War In The Parivar
By Jyotirmaya
Sharma
11 September, 2005
The
Hindu
After
the election defeat in May 2004, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has
gone through a series of crises. As the Party prepares to hold its National
Executive meeting in Chennai shortly, dissonance within the Party over
questions of ideology, leadership and politics is clearly visible. The
legitimacy of its senior leaders has periodically been called into question,
while all is not well in most BJP-ruled State units of the Party. On
questions of ideology, the BJP seems to be locked in a battle with its
"parent" organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS),
and its many affiliates.
The view from the
outside is that the RSS wants the BJP to return to its core ideological
moorings and to adhere strictly to the core issues that fall under the
rubric of Hindutva. In this seeming tug of war, the RSS presents a picture
of ideological clarity and certitude, while the BJP of today seems to
be faltering and confused. A closer look at the RSS, however, suggests
that there is an equal, if not greater, degree of ambiguity within the
RSS over questions of ideology and politics than appearances suggest.
Clear split
At the level of ideology, there is a clear split within the RSS between
those who style themselves nationalists (Rashtravaadis) and those who
profess their allegiance to Hindutva. The nationalists claim that the
term "Hindu" merely constitutes the cultural matrix and identity
marker of India. They refer to the RSS founder, Dr. K.B. Hedgewar's
insistence that "Hindu" refers to the unbroken civilisational
heritage of India that emotionally binds people with a common history
and shared purpose.
The Hindutva votaries
claim that while the RSS rejects Savarkar's idea of punyabhoomi or holy
land (a concept that automatically excludes Muslims and Christians from
being part of the putative Hindu Rashtra) to constitute part of their
conception of Hindutva, it would be a great error to abdicate the claims
of Hindus in favour of any abstract and formal notion of nationalism.
This was the conclusion Golwalkar arrived at in the seven-day conclave
of the Sangh in October 1972.
On the face of it,
there seems little difference between the two views other than a question
of emphasis. Nothing, however, explains the subtle difference between
the two views better than BJP President, L.K. Advani's formulation that
while Hindutva for him represented idealism, nationalism was his ideology.
Advani's typology illustrates the schism, not merely within the BJP,
but also within the RSS. A senior RSS member and historian of the Sangh,
Dilip Deodhar, likens this to grafting an apple tree on to a mango tree.
After Dr. Hedgewar's
death in 1940, this subtle distinction has constantly been in play within
the RSS, with an unspoken "war" being constantly waged for
dominance of one over the other. The misconception, however, is that
the RSS functions on the basis of ideology and its practices are governed
by a strict fidelity to its core principles. This is not to suggest
that the Sangh does not harbour a telos, an ultimate goal or purpose;
that is articulated as the vision of making India a great power.
In its day-to-day
functioning, the RSS embodies the notion of transience, or mayavaad.
Following that, there is nothing that it swears eternal allegiance to
except the primacy of the organisation. In this sense, whatever the
organisation says becomes ideology. It takes its cue from Chhatrapati
Shivaji's strategy of "hit and run". Absolute commitment to
any issue or principle is, therefore, detrimental to the goal of making
India a great power. In recent years, this has become the dominant view
in the Sangh's interface with politics as well.
The RSS, as well
as the Sangh Parivar, has now devised a formula that prevents any absolute
commitment to a single ideological position. When in power, the Sangh
Parivar swears allegiance to nationalism, and while out of power it
propagates Hindutva. Advani's transgression, apart from his remarks
on Jinnah, seems to lie in his unwillingness to buy this formula. This
is partly to do with the constraints of coalition politics and a lot
to do with incommensurable views on what constitutes the orthodoxy for
the Sangh Parivar.
In the 1980s, the
RSS felt that the BJP had turned into a pale imitation of the Congress
(I). Rajiv Gandhi's initiative in permitting the shilanyas in Ayodhya
had robbed the BJP of its identity and political edge. Religiosity,
it was felt, without political muscle would lead to nothing. The future,
then, had to be crafted on the basis of a combination of politics, religiosity
and movement.
Relations after
1998
Once this leap was taken, the Sangh decided to use its perceived power
within Hindu society to set its agenda. The RSS, it is believed, also
persuaded a reluctant Atal Bihari Vajpayee to accept office in 1996
despite lacking in numbers. The RSS wanted a signal to be sent that
it rejoiced in the fact of a swayamsevak becoming the prime minister
of India, even though he lasted in power at that juncture only for 13
days.
It is widely known
that after the formation of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance
(NDA) Government in 1998, relations between the BJP and the RSS became
increasingly strained. It is widely believed that the BJP, under the
"guise" of running a coalition government gave short shrift
to the agenda of the RSS. Stories of personal bitterness between RSS
Chief, K.S. Sudarshan and Vajpayee and Advani abound, each narrative
slightly more fantastic than the other in certain details.
One version goes
as follows: In 1998, the then RSS Chief, Rajjubhaiyya wanted to hand
over his responsibilities due to reasons of ill health. At this juncture,
Vajpayee, Advani and Seshadri persuaded him to postpone handing over
the job to Sudarshan. They argued that Sudarshan being an idealist would
not take kindly to the cut and thrust of politics. Sudarshan had to
wait till 2000 to become sarsanghchalak of the RSS. This was a period
of chaos within the Sangh Parivar. It witnessed the maximum number of
attacks on Vajpayee and his government. Unwittingly, these attacks helped
consolidate Vajpayee's liberal image.
RSS' power
In this context, an RSS insider refers to an interesting conversation
between Rajjubhaiyya and Moropant Pingle, a senior RSS leader. Rajjubhaiyya
expressed concern over the anarchy prevailing among various constituents
of the Sangh Parivar. Pingle advised him to refrain from killing the
diversity of voices within the Sangh. Let each constituent pull the
other in extreme ways, Pingle is believed to have said, as long it does
not lead to breaking-off from each other permanently. Each constituent
must fight as much as they can, but must restore order once the RSS
chief blows the whistle.
Whether this anecdote
has any formal authenticity or not is a different question. The problem
today is that the RSS seems to have lost the ability to broker peace
and restore order among its various affiliates. The BJP National Executive
in Chennai, therefore, will not be a test of Advani's longevity as Party
president alone, but also a test of the RSS' strength and hold over
its political wing.
Ideology and politics
THE only ideology
that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) truly follows is sanghvaad
or the primacy of the organisation. This is best illustrated by the
Sangh's response to the question of dual membership (Jan Sangh members
were also swayamsevaks) raised during the Janata Party regime in 1977,
of which the Jan Sangh was a part.
A remarkable pamphlet
written by Baburao Chauthaiwale (Maine dekhe huye param pujaniya Shri
Balasaheb Deoras), a close associate and aide of the then RSS chief,
Balasaheb Deoras, delineates the flexibility of the RSS in dealing with
questions of ideology and the Sangh's practice of political compromise.
In response to the controversy over dual membership, the RSS took the
following decisions:
Other than what
was deemed absolutely necessary, swayamsevaks within the Sangh ought
not to associate with the Sangh in any special way;
Senior Sangh officials
will only refer to Hindutva's essence in public lectures and fora perfunctorily
and only in passing and concentrate more on questions of organisation.
There was resentment
in the Sangh for abandoning Hindutva as well as other core values, though
this arrangement continued for 11/2 years. The chief of the Maharashtra
wing of the RSS, Kaka Limaye wrote to Deoras protesting against this
move and asking him to refashion another organisation, while telling
him to "leave Doctorji's [RSS founder, Dr. Hedgewar] sangh for
the Hindus to us".
Baburao Chauthaiwale
exults over the fact that Sangh leaders, normally considered apolitical
and inept in political matters had outmanoeuvred the politically astute
leaders like Madhu Limaye and Raj Narayan.