On June 28, 2022, the Madras High Court modified its order rejecting a petition by Nalini, one of the seven convicts in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, for premature release without the consent of the Governor under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution.

The Madras High Court’s first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala on June 28, 2022 modified the order as prayed for. The petition by another convict, Ravichandran, for premature release without the consent of the Governor was also rejected by the court. The home secretary said the premature release fell within the ambit of Article 161 of the Constitution, and the same was in the exclusive domain of the State government. Therefore, it was the Governor who could exercise the power to remit the sentence of life imprisonment based on the Cabinet resolution dated September 9, 2018. The contention, however, was recorded as if the reference made by the Governor to the President was correct and Governor had rightly done it, he pointed out.

Another contentious point related to the conviction of Nalini under 302 of the IPC and other Acts. The home secretary said no such submission had been made on behalf of the department and the same had been recorded inadvertently. He sought the removal of the inadvertent observations from the order, reported The Indian Express.

Madras High Court’s Modification

The first bench of the Madras High Court on June 28, 2022 modified and deleted a portion of its June 17, 2022 order relating to Advocate-General R Shanmugasundaram’s submissions in Rajiv Gandhi assassination convict Nalini Sriharan’s petition seeking premature release without the consent of the Tamil Nadu Governor. The bench of Chief Justice M N Bhandari and Justice N Mala, deleted this portion of its judgment delivered on June 17, 2022.

The Madras HC on June 28, 2022 Wednesday had then held the writ plea of Nalini Sriharan, one of the seven convicts in the case and serving life term (presently on parole) to order her premature release without the consent of the State Governor, was not maintainable. The bench was conceding the plea of the Joint Secretary of the State Home department, seeking modification of the June 17 order by deleting certain observations in paragraph Nos.11, 13 and 21, insofar as it related to the observations of the petitioner’s contention that the mercy petition filed by Nalini was rightly referred by the then Governor to the President of India.

The Petitioner said that such a submission was not made on behalf of the Home Department and the same seems to have been inadvertently recorded in the order. The issue squarely fell within the ambit of Article 161 of the Constitution and the same is in the exclusive domain of the State government. Hence, it is the Governor who can exercise the power to remit the sentence of life imprisonment based on the resolution passed in the Cabinet Meeting held on September 9, 2018. It appears that certain observations regarding the contention of the petitioners herein have been inadvertently recorded to the effect that the reference made by the Governor to the President, is correct, the petition added.

Madras High Court’s June 17, 2022 Order

The Madras high court on date June 17, 2022 Friday, held that the writ plea of Nalini Sriharan, one of the seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and serving life term (presently on parole), to order her premature release even without the consent of the Tamil Nadu governor is not maintainable. The plea was not maintainable as the previous ones — two writ petitions and the last one a habeas corpus petition, all on the same issue — had been dismissed on various occasions. Her prayer for release by the government on its own pursuant to the recommendation of the council of ministers cannot thus be directed. The release cannot be directed even by the court in the absence of the acceptance of the resolution by the governor. The recommendation of the council of ministers has otherwise been sent to the President.

“Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the directions sought by the petitioner cannot be given by the court, as it otherwise does not have power similar to what the Apex Court has under Article 142 of the Constitution. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable,” the first bench of Chief Justice M N Bhandari and Justice N Mala said, reported Hindustan Times.

Nalini and Rajiv Gandhi Assassination

Nalini Sriharan, one of the seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. Nalini and six other people were sentenced to life imprisonment in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. In May 1991, Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) suicide bomber during an election rally in Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu. The attack also left 14 other people dead.

Related:

SC grants bail to A.G. Perarivalan convicted for aiding Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination
I firmly believe there is no need for capital punishment: AG Perarivalan

The post Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case: Madras HC modifies order in petition seeking premature release of convicts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The event named “Sanskriti – 2018” was organised by Faculty of Arts, Banaras Hindu University for three days. On February 20, 2018, a student of Arts faculty — whose identity is not known yet — performed the mono-acting on the infamous statement of Nathuram Godse “Why I killed Gandhi?” A video of the same has surfaced which shows the spectators cheering and expressing joy over the act.

An application against the same has been submitted to Lanka Police station, and to the Vice-Chancellor’s office of the university. Vikas Singh, a member of NSUI and ex-general secretary of BHU’s student council, submitted both the applications on Wednesday. Singh said, “The event was the direct hit on the image of nation’s father Mahatma Gandhi. Godse was a terrorist who killed Gandhi. But in the yesterday’s event, there was a possible attempt to glorify Godse and appropriation of Gandhi’s killing.”

Godse was a convicted-hanged “terrorist, whose glorification amounts to sedition,” said the complaint filed by Vikas Singh.

What raises a question mark over the incident is that the event was pre-planned and controversial act would have been listed before it happened on the stage. Moreover, none of the administrative officials, including the Dean of the Arts faculty, bothered to stop the act. When TwoCircles.net tried to reach dean Prof Shrinivas Pandey, his number was unavailable.

However, Pandey expressed ignorance about this while talking about this to Scroll.in. He said, “Sanskriti is organised by a team with several teachers as coordinators. They pick the items for the programme. I do not know about this and am not in a position to comment.”

Pandey is a well-known supporter of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh—a radical Hindutva organization which had clear associations with Nathuram Godse—and recently rose to fame when he was clicked in an RSS dress ahead of Mohan Bhagwat’s rally in Varanasi.

Prof Royana Singh, the chief proctor of BHU, said that she had just learned about the incident and was not aware of full details. She further said, “If someone found guilty, strict action against them will be taken as per the university rules.”

But most of the professors, as well as administrative officials, are not aware of what happened yesterday in BHU. University’s PRO Rajesh Singh told this reporter, “I do not have any knowledge of this. I am getting to know this from you only. Let me check it,” in spite of the fact that a letter was submitted to VC office in the daytime.

Courtesy: Two Circles

Meanwhile, Vikas Singh has started receiving threat calls after his police complaint. He said, “I have received a couple of calls until now where people are asking me to take back my application, otherwise to be ready for consequences.”
 

The post Controversy erupts in BHU after cultural event glorifies Nathuram Godse appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Not just Rahul Gandhi: BJP leader MJ Akbar also said that RSS-linked men killed Mahatma Gandhi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

If only one surrenders the faculty of critical enquiry completely, would, or could we comfortably swallow the truth that we are being compelled to swallow, nowadays. Or else, there remains there is much to be reiterated, reasserted and remembered about the links of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. There is actually no need to divert the issue. Hence, this article gives emphasis to historical evidence which point to a conspiracy in which the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha were both, equal stake holders.

The RSS never accepted that it had anything to do with Gandhi’s murder conspiracy. For them, the proof is Nathuram Godse’s statement made in court. Godse denied any links with the RSS and said that it was only he and Narayan Apte who were involved in the conspiracy. For RSS, this submission by the assassin himself is proof enough.

But in the same statement made before the court, he, Nathuram Godse, also nullified Hindu Mahasabha and its mentor Savarkar’s hand in the killing. Does this then prove that neither the RSS nor the Hindu Mahasabha were responsible for Gandhi’s murder? Actually, Godse was instructed to shield the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha. That’s why during the trial he never even made any eye to eye contact with Savarkar.

When Lal Krishna Advani tried to give the RSS a clean chit, Godse’s younger brother and one of the conspirator Gopal Godse was infuriated. Not only did he he write a book on Gandhi’s assassination entitled as Why I Assassinated Gandhi but before other for a too, he testified that the elder Godse had never really left the RSS and served as its Bouddhik Karyavah (intellectual worker) till the end.

 When he was asked by a correspondent about Godse’s court statement, Gopal Godse said that Nathuram denied it because “Golwalkar and RSS were in a lot of trouble after the murder of Gandhi”. “You can say”, the junior Godse had added, “RSS did not pass a resolution, saying that, ‘go and assassinate Gandhi’. But you do not disown him.”

It is a matter of record fact that before going to gallows, Nathuram Godse had recited the new Sanskrit prayer of the RSS, a chant that replaced the old one in 1940. Mridula and Aditya Mukherjee, in their book RSS, School Texts and the Murder of Mahatma Gandhi rightly asked: “if he was no longer in the RSS, as he claimed, then how did he know the new prayer and why did he recite it at such a critical point in his life, on the threshold of its end?”
Let’s assume for a moment, that the RSS was not directly involved in the conspiracy. It was the Hindu Mahasabha which never ever felt ashamed of the act. Even today, it does not show any sign of embarrassment in this regard. Rather, they, have very recently, tried to erect statues and build temples after Godse’s name.

How close the actual association between both the organisations –the RSS and Hindu Mahasbha was –is revealed by a record of Home Ministry. On August 8, 1947, the Home Secretary asked the DIG of the CID and the Police Commissioner of Bombay to prepare a list of RSS and Hindu Mahasabha workers, the Poona Police only submitted the list of Hindu Mahasabha members and didn’t submit a separate list of the RSS members. Getting information about the RSS organization was quite difficult as it was a secret organization. Since 1940s when the RSS was strengthening its position in northern India, the IB was struggling to get details of its modus operandi. A report on the activities of the RSS dated September 17, 1947 stated that ‘most of its prominent organizers and workers are either members of the Hindu Mahasabha or sponsors of the Hindu Mahasabha ideology’. Hence, the Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission reached the conclusion that ‘there is evidence to show that many RSS members were members of the Hindu Mahasabha’. 

Apart from that, the pivotal factor behind Gandhi’s assassination was the vicious atmosphere which had been created all over the country, since the middle of the 1930s. Actually, not only the Hindu communal organizations like RSS and Hindu Mahasabha but the Muslim League too was spreading venom against Gandhi and other Congress leaders. For both Hindu or Muslim communalists, Gandhi was the common enemy. However, at last, after the partition of India, it was Hindu communalism which found in Gandhi the biggest obstacle to achieve the long cherished goal of establishing a Hindu Raj in India.

It is again a matter of official record that fact that Sardar Patel, the then Home Minister of India, in a letter to Golwalkar, categorically said that “all their (RSS men) speeches were full of communal poison. As a result of their poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji.” “RSS men”, Patel added, “expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death.” In his letter to Syama Prasad Mookerjee dated July 18, 1947 Patel categorically 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.”

Above all, if everything written above is false and RSS had nothing to do with Gandhi’s assassination, it must publically condemn Nathuram Godse, Savarkar and Hindu Mahasabha. It should also apologize for its hate speeches against Gandhi that are well documented in archival records. It should make a public apology for erecting a statue of Savarkar in the premises of Parliament of India during NDA I. It must denunciate Sardar Patel who imposed a ban on the RSS and made such comments in his correspondence. Moreover, it should get rid of its dream, inherent in its ideology, of establishing a Hindu Rashtra. This is what killed Gandhi.

(The author is a PHD student at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi)
 
References:

 1. No discussion on who killed Mahatma Gandhi is complete without addressing idea of a Hindu Rashtra

The post Nobody killed Gandhi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

I pulled no punches while criticising the Sikh extremists at the launching ceremony of the Punjabi edition of my book on the Air India victims’ families, back in 2013. Air India Flight 182 was bombed mid-air in 1985, killing all 329 people aboard. The crime was blamed on Sikh separatists seeking revenge from the Indian government for attacking their holiest shrine in Amritsar in 1984, and engineering anti-Sikh pogroms following the assassination of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards later that year.

Posted on social media, my speech had grabbed the attention of this self-styled patriotic Indian leader. He was excited to see how an Indo-Canadian journalist like myself, was “boldly” criticising “anti-India” separatists who have always been considered very powerful and influential in Canada.   

He kept phoning me from time to time to give updates about BJP activities in Vancouver, and I as a reporter continued reporting them. But something went terribly wrong after the BJP came to power with a brute majority in 2014 under Narendra Modi, a controversial political figure.

Modi was the chief minister of Gujarat state when an anti-Muslim massacre took place in 2002. The massacre followed the burning of a train carrying Hindu pilgrims. Over 50 of them died. The Modi government blamed Islamic extremists for the incident, after which the Muslim community was targeted across Gujarat by mobs led by the BJP activists. Human rights groups and the survivors maintain that Modi was complicit in the crime.

The scenario was no different from the one witnessed across India in 1984, when the Sikh community was targeted after the murder of Indira Gandhi. The only difference was that the anti-Muslim violence was orchestrated by an outright Hindu nationalist party, whereas Indira Gandhi’s Congress party claims to be secular.

Being a secularist, my criticism of all the religious extremist ideologies has been alike. I used to work with Surrey-based Radio India as a talk show host at that time. I had joined the organization in 2001 after emigrating from India where I used to work with The Tribune.
The Sikh separatists seeking Khalistan – an imaginary Sikh homeland to be carved out of Punjab, India – had been very active in Canada and I was frequently warned to stay silent against them. Nevertheless, I kept bringing up crimes committed by the Khalistanis in Punjab, such as killings of Hindus and political critics, including many leftists.

For the record I have been equally critical of the Indian government for its high handedness in dealing with the militants and repression of Sikhs in 1984. Also I had criticised Modi for allowing the anti-Muslim violence a year after my joining Radio India. But I was still branded as “anti-Sikh” and “an Indian agent” by the supporters of Khalistan.

The leader of a Hindu temple that honoured me for my book on Air India actually accused me of having an agenda against Modi. During a radio interview when I grilled him about his support for Modi, he just hung up the phone. He is a die-hard supporter of Modi, but highly critical of Sikh fundamentalists.  

The threats started when I began criticising those involved in the Air India bombing. Luckily at that time, my employer, Maninder Singh Gill, supported me whole heartedly in spite of pressure on him to get rid of me. He also used to complain that my commentary was causing financial loss to the organisation, as advertisers who subscribe to the Khalistani ideology were reluctant to sponsor our programs. Still he stood behind me like a rock. 

When Modi became the prime minister, the situation completely changed. Not only in India, but in other countries too, his critics began facing the heat. Hindu extremists became emboldened. They started harassing anyone who questioned Modi and his politics of hatred.

In India, media persons who were critical of Modi began to be pushed around. Some felt that an era of censorship had been ushered in under a right wing government. With the BJP assuming power after getting elected, it gained legitimacy around the world. Modi, who had been denied visa by various countries for repression of Muslims in Gujarat, was free to go anywhere.

On top of that, the BJP and its supporters also gained the upper hand within the Indo-Canadian community and increased its influence over Indian consulates. In those circumstances, several groups decided to organise protest rallies against Modi during his first official visit to US.

One of them was Sikhs For Justice (SFJ), a human rights advocacy group that supports Sikh sovereignty. As a host, I decided to highlight the contentious tour of Modi and gave some airtime to SFJ. Although I strongly disagree with their political agenda of Sikh sovereignty, as a journalist I felt it necessary to talk to their leader about the upcoming visit of Modi and the planned protest in September 2014.

This enraged my employer, who did not want any anti-Modi voice to be given air time. He was particularly annoyed over my interview with someone who supports a Sikh homeland. The story did not end there, as he also wanted me to start endorsing Modi’s visit on behalf of the radio station. I was suggested a change in nature of my duties if I could not handle this. This led to an argument and I rather decided to quit.

This small step made me an alien among the very people who earlier appreciated my stance against Khalistan. The same BJP leader who earlier used to call me a lion and often stated “you are always in our hearts” began avoiding me, to the extent that he did not invite me to cover an event organised for a visiting BJP leader, the chief minister of Haryana state, Manohar Lal Khattar.  

When another senior politician from Punjab Prem Singh Chandumajra came, I could see a pattern behind slighting me. Chandumajra’s party, Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) is an alliance partner of the BJP. Its supporters have known me for years. Nobody invited me to his media conference, despite the fact that both the BJP and SAD supporters know that I still  write for India-based publications, including Hindustan Times, for which the visits of Khattar and Chandumajra were important. 

Notably, the leader of a Hindu temple that honoured me for my book on Air India actually accused me of having an agenda against Modi. During a radio interview when I grilled him about his support for Modi, he just hung up the phone. He is a die-hard supporter of Modi, but highly critical of Sikh fundamentalists.  

The Indian agents in Vancouver also started to eye me with suspicion. I often hear from sources close to them that they are upset over my comments, which are obviously not favourable to the ruling party, because of its right wing policies against religious minorities and growing attacks on Muslims and Christians under Modi.

Those who violate the principles of secularism and democracy enshrined in the national text are the biggest anti-nationals. If questioning Sikh separatists alone makes you a patriot, and challenging Hindu separatists makes you seditious, then the apologists of India should openly admit that the current Indian state is really a Hindu nation in the making, and not the secularist and pluralist India I loved and I was born in

Some sources tell me that they now refer to me as “friend-turned-enemy” and I never get any personal invitation to attend any of their official events, although they had recommended my name for coverage of the annual Indian Diaspora event held in India in 2010. In the years of my frequent criticism of Khalistani extremists, before Modi came to power, I used to get calls from them appreciating my journalism. Back then I was seen as a friend of India.    

When I joined Spice Radio, some of the Indian officials expressed their displeasure with my current employer, Shushma Datt, who did not buckle under any undue pressure and gave me freedom to work fairly and fearlessly. After all, she is a seasoned broadcaster who understands how to run a media outlet with integrity.

Whenever I had Sikhs For Justice activists on air to speak their mind against Modi, or interviewed those who protested against Modi’s visit, she never interfered. It’s a shame that in spite of her open-mindedness, even some so-called progressives in our community questioned me: being a Hindu, will she allow me to criticise Modi? Just because she is a Hindu woman, one cannot presume her to be a BJP supporter. How many times have such questions been raised about the ethnicity of the male Sikh owners of South Asian radio stations? 

So much so, the moderates and secularists within the local Sikh community, who have been opposed to Sikh fundamentalism and often sided with India, also started neglecting me. This was despite the fact that I had defended them in an event of ostracising by the orthodox Sikh clergy at the behest of fundamentalist forces on religious matters.

Some even went out of their way to meet Modi in the US, and were among those who accorded him a heroic welcome during his visit to Vancouver in 2015. Others, who call themselves Marxists, affiliated with the mainstream communist parties in India that are opposed to Modi, have remained indifferent towards any activity or demonstration in Vancouver against Modi’s government. Notably, they have been supporting moderates in maintaining control over Sikh temples, to keep Sikh separatists at bay. They too continue to enjoy cordial relationships with Indian agents.

It seems that the commitment of the grand moderate coalition towards secularism is sham and selective. It conveniently overlooks the fundamentalism of Modi’s party, while only targeting Sikh extremists, either due to their blind patriotism or with an agenda to please their political masters in New Delhi.
As the Modi government completes almost two years in office, the threat of Hindu extremism has grown enormously. Anyone who challenges their ideology and anti-minorities’ stance is branded as anti-national. Interestingly, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, the ultra Hindu nationalist body of which BJP is a part, never participated in the freedom struggle when India was under British occupation.

Rather its supporters had helped the British rulers in continuing with their policy of divide and rule, by asking for a separation of Hindus and Muslims into two distinct nations. They stand incriminated in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, the towering leader of the passive resistance movement, in 1948, for standing up against both violence against Muslims and the untouchability that was permitted in orthodox Hindu society.

Gandhi has always been known as the father of the Indian nation. Since Modi came to power, demands have grown for the installation of statues of Naturam Godse, a staunch Hindu separatist and the assassin of Gandhi. Anyone who questions the BJP and Hindu extremists is quickly branded as anti-national.

It seems that “anti-national” has become a synonym with anything that is anti-BJP. This year witnessed a spate of incidents in which students, scholars, journalists, activists and even elected officials who are critical of the growing threat of religious intolerance and Hindu nationalism were either intimidated, assaulted or slapped with sedition charges.

Student leaders at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University were thrown into jail after being charged with sedition for questioning the government. When I had to quit Radio India and suffer the silent social boycott, I sometimes found myself very lonely. But today, when I look at the resistance being given to the Modi government by people with a burning conscience, I feel vindicated. I rather feel proud of standing up against Modi mania. If one is branded as anti-national for standing up for reason, pluralism and humanity, then I am definitely very proud to be an anti-national.

But here is my question to those who claim to be nationalists: how do they describe a nation? Is it just a territory, a piece of land, or a composition of political borders and land mass represented by a symbolic flag or a constitution? Or is a nation is represented by people? By human beings, who have dreams for a better future and who want to live with dignity?

If anyone is anti-national, it’s definitely not those who fight for the rights of the people, but those who lick the shoes of those in power and work against people, and divide them for their political survival. How can a person like me, who actually respects the values enshrined in the Indian constitution, be seen as anti-India?

Those who violate the principles of secularism and democracy enshrined in the national text are the biggest anti-nationals. If questioning Sikh separatists alone makes you a patriot, and challenging Hindu separatists makes you seditious, then the apologists of India should openly admit that the current Indian state is really a Hindu nation in the making, and not the secularist and pluralist India I loved and I was born in.

(The writer is a senior journalist with radio in Canada)
 

The post Proud to be ‘anti-national’: Gurpreet Singh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First Published on : August 1, 2004

 
The name of the RSS has been associated with the murder of Gandhi ever since the ghastly deed was done, the vehement protestations of the RSS to the contrary notwithstanding

“On 30th January, 1948 while Bapu was on his way to a prayer meeting three shots were fired at him from a revolver. Bapu fell and died soon after. Nathuram Godse was the man responsible for the murder. He had been a worker of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh in Poona and also the editor of a paper,”1  wrote Morarji Desai in his autobiography published in 1974.
 

The name of the RSS has been associated with the murder of Gandhi ever since the ghastly deed was done, the vehement protestations of the RSS to the contrary notwithstanding. The charge has stuck in spite of the fact that the RSS chief, who had been arrested and put in the dock along with the other accused, had been cleared of the charge at an early stage of the trial. It was recalled by the then vice–president KR Narayanan when he commented that the demolition of Babri Masjid (at Ayodhya) was the most heinous crime after the assassination of Gandhi.
 

According to the protagonists of the RSS it is the result of ‘a communist conspiracy’ to defame and demoralise ‘a nationalist organisation’, a political gimmick employed by those who are afraid of its growing popularity and influence. Even if that were true it could be said that they are getting a taste of their own medicine in the sense that their chief weapon in public controversies and political battles is character assassination. They would attribute the worst kind of criminal motives to a person who dares to differ from them or criticise their theories and practices.
 

I recall an incident of 1946. In a newspaper a photograph of Jawaharlal Nehru had appeared which showed somebody lighting his cigarette. That photograph was cut out and kept by a number of Sangh workers in that area of Hoshiarpur (where I was also a minor functionary of the RSS) to be shown to simple–minded, credulous small–town folk as an evidence of the personal degradation of the man. It was presented as a kind of obscenity. While showing that to people the RSS men would comment: “Look, if this man is not ashamed of being photographed with a cigarette between his lips what would he not be doing in private?” One has only to imagine the reaction, particularly of the middle class (the petit bourgeoisie as they are called) in the social milieu of a mofussil town. Other photographs in this repertoire were those of Nehru shaking hands with Lady Mountbatten and his sister Vijayalaxmi Pandit wearing a sleeveless blouse and sitting, bare–headed, around a table in all–male company of Indians and foreigners.
 

This incident is only the tip of the iceberg that is their arsenal of character assassination; the morbid details which they give are such that no civilised person would like to repeat. For obvious reasons these things do not appear in the press, except as innuendoes and insinuations and that too only in the house journals of the RSS like Organiser. But that is heard every day in the streets so that the uncommitted and the uninitiated feel exasperated and, on hearing such charges, only say: ‘Damn it, don’t they say all kinds of things about other people.’ This atmosphere, in a way, helps the RSS because the contention becomes pro– and anti– and nobody bothers about going into the facts of the case and understand the validity of the charge or the lack of it.

“More and more I have come to the conclusion that Bapu’s murder was not an isolated business but part of a much wider campaign organised chiefly by the RSS”: Jawaharlal Nehru

The loss of Gandhi to India at a crucial juncture of Indian history should not, and cannot, be treated so lightly. On the understanding of the phenomenon depends quite a lot of the future of at least this part of the world because the developments of India–Pakistan relations and Hindu–Muslim relations would certainly have been significantly different but for the removal of Gandhi from the scene. The destruction of what Mountbatten described as a ‘one–man peace–keeping force’ is not something to be treated as a mere allegation going round in a political maelstrom.
 

In his broadcast to the nation after the murder on January 30, 1948 Jawaharlal Nehru said: “A mad man has put an end to his life, for I can only call him mad who did it, and yet there has been enough poison spread in this country during the past years and months, and this poison has had an effect on people’s minds. We must face this poison, and we must face all the perils that encompass us, and face them not madly or badly but rather in the way that our beloved teacher taught us to face them.”2  Later in a meeting in Ramlila Grounds, Delhi, he again pointed out: “What we have to see is how and why even one man among 400 millions could cause this terrible wound on our country. How an atmosphere was created in which people like him could act in that manner and yet dare to call themselves Indians.”3 
 

Facing the poison and getting rid of it implies spotting its source and treating it. Jawaharlal had traced the source to the RSS. In a letter to Sardar Patel on February 26, 1948 he wrote: “More and more I have come to the conclusion that Bapu’s murder was not an isolated business but part of a much wider campaign organised chiefly by the RSS.”4 
 

If the conclusion or diagnosis of the ailment, whatever you call it, arrived at by Jawaharlal is unfounded, the sooner it is rejected the better because then only would it be possible to look for the source of poison elsewhere and deal with it adequately. And if one goes through the newspapers of the period one finds that he was not alone to have come to that conclusion; Ram Manohar Lohia, JP Narayan and several other people concurred with him and, in fact, criticised the then home minister for showing leniency towards the RSS. We know that several of these gentlemen, in later years, thought it fit to act in alliance with the RSS and tended to curb their earlier anti–RSS ferocity. But that can be clearly seen as more a concession to political expediency than concern for truth. The case of Morarji Desai in this regard is very pertinent.
 

We have quoted his firm opinion in this matter, particularly the relationship between the RSS and the assassin, as expressed in his autobiography. This quotation used to be read out by a guide at the New Delhi Gandhi Smriti, PN Damodaran Nayar by name. It was a part of the narration of the story of martyrdom and no objections had ever been raised till the coming of Janata Party to power. On October 8, 1977 when Morarji, the Prime Minister, accompanied by his colleague Sikandar Bakht, the minister of Housing, paid a visit to Gandhi Smriti, this part of the guide’s narration was brought to his notice, apparently by some RSS members and sympathisers, as something objectionable. “The Prime Minister’s spontaneous reaction,” reports the guide who was a witness to it, “was that these were facts of history and that nobody can change history.”5  Thereafter the guide was beaten up by some Vidyarthi Parishad boys and was unceremoniously dismissed by the management under the control and influence of the Housing ministry. When this question was raised in Parliament, Morarji declared on the floor of the House that he no longer held the opinion which he had expressed in his autobiography. The reason for this somersault on the part of the octogenarian Prime Minister is too obvious to bear repetition. It however provides a glaring instance of the defence of the RSS being motivated by considerations of political expediency.
 

And yet, objectivity demands that we have a full look at the case of the RSS. We quote in full, including the emphasis on points, what has been issued for public by the publication department of the RSS, Suruchi Sahitya:

“RSS AND GANDHI MURDER

“In a number of speeches during the emergency and earlier, Smt. Indira Gandhi condemned RSS elements as the assassins of Mahatma Gandhi. We are really amazed to read it. This is very grave and heinous charge and no responsible person is expected to make it, for it is totally false in view of the following facts.

“In the first place, it is noteworthy that in his letter to Shri Jawaharlal Nehru (dated 27th February 1948) Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the then Home Minister, Government of India, wrote:

“Sardar Patel’s Testimony: “I have kept myself almost in daily touch with the progress of the investigations regarding Bapu’s assassination case. I devoted a large part of my evening to discussing with Sanjivi the day’s progress and giving instructions to him on any points that arise. 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. The centres of activities were Poona, Bombay, Ahmednagar and Gwalior. Delhi was of course the terminating point of their activity, but by no means its centre; nor do they seem to have spent more than a day or two at a time, and that only twice between 19 and 30 January. It also clearly emerges from the statements that the RSS was not involved in it at all. It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha — 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. Every bit of these statements is being carefully checked up and verified and scrutinised and, where necessary, followed up. Sanjivi devotes a considerable time every day to it. Senior officers of Bombay and CP are in charge of investigation. Delhi police hardly comes in the picture” (Sarder Patel’s Correspondence, Vol. 6, 1945–50, edited by Durga Das).

“Thereafter the Gandhi Murder Trial commenced on June 22, 1948 in the historic Red Fort in Delhi before Shri Atmacharan, who was specially appointed for the purpose. Appeal was heard by a full bench of East Punjab High Court, at Shimla from May 2, 1949. Final judgement was delivered on June 21, 1949 and the guilty punished.

“Many persons who are educated and old enough have followed the proceedings of the trial as they appeared in papers in those days. Sri C.K. Daphtary, the then Advocate General, Bombay, was in charge of the prosecution. The prosecution in putting its case before the learned judge did not try to involve the RSS in the conspiracy. It did not even hint, much less prove, even the remotest connection of the RSS with the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. The RSS is not blamed anywhere in the judgement delivered in the case.

“Kapoor Commission: In November 1966, the Government of India again instituted another inquiry into Gandhi murder. A commission was set up under Shri J.L. Kapoor, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, to make a fresh and thorough inquiry into the conspiracy to murder Mahatma Gandhi, though in a different context. The commission sat at different places and examined 101 witnesses and 407 documents before it published its report in 1969. The commission also cleared the RSS of any connection with the crime.

“One of the important witnesses was Shri R.N. Banerjee, I.C.S., (witness 19) who was the Home Secretary of the Central Government at the time of the murder. The evidence of Shri R.N. Banerjee was:

“It has not been proved that they (the accused) were members of the RSS” – (Kapoor Commission Report, Part I, p. 165).

“The witness further says that even if the RSS had been banned earlier, it would not have affected the conspirators or the course of events, “because they (the accused) have not been proved to have been members of the RSS nor has that organisation been shown to have a hand in the murder” (Ibid., p. 186).

Shri R.N. Banerjee further stated, “Although RSS was banned it should not be taken to be an acceptance by the Government of the allegation that the murder of Mahatma Gandhi was by the members of RSS as such” (Ibid., Part II, p. 62).

The Commission comments:

“In Delhi also there is no evidence that the RSS as such was indulging in violent activities against Mahatma Gandhi or the top Congress leaders” (Ibid, p. 66).

“The facts are self–evident and more eloquent than all the mispropaganda by the interested parties.”

If there had ever been a simple statement that the RSS denounces and repudiates the action of Godse as also the reasons he gave for it, the charge could be cleared. It would at least have been possible to believe that a change of heart had taken place after the shocking manifestation of their ‘culture’. But no! The defence is based on what they think are the chinks in the argument of the other side. And that makes the defence worse because the whole argument suffers from suggestio falsi, suppressio veri. A tendency to politicise the issue and take advantage of the present political atmosphere has been betrayed in picking on Indira Gandhi as the accuser. The period of Emergency has also been hinted at to vitiate thinking by wrapping it in the haze of strong sentiments about the Emergency days. It should not however be forgotten that the charge had been made and maintained by even those whom the RSS may not find it easy to dismiss as irresponsible.

Coming to the substantial part, take what they call Sardar Patel’s testimony, which is a letter that the Sardar had written in reply to the above–mentioned letter by Jawaharlal Nehru. One would like to know why they have not cared to look at another letter, in the same volume, which the Sardar had sent to Dr. SP Mookherjee in reply to his entreaty on behalf of the RSS and the Mahasabha. There is a very significant passage in it which reads:

“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 this 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.”6 

All their speeches were full of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organise for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji: Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel

The letter of February 27 written to Jawaharlal is quoted but the letter of July 18 written to Dr. Mookherjee is not quoted. Why? And a subsequent one of September 11, 1948 addressed to the RSS chief Golwalkar himself is also forgotten although it is part of a publication issued by the Prakashan Vibhag of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, Karnataka. We quote it, both in the interest of fair argument and for correcting the distortion of Sardar’s image that the enlistment as defence witness by the RSS entails. Lest we be charged of misquotation or partial quotation we quote in full without making any changes:-

Aurangzeb Road

New Delhi

Date: 11th Sept. 1948

Brother Sri Golwalkar,

Received your letter dated 11th August. Jawaharlal has also sent me your letter of the same date.

You are very well aware of my views about the RSS. I have expressed those thoughts at Jaipur in December last and at Lucknow in January. The people had welcomed those views. I had hoped that your people also would accept them. But they appear to have had no effect on RSS persons, nor was there any change in their programmes. There can be no doubt that the RSS did service to the Hindu Society. In the areas where there was the need for help and organisation, the young men of the RSS protected women and children and strove much for their sake. No person of understanding could have a word of objection regarding that. But the objectionable part arose when they, burning with revenge, began attacking Mussalmans. 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 organise 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. I once again ask you to give your thought to my Jaipur and Lucknow speeches and accept the path I had indicated for the RSS. I am quite certain that therein lies the good of the RSS and of the country and moving on that path we can join hands in achieving the welfare of our country. Of course, you are aware that we are passing through delicate times. It is the duty of every one from the highest to the lowliest in the country to contribute his mite, in whatever way possible, to the service of the country. In this delicate hour there is no place for party conflicts and old quarrels. I am thoroughly convinced that the RSS men can carry on their patriotic endeavour only by joining the Congress and not by keeping separate or by opposing. I am glad that you have been released. I hope that you will arrive at proper decision after due consideration of what I have said above. With regard to the restrictions imposed upon you I am in correspondence with the CP Government. I shall let you know after receiving their reply.

Yours

(Sd.) VALLABH BHAI PATEL

Offers Vandematram.

(Rendered from the original in Hindi)7 

The next argument is based upon the voluminous report of the Kapoor Commission. With regard to that the first thing to be kept in mind is that the question of direct involvement of the RSS was not written in the terms of reference of the inquiry. Yet because it has been referred to it is better that we examine the report. For obvious reasons it has been thought fit to quote the evidence of only one witness8  and omit other evidence which is no less relevant. For example the deposition of JN Sahni which the Commission sums up as follows:

“19.56 Mr. J.N. Sahni (witness No. 95) has deposed to a secret organisation but did not directly mention it as RSS. He said that it was being openly discussed in those days, i.e., about the time of the Birla House bomb, that there was a secret organisation with about 6 lakh volunteers which would stage a coup d’etat and the organisation had secret cells in different parts of India including the Punjab, Maharashtra, etc. It was then being rumoured that its leader was Golwalkar, Bhopatkar or Dr. Khare and that its volunteers were being trained in Alwar, Bharatpur and some other places with the objective of overthrowing the government after killing the top leaders and when Mahatma Gandhi was murdered it was considered to be a part of the plan and stringent measures were taken. He also said that there was a secret political movement helped by some princes through their chieftains, creating a fifth column in India to take over when the British power withdrew, at least in their respective states. The princes named by him were Jaisalmer, Jodhpur, Alwar, Bharatpur, Baroda and Bhopal. This movement was led by Golwalkar from Nagpur, and Bhopatkar from Poona, and the concentration of leadership was there.”

On this the Commission comments in the next para:

“19.57 As far as the Commission is aware, Guruji Golwalkar was and is the head of the RSS movement. Mr. Sahni did not ascribe these activities to the RSS but just mentioned a secret movement.”

Sahni’s reference to the secret movement helped by some princes through chieftains gets elaborated in the evidence of Hooja and connects it with the RSS:

“19.60 Mr. Hooja’s reports, Ex. 95, show that at Alwar there was a training camp of RSS in May-June 1947 which received the patronage of the Prime Minister Dr. Khare and the Home Minister with the knowledge of the ruler. It was also reported that both these Ministers took a prominent part in helping the RSS activities and the Prime Minister extended it the fullest patronage. They received military training in the beginning of February and were put up in one of the military barracks. They did firing practice with muzzle loaders and also secret training in rifle and revolver practice.”

There was also the evidence of BBL Jaitley, a senior intelligence officer, who had prepared 600–700 cases against the RSS and had told Sardar Patel that ‘something terrible may happen’. The Commission reports: “When he told Sardar Patel that something serious would happen he did not mean murder of Mahatma Gandhi but it might have happened to Sardar Patel or to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.” It surely does not absolve the RSS but indicates wider dimensions of a possible conspiracy in which the organisation was involved.9 

Now we come to the question involved in the assertion that although a legal luminary like CK Daphtary, the then advocate general, was prosecuting the case in the court he “did not even hint, much less prove, even the remotest connection of RSS”. That, dear friends, does not vouch for the innocence of the RSS or that it was not an agency which created the atmosphere in which one man dared to act the way he did. He certainly was not a mad man as was the first impression of Jawaharlal Nehru immediately after the murder. If it proves anything it is that those at the helm of affairs thought it fit to stick to the letter of the law. The assassin had confessed to the crime and denied the charge of conspiracy at the instance of any party or person. In fact he asserted: “The prosecution’s attempt to make out that I was a mere tool in some one else’s hands is an aspersion which is far from the truth. Indeed, it is a perversion of it.”1 0

The advocate general had the brief to bring to book the person who had committed the crime and his associates, if any.

The jurisprudence that India followed then, and does even now, does not treat a philosophy, an organisation or a group liable to punishment even when a crime of such momentous import is involved. Even if it were proved that assassin Godse was a member of the RSS at that point of time it would not legally prove the culpability of the RSS unless it could be established that a responsible body of the organisation had formally met, taken the decision to assassinate Gandhi and duly assigned the task to Nathuram Godse. It was obviously not there on record and the advocate general would have only chased a mirage if he had taken the line of proving that Godse was only a tool in the hands of the RSS. Like a good criminal lawyer and advocate he concentrated on the person of Godse and his immediate associates whose complicity and abetment was beyond reasonable doubt.

Let it be clear that the brief of Daphtary was not political but personal. And the handicaps in going after the RSS were too many. In the first place the RSS maintains no register of membership, issues no membership cards, charges no fee against receipt and there is no way of establishing before a court of law that a certain person is a member and invariably acts according to its discipline or diktat. Secondly, the RSS is not an organisation of bold revolutionaries who would declare their intentions in advance. In fact that is the basic difference between revolutionary or communist violence and counter–revolutionary or fascist violence of the RSS kind. Those like Bhagat Singh who take to the former are not apologetic about it, they keep secrecy about an action only in order to ensure its success; the latter are ashamed of owning their deed and try to keep it secret even after it has been accomplished. One is never in doubt about the moral justification of the deed while the other is never sure of it, rather, does it as a crime.

What is the truth about Godse’s RSS connection? The RSS has been at pains for years to deny that he was ever a member of the RSS. Although Curran had discovered it in 1950–511 1 the information remained buried in the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations1 2 till it was referred to by a writer on the Jana Sangh, Craig Baxter, in 1968. Godse himself had stated before the Court: “I have worked for several years in RSS and subsequently joined the Hindu Mahasabha…”1 3 The most significant is the revelation by his brother about the last moments of his life: “On reaching the platform they recited a verse of devotion to the Motherland:

Namaste sada vatsale Matrubhume, tvayaa Hindubhume, sukhamvardhito-hum,

Mahamangale punya bhume tvadarthe, patitvesh kaaya namaste namaste.”

This is the opening verse of the RSS prayer sung in every shakha and outsiders are not acquainted with it, except for academic reasons. At the time of Godse’s membership of the RSS, around 1932 – as admitted in these statements – this prayer was not sung even in the RSS. As we have already indicated, in those days the Marathi–Hindi prayer was in currency. The Sanskrit prayer, of which this verse forms a part, was adopted only in 1940. How did Godse take it up as a kind of epitaph on his life? The denial of connection surrounds the whole affair with an air of suspicion.

Having scrutinised the arguments of the RSS we would like to assert once again that it was nobody’s case that the RSS provided the pistol and the other means with which Godse murdered Gandhi. Everybody, from Jawaharlal Nehru downward, has been talking of the kind of atmosphere and the culture that induces thoughts and sentiments which lead to such a heinous act. Before we proceed to analyse the attitude of the RSS towards Gandhi it may be relevant to ask whether there was grief or jubilation in the RSS circles. The RSS chief had issued a formal condemnation and also declared that they would observe mourning for 13 days. But what was happening in the shakhas? Gandhi’s private secretary Pyarelal writes:

“A letter which Sardar Patel received after the assassination from a young man, who according to his own statement had been gulled into joining the RSS organisation but was later disillusioned, described how members of the RSS at some places had been instructed beforehand to tune in their radio sets on the fateful Friday for the ‘good news’. After the news, sweets were distributed in RSS circles at several places, including Delhi. When the RSS was later banned by an order of the government, the local police chief in one of the Indian states, according to the Sardar’s correspondent, sent word to the organisers to close their office ‘for thirteen days’ as a sign of mourning, and disperse but not to disband. The rot was so insidious and widespread that only the supreme sacrifice could arrest or remove it,”1 4

Pyarelal’s book has been cited as one of the evidences by the Kapoor Commission (paras 19.64 and 19.65) and it reads:

“19.64 At page 687 of his book Pyarelal had said the following:

“The RSS was a communalist, para–military, fascist organisation, controlled from Maharashtra. The key positions were held almost exclusively by the Maharashtrians. Their declared object was to set up Hindu Raj. They had adopted the slogan, Muslims clear out of India. At the time they were not very active, at least overtly, but it was being darkly hinted that they were only waiting for all the Hindus and Sikhs in West Pakistan to be evacuated. They would then wreak full vengeance on the Indian Muslims for what Pakistan had done.

“Gandhiji was determined not to be a living witness to such a tragedy. The Muslims were in a minority in the Indian Union. Why should they feel insecure as to their future as equal citizens in the Indian Union? There was much they had to answer for and correct. But it was up to the majority community to be magnanimous and to forgive and forget.”

“19.65 At page 751 Pyarelal has written that there was a vast network of an organisation under the direct encouragement, direction and control of RSS with the object of planning and carrying out pogroms against Muslims as a part of the cruel war of brutality and counter–brutality, reprisals and counter reprisals… their activities including collection and distribution of arms and ammunition.”

Pyarelal, in fact, provides the clue to the soil and the seed which yielded the mind that issued itself in the crime:

“Maharashtra has a strong tradition of militant Hindu nationalism. It is the citadel of Brahmin orthodoxy of a most exclusive and rigid type. In self–dedication, patriotism, sacrifice and renunciation, it has produced exemplars which it would be difficult to excel. But its idealism has very often been mixed with a rugged pragmatism and cynical view of life and politics which was diametrically opposed to that of Gandhiji. Some of the proponents of this outlook had somehow come to feel, quite unwarrantably, that the rise of Gandhiji’s philosophy was the cause of the memory of that great leader of Maharashtra, the late Lokamanya Tilak, and the premier position that Maharashtra had in the country’s politics during his lifetime, being eclipsed. They regarded Gandhiji’s political leadership and movement of non–violence with a strong, concentrated feeling of antipathy and frustration which found expression in a sustained campaign of calumny against Gandhiji for over a quarter of a century. The fact that in spite of it a growing section in Maharashtra rallied to Gandhiji’s movement further exasperated them and deepened their sense of frustration. It was this section that had tried to bomb Gandhiji in 1934 at Poona while he was engaged in his anti–untouchability campaign. Their plans this time were far more systematic and thorough, and included such refinements as conditioning the minds of the youth for their prospective task by making them wear, as a part of their training, photos of Congress leaders like Pandit Nehru and others besides Gandhiji inside their shoes, and using the same for target practice with fire-arms etc.

“Angered by Gandhiji’s peace mission in Delhi, this group decided to remove him from the scene. Gandhiji’s fast and subsequent release by the Indian government of 55 crores to Pakistan enraged them still further. On top of it, atrocity stories and tales of unimaginable crimes against Hindu womanhood kept pouring in from Kashmir. Popular sentiment was systematically worked up by deliberately concocted propaganda.”1 5

We have already gone into the Gandhi–RSS relationship at some length earlier. It is enough to point out that every RSS man, from Hedgewar downwards, castigated Gandhi as the harbinger of the policy of appeasement while they were also all the time keen to make peace with him on terms that he should only bless them and not go into ideological questions. Hedgewar made the first major attempt in 1934 when the first signs of manifest estrangement between the RSS and the Congress came on surface. But he found Gandhi too firmly rooted in reason for the beliefs he held and propagated to be converted to the ideas of Hindu nationalism and maintaining status quo in caste etc.

The tragic happenings in 1947 again brought them in open, direct confrontation – perhaps more bitter than the earlier one. The language of Golwalkar became extraordinarily strident. He thought the Congress tradition of Gandhi and Nehru was making Hindu society ‘impotent’ and ‘imbecile’. To adequately communicate the quality of Golwalkar’s utterances of that period one has to quote at length because otherwise the reader is likely to doubt the very veracity of the statement, so astounding is the quality of pronouncements. Here is what he says about the policy of communal unity:

“Thus, due to the utter lack of will and conviction on the part of our leaders to face the Muslim intransigence squarely from the standpoint of undiluted nationalism, were sown the seeds of Muslim appeasement. In their phantom chase of achieving new unity and new nationality, our leaders raised the slogan of ‘Hindu–Muslim unity’ and declared that anything that stood in its way should be forgotten. As they dared not tell the Muslim to forget his separatism, they pitched upon the docile Hindu for all their preachings. The first thing they preached was that our nationality could not be called Hindu, that even our land could not be called by its traditional name Hindustan, as that would have offended the Muslim. The name ‘India’ given by the British was accepted. Taking that name, the ‘new nation’ was called the ‘Indian Nation’. And the Hindu was asked to rename himself ‘Indian’.”1 6

Thenceforward he comes to downright obscenity and abuse:

“The exhortation of the leaders did not stop at that. The Hindu was asked to ignore, even submit meekly to the vandalism and atrocities of the Muslims. In effect, he was told: Forget all that the Muslims have done in the past and all that they are now doing to you. If your worshipping in the temple, your taking out gods in procession in the streets irritates the Muslims, then don’t do it. If they carry away your wives and daughters, let them. Do not obstruct them. That would be violence. To cite an instance, in those days, a Hindu girl was abducted by a Muslim in NWFP and the problem was posed before the Central Assembly where our prominent leaders were present. A Muslim Congress leader lightly brushed aside the incident saying: ‘After all boys are boys and girls and girls’. At that insulting remark not one of the Hindu leaders present there raised a voice of protest. None dared to ask why, if it was just a case of boys and girls, it always happened that the Muslim boys kidnapped only Hindu girls and not Muslim girls? On the other hand, they enjoyed it as a piece of humour!

“Whenever the Muslims slaughtered cows to insult Hindu feelings, the Hindus were told that it was the religious right of Muslims and that, being tolerant to other religions, they should not object to it. Although there is not a word of sanction in Quran for cow–slaughter, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had given the Muslims a written assurance that on the advent of swaraj cow–slaughter would not be banned keeping in view their ‘religious sentiments’.

“Once a notable Hindu personality of those days, in a largely attended public meeting, declared: ‘There is no swaraj without Hindu–Muslim unity and the simplest way in which this unity can be achieved is for all Hindus to become Muslims’! He did not even realise that then it would not be Hindu–Muslim unity but only Muslim unity as there would be no Hindus at all!”1 7

The reference to Jawaharlal is clearly made but to Gandhi it is by implication; it is however unmistakable for any discerning reader. And the peroration goes on so that a little further we read:

“In other words, the Hindu was told that he was imbecile, that he had no spirit, no stamina to stand on his own legs and fight for the independence of his motherland and all this had to be injected into him in the form of Muslim blood. What a shame, what a misfortune that our own leaders should have come forward to knock out the ancient and indomitable faith in ourselves and destroy our spirit of self confidence and self–reliance, which is the very life–breath of a people! Those who declared ‘No swaraj without Hindu-Muslim unity’ have thus perpetrated the greatest treason to our society. They have committed the most heinous sin of killing the life-spirit of a great and ancient people. To preach impotency to a society which gave rise to a Shivaji who, in the words of the great historian Jadunath Sarkar, ‘proved to the whole world that the Hindu has drunk the elixir of immortality’ and to break the self–confident and proud spirit of such a great and virile society has no parallel in the history of the world for sheer magnitude of its betrayal.”1 8

And after this so–called RSS view of the historical process preceding Partition he makes the pronouncement: “The direct result was that Hindus were defeated at the hands of Muslims in 1947.”1 9

These views were projected through the RSS media in the form of articles, stories, cartoons etc.

The RSS is not, according to its votaries, an active agent. In a sense it is true; the RSS never decides to do anything nor does it ever put on record any orders or instructions given to its members. If a deed finds approval of the public it comes forth to claim the credit, if it is otherwise it is promptly disavowed without as much as batting an eyelid.

In 1947–48 while the RSS men were being fed on the diet a specimen of which is given above, the leaders were keen to convince Gandhi that they were not anti–Muslim and were prepared to co–operate with his peace–keeping efforts. Golwalkar met Gandhi in New Delhi and tried to convince him that all the latter had heard about the RSS men killing Muslims was wrong and that their organisation was ‘for protecting Hinduism, not for killing Muslims’. Gandhi used to keep himself posted with the happenings in the city and yet as Pyarelal says, “Gandhiji, with his boundless faith in human nature and in the redemptive power of truth, felt he must give everybody a chance to make good his bona fides. It was something that they did not glory in wrong doing.” Gandhi asked Golwalkar and his colleagues to issue a statement repudiating the allegations and condemning the loot and violence. They wanted to wriggle out by saying that it could be done on their behalf by Gandhi himself. He told them if what they said was sincerely meant the public should know it from their lips. They must have been convinced of the failure of their mission when during the meeting, in response to somebody’s praise for the good work by the RSS at Wah refugee camp and showing discipline, courage and capacity for hard work, Gandhi remarked: “But don’t forget even so had Hitler’s Nazis and the Fascists under Mussolini.”2 0

Then the old Hedgewar technique was used and they invited Gandhi to an RSS rally in the Bhangi colony of New Delhi. RSS leaders prefer to say that he had himself expressed a desire to visit the shakha. Whatever be the truth, the fact remains that they failed to change his attitude. What transpired at the rally is reported by Pyarelal thus:

“In welcoming Gandhiji to their rally, the leader described him as ‘a great man that Hinduism has produced’. Gandhiji in his reply observed that while he was certainly proud of being a Hindu, his Hinduism was neither intolerant nor exclusive. The beauty of Hinduism as he understood it was that it absorbed the best that was in all faiths. If Hindus believed that in India there was no place for non–Hindus on equal and honourable terms and Muslims, if they wanted to live in India, must be content with an inferior status, or if the Muslims thought that in Pakistan Hindus could live only as a subject race on the sufferance of the Muslims, it would mean an eclipse of Hinduism and an eclipse of Islam. He was glad, therefore, he said, to have their assurance that their policy was not antagonism towards Islam. He warned them that if the charge against them that their organisation was behind the killing of the Muslims was correct it would come to a bad end. In the course of questions and answers that followed Gandhiji was asked whether Hinduism did not permit the killing of evil–doers. If not, how did he explain the exhortation by Lord Krishna in the second chapter of the Gita to destroy the Kauravas?

“The reply to the first question, said Gandhiji, was both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. One had to be an infallible judge as to who was the evil–doer before the question of killing could arise. In other words one had to be completely faultless before such a right could accrue to one. How could a sinner claim the right to judge or execute another sinner? As for the second question, granting that the right to punish the evil–doer was recognised by the Gita, it could be exercised by the properly constituted government only. Both the Sardar and Pandit Nehru will be rendered powerless if you become judge and executioner in one. They are tried servants of the nation. Give them a chance to serve you. Do not sabotage their efforts by taking the law into your own hands.”2 1

Gandhi was steadfast on his principles, which was frustrating for the RSS, and too shrewd to be taken in by the glib talk of the RSS men. They may have included Gandhi in the Pratah–Smaran (their morning prayer) but it certainly is not because any change of attitude towards him has come about. This was done in 1965 and a few years later the RSS members in the Delhi Municipal Corporation objected to a resolution referring to Gandhi as ‘Father of the Nation’.

If the RSS can demonstrate a change in its basic attitude the charge of Gandhi’s murder would get washed away. Otherwise it would stick, no matter what ritualistic cosmetics they employ. Such an opportunity was there in 1995–96 when a play based on Godse’s explanation justifying the crime was sought to be staged. The Congress government in Maharashtra banned the play but the BJP government in neighbouring Gujarat allowed it. Later when the Shiv Sena–BJP alliance came to power in Maharashtra the play was revived in that state. There were protests against it. The RSS chief, Prof. Rajendra Singh alias Rajju Bhaiya commented that Godse was not wrong in opposing Gandhi, only his method was not correct. n

(Excerpted from the book, Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, by DR Goyal, Radhakrishna Prakashan (P) Ltd., 2/38, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi – 110 002. The writer was formerly with the RSS).

Footnotes

1Morarji Desai, Story of My Life, p. 248.

2 Jawaharlal Nehru, Independence and After (1946-49), p. 17.

3 The Hindustan Times, February 3, 1948.

4 Durga Das (ed.), Sardar Patel’s Correspondence (1945-50), Vol. 6, p. 55.

5 PN Damodaran Nayar, Editor’s Note to Curran, op. cit., p. xiii.

6 Durga Das, op. cit., p. 323.

7 Justice on Trial: Historic Document of Guruji–Government Correspondence, pp. 26-28;

N.B. This letter also, incidentally, clarifies the misunderstanding created that the Sardar had invited them to join the Congress; the invitation is for rethinking and change of heart and then giving it a concrete shape by merger into the Congress. The same thing JP tried to accomplish later and failed.

8 The said witness, RN Banerjee, was a member of the ICS and we have known, on unimpeachable authority of Shri KR Malkani, that there was an RSS shakha consisting of ICS members. Mr. Banerjee could have been influenced by that shakha, if not its actual member.

9 See Secular Democracy, October 1970.

10 Gopal Godse, May It Please Your Honour: Statement of Nathuram Godse, p. 39.

11 Referring to the organisational tour of Hedgewar in Maharashtra in 1932 Curran writes, “One of his advisers on this tour was Nathuram Godse, who sixteen years later was to fire the pistol that killed Mahatma Gandhi. Godse had joined the RSS in 1930 winning prominence as a speaker and organiser; he left the Sangh in 1934 because Hedgewar refused to make the RSS a political organisation” (op. cit., pp. 18–19).

12 The non–publication of Curran’s study may be altogether innocent but it is intriguing. The Institute sponsored after this a study by Minoo R. Masani on the communist movement in modern India. The later work was promptly published as The Communist Party of India in 1954 by Derek Verschoyle in association with the Institute. Why?

13 Godse, ibid., p. 46.

14 Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, p. 756.

15 Ibid., p. 751.

16 Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, pp. 149-50.

17 Golwalkar, ibid., pp. 150-51.

18 Ibid., pp. 151-152.

19 Ibid., p. 152.

20 Quoted by Pyarelal, op.cit., p. 440.

21 Ibid., pp. 440-41.

Archived from Communalism Combat, August 2004, Anniversary Issue (11th), Year 11    No.100, Cover Story 5

The post Murder of the greatest Hindu appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Action taken by the GoI following Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination

In their resolution of February 2, 1948, the Government of India declared their determination to root out the forces of hate and violence that are at work in our country and imperil the freedom of the Nation and darken her fair name. In pursuance of this policy the Government of India have decided to declare unlawful the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in the Chief Commissioner’s Provinces. Similar action is also being taken in the Governor’s Provinces.

As democratic governments, the Government of India and the provincial governments have always been anxious to allow reasonable scope for genuine political, social and economic activities to all parties and organisations including those whose policies and purposes differ from, or even run counter to their own, subject to the consideration that such activities should not transgress certain commonly recognised limits of propriety or law. The professed aims and objects of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are to promote the physical, intellectual and moral well–being of the Hindus and also to foster feelings of brotherhood, love and service amongst them. Government themselves are most anxious to improve the general material and intellectual well–being of all sections of the people and have got schemes on hand which are designed to carry out these objects, particularly the provision of physical training and education in military matters to the youth of the country. Government have, however, noticed with regret that in practice members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have not adhered to their professed ideals.

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 Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh 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. These activities have been carried on under a cloak of secrecy, and the government have considered from time to time how far these activities rendered it incumbent on them to deal with the Sangh in its corporate capacity. The last occasion when the government defined this attitude was when the Premiers and the Home Ministers of provinces met in Delhi in conference towards the end of November.

It was then unanimously agreed that the stage when the Sangh should be dealt with as an association had not yet arrived and that individuals should continue to be dealt with sternly as hitherto. The objectionable and harmful activities of the Sangh have, however, continued unabated and the cult of violence sponsored and inspired by the activities of the Sangh has claimed many victims. The latest and the most precious to fall was Gandhiji himself.

In these circumstances it is the bounden duty of the government to take effective measures to curb this reappearance of violence in a virulent form and as a first step to this end, they have decided to declare the Sangh as an unlawful association. Government have no doubt that in taking this measure they have the support of all law–abiding citizens, of all those who have the welfare of the country at heart.  

(From the archives of the home ministry, government of India).

Archived from Communalism Combat, August 2004, Anniversary Issue (11th), Year 11    No.100, Cover Story 2

The post RSS is banned appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Soon after his release from prison in Nagpur after the statutory period of six months, Mr. Golwalkar, head of the RSS organisation, made approaches to the government which indicated a possibility that the activities of that organisation might be diverted and confined to channels which would have no harmful effect on the communal situation in the country. He also expressed a desire to interview the Home Minister. In order to enable him to do so, the Government of India requested the CP government to cancel an order issued by them under which Mr. Golwalkar’s movements had been restricted to the city of Nagpur and to facilitate his departure for Delhi for the specific purpose of seeing the Home Minister.

Mr. Golwalkar accordingly came to Delhi and had his first interview with the Home Minister soon after his arrival. There was an exchange of views and Mr. Golwalkar wanted some time to consult his followers in an attempt to influence them on the right lines. Some days later he had his second interview during which he expressed his inability to bind himself to any change until the ban was lifted. He felt that the lifting of the ban would strengthen his hands in dealing with his followers. Simultaneously, however, the Government of India had got in touch with provincial governments to acquaint themselves with their views and the latest information about the activities of the RSS. The information received by the Government of India shows that the activities carried on in various forms and ways by the people associated with the RSS tend to be anti–national and often subversive and violent and that persistent attempts are being made by the RSS to revive an atmosphere in the country which was productive of such disastrous consequences in the past. For these reasons, the provincial governments have declared themselves opposed to the withdrawal of the ban and the Government of India have concurred with the view of the provincial governments.

This position was conveyed to Mr. Golwalkar towards the end of the last month and he was told that since the purpose for which he had been allowed to come to Delhi had been served, he should now return to Nagpur. Mr. Golwalkar was not prepared to accept this position and expressed a desire to see the Home Minister and the Prime Minister on their return to Delhi. The Home Minister declined to grant a further interview, but in order to give him a chance to interview the Prime Minister on his return, if the latter so desired, he was allowed to remain in Delhi under certain restrictive orders issued by the District Magistrate of Delhi. Mr. Golwalkar declined to accept the orders of restrictions, but has made no attempts to contravene the restrictions imposed on him. He has written letters both to the Prime Minister and Home Minster explaining inter alia that the RSS agrees entirely in the conception of a secular state for India and that it accepts the National Flag of the country and requesting that the ban imposed on the organisation in February should now be lifted. These professions of the RSS leader are, however, quite inconsistent with the practice of his followers and for the reasons already explained above, the Government of India find themselves unable to advise provincial governments to lift the ban. The Prime Minister has, therefore, declined the interview which Mr. Golwalkar had sought.

Mr. Golwalkar is accordingly being informed that he should make immediate arrangements to return to Nagpur. The Government of India are also taking appropriate steps to ensure that Mr. Golwalkar complies with these instructions.

(From the archives of the home ministry, government of India).

Archived from Communalism Combat, August 2004, Anniversary Issue (11th), Year 11    No.100, Cover Story 3

The post Sardar’s tight leash on Sangh chief Guru Golwalkar’s pledge of good conduct fails to impress government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Do you approve of the BJP forging an alliance with Jayalalitha who is facing criminal charges?
The BJP might have alliances but each party has a different manifesto and they are fighting on their own agenda. It’s only a question of seat adjustments to make sure that their votes don’t get divided and the third party doesn’t win. And the BJP has not done anything which we don’t approve of.

Despite your assertion that Kashi and Mathura are very much on the agenda of the RSS, the BJP has always shied away from the issue. Why do the different organisations of the sangh speak different languages?
Being a political party, the BJP thinks and talks about the immediate issues. They need not think about the questions of the future. At present we cannot do anything about Ram Janmabhoomi because the land surrounding it has been taken over by the government.

Your ideal of good governance?
By good governance I mean our MLAs and MPs should be honest. I feel that had the government followed the Indian culture we would have accomplished our dream.

But didn’t Kalyan Singh induct people with criminal links in his cabinet?
He did it to show that the BJP was not an untouchable. To show that you can’t make a fool of us every time and topple our governments. For abnormal times we have to adopt abnormal policies.

The BJP is ruling in at least four states. Are you satisfied with their performance?
Their performance hasn’t been good, as the bureaucracy is the same. It takes five to seven years to change them. Also, because of a fear that the Centre will use Article 356 to dismiss them.

What is your opinion about Nathuram Godse who killed Gandhi?
Godse was motivated by (the philosophy of) Akhanda Bharat. Uske mantavya achhe thhe par usne achhe uddeshya ke liye galat method istemal kiya (His intention was good but he used the wrong methods). Initially, he was a member of the Congress, later he joined the RSS and left it subsequently, saying that it was a slow organisation. Then he formed his own group. He was shocked to see crores of people migrate (from Pakistan) and wanted to kill all the leaders.

(Outlook magazine, January 19, 1998).

Archived from Communalism Combat, August 2004, Anniversary Issue (11th), Year 11    No.100, Cover Story 4

The post ‘Godse’s intention was good’: Rajju Bhaiya appeared first on SabrangIndia.

THE publicity given to the Nathuram Godse memorial meeting, held in Bombay on November 17 (1993), has been extremely embarrassing to the Bharatiya  Janata Party, which would like to disown all connections with Mahatma Gandhi’s killer. The meeting, unusually for this annual event, was widely reported, and saw several inflammatory speeches eulogising Godse and vilifying Gandhiji. On November 21, BJP president LK Advani issued a statement denying that his party had anything to do with the recent attempts to glorify Nathuram. "Nathuram Godse was a bitter critic of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh," he said. "His charge was that the RSS had made Hindus impotent. We have had nothing to do with Godse. The Congress is in the habit of reviving this allegation against us when it finds nothing else." (The Times of India, November 22, 1993).
 

In fact, Nathuram Godse was a life-long member of the RSS, attaining the position of baudhik karyavah (intellectual worker). His statement at the murder trial (originally published in 1977, in a volume entitled May It Please Your Honour) says, "I am one of those volunteers who joined the Sangha in its initial stage" (p. 142). He says he left it to do more directly political work in the Hindu Mahasabha (he does not say when). But his brother Gopal Godse suggests that he never really left the RSS (see interview), and that the statement at his trial was meant to alleviate the pressure on the Sangh, which was banned following Gandhiji’s murder. A leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, Shyama Prasad Mookherjee, went on to found the Jana Sangh, forerunner of the BJP.
 

Mere membership does not, of course, mean responsibility: the BJP does not necessarily have to answer for the actions of each person ever associated with the sangh parivar. But in this case, the chickens have come home to roost. Gopal Godse reacts to Advani’s statement angrily, and calls it the response of a coward. The politics of swayamsevaks like the Godses does not differ too greatly from that of the RSS and the BJP today. The BJP’s campaign slogan in the recent elections: Hum ne jo kaha, so kiye (What we said, we did), boasting of an event that consumed thousands of lives, denotes an implacability of resolve at least equal to Nathuram’s.
 

Meeting Gopal Godse himself is helpful in uncovering any affinities that might exist between his politics and that of the sangh parivar. He lives in the heart of old Pune, in Sadashiv Peth, in a new apartment building called Vinayak. His flat shares a landing with a bank, and, in that busy space, it is startling to see the names in Devanagari script in prominent red on the door: "Shri Gopal Godse. Sow. Sunita Godse."
 

He opens the door. Gandhiji’s murderer, you think, but there he is, a tall, slightly bent man in pyjamas and an old yellow sleeveless sweater. You scan his appearance for signs of what might make him different. But as in most scandals, one experiences the shock of banality on meeting its perpetrator. He looks, for all purposes, like any other Chitpavan Brahmin one sees in Sadashiv Peth – a frail old man, albeit with hooded eyes. He remains proud of his Chitpavan heritage. He smiles slightly and lowers his gaze – the half-conscious reaction, perhaps, to a lifetime of notoriety.
 

A large glass case dominates the drawing room decorations. It contains a small silver urn surrounded by photographs. In the urn are the ashes of Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte. The pictures are of them and of VD Savarkar. Just below the case is a porcelain plate with Savarkar’s portrait. His motto, "Hinduise all politics and militarise Hindudom", encircles the picture. Although, "honourably acquitted" of conspiring to kill Gandhi, Savarkar was nevertheless a close associate of Nathuram Godse. Gopal Godse’s daughter Asilata has married Ashok Savarkar, son of Savarkar’s younger brother Narayan. Both families are still close to the Hindu Mahasabha (the party Nathuram belonged to and Savarkar was president of for several years); Gopal Godse was until recently its general secretary.
 

He is eager to talk. "Greedy to spread his message," as he puts it – to justify his brother’s act, and to propagate the concept of Hindu Rashtra which, he feels, is the only answer to the country’s political problems. He is polite and courteous; though his views may be offensive in the extreme, he tries not to let his manners impede the reception of his ideas. It is hard for most people to conceive of Gandhiji’s killers as other than demented or demonic. This is obviously a matter very much on his own mind. He is constrained to refute the myth that Nathuram was a madman or a fanatic. "You may disagree with his views, but you must first consider his arguments," Gopal says.
 

He rejects all existing political parties except the Hindu Mahasabha. Every other party, he says, is guilty of pandering to the Muslims and consequently endangering the nation. Similar criticisms of the BJP, however, are made by several within the RSS itself. Godse’s views themselves have much in common with those of the BJP. India is nothing if not Hindu – this is the theme he tirelessly stresses, in one variation after another. Muslims do not have their original place of worship within this country, and it is essential, in his view (derived from Savarkar), that one’s place of birth is also one’s holy land. Muslims can be loyal only to Pakistan; every Muslim in India is a Pakistani agent, he says. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad slogan "Babar ki santaan – jao Pakistan ya kabristan (Children of Babar – go to Pakistan or else to the grave!)" dramatises this sentiment.
 

He has spent much time in the last few years studying texts on Hindu architecture. His object is to demonstrate that, while Hinduism provided the sanskriti, or culture, of India, Islamic influence was nothing but vikruti, destruction. The Taj Mahal was a Siva temple – this is proven by the fact that Siva temples have four doorways. The Taj, like many other Mughal structures of its kind, has four doorways. All those other Mughal structures, therefore, are also Siva temples, Godse argues. The Qutb Minar is a particular preoccupation of his – another Hindu structure usurped and defaced by invaders, and originally called the Dwija Sthamba, he maintains. He has even convinced an M. Phil student to do his thesis on the subject. The Muslims did not build a single structure in India, he asserts, astonishingly. All they did was to efface Hindu icons and ornamentation from existing structures, and often incompletely. He has memorised many Sanskrit and Arabic verses for dramatic effect, and urges visitors to test his memory. He recites the verses, which few visitors understand in any case, in support of his arguments. He cites Sitaram Goel, author of What Happened to the Hindu Temples? which gave the rhetorical foundation to the VHP’s long list of mosques to be demolished. Most of his ideas with respect to architecture and culture, however, derive from PN Oak, the ex-Indian National Army volunteer and "scholar" who claims all of world culture for Hinduism’s province. Rome was named after Ram, Christianity is actually Krishna-niti, and so on; an entire history is swiftly fabricated by manipulating the syllables of proper nouns.
 

What unites these ideas is an insistence on the unity of history, geography, culture, religion and nation, extending to every object or individual within the region. He follows fearlessly the implications of this monistic political theology. No displacements, no articulations of different but related parts are allowed; every artefact and every text forever reduplicates the immutable truth that is ‘Hindu’. Just what this truth is, is in itself less important than its endless proliferation under the same category. All his theorising is then ultimately a process of renaming. The etymology of "category" is categorein, to accuse; "Hindu" functions not as a neutral name but in sharp opposition to its "others", notably Muslims. For Godse, Hindus and Muslims can never be part of the same nation without disastrous results, Islam is an inherently fanatic, aggressive religion, and its adherents will always take advantage of the tolerance and catholicity of Hindus. The opposition to Muslims only serves to render Hindus more like their demonic "others", the Muslims, but that seems secondary to the imperative of survival.
 

When questioned on the need for aggression, he demonstrates a deft ability at sophistry. Carrying through the assumption of the unity of the individual, religion and nation, he declares the concept of aggression to be inapplicable in the case of action against Muslims. "I cannot be violent in my own country," he says, comparing Muslims to a "foreign attack" of virus.
 

Godse’s ideas are in a continuum with Hindu right-wing thought today. They draw from and reflect its characteristics. They have the trait of candour, of fleshing out the implications of what an Advani or a Vajpayee would be more likely to obscure with assurances of moderation and democratic process that are routinely violated. They have a great deal in common with, for instance, Uma Bharati, an "extremist" who was, however, always seen by the side of the moderate Advani after the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Muslims are the main target of her wrath: "Muslims are like Sudras – dirty, filthy people," she said in a conversation with this writer last year. "We must tyrannise them. If any one of them creates any kind of fuss, they should simply be killed. Even her reassurances were alarming: "I am not a Hitler," she said. "I am not going to build gas chambers."
 

Others, like journalist Arun Shourie, concentrate their attacks on the enemy within, namely pseudo-secularists. In a November 25 lecture in Pune under the auspices of the Lok Swaraj Andolan (to promote his new book A Secular Agenda), he reminded his audience that Abraham Lincoln had fought a civil war to keep his country from splitting into two. The war killed two per cent of the country’s population, but no one questioned the necessity of the war – it was redeemed by the nobility of its purpose. Two per cent of India’s population amounted to 18 million, but Shourie made it clear that India too should be prepared for such a war.
 

If you turn to MS Golwalkar, the RSS leader, the confirmation of a continuity with Godse’s views is even more emphatic: "When we say ‘This is the Hindu Nation,’ there are some who immediately come up with the question, ‘What about the Muslims and Christians…?’ They are born in this land, no doubt. But are they true to their salt? … Do they feel a duty to serve her? No!… They look to some foreign lands as their holy places… They have cut off their ancestral moorings of this land (sic) and mentally merged themselves with the aggressors. They still think that they have come here only to conquer and establish their kingdoms. So we see that it is not merely a case of change of faith, but a change even in national identity. What else is it, if not treason, to join the camp of the enemy leaving their mother-nation in the lurch?" (Bunch of Thoughts, pp. 166-167).
 

Every Muslim, for Golwalkar as for Godse, is a foreign agent with little to do but engage in anti-national activities, usually of a violent kind: "…The Muslims are busy hatching a dangerous plot, piling up arms and mobilising their men and probably biding their time to strike from within when Pakistan decides upon an armed conflict with our country… Not that our leaders do not know it. The secret intelligence reports reach them all right. But it seems they have in view only elections. Elections means vote catching, which means appeasing certain sections… And the Muslims are one such solid bloc. Therein lies the root of all this appeasement and consequent disastrous effects." (Bunch of Thoughts, pp. 239-240).
 

Compare this with Gopal Godse: "They make bomb blasts in Bombay in the name of the Koran. They will continue because the Koran is very clear. They want to Islamise their complete world. And the secularism is the most fertile ground for them to do it… Outside, what happens today, for Haj, a Muslim who is a smuggler goes there. And a Pakistani minister goes there. They join there together under the name of Islam. They dictate what is to be done in India… So all conspiracies go on in the name of Islam. And we allow it." (Godse, personal interview).
 

The true Hindu patriot has two enemies: the Muslim and the "secular" (nowadays pseudo-secular) government. The Muslim’s danger is well known and unambivalent, whereas that of the secularists is much less so. Parading itself as tolerant and pluralistic, the secular government is actually calculating and selfish, and will lead the nation to disaster. Only in Hindutva is such narrow selfishness overcome, as individual identity merges with the nation. In these ideas, Godse and the RSS "guru", Golwalkar, are unanimous.
 

It must be conceded that the BJP and the RSS are more sensitive to public opinion, to the practicality of actually getting something done, as opposed to landing up behind bars or in the gallows after having made a "statement" of some kind. Especially with the BJP, a party primarily seeking power, the ideas its leaders express are often serviceable means to an end rather than deep convictions. In this respect, the saying goes, BJP minus RSS equals Congress (a witticism that says as much about the Congress as about the BJP). It is the RSS which is the backbone of the Hindutva party and which makes the BJP different from other parties.
 

The habit of seeing dangerous conspiracies everywhere, of calling for rooting out a scourge that threatens the nation, is itself sign of a paranoid mentality that in the US, for instance, was called McCarthyism. Perhaps we should cease calling a paranoid and violent politics by its own preferred name of ‘Hindutva’, and thereby deny it any respectable cover. Advani’s disavowal of Nathuram Godse’s connection with the RSS flies in the face of the well-documented connections between them and the essential similarity of their ideas, as suggested by Nathuram’s published statements, as well as Gopal Godse’s own words (see interview). The Janata Dal slogan against the BJP in the recent elections summed it up: "Muh me Ram aur dil me Nathuram (Ram on their lips and Nathuram in their hearts)".
 

(Frontline, January 28, 1994).

Archived from Communalism Combat, August 2004, Anniversary Issue (11th), Year 11    No.100, Cover Story

The post Resurrecting Godse: The Hindutva continuum appeared first on SabrangIndia.