Segregating the saffron

RSS presence at JLF irked those who cannot accept the demolition of monolithic debate and the emergence of the dialectic of diversity

polity considered intellectuals as playing second fiddle in statecraft. This tragedy was compounded by the imposition of sectarianism on academic and intellectual life, with healthy debate and discussion banished by the binary between “secular” and “communal”.

The binary has been institutionalised, and in a cruder form, gave birth to antirssism as a permanent feature of dominant intellectualism in India. It carried twin advantages. One, it was a convenient political symbol with an intellectual tag and second, it jettisoned alternative narratives as a negationoftheideaofindia.anti-rssismaccords priority to targeting the RSS, more than the ideas it espouses.

Intellectualism, which is a prisoner of perception, faces inner contradictions. Take the second “Convention Against Communalism” organised by the Sampradayikta Virodhi Committee (SVC) on December 2829, 1968, in Delhi. The SVC was formed by Subhadra Joshi, a leftist-turned-nehruvian and had the single-point agenda to slander the RSS.

Jayaprakash Narayan, a socialist, chaired the convention. Intervening in the debate, he said, “the impression should not go that convention was organised to oppose the RSS”. D. Sanjivayya, who inaugurated the convention, challenged Joshi’s argument that minority communalism could be excused. In 1978, the SVC again organised a seminar on the “Character of RSS” and the chorus — “RSS is a threat to democracy and secularism” — was repeated. But Joshi now found opposition from an unexpected corner — CPM leader Zahoor Siddiqui. He observed, “it was not the RSS that imposed the Emergency. There was no Golwalkar at Turkman Gate, Muzaffarnagar or Pipli.”

An influential section of Nehruvian-left intellectuals used the fig leaf of the RSS to acquirepoliticalprivilegeandinreturn,acted by legitimising anti-rss politics. This led not only to the segregation of intellectuals but also eroded the thin difference between party literature and academic output, particularly on nationalism, secularism and culture. This is a great loss which has remained uncompensated. Therefore, while the appointments of intellectuals participating and contributing in SVC or later, SAHMAT, or similar Left-leaning organisations do not evoke controversies, any RSS connection becomes the only reason to oppose an appointment.

In India, the anti-rss propaganda has been led by those whose academic embellishments appear grand, but who have promoted segregation. It has choked voices and attacked the morality of those whose thinking is beyond the sectarian academic and intellectual culture.

Polemics cannot be a permanent feature of any thinking society. That is why the alternative narratives of the RSS on nationalism, secularism, culture and economy present complex dilemmas to those infected with toxic anti-rssism. It is also why the RSS’S presence at the JLF irked those who consider intellectualism a monopoly of a particular stream and cannot accept the demolition of monolithic debate and the emergence of the dialectics of diversities.

The writer is associate professor, Delhi University and honorary director, India Policy Foundation