Erosion of will and vision

“Many people in our country today hold the views that any venture that we undertake should be broad-based...eschewing all narrow limitations of country, community or religion...that in this age of missiles and rockets distance has vanished, and the whole world has shrunk...the very concept of a country, nation etc. has become outdated”.

“Our country is not wanting in people who lightly say well give up, whenever there is an aggression or even a threat of aggression in parts of our motherland. If Chinese occupy portions of Ladakh, they say-let it go-not a blade of grass grows there. Some time back a subtle propaganda was carried on about NEFA insinuating that it was a God forsaken place, unfit for human habitation...the same story have been repeated in case of Rann of Kutch”

In the good old days these words of caution by Sadashiv Guru Golwalkar were often repeated  in RSS Shakhas and other Charchas organised by Sangh Parivar from time to time. These lessons in imbibing the nationalist spirit formed part of the essential training for a Swayam Sevak. Why has Sangh Parviar today embarked on an exercise of Jethisoning its own chequered legacy? How credible is the accusation that RSS is gradually abandoning its cherished principles for chasing elusive gains of power through its new pursuit of “pragmatic politics”?

BJP, in its role as the ruling party has drawn flak for comprising the national security and displaying confusion the national security and displaying confusion on the civilisational dimension of the nation-building process in the country. A Swayam Sevak was earlier told that civilisational battle was a necessity to build an India that is in harmony with its historical genius. Discarding cultural colonialism an extension of this thinking. During the past two decades Ayodhya and Kashmir became two issues on which BJP sought to widen its socio-electoral base and draw a line on the perceptions for nation-building. Of late Swadeshi was the third element incorporated that Sangh Parivar visualized would lead to an economically vibrant India.

The Ayodhya movement played a critical role that led to the sensitization of the nation on the issues of national  identity and Hindu political reaffirmation. It also paid rich dividends for catapulting BJP into the corridors of power. The critique of Sangh Parivar on the issue that it failed to lay even emphasis on Ayodhya and Kashmir is not without basis. It is a different matter that as its legislative base widened, and crossed a particular threshold, Sangh movement suffered. BJP’s yearning for sticking to power assumed its own dynamics and the partys’ stalwarts began demolishing the revolutionary content of Ayodhya movement.

BJP undermines national interests:

On the Kashmir issue, the much trumpeted peace diplomacy of BJP government has led to the deterioration of situation in Kashmir—both politically and military. Vajpayee govt has given a break to the traditional nationalist positions on Kashmir vis-a-vis Pakistan, fundamentalist terrorism and Muslim subnationalism. To which gallery Mr Vajpayee is playing when he asserts that India will not traverse on the beaten tracks on Kashmir issue and imperatives of ‘insaniyat’ get precedence over ‘within the framework of Indian Constitution’ rider in seeking solution with Kashmir separatists. Hasn’t BJP government given respectability and legitimacy to Hizb by describing rabid terrorists as political dissidents and Hizb, Jamaat Islami movement as an indigenous uprising. Hurriyat, which was recognised as an extension of Pak embassy in Kashmir has suddenly been conferred political respectability. The peace diplomacy has become a cover for undermining Indian position on Kashmir.

In its official discourse, BJP has been claiming that it is under no moral obligation to accept the Sangh Parivar diktat on key policy issues. If it is so, then why does Sangh Parivar plays the role of an apologist for BJP’s such positions which compromise national interest. How is Sangh Parviar relating itself to the BJP’s Kashmir policy. Does its own position and BJP’s Kashmir policy face convergence.

RSS defends Kashmiri Policy:

What the editor of Organiser, RSS weekly writes in the paper is taken by Swayam Sevaks as the Sangh Parviar line on the issue under focus. Endorsing the unilateral ceasefire, the editor of organiser wrote recently, “the Govt. decision on the ceasefire has come with a rider of hope. With the extension of ceasefire now India has successfully taken Pakistan on the ground of its own choice.” This rationalisation bordering on bravado betrays both the patriotic sensitivity as well as the strategic thinking. The heavy cost which India had to pay in Kargil was primarily a result of India taking on Pakistan on the ground of latter’s choice. The logic of taking Pakistan on the ground of its own choice has gradually pushed India to endorse various Pakistani positions on Kashmir.

On the fallout of July ceasefire with Hizb, Sangh Parviar’s position was equally apologetic. This ceasefire led to the gruesome killing of pilgrims during Amarnath yatra. There were as many as eight massacres immediately after the ceasefire with Hizb ceasefire coming into force. RSS found it wise not to offer any serious affront to the government through whatever maneuverability it had within the BJP. It resorted to only symbolic protestations. For the Sangh Parivar the area of concern with the NDA government is its economic policy. On the issues of national security, RSS prefers to go with the government line.

RSS’s position on Kashmir has not changed overnight. It has been visible for quite some time. On the recall of Governor Jagmohan in 1990, who had done a commendable job in so short a time, RSS accepted the government decision. Commenting on his recall, RSS’s Prant Pracharak had said, “Islamic fundamentalist forces and the secret agencies of America came together to see the exit of Jagmohan as the Governor of the state.” RSS did not put its foot down on his recall when the survival of VP Singh’s coalition government depended entirely on BJP. Was it because Kashmiri has never remained priority for it. BJP withdrew support few months later on the issue of Ayodhya.

Origins of Drift:

A senior activist of RSS from Kashmir unit could not restrain giving vent to his feelings in a RSS camp held at Jammu in the summer of 1990. Sh Dattopant Thengadi, top RSS ideologue and founder of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh was presiding over this meeting. The Swayam Sevak asked, “Will it serve any purpose convincing a Swayam Sevak as to how Nehru and Congress complicated the Kashmir issue? Hindus of Kashmir stand thrown out and destroyed. Who knows this better than the RSS activists of Kashmir? Infact, we should be asking ourselves equally other aspects of the national failure in Kashmir. Did anyone among the RSS echelons foresee such a situation? If not, what were the reasons. If RSS leadership was seized of it, what did it do forestall this situation. It is time when RSS goes for self-introspection”.

Such expressions were quite common those days among the Kashmir Swayam Sevaks. Kashmir was a national failure. How long we would go on indicting only Nehru and in the process absolve others, who were supposed to be the conscience-keepers of nation’s vital interests? This sentiment of dissatisfaction and the implications of a serious introspection caused alarm and disquiet. The state RSS leadership responded by dismantling the Kashmir Vibhag. The priorities the RSS and its allied units set for themselves during the critical days of 1989-90 were not only misplaced but also displayed utter naivety.

Top RSS leader of Anantnag, Prem Nath Bhat was shot dead by terrorists on December 27, 1989. This sent a wave of fear and demoralisation among Pandit community, which had not yet forgotten the communal violence inflicted on them in 1986. Nobody was sure whether even a proper cremation would be allowed. RSS activists in the district and elsewhere in the Valley stood confused as to what to do. Many of them had been issued threats to quit or face the consequences. Very recently, there had been contact drives conducted by them for Ram Shila Pujan. Spectre of inevitable displacement stared them in their face.

Somehow the RSS activists managed to attend the cremation. They were amazed when the RSS Pracharak, who also attended the funeral was more keen to follow his itenary (Pravas) of visiting different pockets in Anantnag with a message of Ayodhya. The then Sambhag Pracharak of J&K had stopped visiting Kashmir for a long time. With no priority for responding to the cataclysmic situation unfolding in Kashmiri and lack of direction on the part of RSS echelous, the local organisation had been abandoned to decide its own fate. RSS activists started leaving the Valley, with even no communication among themselves. The right hand not knowing what the left was doing. Such was the fear in those days—generated by the selective killings of Pandits and issuance of death lists by the terrorist operators. The Hindus started leaving the only Muslim majority province of the country. Why did RSS peripheralise these critical developments of far-reaching consequences in Kashmir in its agenda? With the Sangh Parivar chosing to remain blissfully non-indulgent on the issue, crucial questions of Pandit’s future in Valley and retrieval of Kashmir went into background.

‘Simhasan Chado’:

The flaw in the Sangh’s strategy could be a lack of grasp but it certainly was not an involuntary development. Till 1980s the essence of RSS activities was that ‘man and not the system’ was important. Total transformation and moulding of the people for an organised national life could primarily be achieved by ‘taking individual after individual’. In 1980s, the ‘Simhasan Chado’ directive in RSS indicated a major shift. The discourse in the Sangh Parivaar at that time reflected that capture of political power had become essential for bringing about the change in the nation. The Sangh by that tie had penetrated into all aspects of national life and needed a strategy to act as a force multiplier Ayodhya movement fitted this strategy. The grand failure of RSS lay in not understanding the conflict between a revolutionary change it wanted to bring about and the simultaneous desire to capture political power at any cost.

The analogy with Ayodhya movement has been brought here to grasp the logic behind the RSS’s inconsistency and absence of priority on Kashmir. After long dithering, Sangh Parivaar has begun realising the potentiality in-built in the demand for trifurcation of J&K State. It may be an outcome of the realisation within the Parivaar to incorporate Kashmir crisis into its agenda with a distinct priority. Hinting at this change, Mr SK Verma, Special Correspondent of the Statesman observed recently that, “the RSS which fed its cadres on the concept of Akhand Bharat and BJP with its hype of scrapping Article 370 appear to have realised the futility of continuing with the hype. Both have apparently conceded that for a permanent solution to the Kashmir valley, both concepts have to be given a go bye”. Inconsistency even when Kashmir tends to become a priority for RSS. its leadership seeks to rationalise it as a consequence of coalition politics and a tactical expediency. However, it is not only Article 370 or the partition of India on which Sangh Parivaar’s position indicates a drift. RSS responses towards Kashmir crisis, genocidal war against the non-Muslim minorities in the state and the national security show how RSS is losing its high moral stand it displayed in the earlier years.

Positive Attempts:

During the past ten years of turmoil in J&K, Sangh Parivar did make two attempts to introduce Kashmir crisis in the national discourse on the merit and weight it deserved, and not merely as a complementary argument to buttress its expositions on pseudo-secularism.

The first was the ‘Kashmir Chalo March’, undertaken by ABVP in September, 1990. It was the outcome of extreme sensitivity and understanding shown by RSS stalwart, late Bhau Rao Deoras towards the critical developments in the state. Bhauji, after visiting Jammu, in the wake of exodus from Kashmir, made his dissatisfaction obvious over the response of Sangh Parivaar to this extreme situation. In a reprimanding mood, in one of meetings of J&K Sambhag he asked the office bearers of RSS and its affiliate units like VHP, ABVP, Vidya Bharti Vikas Bharti etcetera, “Aap Kashmiri Vishthapiton Ke Liye Kya Kar Rahen Hain?” (what are you doing for the displaced Hindus from Kashmir). He spared none, including the Sambhag Pracharak in his outburst. :Aap Sab Ko Pracharak in his outburst. “Aap Sab Ko Malum Hona Chahiye, Mein In Visthapiton Ko Marne Ke Liye Nahin Chhor Sakta (I cannot allow these displaced people to become the cannon fodder,” the veteran leader accosted. Bhauroji showed that Kashmir crisis was if looked with sensitivitycan generate positive enthusiasm among Indians. The overwhelming response to the BVP Kashmir March provided substrate for another great campaign on Kashmir—Ekta Yatra led by Dr Murali Manohar Joshi. This yatra drew positive response even from such journalits, who had nothing to do with politics of BJP. Mr K.Sunder Rajan, the senior Editor of Times of India observed, “It was the first step towards donning a national image and identity that would enable it (BJP) to face critics who have so far been accusing it of narrowing its vision to the sectarian issues like Ayodhya dispute”. BJP has transcended its role. From a party seeking Hindu political reaffirmation it was now a party committed to national reaffirmation. This was the new assessment.

Internal Resistance:

But both these campaigns of ABVP and BJP were undermined and obstructed from within than without for reconciling the compulsions of the new obsession of Sangh Parivaar—the pragmatic politics.

Will the same ghost haunt the Sangh Parivaar again when there is a positive yearning within on the proposal for political reorganisation of J&K State. Does the RSS leadership possess the requisite vision and will to counter internal opposition on making Kashmir its priority and reorganisation of the state as its chief plank. Sangh Parivaar has to dispel the common impression that it is toeing the government line on national security and has relapsed into a give and take mode on the Kashmir issue. Nothing obverse than a thinking that the cease-fire diplomacy initiated by the Vajpayee-led coalition is a step towards a solution to Kashmir. This is precisely what the editor of RSS wrote “He has virtually drawn a road map to peace. Ceasefire is only the first phase of a long-drawn strategy for a lasting peace.”

A Dangerous Strategy:

Is support to the demand for trifurcation of J&K by Sangh Parivaar and full integration of Jammu and Ladakh into the Indian Union, a part of wider bargain on future status of Kashmir, as hinted by the Statesman Correspondent. Conversely, is RSS tired on Kashmir and ready to accept the demand for maximum autonomy or something beyond it for “lasting peace”. Why are separatists of different hues in Kashmir agreed on one point that “Vajpayee is the only leader who can solve Kashmir”. Is the trial ballon of autonomy district for displaced Hindus in Valley an attempt to deny the politico-administrative dispensation with unfettered flow of Indian Constitution to the displaced Kashmiris, who see it as the only viable option for perpetuating their existence in Kashmir. If RSS agrees to trifurcation, by what logic other than that of political expediency can it stop supporting the creation of Panun Kashmir with Union Territory status for all those people who reject the communally motivated provision of Article 370.

RSS is delinking the demand for trifurcation from the core issues of secular nation-building and national security. Its public expositions on reorganisation of J&K State display total naivety on the stabilisation of Northern Frontiers of India and reversal of genocide of the Hindus of J&K. Panun Kashmir is the only strategic thinking in India on Kashmir that links reorganisation of J&K State to the imperatives of secular nation-building and stabilising Indian defence in the Kashmir valley proper. There is a history of betrayal when Indian leadership acquiesced in surrendering strategic northern areas to Pakistan in 1947 under British directions. Apologists within RSS, who support trifurcation sanning nationalist consolidation in Kashmir argue that support to Panun Kashmir can lead to erosion of Muslim support to separate state of Jammu. Is it not a tacit admission that the apparent support to Jammu’s aspirations from a section of its Muslim population is quite fragile and borders on blackmail. RSS would do well to recall the prophetic words of its leader HV Sheshadri in the context of partition in 1947. The RSS general secretary talked about an attitude which smacked of investing ‘Muslim communalism with veto’. He made these remarks while deliberating on the tendency of Congress to pamper the ‘divisive tendencies’ of Muslims before 1947.

Erosion of will and vision:

Kashmir crisis has brought RSS to the very crossroads of history, where Congress once stood in the 40s. Around this time partition of India was being gradually rationalised in order to present it as a fait accompli. Quoting Krishna Menon on the failure of Congress to avert partition, Sh. HV Sheshadri writes, “The Congressmen so much coveted power and position that they had not heart to continue to fight and preserve the unity of the nation. The fight for United Bharat involved essentially a batle of wills and visions. It is small wonder that the Congress leadership with their will eroded and scuttled by exhaustion and temptation of power lost the battle.

The Peace Diplomacy and the attendant humiliation it brought in terms of worsening security and political scenario for non-Muslims of the state and the way Sangh Parivar is relating itself to these developments allow only one assessment. The Sangh Parivaar is tired on Kashmir. Has it suffered the erosion of will and vision, to quote the expression of its tallest leader, in its desire to hold on the power whatever be the consequences.

Previous

Index

Next