Gandhiji and RSS: The Cultural Grounding of Social Representations

RSS, Patriotism and Nationalism

As a cultural organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is keen on eradicating fissiparous tendencies in India, making the people of all sections realise their glorious cultural heritage, inculcating in them a spirit of service for the motherland, building up a well-disciplined social and corporate life and bringing about an all-round cultural renaissance in the society based on the Indian cultural values. ¹ The RSS is scarcely engaged in power politics, though its ideology was entrenched in the factors and forces that go into the making of democratic politics in India. ² Despite misgivings, speculations and serious charges about the activities of the RSS levelled by its critics, Mahatma Gandhi did not allow himself to be misguided, or be judgemental and prejudiced. Deflating all these scuttlebutts against the activities of the RSS, Gandhiji commended the RSS as a well-organised and well-disciplined organisation whose strength could be used in the best interest of India. ³ There are more similarities than differences between Gandhiji and the RSS on subject matters such as Ram Rajya, cow protection, Rashtra Bhasha (national language) removal of untouchability, religious conversion and preservation of Indian heritage, as well as Bharatiyatva or Indianness. ⁴ The RSS continues to derive its ideological strength from Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, B.G. Tilak, Aurobindo Ghosh, Swami Vivekananda, Gandhiji, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya and others. ⁵

The RSS leaders believe that the advancement of the nation would not be possible without an innate patriotism, nationalism and Indianness in Indian society. They assert that the RSS is neither a secret or military body nor a private army but a cultural organisation. ⁶ In the words of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, RSS was formed to ‘achieve the exalted goals of nation-building and individual building’. ⁷

In his address at the annual function of the Delhi branch of the RSS held in Delhi on 7 December 1947, its chief M.S. Golwalkar, popularly known as Guruji (hereafter Guruji) emphatically denied that the RSS was neither a military nor a semi-military body. He argued that the British found the revival of Hindutva a threat to their domination. He explained that the RSS not only stood for the ‘Sangathan’ (unity) of the Hindu Samaj (society) but also wanted to make it a strong united body. Emphasising the sacred mission of the RSS, Guruji asserted:

Swayamsevaks would prefer to burn themselves to ashes in the cause of their Motherland, her defence, honour and culture. To save Hindutva is the sacred mission of the Sangh. With that firm determination, we are facing our problems and no one, not even the Creator of the Universe, can stand in our way of achieving true Bharatiyatva. ⁸

Emphasising the view that his ideal was to feel one with Hindu society, Guruji stated that the RSS never sought the press nor a platform. It never indulged in the so-called politics of the day. As a cultural organisation, Guruji argued, RSS had been spreading the message of love and brotherhood among the people in order to bring them closer together. Yet, some vested interested parties had launched a crusade against the organisation. He stated that the RSS was not much concerned over the criticisms. It is like an open book, in no way hidden from the public and those who keep their eyes open and minds unbiased would easily understand what the RSS stands for. He believed that baseless charges would not harm the organisation. On the contrary, it would only assist in increasing the popularity of the organisation. He argued that those who believed that the RSS was a military organisation had no idea what really constituted a military organisation. ⁹

Commenting on the ‘demon of provincialism’ in India, Guruji noted that various differences have crept in to destroy India’s unity and the demon of provincialism based on linguistic basis made the people proudly declare that they would not allow the entry into their province of anyone except those belonging to that particular province. Guruji indicated that such an attitude was in direct conflict with the teachings and principles of the Hindu society. Such attempts made to separate Hindu from Hindu would only make the nation weak and timid. Commenting on the duty of Hindus, Guruji underlined that the Hindu society was the family for all and everyone should work for the protection of the country. He appealed to every member of this big family called the Hindu society to rise to his/her responsibilities and work for the honour of the nation by imbibing the spirit of service. He asserted that the guiding motto of every Hindu should be: ‘I am a part of this big family and whatever I do will be for its honour and prestige.’ Guruji also declared that unity among the people cannot not be brought about through politics or economics. Solidarity could be achieved only from within. He specified that love towards one another and a spirit of working together in joy and in sorrow was the way forward. Only in that way could the people remove the weaknesses in society and check its disintegration. By doing so, the society would not only achieve self-realisation but would also find its soul that would lead to an everlasting unity. ¹⁰

Guruji argued that the main pillars of Hindu unity, Hindu dharma, Hindu culture, Hindu Flag and Hindustan were discarded during colonial times. He added that all these pillars were the shining symbols that have always guided the nation. He asked: ‘Who would care to speak in praise of Rana Pratap and his marvellous deeds—deeds that were capable of creating a torrent of emotions in their hearts?’ Guruji commented that Rana Pratap was the person who sacrificed his all in the cause of the nation, the Hindu race, its independence and honour. Rana Pratap had to wander in the jungles and forests for the sake of the nation, keeping it united and expanding that unity. He suffered every kind of hardship but never once did he bow his head in surrender. ¹¹

The aggressive missionary proselytisation, cultural onslaughts on Hinduism, colonisation of Indian culture and communalisation of the secular minds in the nineteenth century played a crucial role in the emergence of cultural rejuvenation. The RSS has been persistently advocating the idea that true nationalists would live and die for their nation and that they would have unshakeable faith in nationalism, not in narrow individualism. It was believed that the primary reason for the tremendous growth of the prosperity and prestige of countries such as America, England and Russia is the spirit of nationalism so fervently displayed by their citizens. ¹² The changing landscape on the cultural front since the second half of the nineteenth century did not only generate exclusive communal sensibilities among those who followed the legacy of the Mughals as former rulers but also created an ecosystem where the culturally conscious Hindus endeavoured to assert their unity and identity.

Changing Cultural Landscape After the Indian War of Independence

Writing history as a distinctive way of organising and representing knowledge underwent a series of changes after the Indian War of Independence in 1857. V.D. Savarkar, the first nationalist who recognised the 1857 Revolt as the First War of Indian Independence, had committed to a non-communal approach to history writing. ¹³ He indicated that the nation ought to be the master and not the slave of its own history. ¹⁴ Despite the fact that the Indian War of Independence was a tacit test to see how far India had come towards unity, independence and popular power, the fault of failure, as Savarkar indicated, lies with the idle, effeminate, selfish and treacherous men who ruined it. ¹⁵ The massive imperial reconfiguration and response to the First War of Independence changed the definitions of religion, politics and society in general and the religious discourse of Indian Muslims in particular. ¹⁶

The political vacuum after the Mughals profoundly altered the social, cultural and political landscape of India by creating a series of ideological conflicts between various social groups, most notably between Hindus and Muslims. A considerable number of Muslim elites expressed their ‘apprehension’ that the future of Muslims would be at the hands of ‘majoritarian’ Hindus. They continued to hold the view that since the interests of their community were mutually incompatible with those of the Hindus, they would be forced to live as ‘minorities’. ¹⁷ Muslims were keen to maintain a cordial relationship with the British to challenge the politics of the Indian National Congress (hereafter Congress), thereby weakening India’s struggle for independence.

The most crucial challenge to the writing of secular and inclusive nationalist history came from Syed Ahmed Khan. He not only claimed himself as an ‘inheritor of the Islamic dynastic history’ but also asserted that Hindus and Muslims were two nations. While defending the idea of separate representation for Muslims, he argued that the identity of Muslims was completely different from that of the Hindus. ¹⁸ Thus, the pernicious policy of divide and rule, propagated by the East India Company, was further expanded by Syed Ahmed Khan. He was perhaps the first Muslim in India to appeal to his fellow Muslims to organise themselves for their improvement socially, politically and educationally. Arguably, in the pre-Congress period, he portrayed himself as a ‘nationalist’, advocating the cause of Hindu–Muslim unity. As soon as the Congress was formed in 1885, his outlook towards Indian nationalism and communal harmony began to change drastically. While developing the notion of ‘majority-minority’ discourse in his writings and speeches, he perceived that the Congress was a ‘Hindu organisation’ and anticipated that the Muslims would be forced to be a ‘minority’ with no political privilege. Portraying the anti-colonial struggle spearheaded by the Congress as the ‘cries of jackals and crows’, Syed Ahmed Khan made repeated appeals to the Muslims not to join the Congress. He expressed his apprehension that Muslims would not be safe in the ‘Hindu’ Congress. He challenged the anti-colonial programmes of the moderate leaders of the Congress and their ideologies through his communal organisation Mohammedan Defence Association of Upper India. He was possibly the first Muslim in India (in the post-Congress period) to articulate the sectarian idea that the Muslims were a separate community whose future was with the British government. ¹⁹

He described the Muslims who joined the Congress as ‘men of no substance’ belonging to the ‘lower’ classes. He argued in favour of nomination of members of the affluent sections to the legislative councils on account of their social prestige. He reiterated that any system of elections would bestow the political power of legislation into the hands of Hindus, who would create a condition of ‘utmost degradation’ among the Muslims. ²⁰ His legacy was carried forward by the All India Muslim League (hereafter League) during India’s struggle for independence. The biggest worry of the freedom movement, as Koenraad Elst argues, was the communalist collaboration of the League with the colonial administration in exchange for communal electorates. The manner in which a large number of Indian Muslims agreed to stay aloof from the anti-colonial struggles generated a series of political speculations and cultural contestations. ²¹

Making of the Two-nation Theory

Drawing their ideological strength from the political past, a section of the self-proclaimed former ruling class Muslims attempted to recreate and legitimise their ‘ruling’ identity. The establishment of the British government in India in 1858, as Hardy comments, further deflated those Muslims, who wanted to preserve their illusions and adhere to their own terms. The last illusion that they were the mayors of the Mughal palaces and had education in Persian and Urdu was also started declining. This led to discontentment among the Muslims, particularly among the former ruling-class Muslim elites. Consequently, there was a division among the Muslims based on personal, ethnic, class and regional affiliations. ²²

While the Hindu enthusiasts accentuated the glory of the ancient past by appropriating their glorious cultural heritage, the lineages of the ruled Muslim elites persistently tried to uphold their identity as ex-rulers. Muslim leaders like Syed Ahmed Khan remarked that they were different from others socially and culturally. Those who claimed that they had distinctive social, political and cultural interests, were, thus, made to think that they had nothing common with ‘other’ communities. ²³

Syed Ahmed Khan was of the view that the domination of the Congress would lead to a ‘majoritarian’ rule, which would mean the Hindu community’s domination over the Muslim ‘minorities’. He proposed that the Muslim electors must vote for a Muslim member and the Hindu electors should vote for a Hindu member so that the Muslims and Hindus could protect their rights, respectively, without any domination over the other. ²⁴ He expressed his discontent that the Muslims were ‘minorities’, ‘backward’ in education and ‘underrepresented’ in government service. ²⁵

Syed Ahmed Khan indicated that the interests of the Hindus and Muslims were entirely different and appealed to Muslims to keep themselves away from the Hindus. He believed that since Muslims were one nation, Hindus and Muslims would never be able to live together. He maintained that Muslim children must be educated separately as the educational institutions run by non-Muslims were absolutely incongruous for Muslims. His intention was to teach Muslim students Persian and Arabic, along with other subjects, so that they would be able to stay together, eat together, study together and grow up together as ‘good Muslims’. ²⁶ He assumed that bestowing the political power of legislation into the hands of Hindus would create a condition of ‘utmost degradation’ for the Muslims. ²⁷

Communal Electorates and the Making of RSS

If the British policy of divide and rule was primarily responsible for the growth of communal politics in India, the two-nation ideology initiated by Syed Ahmed Khan and the demand for separate communal electorates by the League further intensified communal politics. Perhaps to gain the sympathy of Muslims, Viceroy Curzon partitioned Bengal in 1905 and created a Muslim-dominated province. This created a ‘consciousness of an exalted community feeling’ among the Muslims. ²⁸ The partition of Bengal, as Curzon remarked, was intended largely to create a kind of unity among the Muslims in Eastern Bengal, which they had not enjoyed since the days of the Muslim viceroys and kings. ²⁹ The Secretary to the Government of India, H. Risley, who endorsed Curzon’s statement, clarified that the most important objective of the partition of Bengal was to split up the people’s group and to weaken the solid body of opponents to the British rule. ³⁰

The feeling of high-ranking community consciousness became a widespread phenomenon when Nawaz Salimulah Khan established the All India Muslim League in 1906. The predominant objective of this political organisation was to ‘generate’ opportunities for the educated Muslims and to put a ‘check’ on the growing influence of the supposedly Hindu-dominated Congress. Subsequently, the League demanded a separate electorate exclusively for Muslims. The League leader Agha Khan headed a Muslim delegation in 1906 and met the British Viceroy Minto. ³¹ Emphasising the need to adapt democratic institutions to Indian social, economic and religious plights, Agha Khan in his memorandum contended that the interests of the Muslims were at the ‘mercy of an unsympathetic’ Hindu majority. ³² The leaders of the League claimed that no ‘tyranny’ could be as great as the tyranny of the ‘majority’. ³³ The League was instrumental in pushing a section of the Muslims away from mainstream (secular) politics to demand and establish a separate Islamic theocratic state with the support of the British. The manner in which the British supported the Muslim communal politics created an effective stumbling block to India’s struggle for independence. ³⁴ The communal politics became an organised mass phenomenon largely through separate communal electorates. ³⁵

The Muslims contemplated that only 6.59% of the Congress members were Muslims prior to the formation of the League in 1906. According to the proportion observable in the population, it was believed that Muslims had an inadequate proportion of representation. ³⁶ This prompted the Muslim community to resolve that the Congress could never be their genuine representative body. This cumulative apprehension over ‘inadequate’ representation in the political process, anticipation for the continued political privilege as the ex-ruling class, formation of the League, a steadfast determination in obtaining separate electorates for Muslims in 1909 and mobilisation of the Muslim community through the Khilafat movement, appear to have created apprehensions among Hindus. ³⁷

In addition to all this, after a series of discussions, the League leader Agha Khan was able to convince the Viceroy. Subsequently, separate electorates were given to Muslims. The Minto-Morley reforms of 1909 and the Montague Chelmsford reforms of 1919 further intensified communal consciousness among the Muslims. While defending the idea of separate electorates for Muslims, the British officials specified that the interests of the Muslims were dissimilar from those of ‘other’ Indians. The British colonists were consistent in their policy of sectarianism in India in order to weaken the nationalist movement. The League’s communalism politics played a crucial role in the emergence of political and cultural organisations among the Hindus. While the All India Hindu Mahasabha (hereafter Mahasabha) emphasised the need for Hindu unity and social reform through political representation, the founder of the RSS, Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar alias Doctorji, a staunch nationalist and a medical doctor from Nagpur, endeavoured to unite people on cultural commonalities. He argued that the deep social divisions among Indians were solely responsible for a thousand years of foreign dominance in the Indian subcontinent. ³⁸ Even though Doctorji was the leader (Sarsanghchaalak) of the RSS, decision-making and policy formulations were decided collectively. ³⁹

Despite the fact that the critics of the RSS were trying to find fault lines with the RSS leaders and their Brahmanical caste backgrounds, ⁴⁰ the speeches and actions of the RSS leaders clearly indicate that they transcended the boundaries of the caste system. The RSS with its vision of integral humanism made a series of efforts to unite people, cutting across religion, region, language and caste. As Ratan Sharda demonstrates, the RSS continued to eradicate the curse of untouchability by challenging discriminatory practices. When Dr B.R. Ambedkar and Gandhiji visited the RSS shakhas, they applauded the RSS for keeping the caste system away from its deliberations. ⁴¹ RSS leaders like Doctorji persistently worked at the grassroots level in order to unite and reform Hindu society from the bottom. ⁴²

Doctorji was an admirer of Shivaji and an avid reader of B.G. Tilak’s nationalist weekly Kesari. He began his political career by joining the Congress in 1919. As a state-level leader, he was part of the organising committee of the Congress national plenary session in 1920 in Nagpur where Gandhiji emerged as a national leader. Doctorji also established close contacts with Bengal revolutionaries. ⁴³ The RSS cadres and leaders in the 1920s participated in almost all the programmes organised by the Congress. Doctorji applauded the Poorna Swaraj (complete independence) call of the Congress in December 1929. ⁴⁴

The ideology that Hindus were a common nation, common race and a common civilisation based on the rites, rituals, ceremonies and sacraments attracted a great deal of attention from the RSS leaders. ⁴⁵ The objective of the RSS was to generate awareness among Hindus of their common cultural heritage. ⁴⁶ The RSS leaders stated clearly that their mission was to unite people culturally. ⁴⁷ They believed that elite Muslims were making every effort to re-establish political domination over India. ⁴⁸

The Congress and the British government were equally responsible for the communal politics in India because both accepted the demand of separate communal electorates for Muslims without any critical scrutiny. Arguably, the Congress accommodated Muslim liberal communalists to work within the Congress organisation. M.A. Jinnah, who began his political career as an ‘Ambassador of Hindu–Muslim unity’, became a communal nationalist after joining the League. ⁴⁹

Muslim League, RSS and Gandhians

When Gandhiji entered Indian politics, India was undergoing a period of moderate communalism that appeared to be detrimental to the struggle for independence. In the 1920s, Gandhiji endeavoured to transform the Congress party into a movement. Although he looked at the Indian nation as a harmonious collection of religious communities, he promoted a syncretic and spiritual brand of the Hindu religion in which all creeds were bound to merge. ⁵⁰ This is largely due to the fact that Hinduism has often been understood not as a religion in the modern use of the term but as a conglomeration of multiple sects. ⁵¹ As a mass leader, Gandhiji tried to understand the complex and varied ideologies of the League, the Mahasabha and the RSS. Yet, his encounter with the RSS was a crucial and historic one for a variety of reasons.

There are broadly two schools of thought on Gandhiji’s encounter with the RSS. Those who are critical about the action programmes of the RSS claim that it is merely a Hindu communal organisation. They argue that the contribution of the RSS to the Indian freedom struggle was almost ‘deleterious’. They maintain that the RSS is rooted in the Brahminical scriptural prescriptions and practices and assert that it derives its ideological strength primarily from upper caste Hindus. They remark that the ideology propounded by the RSS lies in its linkages with the religious beliefs of the people and in its ‘aggressive propaganda’ through the invocation of religious symbols to arouse popular consciousness. Commenting on the attitude of the RSS towards culture, K.N. Panikkar states that for the RSS a significant component of life was not politics but culture as it believed that establishing the primacy of culture was to bring religion to the forefront for the centre–state. He contended that the RSS attempted to construct the notion of Hindu cultural nationalism by creating a logical connection between culture, religion and the nation. ⁵²

In a similar vein, those who were apprehensive of the ideological orientation of the RSS raise a number of questions on its involvement in the freedom struggle. Shamsul Islam, for example stated that the people of India had every right to know the details of the movements launched by the RSS to free the country from British imperialism. He also challenged the RSS to reveal the names of the RSS leaders who underwent repression under British rule or went to jail or became martyrs during India’s struggle for independence. ⁵³

In fact, even before Gandhiji had his personal encounters with the RSS, his personal secretary Pyarelal Nayyar was keen on depicting the RSS in a bad light saying that it was a ‘militant communalist Hindu’ organisation. The manner in which Pyarelal tried to portray the RSS as a ‘communal’ body with a ‘totalitarian outlook’ ⁵⁴ created a great deal of inquisitiveness among the critics of the RSS.

On the contrary, those historians who have analysed the communal politics in India before the RSS was formed argue that it is a national voluntary organisation that represents the interests of all sections of the people in India. ⁵⁵ They maintain that the RSS is not a reactionary organisation towards any particular religion. ⁵⁶ The primary objective of the organisation was to create a consciousness of Indianness among the people of India. ⁵⁷ Recent studies made by Ratan Sharda reveal that the RSS is neither a reactionary nor an orthodox organisation. Rather, it is an organisation which persistently endeavours to consolidate Indian society cutting across regions, religions and languages. He also demonstrates convincingly the crucial role played by the RSS in the struggle for Indian independence. ⁵⁸ As K.R. Malkani argues, the RSS has no permanent friends and no eternal enemies but only permanent goals. ⁵⁹

Those who uphold the view that the RSS is a national voluntary organisation demonstrate that its activities could hardly be equated with that of the Congress, the League and the Mahasabha. They argue that the RSS as a potential force has been attempting to unite the people on common cultural grounds. Rejecting the argument that Hindu–Muslim animosity was the brainchild of the divide-and-rule policy of the British, Makkhan Lal proposes a radically new point of view. He argues that it was the Muslim elite class that created the Hindu–Muslim divide to protect and further their own vested interest. He substantiates his argument that there was not much animosity between Hindus and Muslims though the Hindu masses suffered considerably under Muslim rule between 1193 and 1857 AD. He added that the elite Muslim Syed Ahmed Khan, who appeared on the horizon as a powerful spokesperson and a ‘saviour’ of Muslims, had a controversial and contentious political philosophy. Lal indicates that Syed Ahmed Khan not only attempted to get the sympathy of the British rulers but also appealed to Muslims to adopt modern Western education in English in order to achieve an exclusive religious identity. Commenting on the strategy adopted by Syed Ahmed Khan to achieve a ‘better deal’ for his community, Makkhan Lal stated that Khan’s political philosophy resulted in espousing the cause of separatism and establishing the two-nation theory. ⁶⁰ As a result, the RSS had no other alternative but to unite all the people to bring about a sense of solidarity among them. Similarly, the RSS was also keen on regenerating Hindu dharma and cultural consciousness among the people. ⁶¹

This study argues that the RSS generated cultural consciousness among the people by transcending the boundaries of caste, class, region and language. The RSS leaders reiterated that throughout its history in general and the Gandhian era in particular, the organisation had no desire to oppose ‘others’ had no feeling of retaliation to resist the Congress or the British or the Muslims. The primary objective of the RSS was to enable Hindustan to attain its individual personality by illuminating the bright sun of humanity and Indianness. The pledge that RSS volunteers took clearly indicates that they had become part of the RSS largely to attain freedom for the nation. Thus, the primary goal of the RSS was complete freedom without partition. ⁶² To this end, the RSS sought to disseminate its ideology of unity among all sections of the people.

Gandhiji and the RSS

The League was not only directly opposed to the anti-colonial programme but was also explicitly loyal to British rule. This, in turn, cemented the formalisation of British-Muslim reconciliation. In response to the creation of the League, provincial Hindu Sabhas were formed in Punjab, which was considered to be the heartland of the Arya Samaj. ⁶³ Subsequently, the feeling of subservience resulted in the formation of two contending organisations—Mahasabha in 1915 and RSS in 1925. ⁶⁴ The first unit of the RSS acted as a vigilante group to protect Hindus against Muslim rioters who had been given a free hand by the police in Nagpur. ⁶⁵ Subsequently, the northern parts of India witnessed a series of ideological conflicts between Hindus and Muslims. Arguably, the League and the Mahasabha followed the policy of ‘stigmatisation’ and ‘emulation’. ⁶⁶ In the language of Gandhiji, the problem of Hindu–Muslim relations was forced to pass into the hands of God, as it was understood that there was no possibility of human control in the foreseeable future. ⁶⁷ Doctorji persistently remarked that it was the Muslim rioters who initiated communal riots in various parts of India including Multan, Nagpur and Kanpur. ⁶⁸

The ways in which the RSS as a cultural organisation kept itself from the uncontrollable might of the leadership, and the manner in which the entire organisational structure had been designed to moderate the role of the state democratically, safeguarded the organisation from getting entangled in contentious fascist inclinations. As Donald Smith argued convincingly, the RSS can never be contemplated as a fascist organisation, largely due its unique way of functioning within the broader scope of democratic polity. ⁶⁹

Even though the British did not consider the RSS as an impending threat, government servants were banned from joining the RSS in 1931 as the government misconstrued it as a political movement. The ban was further extended to include school teachers in 1932 in this category in the Central Province. A cut motion was passed against this ban in the assembly, supported by even Congress and Muslim members. In 1941, the British government passed a legislation about organisations not using military type uniforms (such as those used by RSS). ⁷⁰ The RSS was keen on modifying the uniforms and nomenclatures that did not affect its functioning. This infamous law is still being used by critics of the RSS to oppose membership of the organisation for government servants. ⁷¹ Most notably, government servants were persecuted for such activities following the 1948 ban and again during the Emergency in 1975–1977. ⁷²

While Gandhiji was persistently contesting British imperialism, the League with its sensational slogan ‘Islam in danger’ was persuading the Muslim community to find its distinct religious identity. The RSS leaders, on the other hand, were emphasising on the need for the revival of the glorious Indian cultural heritage. They reiterated that they had no desire to retaliate against the British, the Congress or the League. ⁷³ The attitude of no-retaliation, the complete absence of untouchability and its passion for a unified Indian nation not only created an inquisitiveness in Gandhiji’s mind but also impelled him to understand the ideologies of the RSS.

Gandhiji’s tryst with Doctorji can be traced back to the non-cooperation movement in Nagpur where Doctorji was very active in the deliberations and constructive programmes of the Congress. ⁷⁴ In fact, Doctorji was first jailed during the non-cooperation movement in 1921 called by Gandhiji. When the Congress organised a mammoth rally in Nagpur in 1922 in reaction to Gandhiji’s imprisonment, it was Doctorji who addressed the people. ⁷⁵ He proclaimed that there was no difference between the words and actions of Gandhiji. While identifying Gandhiji as a sacred soul, Doctorji eulogised that Bapu was a man of action who was always willing to sacrifice everything for his ideals. ⁷⁶ As an advocate of Indian cultural heritage, Gandhiji did not disapprove of the cultural activities of the RSS.

Remarkably, when the Congress resolved to celebrate 26 January 1930, as Independ-ence Day, the RSS also joined in the celebrations. In fact, Doctorji joined the civil disobedience movement in the 1930s and even went to jail. The RSS was able to mobilise people slowly but solidly and a considerable number of Congressmen began to join the RSS. This large-scale exodus from the Congress to the RSS became a matter of concern for the Congress. Consequently, the Congress passed a resolution in June 1934 forbidding its members from joining the Mahasabha, the RSS and the League. This created a series of ideological conflicts between the Congress and the RSS. Nonetheless, Gandhiji’s attitude towards the RSS till 1934, as Sumit Sarkar maintains, was ‘noncommittal, reserved and unrevealing’. ⁷⁷ Most notably, Gandhiji’s encounter with the RSS became a widespread phenomenon when he visited the RSS shakha on 26 December 1934 in Vidarbh/Wardha. He saluted the saffron flag of the RSS in the traditional Sangh way. ⁷⁸

The League’s Communal Politics, RSS and Gandhiji

The ideological conflicts between the League and the Congress led their relationship to become so strained that Jinnah condemned ‘Congress fascism’ at the Patna session of the League in 1938 and alleged that the Congress wanted to establish a ‘Hindu Raj’. The League was vociferously demanding for Pakistan. Portraying Hinduism as the ‘greatest menace’ to India’s welfare and well-being, the League appealed to Muslims to make deadly bombs that would smash and destroy Hinduism completely. ⁷⁹ Jinnah appealed to Muslims in 1937 in the name of Allah and the Quran in support of the League’s candidates. ⁸⁰ Consequently, Congress leaders, including Jawaharlal Nehru, condemned Jinnah for creating communal tension. ⁸¹ Jinnah also stated at the 1938 Patna session of the League that the Congress was a ‘Hindu body’ with a few misguided and misled Muslims. He claimed that the Congress was a Hindu organisation that represented neither the Muslims nor the Christians nor the scheduled castes. ⁸²

In the 1940s, there was a change of leadership in the RSS. Attracted by the intelligence, passion and energy ably demonstrated by Guruji, Doctorji asked him to take over the leadership of the RSS. Guruji was influenced heavily by Swami Vivekananda’s spiritual call to serve and worship the motherland. ⁸³ Swami Vivekananda played a major role in the making of the Hindu renaissance and created a sense of pride in India’s glorious past. ⁸⁴ Guruji made persistent efforts to make the Indian cultural ethos central to the national identity. He was critical of the ideology of the League, the Communist Party and the proselytising missionaries. ⁸⁵ He stated that the RSS as a cultural organisation was committed to the civilisational renewal of Hindu society. ⁸⁶ He challenged the two-nation theory of the League. It was argued that the very idea of partition was a political decision taken by the Congress and the League. As K.R. Malkani argues, the Congress not only failed to stop partition but was also unwilling to take help from cultural organisations like the RSS. He also contended that the Congress had always been monopolistic in claiming sole credit for India’s struggle for independence. ⁸⁷

Meanwhile, Jinnah was persistently making communal remarks in the 1940s that the Congress was a Hindu organisation that had placed Islam in danger. He said that Gandhiji’s only hope was to subjugate the Muslims under a Hindu Raj. In March 1941, Jinnah remarked that Pakistan was the only way to save Islam from complete annihilation. He expressed his apprehension that Muslims would be completely wiped out in a united Hindu India. ⁸⁸ The League, under the leadership of Jinnah, passed a resolution on 6 April 1942, authorising him to appoint a committee for the purpose of taking all ‘necessary’ steps to ensure the protection of life, honour and property of Muslims. ⁸⁹

The League’s continued provocative and inflammatory speeches were condemned by a large number of Congress leaders including Gandhiji and Jawaharlal Nehru. Indian industrialists including Ghanshyam Das Birla criticised the League’s language of violence and its demand for a separate Pakistan. Birla, in his letter to Nehru dated 13 January 1942, asserted that if he was a Muslim, he would not accept Pakistan, because a separate state would be a poor state, having no iron and no coal. ⁹⁰

The contentious demand for Pakistan generated anti-League sentiment among the supporters of the Congress and the RSS. For example, the premier of Bombay, K.M. Munshi, remarked that the only solution to India’s political problem was to be found in a non-religious and non-communal government both at the centre and in the provinces. ⁹¹

The leaders of the RSS believed that the time was not far off when the Muslims would create civil disorder in India, endangering the life and property of the Hindus. Consequently, as a precaution, the RSS cadres decided to hold parades and carry out sword and lathi exercises to protect the Hindus. The RSS started developing a critical attitude towards the political philosophy of non-violence advocated by Gandhiji largely due to the growing violence caused by the League. The prevailing anti-Hindu sentiment made the RSS become defensive, and in some cases, to justify that it had the moral responsibility to protect the life and property of the Hindus. ⁹²

One of the earliest remarks by Gandhiji about the activities of the RSS can be traced back to 1942. When Gandhiji was actively mobilising the people for the quit India movement on 8 August 1942, the president of the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee submitted a ‘complaint’ to Gandhiji, written in Urdu, about the activities of the RSS. It claimed that the RSS had been ‘campaigning’ in various places using controversial slogans such as ‘Hindustan belongs to Hindus’ and ‘Drive out the English first and then we shall subjugate the Muslims’. The complainant appealed to Gandhiji that the ‘provocative’ slogans and ‘inflammatory’ speeches should be looked into by Gandhiji personally. Consequently, Gandhiji was impelled to make a critical observation that these ‘provocative’ slogans and ‘controversial’ speeches supposedly made by the Swayamsevaks were ‘wrong’, ‘unauthorised’ and ‘vulgar’. He stated that India belonged to everyone including Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Beni Israelis and other non-Hindus as much as to Hindus. He noted that no power could drive out the British except by violence superior to theirs. He remarked that the idea of killing the Muslims if they did not remain subjugated might have been all right in bygone days. Subsequently, he made an appeal to the RSS to inquire into this ‘complaint’ and to take necessary steps. ⁹³

Guruji repudiated this serious charge against the RSS persuasively and convincingly. He clarified that the ‘RSS do not indulge in unnecessary demonstrations, or raise slogans. Nor does it form part of our programme to talk of the Sangh’s activities in hyperbole.’ ⁹⁴ Most of the speeches by Guruji focused on Indian independence, Hindu rule and protection of Hindu rights. Whenever Congress members raised objections about the supposedly ‘hidden agenda’ of the RSS, Guruji clarified the misconceptions about the organisation. At a meeting in Nagpur in 1945 during the Dussehra celebrations, Guruji asserted that the RSS was formed for the realisation of Indian independence. ⁹⁵

Intriguingly, while addressing a meeting at Hoshangabad in Madhya Pradesh on 17–18 March 1946, Guruji declared that India was passing through a tough situation where communal riots, murders and deceit had become normal for those in political power. He asserted that the Sangh would challenge this situation. He indicated that the present strength of the RSS was roughly 2.5 lakhs, which was sufficient to meet this challenge. ⁹⁶

On 16 August 1946, the League aggressively used its green flag to call for direct action and indulged in indescribable cruelty in Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar, Amritsar, Jalandhar, Ambala and other places. The violence caused by the League prompted Guruji to try to protect innocent people. He asserted that every individual had a natural right to self-protection. The national dailies, including The Tribune, wrote that Punjab was the sword arm of Hindustan and the RSS was the sword arm of Punjab. ⁹⁷

The ways in which the RSS approached and responded to the communal conflicts, murders, arson and deceit created scepticism among some Congress members who perhaps misguided Gandhiji about the activities of the RSS. As a truth-seeking philosopher, Gandhiji critically enquired into the ‘complaints’ to find out the reality. It bears mentioning that after hearing such ‘complaints’, Gandhiji himself would make some passing remarks about the RSS and then he would withdraw those comments on his own as soon as he was confronted with the truth. While Punjab was witnessing a series of Hindu–Muslim riots in 1946, the Swayamsevaks were protecting the refugees at Wagah. When Pyarelal informed Gandhiji that some of the Congress members had applauded the adventurous, courageous and well-disciplined capability of the Swayamsevaks, he made a sarcastic remark that even Hitler’s Nazis and Mussolini’s fascists could have done similar things undoubtedly and audaciously. This reveals how Gandhiji was ‘misinformed’ that the Sawayamsevaks were ‘communal’ and ‘authoritarian’. ⁹⁸ Gandhiji, however, relentlessly endeavoured to filter truth from untruths. The misconceptions did not stop the RSS from fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of worship. It continued to assert the right to assemble peacefully, right to life and liberty, right to speedy trial, right to petition the government, right to free elementary education, right to earn a living and right to shelter. ⁹⁹

Interestingly, Guruji suggested that a creed with a following text be incorporated in the Constitution of India:

I believe in Hindusthan as my Motherland (Matribhumi) and Sacred Land (Punyabhumi), a sovereign nation, a perfect union, one and inseparable, established on principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity. It is my duty to my country to love it, to support its constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag and to defend it against all enemies with the last drop of my blood by all possible means. ¹⁰⁰

While addressing about 500 Swayamsevaks at Bhangi Colony in New Delhi on 16 September 1947, Gandhiji said that he had visited the RSS camp in Wardha district, Maharashtra, in 1934, when Doctorji was alive. He also informed the gathering that it was a Congress leader, Jamnalal Bajaj, who had taken him to this particular RSS camp. He said that he was impressed by the RSS members’ discipline, the complete absence of untouchability and the rigorous simplicity. Gandhiji applauded the RSS as an organisation that was inspired by the ideal of service and self-sacrifice and added that it would grow in strength. When Gandhiji made a reference to the ‘complaints’ about the activities of the RSS, Guruji clarified that the principle of the RSS lay purely in the service of Hindus and Hinduism but not at the cost of anyone else. ¹⁰¹

Gandhiji admired the RSS for being a well-organised and well-disciplined organisation and said that its strength could be used in the best interests of Bharat. He noted that he did not know if at all there was any truth in the allegations made against the RSS and its activities. He also appealed to the Swayamsevaks to show by their uniform behaviour that these allegations were baseless and untrue. ¹⁰²

Gandhiji’s speeches at prayer meetings emphasised primarily social issues, polity, democracy and spirituality. He made use of these prayer meetings to address issues of national importance including complaints of various kinds. One such ‘complaint’ was addressed to Gandhiji in April 1947 at a prayer meeting in New Delhi. Gandhiji was (mis) informed that it was the Swayamsevaks who were objecting to his prayer meetings. The ‘complaint’ contended that Gandhiji was reciting from the Quran in a Hindu temple. Nevertheless, Gandhiji immediately debunked the accusation and asserted that those who were obstructing his prayer meetings were not Swayamsevaks at all. He added that the Swayamsevaks would do physical exercises and drill every morning. He also noted that Swayamsevaks love him so much. ¹⁰³ Remarkably, two days later (on 5 April 1947) Gandhiji expressed his contentment and happiness by making a gratifying statement at the prayer meeting in New Delhi over this supposed accusation. He informed that he had received a letter from the RSS that they had nothing to do with the raising of objections to the prayer meetings. ¹⁰⁴

The persistent attempts to mislead him did not stop Gandhiji from having an amiable association with the RSS. It was on 3 April 1947 that Gandhiji revealed that he had interacted with the RSS leader Guruji and indicated that he had come to know that it was not the intention of the organisation to harm and oppose anyone. Gandhiji iterated that the RSS volunteers were willing to confine themselves within the Congress discipline. He expressed that as long as the Congress was non-violent, the RSS would also remain peaceful. ¹⁰⁵ Gandhiji made this remark largely due to the ‘violent behaviour’ of some of the Congress members in various parts of the country. ¹⁰⁶

The activities of the RSS continued to be (mis)reported even after Indian independence. When Gandhiji was making his speech at a prayer meeting in New Delhi on 12 September 1947, he stated that he had interactions with Guruji. He remarked that some RSS critics had informed him that its hands were ‘steeped in blood’. On hearing this, Guruji immediately clarified that the accusation was baseless and reiterated that the RSS was enemy to none and had nothing to do with the killing of anyone. Guruji also informed Gandhiji that the primary objective of the RSS was to protect Hindustan to the best of its ability. ¹⁰⁷ Subsequently, Gandhiji cautioned the RSS that the popular public opinion about its activities was a far more potent force than a thousand swords. ¹⁰⁸

Furthermore, Gandhiji was once again (mis)informed of the activities of the RSS. At a prayer meeting on 16 November 1947, he indicated that he had attended the shakhas of the RSS in Delhi in September. He noted that he was criticised by a few Congressmen for having attended the shakhas. He informed the people that he had received many ‘letters of complaint’ about RSS. ¹⁰⁹ Gandhiji revealed that all such ‘complaints’ in the recent past had come to him from Congressmen like Dhebar bhai (U.N. Dhebar). Gandhiji underscored that the Hindus were unhappy as some Congress members were biased in their action programmes. ¹¹⁰ Consequently, Gandhiji appealed to all organisations including the RSS to treat everyone equally. ¹¹¹

Nevertheless, the repeated contentions by the Congress and the League about the activities of the RSS impelled Gandhiji into a state of perplexity and bewilderment. In his speech at a prayer meeting on 3 December 1947, Gandhiji asked: ‘Shall I believe the Congress, or the Muslims, or the Mahasabha or the RSS?’ He also made an astonishing statement that if the Mahasabha and the RSS had not done anything wrong, he must congratulate them. ¹¹²

Gandhiji’s tryst with the RSS created a new chapter when he attempted to promote fraternisation between the Hindus and Muslims in Delhi through his fast unto death on 18 January 1948. The leaders of Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities gathered at the residence of the Congress president Dr Rajendra Prasad on that day and resolved that they should once again live like brothers and sisters in perfect amity and pledged that they would protect the life and property of everyone, irrespective of faith. RSS leaders, along with other leaders who signed the seven-point agreement, made an appeal to Gandhiji to end his fast. Subsequently, Gandhiji agreed and broke his fast. ¹¹³

Gandhiji expressed his gratitude to the people of Delhi in general and the leaders of the RSS in particular after that. He expressed his heartfelt happiness that the letter of his vow had been fulfilled beyond his expectations through the will of all the people of Delhi, including the leaders of the RSS. ¹¹⁴ While applauding Gandhiji as the first-ever proponent of Ram Rajya, the sacred ideal of the nation, the RSS resolved to carry forward the legacy of Gandhiji. ¹¹⁵

However, Jawaharlal Nehru in his Punjab speech in November 1947 had asked the Punjab government to ban both RSS and Akali Dal and crush the RSS in particular. But, Nehru’s remarks were criticised by The Tribune on 26 November 1947. ¹¹⁶ While challenging the anti-RSS attitude of the Congress, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel stated that the Congress leaders were trying to crush RSS by danda (a large stick). He cautioned the Congress that the Swayamsevaks were neither dacoits nor thieves, but patriots who love their country. ¹¹⁷ Similarly, in his Amritsar speech on 29 January 1948, Nehru reiterated that the RSS would be wiped out from the face of India. ¹¹⁸ This led to the subsequent banning of the RSS. Later the ban was lifted due to Sardar Patel’s intervention. ¹¹⁹ These attacks on the RSS did not stop its leaders from paying a historic tribute after the assassination of Gandhiji. It is significant to note that only once in the entire history of the RSS its shakhas had been officially shut down and that too for 13 consecutive days in order to pay tribute to Gandhiji. Guruji appealed to the Swayamsevaks to pay their respects and tribute to Gandhiji. ¹²⁰ A historically significant editorial was published on 28 September1948 in the English weekly Organiser with the title ‘Gandhiji’. This editorial made it clear that the last wish of Gandhiji was the reunion of Bharat. It appealed to the people of India to take a pledge on the eve of Gandhi Jayanti to ensure that the concept of an undivided India (Akhand Bharat) be realised. It also reminded the people to pledge to establish Ram Rajya, the sacred ideal of the nation, cherished by Gandhiji. The editorial portrayed Gandhiji as a true son of the soil, rooted in the national being, bright with the ancient light of dharma and one who revived the emphasis on the relevance of moral values in day-to-day affairs. Commenting on his birth anniversary the editorial said that 2 October reminds the entire country of the great cultural and spiritual heritage of the nation that Gandhiji lived to uphold and defend. ¹²¹

Concluding Remarks

This study reveals that the critics of the RSS with their misgivings could not succeed in making Gandhiji believe the political rhetoric against the RSS. Gandhiji, the truth-seeking political philosopher, who had the ability to discern veracity from duplicity, was able to efficaciously counter tenacious allegations and contentious charges against the RSS. Despite the fact that there were attempts to crush the spirit of the RSS on multiple occasions, it not only (re)appeared as an indestructible cultural force but also has emerged stronger each time. Applauding the discipline, rigorous simplicity and the complete absence of untouchability in the RSS, Gandhiji expressed his belief that the RSS would use its rich potential prudently in the best interests of Bharat.