Struggle Against the Empire: Other Organisations and Cultural Nationalism

Spiritual Underpinning of Cultural Nationalism in the Freedom Struggle

The famous novel Anand Math written by Bankim Chandra was based on the Sanyasi rebellion. Bankim Chandra gave us the immortal national song ‘Vande Mataram’, and the phrase ‘Vande Mataram’ became the slogan of resistance for the entire nation. The song created an imagery of Bharat Mata as the goddess prayed to by all the children of Bharat Mata. Thus, spiritual patriotism got a physical form worshipped by millions of Indians. There are millions of Indians who consider Bharat Mata as their deity and dedicate their lives for her glory.

Mahakavi Bharathiyar (Subramania Bharati) wrote a prayer to Bharat Mata calling her ‘Sudhandhira Devi’. He wrote in Tamil,

Even if I leave my comfortable home and get tortured in jail, even if I loose my status, wealth and looked down with blame, even if I encounter crores of hardships and all these destroys me, Oh! Sudhandhira Devi, I will not forget to worship you!

He also translated ‘Vande Mataram’ into Tamil. ⁵ Our freedom struggle was based on the idea of cultural nationalism and spirituality of this ancient land.

Dayananda Saraswati, who founded the Arya Samaj and began a reform movement for Hindu society on the basis of the Vedic dharma, was the first to give the call for Swaraj with the rousing call of ‘India for Indians’ in 1876. ⁶ This call was later amplified by Lokmanya Tilak.

Swami Dayananda set up Arya Samaj that shook up the slothful Hindu society by going back to Vedas and by challenging the dogmas being presented to people as Hindu dharma and re-energised the Hindu society. Arya Samaj created the spark that lit up the hearts of the defeatist Hindus who had shrunk into their homes, taking their Gods along inside. The social network woven around temples had been reduced to a personalised religion. The Bhakti movement was a great saviour of dharma during the oppressive violent Islamic rule. But it had turned the society introvert. Swami Dayananda turned around the situation and he made Hindu dharma a part of social action and made society outward looking again. He restarted the shuddhi movement that had earlier been initiated by Swami Vidyaranya. Swami Vidyaranya had reconverted two brothers Harihar and Bukkaand and had inspired them to establish the Vijayanagar empire, called Vidyanagar earlier. ⁷ This process of reconverting back to the original faith was institutionalised by Arya Samaj.

To strengthen the foundation of the Vedic nation, that is, Bharat, his followers established Dayananda Anglo Vedic (DAV) Colleges, the first one being in Lahore in 1886. Lala Devraj Ji, inspired by Swami Dayananda Saraswati, established the Kanya Mahavidyalaya (women’s college) in Jalandhar in 1896 and sponsored the education of widows. ⁸ His follower Swami Shraddhanand established Gurukul, later moving to Kangri near Haridwar, getting the nomenclature ‘Gurukul Kangri’ in 1902. These educational institutions and many that followed the lead resisted the colonisation of our minds being done carefully by the British. Dayananda Saraswati had major influence on many writers and leaders. Many revolutionaries including the pioneer of revolution, Shyamji Krishna Varma, who founded India House in London, were influenced by him.

Swami Vivekananda raised the cultural consciousness of Bharat when he spoke in the World Parliament of Religions in a crisp and unapologetic manner. All his speeches and interactions cemented the sense of pride in our dharmic roots. Many critics, from the left to Pakistani historians of Pakistan, actually ‘blame’ him for creating a masculine nationalist cultural identity of Bharat. He linked the sense of our nationhood to the spiritual and cultural heritage of Bharat. Swami Vivekananda’s address at the World Parliament of Religions in 1893 was not just a bold statement about Hinduism but was also a clarion call for recognising the uniqueness of Bharat through its philosophy of ‘respect for all, not just tolerance’.

He delineated what Hindu dharma and Bharat stood for in the comity of nations. He said,

I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth. I am proud to tell you that we have gathered in our bosom the purest remnant of the Israelites, who came to Southern India and took refuge with us in the very year in which their holy temple was shat-tered to pieces by Roman tyranny. I am proud to belong to the religion which has sheltered and is still fostering the remnant of the grand Zoroastrian nation. I will quote to you, brethren, a few lines from a hymn which I remember to have repeated from my earliest boyhood, which is every day repeated by millions of human beings: ‘As the different streams having their sources in different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee’.

His strident criticism of the Western worldview led by the Church at that time was bold and set the tone for an India that was self-confident about self. He noted,

Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descen-dant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with vio-lence, drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilization and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now. But their time is come; and I fervently hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honour of this convention may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same goal. ⁹

Swami Vivekananda had noted in another lecture,

When the real history of India will be unearthed, it will be proved that, as in matters of religion, so in fine arts, India is the primal Guru of the whole world…. History itself bears testimony to the fact. All the soul-elevating ideas and the different branches of knowledge that exist in the world are found on proper investigation to have their roots in India. ¹⁰

Swami Vivekananda changed the mindset of bharatiyas. He identified the Hindu spirit of Bharat as the one that needed to be sparked to recognise this great nation that had something to offer to the world, and not an orthodox defeated nation that the British projected it to be.

His disciple, Bhagini Nivedita noted,

The whole history of the world shows that the Indian intellect is second to none. This must be proved by the performance of a task beyond the power of others, the seizing of the first place in the intellectual advance of the world. Is there any inherent weakness that would make it impossible for us to do this? Are the countrymen of Bhaaskaracharya and Shankaracharya inferior to the countrymen of Newton and Darwin? We trust not. It is for us, by the power of our thought, to break down the iron walls of opposition that confront us, and to seize and enjoy the intellectual sovereignty of the world. ¹¹

We can see that assertion of nationhood was taking firm shape.

Political and Cultural Streams of Freedom Struggle

Bal Gangadhar Tilak too understood the importance of swadeshi education for breaking the fetters of mental slavery; hence, he established the Deccan Education Society in 1880s along with Gopal Ganesh Agarkar, Mahadev Ballal Namjoshi and Vishnushastri Chiplunkar. ¹² He also launched two weekly newspapers that he owned and edited—Kesari in Marathi and The Mahratta in English.

We note that after the crushing of the 1857 uprising, the urge for swaraj had not died. From Society for the Promotion of National Feelings among Educated Natives of Bengal promoted by Brahmo Samaj leaders to Hindu Mela of Kolkata, Abhinav Bharat of Veer Savarkar, Anusheelan Samiti and Jugantar, many organisations sprang up. ¹³ There were revolutionaries ready to shed blood, as well as reformists and those who believed in political approach for freedom through non-violent means. The ‘Bang Bhang agitation’ of 1905 was a clarion call against British. It was so successful that British had to revoke the division of Bengal. ‘Vande Mataram’ became the war cry of this division. This British plan had separated Bengal from Bengalis; hence, it was not accepted. The revocation of this partition evolved into the Swadeshi Movement of 1906, which became the underlying theme of all the freedom fighters.

A lady from outside Bharat, Annie Besant, argued, ‘Hindu polity is built up on its religion; you have not only the Vedas and the Upanishads showing a mighty intellect…. You find the very foundation of modern science laid down as part of the Hindu philosophy’. Her strongest message, however, was that while ‘the jewels of Western learning’ must come to India, ‘the diamonds of the Eastern faith’ must also be given their due. ¹⁴ The ideas about establishing the Banaras Hindu University (BHU) was thus born, and its aims and objectives were circulated in 1904. The university finally took shape in 1916. The objectives of BHU were formulated, thus: (a) To promote the study of Hindu Shastras and of Sanskrit literature generally as a means of preserving and popularising, for the benefit of the Hindus in particular and of the world at large in general, the best thoughts and culture of the Hindus and all that was good and great in the ancient civilisation of India; (b) To promote learning and research generally in arts and science in all branches; (c) To advance and diffuse such scientific, technical and professional knowledge, combined with the necessary practical training, and best calculated to help in promoting indigenous industries and in developing the material resources of the country; and (d) to promote the building-up of character in youth by making religion and ethics an integral part of education. ¹⁵

The Ghadar Party was formed in the United States in the early twentieth century by migrant Indians. Though dominated by Punjabis, it also had Indians from all parts of India such as Darisi Chenchiah and Champak Raman Pillai from the South, Vishnu Ganesh Pingle and Sadashiv Pandurang Khankhoje from the West, Jatinder Lahiri and Taraknath Das from the East, Maulvi Barkatullah and Pandit Permanand Jhansi from Central India, and many more. In March 1913, in a meeting at St. Jones, the party was established as the Hindi Association of Pacific Coast under the leadership of Lala Hardayal with Baba Sohan Singh Bhakna as its president. However, it became popularly known as the Ghadar Party after it launched its journal Ghadar on 1 November 1913, in Urdu, Punjabi, Hindi and other Indian languages from its headquarters the Yugantar Ashramin in San Francisco. ¹⁶ Its members helped smuggle arms into India and even incited Indian troops to revolt against the British. Although its attempts at overthrowing the British Raj were unsuccessful, it was able to influence many freedom fighters to choose arms over agitations and support them in their endeavour.

Not many people would remember today that Raja Mahendra Pratap was the president of the first Indian government in exile that was established in Kabul on 1 December 1915. During World War I, Pratap established the first Provisional Government of India in Afghanistan, and he declared himself as the president and declared a jihad against the colonial rule. He had soon become a threat to the Britishers who had announced a bounty on his head. He fled to Japan and continued his movement from there. ¹⁷

We can say that the spiritual aspect remained the undercurrent of the freedom movement, but political methods to rouse people and fight the British became more prominent. Congress became a strong force as the central pole of the freedom movement. However within Congress, there were many who created their own formations that gave different thrusts to the struggle.

Annie Besant made a formal declaration in September 1915 about the formation of the Home Rule League, claiming home rule to be the objective of her party and making it clear that it would be an auxiliary body of Congress. Lokmanya Tilak launched another Home Rule Movement in Bombay Provisional Conference in Belgaum in April 1916. Tilak popularised the idea of swaraj in his lectures across Karnataka, Maharashtra, the Central Provinces and Berar. The Home Rule League demanded the establishment of self-government for India in the British Empire and also worked on educational, social and cultural reforms. It was merged with Congress in 1920. ¹⁸ Lokmanya Tilak tapped the religious and spiritual side of Indians and organised Sarvajanik Ganesh Utsavas (public celebration of Ganesh festival). This platform was used to give lectures on various topics that would arouse national sentiments. Who can forget the famous exhortation of Lokmanya Tilak, ‘Swarajya is my birth right and I shall have it’. He reinterpreted the Bhagawad Gita and asserted that Karma Yoga was the foundation of the Gita, not just bhakti (devotion). At that time, the Gita was being presented as a major cause of Hindus’ fatalist view of life. His interpretation proved to be a great inspiration to the people of India who had gone into a shell believing that being a slave to foreigners was their destiny.

Tilak’s demise in 1919 due to the severe prison conditions he had faced in Mandalay came at the time when Gandhiji was rising within Congress. It is no gainsaying that his political approach was very different from Tilak’s approach. However, Gandhiji too tapped the spiritual side of the society by conducting bhajans and calling Ram Rajya as the ideal. It was another attempt to revive the cultural roots of Indians.

Gandhiji, who was friendly with British and not really against Christian theology, was uncompromising about our bharatiya concepts and chose Ram Rajya to define what kind of society and government we want as an independent nation. Gandhiji was once asked: ‘What do you think of Western civilization?’ ‘I think it would be a good idea’, he replied. ¹⁹ Gandhiji explained his idea of Ram Rajya once again in 1937, after 1929, when he stated

By political independence I do not mean an imitation to the British House of commons, or the soviet rule of Russia or the Fascist rule of Italy or the Nazi rule of Germany. They have systems suited to their genius; we must have ours suited to ours. What that can be is more than I can tell. I have described it as Ram Rajya i.e., sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority. ²⁰

Again, on the eve of India’s independence in 1947, Gandhiji opined on this civilisational idea: ‘There can be no Ram Rajya in the present state of iniquitous inequalities in which a few roll in riches and the masses do not get even enough to eat’. ²¹ It was a clear delineation of the Indian cultural concept of Swaraj vis-a-vis the Western idea of freedom.

The Hindu Mahasabha (HMS) was founded in 1915. It is said by many historians that the formation of the All India Muslim League in 1906 and the British India government’s creation of a separate Muslim electorate under the Morley–Minto reforms of 1909 was the catalyst for Hindu leaders coming together to create an organisation to protect the rights of the Hindu community. Among the Mahasabha’s early leaders were the prominent nationalist and educationalist Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya and Lala Lajpat Rai. HMS campaigned for Hindu political unity, and for the education and economic development of Hindus. It also advocated for the reconversion of Muslims back to Hinduism. HMS became more assertive and aggressive under the leadership of, Bhai Parmanand, Dr Balakrishna Shivram Moonje and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Veer Savarkar moulded his doctrine of ‘Hindutva’ in 1923 that brought about a change in HMS’s approach to freedom and its strategy, and the conflict between Congress and HMS became pronounced. His views became central to cultural nationalism.

Both the parties, Congress and HMS, had worked together during 1920 Non-cooperation Movement. But later, the differences widened. Dr N. B. Khare and J. P. Shrivastava became members of the executive council of the viceroy as representatives of HMS. Dr B. S. Moonje had represented HMS in the Round Table Conference. ²²

Many members of Congress party used to attend HMS meetings. Support of the Khilafat Movement that endorsed the return of the Caliphate in a far off country, Turkey, had no relation to the Indian independence struggle. This radical orthodox version of Islam ultimately led to indescribable violence against Hindus in Kerala in Mallapuram. Orthodox Muslim leaders realised that they could push Congress leaders into a corner in their desire to get Muslims involved in the freedom struggle. From 1921 to 1924, India saw a series of riots across India. These events turned HMS against Congress due to what it saw as policy of Muslim appeasement. Even Dr B. R. Ambedkar wondered, ‘Can a sane man go so far for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity?’ ²³

One among those who doubted the logic of Gandhiji’s experiment was Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, who founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) later. Once he even met Gandhiji and asked him, ‘As a matter of fact, we have in Bharat people belonging to different faiths like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism. So, instead of talking about the unity of all these people, what is the rationale behind speaking only of Hindu-Muslim unity?’ Gandhiji retorted, ‘Through this, my idea is to create a love for this nation in the minds of Muslims here, and don’t you see the spectacle of their fighting shoulder to shoulder with others for India’s freedom?’ Doctorji, who was not satisfied with this answer, again said: ‘Even before this slogan was coined, many Muslims like Barrister Jinnah, Ansari, Hakim Ajmal Khan, etc. were active under the leadership of Lokmanya Tilak in the freedom movement. And I fear this slogan will create divisive tendencies in the minds of Muslims’. Gandhiji abruptly wound up the meeting saying, ‘I don’t have such fear’. ²⁴

The Indian National Congress had supported Britain during World War 1. Mahatma Gandhi was in England where he began organising a medical corps similar to the force he had led in aid of the British during the Boer War. On his return to India in January 1915, Gandhiji offered unconditional support for British efforts in the War and believed that it was not a good time to embarrass Britain or take advantage of her troubled situation to further the Indian liberation cause. Marching from village to village in Gujarat, he recruited volunteers to assist the British in the War. ²⁵

However, in a reversal of role, during World War II, Gandhi ji declared the Quit India Movement to take advantage of World War II to pressurise the British. But Savarkar wanted to use the War to get arms training and create a militarised Hindu society. Learning from the history of 1857 that he studied and wrote about, Savarkar saw that Indians had been intentionally and systematically demilitarised by the colonial regime. Unless that condition was reversed, another uprising was almost impossible. Hence, he wished Hindus to join British army so Hindu society was ‘militarised’. He wrote, ‘The nation that has no consciousness of its past has no future. Equally true is that a nation must develop its capacity not only of claiming a past, but also of knowing how to use it for the furtherance of its future’. ²⁶

In his message on the 25 May 1941, the eve of his 59th birthday, Savarkar said:

Unforeseen facilities are being thrown open to you. Unexpected opportunities have presented themselves before you. You help no one else more than you help yourselves if you utilise these facilities and opportunities to militarize Hindudom! This done, everything else shall follow: if you miss this, nothing else shall avail! ²⁷

HMS had joined the Fazlul Haq ministry in Bengal, in 1941. In Sind and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), the HMS ran coalition governments with the Muslim League. On 3 March 1943, when the Sind legislative assembly discussed and passed a resolution moved by G M Syed recommending to the Viceroy that ‘Muslims of India are a separate nation’, the HMS leaders were in the government. Although the Mahasabha ministers opposed the resolution and voted against it, they continued to be a part of the government. Idea of HMS joining the ministries though Congress had withdrawn from government formation exercises was not to give them free run.

Such endeavours were in accordance with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s presidential address at the Kanpur session of the Mahasabha in 1942, Savarkar had asserted that the HMS follows the policy of ‘responsive co-operation’ with the British Empire since he considered the Congress a ‘pseudo-nationalist body’. ²⁸

The Swaraj Party was established as the Congress-Khilafat Swaraj Party. It was formed on 1 January 1923 after the Gaya annual conference in December 1922 of the National Congress. It sought greater self-government and political freedom for the Indian people. Pandit Motilal Nehru, C. R. Das and Dr Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari founded the party. This party was also under the umbrella of Congress. Das and Nehru felt that it was a good idea to contest elections and enter the legislative council with a view to obstructing a foreign government. Many candidates of the Swaraj Party got elected to the Central Legislative Assembly and Provincial Legislative Council in the 1923 elections. In these legislatures, they strongly opposed the unjust government policies. As a result of the Bengal Partition, the Swaraj Party won the most seats during elections to the Bengal Legislative Council in 1923. It merged with the Congress after Congress decided to participate in provincial elections in 1935. ²⁹

The first preliminary conference to take steps to form the CSP was held in Patna a couple of days before the AICC session in May 1934. CSP had great leaders such as Acharya Narendra Dev, Jai Prakash Narayan and Minoo Masani who articulated the left of centre approach to India’s problems. It had a pronounced sympathy for Marxism, but the leaders of the party wished to create their own Indian version of socialism. The following quote is from an article by the doyen of Communist movement in India, EMS Namboodiripad:

On the birth and development of the Congress Socialist Party, a book written by Jaya Prakash Narayan under the title, Why Socialism. That opened the eyes of a large number of young Congressmen and women who were grouping towards a new path since they had become frustrated with the utter futility of the programmes and practices adopted by the rightwing leaders of the Indian National Congress.

The leadership of the newly formed CSP was making a bid for bridging the gulf between the earlier groups of socialist-communists. Central to this perspective was united action between the reorganised all-India leadership of the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the CSP. A formal agreement was arrived at between the two parties. P C Joshi and Jaya Prakash Narayan, the general secretaries of the two parties, signed a formal agreement on behalf of the two parties.

This alliance led to the unification of the trade union movement as well as in the development of the kisan and student movement with left orientation. It led to the emergence of a well-organised left in Congress and a weakening of the hold of the right-wing leadership of that party. The electoral defeat of Mahatma Gandhi’s candidate for Congress presidentship, characterised by the Mahatma as his own defeat, was the high watermark of this developing unity of the left.

The situation, however, radically changed in the latter half of the 1930s. The Moscow trials against the Trotskyites, including several top officers of the Red Army, made liberal socialists like Jaya Prakash indignant. They began to doubt whether all that Masani and company were saying against the Soviet Union and the communists were as baseless as they had thought earlier. These doubts became enormously strengthened when the Soviet leaders signed the non-aggression treaty with Nazi Germany. These developments in the world brought J. P. closer to rabid anti-communists among the leaders of the CSP such as Masani, Ashoke Mehta Patwardhan and others.

The stand adopted by the CPI during the latter part of the War, that is, after Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union, did undoubtedly lead to the temporary isolation of the Party from the mainstream of India’s patriotic masses. People could not understand how a war waged by the British rulers of India could be a ‘people’s war’, as it was characterised by the CPI. The CSP, on the other hand, came to the centre of the stage, played the leading role in organising the popular revolt against British imperialism during the days of the Quite India struggle. ³⁰

Another leader, Maharshi Aurobindo, also had a deep impact on the spiritual and cultural aspects of patriotism and devotion to the motherland, Bharat Mata. He continued the legacy of Swami Vivekananda. He saw a chained Bharat Maa who had to be liberated. He saw clear purpose of Bharat as the Vishwa guru. Maharshi Aurobindo had begun his journey as a revolutionary but later chose a spiritual path after a spiritual experience. Though he pursued a spiritual path, he kept abreast with the freedom struggle. He said,

India of the ages is not dead nor has she spoken her last creative word; she lives and has still something to do for herself and the human peoples. And that which must seek now to awake is not an anglicised oriental people, docile pupil of the West and doomed to repeat the cycle of the occident's success and failure, but still the ancient immemorable Shakti recovering her deepest self, lifting her head higher towards the supreme source of light and strength and turning to discover the complete meaning and a vaster form of her Dharma. ³¹

He had immense faith in the youth of Bharat; he believed that through them Bharat would become vishwaguru once again.

In September 1920, Dr Moonje, the Congress and HMS leader, had gone to Pondicherry with Dr K. B. Hedgewar. They tried to persuade Maharshi Aurobindo to lead Congress after the death of Lokmanya Tilak. But he refused, saying that he had so much work to do in spiritual world. ³²

This struggle for identifying the source of our strength, our distinct national identity and its place in global comity of nations was expressed throughout in the movements for independence and for Swaraj (government based on ‘swa’—expression of self and our knowledge traditions).

Non-political Organisation Based on Cultural Nationalism for ‘Swatantra’

Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar had fought for the freedom of Bharat since his childhood through every possible means including violent revolutionary organisations and non-violent Congress. When he offered satyagraha in 1920 and went to jail, he told his followers clearly that going to jail alone would not bring independence, and that they needed to work in the society too. He had no delusions like ‘Freedom in One Year’ while participating in the agitations in 1920 or later in 1930. ³³ In all, he suffered 19 months of rigorous imprisonment. He had excellent relations with most of the leaders of Congress and HMS.

After working in Congress at various positions from 1918 to 1924, he realised that until the majority community, Hindus, reformed themselves and united for the cause of freedom, mere independence from British would not solve the problems of Bharat. Political freedom would only mean change in rulers and not in governance. He realised that though Bharat had been a great economic powerhouse, and had great kings and empires, it was defeated time and again by foreign invaders. He could see that the Hindu society was driven by fractious ideas of caste, creed, regionalism and languages. They were not united, and had turned orthodox and withdrawn into a self-defeating shell.

Before he founded the RSS, Dr Hedgewar had come face to face with Islamic fanaticism in jail in 1920 through people who had been jailed for the Khilafat agitation to support the return of the Khalifa in Turkey. He saw that for them, religion was above nation. Some such incidents are narrated in his biography by N H Palkar. ³⁴ He then witnessed riots in the Malabar region by the Moplahs. A Sreedhara Menon noted in A Survey of Kerala History that about 10,000 Hindus were murdered, thousands of women raped and people converted with the support of violence.

Dr K. B. Hedgewar had presented a resolution on as member of resolution committee and as a joint organiser of the Congress national convention in Nagpur in 1920: ‘Goal of [the] Congress is to achieve complete freedom and establish Indian republic; and to liberate the other nations of the world from exploitation and atrocities of capitalist imperialism’. This view of Bharat as a leader in liberating people against exploitation and capitalist imperialism was in line with our ancient dictum of Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam; hence, it was our responsibility as an ancient nation to help others. It was a visionary statement rooted in bharatiya thought.

His decision to create a non-political organisation by first preparing battle-worthy citizens with an avowed purpose of freedom (a political goal for most of the leaders of the time) from the British was the biggest break from the traditional thinking of Indian political leaders and intellectuals. The pledge taken by every RSS swayamsevak was that they were becoming part of RSS to fight for freedom of Hindu Rashtra, that is, Bharat. ³⁵

He identified the problem of Bharat as amnesia about our great history, culture and knowledge. Indian minds were colonised due to the excellent efforts of the British. Such was the loss of pride that great intellectuals and leaders said ‘call me anything but a Hindu’. Hence, the solution was to repair the root cause, that is, unite the Hindus and strengthen Hindu society. It was a positive approach to India’s weakness, not born out of hatred or as a reaction. The patient had to be cured first. This was an unconventional, long-term approach like Ayurveda and meditation. Hindutva was not against anyone. He felt as the majority community that one needed to address its problem; it needed own up to the goal of Swaraj. He broke the self-created illusion of Hindu society being a dead society that had accepted slavery as its fate. His assertion and proclamation of Bharat being a Hindu Rashtra when the term Hindu had become an abuse showed his refusal to accept colonial view of Bharat.

One question that always bothered Dr Hedgewar was, how could a handful of Britishers coming from 7,000 km across the seas rule such a huge nation? He realised that there was something wrong with Indians. He saw that it was disorganised and stifled by oppressive customs, which could be exploited by the British. If the country did not change even after gaining Independence, history would repeat itself. One oppressor would replace another, that is all. Therefore, the most important work was to raise the society above caste and creed, reform it, organise it, help it get rid of its oppressive customs and ultimately raise the national consciousness. He could see that it was possible only by keeping away from politics and propaganda and by working silently in a sustained manner.

He discussed the issue of a Hindu organisation, its reform and unity, with many of his friends in Congress and HMS and with other social leaders. He was clear that the proposed Hindu unity was not against Muslims or to beat them up. He would speak about Hindus having their only the land of Bharat; a society that had the heritage of great dharma, and the sanskriti or cultural values, needed to unite and be organised in a disciplined way. This exercise needed to be above politics, allowing leaders to keep working within their own political space. ³⁶ However, Appaji Joshi noted, ‘Various leaders whom Doctor Hedgewar met were mostly aligned to different political parties who carried influence of Gandhiji’s movement—some were influenced by Swarajya (Swaraj) Party, thus nothing came of it’. ³⁷ Doctorji, finally gave up on such attempts and decided to work for Hindu renaissance on his own.

An indisciplined society that had lost sense of unity needed disciplined organisation. Hence, he decided to train people with a long-term goal of freedom. RSS trained the youth in every aspect of courage and discipline. Shakha programmes on the grounds included both physical and mental exercises and intellectual enrichment. Physical drills were included in the daily programmes to instil discipline. This idea of drills and discipline made many Congressmen uneasy. The idea of democracy had been taken to such an extreme that any discipline was anathema to many Congress leaders.

During this time, Dr N. S. Hardikar began his work on the Hindustani Seva Dal and established it in time for the Kakinada session in 1923. Nehru also liked the idea, but he was in for a surprise when he realised later that many leaders strongly objected to any such organisation that could create a spirit of militarism if they were brought together in a disciplined manner. This would be contrary to the objective of ahimsa, or non-violence. Nehru was surprised at this strong reaction because the Seva Dal itself had many luminous Congress leaders. He wrote, ‘We were surprised to find later how much opposition there was to the Seva Dal among leading Congressmen. Some said that this was a dangerous departure, as it meant introducing military element in the Congress and the military arm might overpower the civil authority!’ ³⁸

When Congress passed a resolution in December 1929 for celebrating 26 January as Independence Day in 1930, Doctorji send out directives to all the shakhas to celebrate the day and explain to people about importance of being a free country.

The rise of a disciplined organised force also rang alarm bells for the British and they began keeping a sharp eye on RSS. In 1930, the Jungle Satyagraha was launched on 14 July from Pusad. When Dr Hedgewar offered satyagraha nearly 3,000–4,000 people accompanied him. By the time his team reached Pusad from Yavatmal, the numbers had grown to 10,000. Appaji Joshi of Vardha and Dadarao Paramarth also went to prison with him. He was given a nine-month imprisonment with hard labour along with 125 other swayamsevaks. Thousands of swayamsevaks offered satyagraha in other places. ³⁹

A notification was sent out in December 1932 in Madhya prant that stopped any direct or indirect contacts with RSS by government servants. ‘Under section 23 of government rules for government servants, they should keep away from such a movement’. RSS was specifically named in this notification. ⁴⁰ The British had nothing concrete against RSS, so they tried to curtail it by creating legal hurdles for the Hindu organisations right from the 1930s. A gazette in Central Province banned government servants from attending RSS shakhas in 1931. As it did not work, they amended it to include teachers of government-run schools. The gazette faced massive resistance, and a cut motion was passed rejecting the gazette. It was supported by Congress members too. ⁴¹ It was a big loss of face for the British.

Dr Hedgewar had a goal, as noted in his definitive biography by Nana Palkar. The goal was to have a very powerful, disciplined force of youngsters who would be ready to oust British when World War II would end, leaving the British very weak. His regret, when he realised that he had very few days left in this world, was that he could not grow RSS fast enough to take advantage of the British decline that he had foreseen. ⁴² 38B Dr Hedgewar was able to reach every region of Bharat with 15 years of intense hard work, but the organisation was not strong enough, and it did not have enough numbers to take advantage of the emerging situation. He had excellent health. However, his intense work and travelling in his last 15 years resulted in chronic deterioration in health and he left this world at the age of 50 years.

Dr Hedgewar was succeeded by a young 34-year-old M. S. Golwalkar, popularly known as Shri Guruji. He knew the objective that his predecessor had. so he went ahead working intensely to raise the numbers and reach every part of the country. His efforts bore fruit as RSS saw massive growth in some parts of Bharat and a better network in others. Hundreds of full-time workers (prachaaraks) joined in this effort.

During this period, the British rulers were alert and cautious about RSS. They had kept a sharp eye on every activity of Guruji. CID kept sending reports about him regularly. A report of the Home Department shows the anti-British nature prevailing at the RSS camp at Jubbalpore (Jabalpur) where a speaker proclaimed that the aim of the Sangh was to drive the British out of India and the sentiment was repeated by other speakers.17 The report on 30 November 1943 notes,

Rashtriya Swayamsevak is moving ahead rapidly towards building a highly significant all India organization. Spokesmen of Sangh keep saying that the basic goal of Sangh is to achieve Hindu unity … it is clear that Sangh is bent upon expanding its area of influence and this year it has been able to bring on board, the famous religious saint Sant Tukadoji Maharaj from Central Province for spreading its message.

A report dated 13 December 1943 shows that the British intelligence was wary of Shri Guruji’s work. It says,

It is not possible to create a case for banning Sangh. But, it is equally clear that Golwalkar is creating a strong organisation at a rapid pace that would obey the orders, maintaining confidentiality and jump into any activity of sabotage or of any other type whenever required as per their leader’s orders. The structure of this organization looks superficially like that of ‘Khaaksaars’. But, fundamental difference between the two is that the leader of Khaaksaar, Inaayatullah, is a big mouthed imbalanced lunatic, while Golwalkar is a very cautious, crafty and much more capable leader.

The CID report further cautioned,

Though seen on superficial way, the danger posed by Golwalkar’s activities is still quite far off, but to give him an opportunity to establish himself as uncontested leader of a rebellious group out to destroy peace with its action, by letting it grow with uncontrolled speed into a powerful disciplined volunteer organisation would be taking an unnecessary risk. ⁴³

It was at this time that the 1942 Quit India Movement burst onto the scene.

Considering the long-term vision of Dr Hedgewar of raising a powerful organisation of Hindu society that can take on British and the immediate concern of supporting the Congress party in leading the independence movement, RSS asked those who wished to take part in the 1942 movement to take part as citizens under the Congress flag. This had been the stand from Dr Hedgewar’s time. He had resigned from the post of sarsanghchaalak of RSS to join the agitation in 1930. Thousands of swayamsevaks took part in 1the 942 agitation. Hemu Kalani, a swayamsevak from Sindh was hanged to death, two were felled by police bullets in Patna along with four more while hoisting the tricolour in Sachivalaya. In Vidarbha, fierce agitations took place in Bali (Amravati), Ashti (Wardha) and Chimur (Chandrapur). News about the Chimur agitation was broadcast from Berlin Radio. This agitation was led by Uddhavrao Korekar of Congress and RSS leaders Dada Naik, Baburao Begade and Annaji. A young swayamsevak, Balaji Raipurkar, died in police firing here. Sangh swayamsevaks took part in the Chimur agitation in 1943 along with Congress, and Tukdoji Maharaj-led Shri Gurudev Seva Mandal. This encounter became famous in the history of this movement as the ‘Chimur Ashti episode’. ⁴⁴

More importantly, RSS supported underground activities of leaders and provided them with safe houses, and many of them fought their cases. The Congress committee member of Solapur, Ganesh Bapuji Shinkar, had taken part in the satyagraha to press for the removal of the ban on the Sangh in 1948. He had resigned from Congress on grounds of democratic ethics before joining the satyagraha. He issued a statement clarifying his stand and it was published on 12 December 1948. He says,

I had participated in Bharat Chhodo (Quit India) Movement in 1942. Capitalist and agrarian community was scared of the government at that time, therefore we were not offered safe haven in their homes. We had to stay in Sangh workers’ homes to work underground. People from Sangh used to help us happily with our underground work. They also took care of all our needs. Not only this, if someone from amongst us fell sick, Sangh swayamsevak doctors used to treat us. Sangh swayamsevaks who were advocates used to fight our cases fearlessly. Their patriotism and value based living was indisputable. ⁴⁵

A mention of role of RSS would not be complete till history records the immense work and sacrifice done by RSS swayamsevaks to protect the Hindu–Sikh community, see to their safe passage as far as possible, and build relief camps and try to rehabilitate to the best of their capability. For those millions, 15 August was not the dawn of freedom but a black day when they lost their all—wealth, honour, lives and families. A N Bali resided in Lahore at that time. In his book meticulously researched book Now It Can Be Told, first published in 1948, he has documented the work done by RSS during the time when he describes the history of those days prior to and post Partition when he was in Lahore. (This book has been recently reprinted by Prabhat Prakashan.)

Similarly, their support to the frontline, first of the Dogras and then of the Indian army to fight Pakistani intruders in 1947 was critical in saving Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan occupation. Scores of lives were lost retrieving armaments dropped by the Indian Air Force and repairing bridges and airstrips. They worked ceaselessly when politicians were busy sharing the spoils of office and watching the massacre of thousands of Indians helplessly. But for RSS, we do not know how many of the millions who survived would have reached India. The book based on testimonials, Jyoti Jala Nij Pran Ki (Suruchi Prakashan), compiled and written by Shridhar Parhadkar and Manekchand Vajpayee, provides eyewitness accounts of those days.

Before I conclude this essay, I would like to touch upon the continued attack on Savarkar and RSS about being fascists who copied Hitler. The HMS (born in 1906) and the RSS (born in 1925) came into existence before anyone in India knew of Hitler. Savarkar’s Hindutva (1923) was published three years before Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Savarkar was inspired by the sacrifice of the Chaphekar brothers who were hanged in 1899. His views about modern nationalism were moulded by Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini. Savarkar’s Hindutva was inspired by Shivaji’s activism for social equality, and the fight against casteism was moulded by thoughts of Sant Tukaram and Samarth Ramdas. Clearly, the inspiration to organise and defend Hinduism at the political level does not stem from Hitler or Mussolini, and this philosophy did not need any outside impulse.

The Indian concept of ‘nationalism’ is quite different from the Western definition of nation state and is older than the idea of the nation-state. The RSS differentiates between the state and the nation. While state is a governing apparatus, nation is a geo-cultural concept. Ranga Hari in his book Rashrtriyata ka Anant Pravaah tells us that ‘Rashtra’ appears 72 times in the Vedas. Then he goes on to trace the evolution of the nation of Bharat to the present time. ⁴⁶ We clearly differentiate between the state and the nation. Nation is a group-cultural concept while state is concerned about governance. In Bharat, governance was always ‘dharmic’, not religious. Only King Ashoka ran a theocratic state and proclaimed Buddhism as its state religion. All other kings and queens had their personal faith, but they ruled by ethics and rule of law, that is, ‘dharma’, irrespective of their faith. So, governance was secular in modern terminology. And history is witness to this characteristic of Hindu kings when they welcomed and gave asylum to people from foreign lands and allowed them to practice their religions freely. Respect for all religions and freedom to practice was part of dharmic tradition and did not flow from our Constitution in 1950. We only adopted what was our tradition in modern terminology.

The Western concept of nation-state is only 200–300 years old, while the bharatiya concept of nationhood is thousands of years old. The attempt to map the Western guilt of sustained violence in the name of supremacist religious beliefs or the urge to build empires that saw millions perish has resulted in demonising the philosophy of cultural nationalism. Major contributions of RSS include the assertion of nationhood of Bharat as a geo-cultural entity of a perennial civilisation with a documented history of at least 8,000 years that survived invasions and holocausts of a thousand years. This idea is now being accepted in the socio-political sphere.

I would be remiss if I do not mention the role of the INA led by Subhash Chandra Bose, and his Indian National Army (INA). Public trial of INA soldiers in Red Fort resulted in massive unrest among Indians. Naval Mutiny and Jabalpur Army Mutiny followed. British were finally convinced that they couldn’t rely on Indians manning the police or army. These incidences convinced British that they had to leave Bharat.

Manmohan Vaidya, joint general secretary of RSS, writes,

Bharat is not just a political entity. This is a cultural entity built over thousands of years of thought process based on perennial, comprehensive integrated life. This philosophy of life gives us a unique identity woven together in a single thread of unity. Whenever there have been major political upheavals in India’s history, they have been preceded by cultural awakening lit by spiritual energy. More difficult the situation, more awakened is the spiritual power of the nation. That is why Bhakti movement rose through length and breadth of India during 12^th Century to 15^th Century. From Ramanujacharya in South to Swami Ramanand in North, every region saw a sustained tradition of Sadhus, Sants, Sanyasins and great spiritual leaders. During the British period, we saw the rise of Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Ramkrishna Paramhamsa and Swami Vivekananda that provided spiritual leadership. No political change has been successful or stable without such a cultural awakening preceding it.

He observes that we should realise, therefore, that cultural awakening should not be measured on political parameters. Silent, sustained awakening is very important for a nation like Bharat. He expands on the views expressed by Dr B. R. Ambedkar earlier that the struggle for independence evolved and rose over decades of social reforms and by raising the consciousness of the people by different leaders and organisations, including RSS. ⁴⁷

We thus find that the struggle against the British empire was more than that of one political party. It was the contribution of many other organisations and individuals who treated Bharat as a land of devotion, duty and moksha, not just a political entity. This struggle was a struggle for self-assertion of a nationhood and rediscovery of cultural nationalism. It was a struggle with strong bharatiya roots.