Do BJP campaigns exhibit true spirit of nationalism?

The political intentions behind programmes like Har Ghar Tiranga and Partition-horror Remembrance Day and Remembrance of Partition-Horror are obvious. Criticising the inadequacies of Indian independence has been common, but the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) goes beyond it to malign it.

Instead of introspecting its role in the freedom movement, the organisation indulges in attacking those who fought to get India, independent. Our freedom movement under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi is unique in the sense that it not only freed the country from British slavery but also contributed to humanity by introducing non-violence and Satyagraha to fight evil. This contribution can be compared to the French Revolution, which changed the course of human history.

The Sangha Parivar does not take pride in this glorious struggle. Apparently, RSS's motivation is guided by the petty consideration of damaging the reputation of Congress and its top leaders, particularly Jawaharlal Nehru, in order to minimise Congress's electoral prospects. The BJP is perhaps the only political party in the country that is quarreling with the legacy of the freedom struggle.

However, the motives of the RSS and the BJP are not limited to short-term political gains. Its real target is to reduce minorities, especially Muslims, to the status of second-class citizens. The long-term goal, of course, is to make India a Hindu Rashtra based on Manusmriti.

If we closely examine the RSS narrative, we can see that the distortions they are making in the history of the freedom struggle are aimed at blaming Muslims for the partition and declaring them traitors. But it is not easy to establish. The Muslim League demanded the separation of Pakistan from India, and the Hindutva forces' claim that Muslims supported the demand universally is false.

Given the limited nature of the franchise, it was hardly possible for anyone to assess the real extent of support. However, recent analyses of the statistics of provincial elections in 1946 suggest that there was tremendous opposition to the demand for Pakistan even among the people who had the right to vote. They made up only 14 per cent of the population.

The allegations of betrayal against Muslims also crumble when we see the list of Muslim leaders who vigorously fought against the idea of Pakistan. Stalwarts such as Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and others did it against all odds and suffered all their lives. Others, such as Allah Bakhsh, the former premier of Sindh, did the same. Sheikh Abdullah remained tied to the secular politics of India when communalism was at its peak.

Allah Bakhsh was the premier of Sindh when the Muslim League passed the resolution of Pakistan in Lahore on March 25, 1940. He took the initiative to convene the Azad Muslim Conference in Delhi in just one month, on April 27, 1940.

The conference was attended by delegates from several organizations with large mass followings. They were duly elected and represented provinces including United Province, Bihar, Central Province, Punjab, Sind, NWFP Province, Madras, Orissa, Bengal, Malabar, Delhi, Assam, Rajasthan, Kashmir, Hyderabad and any other state.

The Conference passed an unambiguous resolution to reject Pakistan's demand. In his presidential address, Allah Bakhsh put forth a complete image of a united India and dared the Leaguers to relinquish the citizenship of the country if they did not believe in the unity of India. The conference ended up with a 50,000-strong procession.

Allah Bakhsh was murdered, possibly at the behest of the Muslim League.

Sheikh Abdullah, the Lion of Kashmir, was equally opposed to the two-nation theory and never allowed Jinnah and the Muslim League to get any foothold in the Muslim majority state of Jammu and Kashmir. We often forget his contribution to acceding the state to India. It must be remembered that Maharaja Hari Singh had signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan, and despite an attack from the latter, he was evasive. It was Sheikh who generated pressure to sign the Instrument of Accession to India. He also mobilised people to fight Pakistani invaders to expel them from Kashmir.

There is a need to decipher the real content of the Akhand Bharat (United India) slogan of the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. It must be contrasted with Muslim leaders such as Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Maulana Azad, and Allah Bakhsh's concept of Indian unity. While all these leaders advocated complete unity of the country encompassing all the spaces, be it history, culture, or territory, Hindutva leaders such as Savarkar and Golwalkar had a narrow view of unity that only covered territorial integrity.

Both these leaders were against giving equal rights to minorities and declared that Muslims and other minorities were aliens to the country because they profess faiths other than Hinduism. How can one think of the unity of a country when some sections of the people are segregated on the ground of their religion?

Even this limited view of national unity was breached by the Hindutva leaders themselves when the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS did not participate in the freedom struggle. They went to the extent of openly allying with the British during the Second World War. With this background, how can the RSS claim to be upholders of the unity of the country? They also formed coalition ministries in three provinces—Sindh, Bengal, and NWFP—with the Muslim League, the arch enemy of the unity of India, at a time when apprehension of the division of the country was very prominent. Though, it is welcome change that the RSS has accepted the tricolour as the national flag, we should not forget that they have not abandoned the saffron flag. So long as they stick to saffron, their acceptance should be thought of as partial. Acceptance must be accompanied by a genuine spirit.

(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. The views expressed are personal)