Genius with relevance
At the conclusion of the birth centenary celebrations of MS Golwalkar, it's time to take his message into the new century
By Rakesh Sinha

The birth centenary year of MS Golwalkar, the second Sarsanghachalak of the RSS, was an occasion for a debate on his ideology. He has been and will continue to be at the centre of the discourse on the unsettled questions of India's cultural identity and nationalism. His place in the story of the development of a pan-Indian unitary identity was resisted in his time by practitioners of the official, Nehruvian policy of submerging cultural nationalism.

The policy of the state was articulated by Subhadra Joshi, a Marxist who enjoyed full Government backing, at the second 'National convention against communalism' held in December 1968: "This conference has been called to find ways of meeting the ideological onslaught by the RSS chief Golwalkar."

The Communist thinker, Gramsci, had emphasised the importance of propaganda for the success of an ideology. The Indian Marxists learnt less from Marx and more from Gramsci. There are two victims of their slander. One was Subhas Chandra Bose, who they ridiculed as "Tojo's dog". The second is Golwalkar who has been portrayed as "anti-minority".

What was the ideological mission of Golwalkar? The answer to this question poses a serious challenge to the Marxist-Islamist combine. They regard India as a sum total of nationalities. The concept of a united India is, by their claims, a recent one. For them, nationalism germinated only after British colonialism was established in India. Golwalkar rejected this formulation and emphasised that India is not only an ancient nation but also co-terminus with civilisation. Thus, one's loyalty to his nation is not restricted to constitutional obligations, but it goes far beyond.

In most respects, Guru Golwalkar's thoughts were in line with those of Swami Vivekananda, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal and Sri Aurobindo. Golwalkar stated in 1940 that the aim of the RSS was "to establish pure nationalism and to root out rabid individualism, which weakens foundation of nationalism". Golwalkar once stated that "even if the Prophet had not been born we would have been working".

Golwalkar argues that the ancestral unity on the one hand and co-sharing and inheriting of cultural and intellectual legacy on the other creates a sense of oneness. It is defined in terms of "one people".

At an Aligarh Muslim University convocation in 1948, Jawaharlal Nehru asked his largely Muslim audience whether or not they subscribed to India's past, its collective intellectual and cultural legacy. Golwalkar went further than that. He opined that identity should not be used to practice "self-exclusion". On the vexed issue of diversity, his views reflected a deep understanding of Indian culture, history and civilisation. "While bringing about integration with the nation in its practical life, destruction of distinct ways of worship is not aimed at, only putting an end to the undesirable tendencies of exclusiveness and intolerance is aimed at." In an interview to Motherland on August 22, 1972, he unambiguously observed that while the concept of a Uniform Civil Code was desirable, it should not be imposed as "a mechanical leveller".

He wrote, "My feeling is that nature abhors excessive uniformity. We have a tested way of life. And our experience is that variety and unity can and do go together. I have no quarrel with any class, community or sect wanting to maintain its identity so long as that identity does not detract from its patriotic feelings. I have a feeling that some people want the Uniform Civil Code because they think that the right to marry four wives was causing a disproportionate increase in the Muslim population. I am afraid this is a negative approach to the problem."

Golwalkar added, "The real trouble is that there is no brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims. Even the secularists treat the Muslim s as a thing apart. Of course, their method is to flatter them for their block votes. Others also look upon them as a thing apart, but they would like to flatten out the Muslims by removing their separate identity. Basically there is no difference between flatterers and flatteners . They both look upon Muslims as separate and incompatible. My approach is entirely different. The Muslim is welcome to his way of life so long he loves this country and its culture."

On the unique dress code for Muslim women, Golwalkar wrote: "If our objections to Muslim practices are on humanitarian grounds, then that becomes a valid objection. A reformist attitude in this matter is all right. But a mechanical leveller's attitude would not be correct. Let the Muslims evolve their old laws. I would be happy if they will arrive at the conclusion that polygamy is not good for them; but I will not like to force my views on them."

That was a shock to secularists, whose propaganda projected him as a threatening force for Muslims. Salman Khurshid, a grandson of Zakir Hussain, the third President of India, and now a veteran Congress leader, wrote in a letter to the editor of Motherland on August 24, 1972: "Frankly I bow before Guru Golwalkar for the courage he has shown in expressing his views in the manner he has done. I find that an eminent person like Guru Golwalkar has now come out with views which are more or less on similar lines as those of the late Zakir Hussain."

Recalling a meeting of nationalist Muslims at his grandfather's residence where it was decided that necessary public opinion should precede the enactment of the Uniform Civil Code, Salman Khurshid quoted Zakir Hussain as saying: "Otherwise it would have served as a handle for mullahs and moulvis to preach among their followers that the Government was trying to interfere with their religion."

Those who question Golwalkar's public intellectualism are guilty of selective quoting in order to misguide the masses. Golwalkar made a difference between national integration based on love and affection and appeasement. Nevertheless, the nation still faces the grim problem of Muslim integration into the mainstream. The problem exits, says Golwalkar, because "the minority has not been integrated into the indigenous culture, the larger whole. Therefore it continues to be a thorn in the national flesh."

(The writer is a Reader of Delhi University and a biographer of Guru Golwalkar and KS Hegdewar)