"Hindu Demons and Secular Gods: Targeting the BJP and the RSS."

[Guest guest]

>OFBJP <OFBJP

>OFBJP Editor <Editor

>"Hindu Demons and Secular Gods: Targeting the BJP and the RSS."

>Sun, 9 Apr 2000 17:40:11 -0400 (EDT)

>

 

>

>Interview with Dr. Ramesh N. Rao on his book: "Hindu Demons and Secular

>Gods: Targeting the BJP and the RSS."

>

>"Hindu Demons and Secular Gods: Targeting the BJP and the RSS"

>Dr. Ramesh N. Rao, associate professor of communication, Truman State

>University is the author of the book with the above title awaiting

>publication.

>

>Here is an exclusive interview Vijaykumar Chalasani of HamaraShehar.com had

>with Dr.Ramesh N Rao recently.

>

>

>HS: Dr. Rao, what is the book about, and why did you write it?

>

>RR: It is an analysis of the RSS and its affiliates, including the BJP,

>following the Ayodhya incident in 1992. There have been numerous books

>published, post-Ayodhya, that are critical of the "Sangh Parivar", and I

>thought it would be interesting to take a fresh look at the events

>preceding

>the Babri masjid destruction of 1992, and what followed it. I had neither

>the background for nor an interest in writing such a book, but when

>newspapers began to publish shrill pieces of "analysis" as soon as the BJP

>came to power in 1998 I began to read what had been published in the past

>ten years. I was aghast at the programmatic and sustained campaign of

>vilification and demonization that had followed the Ayodhya incident, and I

>was even more surprised at how the RSS had been portrayed since its

>inception.

>

>HS: So, what did you find out?

>

>RR: First of all, I realized that my generation of Indians had been

>programmed to look at Indian history in a particular way. Our education had

>basically directed us to gloss over certain aspects of history and

>politics.

>Gandhi and Nehru were the "fathers" of Indian independence, and the rest

>were minor figures who each got a sentence or a paragraph in our middle

>school and high school history textbooks. History prior to British

>colonization was a strange blur of characters and dates, and there was a

>rather large chunk of it devoted to the Mughals. Some brief mention of the

>four Vedas, and of the Ramayana and Mahabharata were all there was to

>Indian

>"pre-history". I realized that was how India was "framed" for us, and that

>the RSS and similar organizations had been seeking to enlarge that frame, a

>frame they labeled "Hindutva", and that I needed to read a lot about it to

>understand the events leading up to the Ayodhya disaster and events

>following it.

>

>HS: Is the RSS then right in talking about Hindutva?

>

>RR: I think the RSS and its supporters should realize one thing first.

>There

>is no way that the Christians and Muslims, let alone the Communist

>Hindu-haters will accept Hindutva. That attempt to convince the followers

>of

>the three most deadly ideologies in the world is a wasted effort. The RSS'

>policy of bringing the converted back to the Hindu fold will be only

>marginally effective if its main policy is not focused on spreading the

>precepts of Hindu philosophy, or Vedantism, working hard to rid the

>inequities of caste, and making sure that Hindus clean up their home first.

>Let the Christians and the Muslims and the Communists slug their battles

>out

>amongst themselves. There is enough bad blood amongst them to last a few

>generations. Look, for those advocating Hindutva it means that those living

>in India should accept the country as both their motherland and their holy

>land. Sorry, I don't think that will appeal to the Muslims who turn towards

>Mecca five times a day to pray, and for the Christians who swear by Jesus'

>second coming.

>

>HS: So, is the advocating of Hindutva equal to fascism or Nazism?

>

>RR: Well, at least according to our home-bred communists, and their

>strident

>followers in academe and the media. But drawing such an analogy is a

>travesty. And it is unfortunate that in India we have had a whole

>generation

>of scholars and media pundits who have labored hard to push that kind of an

>analysis, and they have been successful to quite a large extent in the

>West.

>Go to any U.S. university and look at the books that are used in their

>South

>Asia history or political science programs, or look at the dissertations

>that are being churned out year in and year out on this matter, and you

>will

>find not one program, not one course, not one dissertation that allows for

>a

>nuanced reading of modern Indian history and politics. I term the kind of

>analyses that such academics have pursued as "theory in search of data".

>They have very little data to pin the blame on the sangh parivar. But they

>have a whole lot of fancy theories - modern, postmodern, feminist, and

>Marxist - to work with and use against the RSS and its affiliates.

>

>HS: But not all these academics could be collaborating on painting the RSS

>into a corner?

>

>RR: There is a strong belief among the ordinary public that scholars and

>university departments work in such a way that the truth will be out. The

>truth will be out mostly in the scientific and quasi-scientific areas.

>However, the humanities and the social sciences are a whole different

>ball-game. There is no particular and easily validated "truth" in the world

>of religion, politics, history, and culture. Thus it is easy to shape

>"reality". Scholars have vested interests in telling a particular story and

>a particular kind of story about the world we live in. And not so strangely

>enough, for the past fifty years, it was convenient to tell India's

>history,

>modern, medieval, and ancient in particular ways to enable some to shape

>the

>modern Indian nation and polity. The RSS came in handy as the "bogey man"

>for explaining away India's troubles. For these scholars, these

>politicians,

>the partition, the thousand years of conflict between the Muslims and

>Hindus, all of it could be wished away if only the RSS would behave!

>Unfortunately for these "leaders" most Indians would not buy into that kind

>of "groupthink"

>

>HS: So, what did you find out about the RSS, the BJP and the other parivar

>affiliates?

>

>RR: That they are more sinned against than sinning! Honestly, very few in

>India know the history and work of the RSS. What some knee-jerk, liberal,

>secular, Indian or Western graduate student or academic thinks of the RSS

>or

>writes about the RSS is based on a very cursory and a very biased reading

>of

>the work of the RSS and the life and times of the RSS leaders. It was

>fashionable to label the RSS leaders as authoritarian or fascist simply

>because the RSS was founded by a Maharashtrian Brahmin (Dr. Hedgewar) who

>felt keenly the dissension and division in Indian polity, and in whose

>lifetime there were the kinds of conflict between Hindus and Muslims that

>pained, troubled, and worried him. Most of our "secular" leaders, starting

>with Gandhi, want to sweep the Muslim "problem" under the carpet, and they

>hope that way things will be sorted out. That sweeping under the carpet

>created Pakistan, that attitude is keeping the Kashmir problem burning, and

>that attitude ignores the pan-Islamic movement that targets Indians and

>Hindus. Hedgewar, and his successor Golwalkar, sought to strengthen the

>Hindu polity and society, not weaken or threaten the Muslims. They believed

>that in strength and cohesion lay India's prosperous future. They feared

>that dissension and division would lead to the kinds of onslaughts on India

>that India had witnessed for a thousand years. Indians have been

>sleep-walking for a long time, and they have continued to do so after

>independence. I think that the RSS ideology and philosophy needs to be

>given

>a proper hearing, and not subjected to the kind of knee-jerk slander that

>has been the hall-mark of Indian, left, academic "analyses".

>

>HS: What about Western academics writing about the RSS?

>

>RR: Let me give you two examples. The first is a book by Christophe

>Jaffrelot, a French academic, which was first published in France in 1993,

>and republished by Columbia University in 1996. It is "impressive" in the

>usual fashion: lots of research, lots of theoretical speculation, and the

>usual "objective" style preferred by academics. But read carefully, and you

>will find the most biased projections and speculations. Jaffrelot

>concludes,

>"The strategy of stigmatisation and emulation of 'threatening Others' is

>based on a feeling of vulnerability born of a largely imaginary threat

>posed

>by 'aliens', principally Muslims and Christians. This strategy is the

>cornerstone of the Hindu nationalist movement; it was the first to be

>formulated, and sustains its ideology" (p. 522). According to Jaffrelot,

>the

>Hindu fear of Muslims and Christians is "born of a largely imaginary

>threat". So, for scholars like him, the Indian history consisting of the

>pillage, murder, and desecration of India for a thousand years is merely an

>"imagined" history! The modern division of India into India and Pakistan

>and

>Bangladesh is also "imaginary". The threats of Osama bin Laden is also

>"imaginary". The three wars India has fought with Pakistan in the last 50

>years is also "imaginary". The call of the Pope last year to make the next

>millennium in Asia a Christian millennium is also "imaginary". The crusades

>by the likes of a Pat Robertson and a hundred other Christian groups out to

>"harvest" souls for Christ is also "imaginary". An academic like Jaffrelot

>has even the temerity to suggest that the RSS does social work merely as a

>tactic: "The urban success of the BJP was symptomatic of the implantation

>by

>the RSS and its affiliates of a dense network of activists and of the

>latter's propagation of Hindu nationalism and a social welfare tactic"

>(italics mine) (p. 511).

>

>The other book that I am going to mention is by Thomas Blom Hansen, a

>Danish

>scholar, and whose book has been published by Princeton University Press.

>It

>came out in 1999, and is titled "The Saffron Wave". In his introductory

>chapter, "Hindu nationalism and democracy", Hansen says that the "enormous

>diversity of India obviously makes it impossible to generalize too heavily

>from this material" (material collected only from Maharashta, and only in

>the form of random interviews), but goes on to generalize anyway. At the

>end

>of the chapter he acknowledges the benefit from scholars who have commented

>on his work. And if you read the list of scholars, it is a who's who of the

>usual suspects. There is not one person in there who has written anything

>favorable of the RSS or the BJP or who has anything kind to say about the

>reasons for the rise of Hindu nationalism. Most of them, especially the

>Indian scholars - Partha Chatterjee, Bipan Chandra, Amiya Kumar Bagchi -

>are

>the ones who have built a cottage industry of manufacturing arguments to

>demonize the BJP and the RSS. And neither Hansen nor Jaffrelot refer to the

>works of Arun Shourie, Koenraad Elst, Ram Swarup, Sita Ram Goel, and others

>who have written a lot on the state of the modern Indian nation, and give

>their version of why and how the RSS and the BJP have come to acquire some

>popularity.

>

>HS: So, according to you, the RSS and the BJP have done no wrong?

>

>RR: No, I do not claim that. I believe that in the rough and tumble of

>Indian politics that it would be well nigh impossible to maintain the high

>ground even by the most disciplined and well-managed party. But I do

>believe

>that the RSS is led by thoughtful and well-educated people, and has always

>been so. Each one of its top leaders have had very good academic

>qualifications, and they have led a modest if not an ascetic life. They

>seek

>to inculcate in the people a love for the great Indian philosophical and

>religious (if there is something like that in India) texts and precepts.

>They have consistently and seriously tried to remove the blemish of caste

>and caste divisions in society. However, even some of its well-wishers,

>like

>Koenraad Elst, have said that the RSS tends to be a little archaic, a

>little

>too slow to change and respond to feedback, and so on. In my book I have

>detailed some of those criticisms and the RSS response to them. I met two

>senior leaders of the RSS, Mr. H. V. Seshadri (general secretary) and Mr.

>K.

>Suryanarayana Rao (a veteran RSS leader now head of their publicity

>division). I also met a number of old time RSS workers, who had to quit the

>RSS because they joined government service or whatever, but now in their

>golden years have come back to the fold. These were retired chief

>engineers,

>heads of universities, scientists, doctors, and businessmen. I met them in

>the house of a wonderful man in Bangalore, whose work and attitude, at age

>75 is something that I wish I could emulate. Now, I mention these things to

>tell you that the RSS is not a moribund and calcified organization. It may

>not be as adept as some other political or social groups in India who know

>how to use the media, but that may be its biggest sin. And don't forget,

>there is enough manipulation by Christian and Muslim organizations in India

>which call upon their "international" connections to hound the RSS and its

>affiliates.

>

>As far as the BJP is concerned, I believe that Advani's rath yatra was a

>double-edged program. In one sense, it brought some focus to the BJP's

>agenda and to the people's anxiety and concern about the corruption,

>criminality, and conflict that was sapping the nation. However, it also

>unleashed a movement that was rather difficult to control and manage. I

>think that the BJP lost more than it gained by focusing on the Ram

>janmabhoomi issue. But that is the irony and paradox of life. The BJP now

>is

>also not very good at lining up its ducks in terms of policy, principles,

>and programs. Look at the latest fracas in parliament on the Gujarat

>government's policy of allowing government servants to become RSS members.

>Unless the policy had been approved by the Central government, and unless

>the BJP had gotten its 22-party coalition to agree to it, and unless their

>parliamentary affairs minister had given serious thought to the management

>of debate in parliament, it was foolish to do something like that. Anyway,

>they went ahead and did it. Now they have lost face because of the way the

>Congress and other opposition parties held parliament hostage, and because

>the BJP coalition parties chickened out. This is just one example. There

>are

>some others that I have highlighted in my book.

>

>HS: So, would be fair to say your book is pro-BJP and pro-RSS?

>

>RR: If you wish to characterize it that way, I have no problem. I realized

>half-way through the project that it was difficult to be a "middle of the

>roader" or a "fence sitter" on this issue. I did not grow up in a household

>that had anyone attending an RSS shakha or anyone who expressed any

>sympathies for the RSS. I did not have friends in school who were RSS

>swayamsevaks. I did not know anyone in college who were ABVP members. So, a

>lot of what I have found out about the RSS and the Jan Sangh/BJP has been

>on

>my own, and that too fairly recently. Like any "new convert" I may be

>making

>the case rather strongly. I have no doubt that any human organization has

>to

>deal with contradictions, both internal and external. But from what I have

>found talking to some senior RSS and BJP folks is that they are aware of

>those pulls and pressures, and of those contradictions. Overall, I believe

>that the BJP and the RSS have intelligent and some wise men guiding those

>two organizations. But India is now going through another period of flux

>and

>who knows how the country and the people will respond to events and

>concerns.

>

>Dr. Ramesh N. Rao, associate professor of communication, Truman State

>University is the author of "Hindu Demons and Secular Gods: Targeting the

>BJP and the RSS."

>

>

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com