No Country for Other Ideologies?

The fear psychosis created against the RSS has diluted a citizen’s right to choice in our democracy

One of the heroes of the largely leaderless pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong is Joshua Wong, a 17-year old boy who is too young to vote but has the astuteness of a seasoned politician. Using a fetching metaphor to explain the cause he is fighting for, Wong says, “Imposing tight controls on candidates for the role of Chief Executive is like offering people the chance to eat at one of two shopping centres. Is it a real choice? The inside is very similar: you end up eating Pepper Lunch anyway.”

It’s a cute statement, almost facetious, but it highlights the cornerstone of all legitimate democracies in the world: the right of the public to choose between competing ideologies. And citizens cannot exercise their right to choice unless they get an equal opportunity to hear all sides.

The existence of several regional parties notwithstanding, the politics of our country today is essentially bipolar. On one hand is the Congress, which has ruled India directly or indirectly for all but three years of the Janata Party government from 1977 to 1980, and the NDA government (1998-2004), a total of almost six decades. The other pole is occupied by the RSS-backed BJP whose star is on the rise with the victory in the recently concluded general elections and the assembly elections of Haryana and Maharashtra under the leadership of former RSS pracharak Narendra Modi.

These two organisations have radically different visions for the country and in a vibrant democracy, one would expect that the public would be equally exposed to both their ideologies and then make an informed choice about whom to support. Unfortunately, for historical and political reasons, the RSS has remained a fringe voice in the national media.

There has been almost a de facto ban on covering its views on major national issues and rarely does one find an RSS representative on prime time television debates. At most, television channels would selectively show a 30-second clipping of a speech made by a dignitary at some RSS function that would induce the viewer into believing that it was a Manichean, Hindu supremacist organization while ignoring the larger spectrum of charitable activities that it is associated with.

In fact, any kind of association with the RSS was a valid reason for dismissal from government jobs till the Supreme Court put an end to this McCarthyism in a 1983 case, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rama Shanker Raghuvanshi, where a municipal school teacher was dismissed by the Congress state government on the ground that he was not a fit person to be entertained in government service because he had taken part in RSS activities. Terming the decision unconstitutional, the Court said:

“India is not a police state. India is a democratic republic…We think it offends the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution to deny employment to an individual because of his past political affinities…Neither the RSS nor the  Jan  Sangh  was  alleged  to be  engaged in any subversive or other illegal activities, nor were they banned organisations. Most  people, including intellectuals, may not agree with the programme and  philosophy of  the  Jan  Sangh  or RSS  but  that  is irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to his thought and views.” (Emphasis supplied)

Since the Modi government has come to power, the RSS has started to reassert itself in the national consciousness and this was most evident on October 3 when the annual Dussehra speech of the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat was telecast live on State broadcaster Doordarshan. This was a unique opportunity for citizens of India to understand the RSS’ views on important public issues and decide whether they agree with it or not.

Apart from being an attempt to bridge the communication gap that has existed between RSS and the common citizen, it was also a newsworthy event as asserted by Doordarshan. RSS is after all the ideological mentor of the BJP and what the RSS thinks about the burning issues of the day will have a direct bearing on the government’s policy. Doordarshan’s stand was vindicated when the weekly viewership figures showed that it had recorded one of its highest viewership for the last several months in the first week of October with a jump of nearly 40 lakh in its viewership.

However, the event blew up into a major controversy with the opposition parties and several intellectuals using phrases like “majoritarian” and “fascist” to describe the move. The Doordarshan office was gheraoed by the Congress and a series of editorials in various newspapers over the next few weeks interpreted this as the start of a dangerous, illiberal tradition. But no one should have a right to decide what is “acceptable” for our citizens to hear. A complete blackout of one ideology from the national debate does not augur well for a democracy.

At the root of all the criticism faced by RSS, especially since the Modi government has come to power, is their repeated assertion on various public fora that all Indians are culturally Hindu. They have a point of view on Indian history that is different from the intelligentsia- but is it illegitimate, dangerous and illegal—unworthy of even being heard by the public?

Certainly the Supreme Court does not think so. In a 1995 judgment (Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo vs Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte) delivered by Justice J.S. Verma, after an extensive discussion on the meaning of “Hindu” and “Hindutva”, the Court came to the conclusion that Hindutva is a synonym of Indianisation or Bhartiyata. It refers to a way of life or a state of mind and should not to be equated with, or understood, as religious Hindu fundamentalism. It is important to quote verbatim from the final observations of the Court on this issue:

“Thus, it cannot be doubted, particularly in view of the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court that the words `Hinduism’ or `Hindutva’ are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith.

Considering the terms `Hinduism’ or `Hindutva’ per se as depicting hostility, enmity or intolerance towards other religious faiths or professing communalism, proceeds form an improper appreciation and perception of the true meaning of these expressions emerging from the detailed discussion in earlier authorities of this Court…It may well be, that these words are used in a speech to promote secularism or to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticise the policy of any political party as discriminatory or intolerant.” (emphasis supplied)

To the best of my knowledge, this case has not been overruled. Which means that it represents the law as it stands today. Therefore, even the worst critics of the RSS must at least concede that while it may not be fashionable, it is certainly not illegal to talk about “Hindutva” in this country. Let citizens decide for themselves whether the RSS is truly the monster that it has been made out to be. And for that to happen, it is important that our citizens get exposed to the RSS ideology with something more substantial than a rare 30-second clipping of a speech. As Noam Chomsky says, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”