Former CBI Director M Nageswara Rao, angered by RSS Director Mohan Bhagwat’s so-called gestures for appeasement of Muslims, described RSS as a “pseudo-Hindutva scam” and called Hindus “RSS Mukt Bharat” (RSS without RSS). India). Bhagwat was also criticized for saying Hindus and Muslims have the same DNA.
During an interview with Organizer and Panchajanya, the head of the RSS was pointedly asked whether Hindutva had abandoned its “aggressive stance”. The first sentence of his reply was that Hindu society had been at war against foreign invaders, foreign influences and foreign conspiracies for 1,000 years. At the latest meeting, a senior RSS official said the interview was not translated correctly and that the remarks had to be taken in the correct context.
In fact, the most important statement in the interview was not about Muslims, but about Swayamsevak’s accountability in government. Bhagwat said, “Whatever swayamsevaks do in politics, Sangh bears the same responsibility.” His statements about sexual minorities are reassuring. In contrast, governments have yet to recognize the validity of same-sex marriage.
Now let’s take a closer look at the statements about Muslims. The RSS chief also called on Muslims to abandon their “rhetoric of religious supremacy” and stop claiming they were once rulers of the country. Opposition leaders and liberal intellectuals are opposing Bhagwat, ignoring this author’s advice to have patience with Hindutva’s perestroika process. After all, Bhagwat is the same person who urged Muslims to “not go into a cycle of fear” about Islam being endangered. He argued that nowhere did the constitution say that only Hindus had a say in the country, and assured Muslims that it was impossible to imagine Hindutva without them. Mocking efforts to unite Muslims and Muslims, Bhagwat reiterated that such an initiative would be misleading, as Hindus and Muslims are “one, not different”. ‘s most recent statement contradicts such warranty.
In the past, the head of the RSS cites the example of the Battle of Haldigati (1576) between the Mughals and the Rajputs to the oft-repeated Hindutva theory that Muslim rule was wholly Muslim. I objected. He said a large number of Muslims fought on the side of Maharana Pratap Singh against the Mughal forces led by another Rajput, Raja Man Singh, as well as Raja Jai Singh, a bigoted man of Aurangzeb. He was a reliable commander. It was Rana Sangha who invited Babur to India. Akbar was born at the Rajputana Fort in Amarkot, and when Humayun was in exile in Iran, the newborn prince was left in the care of Hindus, a trust between the Mughals and the Rajputs. Shivaji’s army had Muslim generals. Similarly, Tipu Sultan had a Hindu prime minister. Many Mughal rulers had Hindu mothers. Thus, a minority Muslim elite, with the help of another minority Hindu elite, ruled over poor Hindus and Muslims. It is historically incorrect to say that the two countries have been at war with each other for over a thousand years.
Neither society nor religion makes war. In ancient times and the Middle Ages, rulers fought wars and used religion for political ends. Hindu rulers fought each other. So did the Muslim rulers. Who can forget the Kalinga War (which the RSS Secretary called the Local War) or the First Panipat Battle in 1526 between Babur and Ibrahim his Lodi? Christian kings also fought each other. Ashvamedha Yagna’s idea was to determine the territorial boundaries of the Hindu kings.
Religion, by contrast, opposes bloodshed and war, excluding persecution, oppression, and injustice. The Ramayana War and the Mahabharat War teach us that Hindus must take up arms against Hindus for justice. Lord Ram fought Ravan, the great Shiv Bakt. Lord Krishna urged Arjuna to fight his brothers, teachers and elders.
Another part of the RSS chief’s statement — “We talk about war (against others)” — seems to have been ignored. Bhagwat wants Hindus to fight against themselves for self-purification. It is said that the best jihad is also against oneself.
Our national movement was not even called a war against Christians or the British. Lord He Mountbatten was the first governor-general of independent India. The head of RSS said the Ram Temple movement was not a war. VD Savarkar titled his book First War of IndependenceHowever, Hindus and Muslims fought jointly in this war against foreigners. Savarkar said Bahadur Shah Zafar was the popular choice for all Indians to be proclaimed emperor of India.
At the same time, all religions have a sense of superiority and claim to possess complete truth. A deeper study of religion tells us that no religion, including Islam (which is discouraging), considers slavery illegal. However, the Varna system was not as rigid as the later perversions to the caste system.
A modern, liberal constitution guarantees equality. But even our constitutional equality is not absolute and allows for rational classification. I am asking you not to. However, in many cases the reality is different. In the first week of January, a Dalit woman was kicked out of a temple in Karnataka. Marriage advertisements suggest that a sizeable portion of the population in the country is opposed to interfaith marriages.
The RSS Chief himself seems to be against war. Contradicting in an interview, he said: In public life, this is not the case. Modi also dislikes war rhetoric. At his BJP national caucus last week, he urged party members to reach out not only to the Pasmanda but also to professional and educated Muslims without expecting a Muslim vote. His slogan after taking over as chairman of the G20, “one planet, one family, one future,” does not fit well with the rhetoric of domestic inter-religious warfare. Let’s talk about peace, not war.
I am a constitutional expert.Views are personal