SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all;

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this 26th day of November 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.”

RSS demanded Manu Smruti as the Constitution

The two underlined ideals merely formally added in 1977, ‘Socialist and Secular’, only strengthened the resolve of the Constitution of India would apply to a non-sectarian polity with only the people of India, all of its people, sovereign. How many Indians however know that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that has today affected a stranglehold on Indian politics and democracy, through its political appendage, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) had, at the time, mourned the birth (coming into effect) of the Indian Constitution? Outraged when the Indian Constituent Assembly (CA) adopted a democratic- Secular Constitution under the supervision of Dr. BR Ambedkar, their organs protested.

We know that when the Constituent Assembly of India passed the Constitution on November 26, 1949, the RSS organ Organizer came out with an editorial on November 30, 1949 titled ‘Constitution’ declaring its firm rejection of Constitutional Values:

“The worst about the new Constitution of Bharat is that there is nothing Bhartiya about it…There is no trace of ancient Bhartiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclatures and phraseology in it…Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”

How fundamentally, the RSS denigrates the Constitution of India can be gleaned through the following statement of the most prominent ideologue of the RSS, Golwalkar:

“Our Constitution too is just a cumbersome and heterogeneous piecing together of various articles from various Constitutions of the Western countries. It has absolutely nothing which can be called our own. Is there a single word of reference in its guiding principles as to what our national mission is and what our keynote in life is? No!”

[MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996, p. 238.]

By demanding Manusmriti as “constitution of India”, RSS, in fact was following the belief of its darling Hindutva icon, VD Savarkar who had declared long back:

“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law”.

[VD Savarkar, ‘Women in Manusmriti‘ in Savarkar Samagar (collection of Savarkar’s writings in Hindi), vol. 4, Prabhat, Delhi, p. 416.]

The faith of RSS brass in Manusmriti, naturally, leads them to believe in Casteism too which gave birth to the debased practice of Untouchability. For RSS Casteism is the essence of Hindu Nationalism. Golwalkar did not mince words in declaring that Casteism was synonymous with the Hindu Nation. According to him, the Hindu people are no one but,

“The Hindu People, they said, is the Virat Purusha, the Almighty manifesting Himself. Though they did not use the word „Hindu‟, it is clear from the following description of the Almighty in Purusha-Sukta [in the 10th book of Rig Ved] wherein it is stated that the sun & the moon are His eyes, the stars and the skies are created from his nabhi [navel] and Brahmin is the head, Kshatriya the hands, Vaishya the thighs and Shudra the feet. [Italics as in the original text] This means that the people who have this fourfold arrangement, i.e., the Hindu People, is [sic] our God. This supreme vision of Godhead is the very core of our concept of „nation‟ and has permeated our thinking and given rise to various unique concepts of our cultural heritage.”

[Golwalkar, M. S., Bunch of Thoughts, collection of writings/speeches of Golwalkar published by RSS, p.36-37.]

What kind of a Hindutva civilization the RSS wants to build by enforcing the laws of Manu, can be known by having a glimpse of the laws prescribed by Manu for the lower castes, Untouchables and women. Some of these dehumanizing and degenerated laws, which are presented here, are self-explanatory.

A selection of Laws of Manu denigrating Dalits/Untouchables

1. For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds (the divine one) caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thighs and his feet. (I/31)
2. One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudras, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes. (I/91)
3. Once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of ‘low origin’. (VIII/270)
4. If he mentions the names and castes (jati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth. (VIII/271)
5. If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears. (VIII/272)
6. He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off. (VIII/280)
7. A ‘low-caste’ man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed. (VIII/281)

As per the Manu Code if Sudras are to be given most stringent punishments for even petty violations/actions, the same Code of Manu is very lenient towards Brahmins. Shloka 380 in Chapter VIII bestowing profound love on Brahmins decrees:

“Let him never slay a Brahmana, though he has committed all (possible) crimes; let him banish such an (offender), leaving all his property (to him) and (his body) unhurt.”

A selection of Laws of Manu demeaning Hindu women

1. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control. (IX/2)
2. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. (IX/3)
3. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), (It is enough that) he is a man, ‟ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly. (IX/14)
4. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world). (IX/15)
5. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. (IX/17)

[The above selection of Manu’s Codes is from F. Max Muller, Laws of Manu, LP Publications, Delhi, 1996; first published in 1886. The bracket after each code incorporates number of chapter/number of code according to the above edition.]

The reproduced parts of the Manu Code above need no further elaboration and commentary. They are too glaringly venomous, fascist and derogatory of marginalized sections, the Untouchables who are referred to as Sudras by Manu. Perhaps this was the reason that the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche who contributed immensely to the growth of totalitarian ideas in Europe in the 20th century, fell in love with this work.

It is to be noted here that a copy of Manusmriti was burnt as a protest in the presence of Dr. BR Ambedkar during the historic Mahad agitation on December 25, 1927. Dr Ambedkar called upon Dalits to commemorate each December 25 as the Manusmriti Dehen Diwas (Manusmriti burning day) in future. In fact, Brahmanism as basis of the RSS world-view is the original Fascism in the history of human civilization.

[https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/manusmriti-dahan-divas-protest-staged-at-collectorate/article30396588.ece]

RSS’ deep hatred for democracy

It is true that when RSS faced the wrath of the Indian State when Sardar Patel was the home minister of India it criticised the detention laws without trial. In an editorial in Organizer it wrote:

“Section 21 and 22 providing for detention without trial reduce all the wordy assurances about liberty, equality and fraternity to just near meaningless verbiage.”[Organizer, November 30, 1949]

But once in power the RSS-BJP rulers led by the present leadership have returned to Hindutva’s Fascist and Nazi heritage. They have converted Indian democratic-secular polity into a totalitarian Hindutva oligarchy where any kind of dissent is treated as anti-national and anti-Hindu. It is the continuation of hatred for democracy as decreed by Golwalkar as early as 1940. Golwalkar while addressing the 1350 top level cadres of the RSS declared:

“RSS inspired by one flag, one leader and one ideology are lighting the flame of Hindutva in each and every corner of this great land.”

[Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagar Darshan (collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi), Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd., volume 1, p. 11.]

November 26, 2025

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

Sectarian nationalism and god men: Sri Sri Ravishankar attends the 75th Birthday of the RSS chief

Emergency regime and the role of RSS

On the 50th anniversary of India’s formal ‘Emergency’, how the RSS betrayed the anti-emergency struggle

The post November 26: How RSS mourned the passage of India’s Constitution by the Constituent Assembly appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There is a popular proverb related to education which says that if an incompetent person is appointed as teacher, the academic lives of generations of students are doomed. And when there are many such ‘teachers’ whose only qualification is having been trained in the far right, Hindutva wisdom appointed at the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), what pray shall be the future of school social science education?

Recently, the NCERT released a ‘Special Module’ (for text/teaching) titled ‘Partition Horrors’. This module is described as a ‘supplementary resource’ for Classes 6 to 8 (middle to senior school) – not part of regular textbooks – and is meant to be used for ‘projects, posters, discussions and debates.’ The contents of this module, in fact, is supplementary resource material to pinpoint or understand those men/organisations responsible (read guilty) for the Partition of India as claimed but, in fact, presents an altogether a sectarian narrative driven by the body’s RSS masters.

The Module was released on August 14, 2025 as part of “Partition Horrors Remembrance Day” following PM Modi’s 2021 directive which stated that “Partition’s pains can never be forgotten. Millions of our sisters and brothers were displaced, and many lost their lives due to mindless hate and violence. In memory of the struggles and sacrifices of our people, August 14, will be observed as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day.”

On detailed perusal, `The whole document is full of manipulation, contradictions, and untruths aiming   to hide more than it tries to convey about the Partition. We can divide the NCERT truths into following sections.

Falsehood 1: Muslim League leader Jinnah and political Islam founded two-nation theory

The document states that “Partition was primarily the result of flawed ideas, misconceptions, and erroneous decisions.” The party of Indian Muslims, the Muslim League [ML], held a conference in Lahore in 1940. Its leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, said that Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literatures”. [page 5]

The module also traces Partition to Muslim leaders’ belief in a separate identity rooted in “political Islam”. It goes on to stress that “on the basis of religion, culture, customs, history, sources of inspiration, and worldviews, Muslim leaders called themselves as fundamentally separate from Hindus. The root of this lay in the ideology of political Islam, which denies the possibility of any permanent or equal relationship with non-Muslims.” [page 6].

It is true that ML under the leadership of MA Jinnah declared his firm faith in India being not one nation. His argument was that,

“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their views on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Musalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap.” 

Facts concealed

This statement of Jinnah in defence of two-nation theory is reproduced twice in the short document (pages 4 & 6) but the authors shamelessly hide what Hindu nationalists aligned with Hindu Mahasabha and RSS had been arrogantly arguing for decades preceding Jinnah’s statement.

Privileged Caste Hindu nationalists of Bengal propounded the two-nation theory

Long-long before the appearance of Muslim advocates of the two-nation theory, the ball was set rolling by High Caste Hindu nationalists at the end of the 19^th century in Bengal. Raj Narain Basu (1826–1899), the maternal grandfather of Aurobindo Ghosh, and his close associate Nabha Gopal Mitra (1840-94) were the co-fathers of two-nation theory and Hindu nationalism in India. Basu established a society for the promotion of national feelings among the educated natives which in fact stood for preaching the superiority of Hinduism. He organized meetings proclaiming that Hinduism despite its Casteism presented a much higher social idealism than ever reached by the Christian or Islamic civilization.

Basu was the first person to conceive the idea of a Maha Hindu Samiti (All India Hindu Association) and helped in the formation of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, a precursor of Hindu Mahasabha. He believed that through this organization Hindus would be able to establish an Aryan nation in India. He visualized a powerful Hindu nation not only overtaking India but the whole world. He also saw,

“[The] noble and puissant Hindu nation rousing herself after sleep and rushing headlong towards progress with divine prowess. I see this rejuvenated nation again illumining the world by her knowledge, spirituality and culture, and the glory of Hindu nation again spreading over the whole world.”

[Cited in Majumdar, R. C., History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. I (Calcutta: Firma KL Mukhpadhyay, 1971), 295–296.]

Nabha Gopal Mitra started organising an annual Hindu Mela (fête). It used to be a gathering on the last day of every Bengali year and highlighted the Hindu nature of all aspects of Hindu Bengali life and continued uninterrupted between 1867 and 1880. Mitra also started a National Society and a National Paper for promoting unity and feelings of nationalism among Hindus. Mitra argued in his paper that the Hindus positively formed a nation by themselves. According to him,

“[The] basis of national unity in India is the Hindu religion. Hindu nationality embraces all the Hindus of India irrespective of their locality or language.”

[Cited in Majumdar, R. C., Three Phases of India’s Struggle for Freedom (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1961), p. 8.]

1. C. Majumdar, a favourite of Hindutva intellectuals and a prominent researcher of the rise of Hindu nationalism in Bengal, had no difficulty in arriving at the truth that

“Nabha Gopal forestalled Jinnah’s theory of two nations by more than half a century… [And since then] consciously or unconsciously, the Hindu character was deeply imprinted on nationalism all over India.” [Ibid.] 

Role of Arya Samaj 

The Arya Samaj in northern India aggressively preached that Hindu and Muslim communities in India were, in fact, two different nations. Bhai Parmanand (1876–1947), a leading light of the Arya Samaj in northern India who was also a leader of Hindu Mahasabha, declared Hindus and Muslims as two nations. The following words of his seems to have been borrowed by Jinnah in his March 1940 speech at Lahore quoted in the NCERT module.

“In history the Hindus revere the memory of Prithvi Raj, Partap, Shivaji and, Beragi Bir, who fought for the honour and freedom of this land (against the Muslims), while the Mahomedans look upon the invaders of India, like Muhammad Bin Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb as their national heroes…[whereas] in the religious field, the Hindus draw their inspiration from the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, and the Geeta. The Musalmans, on the other hand, derive their inspiration from the Quran and the Hadis. Thus, the things that divide are far more vital than the things which unite.”

[Parmanand, Bhai in pamphlet titled, ‘The Hindu National Movement’, cited in B.R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or the Partition of India (Bombay: Government of Maharashtra, 1990), 35–36, first Published December 1940, Thackers Publishers, Bombay.]

Parmanand as early as 1908–9, called for the total exchange of Hindu and Muslim populations in two specific areas. According to his plan, elaborated in his autobiography,

“The territory beyond Sind should be united with Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Province into a great Musalman kingdom. The Hindus of the region should come away, while at the same time Mussalman in the rest of India should go and settle in this territory.”

[Parmanand, Bhai, The Story of My Life, S. Chand, Delhi, 1982, p. 36.]

Another Arya Samaj luminary Lajpat Rai (1865-1928) in 1924 proposed partition of India into Muslim India and non-Muslim India. He articulated his two-nation theory in the following words:

     “Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province of the North Western Frontier (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a Province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Muslim India.”

[Rai, Lala Lajpat, ‘Hindu-Muslim Problem XI’, The Tribune, Lahore, December 14, 1924, p. 8.] 

Hindu nationalist (supremacist) Moonje, Lala Har Dayal, Savarkar and Golwalkar as pioneers of two-nation theory

Dr. B. S. Moonje was another Hindu Mahasabha and RSS leader who carried forward the flag of Hindu Separatism long before Muslim League’s Pakistan resolution of March 1940. While addressing the third session of the Oudh Hindu Mahasabha in 1923, he declared: 

“Just as England belongs to the English, France to the French, and Germany to the Germans, India belongs to the Hindus. If Hindus get organized, they can humble the English and their stooges, the Muslims…The Hindus henceforth create their own world which will prosper through shuddhi [literally meaning purification, the term was used for conversion of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism]and sangathan [organization].“

[Cited in Dhanki, J. S., Lala Lajpat Rai and Indian Nationalism, S Publications, Jullundur, 1990, p. 378.]

Lala Har Dayal (1884–1938), a well-known name in the Ghadar Party circles, too, long before the Muslim League’s demand for a separate homeland for Muslims, not only demanded the formation of a Hindu nation in India but also urged the conquest and Hinduisation of Afghanistan. In a significant political statement in 1925, published in the Pratap of Kanpur, he stated:

“I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Muslims, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu Nation does not accomplish these four things, the safety of our children and great grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogenous. But the Musalman and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab, and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam […] Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise, it is useless to win Swaraj.”

[Cited in Ambedkar, B. R., Pakistan or the Partition of India, Maharashtra Government, Bombay, 1990, p. 129.]

It was RSS’ ‘Veer’ V. D. Savarkar (1883-1966), the originator of the politics of Hindutva, who developed the most elaborate two-nation theory. The fact should not be missed that Muslim League passed its Pakistan resolution in 1940, but Savarkar propagated the two-nation theory long before it. While delivering the presidential address to the 19th session Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in 1937, Savarkar declared unequivocally,

“As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India. Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so…Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they are. India cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary, there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.”

[Samagar Savarkar Wangmaya (Collected Works of Savarkar), Hindu Mahasabha, Poona, 1963, p.296.]

It was no abrupt belief of Muslims (and Christians) being separate nations. Savarkar in his controversial book Hindutva as early as 1923 decreed:

“Christians and Mohamedan [sic] communities…cannot be recognized as Hindus as since their adoption of the new cult they had ceased to own Hindu Sanskriti [culture] as a whole. They belong, or feel that they belong, to a cultural unit altogether different from the Hindu one. Their heroes and their hero worship their fairs and their festivals, their ideals and their outlook on-life, have now ceased to be common with ours.”

[Maratha [V. D. Savarkar], Hindutva, VV Kelkar, Nagpur, 1923, p. 88.]

[1] How religiously RSS believed in two-nation theory even after the birth of a democratic-secular India was made clear when the English organ of the RSS, Organiser, on the very eve of Independence (August 14, 1947) editorially reaffirmed its faith in two-nation theory in the following words:

“Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. Much of the mental confusion and the present and future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of the simple fact that in Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must be built on that safe and sound foundation…the nation itself must be built up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations.” 

The ‘Hindu’ narratives make it clear that two-nation theory was the product of Hindu nationalists and Partition was a primary holy task which Hindu nationalists took upon themselves. The module does not bother to tell us that it was borrowed by Jinnah only in late 1930s. A leading English daily of India editorially stated:

“It was a theory which long preceded Jinnah, having been expounded by such names as Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya in the late nineteenth-century Bengal and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in the early part of the twentieth, among countless others.”

[Editorial: ‘Two-nation Gujarat’, The Times of India, April 18, 2002.]

Despite all the above-mentioned facts available in the RSS/Hindu Mahasabha archives the authors of the module continue the tirade that “Muslim leaders called themselves as fundamentally separate from Hindus. The root of this lay in the ideology of political Islam, which denies the possibility of any permanent [sic] or equal relationship with non-Muslims.”

Falsehood 2: Muslim League as party of all Indian Muslims

The module attempts to create a narrative that Muslim League represented all Muslims of India since it “won 73 out of 78 seats reserved for Muslims” in March 1946 elections to the Constituent Assembly. The authors do not disclose that Muslim League won due to highly restricted system of franchise in which a tiny minority of Muslims voted. The Muslim League was able to secure most of the Muslim seats due to the advantage it enjoyed under the prevalent restricted franchise at that time. The elections were held under the Sixth Schedule of the 1935 Act, which excluded the mass of peasants, most small shopkeepers and traders, and countless others from the rolls through tax, property and educational qualifications. According to Granville Austin, a renowned authority on making of Indian constitution, “Only 28.5 percent, of the adult population of the provinces could vote in the provincial assembly elections of early 1946…Economically and socially depressed portions of the population were virtually disenfranchised by the terms of the 1935 Act.”

[Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, OUP, Delhi, 2014. pp. 12-13.]

Amongst Muslims it was far less due to prevalent poverty and want of education. For example, in Bihar where Muslim League secured 34 out of 40 Muslim seats in Provincial Assembly elections, the eligible Muslim electorate consisted only of 7.8 percent of the total population. It could win as Muslim elite/High Caste backed it whereas 92.2% Muslims of Bihar remained disenfranchised. It was the case in almost all other provinces.   [Ghosh, Papiya, Muhajirs and the Nation: Bihar in the 40s, Routledge, Delhi, 2010, 79.]

Savarkar led Hindu Mahasabha ran coalition governments with Jinnah led Muslim League

The Module describes Jinnah led ML as party of Indian Muslims but fails to take note of the fact that it was this party of Muslims with which Hindu Mahasabha led by Savarkar entered into alliances in order to break the united freedom struggle, specially, the 1942 Quit India Movement against the British rulers. While delivering Presidential address to the 24th session of Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (Kanpur) in 1942, he defended hobnobbing with the Muslim League in the following words,

“In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition Government. The case of Bengal is well known. Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissiveness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and sociable as soon as they came in contact with the Hindu Mahasabha and the Coalition Government, under the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the able lead of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities. Moreover, further events also proved demonstratively that the Hindu Mahasabhaits endeavoured to capture the centres of political power only in the public interests and not for the leaves and fishes of the office.” [Ibid, pp. 479-480.]

Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League formed a coalition government in NWFP also.

The module, not surprisingly, attempts to defend Jinnah, a co-traveller two-nation theorist. Jinnah is quoted to have said “I never thought it would happen. I never expected to see Pakistan in my lifetime” [page 9]. The message module wants to convey is Jinnah did not expect it, but Congress got Pakistan delivered to Jinnah!

Falsehood 3: Congress Guilty of Partition

In a section titled “Who was responsible for Partition” [page 6], the NCERT module reads: “Ultimately, on August 15, 1947, India was divided. But this was not the doing of any one person. There were three elements responsible for the Partition of India: Jinnah, who demanded it; second, the Congress, which accepted it; and third, Mountbatten, who implemented it. But Mountbatten proved to be guilty of a major blunder.” [page 8]

However, according to the module Congress was primarily responsible for Partition because in 1947 “for the first time Indian leaders themselves willingly handed over vast part of the country permanently outside the national fold-along with tens of crores of its citizens-without even their consent. This was a unique event in human history, when a nation’s own leaders, without a war, peacefully and in closed meetings, suddenly severed crores of their people from the country”. [page 10]

When the present bosses at NCERT trained in RSS ‘boudhik shivirs’ (ideological orientation camps) blame Congress for Partition it is the pot calling the kettle black. It is a highly questionable claim which even facts mentioned in the module do not corroborate. We are told, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel called it “bitter medicine,” while Jawaharlal Nehru described it as “bad” but “unavoidable” [page 5]. Elsewhere, the module reads: “Nehru and Patel accepted Partition to avert civil war and anarchy. Once they did, Gandhi too gave up his opposition”. [page 8] It is interesting to note that for concurring to Partition both wavering Nehru and Iron Man Patel are depicted on the same page!

If the authors of NCERT module had cared to read history honestly, Rammanohar Lohia, a renowned freedom fighter and Socialist leader, the truth would not have been crucified. He was unambiguous in holding that the Hindu communalist who shouted loudest for Akhand or united Bharat, “helped Britain and the Muslim League partition the country…They did nothing whatever, to bring the Muslim close to the Hindu within a single nation. They did almost everything to estrange them from each other. Such estrangement is the root cause of partition.”

[Lohia, Rammanohar, Guilty Men of India’s Partition, BR Publishing, Delhi, 2012, p. 2.]

Falsehood 4: British Rulers Did Not Want Partition

The module reflects the combined Hindu Mahasabha and RSS dilemma of how to navigate the issue of their loyalty to the colonial masters in independent India. Though it declares “Mountbatten proved to be guilty of a major blunder”, the defence of this monster is not far away. Giving him a character certificate, the document goes to declare that “he was not the cause of it” [page 8] Instead of presenting testimonies of the victims (of all religions) of Partition which are available in abundance, the module presents indefensible defence of Mountbatten. It prominently displays the following statement of his: “I did not Partition India. The plan for partition had been accepted by the Indian leaders themselves. My role was to execute it in the most peaceful way possible…I accept the blame for haste…But I do not accept the blame for the violence which followed. That was the responsibility of Indians themselves”. [page 6]”

The document brazenly attempts to belittle the role of British colonial rulers in partitioning India as part of its imperialist project. It is bone chilling to read that it “had long been the known position of the British government that it was against Partition, Congress leaders underestimated Jinnah. Also, Viceroy Lord Wavell repeatedly made it clear, ever since 1940 up to March 1947, that Partition would not resolve the Hindu-Muslim problem. It would only lead to mass violence, administrative collapse, and long-term hostility. His words proved prophetic”. [page 10] There could not have been more shameless defence of colonial masters’ project of ‘Divide and Rule’.

Shockingly, NCERT, appears to be working overtime to de-colonize Indian education resorts to a hardened Anglophile, Nirad C. Chaudhuri in support of the lie that British did not want Partition. Nirad’s quote reads: “I assert with confidence that not even at the end of 1946 did anybody in India believe in the possibility of a partition in the country…The Hindus and the British alike foreswore the principle of unity of India which they had always professed.”

The authors of this document, in fact, borrowed defence of the British rulers from Golwalkar. The most prominent ideologue of RSS did not believe that colonial rule was an injustice or unnatural. In a speech on 8 June 1942, at a time when freedom struggle was rearing to rise to the call of the Quit India movement, Golwalkar declared:

“[the] Sangh does not want to blame anybody else for the present degraded state of the society. When the people start blaming others, then there is weakness in them. It is futile to blame the strong for the injustice done to the weak … [The] Sangh does not want to waste its invaluable time in abusing or criticizing others. If we know that large fish eat the smaller ones, it is outright madness to blame the big fish. Law of nature, whether good or bad, is true all the time. This rule does not change by terming it unjust.”

[Golwalkar, M. S., Shri Guruji Samagr Darshan [Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi] vol. 1 (Nagpur: Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, 1974), pp. 11-12.]

Soft on culpability of Sir Cyril Radcliff

Authors of the module appear as apologists for the crimes of Sir Cyril Radcliff who supervised the land division between India and Pakistan. Radcliff was the person who caused additional blood bath as maps of both the countries were not available even after two days of Partition. The module rightly stated that

“The demarcation of borders was hastily done. Sir Cyril Radcliff was given only five weeks to draw the boundaries. In Punjab, even two days after 15 August 1947, millions of people did not know whether they were in India or in Pakistan…This recklessness and disregard for the fate of crores of people, and all critical matters was a grave act of negligence”. [pages 8-9]

NCERT shies away from censuring him and decided to print his photograph with the following apology of his: “I had no alternative, the time at my disposal was so short that I could not do a better job. I was given a job to do and I did my best, though it may not have been very good.” [page 10]

Falsehood 5: Silence on Partition violence by RSS

The module gives details of horrendous communal violence during Partition. “Nearly1.5 crores were forced to cross the new borders…Communal hostility spread between India’s major religious communities…Another horrifying aspect was the large-scale sexual violence against women and girls. In many places, women jumped into wells to protect themselves”. [page 2]

We know that Muslim National Guards (MNG) created by Muslim League as storm-troopers to maim and kill the opponents played a nefarious role in the partition violence, but they were not the only one. Sardar Patel, the first home minister of independent India in a letter to Golwalkar who was then Supremo of RSS, dated 11 September 1948 corroborated the fact that RSS also had killer gangs. He stated: “Organizing the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing…It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji.”

Cited in Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp.26-28.

Truth: It was an AXIS OF HINDU MAHASABHA-RSS-JINNAH which got India Partitioned

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, a peerless researcher of the communal politics in pre-independence India, underlying the close affinity and camaraderie between Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League on the issue of the Two-nation theory wrote:

“Strange it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other Hindu nation.”[i] 

[Ambedkar, B. R., Pakistan or the Partition of India, Govt. of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990 [Reprint of 1940 edition], p. 142.]

Ambedkar agonized by the evil designs of Savarkar regarding the Two-nation theory and Hindutva rhetoric over it, wrote, as early as 1940, that,

“Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation”. [Ibid., 143.]

The Hindutva lies about Partition of India presented as facts in Partition Horrors would not have been otherwise as the whole project is supervised by a specialist who specializes in historical negationism (denying the truths of the past which simultaneously means presenting false history), Michel Danino, an Indian writer of French origin. He secured Indian citizenship only in 2003. Modi government conferred on him Padma Shri award, India’s fourth-highest civilian award, in 2017.  He is a vocal supporter of Hindutva who enjoys, “[historical] controversies in a kind of perverse way”. [https://indianexpress.com/article/education/academia-margins-to-ncert-row-french-born-scholars-tryst-with-indias-past-10197438/] He is there to undo history and, in the process, undoing the glorious history of making of democratic-secular-egalitarian India. The irony is that it is happening in PM Modi declared Immortality Period (Amrit Kal) of the nation!

Related:

Rewriting NCERT school textbooks: ‘Muslim Raj’ is a mere excuse, the project is to conceal historical facts

2025 NCERT Textbooks: Mughals, Delhi Sultanate out; ‘sacred geography’, Maha Kumbh in

NCERT drops Preamble of the Constitution from Class III and VI textbooks

The post NCERT’s ‘Partition Horrors’: A brazen exercise in white-washing the ‘crimes’ of the Hindu Mahasabha & RSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Patriotic Indians must not forget that majoritarian far right rulers are using the Indian Tricolour to camouflage their questionable, anti-national project of converting democratic-secular-egalitarian polity of India into a theocratic Hindu state. It is not difficult to understand their ultimate motive or “real project” if we go back in history to when India attained Independence from colonial rule.

On the very eve of independence, the English organ of the RSS, Organiser, in its issue dated August 14, 1947, expressed brazen hatred against our Tricolour in the following words:

“The people who have come to power by the kick of fate may give in our hands the Tricolour but it will never be respected and owned by Hindus. The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country.”

Even after independence it was the far right, RSS which refused to accept it as the National Flag. Golwalkar while denouncing the choice of Tricolour as National Flag in an essay titled ‘Drifting and Drifting’ [penned around 1970 which appeared in Bunch of Thoughts, collection of writings of Golwalkar], wrote:

“Our leaders have set up a new flag for our country. Why did they do so? It is just a case of drifting and imitating….Ours is an ancient and great nation with a glorious past. Then, had we no flag of our own? Had we no national emblem at all these” thousands of years? Undoubtedly we had. Then why this utter void, this utter vacuum in our minds?

[Golwalkar, M.S., Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore (RSS publication), 1996,    pp. 237-238.]

So the RSS hatred for Tricolour has been, is perennial. If it was denigrated on the eve of Independence, this Guru of the Hindutva gang continued spreading venom against it even after many decades. RSS has never withdrawn this anti-national article, it is available in the latest edition of Bunch of Thoughts printed in 2022.

RSS despite the use of all dirty tricks against Indian polity has not been able to turn patriotic Indians against this symbol of joint sacrifices and struggle. RSS as master demagogue and fraudster is using the Tricolour till the time Indians fall prey to its anti-national game of undoing democratic-secular-egalitarian polity of India.

On a more serious vein, on Saturday August 16, 2025, this tweet (on X) from Maharashtra has so far not elicited any criminal action from the police. Denigrating the national flag is a felony under Indian law.

Take a closer look at the White colour, it is evident that SOMEONE HAS STEPPED ON THE NATIONAL FLAG pic.twitter.com/PJHOrTBjeN

— Raju Parulekar (@rajuparulekar) August 16, 2025

Related:

100 yrs of RSS as seen by global media house: Power, controversy, push for Hindu-first India

The RSS Doublespeak: Bhagwa for Itself, Tricolour for the ‘Others’

Did Savarkar, Syama Prasad Mukherjee and RSS betray the Quit India Movement?

The post Indian tricolour & the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Director of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), D. P. Saklani unveiled the Class 8 Social Science textbook with several fundamental changes on July 17, 2025. This revised version of texts will be utilised in schools from the academic session, 2025-26. Wide-ranging changes have been made in this new edition. Media reports have singled out how existing lessons on Mughal and Muslim rulers had been replaced with details of the religious persecution and other atrocities under ‘Muslim rule’ in India. And on this pretext, the Hindutva-captive media and ‘WhatsApp university’ have started another war against Islam and the country’s Muslims. Before this move, some radical changes had been made in the textbooks of classes 6-12.

The expert who has been given the responsibility to complete this work by NCERT, under the complete control of RSS, is Michel Danino, an Indian writer of French origin. He secured Indian citizenship only in 2003. The Modi government has conferred the Padma Shri, India’s fourth-highest civilian award on him, in 2017.  He is currently the chairman of the social science curriculum of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). He is a supporter of Hindutva and has been criticised for indulging in historical negationism (denying the truths of the past).

Let us first understand which crucial developments have been omitted from the school syllabus.

Emergency of 1975

The chapter on Emergency in the Class 12 political science textbook ‘Politics in India after Independence’ has been reduced by five pages. Parts relating to the harsh impact of the Emergency on people and institutions have been deleted.  Another reference to the ban imposed on all trade union activities during the Emergency has been removed from chapter 8 (‘Social Movements’) of the class 12 sociology textbook.

Material on protests and social movements dropped

Nearly three chapters detailing protests that turned into social movements in contemporary India have been removed from political science textbooks for classes 6 to 12. A chapter on “Rise of Popular Movements” has been removed from the class 12 textbook ‘Politics in India after Independence’. The Chipko movement, the growth of the Dalit Panthers in Maharashtra in the 1970s, the agrarian struggles of the 1980s, especially those led by the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU), the anti-alcohol movement of Andhra Pradesh, details on the famous Narmada Bachao Andolan [Save Narmada River Movement] opposing the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River and its tributaries in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra and the Right to Information movement were removed in one go.

The chapter ‘Struggle for Equality’ also removed

NCERT has also removed the chapter ‘Struggle for Equality’ from the Class 7 Political Science textbook, which states how ‘Tawa Matsya Sangh’ fought for the rights of displaced forest dwellers of Satpura forests of Madhya Pradesh.

Chapter on struggles of indigenous people removed

The third chapter on mass struggles has been removed from the Class 10 political science textbook ‘Democratic Politics-II’. It dealt with indirect ways of influencing politics through pressure groups and movements. Besides the movement for democracy in Nepal and the protests against water privatization in Bolivia, South America. This chapter also covered the Narmada Bachao Andolan, the non-violent ‘Kittiko-Hachiko Movement’ (‘Kittiko-Hachiko Movement’, also known as the “Kittiko Hachiko” movement, was a non-violent protest in Karnataka, India, in 1987 which opposed eucalyptus plantations on grazing land. The movement involved people plucking eucalyptus saplings and planting alternative, useful plants instead) in Karnataka in 1987, the BAMCEF (All India Backwards SC/ST/OBC and Minorities Communities Employees’ Federation) founded by Kanshiram in 1971, and the National Alliance of People’s Movements, whose founders included Medha Patkar.

Scissors on study of social movements

The only chapter on social movements in the sociology syllabus of classes 11 and 12 has been significantly reduced. In the chapter titled ‘Social Movements’ in the class 12 textbook ‘Social Change and Development in India’ one of the several changes made is the removal of the exercise box in which students were asked to discuss the recent farmers’ protests against the three farm laws passed by Parliament.

Shredding of Indian democracy

Four chapters dealing with Democracy and the Making of Indian Democracy have been removed on the ground that similar topics are covered in Political Science textbooks of other classes. For example, a chapter titled ‘Key Elements of Democratic Government’ has been removed from the Class 6 political science book. This was the first detailed introduction to the concept of democracy in middle school and discussed some of the key elements that affect the functioning of a democratic government, including chapters like ‘Democracy and Diversity’ and ‘Challenges to Democracy’ that have been removed from the Class 10 political science textbook.

Both these chapters were first removed from the CBSE syllabus in April and have now been permanently removed from the NCERT textbook.

Jawaharlal Nehru cut short

The following comment of Nehru on Bhakra Nangal Dam has been removed from Class 12 Sociology textbook, ‘Social Change and Development in India’:

“Our engineers tell us that probably nowhere else in the world is there a dam as high as this. The work bristles with difficulties and complications. As I walked around the site I thought that these days the biggest temple and mosques and gurdwara is the place where man works for the good of mankind. Which place can be greater than this, this Bhakra Nangal, where thousands and lakhs of men have worked, have shed their blood and sweat and laid down their lives as well?”

Discussion on sedition deleted

A section describing the arbitrariness of colonial sedition law through the example of sedition and how Indian nationalists, specially, revolutionaries played a role in challenging it is no longer part of a chapter ‘Understanding Laws’ in the class 8 political science book. This deleted section also carried the following exercise for students: “State one reason why you think the Sedition Act of 1870 was arbitrary? In what ways does the Sedition Act of 1870 contradict the rule of law?”

Constitution making and creation of linguistic states left out

The chapter ‘India after Independence’, which talks about constitution making and creation of linguistic states, has been removed from the Class 8 history textbook ‘Our Pasts III’.

Description of demolition of Babri Masjid, Gujarat and Manipur violence removed

References to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya (1992), targeted killing of Muslims in the Gujarat communal violence (2002), and to the Manipur violence have been removed from Class 11 and 12 textbooks.

Pioneers of Anti-British struggle, Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan dropped

NCERT’s new Class 8 social science textbook does not mention Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan, or the four Anglo-Mysore Wars of the 1700s, in its chapter on India’s colonial period. Remember, Tipu Sultan, known as the “Tiger of Mysore”, led a glorious military resistance to British colonialism. He was the pioneer of rocket artillery which had great success against the British. The economy of Mysore reached its peak during his reign.

He was martyred on 4 May 1799 while fighting the combined forces of British-Maratha-Nizam at the Srirangapatna front. At the time of Tipu’s martyrdom, he was wearing a heavy gold ring on which ‘Ram’ was inscribed in Devanagari script.

How much British dreaded Tipu would be clear by the letter which A. Campbell, wrote to the Court of Directors of the East India Company in 1788, “the most active powerful, ambitious Prince of Hindustan, whose troops are in high order and whose powerful antipathy to the English is beyond what the Directors are yet well aware of.” When he died there were jubilant celebrations in Britain with declaration of public holiday in Britain.

Shockingly, Danino defending the removal of Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan’s contribution to anti-colonial wars while confirming that Tipu Sultan and related events will likely remain absent in Part 2 of the series as well, stated: “If we include every war, we go back to cramming.”

The ‘Muslim’ rule not removed but toxified

The supplicant majoritarian regime-captive media and experts have been arguing that the period of rule of Muslim rulers in India has been removed, attributing this reason to the ire within the secular and progressive camp. The truth is different: Muslim rule has been related but re-configurated and now narrated with a vigorous anti-Islam and anti-Muslim rhetoric in tune with the current communal politics of RSS-BJP rulers (regime).

The history section of the new book, begins with the Delhi Sultanate and goes up to the colonial period (the British Raj), deliberating in a note on ‘Dark Periods of History’, when war, abuse, fanaticism and bloodshed prevailed. The description of ‘dark periods of history’ includes the oppressive policies of Mahmud of Ghazni and the Mughal rulers as we will know in the following.

1. Reference to Mahmud Ghazni of Afghanistan, who invaded the subcontinent and raided the Somnath temple, has been tweaked. First, the title “Sultan” has been dropped from his name. Second, the sentence “he raided the subcontinent almost every year” has been revised to “he raided the subcontinent 17 times (1000-1025 CE) with a religious motive”.
2. On Babur, the first Mughal emperor, the book notes that his autobiography points to him as being cultured and intellectually curious. “But he was also a brutal and ruthless conqueror, slaughtering entire populations of cities, enslaving women and children, and taking pride in erecting ‘towers of skulls’ made from the slaughtered people of plundered cities.”
3. Akbar’s reign is described as a blend of “brutality and tolerance”, and that during the seizure of the Chittor fort, Akbar, then 25 years old, ordered the massacre of 30,000 civilians, and the enslavement of women and children, the new textbook states. Akbar’s message is also quoted in the textbook: “We have succeeded in occupying a number of forts and towns belonging to infidels and have established Islam there. With the help of our bloodthirsty sword, we have erased signs of infidelity from their minds and have destroyed temples in those places and also all over Hindustan.”
4. On Aurangzeb, the book points out that some scholars argue that his motives were primarily political, and they give examples of his grants and assurances of protection to temples. While politics played a part in his decisions, his farmans (edicts) “make his personal religious motive clear too.” He ordered governors of provinces to demolish schools and temples, and destroyed temples at Banaras, Mathura, Somnath, and Jain temples and Sikh gurdwaras.

This detailed account of the atrocities committed by the ‘Muslim’ rulers on their Hindu subjects has been accompanied by a commentary which underlines that it is important to study the dark events objectively, without blaming anyone of the present-day people (i.e. the Muslims of the country). If we want to identify the criminals of the ‘Muslim Raj’, then the historical facts of that period, as recorded by the ‘Hindu’ sources themselves, will clearly reveal that the upper caste Hindus were fully complicit in the atrocities committed by the Muslim rulers.

Majoritarian narrative of incidents in history when privileged caste Hindus helped ‘Muslim’ rulers

No sane person can deny that Somnath Temple in Gujarat was desecrated, looted and razed by Mahmud Ghazi (Mahmud Ghaznavi) in 1026. But a fact remains buried that it was done with the active help and participation of local Hindu chieftains. The most prominent ideologue of RSS, MS Golwalkar while referring to the desecration and destruction of Somnath Temple by Mahmud Ghazi added:

“He crossed the Khyber Pass and set foot in Bharat to plunder the wealth of Somnath. He had to cross the great desert of Rajasthan. There was a time when he had no food, and no water for his army, and even for himself left to his fate, he would have perished…But no, Mahmud Ghazi made the local chieftains to believe that Saurashtra had expansionist designs against them. In their folly and pettiness, they believed him. And they joined him. When Mahmud Ghazi launched his assault on the great temple, it was the Hindu, blood of our blood, flesh of our flesh, soul of our soul-who stood in the vanguard of his army. Somnath was desecrated with the active help of the Hindus. These are facts of history.”

[RSS English organ, Organizer, January 4, 1950.]

These were not ‘Muslim’ rulers only who were defiling Hindu temples. Swami Vivekananda shared the fact that,

“The temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them. We shall have to do many things like that yet”. [The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 3, 264.]

It has been corroborated by another darling of the Hindutva camp, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. According to him the rath yatra, an integral part of Jagganath Temple was a Buddhist ritual. Bankim wrote:

“It is a fact…that the images of Jagannath, Balaram, and Subhadra, which now figure in the Rath, are near copies of the representations of Buddha, Dharmma, and Sangha, and appear to have been modelled upon them.”

[Chatterjee, Bankim Chandra, ‘On the origin of Hindu festivals’ in Essays & Letters, Rupa, Delhi, 2010, pp. 8-9.]

It was not an isolated takeover. Swami Dayanand Saraswati who is regarded as a Prophet of Hindutva and revered by RSS while dealing with the contribution of Shankaracharya (8th century) in his tome, Satyarth Prakash wrote:

“For ten years he toured all over the country, refuted Jainism and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that are now-a-days dug out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst those that are found whole here and there under the ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of their being broken.” [Sarswati, Dayanand, Satyarth Praksh, chapter xi, p. 347.]

According to the Buddhist narrative of ancient Indian history the last of Maurya dynasty’s Buddhist king (Ashoka being one), Brihadratha was assassinated by Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin in 184 BCE thus ending the rule of a renowned Buddhist dynasty and establishing the rule of Shunga dynasty. DN Jha an authority on ancient Indian history referred to Divyavadana, a Buddhist Sanskrit work from the early centuries which described how Buddhist and Jain religious places were destroyed by Pushyamitra Shunga, a great persecutor of Buddhists.

“He is said to have marched out with a large army, destroying stupas, burning monasteries and killing monks as far as Sakala, now known as Sialkot, where he announced a prize of one hundred dinars for every head of a Shramana (opposed to Vedas).”

Jha also presented evidence from the grammarian Patanjali, a contemporary of the Shungas, who famously stated in his Mahabhashya that Brahmins and Shramanas were eternal enemies, like the snake and the mongoose.[1]

Did Hindus join persecution of Sikhs by Mughals?

In the Hindutva narrative the persecution of Sikh Gurus and their followers by Mughal rulers is used to spread hatred against present day Indian Muslims. The Mughal rulers especially Aurangzeb’s armies committed the most heinous and unspeakable crimes against Sikhs. Was the conflict really Muslims versus Sikhs? The contemporary Sikh records reject such an interpretation. According to a Sikh site during the last and the most brutal siege of Anandpur Sahib in 1704, “The Muslims and the Hindu hill rajas completely surrounded the city and cut it off from outside supplies.” While trying to escape the Mughal invaders,

“The younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh, Baba Zorawar Singh age 9 and Baba Fateh Singh age 7, were separated from the group in the confusion. They walked through the rugged jungle with their holy grandmother, Mata Gujri ji (mother of Guru Gobind Singh) until they came to small village where they took shelter. An old servant of the Guru’s household, Gangu, heard they were there and came to Mataji. With sweet words he requested that they go with him to his village. He expressed care and concern, but his heart was dark with betrayal. Cold, wet and alone, Mata Gujri gratefully went with Gangu to his house. For a few gold coins, Gangu betrayed their whereabouts to the Moghul army. At dawn, a loud banging came on the door, and the soldiers of the evil governor Wazir Khan came to escort the holy family to Sarhind. As they travelled through the city, people thronged to see them pass offering words of encouragement. They shouted curses at the Brahmin and were shocked at the depravity of the Moghul governor”. [2]

Maratha Rule glorified overlooking what it did to Hindus

The class 8 social science book now has a separate chapter on the Marathas; it refers to the Anglo-Maratha wars between 1775 and 1818 and states that “the British took India from the Marathas more than from the Mughals or any other power”. Marathas in general are seen as having “contributed substantially to India’s cultural developments.”

Let us compare these claims with the horrendous experience of the contemporary Hindus. Sir Jadunath Sarkar (1870-1958), a renowned historian, held no brief for Islam or Muslim rulers in India. In fact, he is regarded as a true ‘Bhartiye’ historian by RSS and a truthful narrator of the Hindu history during the Mughal rule. However, his description of the Maratha invasion of Bengal in 1742, too, makes it clear that this army of ‘Hindu nation’ cared least about honour and property of Hindus of Bengal. According to Sarkar, “the roving Maratha bands committed wanton destruction and unspeakable outrage”.

[Jadunath Sarkar (ed.), The History of Bengal-Volume II Muslim Period 1200 A.D.–1757 A.D. (Delhi: BR Publishing, 2003), (first edition 1948), 457.]

Sarkar, in his monumental work on the history of Bengal, reproduced eyewitness accounts of the sufferings of Bengali Hindus at the hands of Marathas. According to one such eyewitness, Gangaram,

“The Marathas snatched away gold and silver, rejecting everything else. Of some people they cut off the hands, of some the nose and ear; some they killed outright. They dragged away the beautiful women and freed them only after raping them”.

[Jadunath Sarkar (ed.), The History of Bengal-Volume II Muslim Period 1200 A.D.–1757 A.D. (Delhi: BR Publishing, 2003), (first edition 1948), 457.]

Another eyewitness, Vaneshwar Vidyalankar, the court Pandit of the Maharaja of Bardwan, narrated the horrifying tales of atrocities committed by the Marathas against Hindus in the following words:

“Shahu Raja’s troops are niggard of pity, slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmans and the poor, fierce of spirit, expert in robbing the property of everyone and committing every kind of sinful act.” [Ibid., 458.]

Babur’s atrocitiesNCERT does not tell the truth that Babur captured northern India by defeating and killing the Muslim Ibrahim Lodhi. It is also not mentioned that the chief commander of the Hindu king Rana Sanga who challenged Mughal army led by Babur was Hasan Mewati who was martyred while fighting Babur’s army in the Battle of Khanwa [near Bharatpur] on March 15, 1527. Atrocities of Aurangzeb

It cannot be argued that Aurangzeb [1618-1707] did commit heinous crimes against his Hindustani subjects. It is important, however, to remember that his cruelty was not confined to non-Muslims.
His own father (Mughal emperor Shah Jahan), brothers (Dara Shikoh, Murad Bakhsh and Shah Shuja), the Shia community, Muslims who did not follow his brand of Islam and the Muslim ruling dynasties in the eastern, central and western parts of India suffered his terrible cruelty and repression. They were destroyed. The word barbaric would be too mild a word to describe his treatment of the Sikh Gurus, their families and followers.

It was Aurangzeb who murdered the famous Sufi saint, Sarmad, in the premises of Delhi’s Jama Masjid [there is a mausoleum on his grave at the eastern gate of the Jama Masjid where the stairs begin, which is still revered by many people]. It is also true that there were numerous cases when Hindus and their religious places were violently targeted during the autocratic rule of Aurangzeb. He crushed the rebellions of the ‘Satnamis’ in Gujarat.

However, there are also contemporary records of his patronage of Hindu and Jain religious sites. Two surviving examples are the magnificent Gauri Shankar Temple, a short distance from the Lahori-Gate of the Red Fort, which was built during Shah Jahan’s reign which continued to function during Aurangzeb’s reign and the famous Jain Lal Mandir right opposite the Red Fort. [Trushke, Audrey, Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth, Penguin, Gurgaon, 2017, pp. 99-106.] Both these temples continue to function even today. It is important to remember that limiting all the crimes of Aurangzeb only to the suppression of Hindus would be tantamount to trivializing his grave crimes against humanity.

Mughal rule evolved and sustained by the support of the Hindu privileged castes

How naive is NCERT (or it is under the total influence of RSS) that it is unaware of the fact that Aurangzeb or Mughal ‘Islamic’ rule used Hindu upper castes in droves to establish and run their empire which was inhabited predominately by Hindus. How deep and strong this unity can be gauged from the fact that after Akbar, no Mughal emperor was born to a Muslim mother. The Hindu upper castes showed immense loyalty to the ‘Muslim’ rulers and served them well with both their brains and strength.

Aurobindo Ghosh, who played a major role in providing a Hindu dimension to Indian nationalism, acknowledged that Mughal rule survived due to the fact that the Mughal emperors gave Hindus “positions of power and responsibility, they used their brains and brawn to preserve their kingdoms”. [Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 3, Publication Division, Government of India, Delhi, 1992, p. 162.]

The renowned historian Tara Chand, relying on primary source material of the medieval period, concluded that from the end of the 16th century to the middle of the 19th century, “it can be reasonably concluded that the entire Punjab, except western Punjab, in whole of India, the ownership of land had come into the hands of the Hindus”, most of whom were Rajputs. [Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 1, Publication Division, Government of India, Delhi, 1961, p. 124.]

What do the contemporary official records show?

Maasir-ul-Umara [Biographies of Commanders] A biographical dictionary of officials the Mughal Empire from 1556 to 1780 [from Akbar to Shah Alam] in Persian language is the most authentic record of high-ranking officials employed by the Mughal rulers. This work was compiled by Shahnawaz Khan and his son Abdul Hai between 1741 and 1780. The details contained in it were based on the official records of the Mughal rulers. According to this compilation, during this period the Mughal rulers had about 100 Hindus (out of 365) were appointed to the high-ranking positions of Mughal empire, most of whom were from “Rajput Rajputana, Central-India, Bundelkhand, Maharashtra”. As far as numbers are concerned, Brahmins followed Rajputs in handling the Mughal administration.

[Khan, Shah Nawaz, Abdul Hai, Maasir al-Umara [translated by H Beveridge as Mathir-ul-Umra], volumes 1 & 2, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 1979.]

Interestingly, the Kashi Nagari Pracharini Sabha, founded in 1893 which was “committed to the establishment of Hindi as the official language”, published part of this book in Hindi which contained ‘Biographies of Hindu Chieftains of the Mughal Court’ in 1931. [व्रज रत्न दास (अनुवाद), माआसिरुल–उमरा, काशी नागरी प्रचारिणी सभा, काशी, 1931]

Aurangzeb’s Hindu Generals & Advisors

Aurangzeb never faced Shivaji on the battlefield. It was his general, Jai Singh I (1611-1667), a Rajput ruler of Amer (Rajasthan), who was sent to subjugate Shivaji (1603-1680). Jai Singh II (1681-1743), (nephew of Jai Singh I) was another prominent Rajput general of the Mughal army who served Aurangzeb loyally against Shivaji. He was given the title of ‘Sawai’ by Aurangzeb in 1699. He was awarded the title of [one fourth time superior to his contemporaries] and thus he came to be known as Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh. He was also given the title of Mirza Raja [a Persian title for a royal prince] by Aurangzeb. Other titles given to him by other Mughal rulers were ‘Sarmad-i-Rajah-i-Hind’ [Eternal Ruler of India], ‘Raja Rajeshwar’ [Lord of Kings] and ‘Shri Shantanu Ji’ [Benevolent King]. These titles are even today displayed by his descendants today.

Akbar vs. Maharana Pratap

According to the prevalent Hindutva narrative, Pratap Singh I, popularly known as Maharana Pratap (1540-1597), fought for Hindus and Hindu nation against the Mughal emperor Akbar who wanted to subjugate the Hindus of India under Islamic rule. Interestingly, Akbar never faced the Maharana in any battle; it was Akbar’s most trusted Rajput military commander, Man Singh I (1550–1614), also his wife’s real brother, who fought against the Maharana on behalf of the Akbar.

The most important battle of Haldighati (June 18, 1576) was fought between the army led by Maharana and Mughal army led by Man Singh I. He was one of the Navratnas (favourite courtiers of Akbar). Akbar called him his Farzand (son), and he ruled several provinces of Akbar’s empire.

It also must be noted that chief of artillery of the army of Maharana Pratap was Hakim Khan Suri. He played a great role in confronting the Mughal army led by Man Singh in the Battle of Haldighati. Hakim Khan Suri fought alongside Maharana Pratap and was killed in the same battle while defending Maharana.

A Kayastha Prime Minister of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb

Contemporary documents carry first-hand accounts of Raja Raghunath Bahadur, a Kayastha, who served as the Diwan Aala (Prime Minister) of both Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb. According to a biography written by one of his descendants, Raja Maharaj Lal,

“Raja Raghunath Bahadur was not oblivious to the interests of his co-castes [Kayasthas], having risen to the highest post of Dewan Aala (Prime Minister). Raja appointed each of them to positions of honour and emoluments according to their individual merits, while many of them were granted honours and valuable estates for their services. Not a single Kayastha remained unemployed or in needy circumstances.”

[Lal, Lala Maharaj, Short Account of the Life and Family of Rai Jeewan Lal Bahadur Late Honrary Magistrate Delhi, With Extracts from His Diary Relating to the Times of Mutiny 1857, 1902.]

This account reveals that in the Sultanate of Aurangzeb, who was a ‘fanatic Muslim’ and an unbridled tyrant, the Kayastha prime minister was free to patronize people of his caste, all of whom were Hindus. Aurangzeb was so fond of this Hindu Prime Minister that after his death he instructई one of his Wazirs (ministers) Asad Khan in a letter to follow the ‘saintly guidance’ of Raja Raghunath. [Trushke, Audrey, pp. 74-75.]

Investigating only the “Muslim period’ (500 years) in a 5000-year-old Indian civilization

Linking the crimes committed by Aurangzeb or other ‘Muslim’ rulers in pre-modern India to their religion is going to have serious consequences even for the ‘Hindu’ history as told by the RSS. For instance, take Ravana, the king of Lanka, who as per the ‘Hindu’ legend, committed unspeakable crimes against Sita, her husband Lord Rama and their companions during their 14-year long exile [exiled by Hindus only]. This Ravana, according to the same legend, was a learned Brahmin and one of the greatest worshippers of Lord Shiva.

Instances of Violence when in the earlier periods, when Hindus inhabited India

Mahabharata

The epic Mahabharata is not the story of a fierce war between Hindus and Muslims but between two ‘Hindu’ armies (Pandavas and Kauravas, both Kshatriyas). In this War, according to the ‘Hindu’ account, 120 crore people (all Hindus) were killed. Draupadi, the joint wife of the Pandavas, was disrobed by the Kauravas (all Hindus).

If the crimes of Ravana, Kauravas, Jai Singh I and II etc. are linked to their religion like Aurangzeb and other ‘Muslim’ rulers, then the country be represented as one that is perennially on the war path. If revenge then needs to be taken on the present co-religionists of the rulers/criminals of the past, then it must begin from the beginning of Indian civilization; the turn of Indian Muslims will come much later!

‘Muslims’ ruled India for centuries, but Muslim population remained a minority

Another crucial fact which is consciously kept under wrap is that despite more than five hundred hundreds of effective ‘Muslim’ rule which according to Hindutva historians was nothing but a project of annihilating Hindus or forcibly converting the latter to Islam, India remained a nation with an absolute Hindu majority. The British rulers held first census in 1871-72. It was the time when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. According to the Census report:

“The population of British India is, in round numbers, divided into 140½ millions [sic] of Hindus (including Sikhs), or 73½ per cent., 40¾ millions of Mahomedans, or 21½ per cent. And 9¼ millions of others, or barely 5 per cent., including under this title Buddhists and Jains, Christians, Jews, Parsees, Brahmoes…”

[Memorandum on the Census of British India of 1871-72: Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty London, George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 1875, 16.]

These figures make it clear that persecution and cleansing of Hindus was not even a secondary project of the ‘Muslim’ rule. If it had been so Hindus would have disappeared from India. At the end of ‘Muslim’ rule Hindus were 73.5%. India seems to be the only country in world history where despite ‘Muslim’ rule of more than half of a millennium the populace did not convert to the religion of the rulers. Hindu High Castes remained in control of the national wealth during the ‘Muslim’ rule and continue to be in control whereas common Muslims remained paupers during the ‘Muslim’ rule and continue to be so!

In the latest NCERT rewrite spree on Muslim period, a mysterious note has been added which generously states that the dark events i.e., Muslim period should be studied impartially without blaming any present-day people (i.e. Muslims of the country). If we really want to identify the criminals of ‘Muslim Raj’ then it is very important to also settle the account with the privileged caste Hindus of the country and not Indian Muslims. There are historical reasons behind the huge amount of wealth that the upper castes of the country have today.

They Hindu privileged castes did not bear enmity towards either Muslim or Christian rulers but rather served them with utmost loyalty; they even developed bread-daughter [roti-beti] relationship with the Muslim rulers. It is not that the upper Caste Hindus did not fight these cruel rulers, but nobody of their lineage survived. The tragedy of the country is that children of those who betrayed common Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains of this country, served most loyally under both the ‘Muslim Raj’ and the British.

[1] https://caravanmagazine.in/reviews-and-essays/dn-jha-destruction-buddhist-sites

[2] https://www.sikhdharma.org/4-sons-of-guru-gobind-singh/

Related:

Now NCERT removes passages about caste and religious discrimination from social science books

Are citizenship and secularism ‘disposable’ subjects for Indian students?

The post Rewriting NCERT school textbooks: ‘Muslim Raj’ is a mere excuse, the project is to conceal historical facts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The lesson had been burned into public memory. The Emergency became more than a chapter in history. It became a warning. For Narendra Modi, it was not just a past event. It was part of his personal journey. As Prime Minister, he has often reminded the nation of those dark times…It was about imprisoning free thought, art, and expression. That period left behind not just scars, but reminders. It taught us that freedom is earned, not gifted.” [i]

Let us take first, examine the claim that the RSS-BJP rulers are/have been committed to the liberal democratic values as a faith. The most prominent ideologue of the RSS, MS Golwalkar, also known as the ‘Guru of Hate’ [whom PM Modi credits for grooming him into a political leader] while addressing the 1350 top level cadres of the RSS in 1940 declared, “RSS inspired by one flag, one leader and one ideology is lighting the flame of Hindutva in each and every corner of this great land.” [ii]

With such a philosophical love for totalitarianism the RSS has, always hated sharing of power. Proponents of the Sangh have stood in strong opposition to the federal structure of the constitution, a ‘Basic’ feature of the India polity. Golwalkar declared in 1961, “Today’s federal form of government not only gives birth but also nourishes the feelings of separatism… It must be completely uprooted, constitution purified, and unitary form of government be established.” [iii]

So far as the formally declared Emergency is concerned, the RSS claim of fighting against it needs to be evaluated in the light of contemporary narratives including documents from RSS archives. In this connection, two narratives one by a veteran thinker and journalist of India, Prabhash Joshi and the other by TV Rajeswar, former Intelligence Bureau [IB] chief who was the deputy chief of IB during the Emergency are of immense importance. They recounted the days of the Emergency (or state terrorism) when the RSS ‘surrendered to the repressive regime of Indira Gandhi’, ‘assured her and her son, Sanjay Gandhi to enforce faithfully the draconian 20-point programme announced by the Emergency regime.’ In fact, a large number of RSS cadres got themselves released from jails after mercy petitions (maafinaamas).

The account by veteran journalist, Prabhash Joshi appeared in the English weekly Tehelka n the 25th anniversary of the Emergency. [iv] According to him even during the Emergency “there was always a lurking sense of suspicion, a distance, and a discreet lack of trust” about RSS’ joining the anti-Emergency struggle. He went on to say that,

“Balasaheb Deoras, then RSS chief, wrote a letter to Indira Gandhi pledging to help implement the notorious 20-point programme of Sanjay Gandhi. This is the real character of the RSS…You can decipher a line of action, a pattern. Even during the Emergency, many among the RSS and Jana Sangh who came out of the jails, gave mafinamas. They were the first to apologize. Only their leaders remained in jail: Atal Behari Vajpayee [most of the time in hospital], LK Advani, even Arun Jaitley. But the RSS did not fight the Emergency. So why is the BJP trying to appropriate that memory?”

Prabhash Joshi concluded that “they are not a fighting force, and they are never keen to fight. They are basically a compromising lot. They are never genuinely against the government”.

TV Rajeswar, who served as Governor of Uttar Pradesh and Sikkim penned a book, ‘India: The Crucial Years” [Harper Collins] corroborated the fact that “Not only they (RSS) were supportive of this [Emergency], they wanted to establish contact apart from Mrs. Gandhi, with Sanjay Gandhi also”. [v] Rajeswar in an interview with Karan Thapar disclosed that Deoras,

“Quietly established a link with the PM’s house and expressed strong support for several steps taken to enforce order and discipline in the country. Deoras was keen to meet Mrs. Gandhi and Sanjay. But Mrs. Gandhi refused.” [vi]

According to Rajeswar’s book,

“Sanjay Gandhi’s concerted drive to enforce family planning, particularly among Muslims, had earned Deoras’s approbation.” [vii] Rajeswar also shared the fact that even after Emergency the “organization (RSS) had specifically conveyed its support to the Congress in the post-emergency elections.” [viii] It will be interesting to note that even according to Subramanian Swamy during the Emergency period, most of the senior leaders of RSS had betrayed the struggle against the Emergency. [ix]

Contemporary documents in the archives of the RSS validate the narratives of Prabhash Joshi and Rajeswar. The 3rd Supremo of RSS, Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras wrote the first letter to Indira Gandhi within two months of the imposition of Emergency. It was the time when state terror was running amok, crushing the human rights of thousands of Indians.

In letter dated August 22, 1975, Deoras began with the following praise of Indira:

“I heard your address to the nation which you delivered on August 15, 1975, from Red Fort on radio in jail [Yervada jail] with attention. Your address was timely and balanced so I decided to write to you”. [x]

Indira Gandhi did not respond to it. So Deoras wrote another letter to Indira on November 10, 1975. He began his letter with congratulating her on being cleared by the Supreme Court of disqualification which was ordered by the Allahabad High Court,

“All the five Justices of the Supreme Court have declared your election constitutional, heartiest greetings for it.” It is to be noted that opposition was firmly of the opinion that this judgment was reflective of executive pressure on the judiciary. Deoras also stated that “RSS has been named in context of Jaiprakash Narayan’s movement. The government has also connected RSS with Gujarat movement and Bihar movement without any reason…Sangh has no relation with these movements…” [xi]

Since Indira Gandhi did not respond to this letter either, RSS chief got hold of Vinoba Bhave who supported the Emergency religiously and was a favourite of Indira Gandhi. In a letter dated January 12, 1976, he begged that Acharya should suggest the way that ban on RSS was removed. [xii]  Since Acharya too did not respond to Deoras letter, the latter in another letter without date wrote in desperation,

“According to press reports respected PM [Indira Gandhi] is going to meet you at Pavnar Ashram on January 24. At that time there will be discussion about the present condition of the country. I beg you to try to remove the wrong assumptions of PM about RSS so that ban on RSS is lifted and RSS members are released from jails. We are looking forward for the times when RSS and its members are able to contribute to the plans of progress which are being run in all the fields under the leadership of PM.” [xiii]

[All these letters in Hindi are being reproduced from a publication of the RSS at the end of this article.]

Even a prominent Hindutva ideologue Balraj Madhok who as an RSS whole-timer founded Bhartiya Jana Sangh (1951) on RSS command confessed:

“Sarsanghchalak of the Sangh Shri Bal Saheb Deoras was a MISA prisoner in Pune’s Yervada Jail…his life was full of comforts. Therefore, he wrote two letters to the jailed Indira Gandhi on 22-08-1975 and 10-11-1975 to change her attitude towards the Sangh and lift the ban on it. He also wrote a letter to Shri Vinoba Bhave and requested him to try to remove the feeling of opposition towards the Sangh from Indira Gandhi’s mind. These letters were leaked by the government and they were published in many newspapers. This naturally had an adverse effect on the morale of the Sangh volunteers and the Satyagraha movement became almost dead.”

[Madhok, Balraj, Zindagi Ka Safar –3: Deendayal Upadhyay Ki Hatya Se Indira Gandhi Ki Hatya Tak (Journey of Life-3: From the Murder of Deendayal Upadhyay to the Murder of Indira Gandhi), Dinman Prakashan, 2003, pp. 188-189.]

Incidentally, another tidbit from history. Former President of the Indian Republic, Pranab Mukherjee was invited by the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat as the chief guest of the graduation ceremony of its new recruits who are fired to work towards their goal to convert India into a Hindu state. Pranab Mukherjee had been indicted as one of the top leaders of Congress for Emergency excesses.

It is shameful that despite these facts thousands of RSS cadres continue to get monthly pension for the persecution during Emergency. The BJP ruled states like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra have decided to award a monthly pension of Rs 20,000 to those who were jailed during the Emergency period for less than 2 months, and Rs 10,000 to those who were jailed for less than a month. These policy decisions by RSS-backed BJP states have taken care of the financial interest of those RSS cadres who (even) submitted mercy letters completing only one- or two-months’ jail term. For securing such a significant amount in pension, no condition was applied –to the effect that the beneficiary should have been in jail for the whole period of the Emergency!

Interestingly, in sharp contrast, in the case of anti-colonial (British) freedom struggle there has not been even a single person from RSS cadres to have claimed the freedom fighter pension. It may be noted that nobody remembers hundreds of Communist youths, branded as Naxals killed in fake encounters during the Emergency. Interestingly, Shiv Sena, the Hindutva co-traveller of the RSS also openly supported the Emergency.

Tavleen Singh, a senior journalist who had once welcomed Modi’s ascendancy to power in 2014 did not mince words while evaluating Indian democracy on the 50^th anniversary of declaration of Emergency,

 “Brutal repression of democratic rights can happen again, and the answer is that it can, but in a more dangerously subtle way. There are those who say that since Narendra Modi became prime minister, an ‘undeclared emergency’ has come into force. I hesitate to make sweeping judgements of that kind, but what has happened is that some freedoms we took for granted have become endangered. This has been done not by throwing Opposition leaders, journalists and dissidents into jail, but by tweaking the laws to make curbs on freedom legally possible.

“The law that is supposed to prevent sedition has been tweaked to widen the definition of that word. Laws meant to curb black money have been tweaked as well and if a dissident does not end up in jail for ‘anti-national activities’, he could end up rotting in some forgotten cell because the Enforcement Directorate charges him with money laundering. The Opposition leaders who have these charges thrown at them have fought back valiantly because they have political parties behind them, but dissidents and journalists have just learned to keep quiet. Is that good? Is that democracy?”

So, writing on the wall is clear. India had Emergency imposed using some Articles of the Indian constitution and same was rescinded. Presently without Indira Gandhi and Congress government we have perpetual ‘undeclared’ Emergency under Modi rule. It needs not to be withdrawn as was never declared!

[i] ‘National Emergency 1975: The murder of the Indian republic on June 25,  https://organiser.org/2025/06/24/298840/bharat/national-emergency-1975-the-murder-of-the-indian-republic-on-june-25/

[ii] Golwalkar, MS, Shri Guruji Samagar Darshan (collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi), Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd., vol. I, p. 11.

[iii] Ibid. vol. III, p. 128.

[iv] http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main13.asp?filename=op070205And_Not_Even.asp

[v] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rss-backed-indira-gandhis-emergency-ex-ib-chief-264127-2015-09-21

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/ib-ex-chiefs-book-rss-chief-deoras-had-backed-some-emergency-moves/

[viii] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/RSS-backed-Emergency-reveals-former-IB-chief/articleshow/49052143.cms

[ix] https://medium.com/@hindu.nationalist1/double-game-of-senior-rss-leaders-during-emergency-74abc07a4fa8

[x] Madhukar Dattatraya Deoras, Hindu Sangathan aur Sattavaadi Rajneeti, Jagriti Prkashan, Noida, 1997, 270.

[xi] Ibid., 272-73

[xii] Ibid. 275-77.

[xiii] Ibid. 278.

(The author is a former professor of Hindi, Delhi University and a scholar on recent Indian modern history)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

How RSS betrayed the struggle against the Emergency, from its archives

RSS had no role in the freedom struggle

We or Our Nationhood Defined – 1947 Edition

The Ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is both Hate-Ridden and Supremacist – Part 1

‘Old Wine in New bottle’: Bhagwat on Caste

The Sangh’s Hypocrisy on Dalits, It’s Time to Read ‘Bunch of Thoughts’, Again!

The post On the 50th anniversary of India’s formal ‘Emergency’, how the RSS betrayed the anti-emergency struggle appeared first on SabrangIndia.