The Modern Indian Nati onal ism has emerged out the glorious struggle of Indian people against British colonial oppression. In this e pic battle against British imperialism, the Idea of Modern India – a secular, democratic natio n state had evolved and become Bharat. On 15th August, the 76th Anniversary of India’s Independence is going to be celebrate d across the country. The ceremonial natio nal flag hoisting is goi ng to be e nacted by Narendra Modi, the diehard pracharak of RSS- the fascistic organization which had all along bee n collaborated with British colonial Masters and has nothing do to with real Indian nationalism. In hi s care fully documented Hindu Nationalism, Chetan Bhatt of the University of London notes: “Whereas Congress and allied movements and activities were violently repressed, banned or imprisoned in huge numbers, the RSS was not considered an adversary by the British. On the contrary, it gave loyal consent to the British to be part of the Civic Guard. The RSS was not proscribed by the British, but was banned three times by Indian governments. Both Hedgewar and Golwalkar (its second leader) actively opposed joining the anti-colonial movement in favour of ‘character-building’ work in the service of the Hindu Nation. “Similarly, the RSS, as a matter of explicit organisational policy, refused to join the non -coope ration movement and anticolonial satyagrahas in the 1920s and 1940s, incl uding the anti-Rowlatt agitations, the Civil Disobedience and Quit India movements, and the Naval mutiny in Bombay.…
RSS’ own confession about betrayal of the freedom struggle
The most important ideologue of RSS and its 2nd chief between 1940 to 1973 was categorical in confessing that the RSS kept away from the anti-British free dom struggle. Non-cooperation Movement and Quit India Movement were two great milestones in the history of the Indian free dom movement and here is the gre at the sis o f great Golwalkar on these two great happenings of the freedom movement. “Definitely there are bound to be bad results of struggle. The boys became unruly after the 1920-21 movement. It is not an attempt to throw mud at the leaders. But these are inevitable products after the struggle. The matter is that we could not properly control these results. After 1942, people often started thinking that there was no need to think of the law.” (Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan (Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi, henceforth SGSD), Vol IV, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, n.d. p 41)
Thus Golwalkar wanted the Indians to respect the draconian and repressive laws of the inhuman British rulers!
Role of RSS in Quit India Movement
The Quit India Movement, also known as ‘August Kranti’ (August Revolution) was a nation-wide Civil Disobedience Movement for which a call was given on August 7, 1942 by the Bombay session of the All-India Congress Committee. It was to begin on August 9 as per Gandhi’s call to ‘Do or Die’ in his Quit India speech delivered in Mumbai at the Gowalia Tank Maidan, now officially re name d as August Kranti Maidan, on August 8. Since then August 9 is celebrated as August Kranti Divas. The British swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8 itself. Over 100,000 arrests were made which included the top leadership of the Congress including Gandh i, mass fine s we re levie d and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. About 10,000 people were shot dead by the police and the army. Immediately after the arrest of Gandhiji and other leaders on 9 August 1942, following the Quit India Resolution, there were strike s and hartals all o ve r the coun try -in Delhi, Lucknow, Kanpur, Bombay, Nagpur, Ahmedabad, Jamshedpur, Madras, Indore and Bangalore, that lasted for about a week. The Tata Steel Plant was closed for thirteen days with the striking workers’ slogan being that they would not resume work till a national government was forme d. In Ahmadabad, with the cooperation of the mill owners, the textile workers’ strike lasted for about three-anda- half months.
Many national leaders went underground and continued th eir stru ggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and e stablishin g parallel governmen ts. Innumerable patriotic Indians were shot dead for the crime of holding the Tricolour in public.
Even before that, a terrible massacre took place in Mysore where the armed forces of Mysore Raja, who was very close to Hindu Mahasabha and RSS, shot de ad 22 Congress activists for saluting the Tricolour.
It is to be no te d that after declaring Congress as an anti-national and unlawful organisation, the British masters allowed only Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League to function.
The Hindutva camp- consisting of the Hindu Mahasabha and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, not only opposed the Quit India Movement but also provided multi-faceted and multi-dimensional support to the British colonial rulers in suppressing this historic upsurge.
‘Veer’ Savarkar and Hindu Mahasabha betrayal in Quit India Movement
While addressing the 24th session of the Hin du Mahasabh a at Cawnpore (now Kanpur) in 1942, Savarkar outlined the strategy of the Hindu Mahasabha of cooperating with the British rulers in the following words:
“The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Co-operation [with the British].”
“The policy of responsive co-operation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance, will also keep adapting itself to the exigencies of the time, resources at our disposal and dictates of our national interest.”
This ‘Responsive Cooperation’ with the British masters was not only a theoretical commitment. It soon got concretised in the ganging up of Hindu Mahasabha with the Muslim League. Hindu Mahasabha led by ‘Veer’ Savarkar ran coalition governments with Muslim League in 1942 when all political activities were banned in India and hundreds of patriotic Indians were being killed in order to suppress the Quit India Movement.
Accordingly, the prize went to Syama Prasad Mookerjee, erstwhile president of the Mahasabha and founder of the Jana Sangh- the precursor to BJP, under a pact w it h th e R SS . In D e cemb e r 19 41 h e became a Minister in the Bengal Cabinet headed by Fazlul Haq, who had moved the Pakistan Resolution at the Muslim Leagu e’s se ssi on at Laho re in March 1 9 4 0 . O n t h e e v e o f t h e Q u i t I n d i a mo v eme n t h e w ro t e t o t h e a r c h imperialist the Governor of Bengal Sir John Herbert in these fulsome terms: “Let me now refer to the situation that may be created in the province as a result of any widespread movement launched by the Congress. Anybody, who during the w a r, p l a ns t o st i r u p ma s s f e e l i ng s , resu lting in in ternal disturbance s or i n s e c u r i t y , mu s t be r e s is te d b y an y government that may function for the time b e i n g . …as r e g a rd s I n di a’ s a t t i t u de towards England, the struggle between them, if any, should not take place at this juncture. The present war is being fought not for perpetuation of British d omi n a t i o n o v e r I n d i a . O ld id e as o f imperialism must be buried underground, and they are not going to revive , whatever the result of the present war may be.… “The que stio n i s ho w to combat thi s movement in Bengal? The administration of the province should be carried on in such a manner that in spite of the best efforts of the Congress, this movement will fail to take root in the province. It should be possible for us, especially responsible ministers, to be able to tell the public that the freedom for which the Congress h a s s t a r t e d t h e mo v eme n t , a l r e a d y be longs to the representatives o f the pe op le . In s ome sp he re s i t migh t be limited during the emergency. Indians h a v e t o t r u s t t h e B r i t i s h ” ( S . P . Mookerjee, Leaves from a Diary , pages 179 and 183). Moreover, the Mahasabha had a r e p re s e n t at i v e i n t h e Vi c e r o y ’ s Executive Council (the Imperial Indian cabinet), Sir Jwala Prasad Srivastava. Backstabbing Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
In 1940s Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose left Congress and India to organize a military campaign to liberate Motherland from the colonial rule. Shockingly, Hindu Mahasabha under the pre si de n tshi p of Savarkar decided to help the British in crushing any military opposition including Nethaji’s INA military campaign in the north eastern part of India.
Denigrating Martyrs
Patriotic Indians 1857 onward launched hundreds of liberation struggles against the British role, thousands of them laying down their lives in this cause. But RSS brazenly denigrated tradition of martyrdom. ‘Guru’ Golwalkar declared that for RSS objects of worship h ave always bee n successful lives and that ‘Bhartiya culture’ [which surely means RSS culture] does not adore and idealize martyrdom and do not treat “such martyrs as their heroes”. According to him:
“..We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them.” (MS Golwalkar, “Bunch of Thoughts”, Bangalore, 1996, Sahitya Sindh Prakashana, p 283)
Could there be a statement more insulting and denigrating to the martyrs than this? It will be shocking for any Indian who loves the martyrs of the freedom movement to know what Hedgewar and the RSS felt about the revolutionaries fighting against the British. According to his biography published by the RSS:
“Patriotism is not only going to prison. It is not correct to be carried away by such superficial patriotism. He used to urge that while remaining prepared to die for the country when the time came, it is very necessary to have a desire to live while organizing for the freedom of the country.” (CP Bhishikar, “Sanghavariksh Ke Beej: Dr. Keshavrao Hedgewar”, Suruchi Prakashan, Delhi, 1994p. 21)
This must have been the reason that none of the RSS leaders and ideologues likes Guru Golwalkar, Deendayal Upadhyay, Balraj Madhok, LK Advani, Atal Bihari Vajpayee went to jail, what to talk of a martyr!
(Author is National Secretary,CITU)
