Is RSS trying for religious polarisation?

RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat's recent assertions testify to the success of Rahul Gandhi in throwing an ideological challenge to his main opponent, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). Bhagwat's interview with the saffron weeklies, Panjnaya, and The Organiser also gives a glimpse of how the Sangh Parivar will counter Rahul's narrative of love and compassion. Favourable statements from Satyendra Das, the Chief Priest of Shri Ram temple at Ayodhya, and Champat Rai, a trustee of the temple construction trust, had prompted many to conclude that it might be due to the positive effect of Bharat Jodo Yatra on the Sangh Parivar. However, Bhagwat's issuing a warning to those who disagree with Sangh's ideology is a loud reminder that Sangh is going to launch an aggressive campaign against those who oppose it.

The RSS's desperation can be seen in the timing of its announcement. Though the weeklies have claimed that the interview intends to highlight the achievements and challenges of the saffron organization on completing its century in 2025, the content points to the fact that its immediate aim is to counter Rahul Gandhi's narrative against hatred. Since the RSS's centenary is in two years and the Lok Sabha elections are in 2024, the latest trigger should undoubtedly be the Bharat Jodo Yatra.The reaction from the top RSS leader during the last leg of the Yatra only confirms the hurry. The Yatra has effectively forced the RSS and the BJP to reschedule their 2024 campaign plans, as evidenced by Home Minister Amit Shah's open invitation to Rahul Gandhi to the proposed inauguration ceremony of the Shri Ram Temple in Ayodhya scheduled for next January. He extended his invitation to Rahul while addressing a rally in Tripura. The speech confirmed that religious polarization is at the top of the list of poll issues the ruling BJP intends to focus on.

A careful examination of Bhagwat's interview reveals that the RSS has to accomplish two tasks to set the poll campaign on a favourable track. One is defending the governance of the Modi government during the last two decades and another is setting a communal agenda. Though Bhagwat uses ambiguous language loaded with double meaning, it is not difficult to decode his political articulation. His message could be clearly read.

What is his message? His message is one of caution to the dissenting voices.He says that Muslims, Christians, secular Hindus, and Communists should abandon their views simply because they do not conform to the "Hindu sense." Muslims, obviously, top the list.

"Islam has nothing to fear. But at the same time, Muslims must abandon their boisterous rhetoric of supremacy".

"'We are of an exalted race; we once ruled over this land, and shall rule it again; only our path is right, rest everyone is wrong; we are different, therefore we will continue to be so; we cannot live together' - they (the Muslims) must abandon this narrative. In fact, all those who live here - whether a Hindu or a communist - must give up this logic."

The saffron narrative only signifies the stagnation of ideas the organization is suffered from since its birth in 1925. The organization has seen how the planet has undergone mammoth civilizational, cultural, scientific, and economic changes during the last 100 years. It is aware that the period witnessed a devastating World War and the demise of colonial rule, in which the impoverished people of India overthrew the British Empire without any bloodshed. Is it not unfortunate that all these changes fail to inspire the organization that is currently in administrative control of the country? How little it has to offer to the countrymen after its century-long "civilizational journey" could be seen in its declaration that Hindus have been at war for 1000 years. The organization has barely budged from the original position articulated by its founder, Dr Keshav BaliramHedgewar, Hindutva icon VD Savarkar, and Guru Golwalkar in later years. They termed Muslims "principal enemies" on the ground that they came from foreign countries and had their sacred places outside India. Inspired by Nazi racism, the concept has long been condemned, abandoned, and proven to be anti-human.

The emergence of this narrative as the dominant thought in the present polity might have emboldened the saffron organization, but it hardly proves the worth of the ideology to India. Also, the narrative's origin in colonial collaboration to weaken the freedom struggle is no mean thing because it contributed to the bloodshed at the time of independence. It continues to shy away from fighting against such forces that are working against the country and tries to find enemies among the poor and marginalized people of the country-the minorities, the people who are at the bottom rung of society. They had done the same thing during the freedom struggle.

Is the assertion of Bhagwat in line with the democratic values of the country? Is it not a clear violation of the constitution to ask social and political groups to abandon their ideas and beliefs simply because they do not endorse the line of a particular organization?

The assertion is also foreboding in other ways. We have seen how minorities, especially Muslims, have been systematically marginalized during the last eight years of the Modi government. They have witnessed direct and indirect violence of all sorts, including mob lynchings and attacks. We have seen how there has been a regular campaign on TV channels to demonize the community. They are facing legal onslaughts in the form of laws prohibiting so-called "love jihad" and the Citizens Amendment Act. In this backdrop, the allegation of carrying a "boisterous rhetoric of supremacy" and the suggestion of abandoning it must be taken seriously.

The saffron organisation has clearly thrown a challenge to the people and organizations who believe in democracy. Are opposition parties ready to counter it?

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)