AMASSMOVEMENTAGAINSTDEMOCRACY

TheThreatoftheSanghParivar

ShankarGopalakrishnan

1

TableofContents

PREFACE:ThePropagandaoftheSanghParivar.............................................................3MythsandFacts......................................................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION:SeeingtheSanghParivarasaPoliticalMovement.............................6CHAPTER1:UnderstandingtheSangh'sIdeology...........................................................8

UnderstandingtheSangh'sNotionof“Unity”........................................................................................9TheSangh'sExplanationforSocialConflict........................................................................................10Social

“Uplift”......................................................................................................................................11TheRoleoftheSangh..........................................................................................................................12TheSanghParivar'sIdeologyinSummary...........................................................................................13EuropeanFascism.................................................................................................................................14TheFascistIdeology.............................................................................................................................14MassSupportforFascism.....................................................................................................................15ParallelsandDifferenceswiththeSanghParivar.................................................................................17

CHAPTER2:TheCreationandConsolidationoftheSanghParivar:TheEarlyYears....18TheFreedomStruggleandtheRSS......................................................................................................19PostIndependence:theSanghParivarisFormed.................................................................................20

CHAPTER3:ThePoliticalBackdroptotheRiseoftheSanghParivarinthe1980's......22ClassesandMovementsinthe1980's...................................................................................................23TheResponseofCapital.......................................................................................................................24

CHAPTER4:TheIndividualist“Bargain”-TheSanghandItsCadreBaseFromthe1980'sOnwards................................................................................................................26

TheNewMassBase.............................................................................................................................26OfferingaBargain:SanghActivitiesAmongAdivasis.........................................................................27OtherSocialSectors.............................................................................................................................28TheConditionsThatMakeSanghOrganisingPossible........................................................................29

CHAPTER5:ConsequencesforPeople'sStruggles........................................................34ConsequencesforLocalOrganising.....................................................................................................34GeneratinganAnti-DemocraticPoliticalAtmosphere..........................................................................35ConnectionsWithGlobalisation...........................................................................................................35TheAutocraticStateWithPeople'sSupport.........................................................................................36

CONCLUSION:StrategiesandaWayForward...............................................................37ProblematicStrategicPositions............................................................................................................37StrategiestoFighttheSangh................................................................................................................38

APPENDIXI:PartialListofSanghParivarOrganisations..............................................42

2

3

PREFACE:ThePropagandaoftheSanghParivar

Sincethe1980’s,ashadowhasdarkenedIndia’spolityandthreatenedthefundamentalsofitssocialandpoliticalexistence.ThisistheHindutvamovement,organized,ledanddrivenbytheRashtriyaSwayamsevakSanghanditsfrontorganizations–theSanghParivar.

Tomostofus,thisgrowthofHindutvahasbeenmostidentifiedwithitshatepolitics-thekillingoftensofthousandsingenocidalpogroms,systematicstokingofhatredagainstMuslimsandChristians,buildingonpeople'scommunalprejudicesetc.ButisthisallthereistotheSanghParivar?

What,infact,aretheSanghParivar'sactualgoals?Iftheonlygoalofthesegroupsistocreatecommunalhatred,whyhavetheybeenabletobuildsuchlargescalemasssupportinthelastfewdecades?Whathaschangedintheseyearsthathascreatedthispoliticalphenomenon?

Whenthesequestionsareexplored,webegintofindthattheSanghParivarismuchmorethanjustagroupofanti-minorityorganisations.Infact,itisperhapsthebiggestthreattopopularstruggleandsocialjusticeinIndiatoday.Themorepowerfultheseorganisationsbecome,thelessandlesspoliticalspacetherewillbeforpeople'sstruggles.Andhencewemustfightthesegroups–notforthesakeofsecularismalone,notforthesakeofourfellowminoritycitizensalone,butbecauseotherwisethestruggleforfreedom,justiceanddemocracyinourcountrymaybesetbackbygenerations.

Thisbookletseekstoexploretheseissues.ItwillnotaimtoaddressthemythsthattheSanghParivarspreadsaboutminorities,sincethereisalreadymaterialavailableonthis.

INTRODUCTION:SeeingtheSanghParivarasaPoliticalMovement

Given the kind of propaganda that they spread, there seems little doubt about thenatureoftheSanghParivar.MostcriticshaveseentheSangh’sactivitiesasawayofdistractingoppressedsections,turningthemagainsteachotherratherthanagainsttheirexploiters.Byplayingonreligioussentiments,weargue,theSanghParivarservestheinterestsoftherulingclassanddividesthepeople.

Thisisnodoubttrue,butitisnotenough.Infactitleadsustoadoublepoliticalproblem.Ontheonehandweunderestimate the danger posed by the Sangh Parivar, believing that we can defeat them byencouraging people to focus on the “real issues” and livelihood struggles alone. On the other, weoverestimatetheirpowerbyassumingthattheSanghisjustanotherreflectionofthedivisionofpeopleintodifferentcommunities,andhenceitcanneverbedefeateduntilalldivisionsbetweenpeoplearedefeated.Thenetresultisthatwereduceourselvestoapositionofpoliticalimpotence,eitherignoringtheSanghuntilitistoolateorrespondingbytryingtocountertheirlies–ineffecttryingtocompeteontheirownground.

ButareHindutvaorganizationsessentiallyjustareflectionofreligiousdivisions?Isthethreatfacingusanddemocracytodaypurelyaboutdividingworkersthroughfakepropagandaabouttheirreligiousidentities?Inreality,whilethesearepartoftheSangh'swork,toseetheSanghParivarasonly thisistomissthreecrucialfeaturesoftheirpoliticsandtheirpoliticalaction.

Thefirstoftheseisthefactthatthesegroupshavefarlargerpoliticalgoalsthaneliminatingminorities.

The second isthattheseorganisationsarenotjust“playingupon”pre-existingreligiousidentitiesandsentiments.Theyareactivelybuilding new identities in which people equate being “Hindu”with certainpoliticalconceptsthathavenothingtodowithHindufaithsassuch.TheSanghisnotsomeautomaticproductofa“communalconsciousness”amongHindus.Itisapoliticalorganisationthathas,formorethan80years,activelyaimedtocreateacertainidentityandconsciousnessinIndia,anidentitythatitreferstoasa“Hinduidentity.”ThespreadofHindutvaistheresultoftheSangh'sefforts,notthecause.

Thethirdisthattheseorganisationsaremasspoliticalmovements.Thismayseemanobviousstatement,butwetendtoignorethiswhenwedismissthemassimplyatrickintendedtodividepeople.TheSanghParivarhasagenuineandverylargemassbase,asignificantpartofwhichconsistsofDalits,adivasis,workers,theurbanpoorandothersegmentsoftheoppressedclasses.Thismassbaseisnotpurelytheresultofrepressiveviolenceordeceptiveillusions;itconsistsofactive,consciousmasssupport.UnderstandingwhythissupportexistsiskeytoidentifyingthethreattheSanghreallyposes,andthereforealsokeytofightingthem.

TounderstandtheSanghParivar,inotherwords,wecannotsimplyreduceittobeingeitheranaturalexpressionof“Hinduidentity”oranexerciseinrulingclassdeceit.Itisapoliticalmovement,fighting forpoliticalgoalsinthesamemannerthatmassorganizationsandpeople’smovementsdo.

Theremainderofthisbookletisdividedintothefollowingparts.Chapter1triestounderstandtheideologyoftheSanghParivarfromitsownstatementsandtexts.Chapter2providesabriefhistoryoftheoriginsoftheRSSand,later,theothergroupsintheSanghParivar,uptothe1980's(whentheybecametrulynationalpoliticalforces).Chapter3triestounderstandwhyrulingclasssupportfortheSanghParivarbegantoincreasesharplyinthe1980's.Chapter4outlinessomepossiblewaysofunderstandinghowtheSanghParivarrecruitsitscadreandbuildsamassbase.Chapter5brieflydiscussestheconsequencesthattheexpansionoftheSanghParivarhasforpeople'sstrugglesinIndia.Basedontheearlierarguments,theConclusionlaysoutpossiblestrategiesthatpeople'sorganisationscanusetofighttheSanghParivar'sgrowth.

CHAPTER1:UnderstandingtheSangh'sIdeologyAssaidabove,mostanalysesofHindutvabeginwiththeSangh'spropagandaagainstminorities.However,consideraslightlydifferentangle–notwhattheSanghaffiliatessayaboutminorities,butwhattheysayaboutthemselves.Howdoesthismovementdescribeitsownunderstandingofsociety,itsownpoliticsanditsownvision?Howdoesitseeitselfasapoliticalactor?Theanswersaresurprising.

First, let’sconsider the followingquote froma training textbook foryouthbeinghiredas teachers in theekalvidyalayas,theVishwaHinduParishad'slatesteducationaleffort(seechapter5).ThisquoteappearsonthebackcoverofaMarathitextbooktitledSanskar Varga, asakindofoathtobetakenbyekalvidyalayateachers.

We are not working for anyspecificreligionorclassbutfortheentirecountry.Allcountrymenareourbrothers.AllarechildrenofBharatmataandsolongasthisfeelingisnotpresentineveryone,wewillnotsitquiet.WewillstrivetomakeBharatmatacontentandhappy.Bharatmatawill,likeDurga,killallevil;likeLakshmi,willbringinwealth;likeSaraswati,willremovethedarknessofsuperstitionandignorance.Everywhereshewillspreadthelightofknowledge.FromtheHinduMahasagartotheHimalayas,wewillspreadthesesevenvaluesthroughoutthecountry:unity,hardwork,equality,prosperity,knowledge,happinessandpeace.

Therearemanystriking things in thispassage,but for themoment themostobvious is that there isnomentionofMuslims,Christiansor“foreigners.”IndeedtheoathexplicitlyclaimsthattheSanghParivarisnotworkingfor“anyspecificreligionorclass.”

Similarly, consider a quote from the book Bunches of Thoughts, a collection of writings by MSGolwalkar–thesecondsarsanghchalakoftheRSS,commonlyknownwithintheSanghParivaras“Guruji.”Whendescribing“HinduRashtra”,thisiswhathehadtosay:

Asfarasthenationaltraditionofthislandisconcerned,itneverconsidersthatwithachangeinthemethodofworship,an individualceases tobe thesonof thesoilandshouldbe treatedasanalien.Here, in this land,therecanbenoobjectiontoGodbeingcalledbyanynamewhatever.Ingrainedinthissoilisloveandrespectforallfaithsandreligiousbeliefs.Hecannotbeasonofthissoilatallwhoisintolerantofotherfaiths.

Onceagain,thisdoesnotfitwiththecommonunderstandingofHindutva.Indeed,supportersoftheSanghParivaroftenquotepreciselythesekindsoftextsasevidencethattheorganisationisonlydemanding“truesecularism.”TheBJPencapsulatesthissupposed“secularism”initsslogan“justiceforall,appeasementfornone.”

Isthisjustpublicposturingforthesakeofacceptance,acoverupofthehate-filledandgenocidalviolencethattheSanghactuallyengagesin?Arethesetextsjustmeanttobeaneyewash?

Certainly,butthatisonlypartofthetruth.Thesequotes,especiallythefirst,comefrominternaltextsusedintheSangh'sowntrainingexercises.Indeed,thisrhetoricabout“harmony”and“unity”isfoundinpracticallyallthewritingsoftheSangh'skeyintellectuals,fromitsfounderRSHedgewar,throughGolwalkarandsubsequentsarsanghchalaks,allthewaytoAtalBehariVajpayee.Indeed,asweshallseebelow,theseconceptsareinfactatthecoreofSanghideology.Itispreciselyforthatreasonthatthatideologyissomuchmoredangerousthansimpleminority-bashing.Todismisssuchstatementsasliesistounderestimatetheirtruedanger.Farfrombeingjusta“cover-up”oftheanti-minorityandanti-peoplepoliticsoftheSangh,theyareinfactatitsroot.

UnderstandingtheSangh'sNotionof“Unity”WhatdoestheSanghactuallymeanwhenitsays“unity”?OthersetsofHindutvatextsarehelpful

withthis.ThefirstisbyDeendayalUpadhyay,anRSSpracharak,formerpresidentoftheJanaSanghandoneoftheRSS'leadingintellectuals.Hisideologicaldoctrineof“integralhumanism”istodayclaimedbytheBJPasits“guidingphilosophy.”Criticisingthe“West”foradopting“democracy,nationalismandsocialism”asitsthreemutuallycontradictoryprinciples,heclaimedthatthe‘correct’ approach wouldrevolvearoundthefollowinglines:

ThefirstcharacteristicofBharatiyacultureisthatitlooksuponlifeasanintegratedwhole.Ithasanintegratedviewpoint.Tothinkofpartsmaybeproperforaspecialistbutitisnotusefulfromthepracticalstandpoint...Wedoadmit that there isdiversityandplurality in lifebutwehavealwaysattempted todiscover theunitybehindthem....

UnityindiversityandtheexpressionofunityinvariousformshasremainedthecentralthoughtofBharatiyaculture....Conflictisnotasignofcultureornature:ratheritisasymptomoftheirdegradation.

Fromthesestatementswebegintogetasenseofwhat“unity”and“harmony”fortheSanghParivarmeans.ThisisthenamplifiedbyUpadhyay'ssubsequentstatementinthesamelecture:

Inourviewsocietyisself-born.Likeanindividual,societycomesintoexistenceinanorganicway.Peopledonotproducesociety. It isnotasortofclub,orsomejointstockcompany,oraregisteredco-operativesociety. Inreality,society isanentitywith itsown"SELF", itsownlife; it isasovereignbeing likean individual; it isanorganicentity.

TheimplicationsareperhapsclearestwhenwethenfindwhatUpadhyayhastosayaboutcaste:Here too, there were castes, but we had never accepted, conflict between one caste and another asfundamentalconceptbehindit.Inourconceptoffourcastes,theyarethoughtofasanalogoustothedifferentlimbs of Virat-purusha. It was suggested that from the head of the Virat-Purusha Bhrahminswere created,Kshatriyasfromhands,VaishyasfromhisabdomenandShudrasfromlegs.Ifweanalyzethisconceptwearefacedwiththequestionwhethertherecanariseanyconflictamongthehead,arms.stomachandlegsofthesameViratPurusha.Ifconflictisfundamental,thebodycannotbemaintained.Therecannotbeanyconflictinthe different parts of the same body. On the contrary "one man" prevails. These limbs are not onlycomplementary to one another, but even further, there is individual unity. There is a complete identity ofinterestidentityofbelonging.

Thisanalogybetweenthecastesandthebodyisfamiliar.ButwhatisnewinUpadhyay'sformulationisthenotionthatthisappliesnotjusttocastebuttoall socialgroupings.Societyisoneorganicwhole,onesysteminwhicheachindividualandeachgrouphasaparticularfunctionunderoneoverallcommand.

In other words, the “unity” and “harmony” that the Sangh speaks of is very different from theunderstandingofthosewordsincommonlanguage.Normally,weconceiveofunityasameanstoanend;workingclassunityasameansintheclassstruggle,forinstance,orunityofthepeopleinthefightagainstimperialism.ButfortheSangh,unityisnotameans-unityistheend in itself.Societyismeanttobe“unified”,itshouldbe“unified”,andthefailuretobeunifiedisthesourceofallproblems.Inequality,oppressionandexploitationarenotfeaturesofsociety;theyareeitherfictionsmadeupbythe“enemiesofsociety”oraberrationsduetothelackofunity.Infactthereisnoinjusticeinsociety,andthereisnoneedforsocialchange.Whatisneededinsteadis“unity.”Thusunityandharmonyheredonotmeanmutualrespectforhumandignity.Theymeanoverallsubjugationtosomehighercommand,towhichallhumanactivityistobesubordinated.The“unity”ofwhichtheSanghspeaksofistheunityofamachine,inwhichallhumanbeingsexceptthe“leaders”arereducedtoobedientservants.

TheSangh'sExplanationforSocialConictTheexistingsocietyclearlydoesnothavethis“unity”;itisnotan“organicentity”,ithasno“self”,

anditisdividedbycountlessconflicts,oppressionandexploitation.TheSanghseesthis“disunity”asbeingtheresultoftwomaincauses.

Thefirstcauseisreferredtointheoathofekal vidyalaya teachers above: superstition, ignorance,confusion, or, as Golwalkar puts it, a “crisis of character.” Persons have forgotten their history, beenconfused,losttheirsenseofunityandbeenmisled.Theyhavebecome“selfish”,smallandpettyminded,andneedtobe“educated”in“dharma”andbroughtbacktothecorrectunderstanding.Withoutthiseducationtheywillcontinuetobedisunitedandtoengageinconflicts.

ThesecondcausecitedbytheSanghisafamiliarone:“outsiders”.TheSanghbelievesthatthese“outsiders”havetakenadvantageofthe'crisisofcharacter'inordertospreadconfusionanddisunity.AsGolwalkarsays,“Theutterlackofconsciousnessamongourpeopleofbelongingtoonecountryandoneculturehasmadethemafertilefieldforanyschemingforeignertosowseedsofdisruption.”The“Bharatiyasociety”(orthe“Hindunation”)hasbeenmisled,dividedandfooledbythesepersons.

And who are these outsiders?GolwalkarrespondssuccinctlyinBunch of Thoughts:Muslims,Christians,andCommunists.MuslimsandChristiansareenemiesofthenationbecauseoftheir“dividedloyalties”,theirallegiancetoinvaders,theireffortstodivideandconvertHindus,etc.ThislogicisthefamiliarhatepropagandaoftheSanghParivarmentionedinthePreface.Buthisunderstandingof“Communism”(bywhichhemeansallleftforces)ismoreinteresting:

TherearesomewhofeelthatthegrowthofCommunismisinevitablesolongaseconomicdisparitypersists.Butthefactis,economicdisparityisnottherealcauseformutualhatredonwhichtheCommuniststhrive.Theideaofdignityoflabourisnotproperlyimbibedbyourpeople.Forexample,arikshawalawhomakesadailyearningof3 to4 rupees isaddressedasa 'fellow'andaclerkgettingbutRs.60amonth isaddressedas'Babuji'. It isthisdisparityinoutlookinallwalksofourlifewhichcreateshatred.Thisisarecentperversionthathasenteredour life. Inourphilosophy, there isnodistinctionofhighor low inone'skarma, i.e.,duty.EveryworkistheworshipofthesameAlmightyintheformofsociety.Thisspirithastoberevivedonceagain.

Inadditiontodismissingtheentireissueofsocialinequalityandinjustice,whatisstrikingaboutthisquoteisthat it indicatesonceagaintheessenceoftheHindutvaapproachtosocialconflict–andthefactthatthishasnothingwhatsoevertodowithbeing“Hindu”asapurelyreligiousidentity.Golwalkar'sattackonCommunismhasnothingtodowithCommunism'sapproachtotheHindureligion.TohimCommunismisanenemysimplyandonlybecauseit“divides”peopleinitsapproach,eventhough,ashehimselfadmits,thereis infactadifferencebetweenarickshawpullerandaclerk.Tohim, insteadof fighting to changethose social inequalities, theSangh should simply impose “unity” anduphold the existing oppression ofpeople(doingotherwisewouldbeagainst“unity”).

WhiletheHindutvapoliticalprojectisbuiltarounda“Hinduidentity”,whatthisseriesofquotesshowsusisthathatredforminoritiesisnotsimplybecausetheyare“notHindus.”Atitsroot,theentirepoliticalprojectofHindutvacannotandmustnotacceptthatthereisapossibilityofgenuinedifferenceandconflictwithin“society.”Butthereisconflictinsociety,andtheonlywaythatcanbeexplainedistodrawalinebetween“society”andthe“outsiders”dividingit.Thelogicofthepoliticsissuchthatitcannotexistwithoutanenemy.ButthecrimeoftheMuslimorChristianisnottohaveadifferentfaith,justasthecrimeofCommunistsisnotthattheyopposeHinduism.HencetheclaimsthattheSanghis“tolerantofallfaiths.”Rather,thecrimeofallsuchpersonsisthattheyhavebeenchosenasthe“others”,those

responsibleforthe“disunity”inHindusociety.HencetheaimofmassacringMuslimsandChristians(andrepressing“Communists”)isnottoassert

Hindusupremacy.Itistounifythe“Hindunation”itself.Slaughteringminoritiesisameanstotheendofa“unified”Hindusociety.‘Outsiders’meanwhilehaveaclearchoice:theycanswearallegiancetoHindutvaandthusjoin‘society’,ortheycanretaintheirbeliefs, thereby confirming their ‘foreignness’ and makingthemfitfordestruction.

Social“Uplift”Even if the Sangh crushes the outsiders, though, it still has to deal with the fact that there are

oppressedsegments–workers,Dalits,adivasis,etc.-withinits“Hindusociety.”HowdoestheSanghdealwiththisreality?TheSangh'sanswercanbeseeninthepositiontakenbytheBharatiyaMazdoorSangh,theSanghParivar'stradeunionarm,onthisissue.Itsdocumentsstatethat“TheNationalgoalcannot beachieved if there exists any feeling of enmity. The B.M.S. therefore, has deprecated the theory of classconflictandemphasizedthatalltheconstituentsshouldactandworkinunison.Thiscanbeachievedbydevelopingtheconceptof"family"intheindustry.”

Onceagain,theoverarchingkeygoalisthatthereshouldbenoconflict.Instead,societyislikea“family”,where–theSanghsays-theuppercastesandcapitalistclassshouldfunctionlikeparentshelpingtheir“neglectedbrethren.”Thelattertermisappliedtoallsectionsoftheoppressedandthepoor,butparticularlytoadivasisandDalits,whoareseenas“backward”andlackingin“nationalspirit.”Thus,Golwalkar'sformulaformethodstorespondtountouchabilityis:

programmes like bhajans, keertans, festivals, recital of stories from Ramayana and Mahabharata could bearranged,whereallHinduswouldassembleinaspiritofcommonbrotherhoodsubmergingallsuchdifferencesas‘touchable’and‘untouchable’ inacurrentofpuredharmicdevotion.Serviceprojectstopromoteliteracy,health,sports,etc.,shouldalsobeundertaken.Moderntechniquesliketheaudio-visualappliancesmayalsobeusefullyadopted.However,thecentralpointofalltheseactivitiesshouldbetheappealtotheheart,theemphasisontheunifyingandennoblingfactors,andignoringofdifferences.

Asdescribedinchapter5,theVHPhasfollowedpreciselythisformula.Inshort,thesolutionis“uplift”-charitybythepowerfultothe“weak”,andbytherichtothepoor.Butaboveallthe“centralpoint”shouldbe“ignoringofdifferences.”

Intheirworkamongadivasis,thisemergesveryclearly.EveryeffortismadetodenythatthereisanydifferencebetweenadivasifaithsandtheSanghParivar'sversionofHinduism.AdivasigodsaremadeouttobejustdifferentnamesformainstreamHindudeities,andtheirculturalpracticessaidtobetheresultof“backwardnessandignorance.”TheSanghParivarthusdescribestheirworkamongadivasisas“givingthembacktheirculture.”

ThustheHindutvaapproachtosocialdifferenceandsocialconflictcanbeencapsulatedinatwofacedformula:upliftandeducationforthose“inside”society,destructionandeliminationforthoseoutsideit.Together,thesetwomeansareenvisagedasresultingintheinhuman“unity”thatHindutvabelievesistheidealsociety.

TheRoleoftheSanghThisgivesrisetothefinalquestion:ifthisisthevisionbeingpreachedforsociety,thenwhatisthe

roleoftheSanghitself?Whatisitspurposeandhowshoulditfunction?Onemightexpectanswerssuchasthefollowing:tostruggleagainsttheforcesitseesastheenemy,andtoraiseconsciousnessandawarenessofwhatitseesastheproblemofHindusociety.

Theanswerthattheekalvidyalayatrainingtextbookgives,however,issomewhatdifferent:TheaimoftheSanghistoorganisetheentireHindusociety,andnotjusttohaveaHinduorganisationwithintheambitofthissociety.Haditbeenthelatter,thentheSanghtoowouldhaveaddedonemorenumbertothealreadyexistingthousandsofcreeds.Thoughstartedasaninstitution,theaimoftheSanghistoexpandsoextensively that each and every individual and traditional social institutions like family, caste, profession,educationalandreligiousinstitutionsetc.,arealltobeultimatelyengulfedintoitssystem.ThegoalbeforetheSanghistohaveanorganisedHindusocietyinwhichallitsconstituentsandinstitutionsfunctioninharmonyandcoordination,justasinthebodyorgans.

Inthis,thetextbookisechoingthemucholderwordsofGolwalkar:TheSanghthereforehasneverentertainedtheideaofbuildinganorganisationasadistinctandseparateunitwithinsociety.RightformitsinceptiontheSanghhasclearlymarkedoutasitsgoalthemouldingofthewholeofsociety,andnotmerelyanyonepartofit,intoanorganisedentity.

TheSangh,inotherwords,doesnotaimtofightforaunified“Hindunation”–theSanghwillbecometheunified“Hindunation.”TheSanghseeksnottochangethestateandpoliticalstructures of society but toreplacethem.AllexistinginstitutionsaretobeabsorbedintotheSanghordestroyedbyit.ItistheSanghitselfthatembodiestheidealsoutlinedabove–theorganicunityofasinglebodyfollowingasinglepurpose,“uplifting”its“weakersections”whiledestroyingitsenemies.

Butthisalsoimpliesthat,onceagain,theSanghislessconcernedwithdefendingsomepre-existing“Hindu traditions” as it is with producing a totally new one, one in which endorsement of the Sangh's

politicseventuallybecomestheverydefinitionof“Hindu”.

TheSanghParivar'sIdeologyinSummaryThisbriefexplorationallowsustoidentifycertainbasictenetsoftheSangh'spoliticalideology:

Thesourceofall“evil”insocietyissocialdivisionandconflict;There is no genuine conflictwithin society, only artificial divisions created by lack of awareness or

outside interference, and there is therefore no legitimate collective existence except that of the“nation”;

Theonly legitimatecategoriesare the“individual” (whoshouldbea“goodHindu”)and thenation,andanyonewhopromotesanyothergrouporcollectiveidentityisanenemyofthenation;

Theonlyproperresponsetosocialdifferencesisto“educateanduplift”individualswithinthe“nation”andtodestroythoseoutside;

TheSanghitselfistheHindunation,anditwillabsorballinstitutionsintoitself.Itbearsrepeatingthatthesearepoliticalconceptsaimedatatransformationofstate,societyandpolity.ThesearethefundamentalideologicalconceptsoftheSangh,andtheyhavelittledirectconnectionwiththeHindureligion(thoughtheymayresonatewithit).Moreover,thislackofconnectionisnotjustideological.ItisalittleknownfactthatdisplayofanyHindudeitiesis forbidden inRSSshakhas– theonlyimagesthataredisplayedandworshippedarethephotosofthefirsttwosarsanghchalaks(HedgewarandGolwalkar),thebhagwadhwajandapictureof“BharatMata.”Moreover,theRSS'uniformitself(thekhakishortsandwhiteshirt)isasdistantaspossiblefromthetraditionalIndiandressofanycommunity.ItwasmodeledontheBritishcolonialpoliceuniform.

ButiftheRSSisnotfightingfortheHindufaith,whatisitfightingfor?Theansweremergesifwereturntotheirconceptof“unity.”Aunitythatdeniesalldifference,thatsuppressesallconflict,andthatseekstoconvertallofsocietyintoamachine.Insucha“unity”,dissentisseenasevil;people'sstruggleisseenasevil;fightingforjusticeisseenasevil.Inshort,totheSanghthebiggestevilisdemocracyitself.

By“democracy”hereoneisnotreferringtoelectedgovernmentalone.Oneisreferringtothewholeconceptofsocietybeingbuiltaroundthedignityandfreedomofhumanbeings.TheSanghproject'simmediatevictimsareminorities.ButfortheSangh,thesegenocidesareonlystepsonthewaytoamuchbiggerproject:thesuppressionofallhumanfreedom.TheSanghaims to build the ultimateauthoritariansociety,whereeverypersonisjustagearinamachinecontrolledbythe“leaders.”

Butthisseemsanimpossibleidea.Inparticular,whydoesanymemberoftheoppressedclassessupportsuchaproject?Whydopeoplejoinanendeavouraimedatdestroyingtheirrights?Thiswillbethequestionthatwillconcernusfortherestofthisbooklet.Butfirst,itmayhelpclarifyunderstandingoftheSanghifweconsidertheclosesthistoricalparalleltoitsactivities:Europeanfascism.

EuropeanFascismTheterm“fascism”isinspiredbytworegimesinparticular:NaziGermany(1933-1945)andFascist

Italy(1923–1943)1.Whendiscussingtheseregimes,twopointsusuallycometomind:first,thehorrificmassacreofmorethan12millionpeopleandthewholesalegenocideoftheJewsbytheNaziregime,and,second,thebrutaldictatorshipsexercisedbythefascistpartiesandtheirsupremeleaders,HitlerandMussolini.Buttherewasmoretofascismthansimplythecombinationofdictatorshipwithmasskilling2.

First,fascisminbothItalyandGermanywasasociopoliticalandeconomicsystemofcontrol,notmerelyakillingmachine.Second,itwasamassmovementinthesecountries,andasignificantportionofitsmasssupportcontinueduntilitwaseventuallydestroyedbydefeatintheSecondWorldWar.InboththeseaspectstheEuropeanfascistshadsimilaritiestotheSanghParivarinIndia,thoughtheseapparentsimilaritiesalsocontaindifferences.

TheFascistIdeologyEuropean fascism was a politicalprojectwithacomplexideology.ThatideologywassummarisedbyMussoliniinhisTheDoctrineofFascism:

The State, as conceived and realized by Fascism, is a spiritual and ethical entity for securing the political,juridical, and economic organization of the nation, an organization which in its origin and growth is amanifestationof thespirit.TheStateguarantees the internalandexternalsafetyof thecountry,but italsosafeguardsandtransmitsthespiritofthepeople,elaborateddowntheagesinits language,itscustoms,itsfaith. The State is not only the present; it is also the past and above all the future. Transcending theindividual'sbriefspelloflife,theStatestandsfortheimmanentconscienceofthenation.Theformsinwhichitfindsexpressionchange,buttheneedforitremains.TheStateeducatesthecitizenstocivism,makesthemawareof theirmission, urges them tounity; its justiceharmonizes their divergent interests; it transmits tofuturegenerationstheconquestsofthemindinthefieldsofscience,art,law,humansolidarity;itleadsmenupfromprimitivetriballifetothathighestmanifestationofhumanpower,imperialrule.

Replacetheword'State'with'Sangh',andtheresemblanceisobvious3.

Duringtheactualfascistregimes,thisoverarching'spiritual'visionwasinstitutionalisedbytheformationofwhatisnowknownasa“corporatist”state.Thisdoesnotreferto'corporate'initsmodernsenseofacompany,buttoaformofstateorganisationwhereeachsegmentofsocietyisorganisedinafederationaccordingtoitssocialfunction,withthestatethenoperatingasthemediatorandsuperiorforalloftheseorganisations.Thus,undertheNazis,therewasasingletradeunionforallworkers,anassociationofwomen,ayouthassociation,etc.,andalmostallGermanswerepartofoneortheotheroftheseassociations.TheNaziparty(andtheGermanstate,fromwhichitwasindistinguishable),underthesupremeleadershipofHitler,coordinatedthesevariousorganisations.Theentiresystemwasorganisedonlinessimilartothatofthemilitary,withcommanding“leaders”ateachlevelwhoseorderswerecarriedoutbythoseunderthemandeventuallybythepopulation.Anypoliticalorsocialgroup outside theseorganisationswasruthlesslycrushed,especiallyifitwasaworkers'organisationorgenuinetradeunion,orifitwasformedbythepersecutedcommunities.Even as all of societywas organised on these hierarchical lines, the Nazis and theFascistssetupvastsecretpoliceestablishmentsthattracked“anti-national”activityanddetained,torturedandkilledanyonetheybelievedwasopposedtothegovernment.TheNazisalsocreatedahugesystemofslavelabourcampsanddeathcamps,intowhichtheysentthosewhotheyregardedasenemiesofthenationandthe“Germanrace”:Jews,Gypsies,homosexuals,mentallyillpersons,and–afterthewarbegan-Poles,Russians,andotherSlaviccommunities.Assaidabove,itisestimatedthatmore than 12 million peoplediedinthesecamps.Ineconomicterms,thefascistsclaimedtobelieveinanill-defined“thirdway”betweensocialismandcapitalism.Inpracticethis'thirdway'variedagreatdeal,butithadtwofundamentals.Thefirstwaslarge-scalestatespending,especiallyonmilitaryproductionandinfrastructurelikeroadsandrailways.Thesecondwasaclosealliancebetweenthestateandbigcorporations,wherebythecorporationsagreedtoproducethegoodsthestaterequiredanddemanded,andinexchangereceivedenormoussubsidies,totalfreedomtoexploitlabourandeasyaccesstoresources.Bigcorporationswereencouragedtoformtheirownassociationsandcartelstocontrolprices,andinmostsectorsoftheeconomyafewcompanieshadthemonopoly.Pricesandtradeweretightlyregulatedbythegovernment.Theexpansionofstatespendingandtheenormousinvestmentinmilitaryproductionensurednearfullemployment,reducingworkingclassdiscontentconsiderably.Inanycase,workerswereforbiddentostrikeandeventuallyevenforbiddentoleavetheirjobswithoutthepermissionoftheiremployer.Resistancewastreatedastreasonanditsleaderssenttothedeathcamps.Thus,inlargemeasure,thefascistsachievedtheirgoalofasocietywithnoorganisationexcepttheirown,nospacefordissentorstruggle,andnopossibilityofdemocracy.Theircontrolwasfardeeperthanamerepolicestate,foritrestedtoasignificantdegreeonthecooperationandsupportextendedbylargesectionsofthepeopletothefascists–thekindofsupportthathasledtotheGermanpeoplebeingcalled“Hitler'swillingexecutioners.”MassSupportforFascismThisrealityofmasssupportremainsboththemostintriguingandthemostterrifyingaspectoffascisminEurope.FascisminEuropeemergedatatimeofsocialconflict,whenlargepartsofEuropewerewitnessingmilitantstrugglesbyworkingclassandsocialistpartiesandtheshadowoftheRussianRevolutionhungovercapitalistsandimperialiststhroughouttheworld.BothGermanyandItalyhadwitnessedmassstrugglesbyworkers,includingthe1918revolutioninGermany,andinbothcountriestheworkers'parties–thecentristSocialDemocratsandtheCommunists–wereamongthelargestmassformationsuntilthefascistscametopower.Fascism drew much of its initial support from the social class that Marxists describe as the “pettybourgeoisie”, namely thosewho possess their ownmeans of production butwho also engageinlabourthemselves(suchasshopkeepers,smallproducers,etc.).Thesesectionswereorganisedintothefascistparties,andsomeoftheirmembers–alongwiththeurbanlumpenproletariatweremobilisedintomilitary-styleorganisationsthatengagedinviolentactionsagainsttradeunions,leftistorganisations,otherpoliticalparties,etc.,andinGermanyagainsttheJews.ThisviolencewouldbedescribedinIndiatodayas“riots”,andtheresemblanceisnotaccidental;theNazi“Sturmabteilung”(stormtroopers)andtheFascistBlackshirtshadmuchthesamestructureanddrewonthesamesocialbaseastheBajrangDal.Withthetacitconnivanceofthestatebeforetheirowntakeoverofpower,thefascistsinbothItalyandGermanyestablishedareignofmobterror,crushingdemocraticforcesingeneralandtheleftinparticular.Bigcorporatesandindustrialhouses,whilenotseekingtojointheNazisandtheFasciststhemselves,bankrolledthefascistpartiesandencouragedtheiractions.Meanwhile,thesepartiesalsopromisedanewreignofpeaceandcalm,whileengaginginhatepropagandaagainstCommunistsandJews,whotheyaccusedofcreating“disorder”andbeing“anti-nationals”.Thefascistsprojectedthemselvesasthepartiesofthe“commonpeople”,defendingsocialvalues,traditionandfaithagainstboththe“anti-nationals”andtheinequalityand'materialism'producedbycapitalism.Theyclaimedtobetheadvocatesofthe“commonwelfare”,includingthewelfareoftheworkers–Mussolini washimselfanex-Socialist,whiletheNaziparty'sfullnamewasNationalSozialistischeDeutscheArbeiterPartei(NationalSocialistGermanWorkers'Party).Theseideaswerenotjustpreachedorimposedbyterror;thefascistsalsograduallybuiltupanetworkoforganisationsacrossGermanandItaliansociety,infiltratingneighborhoodassociations,sportsclubs,studentgroupsandsoonandbringingthemwithinthefascistfold.

Amoredetaileddiscussionoftheclassbaseoffascismwillbeundertakeninchapter5.Butthesetacticsproducedsufficientpopularsupportforthefasciststotakestatepowerthroughmassaction.MussoliniinItalyledamassive“MarchonRome”in1923whichendedwiththefalloftheItaliangovernmentandtheFascisttakeover.InspiredbyMussolini'sexample,Hitlertriedtodothesameinthefamous“beerhallputsch”,butfailed.Tenyearslater,in1933,theNaziswonenoughvotestocometopoweraspartofacoalitiongovernment,andHitlerwasappointedChancellor(PrimeMinister).Threemonthslater,claimingathreatfroma“Communistconspiracy”, the government imposed a state of emergency, and the GermanParliamentpassedalawempoweringHitlertomakelawsbydecree.TheresultingdictatorshiplasteduntilGermany'sdefeatinthewarin1945.Aftertakingoverstatepower,theeconomicpoliciespursuedbythefascists–inparticularlargescalestatespending, the build up of themilitaryandthegradualcreationofa“wareconomy”ensuredeconomic'growth'andalsoarapidincreaseinemployment.UnemploymentandhyperinflationhadbeenseriousproblemsinGermanyandItalybeforethefascistrisetopower,andthenearfullemploymentprovidedbytheNazisandtheFascistsgreatlydiminisheddiscontentamongtheworkingclassandclosedthespaceforleftmobilisation–whichinanycasehadlongsincebeencrushed.

ParallelsandDi&erenceswiththeSanghParivarTheresemblancesbetweenthefascistsandtheSangharequiteclear.TheorganisationalstructureandpoliticaltacticsoftheSanghandthefascistsis–asdescribedinthenextchapteralmostidentical,inadditiontothestrongsimilaritybetweenfascistgenocidesandtheSangh'suseofmasskilling.HistorianshavealsopointedoutthatRSSleadersvisitedfascistItalyandweregreatlyinspiredbywhattheysaw;Golwalkar'sadmirationforHitleriswellknown.Itisforthisreasonthatmanyusethe term “fascist” todescribe the Sangh and its activities, drawing an explicit parallel between the RSS and the Nazis inparticular.Butcriticsofthiscomparisonpointoutthattherearesignificantdifferencesaswell,inparticularregardingtheattitudeoftheSanghtostatepower(which,incontrasttotheEuropeanfascists,theSanghhasneverseenasitssoleorevenmaingoal)andthelackofasingle'supremeleader'intheSanghParivar.AmorefundamentalcriticismisthefactthatthereisavastdifferencebetweenthenatureandbalanceofsocialforcesinIndiatodayandthatinEuropebetweentheWorldWars.MechanicalcomparisonsbetweenthehistoricaltrajectoryofEuropeanfascismandtheSanghParivarthereforemayleadtomisunderstandings ofourcurrentpoliticalsituation.HowcanthesesimilaritiesanddifferenceshelpusunderstandtheSanghParivarmoreclearly?Thisquestionwillformthebackdroptotheremainderofthisbooklet.

CHAPTER2:TheCreationandConsolidationoftheSanghParivar:TheEarlyYears

TheRashtriyaSwayamsevakSanghwasfoundedin1925byDr.KBHedgewar.AmemberoftheChitpavanBrahmincommunityandaresidentofNagpur,HedgewarbelievedthatHinduswere“underthreat”inthewakeofaclashbetweenMuslimsandHindusinNagpur.Onlysixorsevenpeopleattendedthatinitialmeeting,atwhichitwasresolvedtobuildanorganisationtostrengthenthe“character”and“defence”ofHindus.Hedgewar foundedtheRSS inpartbecauseofadisagreementwiththeothermajorHindutvawadiofthetime,VDSavarkar,whohadcoinedtheterm“Hindutva”andfoundedtheHinduMahasabhatheyearbefore.HedgewarhadbeeninspiredbySavarkar'snotionofHindutva,whichheldthatonlythosewhoregardedIndiaasboththeir“motherland”andastheir“holyland”couldbeconsideredIndians.Asseenearlier,thishadlittletodowiththeactualreligionofHinduism,andSavarkarclearlyhadlittlepatiencewiththosewhosoughttoequateHindutvawithHinduism.Hisconcept,heinsisted,waspoliticalandabout“nationalism”,notaboutreligion.Hedgewar believed this was true, and agreed with Savarkar that Hindus had been “weakened” by thedivisionsofcaste,language,differencesinfaithetc.,andneededtobeunifiedwithanewconsciousnessofHindutva.HealsosharedSavarkar'sintensehatredofMuslimsandthebeliefthatbothMuslimsandChristians–butespeciallyMuslims–were“foreigners”andenemiesoftheHindunation.ButwhilethetwothusagreedonalltheessentialsoftheconceptofHindutvaandthatMuslimsweretoberegardedasbothinferiorandenemiesofthenation,theydifferedonhowtorespond.Savarkarwasmoreexplicitlypoliticalandhencefoundedapoliticalparty,theHinduMahasabha.Hedgewar,ontheotherhand,believedthattherewasfirstaneedtobuilda“culturalconsciousness”of“unity”,andthatthisshouldbedonethroughcarefulbuildingofdisciplineandintellectualleadership.TheRSSwastobetheinstrumentforthisproject.TheRSShelditsfirstmeetingonDasarain1925,attendedbyonlyafewpeople.SubsequentlyregularmeetingswereheldinNagpur,wheretheRSScreateditstrademarkstyleofphysicalexercises,indoctrinationthroughspeechesand'games'thatpropagateditsideology.Somebecamepracharaks andwereinvolvedinRSSworkanddisciplineonafulltimebasis.RSSmemberstookoathtoservethebhagwadhwaj(designedaftertheflagofthePeshwakings,formerBrahminrulersofthearea).TheRSSalsoatthetimebeganitspracticeofrecruitingadolescentyoungmenandindoctrinatingthemevenbeforetheyattainedadulthood.Strongemphasiswasplacedonabsoluteobediencetotheleaderandtotheorganisation.Womenwereandstillarebarredfrommembership.In1926RSSmembersparticipatedinanotherHindu-MuslimclashinNagpur,andovertheyearsthatfollowedtheorganisationbegantogrowthroughoutwhatisnowMaharashtra.In1931,BSMoonje,apoliticianandHedgewar'smentor,undertookatriptofascistItalyandreturneddeeplyimpressedbytheFascistyouthleague'spracticeofweeklysportsandindoctrinationmeetings,involvingyouthasyoungassix.TheRSShadalreadybegunmovingonsimilarlines,anditisspeculatedthatMoonje's tripconsolidatedthisapproachintowhatisstilltheRSS'mainformofactivity4.

TheFreedomStruggleandtheRSSBy1939,theRSShadapproximately500activeshakhasand60,000members,andhadmostlydevelopedthe complex leadership structure andhierarchythatithastoday.YetitsbaseremainedsubstantiallyMaharashtriananduppercaste.In1939HedgewardiedandwassucceededassarsanghchalakbyMSGolwalkar,who–incontrasttohispredecessor–wasthefirsttogivetheRSSadetailedandwrittenideology.TheRSS'attitudetothefreedomstruggleoffersthefirstindicatorofitslaterpolitics.ThoughHedgewarwasimprisonedin1921forhisparticipationinCongressactivities,herefrainedfromsuch actions after thefounding of theRSS,exceptforparticipatingintheJangalSatyagrahawiththeexplicitaimofmeetingotherstodrawthemintotheRSS.In1930,HedgewardirectedhiscadresthattheycouldparticipateinGandhi'ssaltsatyagrahaintheirindividualcapacityiftheywished,buttheRSSwouldnotjoin.In1943,theBritishHomeOfficesaidtheRSShadkeptitselfwithinthe“boundsofthelaw”and“refrainedfromjoiningtheAugust1942disturbances.”Those'disturbances'weretheQuitIndiamovement.Atthesametime,SavarkardirectedhisHinduMahasabhacadretostayintheirgovernmentpostsandignoretheboycottcallsofthefreedommovement.Indeed,justbeforethestartoftheQuitIndiamovement,ShyamaPrasadMookerjee,alsooftheMahasabhabutlaterthefirstpresidentoftheJanSangh,wrotealettertotheBritishGovernorofBengalsaying:“LetmenowrefertothesituationthatmaybecreatedintheprovinceasaresultofanywidespreadmovementlaunchedbytheCongress...Anybody,whoduringthewar[WorldWarII],planstostirupmassfeelings,resultingininternaldisturbances...mustberesistedbyanyGovernmentthatmayfunction...”Thisisatellingrevelationthatbeliesthisorganisation'sclaimtobe“nationalist.”Ashasbeenpointedoutbymany,theHindutvaorganisationsweremoreconcernedwithattackingMuslimsthanwithIndia'sfreedom.Moreover,theRSShasalwayshadbeenveryreluctanttoconfrontstatepower.Historically,unlikeeitherleftistorganisationsortheircounterpartsamongtheMuslimrightwing,theSanghhasshownaremarkabletendencytocollapsewhenfacedwitheitherstateactionoraconcertedpoliticalopposition.

As we shall see in Chapter 5, this reflects both the class character of RSS organising and the specificideologicalandmaterialbasisfortheseorganisations,andalsooffersaclueastohowtheycanbefought.Despite staying out of the freedom struggle, the RSS continued to expand its base inside India. DuringPartitiontheRSSplayedasignificantroleinfomentingviolenceandorganisingthemassacresofMuslimsinPunjab.Shortlyafterwards,ex-RSSmemberNathuramGodseassassinatedGandhi;thoughGolwalkarwasacquittedofadirectroleintheconspiracy,theJusticeKapurCommissionandotherevidencestronglypointedtoRSSinvolvementinthekilling.AsaresulttheSanghwasbannedforayear.ThebanwasonlyliftedafterGolwalkaracceptedNehru'sconditionthattheSanghadoptaninternalconstitutionswearingrespectforsecularismandabjuringviolence5.DespiteitssubstantialspreadinwesternandnorthernIndia,however,atIndependencetheRSSremainedverylimitedinitssocialbase.A1947internalCongressreportontheRSSstatedthefollowing:

The RSS has been a purely Maharashtrian brahmin organisation. The non-brahmin Maharashtrians whoconstitutethebulkofCP[CentralProvinces]andMaharashtrahavenosympathywithit...Evenintheotherprovincesthechieforganisersandwhole-timeworkerswillbefoundtobeinevitablyMaharashtrianbrahmins.

Heavily dominated by upper castes, with no mass presence, it was essentially a marginal presence inpoliticseveninitshomeareas.

PostIndependence:theSanghParivarisFormedIncreasinglyawareoftheselimitations,verysoonafterindependencetheSanghinitiatedastrategythatwouldallowittobreakoutofthesebarriers.Inkeepingwithitsideologicalgoaloforganisingallof“Hindu”society,Sanghcadresweretaskedwithcreatingnewfrontorganisationsfordifferentsectorsofsociety.Sanghpracharakscreatedneworganisationsforvarioussectors–theAkhilBharatiyaVidyarthiParishad(ABVP)forstudentsin1948,theBharatiyaMazdoorSanghin1955forworkers,theVanvasiKalyanAshramin1952foradivasisandsoon.Thismarkedthebirthofthe“SanghParivar”;thenumberofsuchfrontorganisationsnowrunsintohundreds.Ofthesenewfrontorganisations,twoweretoplayaparticularlyimportantrole.In1950,ShyamaPrasadMukherjee–aformerleaderofthenowdecliningHinduMahasabha–foundedtheBharatiyaJanSangh.RSScadresformedakeypartofthisnewpartyandsoontookoveritsfunctioning,despiteGolwalkar'scontinuingclaimsthattheRSSwas'apolitical.'Thenewpartydrewitsmassbaseprimarilyfromamongsmalltradersandpettyindustrialists;itspoliticsreflecteditsbase,withcallsforgreater“Hinduisation”,removalofinternaleconomicrestrictions,andstrictcontrolsonimports.TheotherimportantnewfrontorganisationwastheVHP,foundedin1964.TheVHPwasexplicitlyaimedatbecomingthe“CatholicChurchofHinduism”-namelyasingleinstitutiontobringtogetherallvarietiesofHinduismandallHindureligiousleaders.TheVHPmarkedtheSangh'sfirstventureintoactualHindureligiouspractice.TheVHPalsowasthefirstinaseriesofinstitutions–theVanvasiKalyanAshramwasanother–aimedatimitatingwhattheSanghperceivedasthepracticeofChristianinstitutions.Inthewakeofthefoundingoftheseinstitutions,theRSSitselfretreatedfromdirectinvolvementinpublicactions,andtodaytheRSShardlyengagesinanypublicprotestsormobilisationsofitsown.ItinsteadservesastheintellectualnucleusandleadershipoftheSanghParivarsystem.Yet,despitethenewbasebroughtinbythesemassorganisations,theSanghParivarcontinuedtobesociallyconfinedandwaslimitedtosomegeographicalareas.ItsnextbreakthroughonlyoccurredwiththeEmergencyin1975,whentheRSSandmanyofthefrontorganisationswerebanned(alongwiththeCommunistsandtheJamaat-i-Islami).Onceagain,duringthisperiod,theRSSshoweditscowardiceinthefaceofstatepowerbyappealingforthebanonittobelifted.BalasahebDeoras,thesarsanghchalakoftheRSSatthetime,wrotetoIndiraGandhicongratulatingherontheupholdingofherelection(byaSupremeCourtpackedwithherhandpickedjudges)andclaimingthattheRSS“hadnoconnection”withanyprotestsagainsttheEmergency.TodaytheRSSclaimsjusttheopposite.WhiletheSanghParivarwasbynomeansintheforefrontoftheanti-Emergencymobilisations,itgainedawiderbaseasaresultofjoiningtheJanataParty,andtheJanatagovernmentof1977–1980madeseveralJanSanghleaders(suchasVajpayee)intoCentralgovernmentMinistersforthefirsttime.ThesplitintheJanataparty\in1980waspartlyaresultofthe“dualmembership”controversy,wherebytheotherJanataconstituentsdemandedthattheJanSanghleadersrenouncetheirRSSaffiliations.Whentheyrefused,theSanghissplitfromtheJanataParty,andin1980anewparty–theBJP-wasfounded.Shortly afterwards, the Sangh began amass expansion that is almost uniqueinIndianpoliticalhistory.Fromastillsmallforceinageographicallysmallarea,capableofwinningonlytwoseatsinthe1984LokSabhaelections,theSanghParivargrewintowhatwasarguablyIndia'slargestorganisedpoliticalforcebythe1990's.Tounderstandthis,wefirstneedabroaderframeworkofanalysis.

CHAPTER3:ThePoliticalBackdroptotheRiseoftheSanghParivarinthe1980's

AsmentionedintheIntroduction,mostofouranalysesofHindutvafocusonthefactthatit“divides”theworkingclass.Yetithasbeenarguedabovethatthisisinsufficientasanunderstanding.Wherecanonebegin,then,foradifferentapproach?IntheideologicaldebatesduringandafterthetimeofthefascistregimesinEurope,bothMarxistandnon-Marxisttheoristsputforwardvariousconceptionsaimedatunderstandingtheseregimesandmassmovements.Thedebateisstillraging,andthereisstilldisputeoverhowtocharacterisefascismasapoliticalphenomenon.ThemajorMarxisttheorists–suchasTrotsky,Gramsci,Bauerandothers-disagreedontheexactpoliticalnatureoffascism,butagreedthatitwasaresponseofthebourgeoisietotherisingthreatofaproletarianrevolution.Trotsky,forinstance,arguedthatfascismresultedfromtherisingdespairandangerofthepettybourgeoisie(namely,theclassofpeoplewhoownsomemeansofproductionbutwhoalsoworkandparticipateinproduction).Thisangerwasharnessedbyfinancecapitalandthebigbourgeoisieaftertheworkingclasspartiesfailedtodevelopasufficientlyrevolutionaryprogram.Capitalinturnsawtheneedforsuchanactionbecauseitwastheironlyhopeforsurvivalinthefaceofthegrowthandintensificationofpopularstruggleagainstcapitalism. In other words, fascism was an emergency measure, a desperatereactionbycapital,and itsmasssupportwasprovidedby thedespairingpettybourgeoisie looking forapoliticalforcethatwoulddefendtheminthefaceofintensifyingcrisesofproduction.Onthispoint,namelythatfascismwasaresponsetoanimpendingcrisisforcapitalism,mostMarxisttheoristsagreed.Butontheirface,suchtheoriesseeminapplicabletotheIndiansituation,where–despitewidespreaddiscontentandnumerouslocalorregionalresistancesneithertheIndianstatenorIndiancapitalarefacinganimminentthreatofrevolutionaryoverthrowbyanyorganisedpoliticalforce.Thiswasevenmoretrueinthe1980's,whentheSanghParivarbeganitshistoricexpansion,thanitisnow.Ifoneacceptsthatfascismisprimarilyadesperateresponseofa“capitalismindecline,”Indiancapitalshouldhavenoreasontoturntofascism.OnthisbasissomehavedismissedtherelevanceofthisentirebodyoftheorytounderstandingtheSanghParivar.Buttherearesomebasicpointsthatcanbetakenfromtheseanalyses,whichmighthelpusunderstandtheSanghParivarbetter:

1. It is possible for a reactionary political project to benefit the ruling class bloc even though itinitiallydraws itssupport fromothersectionsofsociety (in thecaseofEuropean fascism, thepettybourgeoisie).

2. Therefore,analysesofreactionarypoliticalformationsshouldbothseektounderstandhowtheybenefittherulingclassatthatparticularhistoricalmoment,and

3. Also seek to understand how these formations responded to concrete political needs amongothersections.

Inthischapter,wewillpostulateananswertoquestion2,andinthenextchaptertoquestion3.ClassesandMovementsinthe1980'sWhyisHindutvaapartofrulingclasspoliticsinIndiatoday?ExploringthisrequiresseeingthechangesthatoccurredinIndianpoliticsduringtheperiodofHindutva'smassexpansion.Likemostsocietiesintheworld,Indiansocietyisnotstrictlydivisibleintoaclassof“capitalistbourgeoisie”whoownthemeansofproductionandaclassof“workers”whodonotownorhaveaccesstothemeansofproductionatall.AlargepartofIndiansociety–infactthemajority–consistsofpeoplewhowouldfall“inbetween”,thoughonlyifoneadoptssuchaliteralandtechnicalunderstandingofclass.Thesepeopleownoraccesssomemeansofproduction(suchasmarginalfarmers,smalltraders,shopkeepers,vendors,etc.)butareeitherforcedtoalsoworkaswagelabourersordepend,despitetheirnominal“freedom”,onlargercapitalforsurvival.Inreality,theyareindeedworkers,butunlikethe“assetlessproletariat”theyalsohaveaninterestinpreservingandenhancingtheiraccesstothemeansofproduction.InmostMarxistanalyses,thisclassistheonereferredtoasthe“pettybourgeoisie”or“pettycommodityproducers.”Peoplefromthesesectionsformthevastmajorityofthesupportforpeople’smovementsandmassorganizationsinIndiatoday.Indeed,theyarethecoreofalmostallIndianpoliticalformations,formingthecentreandpoliticallyactivemassbaseoftheleft,centreandright.Initially,inthe1950'sandearly1960's,theCongressmostlyprovidedanoverarchingframeworkforpoliticalmobilisationofthesesectionsinmainlandIndia(thatis,exceptingtheNortheastandKashmir).Yetasearlyasthe1967elections(andearlierintheSouth),therewerealreadysignsthatthis'unity'undertheCongresswasbeginningtobreakup.TheEmergencyandthefallofIndiraGandhiin1977sealedtheCongress'fate;itwouldneveragainbethe“national”party.WhatfollowedtheCongress,however,wasnotandstillisnotatakeoverbysomeothersinglepoliticalformation.Instead,inthe1980's,Indiawitnessedanexplosionofmassmobilisation–thesocialmovements,newregionalparties,armeduprisingsinseveralmajorareasofIndia's periphery (Kashmir, Assam, and Punjab) and eventually the Ayodhya and Mandalmobilisations.

Whydidthishappen?Whilethecausesvariedwidely,thelargestofthemovementsintheIndianmainlandsharedonecharacteristic:thedominant,oratleastleading,presenceof“richpeasant”groups.ZamindariabolitionandtheGreenRevolutionhadcontributedbytheearly1980'stothecreationofasmallclassofcapitalistfarmersandalarger,thoughlessclearlydefined,classof'richfarmers'inmostStatesinIndia(exceptingtheNortheast).Theseweresocialgroupsattheupperendofpettycommodityproduction,ofteneitherhavingbecomefullycapitalistoronthevergeofdoingso.Thesegroupsfacedtwoprimaryproblemsinthe1980's.First,thegradualshiftintermsoftradeagainstagriculturemeantthatthevalueoftheirproducts–measuredrelativetoindustrialgoods–fellsteadilythroughoutthisperiod.Thisthreatenedtheirabilitytotransitiontocapitalistagriculture,andinsomecaseseventheirabilitytomaintaintheircurrentconditionsofexistence.Second,theriseofthesecommunitieswasnotreflectedinaconcomitantchangeinpoliticalpower,andtheyremainedpoliticallyunder-represented.Simultaneously,otherpettycommodityproducersweresubjecttoanincreasingsqueezeontheirabilitytosurvive.Ingeneralsuchproducershadincreasinglybecomedependentonthemarketforsurvival,requiringthemtoalsoselleithertheirproduceortheirlabourtosurvive.But at precisely this time, thegovernmentalso responded to thedemandsofbigcompaniesand industrialcapital,andbegantoallowthemtopenetrateintoruralareasandtofunctionwithlessregulation.Theresultwasrapidlyincreasingpressureonsmallerproducers,bothinurbanandinruralareas.

Thiscombinedtrendproducedasharedinterestacrossthespectrumofpettycommodityproducers,whichinturnledtotherichpeasant-ledmovementsofthisperiod.Thesemovementsdemandedthatthestateallocatemoreresources,subsidies,andothersuchsupportstotheirformsofproduction(suchasfreepower,fertilizersubsidiesandhigherprocurementpricesforfarmers).Whilesuchdemandsmainlybenefitedthelargestproducers,theymadesenseeventothesmallerproducers,orindeedtoanyproducerwhosoldanyoftheirproduce(suchasanyfarmerwhosoldpartofwhattheyproduced).Thefactthattheseinterestsweresharedacrossdifferentlevelsofproducersallowedthemtobepoliticallytranslatedasthedemandsofthe“community”asawhole–thelinguisticcommunity,thecastecommunity,ortheregionalcommunity,etc.Asaresult,acrossthe1980's,bothpartiesandmovementsadoptedthelanguageof“communities”demandingstatesupport,which became the political common sense of the1980's.WecanseethisintheriseofregionalpartiesliketheTDPinAndhraPradeshortheSPinUP,orinthe“newfarmers’movements”ofTikaitandSharadJoshi.

TheResponseofCapitalAt the same time, the large capitalists in Indiawere also changing their positions and politics. Until the1970's, India'sbigbourgeoisiehadbuiltmonopolistic largecorporationsthroughaclosecooperationwiththe state bureaucracy, relying on state regulation to providethemwithguaranteedmarketsfortheirproducts.Butbythe1970'sthesecompaniesalsobegantochafeatthestatesystem,withthecontinuedsmallsizeoftheirmarketsbecominganobstacletotheirgrowth.Stateregulationalsoblockedthemfromeasilyabsorbingsmallercapitalsandsmallcommodityproducers.Thepost-1980Congressregimegraduallybegantochangeregulationsinordertoaddressthese“problems”.In1985,forinstance,thegovernmentpromulgateda“NewEconomicPolicy”,withtaxcuts, lower import duties, export tax breaksandrelaxedlicensingrequirements.Thus,atthesametimeasitcameunderintensepressuretograntincreasedsubsidiesandinvestmentinfavour of people mobilised in the various 1980's movements, the state alsobegantowithdrawfromregulationandtaxationofbigcapital.Thecombinedresultwasasharpriseinstateinvestmenttogetherwitha'boom'ofconsumerconsumption(drivenbythenewavailabilityofgoodsfortherich)andeconomicgrowth.Ruralemployment grew, agricultural realwages rose, and incomepoverty decreased at amorerapidratethaneitherbeforeorsince;itwasanunusualperiodof“prosperity.”Yet thisprosperitywasbuiltonacontradiction, for the interestsof capitaland the interestsofthemassmobilisationswerefundamentallyopposed(thoughfewofthe1980'smovementswereexplicitlyanti-capitalist).Thedemandforgreaterstatesupportandassistancerequiredstateinvolvementandregulation,aswellasallocationofeconomicresourcesthroughpoliticaldecisionsbasedonfavouring“communities.”ButthiswaspreciselywhatIndiancapitalists,alongwiththenowrapidlyrisingforeigncapitalistpresence,wereopposedto.Capitalwasdemandingfreedomfromallpoliticalconstraintsontheirinvestment,withdrawalofthestatefromprocurementanddistribution,andtheconversionofIndiaintoaunifiedmarket.Statecontroloverinvestmentandstatesupportforpettyproducerswasexactlytheoppositeofwhattheywanted.Throughoutthe1980'stheIndianstateattemptedtosquarethiscircle,withtheresultthatthestatedescendeddeeperanddeeperintodebtasitbothreducedcorporatetaxesandincreasedpublicinvestment.In1991,NRI'sandforeignfinancialinstitutions–thetwomainsourcesoffinanceforcoveringtheincreasingnegativebalanceofstatefunds–pulledtheplugbysuddenlyandrapidlywithdrawingtheirfunds.TheresultingfinancialcrashbecametheexcuseusedbyManmohanSinghandthethenCongressgovernmenttobegintheprocessofliberalisation,withtheconsequencesthatweknowtoday.Evenasthepressurefromforeignanddomesticcapital intensified intherunto1991, Indiancapitalalsoneededapolitical project that couldeffectively opposeandcontainthe“divisive”andcollectivepoliticspromotedbythe1980'smovements.ItfoundthatprojectinHindutva,which,aswesawinChapter1,wasideologicallyandpoliticallyopposedtoanynotionofa“collective”exceptthesingle,totalandSangh-

controlled“Hindunation.”InthissensetheHindutvaprojectfitperfectlywithwhatwasbeingadvocatedbyIndiancapitalduringthisperiod–aunified“nation”andidentitywithnopoliticalmobilisationorpoliticiseddifferences.Thisincreasingsupportwasreflectedintherapidlychangingattitudeamongtheurbanelite,whobeganfinancingandsupportingtheSanghandtheAyodhyamobilisationinamajorway.TheBJPspecificallytargetedthiselitesegmentandmetwithanincreasingendorsementofitsclaimthattheAyodhyamovementwasnot“communal”butaimedatmakingIndiaintoa“modernnation”,aproudself-assertionagainst“sectional”and“vested”interests(meaningtheothermobilisationsofthetime).Fromtheviewpointofcapital,thiswascorrect,foritwouldindeedhelptocreatethattruly“modern”vision:asingle,de-collectivisedunitwithcollectivepoliticsdestroyed.This support from urban elites translated into increased support from dominant social sections for theHindutvamobilisation,reflectedingrowingendorsementbytheEnglishmedia,financialsupportandarapidincreaseinthenumberof“respectablefaces”(bureaucrats,militaryofficers,journalists,etc.)whoopenlydeclaredtheirsupportforit.ButinitselfthiswasnotenoughtoconverttheSanghParivarintoamasspoliticalforce,thoughitwasanecessarystepinthatdirection.Tounderstandtheotherhalfofthisdevelopment–thegrowthintheSangh'smassbase–weneedtolookmoreclosely at the functioning oftheSanghinthisperiodandinthesubsequentdecadestillthepresentday.

CHAPTER4:TheIndividualist“Bargain”-TheSanghandItsCadreBaseFromthe

1980'sOnwardsAs the 1980's began and India's political landscape was increasinglydominatedbyturmoil,theSanghParivargraduallybegantoshiftitsstrategy.UntiltheEmergencytheParivarhadoperatedprimarilyonthebasisofrecruitment,trainingandindoctrination,withtheRSSremainingthemost dominant arm of theParivar.AftertheEmergency,thisapproachwaschanged,markinganewphaseintheSanghParivar'soperations.Onthesurface,thedifferencebetweenthenewstrategyandtheoldwasclearlyapparent:therewasashifttoemphasisonpoliticalmobilisationonalargescale.Insteadoffocusingonorganisationaldisciplineandfullpoliticisation,theaimshiftedtowardsmassprotestsandmassactions–alongwithexpandedrecruitmentofcadrefrommultiplesectionsofsociety.Thus,theVishwaHinduParishadwas“relaunched”between1979and1981asamassmobilisationplatform.ThenewlyformedBJP–despiteinitiallyvacillatingbetweenhardlinehatepoliticsandvaguenotionsof“Gandhiansocialism”-alsosoonbecameaplatformofmassaction.Finally,in1984,themostvisibleandbrutalelementofthisnewmassstrategywasalsocreated,namelytheBajrangDal.Thevisibleevidenceofthenewapproachemergedin1983,withtheSangh'sagitationsaroundthemassconversionofDalits to Islam inMeenakshipuram,TamilNadu,andthe“EkatmataYatras”thattookplacethesameyear.BythetimetheAyodhyaagitationwaslaunched,theSanghhadfullyconcretisedthismodelandwasbuildinguponittoexpand.Butwhoformedthisnewmassbase?ItappearsthattheAyodhyamovementfounditsstrongestbasesinurbanareas,amongtheurbanpoor,andinsmalltowns.Urbanperipheriesalsosawstrongparticipation,aswellassomeruralareasinUttarPradeshandMadhyaPradesh.However,itdoesnotseemtohaveenjoyedastrongbaseinmostruralareas.Theorganisedworkingclassinmanyurbanareassupportedthemovement,butwerenotitsleaders.GeographicallythemovementwasmostactiveinMaharashtra,GujaratandtheHindi-speakingStates,thoughithadsupportelsewhereaswell.

TheNewMassBaseThisvaguemappingthrowsupaninterestingpoint:itappearsthattheAyodhyamovementmobilisedpreciselythesocialsectorsthatdidnotfullyparticipateintheother1980'smovements.Yetthesesegmentswerealsomostlycomposedofpettyproducers–suchasvendorsandunorganisedsectortradersandproducersinurbanareasandsmalltowns;peasantsonurbanperipheries;andtribalandothersmallagriculturistsinthoseruralareasthatjoinedthemovement.AndthissupportbasewasnotjustlimitedtotheAyodhyamovement;itisamongthesesamegroupsthat,tothisday,theSanghretainsitsstrongestbase.HowdidtheSanghmanagetoreachthesesections,whichshouldhavehadlittlesympathywithHindutvaideology?TheanswerappearstobetheSangh'slargescalerecruitmentofcadreamongthesesections,cadrewhothenprovideitwithaframeforaccessingthesesectionsandmobilisingthem.Forthesecadreandfortheirsupporters,whatdidtheSanghofferthattheothermobilisationscouldnot?Thereisnosingleanswertothisquestion,ofcourse,butthereisapatterntotheanswersthatemerge.Thatpattern,wecanhypothesise,isattheheartoftheSangh'spoliticalmachine;and,ifso,understandingitiscrucialifwearetounderstandtheexpansionoftheseorganisations.Thepatternisthis:theSanghParivaroffered(andoffers)peopleabargain.Thosewhojoingainedmaterialandsocialbenefits,involvinganincreasedsenseofsocialimportanceaswellasgreatermaterialandphysicalsecurity.But,inexchange,theyhadtogiveupallclaimstoanycollectivityexcepttheSangh;allidentitiesexceptasHinduindividuals;andallstrugglesforrightsandfreedomsexceptthosedictatedbytheSangh.Inshort,theSanghwillprovidebenefitstothosewhoabandonallidentitiesandallfreedoms–

exceptthatofbeinganindividual,isolatedsoldieroftheSangh.We can get a clearer idea of this tactic by examining the Sangh's work among some social sections,especiallythosewhoshouldlogicallybemostopposedtotheSanghanditsideology.

O&eringaBargain:SanghActivitiesAmongAdivasisThefirstsuchsegmentisadivasis.BuildingamassbaseamongadivasishasperhapsbeenthemostintenseandcoordinatedSanghParivareffortinthelasttwodecades.Theyhavemostlysucceeded,eventhoughitwouldseemthattheadivasisshouldbetheonesegmentofsocietythatwouldbeleastattractedbyHindutvaideology.TheSanghParivar'spenetrationintoadivasiareasrevolvedinitiallyaround'seva'activitiessuchasschoolbuilding,hostelsandmedicalcamps.Thisfirstbeganonanationalscaleinthe1960's,whentheVanvasiKalyanAshrambeganworkingintribalareas,focusingontrainingadivasiyouthfor'respectable'professionssuchaslaw,medicineorthebureaucracy.Intheearlyandmid1980'stherewasarapidgrowthinthescaleoftheseactivities,reflectingtheincreasedflowoffundsintotheSangh'scoffersandthenewfocusonmobilisation.MorethaneighthundredschoolswereopenedbytheVHPin1983alone,mostlyintribalareas.ThenumberoffulltimeactivistsintheVanvasiKalyanAshramincreasedbysixtimesbetween1978and1983.Suchactivitiesofferedadivasisaclearavenuetoindividualadvancementand,moreimportantly,toasenseofbeingincludedin“respectable”sectionsofsociety.Yetateverystagethiswaspremisedonabandoningtheirownsenseofculture,identityandpolitics,andtheywererequiredtofullymergeintotheSanghanditsreconstructionofadivasiidentity(as“vanvasis”whoneedtobeeducatedand“uplifted”tonormalidentity).Seeingthesuccessoftheseactivities,in1989theSanghformallydecidedthat“seva”activities–primarilytargetingadivasisandDalits–wouldbeamongitsmajormethodsofexpansion.A“sevavibhag”wassetupwithintheSanghandaseniorpracharakdeputedtoheadit.Intheyearsthatfollowed,thiswastomakeahugeimpactontheSangh'spresenceinadivasiareasinparticular.AmongthenewactivitiesisonethatisnowamajorSanghproject,andpossiblyamongitsmostimportantcadre building activities. This is the ekal vidyalaya scheme, supposedly aimed at creating informal,alternativeschoolsfordropoutsfromthegovernmentschoolsinadivasiareas.AspertheSangh'sofficialclaims,thereare26,314ekalvidyalayasinoperationatthetimeofwriting,buttheactualnumberislikelytobefarlarger.Inpractice,inmanyareastheekal vidyalayas do not function very well and it is rarelyclear whether children attend continuously. But the real importance of these schools is not theschoolchildren;itistheteachers,oracharyas,astheyarecalled.Theacharyasarelocaleducatedadivasiyouth.Theyaredrawninwiththepromiseofastablesalary–Rs.300orRs.500permonth.Asseeninthequotesgiveninsection1,theirtrainingappearstofocusnotjustonHindutvapropagandabutona“socialservice”orientation,andtheyoutharetrainedtobelievethattheyareworkingforgaonvikas.Fortheiracharyas,hence,theekalvidyalayasofferbothamaterialgainintheformofasteadyincome,aswellasthechancetoearnsocialrespectthroughtheperformanceof'socialservice.'Yet,inexchange,theyarebarredfromparticipatinginanypoliticalwork(includingmassorganisations)andaffiliationwithanypoliticalparty.TheVanvasiKalyanAshramortheVHPare,ofcourse,nottobeconsidered“political”inthatsense;theyareonlyactinginthe“nationalinterest.”Thiscombinationofforcibleindividualisationanddepoliticisation,combinedwithmaterialsecurity,impliesthatthesubsequentloyaltytotheSanghwillbecomeprogressivelystrongerandstronger.TodissentfromorleavetheSanghParivarwouldmeanlossofsecurityandlossofsocialstatus.Moreover,thepotentialforotheravenuesofdiscoveringone'sdignity,throughcollectivepoliticalaction,areallbarred–andoneisfacedwithachoiceofeitherbeingwithintheSangh'sideologicalandpersonaluniverseorlosingtheveryrealbenefitsthatitprovides.In short, even before any indoctrination with Hindutva ideology, the acharya has already effectivelyconsentedtotheSangh'sbasicprinciples:nocollectiveidentityexcepttheSanghitself;individualdignityisequivalenttoobediencetotheSangh;andanymovetoassertanindependentpoliticsoranindependentidentityistobeatraitortoone'sowninterests.ThesubsequenttraininginHindutvaideologicalbeliefsis,therefore,presumablyaneasyexercise –with thepassageof time, the loyaltyand receptivenessof theacharyawouldbeincreasinglyassured.

OtherSocialSectorsSimilarmethodshavebeenusedintargetingothersectors.AmongDalits,theSanghprovidesaccesstopublicspacesandpositionsofleadershipandpower–though,inpractice,Dalitsareneverpermittedintothemostpowerfulorkeydecision-makingpositions,beingatmostusedasshowpieces.AsanexampleofcreatingnewspacesforDalits,theVHPplanned to build 100 temples inDalit areas of TamilNadu in theearly1980's;andthroughoutthedecade,suchtemplebuildingactivitiesweretobecomeastandardSanghParivartactic,offeringbothlocalemploymentandaspacefor“charity”tothoseinneed.CommonmealsandceremonieswithDalits,inkeepingwithGolwalkar'sformulaquotedinthepreviouschapter,werealsoregularfeaturesofSanghactivity,andmostofthenewtemplesfeaturedcommoneatinghalls.IntheEkatmataYatras,Dalitswerefrequentlyaskedtocarrythe“holywater”oftheGanga.

ForindividualDalits,traditionallydeniedallaccesstopublicspaceandsufferinganincreasinglyintensecrunchofunemploymentandeconomicdeprivation,thiswasnodoubtanempoweringexperience.CertainSanghorganisations–inparticulartheBajrang Dal – also focused and still focus on recruiting Dalits intotheir ranks,making them into 'defenders'of thecommunity.Dalitsnow formthemajorityofBajrangDalcadresinseveralStates.Verysimilardynamicsoperatedwithrespecttourbanwomen,especiallythoseofmiddlecasteandlowermiddle class sections, who are also barred from public space and public activity – leave alonepoliticalparticipation.TheSanghspecificallytargetedsuchwomen,boththroughthegeneralSanghorganisationsandthroughthe“women'swings”oftheVHPandtheRSS(theDurgaVahiniandtheRashtriyaSevikaSamitirespectively).Becauseofitsaffiliationwith“respectable”socialsegments,uppercastesandreligiousleaders,theSanghoffereda“safe”avenueofpoliticalactionthatpermittedwomentoparticipateinpoliticswithoutfacingfamilyopposition.Thespecificpromotionofcertainwomensadhvis–UmaBharati,Ritambara–alsoofferedasensethat,withintheprotectedconfinesoftheSangh,itwaspossibleforwomentoaspiretopoliticalleadershipaswell.Indeed,inurbanareasingeneral,thesituationofwomenandDalitstypifiesthesituationofalargenumberof'floating'segmentswhohavebeenmarginalisedfrombothpoliticalorganisationsandeconomicsecurity.Theyoungmenofsuchsocialbackgroundsformthe“lumpen”elementsthatoperateasthecommonfoundationofpoliticalparties,mafiasandreligiousorganisationsintheseareas.Forsuchpersons,becomingapartofSanghpoliticsonceagainoffersadvantages:accesstosupportfromwealthierelements,aswellascontactwiththoseinmorerespectablepositions.Finally,thegainsfromlootingandextortionduringriots–withtotalimpunity,giventheattitudeofthepolicetoSanghoutfits – should not beunderestimated.But,forallsegments,itmustberememberedthatthesegainsareonlyonehalfofthebargain.TheSanghcracksdownonanymovetoraiseissuesofoppressionandexploitationofDalitsandwomen,forinstance.Whennottargetingminorities,theSangh'swomen'sorganisationsfocusontrainingtheirmembersinbeing“goodmothersandgoodwives.”EvenwhenissuesofpornographyandsexualharassmentwereraisedbytheRashtriyaSevikaSamiti,itwasdoneataverylowlevel,andportrayedasadiseaseintroducedintoIndiansocietybyoutsiders.Similarly,raisinganyissueofuntouchabilityoroppressionofDalitsisimmediatelyrepressedwithintheSangh'sorganisations.Finally,suchbenefitsarealsoconditionalonsupportfortheSangh'soverallpoliticalproject,andonparticipationinthehorribleviolenceunleashedbyitonaregularbasis.Theoverallmessageisclear,asitisamongadivasis:inexchangeforabandoningcollectiveidentitiesandpoliticalstruggle,onewillreceivecertainlimitedsocialandmaterialgains,gainsthatcanbecrucialtosurvival.Yetthosegainswillremainforeverprecarious,fortheyaredependentonstayingwiththeSanghandobeyingitsincreasingdemands.Disloyaltyordissentmeansnotjustexpulsion,butlossofallthathasbeengained.Andthus,farmorethansimplybyinvokingabstractHinduidentity,theSanghensurestheloyaltyofitscadres.TheConditionsThatMakeSanghOrganisingPossibleForustofighttheSangh,itiscrucialtounderstandwhatmakesthismodelofmassorganisingpossible.ThereareanumberoffactorsthatplayintoenablingtheSangh'sexpansion,andwhichhavebeenconsciouslyorchestratedbyitanditssupporters.Someoftheseareasfollows:AccesstoFunds,BothDomesticandForeign,andOtherSupportTheprevioustwosectionsnotedhow“seva”hasformedacriticalpartoftheSanghParivar'sexpansionactivities.This“seva”requireshugeamountsoffunding.Themostconcretereflectionof the supportprovided by capital and dominant sections to the SanghistheenormousresourcesthatthesesectionssupplytotheSanghParivarorganisations.Therearethreeprimarysourcesofsuchfunds.OneislocaldominantsectionsandurbanelitesinIndia.Thus,whenexpandinginMadhyaPradesh(particularlyinwhatisnowChhattisgarh)inthe1980's,theVHPdrewheavilyonthesupportofformerrajasandwealthytraders.EventodaytheSanghreceiveslargedonationsfromthelocaltradingclassandfrombusinessmen.Corporategroupsrarelyprovideopendonations,ofcourse,butinseveralcasesalsoprovidesupport.Thesecond–whichisnotwellknown–isforeignfunding.TheRSS'tieswithNRI'sstretchbacktotheearlyyearsoftheorganisation,andtherearestrongSanghaffiliatesintheUKandtheUSA.Amongtheseaffiliatesareorganisationswhosespecificpurposeisfundraising,suchastheIndiaDevelopmentandReliefFundintheUSandSewaInternationalintheUK.ThesegroupsdonotjustraisefundsfromHindutvasympathisers.Theyalsoraisedonationsfromthegeneralpublicinthenameofthesupposed'development'and'relief'workthatSanghaffiliatesareengagedin.TheytypicallyclaimthattheSanghParivarconsistsof“voluntary”organisationsprovidingtraining,“alternative”educationanddisasterrelieftothepoor.AtypicalquotefromSewaInternational'sfundraisingmaterialisasfollows:

“SEWAInternational isanon-governmentalandnon-sectarianvoluntaryorganization,everreadyin lendingahelping hand to the needy, offering all assistance to the unfortunate and underprivileged by helping themreconstructtheirlife...”

Theamountsinvolvedarenotsmall.OnestudywasabletotracemorethanRs.30croresindonations

fromoneoftheUKgroupsalonetotheRSSinGujaratduring2001,inthenameof“relief”forearthquakevictims.Theekalvidyalayasareheavilyfundedfromabroad,andthereisevenaseparateNGO–theEkalVidyalayaFoundation–forthispurposealone.TheVanvasiKalyanAshram,similarly,hasafundraisingwingofitsownabroad(theKalyanAshramTrust).Thethirdavenueoffundingisfromthestate.ThisbecameparticularlyentrenchedduringtheNDAperiod,whentheCentralgovernmentsupportedanenormousexpansionofekalvidyalayasandotherSanghschools.Between1996and2003,forinstance,thenumberofschoolsrunbyVidyaBharatigrewfrom6,000to26,000.AsaHumanRightsWatchreportputit,theseschools“receivegovernmentfunds,usegovernmentbuildings,takecontrolofstateschools,trainstateteachersandexertconsiderableinfluenceoverstateeducationboards.”ThisisnotjusttrueofBJP-governedStatesortheNDAperiod.TheSanghParivarhassosuccessfullyinfiltratedthebureaucracyandportrayeditselfasa“socialserviceorganisation”thatmuchofthisstatesupportnowcontinuesregardlessofthegovernmentinpower.ThebestexampleistheMinistryofTribalAffairs'listof“EstablishedVoluntaryAgencies”,whichhaveeasieraccesstoCentralfunds.Evennear theendofUPArule,everysingleoneofthese“agencies”isaSanghaffiliate.Butcansuchfundingbestopped?Muchofitcanbe,formost of the foreign funding and state support oftheSanghParivarisactuallyillegal.TheForeignContributions(Regulation)Act–FCRA–barsanyorganisationnotifiedasa“political”organisation fromreceiving foreign funds.TheRSS,VHP, ABVP and some other Sangh affiliates are indeed notified as political organisations undertheAct.WhiletheforeignmoneytypicallycomestoIndiainsomeothergroup'sname(SewaBharati,forinstance,which is a registered RSS-controlled NGO), since these are affiliates of the RSS, the donations remainillegal. Similarly, state support to the Sangh organisations typically occursinviolationofapplicableregulations,whichwouldbarsupportinggroupspromotingcommunalhatredorpoliticalgoals.Itwasonthisbasis,forinstance,thattheCentralMinistryforHumanResourcesDevelopmentcutoffallsupporttoSanghorganisationsin2005.Onekeytaskbeforeus,therefore,istoidentifytheSanghaffiliatesthatarereceivingfunds,showthepoliticalandcommunalconnectionsoftheseoutfitsanddemandanendtoforeignandstatefunding.ThiswouldbeaseriousblowtotheSanghanditsoperations.TheRSS,forinstance,considersforeignfundingsoimportantthatitfileddefamationcasesagainstagroupwhorevealedhowtheUS-basedIDRFischannelingmoneytoSanghorganisationsinIndia.WhentheUKCharityCommissioner's office, underpressure fromactivists, initiatedan investigation into theSangh's fundraising in theUK, theRSStriedtousecontactswiththeBritishPrimeMinistertogetitstopped.SocialLegitimacy

Inadditiontofunding,theSanghalsoreliesonasecond,moreintangibleresourcewhenprovidingbenefitstothosewhojoinit.Thisiswhatwemightlooselycall“sociallegitimacy”–thesenseofanorganizationconsistingof“respectable”membersofsociety,engagedinsocialserviceaimedatthenationalgood.TheSanghhasdeliberatelycultivatedthisimagefromitsearlydaysandmaintainsitstronglyatthelocallevel.ItisthisimagethatgeneratesasenseofhighersocialstatuswhenjoiningtheSangh.

Part of this legitimacy is the resultofsystematiceffortstocourtthemediaduringthe1980’s,asectorwhichisinanycasedominatedbyuppercasteHindumenandwasalreadymostlyrightwinginapproach.ExtensiveworkwithjournalistsandthedeliberateinfiltrationofRSSsupportersintothemediahasplayedagreatroleinproducingthealmosttotalpro-saffronatmosphereinthemediatoday,sothateven“secular”andprogressiveoutletshesitatetodescribetheSanghParivar’scrimesinthesametermsthattheyapplyto“terrorists”orMaoists.Takeoveroftelevisionspaceswasapartofthiseffort,andonestudyhasinfactidentifiedDoordarshan’sserializationoftheRamayanain1989asakeyfacilitatoroftheriseoftheAyodhyamovement.

Meanwhile,theurbanelitehadalsobeguntoactivelysupporttheSanghParivarinthe1980’s,duetothedynamicsmentionedinthepreviouschapter.Sincethemid1980’sthisprocessofmutualalliancehasseentheurbaneliteandtheSanghmovecloserandclosertogetherinarelationshipofmutualbenefit.

The Sangh Parivar's “legitimacy” then serves multiple crucial functions – it creates a sense of socialstanding forcadreswhowish to join, itmakes itpossible forelitesandcorporates tosupport theSanghwithoutopenallegiancetoitspolitics,anditallowsforstatesupport.DentingthislegitimacyisthereforeakeypartofstruggleagainsttheSanghatalllevels.

Moreover,thiskindof legitimacyisalsokeytothereasonwhymerecounter-propaganda,orbuildingourownalternativeschoolsandalternativeculturalactions,maynotnecessarilybeenoughtofighttheSangh.Untilwesucceedinachievingarevolutionarytransformationofsociety,ourinitiativeswillremainoppositional-“alternative”,inshort.Evenwherewedominatethearea,wewillstillbeperceivedasanoppositionalforce.Thismeansthatwhateverwedo,wecannotrespondtoaspirationsforsocialmobilityandhigherstatuswithinexisting society.Indeed,nopoliticalprojectthatisopposedtotherulingclasscoulddoso,becauseitistherulingclassthatdefineswhatisrespectable.

Butpreciselybecauseitisarightwingrulingclassproject,theSanghParivarcaninfactdothat.IfwewishtocountertheSangh,wemustfighttheir legitimacy,notmerelyattempttocreateoneofourown.Our

alternativesmayreducetherecruitsavailabletotheSanghParivarinourownareas,butoutsidethoseareas,ouractionswillnotreducetheirappeal.

EliminationofOtherOrganisationsandOtherAlternativesofPoliticalActionDespitethat,however,thisdoesnotmeanthattheexistenceofpeople’sorganizationsdoesnotimpacttheSangh'sexpansion.TheaspirationsthattheSanghseekstoaddressarepreciselythose–theneedformaterialsecurityandforasenseofself-respect–thatarealsothedrivingforceofpopularstruggle.Thereisalsonodoubtthatanactive,vibrantpoliticalmovement,inwhichcollectivestruggleforanewsocietyistakingplace,isfarmoreattractivethanthelimitedandpartialindividualgainsthattheSanghofferstoitsrecruits.Moreover,thepresenceofsuchpoliticalprocessesshowshowlimitedandillusorytheSangh'soffersofgainactuallyare.ThisisonereasonthatSanghrecruitmenthasbeenhistoricallymuchweakerinareaswheretherearestrongpopularmovements.

However,thishastwoconsequences.First,itprovidesadirectincentive–inadditiontotheiroverallpoliticaloppositiontopopularstruggle-totheSanghtotrytocrushallpopularstrugglesinitsareas,typicallybylabelingthemasCommunistorChristianconspiracies.ThesituationinChhattisgarhisagoodexample.ThisisofcourseeasierinBJP-ruledStates,butnotlimitedtothemalone.

Thesecondconsequencemaybemoredangerous.Wherepopularstrugglesfail and leave behind a cadreofpeoplewhoarepoliticisedbut frustrated, insecureandunabletotakethepoliticalprocessforward,orwhencadreleaveanorganisationbecauseofasenseoffrustration,suchpersonsmaybemoreattractedtotheSangh'sappeal.They,inturn,benefittheSanghfarmorethanaveragepersons,sincetheyarealreadyskilledinpoliticalorganisingandhaveapositionofleadershipinthecommunity.ManySanghleadersamongDalitsandadivasisareinfactformeractivistsofprogressiveorleftorganisations.

AbsenceofStateRepressionorConcertedPoliticalOppositionLinked to the need for social legitimacy is the fact that, since somuchoftheSanghParivar'sappealconsistsofindividualbenefits,theSanghsuffersgreatlywhenitisfacedwithconcertedStateorpoliticalopposition.Itspopularbaselacksanycollectiveconsciousnessbeyondindividualsseekingthesenseofsecurityandbenefitsthatitprovides;soifthatsecurityandbenefitsbegintodiminish,itrisksdisintegration.

Thisiswhy,ifonenotescarefully,theSanghParivarneverattemptstodirectlyconfrontstatepower.WheneveranyStateinstitutioninitiatesanactualefforttostopthem,theyfleeveryquickly.WehavealreadyseenhowRSSleaderspleadedwiththeCentralgovernmenttoliftthebansonit.EverySangh-created“riot”andmasskillingendsassoonasthepolicedecidetoactuallyact.ThisisalsowhyStateslikeBiharandWestBengal–where,forvariousreasons,rulingpartieshavedecidednottoallowSanghmobilisations–suddenlywitnessed“communalpeace”afterbrutalmasskillingsearlier.DespitegravethreatsaboutthousandsgivingtheirlivesforaRamtempleinAyodhya,since1992neithertheVHPnoranyotherSanghParivaroutfithasevertakenanyactionexceptwhentheyarereasonablysurethattheywillnotfacestateopposition.

Similarly, in areas where strong popularmovementsorotherpoliticalpartiesconfrontthem,theirexpansionisgreatlylimited.InKerala,despiteconstanteffort,theBJPhasneverbeenabletowinevenasingleMLAseat,inlargepartbecausetheleftpartiestherehaveforalongtimetakenaconfrontationallinetowardstheRSS.WheretheSanghParivarcannotclaimtobea“socialservice”organisation,itfindsitverydifficulttoexpandatall.

Thisprovidesreasontohope.ItshowsthattheSanghParivarisfarfrombeingtheinvinciblevoiceofthe“Hinducommunity”thatitclaimstobe.Weneednotbeintimidatedbyitsapparentsize,forunderneathliesapapertigerthatwillturntailandrunifwecantargetthemcorrectly.Indeed,perhapsthebestexampletorememberishowthe leaders of the Nazi Party – that huge political apparatus that oncethreatenedtocontroltheentirecontinentofEurope–spenttheirtrialsafterWorldWarIIdenouncingeachotherandcompetingtoclaimthattheywereneverNazisinthefirstplace.NotasingleoneofthemsoughttodefendtheNaziideology.Theflipsidetohatepoliticsisalwayscowardice.

CHAPTER5:ConsequencesforPeople'sStrugglesGiven their methods of building a mass base, the implications of the Sangh Parivar's expansion are fargreater than merely dividing the people and creating an atmosphere of communal tension. Rather, thegrowthoftheSanghmakesitfarmoredifficulttowagepeople’sstrugglesforjusticeanddignity,evenifthereisnoopencommunaltension.Someofthereasonsforthisareexploredinthischapter.

ConsequencesforLocalOrganising

Asnotedinthepreviouschapter,theSangh'sstrongestbaseisamongtheurbanlowermiddleclasses,theurbanpoor,urbanperipheries,smalltowns,andnowamongadivasis.Itisnotanaccidentthatallexceptthelastofthesesocialsectorsareareaswherethepresenceofmassorganisations,leftpartiesanddemocraticmovementsisweakest.Thisisduetothefactthat,intheseareas,collectiveorganisingandasenseofcommunityhavealreadybeenbadlydamagedbyatomisation,alienationandmigration.Moreover,thepossibilityofmeaningfulgainsthroughcollectiveorganisinginsuchcontextsseemsverydimandrare,andthetraditionaldemandsofpeople'sorganisationsdonotseemdirectlyrelevant.Insuchcontexts,theSanghoffersindividualbenefitslikegreatersecurity,asenseofsocialrespectandsupportfrommorepowerfulsocialelements.Giventhelackofalternatives,thisisapowerfulappeal.

WecanseethisintheexampleofthetextileworkersofAhmedabad,whowereorganisedintosomeofthestrongesttradeunionsinthecountry.Suchunionsalsoplayedapartinopposingcommunalattacks–inthe1969riots,theMajoorMahajanSangh,oneofthelargestunions,playedakeypartinmaintainingpeace.Butstartingfromtheearly1980'sincreasedimportswipedoutAhmedabad'stextilemills,throwingmostoftheseworkersoutoftheirjobsandleavingthemtosurviveasinformalsectorworkers.Theunionsmostlycollapsed,unabletofightthisnewdevelopmentandnolongerrelevanttotheirworkers'individualstrugglestosurvive.TheSanghmovedintoreplacethem,drawingformerunioncadreandworkersintotheirorganisations.Theresultisthattextileworkerswereamongthekeyparticipantsinthemasskillingsof2002.

Asneoliberalism intensifiesandmorepeoplearedriven intomigrationanddisplacement,thenumberofpersonsinthesekindsofsituationswillonlyincrease.Thesesegmentswillbecomeincreasinglydifficulttoorganiseintraditionalmassmovementapproaches.ThegrowthoftheSanghParivarwillinturnprovidelegitimacytoanti-democraticandanti-collectivepolitics,includingstaterepression,whichwillbegintohaveanincreasingdegreeofpopularsupportastheSanghexpands.Moreover,whentheactualviolenceagainstminoritiesbegins,theresultingspiralofhatredandfearmakes it almost impossible to build acollectivestruggleaboutotherissues.Evenamongadivasis,thesetrendsholdtrue.Ithasbeenacommonexperienceamongmostorganisationsthatitisincreasinglydifficulttoappealtotheeducatedyouthamongadivasis(orforthatmatterinothercommunitiesaswell).Thedemandsandstrugglesoftheorganisationsoftendonotseemtomeettheiraspirations,whichoftenaimatupwardsocialmobility.YetthisispreciselytheaspirationsthattheSanghcatersto,andthesearetheyouthwhoaretargeted(forinstancethroughtheekalvidyalayascheme).

ThepoliticalimpactofdrawingsuchyouthintotheSanghParivarmayeventuallybefarhigherthanisindicatedbytheirnumbers.Educatedyouthtendtobethenucleusofpoliticalorganisinginmostadivasiandotherareas,includingofmostmassorganisations.Iftheyareincreasinglydrawnintoindividualised,anti-democraticpolitics,theresultwillbeashrinkageofspaceforpoliticalactionandexpansionforpeople'sorganisations,aswellasarippleeffectonthesocietyintheareaingeneral.

GeneratinganAnti-DemocraticPoliticalAtmosphereThe above trends feed into a larger phenomenon that is more dangerous. The Sangh Parivar alreadydominates much of the regional and national media and – frequently – also has the implicit or explicitsupportofthestate.Theirappealtoeducatedyouththenbecomesakeyaccesstolocalpoliticalsentiment.ThenetresultisthattheSanghbecomescapableofcontrollingtheoverallpoliticalmoodinamannerthatmassorganisationscannot.Itisameasureof this control that theyhavebeenable tomakeissuessuchas“conversion”increasinglycentraltoourentirenationalpoliticaldiscourse.

Theresultofthisisnotonlythathatepoliticswillspread.Italsomeansthattheabilitytobringpeople'sissuesintopoliticalactionwillbeincreasinglylimited,astheSanghwillincreasinglycontrolthepoliticalterrainandcontinuouslyimposeitsagendasonit.ThisisalreadyvisibleintheabilityoftheSanghParivarto,forinstance,providepopularlegitimacytobrutalstaterepressioninStateslikeChhattisgarh.IssuesandpoliticalproblemsareframedintermsoftheSangh'santi-democraticideology,makingallresistanceseem“anti-national.”Suchconcepts–oncelimitedtothestateanditsurbansupporters–willbecomeincreasinglyall-pervasiveastheSanghexpands.

ConnectionsWithGlobalisation

In chapter 3 it was argued that, during the 1980's, capital increasingly began to seek a single unifiedmarket andawithdrawal of the statefromeconomicregulation.ThesewerepotentialreasonswhytheSangh'spoliticsappealedtocapitalinthisperiod.

However,ifthiswasthecaseinthe1980's,itisfarmorethecasenow.Inthe1980's,thecontradictorymovesofthestate,aimedatappeasingboththemassmobilisationsandthedesireofbigbusiness,ledtothe1991crisis.Thisreflectedacontestforpowerandabattleoverthestate'seconomicroleduringthatperiod.Post1991,however,thisbattlewasdecisivelywonbythe most powerful segments of Indian andforeigncapital,andinparticularbyfinancecapital.Withtheonsetofliberalisation,theefforttowithdrawthe state, to oppose state participation and to crush any mass mobilisation on economic issues is notmerelyatemporarystrategy–ithasbecomeanentirepoliticalproject.

Atsuchatime,thereisastrongoverlappinginterestbetweentheSangh'spoliticalgoalsandthoseofcapital.Theresulthasbeena'negotiation'betweentheirideologicalprojects.TheSanghhasdroppedallreferenceto'swadeshi'fromitsprogramandadoptingatotallypro-USandpro-multinationalposition.Indiancapitalandbigbusiness,aswellasurbaneliteinterests,haveinturneffectivelyendorsedtheSanghprogramwhilepayinglipserviceto“secularism.”WhilethetwomaydisagreeoverthedamagetoIndia's“image”,andtobusiness,fromthemassviolenceoftheSangh,thisisasmallirritantthathasnoeffectontheiroverallsharedpurpose.

Ontheonehand,thecombinationofstaterepressionandtheeffectsofglobalisationwillacttosuppressmassresistanceanddrivemoreandmorepeopleintolandlessness,migrationandimpoverishment.Ontheother,preciselythesefactors,combinedwithfinancialandinstitutionalsupportfromthestateandcapital,willensurethattheappealoftheSangh'sorganisingmodelwillincreasesteadily.Thiswillinturnoperatetocloseoffdemocraticspaceformassorganisinginresponse.

TheAutocraticStateWithPeople'sSupport

ThebestexampleofthesedynamicsatworkisGujarat.Inthisstate,almostallmassorganising–excepttosomeextentamongadivasis–hasbeeneliminated,itsleaderseithersuppressedorcooptedintotheSangh.ThishasreachedthepointwherepracticallyeverymajoroppositionforceintheState,includingtheCongress,isdominatedbyeithercurrentorformerSanghpersonnel.Simultaneously,asdescribedabove,neoliberalismhaserodedthebasefortradeunionsandpushedfarmersintoanintensifyingcrisis,whichtheyareincapableofrespondingtoexceptthroughtheSangh'schannels.Theoverallresultswerevisibleinthe2007elections,wheretheCongresssought–atleastinpublic–toraisethesameissuesasdominatedpoliticsinthe1980'sandwhichstilldominatemostpoliticsinIndia:casteissues,farmers'distress,etc.TheBJProdebacktopowerwithalandslide,havingeffectivelydestroyedtheopposition.

ButGujaratisnottheonlysuchstate.InOrissa,forinstance,thesameprocessisunderway,astheSanghParivarandstaterepressioncombinetowipeoutmassresistance.Chattisgarhisanotherexample.Indeed,bothOrissaandChhattisgarhhaveshownhowrepressiveandbrutalthisalliancecanbe,sinceintheseStatesthevastmajorityofthepopulationisstillengaginginsmallpeasantproduction(unlikeinGujarat)andhencebigcapitalfirstrequiresthemtobedislodgedfromtheirlands.Themostintenseformofsuchactionisthesalwajudum,plannedbytheBJPandtheVanvasiKalyanAshramwiththesupportofCongressleaderMahendraKarmaand–mostlikely-ofthecapitalistsinChhattisgarh.Onceagain,theaimofthecombinationistheforcefulrepressionofalldissentandalldemocraticorganising,combinedwiththecooptationofleadersanddiscontentedsegmentsintotheSangh.

CONCLUSION:StrategiesandaWayForwardThisfinallyleavesuswithaquestion:howcanonerespondtothisoffensive?HowcanwecountertheSangh'sexpansion?Strategiesareinanycasebeingdesignedbymassorganisationsandleftformationsatalltimes.Thereare,however,afewpointersthattheanalysisgivenheremayprovide.

ProblematicStrategicPositionsFirst,ifthisanalysisisaccurate,therearesomefrequentlycitedstrategicassumptionsthatareincorrect.Ifadopted,thesemayleadusintostrategicmistakes.Someofthesepositionsareasfollows:

“TheCongress[orotherpoliticalparty]isascommunalandasrightwingastheBJPandhencebothareequallydangerous.”ThefactthattheCongressandotherpartiesaredeeplyreactionaryandanti-minoritycanhardlybedisputed.WhensayingthattheSanghisourimmediateenemy,oneisnotsayingthattheCongressis“better”,orinanysense“less”reactionary.ButtheessenceofSanghpolitics,ithasbeenarguedhere,isnottheirattitudetominorities,noreventheireconomicandsocialpolicies.Itistheirpoliticalvision,roleinrespectofthecurrentpoliticalsituation,andorganisingmodel.TodaytheSanghisthespearheadofreactionarypoliticsinIndia;itisthemostadvancedsectionoftherightwing.ThesefactorscombinetomaketheSanghParivarfarmoredangerousandfarmorecomplexthanapoliticalpartyalone.

EquatingtheCongressorotherpoliticalforceswiththeSanghParivaris,inessence,tomakethesamemistakeastheGermanCommunistsofthe1930's–whoequatedtheSocialDemocraticParty,whichwasanti-Communistandpro-capitalist,withtheNazis.It is to say that all right wing political forces are thesame, ignoring the political and strategic differences between them. Trotsky criticised the GermanCommunistswithastatementthatisasrelevanttooursituationasitwastotheGermanone:

Whenoneofmyenemiessetsbeforemesmalldailyportionsofpoisonandthesecond,ontheotherhand,isabouttoshootstraightatme,thenIwill firstknockthegunoutofthehandofmysecondenemy,forthisgives me an opportunity to get rid of my first enemy. But that does not at all mean that the poison is a“lesserevil”incomparisonwiththegun;[itonlymeansthatthelattermustbefoughtfirst].

“TheChristianinstitutionsandMuslimleadersmakeiteasierfortheSanghtospreadbyalienatingpeoplewiththeiraggressivetactics.Weshouldopposeboth.”Onceagain,thiswouldbetomistakeanti-minorityrhetoricfortheSangh'spolitics.TheSanghhasbeenabletoexpandinmanyareaswherenoaggressiveChristianorMuslimpresenceexistedatall.FortheSangh'sappealtopeopletowork,itisnotnecessarythattherebeanyimmediatesenseofthreatfromreligiousminorities–itisonlyrequiredthattheSangh'smodelofindividualbenefitsshouldbeattractive.WhetherornotChristianorminorityactivitiesleadtoanti-peopleresultsandperhapslocalsocialtensionisadifferentmatter,anditmaybeworthopposingthemforthatreason.ButopposingthemisnotrequiredforfightingtheSangh,norisitlikelytoimprovethesituation.

“TheBJPwillneverbeabletocometopoweronitsowninIndia,andovertimetheSanghParivarwillbemarginalisedaspeoplecometoseethroughthem.”ItmaywellbecorrectthattheBJPwillnotbeabletogetamajorityinpoweronitsown,butthepoliticalinfluenceoftheSanghParivarisnotandneverhasbeenmerelyaboutattainingstatepower.InthistheydifferfromtheNazisandtheItalianFascists;theSanghParivar'sprojectismuchmoreaboutsocialandpoliticalchange,withorwithoutpower,thanitisaboutseizureofpoweralone.TheexpansionoftheSanghiseasierunderaBJPregime,butitisbynomeansimpossiblewithouttheBJPinpower–andtheSanghhassosuccessfullytwistedtheIndianstate'sstructuresthatitisabletoflourishundermostparties.OpenSanghviolencemaybelesswhentheBJPisoutofpower,butviolenceisonlyasmallpartoftheirpoliticalproject.

At a broader level, it is indeed true that the Sangh Parivar will never win the support ofamajorityofIndians,norwilliteverachieveitsgoals.Theirpoliticalprojectistoointernallycontradictory,and,atacertainpoint,whentheSangh'scontradictionsbecometoosevere,itwillcollapse.Butweareaverylongwayfromthatpoint,andinanycase-likeclassicalEuropeanfascism-thedangeroftheSanghParivarisnotthatitwillachieveanimpossiblevictory,butrathertheenormousdestructionitwillcreateintheprocessoftrying.BeforetheSanghreachesthepointofinternalcollapse, itwillhavegeneratedapoliticsandaclimatethat issoopposedtodemocraticpoliticsthatpeople’smovements,socialjusticestruggles

andprogressiveforceswillberepressedordestroyed.Nodoubtresistancewillariseagain,butintheinterimthedefeatthatwouldhavebeensufferedwillsetbackstrugglesforjusticebymanyyears.Thisisthefunctionofextremereactionarypoliticalprojects;andifthismuchisdone,theSanghwouldhaveachieveditshistoricalfunctionforcapital,whateveritmayactuallybelieveitsgoaltobe.

StrategiestoFighttheSanghTheanalysisdoes,however,suggestcertainbroadstrategiesthatcanbeusedinfightingtheSanghParivarattheregionalandlocallevels.Thesearenotmeanttoreplacetheactionsalreadybeingundertakentostrengthensecularismandtolerance,butratherasadditionalstrategiesspecificallytargetingtheSanghParivar.Theprincipleisthatthegrowthof theSanghParivarmustbe fought at anorganisational level –theaimshouldbenotjusttotargetitspropaganda,buttopreventitexpandingasanorganisation.

Somespecificstrategiesincludethefollowing:ActivelyapproachHindutvaandtheSanghParivarasaThreattotheOrganisationIn most cases, discussionofHindutvaandtheSanghParivarbeginsatthetimewhenmassviolenceisoccurringinourarea.Thisisfartoolate,foratthesetimesitisimpossibletoeffectivelyinterveneagainstSanghactivity.Atmostsomelocalisedfirefightingcanbedonethroughfactfindingmissionsandprotests,butbythetimetheviolencebegins,theSanghhaseffectivelyalreadywon.Hence,thefirststepinourresponsetotheSanghcanbetoinitiatecontinuousdiscussionandpreparationonitsactivitieswithinpeople’sorganizationsandprogressiveforces.

First,thisrequiresideologicaltrainingandconceptualdiscussiononwhattheSanghParivarmeansfordemocracyinthecountry.

Second,itshouldincludemappingtheirworkasanorganisation,suchas:Whoaretheirleadersinthelocalarea?Aretheyexpanding,andifsowhereandhow?Whatkindoftrainingisbeinggiventotheircadre?Whichsocialsegmentshavebeensupportingthem,fromwhereandwithwhatkindofsupport(funds,

material,transport,etc.)?Whatkindofactionshavebeenplannedbythem?Howclosearetheytothepolice,thebureaucracy,etc. inthearea?What is theirrelationshipwithreligioussectsandleaders?

SuchmappingismademoredifficultbecauseitisoftennotpossibletoknowwhoexactlyisaffiliatedtotheSanghParivar.AppendixIcontainsalistofknownSanghoutfits,whichmaybehelpfulinsuchmapping.Otherwise,itisusefultowatchthepositionstakenbyotherforcessuchasreligioussectsandsocialserviceorganisations,andinparticulartolookfortheSanghParivarstyleofrhetoric–emphasison“harmony”and“socialuplift”;talkabouthowweneedtohelpour“poorbrethren”;etc.

Thiskindofmappingiscritical,becausethemannerinwhichtheSanghParivaroperatesmakesitverydifficulttoknowortracktheiractivitieswithoutaconsciousefforttodoso.Thisallowstogrow and claimsocial legitimacy,andbythetimetheiractivitiesandintentionsarerevealed,theyareentrenchedinthepublicconsciousness.AimtoPreventCadreRecruitmentbytheSanghParivarTheSanghtargetsparticularsegmentsforitsrecruitment–educatedyouthandthosewhoarealready,toadegree,politicisedbutwhoarenotyetfirmlypartofanyorganisation.Insomecases,assaidearlier,dissatisfiedsecondrungleadersofmassorganisationshavewoundupintheSanghParivar.

Targeting such segments for organizing by people’smovements,andforanti-Sanghpoliticaleducation,maythereforebehelpful.IftheSanghisnotabletoacquireacadrebase,itwillnotbeabletoexpandintothepublicmind.CuttingoffaccesstocadrecanbetheeasiestwaytostoptheSangh,preventingtheirgrowthbeforetheyareabletotakeoverthepublicspace.Thelackofaccesstocadreis,asmentionedearlier,onereasonthattheSangh'spresenceisweakestwheretherearealreadyvibrantmassorganisations.ThisistrueevenwherethoseorganisationshavenotconsciouslysoughttocountertheSanghParivar,anditwouldbemoresoifonedidso.

AttacktheOrganisation,NottheIdeologyAloneThe Sangh Parivar's standard response to any criticism is that their opponents are “anti-Hindu.” CriticsoftenunwittinglymakeiteasierforthemtomakethiscriticismbyfocusingouroppositionontheSangh'spropagandaandtryingtocounterthemythstheyspreadaboutMuslimsandChristians.Thisisofcourseabsolutelynecessary,butitisnotenough,fortheexpansionoftheSanghisnotduetotheirpropagandaalone.

ThehistoryoftheRSSandtheSanghParivaritselfislesswellknown,anditmaybeusefultoraisepublicawarenessonthoseissues.ThegoalsoftheSanghParivar,thecrimestheyhavecommitted,thelackofcommitmenttoanygenuineempowermentofpeople,andtheirstandduringthefreedomstrugglemaybeusefulaspectstofocuson.IflocalSanghleadersclaimtheyhavenoconnectiontothelargerorganisation,theycanbeaskedtocondemntheSanghanditshistory.Theyshouldalsobeaskedhowtheyintendtoaddresspeople'slivelihoodissuesorlocalproblems.Theaimhereis to place the RSS and its brigade onthebackfoot,toforcethemtodefendthemselvesaspoliticalorganisationsratherthanasrepresentativesofHindus.

De-LegitimisetheSanghParivarInearlier chapters, itwasnoted that social legitimacy isa crucialcomponentoftheappealofthe

SanghParivartopeople.Denyingthislegitimacycanhencegreatlydiminishtheirabilitytorecruitcadre.Thisrequiresstrategiesthatcanidentifycorruption,casteismandcriminalaspectsoftheSangh'sactivities.Publicityabouttheirsourcesoffunds,theamountofmoneytheyareraisinginthenameoftheirwork,theirassociationwithpoliticalviolenceetc.canhelpdamagetheSangh'simage.Theaimshouldbetoremovethetagof“socialservice”whichtheSanghusesasashieldforitsgrowth.

AfurtherstrategytowardsthisendistopubliclyopposeSangheventsandactions:demonstrations outside their offices, public meetings demanding accountability from them, etc. Thesewouldpreferablytargetthe'main'Sanghoutfits,suchastheVKAortheVHP.Ifdonestrategicallyandattherightmoments,thesemayalsocontributetothesensethattheSanghis“controversial”andtherebyleadtoalossof'respectability'thatitenjoys.

AttheRegionalandNationalLevels,DenyAccesstoFunds,StateSupportCoordinatedactioncanalsobeundertakenatawiderlevelwiththefollowingaims:

1. DiscreditingtheSangh'spublicimage,exposingwhatitisdoinginthenameof“seva”;2. Identifying and stopping sources of funds to the Sangh Parivar, especially the illegal

foreignfundraisingandstatesupporttotheseorganisations;3. Embarassingcorporates,companies,etc.whoareidentifiedasdonorstotheSanghParivar;4. Filingofpolicecomplaints,alongwithpublicity,againstlocalSanghleaders.

The aim is both to deny the Sangh wider legitimacy and to hinder their access to the funds and statesupportwhicharesoimportanttotheircadrerecruitment.

Withsuchstrategies,orwithotheractionsaimedathinderingtheSangh'sgrowth,itmaybepossibletopreventtheSanghexpandinginareasofpeople’smovementsandintonewpartsofthecountry.Itisonlythroughsuchtactics,aimedatanopenpoliticalconfrontationwiththeSangh,thatwecanhopetofightit.

Ithasbeentheaimofthisbooklettoarguethatthisconfrontationis,infact,oneofthemostcrucialtasksbeforeleftanddemocraticorganisations.TheSanghParivar'sgrowthinthiscountryhasbeenanincrediblehorrorforthelakhsofpeoplewhohavelosttheirhomesandtheirfamilies,themillionswhohaveseentheirlivesdestroyedbyitshatepolitics.Butithasalsobeenatragedyforprogressivepolitics,ahugesetbackforthedemocraticspaceandhumandignitythatsomanyhavefoughtfor.

WecannotaffordtoignoretheSanghanymore.Wecannotassumethatitwillcollapseonitsown,orthatpeoplewillseethroughitslies.Thesituationhasnowreachedthepointwhere,ifwearetofightglobalisation,ifwearetofightIndiancapitalism,wemustalsofighttheSangh.ItisafightforthesurvivalofdemocraticspaceinIndia,anditisafighttoopenthedoorwayforfuturestrugglesforliberation.Thespaceforstruggleisclosing;thegunissoongoingtobepointingatourheads.Itisuptouswhetherwefightbackwhilethereisstilltime.

APPENDIXI:PartialListofSanghParivarOrganisationsPleasenotethatthisisnotacompletelist,astherearehundredsofgroupsaffiliatedtotheSanghParivarandmostwillnotbecoveredhere.Iftherearelocalorganisationsthatonesuspectsofaffiliation,itisimportanttowatchfortwothings:

•First, shared office space and cadre with one of the main Sangh Parivar groups (for instance manySangh“seva”organisationsusetheofficesoftheRSS,VHP,ABVPorBJP);and

•Second,signsofSanghideology–referencesto“vanvasis”and“girijans”,talkof“characterbuilding”and“moraleducation”,attemptstoimposevegetarianism,etc.

CoreSanghParivarOrganisationsRashtriyaSwayamsevakSanghVishwaHinduParishadBharatiyaJanataPartyBajrangDalAkhilBharatiyaVidyarthiParishadBharatiyaMazdoorSangh

HinduMunnani(inTamilNadu)HinduSwayamsevakSangh(abroad)

OrganisationsTargetingAdivasisVanvasiKalyanAshram/AkhilBharatiyaVanvasiKalyanAshramVanvasiKalyanParishadVanbandhuParishad/FriendsofTribalSocietyKalyanAshramTrustGirivasiVanvasiSewaPrakalpG.DeshpandeVanvasiVastigrahBirsaSevaPrakalp

General“Seva”OrganisationsSevaBharatiSevaInternationalBhookampPiditSahayataNidhi(inGujarat)UtkalBipannaSahayataSamiti(inOrissa)SwamiVivekanandaRuralDevelopmentSociety(inTamilNadu)VikasBharatiBharatVikasParishadJansevaVidyaKendraSanskritBharatiLokKalyanTrust

EducationalOrganisationsVidyaBharatiEkalVidyalayaFoundationSanghParivarschoolsbythenameof”SaraswatiShishuMandirs”,”ShishuMandirs”etc.Dr.BabasahebAmbedkarVaidyakiyaPratishthanBharatiyaShikshaSamitiBalagokulamSookruti(inOrissa)

Women'sOrganisationsRashtraSevikaSamiti(attachedtoRSS)DurgaVahini(attachedtoVHP/BajrangDal)BJPWomen'sWing

OrganisationsTargetingFarmersBharatiyaKisanSangh

OthersSwadeshiJagranManchSamajikSamarashtaManchNationalMedicosOrganizationSmt.MisriBaiKediaCharitableTrustYogakshemaTrustBharatKalyanPratishthanSriRamGramVikasSamitiYogSatsangSamitiVikasanFoundation

Notes[←1]

Whilethetermhasbeenappliedtoothercountriesandregimes–suchasHorthyinHungary,FrancoinSpain,PeroninArgentina–theuseoftheterminsuchcontextsisfrequentlydisputed.

[←2]Indeed,theItalianFascistsdidnotengageingenocide,thoughmanyoppositionistsandsocialistswerekilled.

[←3]Of course, the fact thatMussolini eulogises the state is itself amajor differencebetween theRSSand the Italianfascists,buttheparallelremains.

[←4]SeeCasolari,Maria.“

[←5]SanghsupportersfrequentlyclaimthatthisbanwasliftedduetointerventionbytheSupremeCourt,butthisis

untrue.