The Sangh has the gumption to evolve constantly

Mohan Bhagwat’s outreach will go down in the history of the Sangh as a watershed event

were fewer than those who were not, and explained the details and intricacies of his organisation has set a precedence, which, I am afraid, the critics of the Sangh will not be capable of emulating.

The shoot and scoot method, which is antithetical to public dialogue, is what suits them better; it helps in perpetuating their shallow politics and false propaganda. The Sangh has been calling for evolving a healthy trend of public dialogue among different groups and institutions on crucial issues of the day.

Among the many positions elaborated by the Sarsanghchalak, there were some that were striking. For example, the Sangh, Bhagwat pointed out, believes in evolving its positions on various issues from time to time.

It is not an intellectually calcified outfit, or an organisation that is run by diktats. It does not function in a time warp. Referring to some of the views and writings of the second RSS chief, Guruji MS Golwalkar, Bhagwat had the clarity to say that they must be read in the context of the time in which they were articulated. “There is a lot that continues to be universal in Guruji’s works and thought, it is to those that we need to turn to,” he said.

Such candidness is absent in those who keep throwing up Golwalkar’s booklet, We, Our Nationhood Defined, a work that the Sangh has itself long ceased to refer to. In fact, the critics of the Sangh have never displayed the gumption to revise their own ideological and political positions lest they be castigated as revisionists and reactionaries by their own.

The reason for the Sangh’s uninterrupted 92 years of evolution, its expansion and continued relevance, is precisely because it has been able to continuously evolve. The inclusiveness of Hindutva, Hindu Rashtra with Muslims as integral constituents, faith in a common ancestry for all, the commitment to social equity — Samajik Samarasta, the need for castebased reservations for bringing about this equity, the equality and empowerment of women, the inherent faith in the Indian Constitution, the RSS never having done anything which goes against the spirit of the Constitution, the need for building the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya so that it would end all dispute and misunderstanding between Hindus and Muslims, the dishonesty of forced and induced religious conversions, the need for the law to catch up with those indulging in lynching, the need for gau raksha as a constructive effort, and the need for everyone to contribute their positive energies for India’s well being and growth, were some of the unequivocal and fundamental positions that emerged from Bhagwat’s addresses.

It was a bold exercise, shorn of rhetoric and devoid of polemic.

Will the RSS’S critics now have the grace to introspect and to engage in a similar exercise?