The remarks by the Rajya Sabha Chairman come after the central government lifted the ban on participation of government employees in RSS activities…reports Asian Lite News
Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar on Wednesday expressed his support for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and said that the organisation has been contributing to national welfare. He emphasised that everyone should take pride in any organization dedicated to serving the nation in such a selfless manner.
While addressing the Rajya Sabha, Dhankar emphasized that the RSS comprises individuals who have dedicated themselves to selflessly serving the nation. “I hereby rule that RSS is an organisation that has full Constitutional rights to participate in the development journey of this nation. This organisation bears unimpeachable credentials, comprised of people who are deeply committed to serving the nation selflessly. To take exception that a member of this organisation cannot participate in the development journey of this nation is not only unconstitutional but beyond the rules. Our rules prescribe a methodology…,” he said.
Lauding the RSS further, Dhankar said, “Every organisation associated with the development of the nation should come forward. It is soothing to note, wholesome to note that RSS as an organisation has been contributing to national welfare, and our culture, and everyone should take pride in any organisation which is acting in this manner.”
The remarks by the Rajya Sabha Chairman come after the central government lifted the ban on participation of government employees in RSS activities. A few days ago, an order was reportedly issued by the Ministry of Personnel, lifting the ban on the participation of government employees in RSS activities. The order has, however, sparked a row, drawing criticism from the opposition.
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor had referred to it as “very strange” after the central government lifted the ban on the participation of government employees in RSS activities.
Tharoor said that it is the responsibility of the government employees to work for everyone and added that they should remain “neutral” when in government.
“This is very strange. RSS work and government work are different, both should not be together and the Narendra Modi government did not change this rule for 10 years, then why are you changing it now? It is the responsibility of government employees to work for everyone, work for the whole country. This is not fair, after retiring from service you can do whatever you want but when you are in the government you should remain neutral,” Tharoor had said. (ANI)
Kapil Sibal MP argued that while it is acceptable for members to express their opinions, it is inappropriate for the Chair to do so, as it goes against parliamentary tradition…reports Asian Lite News
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal expressed disapproval of Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar’s remarks that praised the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for having “unimpeachable credentials.”
Sibal argued that while it is acceptable for members to express their opinions, it is inappropriate for the Chair to do so, as it goes against parliamentary tradition.
Sibal’s comments came in response to a statement made by Dhankhar during the Question Hour on Wednesday when Samajwadi Party member Ramji Lal Suman suggested that RSS affiliation was a criterion for selecting the head of the National Testing Agency (NTA).
In response, Dhankhar ordered that Suman’s remarks not be recorded, and he defended the RSS, stating that it is an organisation with full constitutional rights to participate in the nation’s development and has a long-standing commitment to national welfare.
Dhankhar emphasised that the RSS has been a significant contributor to India’s culture and welfare, describing it as an organization with “unimpeachable credentials” and a “global think tank of the highest order.”
Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge supported Suman, asserting that members should be allowed to speak freely within the rules.
Kharge argued that Suman’s comments were valid and that Dhankhar’s intervention was inappropriate. He emphasised that the Chair should only intervene when there is a clear violation of rules.
The remarks by the Rajya Sabha Chairman come after the central government lifted the ban on participation of government employees in RSS activities.
A few days ago, an order was reportedly issued by the Ministry of Personnel, lifting the ban on the participation of government employees in RSS activities. The order has, however, sparked a row, drawing criticism from the opposition.
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor had referred to it as “very strange” after the central government lifted the ban on the participation of government employees in RSS activities.
Tharoor said that it is the responsibility of the government employees to work for everyone and added that they should remain “neutral” when in government.
“This is very strange. RSS work and government work are different, both should not be together and the Narendra Modi government did not change this rule for 10 years, then why are you changing it now? It is the responsibility of government employees to work for everyone, work for the whole country. This is not fair, after retiring from service you can do whatever you want but when you are in the government you should remain neutral,” Tharoor had said.
‘B in BJP’s budget stands for betrayal’: Kharge
Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge on Thursday attacked the central government over the employment-linked incentive schemes presented as part of the Union Budget and said that “B in Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) budget stands for “Betrayal.”
“A week into the ‘Kursi Bachao Budget’, the academia and the industry awaits clarity from the Modi government on its Tokenism regarding the so-called ’employment-linked incentive’ schemes,” Kharge posted on X.
The Congress chief said that crores of youth want a permanent solution to their plight of jobs, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government “bitterly deceives” them by not even giving a “temporary solution!”
“We ask 2 questions to the Modi government on these SHAM schemes: When will the Modi government provide details of the schemes? Neither the youth nor the industry, which is to be NUDGED, according to the FM, to provide Internships, First Time Jobs or Training has any know-how about the contours of the 5 Employment-Link Incentive Schemes. A government, which could not create a conducive environment for Private Investment and took measures to plunge it, is now acting as if it will suddenly NUDGE 500 top companies, to hire 4000 interns per year! Was there any stakeholder consultation before imposing this half-copied idea from the Congress Manifesto?” he asked the government
Kharge said that the Congress Manifesto had a Right to apprenticeship, but PM Modi’s government’s budget has mere internships forced upon the industry with no long-term solution in sight.
“The Congress Manifesto had a ‘Right to Apprenticeship’ – which is a structured system of training where individuals, known as apprentices, learn a trade or profession through a combination of on-the-job training and classroom instruction. On the other hand, the Modi government’s budget has mere internships forced upon the industry with no long-term solution in sight,” he said.
He further claimed that the BJP government does not want to recruit SC, ST, OBC, and EWS youth in the public sector.
“Why are none of these Employment-Link Incentive Schemes missing the Public Sector component? Is it because the BJP wants NO recruitment of SC, ST, OBC and EWS youth in the Public Sector – through reservation?” he said.
Questioning the government, Kharge asked, “Why are all these schemes providing “temporary” employment/internships?”
“For instance, the incentive scheme for first-time employees, which offers a Rs 15,000 subsidy is paid out in three instalments; the second instalment is only payable if the employee undergoes a compulsory online financial literacy course. Why should employees in every unrelated sector be expected to do this? More worrying is the clause stating that the subsidy is “to be refunded by the employer if the employment to the first timer ends within 12 months of recruitment.” If the employee switches jobs in 10 months, he/she has already received the benefit of the scheme, but the employer is required to bear the costs. Would any small employer take this risk?” Kharge asked the government.
The Congress chief demanded clarification from PM Modi’s government on the Union Budget.
“The minimum wage (average) in India is about Rs 13,300. It looks as if no new intern/hire in these SHAM schemes even getting that. Modi government should clarify this. The ‘B’ in BJP’s Budget stands for ‘Betrayal’!” he stated.
Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presented the Union Budget in Parliament on July 23 and said that to provide on-the-job training to youth, the government will launch an internship scheme to provide opportunities to one crore youth in the top 500 companies over the next five years.
Sitharaman proposed that for the interns to get exposure to real-life environments an internship allowance will be provided of Rs 5000 per month. (ANI)
Pitching his demand for the caste census, the Congress leader added, “We want the caste census to be done …reports Asian Lite News
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi launched a fresh attack on the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), accusing them of “spreading hatred and violence” in the country.
He was addressing a gathering during his Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra in Jharkhand’s Khunti on Tuesday.
“…We felt that the BJP and the RSS have spread hatred and violence in the country…So I thought of coming between you all, uniting and addressing your issues…,” Wayanand MP said.
“This is the target of the Nyay Yatra,” he added.
Later, speaking at a press conference, while responding to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘biggest OBC’ remark, he said, “The question is in front of everyone. PM calls himself OBC. In between, he got confused and then started saying that there are only two castes in the country: rich and poor. So he should decide first…”
Pitching his demand for the caste census, the Congress leader added, “We want the caste census to be done (across the country)…”
During his yatra, he earlier posted in hindi on X, “There is a 50 per cent limit on reservation, we will uproot it – this is the guarantee of Congress and INDIA.”
The Nyay Yatra is currently passing through Jharkhand, where Congress is an ally in the ruling Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM).
Earlier in the day, the former Congress president paid tribute to tribal leader Birsa Munda and met with the fourth generation of his family.
The Congress leader has embarked on the Yatra ahead of Lok Sabha elections just few months away.
Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra rolled out from Manipur’s Thoubal on January 14. The yatra will cover over 6,700 kilometres over 67 days, traversing through 110 districts. It will cover a distance of 6,713 km, straddling 100 Lok Sabha constituencies and 337 assembly segments and covering 110 districts.
The yatra will conclude in Mumbai on March 20, after 67 days.
A follow-up to the ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ which saw Rahul Gandhi cover more than 3,000 kilometres on foot–from Kanya Kumari to Srinagar–the Yatra 2.0 is following a hybrid format. (ANI)
In this interview with Abhish K. Bose, Prof. Suryakant Waghmore shares his opinion on various issues such as the dominance of upper caste in political institutions, the undercurrents made by the Mandal Commission’s report in Indian politics among other issues.
Suryakant Waghmore is a professor of Sociology at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT-Bombay. He earned his Ph.D. in Sociology as a Commonwealth Scholar from the University of Edinburgh (2011). His areas of research interest broadly revolve around civility and democracy in India. He is the author of Civility against Caste (Sage 2013) and co-editor of Civility in Crisis (Routledge 2020). He was awarded the New India Foundation Fellowship (2022) to work on his book on Caste and Cities (2024). His other forthcoming publications include a co-edited volume Civil Sphere in India (Polity 2024) and second edition of Civility against Caste (Routledge 2024). He was previously professor and chairperson at the Centre for Social Justice and Governance, TISS (Mumbai), and has held visiting faculty positions at Fudan University, University of Hyderabad, Stanford University, and Göttingen University. He regularly writes columns in national newspapers like Indian Express and provides consultancy to NETFLIX on sensitive and compelling representation of marginal groups.
In this interview, Prof. Waghmore shares his opinion on various issues such as the dominance of upper caste in political institutions, the undercurrents made by the Mandal Commission’s report in Indian politics among other issues.
Excerpts from the interview
1. The share of upper caste legislators in all the legislative assemblies and parliament has been declining and that of the lower castes rising. The 1990s saw a doubling of the percentage of OBC MPs – from 11 percent to 22 percent whereas the proportion of upper-caste MPs dropped from 47 percent in 1984 to below 40 in the 1990s. It produced a shift in the balance of political power in governments and legislatures, reshaping the very character of democratic politics. Upper castes are still very influential. Even though upper castes are vastly outnumbered by castes below them but they still hold sway over institutional domains and control the levers of power. Why is this happening?
The politics around Mandal and politicisation of OBCs challenged the dominance of pure castes in North India. Congress as an upper-caste party was decimated and Mandal parties like JDU, RJD and SP made their presence felt with more OBC politicians gaining political power. The antagonism between OBCs and pure castes was however temporal in North India. The limited economic and political mobility of OBCs has attracted more to Hindutva and the discourse of kshatriya-hood of OBCs has helped in status claims. The seduction of Hindutva amongst OBCs is also driven by their proximity to Brahmanism.
Several movements in colonial and post-colonial times like the Arya Samaj and RSS have invested heavily to construct Hindu solidarity and material mobility amongst ‘impure’ castes and this has led to their substantive inclusion in Hindu sociality.
Despite the mandalisation of politics in North India, OBCs are more of politically scattered castes and do not constitute a significant politicised collective and non-brahmin ideological leanings like south-west are still to turn into popular political sentiment. What we have therefore is individual-caste parties or family-centered parties like SP that develop pragmatic political patronage and alliances with other castes and Muslims.
Decades of cadre-based mobilisation of RSS on the other hand has achieved a significant presence of OBCs in RSS and BJP. Leaders like the incumbent CM of Madhya Pradesh, Mohan Yadav and even PM Modi in several ways signify democratisation of Hinduism and making of Hinduism as a civil religion. Such democratisation is paradoxical — OBCs may have political power but their interests have ideologically merged with the sacrificial ethics of Hindutva. We do not need pure castes at the helm anymore as OBCs too can help achieve the radical aspirations of Hindutva.
2. Thirty years after Mandal social justice politics has been dissipated with the rise of the BJP as the dominant pole of Indian politics, the backward caste politics had indeed hindered the march of Hindutva in the 1990s, with Mandal upstaging religious politics which had been catapulted to centre stage by the Ayodhya movement. Turning the politics of social justice on its head, the Hindu right crafted a broad-based identity politics to undercut Mandal which appeared to have outlived its utility for a critical mass of the socially marginalized, bringing the OBC vote to the BJP. Isn’t it a strategic lapse from the part of the Congress in not carrying forward the legacy of the lower caste social justice spearheaded by Mandal which could have stem the growth of the BJP?
Yes, the gains of social justice movement made by Mandal may seem to have been reversed. But the actual opposition to Mandal was from Congress and not Hindutva or BJP. So, Mandal/social justice and Hindutva are not necessarily at odds. There are voices against reservations in RSS but that is a general pure-caste sentiment and not an official position of RSS.
While Mandal movement achieved decimation of Congress in Bihar and UP, Mandal and Mandir are not necessarily antithetical as is imagined by some votaries of Mandal movement and caste census.
Mandal movement was never anti-caste it was merely pro-reservation. As Congress lost ground, BJP mobilised around a broader axis of Hindu solidarity while othering the Muslims. The economic mobility achieved by OBCs under neo-liberal India along with anti-Muslim common sense that has been cultivated for over a century amongst the Shudra castes, came in handy for success of BJP. Congress may claim legacy to Gandhi and Gandhian politics but Gandhi’s religiosity also laid grounds for success of RSS and BJP.
Congress in past two decadesis increasingly wearing a pro-OBC coat, but this strategy does not necessarily have deeper commitment to politics beyond religion and caste. BJP on the other hand is rooted in the politics of Hindutva and other policies of universal welfare along with politics of polarisation help itconsolidate support from above and below.
3. Historically, the Congress was built as a centrist catch-all party, but to remain a catch-all party became very difficult once powerful cleavages based on caste (after Mandal) and religion (related to Ayodhya) has build up, gaining momentum and popular acceptability. This resulted in a major confrontation between the upper and backward castes, displacing the Congress from its position of dominance in north India, most notably in Uttar Pradesh. This had a cascading effect too on the party’s political fortunes in other states. The party never recovered from this transformation of India’s politics which challenged the pluralist foundation of the political system by shifting the discourse towards identity politics. Do you think that without enunciating a strategy to counter the identity politics can Congress win in the elections?
Congress succumbed to Mandal under pressure from Mandal movements. Its centrism had otherwise survived patronage of dominant castes in North India. The marginal castes and communities gained minimally from the Congress structure. What is understood as the pluralist foundations was fragile and something that corroded immensely with the rise of BJP. A major problem with Congress is that it is not a cadre-based party like BJP. Sadly, no party can match the commitment and passion that RSS cadres bring to BJP. There are fewer patronage-based groups withing BJP as compared to other parties. Congress can make scattered gains due to anti-incumbency and other residual factors but BJP is continually strengthening its foundations after every election due to its ideological clarity and nationalist rhetoric.
In Karnataka Congress was successful because of the Ahinda movement of Siddaramaiah and other leaders. There is some anti-caste ideological basis for Ahinda which helps Congress in Karnataka. We hardly see this in other states. In UP, Congress may not succeed if it fails to tie up with BSP. Similarly, in Maharashtra VBA and MIM may affect chances of Congress. BJP has multiple enemies in the civil sphere but they are all splintered groups, sometimes competing within themselves.
Since Congress lacks cadre-based organisation, sacrificial ethics (sewa) and ideological clarity, it has to bank on alliances. All of this makes BJP seem more principled as other parties continue to be largely family-basedentities. If Congress plans to turn into a ‘Bahujan’ party, they will have resort to bahujanist icons, culture and mass mobilisation from below and I do not foresee that possibility.
4. Isn’t the key issue for the Congress is defining its response to Hindu nationalism? While the Congress is largely agreed on the necessity of combating communal ideas, politics and policies, it has swung between making ideological compromises with majoritarian nationalism and plotting a frontal battle against it. Are the contradictory pulls exerted by these divergent approaches are partly responsible for the impasse plaguing the party since its spectacular defeat in 2014. From 2014 onwards, the Congress is wary of an engagement with these big issues mainly because it fears losing popular support by being seen as anti-Hindu; hence, most leaders are unwilling to come out openly against majoritarianism. What is your response?
We are a nation steeped in religiosity – poor and the privileged alike are deeply religiousand Congress despite its claim to secular credentials has had religious and even communal roots. Neither Nehru nor Gandhi was comfortable with antagonising Hindu and Muslim radicals, change has always been a slow process therefore. It is not surprising that Kamal Nath was bowing in front of Baba Bageshwar and Hindutva in Madhya Pradesh as part of Congress campaign against BJP. Similarly, BJP has its roots in Arya Samaj, RSS and even Congress.
Our Constitution too carries these paradoxes — it bans cow slaughter (Article 48) along with providing social justice provisions (Article 340) and scientific temper is part of our fundamental duties (Article 51A). All of this may seem like irony of sorts but these complex power processes also make our democracy a stunteddemocracy that thrives on unreason and incivility.
BJP has trumped Congress at politics of caste and religion. By posing Hinduism as the greatest religion of all times and simultaneously framing Hinduism as a civil religion to mobilise Hindu solidarity beyond caste, BJP evokes a formidable sentiment of Hindu citizenship beyond caste. It is not anti-caste but it is ‘violently’ pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim. The only substantive politics that Congress and its intellectuals are banking on is mobilisation of OBCs against BJP, this is a difficult proposition in North India as BJP has successfully accommodated the Shudra castes in its party structure. A demand for caste census may polarise temporally but not necessarily help in the long run, and the politics of OBC representation needs to find some substantive universal discourse of sacrifice and recognition.
5. The frequent conflation of Hinduism and Hindutva has benefited the ruling party. It’s important to expose this conflation and tell people about the misuse of Hinduism for political purposes. In this line of thinking Hinduism is under attack whenever Hindutva is questioned. Ordinary Hindu need to be told that Hinduism is not under attack. Hindutva and Hinduism are different. Hindutva is a political ideology, while Hinduism is a religion. But political mobilization through this strategy may be difficult. This difference has meaning for the people who are well informed and understand Hindutva politics. It is true that the RSS-BJP take advantage of this confusion but to confront them on this issue won’t be easy. What will be the best possible course corrective measure to help convince the ordinary hindu regarding the differences in between hindutva and Hinduism? Is it an impossible goal?
This is not so simple. At times, Hindutva and Hinduism may seem synonymous to modernising Hindus or worse, Hindutva may seem better than Hinduism. The Shankaracharya of Puri slammed Bhagwat for his criticism of caste and varnashrama dharma and insisted these were a gift of Brahmins to India, something that the West should be taught to emulate. This clash of ideas between the Shankaracharya and Sarsanghchalak of RSS makes fresh to one’s mind the distinction between Hindutva and Hinduism that the known postcolonial scholar AshisNandy had thought of. While Nandy hoped for an end of Hindutva at the hands of Hinduism, the former has not only survived but grown leaps and bounds.
Caste constructs the Hindu habits of heart and they affect the formation of civil religion. A modern and free individual beyond caste is almost impossible and broader civic solidarity based on equality beyond religion and caste hierarchy my seem an anathema in Hinduism. Hindutva can be seen as a reformist movement too very much like Gandhianism and other reform movements. It mobilises religion for public goals and national purpose. Hindutva while constructing Hinduism as a civil religion also consistently re-writes meanings of Hinduism and its rituals, makes it incorporative, inclusive towards impure castes and simultaneously generate Hindu pride (not just caste pride) that is anti-Muslim.
The politics of enumeration in colonial times led to several smaller faiths, sects and cults being framed as part of Hindu religion. BJP has been making productive use of the labour of (majoritarian) Hindu reform movements to give a futuristic shape to Hinduism as a national religion where the majority embodies the nation and margins are meant for non-Hindu minorities. The pure and privileged gain more from politics and policies of Hindutva but the marginal castes too are increasingly drawn into the nationalist Hindu conscience.
6. How is the ideological machinery of the RSS overtly and covertly eliminates Congress ideology from India and Hindutva -ise India apart from changing history and eliminating curriculum ? What are the processes that they underwent so as to realise this?
We do not have enough studies on this and the problem is much larger here as far as education is concerned. Was the curriculum and history syllabus under Congress able to instil scientific temper and progressive public culture amongst Indians? The answer must be largely negative. Education is not seen as a social good and has mostly been viewed as a commodity. The utility of education is to get one economic and social mobility not to create a humane society. Children learn ‘culture’ at home and such culture is deeply rooted in ritual and superstition. In most of the world and India too education does not necessarily reform society, a lot depends on social movements and culture of publics.
We are at a juncture where even most educated argue that Ramayana and Mahabharata are not mythological texts. RSS and Hindutva have made most of our family and political culture, and the very nature and meanings of education in India by mixing religion and education so as to produce ‘cultured’ Hindu citizens who privilege rituals over reason and bigotry over compassion.
7. The RSS and the BJP were fervent adherents of the Varna system till the 1970s. However, they have effected a change in their position on it later. What are the exigencies that compelled RSS – BJP to effect a shift in their stance. Could you explain?
Even Gandhi was a supporter of Varna system. He changed considerably after facing the likes of Ambedkar but such change had limits. RSS and BJP thrive because they have changed and evolved too. Their cadres have worked to build support amongst adivasis and even outcastes. The have systematically cultivated Hindutva amongst Yadavs to counter the rise of regional caste parties like SP and RJD. The religious or social estrangement that shudra castes may have faced within Hinduism is being continually reversed by politics of Hindutva
Historically we see a mix of ideas in RSS, as far as caste and varna is concerned, there were some radicals like Savarkar who hoped that Hindus will become one race beyond caste as they inter-marry. What critics do not see is the labour RSS-BJP have put over last century to accommodate Shudras into the Hindutva fold and several OBCs have climbed the ladder within the party and the organisation. Caste is not a thing of past but RSS and BJP have a way beyond caste and their position has continually evolved to promote Hindu unity over caste separation. The persistent othering of Muslims in everyday life and politics has helped RSS-BJP in forging political unity amongst Hindus beyond caste.
Prof Dibyesh Anand is the head of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Westminster, London. He is the author of the monographs, Geopolitical exotica – Tibet in Western imagination; Hindu nationalism in India and the politics of fear.” He has spoken and published on varied topics including Tibet, China, China – India border dispute, Hindu nationalism in India, Islamophobia, conflict in Kashmir etc. He identifies as queer in personal and political terms. In an extensive conversation with Asian Lite’s Abhish K. Bose, he discusses many current issues. Twitter @ dibyeshanand
Excerpts from the interview
ABHISH K. BOSE: What is your take on secular democracy in India?
PROF. ANAND: Pay attention to the non-BJP parties. How many of them dare to call Hindutva what it is – fascism? Hardly any. Not even the constitutional Left parties, leave alone Congress. The moment there is mild criticism of majoritarianism in India in foreign countries, many Indian politicians speak of “non-interference”. Frankly, they are already ceding ground to the BJP. Very few defenders of secular democracy are vocal now. It is correct that Hitler initially used democratic institutions to enter into power and then subverted those very institutions.
BJP Flag.
ABHISH K. BOSE: If you were to counsel the opposition parties in India, what would have the most fundamental principles –do’s and don’ts- you present to them?
PROF. ANAND: Recognise the BJP for what it is. Recognise what is lethal about the BJP and do not emulate it. Work together, or differently, to expose BJP rather than pussyfoot around it or copy it. Mobilise the masses. Speak out. Speak up. Don’t only focus on elections. Do what the RSS did between 1950-80s. Work at the grassroots to transform significant parts of India. There is no shortcut to education and mobilisation.
ABHISH K. BOSE: What is your advice to the Indian media in the present context, with the history of European fascism as the framework of reference?
PROF. ANAND: Media is meant to be a watchdog of liberty and not a stooge of nationalism. India media is sadly becoming the latter. For various reasons including corporate control, fear, and shared worldview, media is becoming more propagandist than ever. One can give advice to those who don’t fear listening.
ABHISH K. BOSE:There were intellectual affinities between the Indian Hindu nationalist ideologues and the fascist philosophers. Whether the collaborations are still active or have it come to an end?
PROF. ANAND: There is a difference between intellectual and political affinities and actual collaborations. There is no much direct collaboration these days. Historians of early Hindu nationalist ideologues have highlighted the various ways in which they admired the fascist ideas of “pure nation”, “strong state” and “violence as ennobling”. In contemporary times, modern Hindutva ideologues are more politically canny at hiding their admiration for European Fascism. However, they use tropes of “Islam as the enemy number one”, “multi-party democracy as weakening”, “liberal and radical dissent as anti-national”, “indigenous majority is under siege”, that are very similar to those used by the Far Right in Western countries. At the same time, such majoritarianism, intolerance of minorities, admiration of strong leaders, legitimisation of violence against dissenters, are confined to neither India nor West for similar ideologies and political movements are thriving in places as diverse as China, Turkey, Russia or Brazil.
ABHISH K. BOSE:What do you think of the influence that an author like Joseph Mazzini had on Gandhi, which Gandhi himself acknowledged? How should be read Mazzini in relation to the fascist literature in Italy more or less at the same time?
PROF. ANAND: Ideas travel, influences can be multiple. Same idea and same personality can be read differently by different political actors. That Gandhi was partly influenced by Mazzini’s democratic nationalism, his idea of self-rule, and even his focus on humanity, is clear. Mazzini can be read as a cosmopolitan as well as a nationalism; several of his ideas were what’d be seen as progressive. However, Mazzini’s ideas were also used by the fascist movement in Italy. The idea of a nation or national community, despite cosmopolitan interpretations, will invariably facilitate a strong politics of Self and the Other. Fascism is not extra-ordinary, it is an extreme form of an ideology that is pervasive in the world – nationalism.
ABHISH K. BOSE:The RSS was conceived as a cultural organisation. However, the political ambitions of RSS were explicit when Jana Sangh and later BJP were floated. Did the RSS get any training or other of kind of assistance from the fascist and Nazi parties of Italy and Germany for the launching of the above parties?
PROF. ANAND: I have not come across evidence of tangible and financial assistance provided to RSS from fascist parties. This does not mean it did not exist, but I am not a historian of RSS. My primary focus is on contemporary Hindutva. The question of RSS’s affinities European fascism is not the most interesting one for me because what is more important is it its Indianness. How did RSS tap into insecurities of, and manufacture and generate insecurities of, some or many Savarna Hindu Indians? What nationalist vocabulary was shared between RSS and dominant Indian nationalism? How did Congress legitimise or challenge RSS? Wasn’t it the framers of Indian constitution who often interpreted Islam and Christianity as “non Indic”? How was the RSS allowed to continue to work, and flourish, as a social organisation and thus gradually shift the common sense of Indian public of “Indianness”, “foreign religions” and “Hindu magnanimity”? These are more pertinent questions for me because the search for “foreign influence” takes away the agency of indigenous Hindu nationalism in developing a very Indian form of fascism.
ABHISH K. BOSE: Do you think the RSS ideology based on alienating Indian Muslims and Christians?
PROF. ANAND: A short answer is – no. European fascisms were about one single party, one single powerful leader, pure nation, violence as legitimate, and protecting the indigenous self against all internal and external enemies. These are shared by not only Hindu nationalism but many forms of nationalisms. Think of Maoist China and Cultural Revolution. Think of Stalinist Socialism in One Country/Nation. The fact is that dehumanising will of nationalisms goes beyond Italian fascism or German Nazism as “originary” source of the problem. Even without these specific European fascisms and their influence, RSS would have developed its politics of Self and the Othering. The idea of India as primary homeland of “Hindus” and Muslims and Christians being foreign bodies was there in late 19th century too. Even Congress nationalists adopted that view. The notion that India is a secular place because it is Hindu majority went hand in hand with the myth of Hindus being essentially accommodating and peaceful. I would urge analysts of Hindu nationalism to now move away from what influenced them to how they have managed to become the dominant ideology in India today.
“Now, I believe that the only worthy pursuit of Indian politics, as long as there is politics in India, is the destruction of the caste order,” Prof Divya Dwivedi interacts with Abhish K Bose
Divya Dwivedi is a philosopher who has been a part of the philosophical tradition of deconstruction through her collaborations and close friendships with the philosophers Shaj Mohan, Bernard Stiegler, and Jean-Luc Nancy. Most of her research is in ontology, principles of history of philosophy, and narratology, for which she is known internationally. She is one of the founders of the international journal Philosophy World Democracy.
She had written for a special issue of the Unesco journal Review of Women Philosophers on ‘Intellectuals, Philosophers, Women in India: Endangered Species’.
Dwivedi, born in Allahabad (now Prayagraj), comes from a family of lawyers and politicians. Her father Rakesh Dwivedi is a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India, and her grandfather S. N. Dwivedi was a Supreme Court of India justice. Her mother Sunita Dwivedi is an advocate and author of historical works on Buddhist heritage. Her maternal grandfather Raj Mangal Pande was a minister for Human Resources Development at the central government.
Prof. Dwivedi, thank you for joining this conversation. There is a lot of fear in India. Journalists are afraid of being raided or arrested. The opposition parties fear being broken into pieces with money and intimidation. Research centers are being overrun. Right to Information activists is being killed. University campuses have become quiet. What is this fear?
There is extreme evil in India. All the institutions defined by the Constitution are submitting to the call to evil, including journalism and the judiciary. The extreme manifestation of evil is when someone is subjected to the choice between life and death. Here, life should not be understood as vegetal, merely subsisting without the concern for pain and pleasure, as we find in Agamben’s conception of “bare life,” which he proposed while studying the “Muselmänner” inmates of the Nazi concentration camps. Because when we read their narratives of survival, we realize that even in their extreme dehumanization and near-death state, they were not solely vegetal but actively engaged in devising some forms of escape or recovery despite their severe weakness. Moreover, life should not be understood as guided by merely epitheumea, which is the concern with avoidance of pain.
Instead, life is the condition in which one can experiment with the meaning of being alive through the free creation of communities, institutions, and norms. Ambedkar explained this need for free creation in ‘Annihilation of Caste’, “the idea of religion is generally speaking not associated with the idea of change. But the idea of law is associated with the idea of change, and when people know that what is called religion is old and archaic, they will be ready for a change, for people know and accept that law can be changed”.
In the broad sense, life is politics, where the freedom to think and experience the meaning of life is secured and enhanced. Life approaches something akin to a coma without politics or the fight for freedom. In the Indian context, it is the coma induced by fear into which we collectively fall. Then, the choice being offered in India is between freedom and death.
We do not have to reprise particular stories of persecution through which we are being sent into the thralls of terror. We are all too familiar with the contemporary context being discussed here, including the imprisonment of anti-caste activists, Muslim journalists, and human rights campaigners, including Teesta Setalvad, who recently received interim bail. Rids are happening in NGOs’ offices, think tanks, and charitable organizations. But some of these stories should be attended to in order to understand their reasons because caste rules manage the prisons of India. Let us remember today the academics, intellectuals, and activists who had been arrested for the commemorative event of Elgar Parishad, for opposing the caste order. Of those who were arrested Father Stan Swami died in prison, where he was denied access to water. Alarmingly, another Elgar Parishad activist, Vernon Gonsalves, is being denied medical care in prison.
Teesta Setalvad
You have opposed the concept of “secularism vs Hindu majoritarianism” as the core problem of Indian politics. In an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, you said that caste is the determinant of forces in Indian society and polity. You have often written about the conflict between the norms of constitutional democracy and the caste order which governs Indian culture. Could you explain again the reasons for this minority position you have taken?
It is not a minority position! It is the position of the majority of the people of India, the lower caste people! At the same time, it appears to be a minority position due to the dominance of the upper caste people in the public sphere. If you watch Bollywood cinema or read mainstream literature, you might even think that there are no lower caste people in India, as they are invisibilised in Indian culture.
Now, I believe that the only worthy pursuit of Indian politics, as long as there is politics in India, is the destruction of the caste order. We can read the annihilation of caste as the intention of the Constitution of India. Until politics in India achieves that, we will remain in stasis.
But the opposite intention has dominated politics in India for the longest time, that is, the retention of the minority upper caste dominance over the whole of India. It is evident in a few facts. On the one hand, the continuing oppression of the lower caste people can be seen in the facts that 65% of all crimes are committed against Dalits in India; in national media the lower caste people amount to less than 9%, and Dalits and Adivasis amount to less than 9% in India’s elite educational institutions. At the same time, Indian government refuses to conduct a caste census, holding back the existing caste census data. The available data shows that the upper caste people are a minority of 10% or less of the Indian population, while the lower caste people are clearly the majority. Then the majority of the cultural resources of India are reserved for the minority upper caste people. Here, we must remember that caste order exists across religions in India, including Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism.
Why is it that these facts are not apparent to most people in India? Why do you think that the logic of majoritarian versus minority is then the dominant paradigm of discussing politics in India?
The goal of the upper caste-controlled institutions, including the media, is to mask the fact that the majority of India is the lower caste people. And at the same time it prevent the consequences of recognizing these facts, which is the birth of an egalitarian society in India through the seizure of power by the lower caste majority. Academics in India are fond of the idea of “becoming-minority” which was adapted by the philosophers Deleuze and Guattari from Kafka, and this tendency is another typical instance of invisibilizing the oppressed majority people in order to forcibly maintain the fiction of “Hindu majority”.
The false problems of Hinduism vs Hinduness, and Hindu majoritarianism vs secularism were created to prevent the appearance of egalitarianism in politics. As we know, Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century to avoid the lower caste majority, who had been oppressed for millennia, from rising up to claim their rightful power of self-determination under modern constitutional democratic institutional conditions. For example, if proportional representation in Parliament and the assemblies had been implemented according to the wishes of Dr Ambedkar and other lower caste leaders, India would have achieved true independence much earlier.
The creation of Hinduism 20th century allowed the upper castes to be the community leaders of those whom they had been oppressing and excluding from the upper caste cultural practices. RSS (RashtriyaSwayamsevak Sangh) today effectively represents Hinduism. The RSS is the most potent paramilitary organization controlling the governments by proxy, the streets directly, and the Brahmins govern it. Here we see the meaning of ‘Hinduism’ (Hinduness or Hindutva), which is the continuation of upper caste dominance through militia under cover of religion to adapt caste apartheid under the current conditions of constitutional democracy and judiciary. As you know, Hartosh Bal has been drawing attention to the grave errors of maintaining this distinction for quite a while now. Let me use “Hinduness” instead of the other word so that we shall not perpetuate this criminal distinction.
For this reason, Hindu versus Hinduness is a false distinction in politics. But it serves the so-called liberal upper castes to keep a distance from the extreme actions of the RSS while supporting its intentions knowingly or unknowingly. The very construction of Hinduism and that of a Hindu majority created the partition of British India. This modern partition is necessary to cover the ancient oppressive partition of the caste order.
The so-called far Right and the left-liberals play with this distinction between Hindu and Hindutva. They are committed to portraying India as a ‘Hindu-majority country. The differences seem to be only in the conduct of such a majoritarian state. What are the harmful effects of continuing this discourse about Hindu vs Hinduness?
It is a critical question. If you look at the opinion pieces written every day about the injustices in Indian society, you will find the beginnings of the answer to your first question. Our opinion writers, who shape public opinion about politics, are all upper caste, with some exceptions such as KanchaIliah. These opinion writers never speak of caste but only about Hindu versus Muslims and Hindu versus Hindutva. The very discussion of caste appears untouchable for the liberal commentariat as if the mention of caste is a spell that could summon the specter of anti-caste revolution.
They remain silent about caste when the news about the killings and humiliations of lower caste people abound! A few days ago, a Dalit politician was killed in Uttarakhand for marrying an upper caste. Another Dalit was killed in UP by the upper caste men who wanted his land. We have been reading about lower caste students being humiliated or being killed from different parts of India in the past few weeks. Rates of suicides are very high among Dalit students.Five incidents of atrocities against Dalits take place every hour in India. I can go on citing incidents and evidences.
But our liberal upper caste commentariat hides behind Hindu versus Hindutva. The horror of this strategy can be realised through analogy. To say that the caste order is a feature of ‘Hinduism’ is akin to saying that slavery in America was a spiritual pact between the enslaved black people and the white enslavers.
The continuous killing and oppression of the lower caste people is a crime that is incomparable to the terrible genocides of the last century; it is much worse because it is the oldest apartheid system and the most hidden system of enslavement in the world. Further, by hiding behind a deliberately poorly formulated notion of secularism and the false distinction between Hindus and Hinduness, our polity treats several religious groups as sacrificial expedient people. As the researches of Ornit Shani have shown it in Communalism, Caste and Hindu Nationalism: The Violence in Gujarat, religious pogroms are often preceded by caste conflicts arising from out of a surge from the lower caste people. Many judicial commissions which inquired into religious pogroms have also noted that lower caste agitations and caste conflicts were made to turn suddenly into religious conflicts.
Then, there are two harmful effects to answer your question. First, the oppression of the lower caste people is being hidden, and hence it has now acquired the character of a ‘concentration camp’ that is very well integrated into all the spheres of life. Second, the treatment of religious groups, including Islam, Christianity, and Sikhism, as expedient populations provides bloody spectacles to avert the attention from caste oppression.
What is bizarre is that upper caste academics often say that colonialism fuelled and perpetuated the caste structure in order to divide and rule India. In contrast to this view, you have written with Shaj Mohan and J. Reghu that the relation between colonialism and Indian society should not be examined in a monolithic fashion from the point of view of the upper castes. You brought attention to the remarks of the lower caste leaders, including Phule, to say that the colonial experience was different for the lower caste people, who often welcomed it. Even earlier, you had called the independence movement a movement for the “transfer of power” from British rulers to traditional Indian rulers, who are the upper castes. This complicates the received wisdom about colonialism. Then what is the meaning of the Indian independence movement?
Mahatma Phule, Narayana Guru, and other lower caste leaders found the colonial experience to be the most liberating event in the history of the subcontinent. It was during British rule that the lower caste people gained the rights to walk the streets, be visible in public, gain education, find employment of their choosing, practice religion, and engage in politics. Dalit visionaries and mass mobilizers like Bhagyareddyvarma, Acchutananda, and Mangoo Ram emerged in different parts of the subcontinent thanks to the colonial disruption of caste. At the same time, colonialism was a traumatic experience for the upper-caste elites, who lost their dominance over the lower caste people to some extent. As Phule, in Ghulamgiri [Slavery], explained the upper caste interests in decolonisation, “[the bhats] are afraid that if we, the shudras, really become the brothers of the English, we will condemn their wily religious books and then these bhats who are so proud of their caste will have to eat dust; the lazy idlers will not be able to gorge themselves on the food produced by the sweat of our brow.” The movement for transfer of power sought to contain the effects of colonialism and to receive the power over the institutions and the territorial state created through colonialism. Therefore, the transfer of power movement cannot be called independence movement. The independence movement is yet to take place, which will make all Indians the free and equal agents in the construction of an egalitarian polity. Independence of India is possible only through the annihilation of caste.
The Mandal Commission’s recommendations paradoxically awakened the political aspirations of the lower caste people and simultaneously catalyzed the political consolidation of the higher castes. Could you explain the political significance of the Mandal Commission recommendations and the subsequent upper caste political mobilization through Ram temple agitation, which changed the trajectory of Indian politics to favor BJP?
The Mandal commission’s recommendation of reservation for the lower caste people is one of the most precise lines dividing politics between India on caste oppression. We can see who stands where if we look at their positions on the Mandal commission and reservations in general, including our academics, journalists, politicians and other institutions. It should be a serious project to examine and reveal the position of our public figures on reservations. When the Mandal commission report was tabled in Parliament, the political parties of India showed on which side of the caste line they stood.
Reservations are based on a few principles that acknowledge the injustices and disadvantages the lower caste people suffered due to the millennia-old caste oppression. Reservations are both acknowledgments of the historic crime of caste oppression, a mode of reparations, and a measure to show the state’s commitment to annihilating caste. As you know, economic reservation is a strategy to dilute the principle of reservation for the lower caste people by equating the economic disadvantage of some of the upper caste people with the historical oppression and humiliation suffered by the lower caste people. We should also look at the stance of political parties on the economic reservation.
To come to the other part of your question, when Mandal commission report created a Mandal movement and a surge of lower caste assertion in Indian politics for the first time, it alarmed the upper caste people. As I mentioned earlier, the upper caste BJP and its parent organization, the RSS, immediately proceeded to create the worst religious polarisation in India since the partition of the territories of British India. This was the Ram temple movement. A newspaper in 1990 wrote about the Ram temple movement, which led to the Babri mosque’s demolition, saying, “Due to the aura of Ram, the demon of Reservation ran away.”
It is a remark which reveals so much about our society. First, it shows the understanding that Rama is an upper-caste god who conquers the lower-caste people, who are demons in the eyes of the upper castes. Of course, it should not come as a surprise when we look at ancient history where the lower caste people were referred to as Dasyu, Dasa, Asura, Chandala, Mlechchhaand so on to dehumanize them. Further, it lays bare the strategy that Hinduism is the instrument through which lower caste aspirations can be slayed, for which religious minorities are a mere medium. We should wonder what is more sinister: That this is the reality of politics in India or that we accept this reality in our everyday life?
The success of the BJP has to do with a singular fact. The Congress party functioned as a liberal lobbying platform for mostly various upper caste interests since its beginnings. But after the transfer of power, it was forced to accommodate lower caste interests to a small extent. The upper castes found that the Congress was no longer suitable to defend its interests in the face of the Mandal movement since it was not a militia comparable to the RSS. The liberal character of the Congress and its nominal commitment to the Constitution of India made it inadequate to protect upper-caste interests. The RSS, considered a malignant organisation of terror by many with liberal left sympathies, suddenly became the most viable option. We are now at the beginning of the end of this process, which could either destroy the constitutional democratic character of India to implement direct upper-caste rule through the RSS or it might criticise India as such.
Why did Ambedkar fear that democracy would be a failed experiment in the Indian context? Is his prophetic anxiety coming true? What is the natural state of democracy today in India?
In November 1949, Ambedkar marked the symbolic meaning of the date 26 January 1950 as the achievement of democracy as a political form but without an actual establishment of, or even recognition of, “social democracy” where all are equal in status and opportunity and all treat each other with the respect and fellow-feeling that this requires. Let me quote again his expression of anxiety which is, precisely as you say, prophetic: “it is quite possible in a country like India […] there is a danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. This newborn democracy can retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact.” I can only venture an interpretation of this crucial distinction he drew because this space of an interview is too limited to think about the politics of Dr. Ambedkar.
The physicist Richard Feynman once gave an ethnographic account of a tribe in the South Seas to distinguish the spirit of scientific practice from merely going through motions or “cargo cult science”. Their islands had been used as military bases where they saw the coming and goings of airplanes ferrying precious cargo. Not conversing with the actual workings of this phenomenon, they tried years after the war brought back the planes by approximating the form of the activity. So they would light the runway with fires, wear coconut shells to imitate head phones, and bamboo sticks for antennae. Perhaps they hoped that airplanes would arrive if these ceremonies were performed, or maybe it was merely a new ritual without goals. These ceremonies are called the cargo cult. In India, what we have today is cargo cult democracy.
That is, we appear to have institutions and practices which appear to be similar to modern democratic institutions, such as the Parliament which does not debate the people’s concerns; the judiciary which appears unconcerned with jurisprudence and justice as we found with the Babri mosque demolition case and other everyday instances; universities which teach myths in the place of the sciences and philosophy; media which either propels genocidal hysteria or functions as the propaganda arm of some or the other political party; electoral processes hiding the supply of money to political parties. Our cargo cult democracy was anticipated by Dr. Ambedkar when he called for proportional representations.
Congress Flag.
To what extent has the Congress party been weakened by its dynastic moorings? Can the ‘dynastic’ element be eradicated from Indian politics, including the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), given that ours is a culture of patronage and tribal-minded continuities? When the BJP asserts that it will be in power for the next fifty years, is it not reincarnating the dynastic principle –party dynasty? Given that this power base is erected entirely on caste dynamics, cast in the guise of social engineering, what may we expect from the ‘New India’ that the BJP is unveiling today? Is ‘New India’ a sanitised moniker for upper caste Rashtra?
The term dynasty comes from the Greek dunamis, often translated as power and potentiality. Dunastes meant ruler or master. Today it represents the retention of power and resources within the same family irrespective of the domain, be they the professions of academia, law, politics, or business. Dynasty signifies the heritability of power and opportunities, which is also indicated by privilege. In India, upper castes in general, are the real dynasts in all domains of life that matter. The RSS is the biggest conglomerate of all upper caste dynasties, it is, after all called the Sangh Parivar, or the organizational mafiafamiliglia of the west coast. The Sangh famiglia now leads the ceremonies of the cargo cult democracy, as we do with the inaugurations of mountainous statues and constant changes of names of streets and cities.
But you are right; the present clamour against the Congress party’s dynasty masks the longest-serving caste order dynasty. There is something complicated about the charge of dynasty against the Congress party. On the one hand, the far right has been secerning their bloodlines to accuse them of being too mixed—Muslim, Parsi, Italian, Catholic—and on the other hand they are said to be a sort of Kashmiri dynasty. Perhaps, the problem is that they are a bit too mixed to be Hindu, which means upper caste. At the same time, it also shows the casteist anxiety of the Congress party, which wants to show that its leader is a sacred thread-wearing Brahmin. The Congress can either accept the politics of mixtures and profess a progressive politics, or they should anxiously submit themselves to the upper caste evaluations of the RSS. But then nearly all political parties are owned by families, like family-run businesses to be inherited by the next generation.
Heritability of power and opportunity is the cultural, genetic code of upper caste India, which seeks to reproduce genetically and culturally. I had called the concept behind such reproductions calypsology. Romila Thapar had shown that India could never come out of the clan-based rule, grounded in the caste order, to create something like a modern state. In other words, India will be unable to emerge from this stasis without the equivalent of a French-style Revolution that transforms the social order and can disrupt the heritable form of power and opportunity that is caste. That is to say it will be a social revolution rather than another transfer of power that alone will destroy the caste order.
The opposition parties are also trying to corner the government over Hosabale’s statement, but the big question is for whom this statement was meant? To whom and what message was Hosabale trying to convey through this statement?…writes Santosh Pathak
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has never openly admitted that the BJP is a subsidiary organisation, but it is known to all that the policy, strategy and statements of the Sangh are of great importance to the saffron party. This is the reason why the recent statement of RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale on poverty, rising unemployment and income inequality, is being considered very important.
Various meanings are being drawn from the statement of Hosabale, who holds the position of number two after Mohan Bhagwat in the Sangh. The opposition parties are also trying to corner the government over his statement, but the big question is for whom this statement was meant? To whom and what message was Hosabale trying to convey through this statement? What is the political significance of his statement and how is the BJP government at the Centre seeing this statement?
At a webinar organised by the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, Dattatreya Hosabale had advocated to end these problems, describing poverty, unemployment and the ever-increasing income inequality between rich and poor as a demon-like challenge.
Speaking to IANS, Ashwini Mahajan, national co-convener of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, claimed that this statement has nothing to do with politics.
Targeting the Congress, he said that the party doing politics on this statement is responsible for all these problems. He said that from time to time, many former Prime Ministers of the country have described these problems as a big challenge and the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi also considers it as a big challenge, so where did politics come in this.
Mahajan said, “What Dattatreya Hosabale has said is not new. The Sangh has been saying since the time of Dattopant Thengadi that the GDP model of economic development that we have adopted is not correct. Growing GDP does not mean that problems like poverty and unemployment are over.” He said that the Sangh has always believed that when we think about production, we should also think about employment, equality and distribution.
Modi, Shah
While praising the Modi government, he said that the government is working a lot in this direction and towards making India self-reliant, which has started showing positive results, but a lot more needs to be done in the future and the Sangh is seeing it as an opportunity.
Responding to the question whether Hosabale’s statement is a message to the BJP, Mahajan said that while speaking at the same event, he had said that it is a message to the entire society more than the government and we should all unite against these demons – poverty, unemployment and inequality. Explaining the strategy and plans of the Sangh, Mahajan said that the Sangh is not only talking but is also working on the ground to solve these problems.
He said that 15 affiliated organisations, including Swadeshi Jagran Manch, Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Sahakar Bharati, Vidya Bharti, Saksham, Deen Dayal Shodh Sansthan, Bharatiya Shikshan Mandal, are working together in this direction and later on many other affiliated organisations will also be joining in this direction.
The Swadeshi Jagran Manch leader said that the Sangh believes that for the creation of a self-sufficient and Atmanirbhar Bharat, and to eliminate problems like poverty, unemployment and economic inequality from the country, there is a need to do a lot of work in many areas like promoting entrepreneurship, employment generation centres, self-employment, small-scale cottage industries, decentralization of production and this work cannot be done by the government alone, and society will also have to come forward for it.
“The people of the country, officials, technocrats, public representatives, social workers and people associated with the industry, as well as people from every section of the society will have to come forward and play an important role in this,” he said.
On how the BJP is looking at the statement, BJP’s national spokesperson Gopal Krishna Agarwal said that the Sangh always works on important issues of the society and keeps on highlighting them. These problems are in the country and the Sangh has said that instead of relying only on government jobs, the people of the country should move towards self-employment and the BJP government is also making continuous efforts in this direction.
Praising the efforts of the Modi government for continuously working to deal with inflation, unemployment and to reduce the gap between the poor and the rich, the BJP spokesperson claimed that the rate of inflation in India is very low as compared to the US and European countries and the RBI is trying to reduce it further.
He added that while the government is continuously helping the poor by sending money directly to their accounts through various public welfare schemes, it is trying to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor by increasing the GST and direct tax collection.
JD-U national President Lalan Singh demanded that the Narendra Modi government clarify on what basis the ban was imposed on the PFI…reports Asian Lite News
In wake of the ban on the Popular Front of India (PFI), RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav said that every organisation, including the RSS, which are responsible for creating communal hatred in the country should also be banned.
“I firmly believe that the RSS should also be banned in the country. It is worse than the PFI. The previous government had banned the RSS twice. Earlier Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had imposed a ban on RSS in the country,” he said.
JD-U national President Lalan Singh demanded that the Narendra Modi government clarify on what basis the ban was imposed on the PFI.
“Centre should clarify on what basis it has imposed a ban on PFI. I want to wait for the clarification of the Centre,” he said.
The BJP hit back.
BJP OBC Morcha’s national General Secretary and state spokesperson Nikhil Anand said: “There is a competition going on among the parties involved in the Grand Alliance to become the champion of secularism. By speaking against the Sangh, Lalu Ji wants to satisfy the sentiments of Muslims to strengthen his vote bank.”
The meeting comes on the heels of Bhagwat interacting with a group of intellectuals from the Muslim community….reports Asian Lite News
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat has met Umer Ahmed Ilyasi at the Kasturba Gandhi Marg mosque in the national capital.
RSS’s Sunil Ambekar said it was a part of the continuous dialogue with the people.
The meeting comes on the heels of Bhagwat interacting with a group of intellectuals from the Muslim community.
In August, a five-member delegation met Bhagwat, and the meeting lasted for more than an hour. During the meeting the atmosphere in the country and measures to strengthen communal harmony were discussed in detail.
Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi, who was among the Muslim intellectuals who met Bhagwat, told IANS that he had sought an appointment with the Sangh chief regarding the communal atmosphere in the country. Following which the RSS chief met the delegation in Delhi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obDkig4_RrM
Speaking to IANS, Quraishi further said that both the sides (the delegation and the RSS chief) were unanimous that without strengthening the harmony between the communities, the country can neither be strong nor it can make progress. He said that in the meeting it was also agreed that all the parties should work to convince and motivate their people to strengthen the communal harmony in the country.
Besides Quraishi, other members of the delegation included former Lt. Governor of Delhi Najeeb Jung, former Vice Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University Lt. Gen. (Retd) Zameeruddin Shah, former MP Shahid Siddiqui and industrialist and philanthropist Saeed Sherwani.
The Union Minister said more needs to be done to improve health and education infrastructure in the country….reports Asian Lite News
Union Minister Nitin Gadkari on Thursday shared an anecdote and said he had once told industrialist Ratan Tata that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) did not discriminate on the basis of religion.
Gadkari, who inaugurated a hospital in Pune, said when he was a minister in the Maharashtra government, one of the RSS functionaries had requested him to help in getting Ratan Tata for the inauguration of a hospital.
“During the inauguration, Ratan Tata asked me if this hospital is only for the Hindu community, to which I asked him why he feels that? He (Ratan Tata) replied as it is an RSS hospital. I told him that it is for every community and there is nothing like this in RSS,” he added.
The Union Minister said more needs to be done to improve health and education infrastructure in the country.
“In the education and health sector, the facilities are not available as required in the country. If the urban area has the facilities, the situation in the rural areas is not good, especially the situation of education. But the facilities are improving,” he said.
Gadkari also said that he “does only 10 per cent politics and 90 per cent social work”.
Yechury slams RSS chief
Communist Party of India( Marxist) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury on Thursday slammed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat’s comment on ‘Akhand Bharat’ and said that RSS is playing with people’s emotion.
While talking to ANI, Yechury said, “What is this Akhand Bharat? They live on spreading this sort of poison, hate and consequently, violence follows. Please explain to Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan what ‘Akhand Bharat’ they are talking about.”
“They are just playing with the people’s emotion and think that they would get the support of the people then this is a big mistake,” Yechury said.
CPI (M) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury further told ANI, “The unity, integrity of the country and such diversity only maintain through social harmony and communal harmony that is being violated and this it is a disservice to the great country like India.”
Earlier on Wednesday, Bhagwat said, “India will again become ‘Akhand Bharat’ in 15 years. We will see all this with our own eyes. He said that according to astrology from the saints, in 20 to 25 years, India will again be a united India.”
“If all of us together increase the speed of this work, then in 10 to 15 years, Akhand Bharat will be formed. In 15 years, the country will be rebuilt, all those who come in the way will be erased,” he added while inaugurating the idol of Brahmalin Mahamandaleshwar Shri 1008 Swami Divyanand Giri, Pran Pratishtha and Shri Gurutray Temple in Kankhal in Haridwar in Uttarakhand. (ANI)
