Bodhi Sattva’s Hindutva: Part 6

As the older dried branches fall off a growing tree, to give place to the new ones, the society would shed Varna Vyavastha the existing social structure at one time and give place a new necessary one. This is a natural process of the development of the society. … I have told you once that for the sake of construction of a new house, old house requires to be destroyed.Similarly purturbed social system must be put to an end here and now and should be destroyed root and branch. Going further we should proceed to establish a pure and harmonious society on the basis of pure Nationalism.[ii]

Dattopant Thengdi: The members of RSS do not believe in untouchability. Ambedkar: Whether you handful of people believe it or not is not of much consequence in the context of solving the problem. Thengdi: You said this because of the smallness of their numbers. Ambedkar: Not necessarily because of that. there is an additional reason., which is of greater importance. Suppose on some critical social or religious issue your Golwalkar lays a particular line and the Shankaracharyas give a different verdict. Whose decision will carry weight with the ordinary orthodox caste Hindus? Thengdi: Of course Shankaracharyas’.[iii]

It does not matter whether you or I recognize a Shankaracharya. The point is that the “touchables” whom we want to reform, accept their authority. They recognize neither you nor me. For them the Dharmacharyas’ word is a religious commandment.[iv]

The First National Conference of VHP was held at Prayag — Triveni Sangam — in 1966. Nearly Fifty thousand delegates including hundreds of Dharmacharyas, Jagadgurus, Mahamandaleswars participated in the conference from all parts of the country and all sections of Hindu Society. Shri Guruji thought that this was the most opportune moment to bring before the vast assembly the subject of old religious taboo such as untouchability and its related ills. While all the delegates welcomed the resolution with great enthusiasm, the then Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Puri Govardhana Peetha vehemently opposed stating that there is no provision in our Shastras. There was a big disappointment all round. Shri Guruji personally met the Shankaracharya and discussed the matter in detail. He explained to the Acharya about the dangers the Hindu Society and the country have to face if this same attitude continues…. The Acharya ultimately agreed.[v]

The resolution on untouchability –blessed by all our Acharyas- cannot be translated into actual life by mere pious expressions. Centuries old prejudices do not disappear by words or wishful thinking. Hard work and right propaganda need to be taken from town to town and village to village, house to house, not merely as a concession to the pressure of modern times but as an abiding principle and way of life in the humble spirit of atonement of past mistakes. A change of heart, a moral and an emotional change in the attitudes and behaviour has to be brought about. Working for the economic and political betterment of those, who had been relegated to the background, and bringing them up to stand shoulder to shoulder with all the rest of our people is a Herculean task. But this in itself is not enough. For such ‘equality’ can be brought about without shedding the feeling of separateness. What we should desire and strive for is not merely economic and political ‘equality’ – we want a real change a complete integration.[vi]

Dr. Ambedkar felt very much pained that in this society which considers all human beings as children of God, nay, as part and parcel of that Divinity Itself, there should be found a sense of high and low. He also said that there could be no better basis for equality than the basic faith in the existence of a common spark of divinity in all human beings.

Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery in America, said, “If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.” Similarly it is for all of us to declare, “If untouchability is not wrong, then nothing in the world is wrong!” Every one of us must therefore aim at eradicating social inequality in each and every form. We must clearly explain to the people at large how our society became weak and disorganized on account of social inequalities.[vii]

The problem of reservations had become a delicate and sensitive issue. Gujarat, a Western state of India witnessed a big agitation against the Reservation policy in 1981. A meeting of the All India Delegates of the RSS took place in March that year. The issue of agitations in Gujarat inevitably came up in the meeting. The workers from Gujarat had become high strung on the issue. When Resolution justifying reservations came up for discussion at the meeting, every word of it was subjected to minute scrutiny. Many representatives opined that the Resolution was hasty, and likely to evoke adverse reaction in a large section of the people. Swayamsevaks from Gujarat understandably were naturally were unhappy. I was intently listening to the discussions. In view of so much opposition from workers, I was worried and felt the resolution would not go through. Sarsanghachalak Balasaheb Deoras was calm but attentive at the meeting. After debate was over, the meeting broke for tea. When the meeting resumed, Balasaheb Deoras said, “I have heard the discussion in the meeting. I have understood that Many amongst us are not in favour the of Resolution. I request you all to imagine yourself in the place of those for whom the Reservations are meant. Try to enter their minds and see the present condition of those of our brethren, who have been neglected for hundreds of years. Understand their feelings. Then only take your decision.” After his speech, there was hardly any discussion and the Resolution was passed. The Sangh had officially endorsed the Reservations.[viii]

In 1978, the Maharashtra Assembly passed a resolution approving the change in the name of the Marathwada University. The approval produced sharp and bitter reactions in Marathawada. Dalit localities were set on fire. The issue of the changing the name of the University soon turned into an issue about the very identity of dalits…. Later, I found that many Sangh activists in the Marathawada region wanted to support the change in the university’s name. When I too became active in the change-of-name issue from the Samajik Samarasata Manch platform, Damu Anna told me a story. In 1978, Balasaheb Deoras was touring the Maharashtra Province. He had a programme in Sambhaji Nagar. In his discussion of the name issue, he said “I think the change in the name should be endorsed. Those who oppose it are not right in their thinking.”[ix]

Did that mean that the rule of Aurangazeb or Tippu was a “Swarajya” to Hindus? No! Although they were territorially Indians they proved to be the worst enemies of Hindudom and therefore, a Shivaji, a Gobindsingh, a Pratap or the Peshwas had to fight against the Moslem domination and establish real Hindu Swarajya.[xv]

Here I could have ended. But my mind is so full of the future of our country that I feel I ought to take this occasion to give expression to some of my reflections thereon. On 26th January 1950, India will be an independent country (Cheers). What would happen to her independence ? Will she maintain her independence or will she lose it again ‘? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time ? It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side of their King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Ghori to invade India and fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other Maratha noblemen and the Rajput Kings were fighting the battle on the side of Moghul Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent spectators. Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is deepened by the realization of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indians place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country? I do not know. But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.[xvi]