email
<span style='color:red'>Guruji Golwalkar's Views on Politics</span>
Excerpted from "Terrifying Vision: MS Golwalkar, the RSS and India", by
Jyotirmaya Sharma, Penguin (Viking), 2007, pp 16-22.
(Golwalkar's) argument against politics is articulated at several
levels. In the first instance, he observes that if the nation's life
were dependent on political power the alien attacks on India would have
been repulsed instantaneously. But the Muslims and the European colonial
powers came and went away, or lost their power, while Hindu society
remained intact. The reason for this is that culture rather than
politics informed the basis of Hindu social life. As long as the
cultural stream of life can be kept alive and awakened, says Golwalkar,
we will be alive. Here, the pronoun 'we' stands for both the Sangh as
well as Hindu society.
After the murder of Gandhi and the ban on the Sangh in 1949, there was a
clamour within certain sections of the Sangh for greater involvement in
politics. The crisis that engulfed the Sangh, it was felt, was a
consequence of politics and in order to confront such crises in future,
political participation was the key. Golwalkar vehemently rejected this
view. He asked those who wanted a greater role for the Sangh in politics
to go ahead and join politics. But to argue that there was no worthwhile
task to be accomplished other than politics was incorrect and untenable.
Politics, he declared, was the most insignificant part of life, and
certainly not the instrument that could encompass life. If the Sangh
were to keep its faith in Hindu sanskriti or culture alive, they had
nothing, then, to fear from politics or from those who were antagonistic
towards the Hindu Rashtra becoming a reality.
This argument was based on Golwalkar's idiosyncratic reading of history.
Hindu society had survived even when those who ruled the Hindus were
determined to make the entire nation mlechha. During the Mughal rule,
there was no one to protect the Hindus and challenge the authority of
the rulers. Everyone had capitulated and accepted the authority of the
Muslim rulers. Yet, despite force and inducements, the Muslim rulers
failed to convert all Hindus to Islam. Hindus survived this onslaught,
he argues, because there were people in Hindu society who kept the
commitment to Hindu culture intact by singing songs in praise of Lord
Ramachandra and Lord Krishna. They kept faith, tradition and piety
alive, did not succumb, and retained their moral and ethical voice unto
the last. At any given time, if such individuals are able to keep
culture and traditions alive for a period of a hundred to two hundred
years, then the cumulative effect of this throws up an individual.
Steadfast in his commitment to culture, this outstanding person
constructs political power on the foundations of a deep and abiding
fidelity to religion, culture and tradition. For instance, from
Jnaneshwar to Tukaram, such a tradition of religious and cultural
reawakening was fostered, and, in the end, it produced Chhatrapati
Shivaji, who established a Hindu kingdom in the face of hostility and
adversity.
In other words, if the ruled have unambiguous faith in their culture,
then the ruled will ultimately be the rulers. In the present age of
democracy, the ruler is not the exemplar of the ruled. Rather, the ruled
determine the actions and direction of the rulers. If the ruled are
weak, fearful, untrusting, characterless and full of abharatiya or
un-Hindu elements, then the ruler will also be the same. These
abharatiya ideas would be the undoing of Hindu society and the Hindu
Rashtra, since these were attracting ordinary people. Political power,
however, is not the instrument that would make people worship the
nation.
In order to cleanse society of abharatiya elements and make people
worship Hindu sanskriti, it was imperative for the Sangh to enhance its
capabilities. Golwalkar is strident in his assertion that every aspect
of every effort in the country will have to be coloured in the Sangh's
colours. Political power and the government of the day must eventually
reflect and radiate the Sangh's light. This could only be accomplished
by awakening and disseminating Hindu culture. Neither politics, nor
political ideas, nor even sects, denominations and states are eternal.
All perish in the ebb and flow of time. What survives and endures is
steadfastness in dharma or righteousness, religion and rectitude. If the
Sangh's work were to have any salience, if it was to invoke society's
faith and trust, and if its voice was not to be dissolved in the
prevailing abharatiya atmosphere, it had to remain free of corrupting
phenomena such as politics and political power. In fact, asserts
Golwalkar, the un-Hindu trends prevalent in the country soon after
independence were a direct consequence of the quality and nature of
political power. Neither political power nor holding political office
could help the Sangh's work, or even protect it from any future threat.
Golwalkar gave historical examples of the futility of politics. The
spread of Buddhism and Islam, he argues, happened with the backing of
political power, but ultimately failed. The political dispensation of
the day was against Jesus Christ, yet, because of his faith, his
determination and the clarity of his ideas, the Christian faith spread
despite the lack of political power. The moment Christianity tried to
acquire and align itself with political power and office, corruption
crept into its practice. Similarly, those in power at a historical
juncture tried to destroy Hindutva in the name of spreading Buddhism,
but were vanquished, single handed, by the Adi Shankara. He too had no
political power at his command.
The lure of political power and the lure of office had corrupted every
idealist, patriot and self-sacrificing individual. The Sangh had to be
wary of falling for the love of politics. Rather, it ought to have a
comprehensive picture of the nation without giving in to small details
and petty issues. It ought to embrace the entire nation in every way.
Politics, observes Golwalkar, is the surest way to lose identity as an
organization. Pl9litics inevitably leads to dilution. That might be the
reason, he suspects, why Sardar Patel suggested that the Sangh ought to
come into the public sphere as a political party and work openly, even
if it did so in thtt name of the Hindus. This happened during the period
of the ban on the Sangh after Gandhi's murder. Golwalkar sees in Patel's
suggestion a way of ensuring that the Sangh, like all other political
organizations, would weaken; and lose its extremism in articulating a
radical Hindu nationalist ideology. Instead, the Sangh ought to remain
true to the vision of its founding fathers and chart its own course.
With the founding of the Jan Sangh in 1951, the pressure on Golwalkar to
delineate a clear line for swayamsevaks participating in politics was
even more intense. He was clear that the Sangh should have no
inclination to leave its work and abandon its goal in favour of
politics. But he conceded that incorruptible men could be asked to go
out of the Sangh and enter the cesspool of politics. It was not
important whether swayamsevaks became ministers or not, as long as they
had the power and the influence to appoint ministers as a result of
their kindness and patronage. The Sangh, then, had to have the kind of
power and influence that could run governments and also eliminate
governments. Without entering the marsh of politics, the Sangh would
have to create a centralized and collectively invested strength in order
to ensure the progress of the nation. The Sangh wanted a kind of power
which could control politics yet remain untainted by the vices of being
in government or participating in politics. The strength that the Sangh
envisaged would be able to leave its imprint on politics through its
virtues.
For Golwalkar, politics is like a woman of questionable character. Just
as a 'woman of the multitude', a prostitute, takes on various guises in
order to entice and please, so does politics. A swayamsevak in politics
is, therefore, like a sage, who, coming in contact with a prostitute,
improves her life. The credit, invariably, must go to the sage. Despite
faith in the incorruptible character of the swayamsevaks, Golwalkar
admitted that certain individuals, even though trained by the Sangh,
might not ultimately remain free from the poisonous effects of politics.
That is why, since the Sangh's inception, there has been a conscious
effort to underplay the importance of political and economic issues. The
way of the Sangh was one of social transformation and of inculcating
virtues in society. The Sangh was in a position to articulate an
unadulterated nationalism only because it had refused to align itself
with any political party.
<span style='color:red'>Guruji Golwalkar's Views on Politics</span>
Excerpted from "Terrifying Vision: MS Golwalkar, the RSS and India", by
Jyotirmaya Sharma, Penguin (Viking), 2007, pp 16-22.
(Golwalkar's) argument against politics is articulated at several
levels. In the first instance, he observes that if the nation's life
were dependent on political power the alien attacks on India would have
been repulsed instantaneously. But the Muslims and the European colonial
powers came and went away, or lost their power, while Hindu society
remained intact. The reason for this is that culture rather than
politics informed the basis of Hindu social life. As long as the
cultural stream of life can be kept alive and awakened, says Golwalkar,
we will be alive. Here, the pronoun 'we' stands for both the Sangh as
well as Hindu society.
After the murder of Gandhi and the ban on the Sangh in 1949, there was a
clamour within certain sections of the Sangh for greater involvement in
politics. The crisis that engulfed the Sangh, it was felt, was a
consequence of politics and in order to confront such crises in future,
political participation was the key. Golwalkar vehemently rejected this
view. He asked those who wanted a greater role for the Sangh in politics
to go ahead and join politics. But to argue that there was no worthwhile
task to be accomplished other than politics was incorrect and untenable.
Politics, he declared, was the most insignificant part of life, and
certainly not the instrument that could encompass life. If the Sangh
were to keep its faith in Hindu sanskriti or culture alive, they had
nothing, then, to fear from politics or from those who were antagonistic
towards the Hindu Rashtra becoming a reality.
This argument was based on Golwalkar's idiosyncratic reading of history.
Hindu society had survived even when those who ruled the Hindus were
determined to make the entire nation mlechha. During the Mughal rule,
there was no one to protect the Hindus and challenge the authority of
the rulers. Everyone had capitulated and accepted the authority of the
Muslim rulers. Yet, despite force and inducements, the Muslim rulers
failed to convert all Hindus to Islam. Hindus survived this onslaught,
he argues, because there were people in Hindu society who kept the
commitment to Hindu culture intact by singing songs in praise of Lord
Ramachandra and Lord Krishna. They kept faith, tradition and piety
alive, did not succumb, and retained their moral and ethical voice unto
the last. At any given time, if such individuals are able to keep
culture and traditions alive for a period of a hundred to two hundred
years, then the cumulative effect of this throws up an individual.
Steadfast in his commitment to culture, this outstanding person
constructs political power on the foundations of a deep and abiding
fidelity to religion, culture and tradition. For instance, from
Jnaneshwar to Tukaram, such a tradition of religious and cultural
reawakening was fostered, and, in the end, it produced Chhatrapati
Shivaji, who established a Hindu kingdom in the face of hostility and
adversity.
In other words, if the ruled have unambiguous faith in their culture,
then the ruled will ultimately be the rulers. In the present age of
democracy, the ruler is not the exemplar of the ruled. Rather, the ruled
determine the actions and direction of the rulers. If the ruled are
weak, fearful, untrusting, characterless and full of abharatiya or
un-Hindu elements, then the ruler will also be the same. These
abharatiya ideas would be the undoing of Hindu society and the Hindu
Rashtra, since these were attracting ordinary people. Political power,
however, is not the instrument that would make people worship the
nation.
In order to cleanse society of abharatiya elements and make people
worship Hindu sanskriti, it was imperative for the Sangh to enhance its
capabilities. Golwalkar is strident in his assertion that every aspect
of every effort in the country will have to be coloured in the Sangh's
colours. Political power and the government of the day must eventually
reflect and radiate the Sangh's light. This could only be accomplished
by awakening and disseminating Hindu culture. Neither politics, nor
political ideas, nor even sects, denominations and states are eternal.
All perish in the ebb and flow of time. What survives and endures is
steadfastness in dharma or righteousness, religion and rectitude. If the
Sangh's work were to have any salience, if it was to invoke society's
faith and trust, and if its voice was not to be dissolved in the
prevailing abharatiya atmosphere, it had to remain free of corrupting
phenomena such as politics and political power. In fact, asserts
Golwalkar, the un-Hindu trends prevalent in the country soon after
independence were a direct consequence of the quality and nature of
political power. Neither political power nor holding political office
could help the Sangh's work, or even protect it from any future threat.
Golwalkar gave historical examples of the futility of politics. The
spread of Buddhism and Islam, he argues, happened with the backing of
political power, but ultimately failed. The political dispensation of
the day was against Jesus Christ, yet, because of his faith, his
determination and the clarity of his ideas, the Christian faith spread
despite the lack of political power. The moment Christianity tried to
acquire and align itself with political power and office, corruption
crept into its practice. Similarly, those in power at a historical
juncture tried to destroy Hindutva in the name of spreading Buddhism,
but were vanquished, single handed, by the Adi Shankara. He too had no
political power at his command.
The lure of political power and the lure of office had corrupted every
idealist, patriot and self-sacrificing individual. The Sangh had to be
wary of falling for the love of politics. Rather, it ought to have a
comprehensive picture of the nation without giving in to small details
and petty issues. It ought to embrace the entire nation in every way.
Politics, observes Golwalkar, is the surest way to lose identity as an
organization. Pl9litics inevitably leads to dilution. That might be the
reason, he suspects, why Sardar Patel suggested that the Sangh ought to
come into the public sphere as a political party and work openly, even
if it did so in thtt name of the Hindus. This happened during the period
of the ban on the Sangh after Gandhi's murder. Golwalkar sees in Patel's
suggestion a way of ensuring that the Sangh, like all other political
organizations, would weaken; and lose its extremism in articulating a
radical Hindu nationalist ideology. Instead, the Sangh ought to remain
true to the vision of its founding fathers and chart its own course.
With the founding of the Jan Sangh in 1951, the pressure on Golwalkar to
delineate a clear line for swayamsevaks participating in politics was
even more intense. He was clear that the Sangh should have no
inclination to leave its work and abandon its goal in favour of
politics. But he conceded that incorruptible men could be asked to go
out of the Sangh and enter the cesspool of politics. It was not
important whether swayamsevaks became ministers or not, as long as they
had the power and the influence to appoint ministers as a result of
their kindness and patronage. The Sangh, then, had to have the kind of
power and influence that could run governments and also eliminate
governments. Without entering the marsh of politics, the Sangh would
have to create a centralized and collectively invested strength in order
to ensure the progress of the nation. The Sangh wanted a kind of power
which could control politics yet remain untainted by the vices of being
in government or participating in politics. The strength that the Sangh
envisaged would be able to leave its imprint on politics through its
virtues.
For Golwalkar, politics is like a woman of questionable character. Just
as a 'woman of the multitude', a prostitute, takes on various guises in
order to entice and please, so does politics. A swayamsevak in politics
is, therefore, like a sage, who, coming in contact with a prostitute,
improves her life. The credit, invariably, must go to the sage. Despite
faith in the incorruptible character of the swayamsevaks, Golwalkar
admitted that certain individuals, even though trained by the Sangh,
might not ultimately remain free from the poisonous effects of politics.
That is why, since the Sangh's inception, there has been a conscious
effort to underplay the importance of political and economic issues. The
way of the Sangh was one of social transformation and of inculcating
virtues in society. The Sangh was in a position to articulate an
unadulterated nationalism only because it had refused to align itself
with any political party.