To Each His Own: Why Pranab Mukherjee’s Speech At RSS Hq Is Being Twisted For Political Convenience

It should amuse us no end that political parties tend to read Pranab Mukherjee’s speech at the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) headquarters in Nagpur yesterday (7 June) in the way they want to. Thus, the Congress party, which was fretting about Mukherjee’s decision to head for Nagpur the other day, suddenly found his speech showing “the mirror” to the RSS. Party spokesman Randeep Singh Surjewala then grandly invited the “RSS and BJP (to) publicly commit today to change their character, orientation, thought process and path and accept the sagacious advice of their guest.”

Among other things, Mukherjee’s talk on nationalism and patriotism said that this should mean inclusiveness and a respect for diversity and difference.

But in essence, he did not say much that was different from what RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat himself said before him, that everyone born in India is an Indian. (Watch parts of the two speeches in this video clip here).

Put simply, Pranab Mukherjee was hardly reading the riot act to the RSS, or making only one-sided comments. Consider the other things he said, all of which would have been music to Sanghi ears. He called Dr K B Hegdewar, founder the Sangh, as a “great son of India”, he noted the positive references to ancient India (presumably Hindu) made by foreign visitors like Megasthenes, Fa Hian and Hiuen Tsang, he called Chanakya’s Arthashastra “an authoritative text on statecraft”, and extolled the knowledge societies created by learning institutions in “Takshashila, Nalanda, Vikramashila, Vallabhi, Somapura and Odantapuri…(which) comprised the ancient university system that dominated the world for 1,800 years beginning the sixth century BCE.”

Pointing out that “India was a state long before the concept of the European Nation-State gained ground after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648,” he emphasised that many rulers and dynasties from within India were building a sense of nation, including the Mauryan and Gupta dynasties. What the Left may find especially galling is his reference to “Muslim invaders (who) captured Delhi (after the 12th century) and successive dynasties ruled for the next 300 years” before the East India Company entered the picture.

The operative part of Mukherjee’s speech (read the full text here) was thus not just about lecturing the RSS about its allegedly flawed nationalism, but also recognising the glory and greatness of ancient India, which is actually a key RSS theme.

The double messaging in Mukherjee’s song was evident in one paragraph, which contained things that will make the Sangh happy, while also dispensing gentle advice on widening their sense of patriotism to be more inclusive.

The paragraph is worth reading in full.

Mukherjee said: “India was a state long before the concept of the European Nation-State gained ground after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This model - of a defined territory, a single language, shared religion and a common enemy - is the model which led to the formation of various nation-states in Europe. On the other hand, Indian nationalism emanated from "Universalism" the philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam and Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah, Sarve Santu Niramayah. We see the whole world as one family and pray for the happiness and good health of all.

“Our national identity has emerged through a long-drawn process of confluence, assimilation, and co-existence. The multiplicity in culture, faith and language is what makes India special. We derive our strength from tolerance. We accept and respect our pluralism. We celebrate our diversity. These have been a part of our collective consciousness for centuries. Any attempt at defining our nationhood in terms of dogmas and identities of religion, region, hatred and intolerance will only lead to dilution of our national identity. Any differences that may appear are only on the surface but we remain a distinct cultural unit with a common history, a common literature and a common civilisation. In the words of the eminent historian Vincent Smith, ‘India beyond all doubt possesses a deep underlying fundamental unity, far more profound than that produced either by geographical isolation or by political superiority. That unity transcends the innumerable diversities of blood, colour, language, dress, manners, and sect.’” (Italics mine).

So, while Mukherjee preaches tolerance, he also talks of India being a country with a “common history, a common literature, and a common civilisation”, which can be interpreted as something even the Sangh can find no fault with. In fact, the RSS always talks of cultural nationalism, and not religious nationalism. The Sangh has more agnostics than ordinary Hindus.

Even so, we had modern historian Ramachandra Guha choosing to dwell on the gulf between what Pranab said and what he claims the RSS stands for. He pontificated on Mukherjee’s “catholic and broad-minded understanding of what it means to be an Indian… (as opposed to) Mohan Bhagwat’s unitary and homogenising nationalism”. He added: “Mukherjee dwells on the significance of our Constitution, a document Bhagwat would not or could not mention.”

So, non-mention of the Constitution in a speech – which is not tantamount to disrespecting it – is significant for Guha. For Sitaram Yechury of the CPI(M), non-mention of Gandhiji and his assassination in Mukherjee’s speech is also a problem. (Actually, Mukherjee did mention Gandhi’s inclusivism, but not his assassination).

The fact is Mukherjee was neither pandering to the RSS’s predilections nor shying away from expressing his own fundamental beliefs. The problem lay with his interpreters, who chose to read what they wanted to believe, ignoring the rest.

To each his own interpretation. We believe what we want to believe. The Congress used the figleaf of some parts of the speech to claim victory; the RSS will be laughing quietly at what it believes is its own vindication.