[Reader-list] K. Sudarshan, RSS Ideology and Scandalous Statements

[Javed]

K. Sudarshan, RSS Ideology and Scandalous Statements

Ram Puniyani

In public space one keeps hearing many a things which are horrifying,
vicious and bad in taste. K.Sudarshan, the father figure of RSS,
recently (November 2010) stated that Sonia Gandhi was a foreign agent,
that she had some role in the deaths of her mother-in-law and her
husband, and that Rajiv Gandhi had wanted to leave her. This statement
was not carried by the large section of media, and there were only few
commentators who took it up for analysis. While Congress supporters
did outpour their anguish through protests and filing of some cases,
the RSS itself distanced itself from this statement. Tarun Vijay of
BJP, with RSS background, also dissociated BJP form this statement.
Interestingly even while distancing BJP from Sudarhsan’s statement he
made it a point to pay compliments to the intellect of K.Sudarshan.

Overall even the other people from RSS stable were mild enough to
dissociate themselves from the outpouring of their ex- Chief and one
of the longest serving leaders of RSS. Still they did not condemn
Sudarshan. They reverentially upheld the high level of his intellect.
There is nothing surprising about RSS combine not condemning him, and
there are deeper reasons for the same. What Sudarshan said was not a
flash in the pan but its’ what RSS probably believes, that’s why
Sudarshan is not condemned, as a matter of fact one can see the
‘logic’ of his saying, this statement of his, is just the further
extension of the ideology of RSS.



RSS core ideology is based around looking at the society through
communal angle. Communal view of society looks at peoples’ interests,
material and otherwise only through the prism of religion. According
to this ideology all Hindus have similar interests; all Christians
have similar interests and so on. This communal ideology begins with
‘sameness of the interests’ of one religious community and than goes
on so say that interests of two religious communities are different
from each other. And in the next stage it asserts that the interests
between two religious communities are irreconcilable and hostile to
each other.



According to this ideology a Hindu industrialist and the Hindu beggar
are supposed to have similar interests! A Muslim entrepreneur and a
Muslim sweeper or beggar is supposed to have similar interests. So a
Hindu king in History and poor Hindu farmer-Shudra are on the same
page. It looks at history as unified Hindu community standing against
others and so on, as if all Hindu Kings were hunky dory with each
other and supping with the Shudras and poor peasants of society. The
communal ideology, irrespective of any religions in whose name it
operates, changes the horizontal social differences into vertical
ones’. The society has divisions according the rich and poor,
privileged and deprived. According to this ideology what matters is
the vertical divisions according to one’s religion. This ideology as
such focuses on issues of identity and undermines the real worldly
problems. It is an attempt to undermine and sweep under the carpet the
unjust social system, where the major contradiction is social and
economic. It is a way to hide one’s birth based privileges under the
guise of religion. Religion is a potent instrument as faith is its
central component. Abuse of faith for political goals generates blind
social hysteria, which is used to promote the political and social
agenda of communal organizations. This pattern applies to all the
faith-religion based politics.

In India communal ideology, both Muslim and Hindu, developed in
opposition to the democratic secular ideology which looked at people
in their primary Indian identity. The communal ideology originated
from amongst elites, landlords-kings, their associated clergy and
middle class followers and ideologues.

So while these communal ideologies may look hostile to each other at
surface, essentially their roots are same, their values are the same,
they operate on the same social logic and dynamics. Those elements,
entrenched in the social privileges talk of identity issues while
those struggling to make both ends meet talk of the worldly issues,
problems related to daily life. We can see the rudiments of this in
teachings of Lord Gautam Buddha who talked of the misery of the
society, the deprivations of society and against the caste system. His
influence was systematically undone by projecting that this World is
an illusion, (Jagat Mythya: Brahm Satyam). The attack on Buddhism also
symbolized the ascendance of exploitative caste system and the
economic system which went with it. During medieval period also we see
that most of the kings, irrespective of their religion patronized the
clergy (Raj Guru with Hindu kings, Shahi Imam with Muslim kings,
alliance between King and the Pope in Europe). The clergy is more
interested in rituals and preservation of ‘status quo’ of the system.

Contrary to this, the saints of religions focused on the moral values
and used religions’ moral values as binding glue for the society,
cutting across religious divides. Same saints talked of ‘problems of
this world’. Kabir in one of his dohas (couplet) tells us that if one
can get God by worshipping a stone idol, why not worship the whole
mountain. He points out that the Chakki (Grinding stone) is more
important than the idols of God. Same way he criticizes Mullahs for
emphasizing on mosque and shouting to get people in the mosque. The
contrast in the social interests of exploiters and exploited is
reflected in the patterns of clergy on one side and saints on the
other.

Coming back to communal streams, Muslim and Hindu, both harped on
similar things and opposed the process of social change which was
accompanying the freedom movement. Freedom movement, from which Muslim
League, Hindu Mahasabha-RSS remained aloof, was aiming not just to get
rid of British rule but was also the harbinger of caste and gender
transformation in the society. It was also the beginning of the talk
of economic justice and was against imperialism.

So when RSS sees a Sonia Gandhi, at the helm of affairs of the major
rival party, they do not see a person, an Indian citizen, they only
see a Christian. Sudarshan, a die hard RSS ideologue, is merely
telling us the details of RSS belief system. And of course Sudarshan
is the one who has headed RSS for nearly a decade and has been with
this organization he served for close to five decades! Who can tell us
more about RSS belief system than him?

These contradictions, beliefs and overt expression, are bound to be
there for organizations which are communal and want Religion based
state. For Sudarshan-RSS the goal is a Hindu state. At the same time
they want to use the democratic space given by present Indian
Constitution. They have to play a delicate balancing role most of the
times and so many of their swaymasevaks do what is desired by their
politics, but RSS can’t own it overtly. This is not the first time
such a thing has happened. Gandhi murder (Nathuram Godse), murder of
Pastor Stains (Dara Singh), Pramod Mutalik’s antics (Sri Ram Sene),
communal violence and all that is the outcome of divisive sectarian
ideology. RSS wants to usurp democracy and strengthen communal
politics, but it can’t be stated publicly as the limits of democratic
norms will be breached. So this balance, some one says or does
something but the organization disowns it, overtly only, and that too
with due respect for the person concerned!


--

Issues in Secular Politics

II January 2011
www.pluralindia.com
response only to ram.puniyani at gmail.com