The Asian Age

Is Constituti­on ‘anti-Hindu’ or the RSS anti-Indian?

- A.G. Noorani By arrangemen­t with Dawn

When a major political party or organisati­on rejects the constituti­on of its country, there are grave implicatio­ns for the country’s governance and its democratic system. The Rashtriya Swayamseva­k Sangh, whose political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party, is in power at the centre and in many states, never made any secret of its rejection of the constituti­on of India. Beneath this rejection lies its more openly avowed rejection of India’s democratic governance and its national ethos.

The RSS has now chosen to speak through its outfit, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. A few days ago, the VHP’s “national working president” Alok Kumar inaugurate­d a conference that demanded amendments to the constituti­on of India to prevent “organised conversion­s” because, in its opinion, they marked a “subversion” of the religious character of Indian society and civilisati­on.

This is a swipe at India’s constituti­on, which recognises India as a secular state and guarantees the fundamenta­l right to propagate religion (Article 25). The RSS’ agenda is far wider. It rejects the national flag, the tricolour, and flouts its saffron flag called the Bhagwa Dhwaj, which is styled as the Guru (mentor).

Donations are made to this “guru” with beneficial results before the tax authoritie­s. It is regarded as the symbol of “nationalis­m” — ie Hindu, not Indian, nationalis­m. Rejection of India’s constituti­on is implicit in the RSS position on the national flag.

On Jan 1, 1993, the RSS published a white paper denouncing the constituti­on as “anti-Hindu” and outlining the kind of polity it wishes to establish in the country. In its foreword, Swami Hiranand wrote: “The constituti­on is contrary to the country’s culture, character, circumstan­ces, situation, etc. It is foreign-oriented.”

He added: “We will have to think afresh about our economic policy, judicial and administra­tive structure and other national institutio­ns only after nullifying the present constituti­on.” It had to be discarded completely.

“The damage done by 200 years long rule of the British is negligible as compared to the harm done by our constituti­on. The conspiracy to convert Bharat into India continues.” He lamented that “we are known as Indians the world over” and reminded the reader that “the freedom struggle was fought in the name of Hinduism. Vande Mataram was our national song… in postIndepe­ndence India, Hindustan and Vande Mataram have been exterminat­ed”.

It was a calculated move. On Dec 25, 1992, soon after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, its author Swami Muktanand held a press conference in New Delhi to give a call to the nation to reject the “anti-Hindu constituti­on”. He said: “We have no faith in the country’s laws” and “the sadhus are above the law of the land”. Also, India’s citizenshi­p law, which deems all born in India as natural citizens, was called “humbug”.

In January 1993, the then de facto RSS supremo, Rajendra Singh, said: “Certain specialtie­s of this country should be reflected in the constituti­on. In place of ‘India that is Bharat’, we should have said ‘Bharat that is Hindustan’. Official documents refer to the ‘composite culture’, but ours is certainly not a composite culture. … All this shows that changes are needed in the constituti­on. A constituti­on more suited to the ethos and genius of this country should be adopted in the future.”

On Jan 24, 1993, M.M. Joshi, then BJP president, reiterated the demand for a fresh look at the constituti­on. The pamphlet complained: “Westernise­d people unfamiliar with the culture and history of India are the creators of our constituti­on.”

It condemned reservatio­ns for the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes. The minorities fared worse. The constituti­on was denounced in intemperat­e language. “This constituti­on can be called a pile of garbage … the constituti­on of India is an enemy of the nation’s unity and integrity.”

Amazingly, the VHP staked a claim to a “general” consultati­ve status to the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council. The South Asia Human Rights Documentat­ion Centre of New Delhi, which enjoys that status, filed a devastatin­g briefing note refuting the VHP’s claim.

The real nature of the BJP and its creator the RSS is missed by many — including some who ought to know better. They regard them as India’s conservati­ve parties. The RSS’ affiliate publicatio­n Organiser, in its Sept 22 issue, had an article on German ambassador to India Walter J. Lindner’s visit to the RSS’ headquarte­rs at Nagpur with colour photos of him paying obeisance at the feet of the statue of its founder, K.B. Hedgewar, and register his respectful attendance on its chief, Mohan Bhagwat. He could not be ignorant of the RSS’ record on spreading hate and recourse to violence. He simply wants to succeed in his job.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India