Perilous Controversy: RSS Chief’s Statement and Seers’ Retort
Dr. Maguni Charan Behera
Email:mcbehera1959@gmail.com
The recent controversy arising from the statement of Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS Chief and the
retort by seers like Jagadguru Ramabhadracharya Swami of Tulsi Peetha and Swami
Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of the Jyotish Peeth in Uttarakhand is a
serious concern. Forget the political mudslinging. The controversy is nothing but a seemingly
continuity of colonial legacy of superior-inferior attitude as the seers denounce Mohan
Bhagwat’s statements not good for religion. The disagreement is off the track but is
detrimental to the dream of establishing Hindu Rashtra.
There is no iota of doubt that Jagadguru Ramabhadracharya Swami of Tulsi Peetha is a
Manifestation of Divine Grace. His multifaceted talents, social service, spiritual leadership
following devotion to Lord Ram, and contribution to the victory over Ram Mandir dispute
are unparalleled. Spiritual manifestation of other seers and insightfulness are beyond my
imagination. But I have tried to understand the controversy as the reflection of understanding
of Hindu Rashtra and by a devout Hindu.
Opposition to Mohan Bhagwat’s statement unnecessarily breeds division among the Hindus
and gives opportunity to others to fish out of the trouble water. It is a perilous controversy
arising out of off the track counter voices; the voices across perspective-domains. The
statement of RSS Chief is imbued with the spirit of establishing a Hindu Rashtra based on the
principles of basudhaiva kutumakam . The counter voices of the seers come from an apparent
religious domain, but ironically display political overtone. These voices glorify principle of
revenge in the line of ‘tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye’ though unspoken words. Such
an ideology is not only irrelevant in our contemporary world order but also contradictory to
the very essence of Hindu religion.
Statements, Counter Statements and Harmony
RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat tried to engage the attention of the HIndus to the tradition of
harmonious living while delivering a lecture on ‘India – The Vishwaguru’ in Pune. He stated:
There should be a Ram Temple and it indeed happened. That is a site of devotion for
Hindus… But racking up new issues every day for disdain and enmity should not be done.
Some people think they can become leader of Hindus by raking up such issues every day in
new places. This is not acceptable … We have been living in harmony for a long time. If we
want to provide this harmony to the world, we need to create a model of it,” he said. “No one
will become a Hindu leader by raking up temple-mosque disputes and spreading communal
divide.”
“India should set an example of how different faiths and ideologies can live together in harmony,”
“Extremism, aggressiveness, forcefulness, and insulting others’ gods is not our culture,”
“There is no majority or minority here; we all are one. Everyone should be able to practise
their way of worshipping in this country.”
In his statements the idea of Viswaguru in Hindu Rashtra encompasses the ideal of Basudev
Kutumbakam, accommodating all the communities living in India. There is no remark on
spirituality, but on the ideal of Hinduism which forgives, accommodates and fosters harmony
and mutual respects. A note of warning to vested interests involved in Mandir-Masjid dispute
is obvious.
But the counter statements come from religious and spiritual leaders which fall outside the
domain of the meaning of Hindu Rashtra and contradict the core teachings of Hinduism.
Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of the Jyotish Peeth in
Uttarakhand also disagree on Mohan Bagawat’s views. In fact Swamiji’s political exposure
is well known in several occasions; the recent one being his blessings to Uddhava Thakeray.
He stated:
“Mohan Bhagwat does not understand the plight of Hindus…Several Hindu temples are being
demolished. This is the truth. He is not feeling the pain of Hindus. It is clear from his
statement. He does not truly understand the plight of Hindus,”
“Mohan Bhagwat has claimed that some people raise these issues to become leaders, but I
want to clarify that ordinary Hindus do not aspire to become leaders,”
A question arises, is searching temples under mosques which lead to violence, killing and
create ground for future vengeance the only way to feel the pains of Hindus?
The remarks were also condemned by the Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti (AKSS), a prominent
organization of Hindu seers. “When the subject of religion arises, it is for religious gurus to
decide. And whatever they decide will be accepted by Sangh and VHP,”
“Mohan Bhagwat speaks according to his convenience. When he needed votes, then he kept
speaking only on temples and is now saying Hindus should not look for temples,”
“Hindus have faced several atrocities. Temples were destroyed. If Hindus want that such
temples be resurrected, there is nothing wrong with it.”
Are not the retorts strange? Where did Bhagwat place his decision on religion surpassing the
domain of gurus? Is not a political sense obvious in retorts? Did not Hinduism exist all these
days of buried Mandirs? Is not there any other way to mitigate the pains? Why were the
pains tolerated for centuries? Of course it is not wrong to resurrect Hindu temple, but at what
cost?
Jagadguru Swami Rambhadracharya expressed strong disagreement with Bhagwat’s
views.
“I completely disagree with Mohan Bhagwat’s statement. Let me make it clear, Mohan
Bhagwat is not our disciplinarian, but we are.
“It is his personal opinion. He did not say anything good. This is very unfortunate. Mohan
Bhagwat is not saying anything about the violence that occurred there (in Sambhal) and the
continued atrocities against Hindus. He seems to have been influenced by some form of
appeasement politics,
The accusation of silence over Samhal violence is not correct. To speak on abolishing the
root cause of violence is in fact a louder voice against violence. Comments on violence
would be neutral either having no sense or implicating one side. Then it would contradict
the essence of harmony which he advocated. It is definitely strange that wise and patriot as
Jagadguru Swami Rambhadracharya is would make such light-touch remarks. Perhaps he is
wrongly fed with the information or the media have put words into his mouth.
“What is happening in Sambhal right now is very bad. However, the positive aspect is that
things are being uncovered in favour of Hindus. We will secure this, through the courts,
through the ballot, and with public support.”
The question is when the dispute has to be settled in courts, or through ballot, will not there
be outside interference in the domain of religion which is taken as a tool to criticise Mohan
Bhagwat?
There is political overtone in criticism as is evident from the use of the words appeasement
public support, etc. These words contradict the statement that religious leaders act according
to public sentiment, because they depend on courts. Did Bhagwat make any statement to
discipline Hinduism? Atrocities on Hindus are law and order problems, but what happens
now is Mandir-Masjid dispute at new places due to the attempts to resurrect temples from
mosques. These were not in the agenda of religious leaders some time ago. Presently also the
issue is actively taken up by groups who are not spiritual leaders.
There is no denying to the truth that Muslim rulers from outside India attacked and destroyed
Hindu Mandirs and converted Manidrs into mosques. It is also true that a large part of
Muslims in India are not from outside; they are victimised Hindus of such attacks. The rest,
who were originally outsiders, are born in India. They did not convert Manidrs into Mosques,
though there may be some examples where some fanatics might have done so during colonial
period or with ruling party support in post-colonial India. At the same time the Hindus did
not strengthen themselves all these years either to rescue the Mandirs or to oppose such
conversion after the end of the Muslim rule. They did not show solidarity to assert India as
Hindu Rashtra when Pakistan was bifurcated as Islamic Rashtra at the time of Independence.
They did not show strong commitments to counter the emergence of extremism among the
Muslims before 2014. Emerging upsurges after 2014 to restore Mandirs which were not in
cards earlier amount to the act of celebrating the weakness of ancestors who could not unite
to protect India from Muslim attacks and the act of conversion of Mandirs to mosques. The
same disunity exists across political ideologies and caste affinity even today. Will not the
action shatter the dream of Hindu Rashtra when BJP is out of power? Will not it strengthen
the forces against the Hindus? We have seen how non-BJP governments take stand that go
against Hindus.
The controversy is so ‘controversial’ that it does not see the possible danger on the path of
establishing the Hindu Rashtra under contemporary national and international dynamics.
But his does not mean that I am against restoring the Mandirs. There are religious places like
Mathrua, Kashi which have laid down the foundation of Hinduism. The legacy cannot be
ignored. But there are Mandirs of local significance in different parts of the country built on
Hindu faith. In such places the controversy needs amicable solution by shifting the Mandirs
and mosques to suitable places of the locality and using the place for public interest. That will
not lead to a defeating sense in both the communities, but contribute towards a harmony in
the nation building. Though extremism has emerged among Indian Muslims, unfortunately
among the converted Indians, examples of cases where Islam is free from orthodoxy and
resultant development can be useful to infuse rational thinking for harmonious living with
other communities in India for their own development. It may be remembered that Hinduism
did not perish all these days when Mandirs remained concealed in mosques or destroyed. And
neither Hinduism nor Islam will perish if both are shifted to a new place; in turn ego of both
communities definitely will perish and pave ways for communal harmony in a Hindu Rashtra
for mutual benefit. What is crucial is an understanding by the Muslims that most of them are
Indians and their original ancestral legacy comes from the Hindu Rashtra which unfortunately
got disrupted in a bad phase of the history but had accorded distinct and independent spaces
to all communities.
Contours of Hindu Rashtra
What is Hindu Rashtra? Is it a political entity of the Hindus on the basis of faith and beliefs
narrowly constructed? When one name of India is Hindusthan, should there be any debate or
doubt to call its inhabitants Hindu?
Hindu Rashtra is based on Rashtra Dharma above individual religious ideologies, political
primacy or political allegiance. History tells that there was never a Hindu political sovereign
over a territory which would correspond to the present concept of Hindu Rashtra; rather there
were several political sovereign territories within Hindu Dharma as superstructure. Hindu
Dharma is not a ‘religion’ in terms of faith and beliefs, practices, and collective
consciousness around a single Supreme entity or individual teaching of the Supreme; it is a
way of life in totality; it is all encompassing, a holistic perspective, and efforts at material
achievement for spiritual realisation. In Hindu Dharma, faith and beliefs, and practices do not
form a distinct domain of what is called religion, but it pervades all domains such as
economy, politics, human relations, philosophy, etc. and which perform functions like a pen
and ink which together perform the act of writing. The complementary domains form into a
transcendental space of interconnectedness and independence unit which is otherwise known
as culture. Hindu Rashtra undoubtedly is a cultural expression of a geographical dimension
accommodating several or a corresponding political division displaying sense of mutuality in
plurality.
The Constitution of India gives us a Hindu Rashtra; there are different cultures – systems of
governance with defined spheres (Nation, State, Panchayat, Autonomous Council, etc.);
numbers of beliefs and practices, food an dress habits, economic types, and so on. The
Constitution also stresses on rights, which has its origin in Rig Ved. It speaks of (i) Right
to Life, (ii) Right to Body, and Right to Dwelling. But the rights are for the humanity as
whole, not the followers of any particular group or any particular religion. Apparently,
Hindu Rashtra exists in the form. But what is lacking is the expansion of our understanding
of the perspective which stands diluted and fractured in this phase of the history. Counter
statements are more likely to dilute further rather than reviving the spirit.
Why emphasis on the word Hindu? The word Hindu is a cultural construct and identity
existing before the Muslim invasion, arising from distorted pronunciation of Sindhu as
Hindu. The concept Hindu is not monolithic; it includes diverse faiths and beliefs, and even
contradictory philosophy with given primacy to material life by Charvak over the spirituality.
So, Hindu Rashtra has been all encompassing based on its principle of the world is one
family. The re-emphasis is due to the emergence of outside forces which promote
reductionist thinking, demean the pre-attack culture, and create disharmony. Hindu Rashtra is
the concept based on equality, mutual respect and harmonious living. No doubt, the concept
is diluted in a bad phase of history, but what the present world looks for – democracy,
decentralisation, mutuality, rights, identity, peace, development through culture, etc. – are
embedded in the concept; and in Indian context it is known as Rashtra Dharm. It defines the
nation as plural identity on the foundation of cultural base, not merely as the political
division. Rashtra Dharma is not either this or that, but it embraces all together in a cultural
or holistic perspective where constituents are independent within the space of mutuality. It
believes in individual welfare and ensures individual dignity as embedded common goal.
Obviously, Rashtra Dharma teaches primacy of the Nation for both common and individual
interests. A weak nation or a nation based on reductionist ideology cannot strengthen
collective good or ensure individual safety and welfare.
The holistic approach, i.e. the Rashtra Dharma in a cultural perspective in the process of
nation building has its parallels in Western system of knowledge. The approach, known
variously reductionist, mechanistic, specialised atomistic (opposite to pluralistic) does not see
an elephant as the elephant, but in parts like tail, ear, trunk, etc. When the trunk is given
attention, other parts are neglected and the elephant may not function properly.
Off the Track
Indian seers who oppose the statement of RSS chief do so from religious perspective, a
reductionist approach but not from the perspective of Rashtra Dharma. Primacy on religion
dilutes its all-pervading nature and weakens the core tenets of Hinduism which is a cultural
manifestation rather than a religious dictum of propaganda type or a monolithic religion.
Religious diktats may have intellectual or logical significance, but they are not often
translated into practical living. Our religion teaches us to see divinity in women, but in
practice, patriarchy dominates our approach to women and in turn it also takes the help of
religion for justification.
A question may arise, why the seers oppose RSS Chief’s statement on religious ground only?
The approach is obviously influenced by reductionist outlook having divisive implications.
The divisive virus of individual primacy (compartmentalisation tendency) released on us
through institutionalised means by colonial rulers goes on accumulating, multiplying and
strengthening their grips on shaping our thinking process. Human vulnerability to ego, pride,
greed, love for power and status, thought of perfection in imperfect world without a cultural
shield but coupled with colonial legacy develops partial cognition and reductionist thinking
which the people are not often aware of.
It is not only colonial knowledge, but the emerging contradictions, impurities, and
imperfections in Hindu culture over the years, adversely affect holistic thinking. In fact these
aberrations strengthen the human weakness. Reasons for the aberrations may be many –
inherent dynamics in the culture itself, adjustment with external encounters or human
vulnerability to internal enemies like greed, lust for power and status, and very often
ignorance.
In the absence of written tradition the content of a phenomenon changes when transmitted
orally from generations to generations. Besides, in early days there was no facility to make
multiple copies of a text except writing in hand. So, seers and other literate persons copied
the original text or from copied texts for their use. While doing so they fail to resist the
temptation of adding their thoughts, local cultures, ideological interpretations and meanings.
So, we have different versions of a text which very often mark differences with the original
work or contradictions between copied versions. No doubt we have around 300 versions of
the Ramayana and equal number of the Manu Samhita versions.
It is natural that principles or customs of a society show contradictions or imperfections over
time. A few people from the society grow conscious of the imperfections and try to purge
them. Others, due to habit and familiarity do not appreciate the impurities and even if they
realise them they don’t try to initiate purging the impurities. Rather they derive meanings and
ways within the system to rationalise and justify the imperfections. The efforts render a
partial explanation of the phenomenon and may stand contradictory in relation to the customs
or tenets of the system as a whole. A gap arises between real and ideal. Srimad Bhagavat
Geeta or the examples from classical religious texts do not advocate caste by birth, but it is
the practice and a deviation from the ideal Hindu tradition.
Those who engage in purging the impurities are reformists. They don’t purge the whole
system, but fight against one or two aspects. For example, the Buddha fought against social
inequality, Dayananda Saraswati against idol worship and Raja Rammohan Roy against the
practice of Sati and for women education. In later years, their followers, unfortunately,
established a different social or religious order, some being separated from the society and
others remaining within the society which they tried to reform. Sikhism and Buddhism are
examples of separation form the society while Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj are different
Hindu sects in the society and culture. The latter sects claim to be Hindus but distinguish
themselves from other reformist Hindu sects. Some sects, headed by Nirmal Baba or RamRahim emphasise more on material aspect of Hinduism rather than spiritual realisation. Such
contradictions through sects give the apparent impression of reductionist dimensions of
Hinduism, but in reality they display a transcendental space. But what is worrying is that the
transcendental space and holistic perspective are absent in the criticism of parallel sects. The
criticism does not come from within the domain of the sect-perspective but from outside.
Does not it weaken the strength of Hindu Rashtra or Hindu Dharma? In fact such divisions
become enemy of the Rashtra like the Khalistanis from among the Sikhs who demand
secession from India. There are other sects or groups which give priority to their interest at
the cost of the national interest. Is not criticism against the holistic idea of a Hindu Rashtra in
the line of religion (a reductionist approach to a holistic understanding) a perilous regression?
An idea, opinion, action plan or suggestion relates to a perspective domain. Any idea in the
domain has its strength and weakness, for a human understanding of a social phenomenon is
not absolutely perfect. Naturally, every idea has its opposite, strength and weakness within
the domain itself. Advanced idea, therefore, could be criticised constructively taking clues
from the perspective domain so that the idea is better appreciated and used to contribute
positively to the society. This way real progress is ensured. The emphasis that clearly comes
out here is that ‘every idea has its opposite’ and its soundness, strength or weakness should
be examined in the corresponding perspective-context, not outside it, for any outside
perspective-criterion might prove to be a wrong measure to ascertain neutral assessment.
Such efforts do not render constructive criticism; rather they release perilous forces of
division which are retrogressing. We have seen the divisions in Indian history which are
responsible for the present plight.
What I mean to argue is that the present controversy arises out of misplaced priority as a
point of criticism. A simple example will clarify my point. We know that ‘doctors’ differ.
There are two possible implications of the adage. First, the doctors (intellectuals) may differ
on the treatment of a particular disease (interpretation of particular idea); second they,
belonging to different disciplines and ideology, may differ on the merit of their respective
disciplines. The second deliberations are misplaced priorities to understand the treatment of a
particular disease; the latter comes from outside the context of the first. Will the patient be
effectively treated or cured when doctors engage in second kind of deliberations? It amounts
to understand a poem using the laws of Chemistry, ridiculous indeed. To my understanding
this is what the present controversy is all about, a deliberation across two issues –religion and
Rashtra Dharma. Such cross-context engagements yield no result on the ground, but certainly
dilute the priority.
Challenges
Can we think of a Hindu Rashtra in our contemporary time denying a place to others? To me,
this does not reflect the true spirit of Hinduism. Besides we live in an intricately connected
world; have become slave to consumerism, which our religion (dharma) does not glorify, and
depend on other countries. We and our needs and thoughts have become technology oriented
which our religion teaches to minimise. Are we able to discard all these in the making of
Hindu Rashtra? Should not the religious leaders direct their energy to establish the true spirit
of Hinduism to help in the process of nation building? How to contain the influence of Soros
and the growing chasm across the castes? There are also organised efforts from national and
international levels to misguide Muslim youths and engage them in terrorism so that the
Hindu-Muslim divide grows and graduate to the division of the nation. What is the plan by
religious leaders to fight against against it? How to arrest the growing conversion of some
sections of the Hindus to Christianity, Islam and Buddhism? Why did Ambedkar convert?
Why did Kalpahada destroy Hindu temples? Does not it point to lack of the spirit of
mutuality? In Mohan Bhagwat’s statement I feel a genuine concern for mutuality towards a
Hindu Rashtra. Why do our girls prefer marrying to Muslim boys knowing that those who
did, most of them were killed or divorced? Is it the fault of the girl or in our system that fails
to bind the girls to our religious belief? Are religious leaders working to arrest the situation?
After independence, the representative governments from non-BJP parties at the Centre and
in States have legislated laws that discriminate against the Hindus. Why the Hindu Vet
Dwarka is now Muslim populated? Why Rohingyas get support in the country and can forge
documents? Why lands of traditional Hindu temples turn to be Waqf Board property? Till
BJP government at centre in 2014, no public awareness was created against the
discriminatory policies of previous governments. Can we think that BJP government will be
permanent? Our religion teaches us nothing is permanent. We see the party (Shiv Sena)
which was founded to safeguard the Hindu interests and acted towards it is divided and a
section has become SECULAR! The Sikhs who laid down their lives to protect the mother
land have a section who demands Khalistan. We see BJP leaders switching party and speak
the language of SECULARS.
We see stone pelting in Hindu precessions during festivals? It was not a phenomenon earlier.
Why it happens and what the religious leaders have done so far? No doubt, Hindus suffered
Muslim rulers’ atrocities. What’s about the atrocities happening now? Can we ignore the
present for the sake of avenging the past deeds which also resulted from the greed, envy, lust
for power and Hindu disunity? Does not the same situation prevail now? It is even more
serious at present. A crime is not condemned as crime by all people according to the
established laws of the nation; whether the act is crime or not is judged by the political
parties and religious groups according to their interes. What is considered crime in a party is
not so to others. Is not it a serious trend? It is better to take a pragmatic stand for the
Hindu Rashtra which I feel is embedded in Bhagwat’s statement. In a Hindu Rashtra religion
should not be a separate domain with its own drawn boundary; it should be all encompassing
and complementary with other domains.
It is not religion that united Hindus after Independence; rather it is RSS initiative that moves
in the direction of Hindu unity. It is self-styled gurus like Nirmal Baba, Nityananda, Sarasthi
Baba and several others who also compartmentalise vast Hindu expanse to promote their
selfish interests and create disunity. Any action so far from religious gurus?
No idea is absolutely perfect, but there can be a better workable plan with constructive
criticism. When a criticism or disagreement harms common good, reveals apparent sectarian
or individual interest, it is better to remain silent or involve in an in-house debate to purge
imperfections. Are not the open differences, which do not lead to any action, the result of
visible or invisible ploys of foreign agents? The western mode of education which promotes
reductionist outlook to approach an issue is an invisible agent of creating differences where
there should not be any!
Ways Ahead
I reiterate my stand that Muslim rulers destroyed and converted Hindu Mandirs into mosques.
And all the Muslims in India are not those outsiders. Time demands that Indian Muslims
should acknowledge the wrong for the interest of the nation and their future development.
But unfortunately, some political parties glorify the misdeeds to divide the people by
appealing to their sentiments. How much the religious leaders have worked to bring sense to
them? Condemnation is a different issue and a political gimmick. What is required is to think
as Indian which is absent in majority of Indians who owe allegiance to political ideologies
of these parties.
Mohan Bhagwat’s statement is criticised as political voice. Did not religion and politics come
together in the construction of Rama Temple? It is essential that politics and religion come
together to think of an all-inclusive Hindu Rashtra by purging the imperfections if any in the
proposal. WE did not think or act united in the past. We do so now. We lost our glory. Can
we invest our energy for the past at the cost of the present which has a bearing on future?
Perhaps Indian wisdom has an answer to guide the course of action:
सर्व-नाशेसमुत्पन्नेअर्धंत्यजति पण्डििः ।
अर्धेन कु रुिेकार्यंसर्व-नाशो ति दुःसिः ॥
sarva-nāśe samutpanne ardhaṃ tyajati paṇḍitaḥ |
ardhena kurute kāryaṃ sarva-nāśo hi duḥsahaḥ ||
In the event of possible total ruin wise settles for the half.
We should reach at a dignified solution of Mandir-Masjid dispute which is built upon our
past weakness and invest our energy and mind to rectify them with determination as they still
hang on us and keep dividing us; and work towards an all-inclusive Hindu Rashtra based on
actual manifestation of Hindu ideology; and convince all that Hinduism is pluralistic, holistic,
humane, and believes in idea of the world is one family. Remember, there is no ideal nation
based on violence and mutual quarrel.