Then, RSS was loyal to the British Government, and today BJP shows its meek subservience to US diktats, foreign capital, corporate looters and those entrenched in corruption. There are numerous examples of this: the current BJP Government’s moves to make the country’s education dependent on the diktats of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the same Government’s absolute silence on the attacks on Indians in Trump’s America, legalising unlimited and anaonymous corporate funding and foreign funding without scrutiny for political parties, massive corruption in the Rafale defence deal for corporate profiteering, offering coal-mining projects to Adani Group in Jharkhand and the Government’s brazen cronyism in allowing Reliance Jio’s non-existent Institute to get an ‘Eminence’ tag. When people resist the Government and expose its betrayal of the interests of India’s people, RSS and its various outfits try to brand all the protesting people as ‘anti-national.’ Using the charade of “nationalism”, RSS not only tries to cover up its past treachery with the freedom movement, but also wants to hide its present anti-people and pro-corporate character. In the name of ‘nationalism’, they create frenzy to suppress protesting voices and spread communal venom across the country.

it was none other than Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who became the first President of independent India, who brought to the notice of the first home minister of India, Sardar Patel that, “I am told that RSS people have a plan of creating trouble. They have got a number of men dressed as Muslims and looking like Muslims who are to create trouble with the Hindus by attacking them and thus inciting the Hindus. Similarly there will be some Hindus among them who will attack Muslims and thus incite Muslims. The result of this kind of trouble amongst the Hindus and Muslims will be to create a conflagration.”[ii]

No other fascist organization, in the present world, can beat Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in demagogy, double-speak and unabashed use of conspiracies. A leading Indian English daily, in the aftermath of 2002 genocide of Muslims in Gujarat, candidly wrote that in case of the RSS, what George Orwell termed as “doublespeak” would be an understatement.[i] It stands true always in the case of RSS. So far as its conspiring mind-set is concerned, it was none other than Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who became the first President of independent India, who brought to the notice of the first home minister of India, Sardar Patel that,

"Those who still believe the Brahmins should take a serious note of the changing times and start leading an awakened life." -Periyar

The real aim and objective of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

AGAINST NAMING THE COUNTRY AS INDIA **********************************When the Constituent Assembly decided to name the country as India, it was RSS which vehemently demanded it to be named as ‘Hindusthan’, the land of and for Hindus. In an editorial (titled ‘Hindusthan’) in its English organ, Organizer dated July 31, 1947, it demanded that whether it was the issue of naming it or finalizing the character of its polity, the exclusive Hindu character must be guaranteed.

Citing examples of ‘Drifting’ from the Hindutva goals by the Founding Fathers, Golwalkar wrote: “ *************************************…Our leaders have set up a new flag for our country. Why did they do so? It is just a case of drifting and imitating. How did this flag come into being? During the French Revolution, the French put up three stripes on their flag to express the triple ideas of ‘equality’, ‘fraternity’ and ‘liberty’. The American Revolution inspired by similar principles took it up with some changes. Three stripes therefore held a sort of fascination for our freedom fighters also. So, it was taken up by the Congress. Then it was interpreted as depicting the unity of the various communities-the saffron colour standing for the Hindu, the green for the Muslim and the white for all the other communities. Out of the non-Hindu communities the Muslim was specially named because in the minds of most of those eminent leaders the Muslim was dominant and without naming him they did not think that our nationality could be complete! When some persons pointed out that this smacked of a communal approach, a fresh, explanation was brought forward that he ‘saffron’ stood for sacrifice, the ‘white’ for purity and the ‘green’ for peace and so on. All these interpretations were discussed in the Congress Committees during those days. Who can say that this is a pure and healthy national outlook? It was just a politician’s patchwork, just political expediency. It was not inspired by any national vision or truth based on our national history and heritage. The same flag has been taken up today as our State Flag with only a glorious past. Then, had we no flag of our own? Had we no national emblem at all these thousands of years? Undoubtedly, we had. Then, why this void, this utter vacuum in our minds?”

Even after independence when the Tricolour became the National Flag, it was the RSS which refused to accept it as the National Flag. Golwalkar opposed this choice of the national Flag in an essay entitled ‘Drifting and Drifting’ (reproduced from in the book Bunch of Thoughts, a collection of Golwalkar’s writings in English published by the RSS in 1966).

It was in July 1947 that the Constituent Assembly of Independent India deliberated on the issue of the National Flag of the country and adopted the Tricolour as the national Flag. However, RSS under the leadership of M. S. Golwalkar refused to accept as one. While addressing a Gurupurnima gathering in Nagpur on July 14, 1946, stated that it was the saffron flag which in totality represented their great culture. It was the embodiment of God: “We firmly believe that in the end the whole nation will bow before this saffron flag.”

Shockingly, RSS organ Organizer on the eve of Independence of India carried a long piece, ‘Mystery behind the Bhagwa Dhawaj’, which while demanding hoisting of saffron flag at the ramparts of Red Fort in Delhi openly denigrated the choice of the Tricolour as the National Flag. “The people who have come to power by the kick of fate may give in our hands the Tricolour but it never [sic] be respected and owned by Hindus. The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country.”

RSS says, “If the Hindus in Hindusthan had a common civilization, culture, customs and manners, a common language and common traditions, they had also a flag, the oldest and the noblest in the world, just as they and their civilization are the oldest in the world. That is the historical perspective through which the question of our National Flag should be approached and not in the slipshod manner in which it is being done at present. It is true that temporary misfortunes following foreign invasions and all the horrors that attended them threw the National Flag of Hindus into the shade. But all knew that it is bound to rise again one day to its pristine glory and greatness. There is something immensely endearing to the nation’s heart and soul in this unique colour of the Flag which is the colour peculiar to the morn [morning] when life-giving sun makes his slow but majestic appearance in the east. In the same way, our forefathers have handed down this glorious flag of ours as the life-giving force to the world. It is only the ignorant and the malicious who can not find or appreciate this peculiar charm, nobility and grandeur in the Flag—a charm, nobility and grandeur as glorious as that of the sun itself. This Flag and this alone can be the true national Flag of Hindusthan. That and that alone will be the only one acceptable to the nation. There is growing evidence of this insistent demand on the part of the public and the Constituent Assembly would be well advised to carry out their wishes.”[iii]

Organizer, RSS English organ, in its editorial (titled ‘The Nation’s Flag’), dated July 17, 1947, while reacting to the news that the committee of the Constituent Assembly of India on national Flag had decided in favour of Tricolour as the National Flag since it was acceptable to all parties and communities wrote***************************************“We do not at all agree that the Flag ‘should be acceptable to all parties and communities in India’. This is sheer nonsense. The Flag represents the nation and there is only one nation in Hindusthan, the Hindu Nation, with an unbroken history extending over 5,000 years. That is the nation and the flag must symbolize that nation and that nation alone. We can not possibly choose a flag with a view to satisfy the desires and wishes of all the communities. That is to complicate matters and is unwarranted and entirely unnecessary…We cannot order the choice of a flag as we order a tailor to make a shirt or coat for us…

The RSS English organ Organizer in its editorial (titled ‘The Nation’s Flag’), dated July 17, 1947, while reacting to the news that the committee of the Constituent Assembly of India on national Flag had decided in favour of Tricolour as the National Flag since it was acceptable to all parties and communities wrote*******************************************************“If the Hindus in Hindusthan had a common civilization, culture, customs and manners, a common language and common traditions, they had also a flag, the oldest and the noblest in the world, just as they and their civilization are the oldest in the world. That is the historical perspective through which the question of our National Flag should be approached and not in the slipshod manner in which it is being done at present. It is true that temporary misfortunes following foreign invasions and all the horrors that attended them threw the National Flag of Hindus into the shade. But all knew that it is bound to rise again one day to its pristine glory and greatness. There is something immensely endearing to the nation’s heart and soul in this unique colour of the Flag which is the colour peculiar to the morn [morning] when life-giving sun makes his slow but majestic appearance in the east. In the same way, our forefathers have handed down this glorious flag of ours as the life-giving force to the world. It is only the ignorant and the malicious who can not find or appreciate this peculiar charm, nobility and grandeur in the Flag—a charm, nobility and grandeur as glorious as that of the sun itself. This Flag and this alone can be the true national Flag of Hindusthan. That and that alone will be the only one acceptable to the nation. There is growing evidence of this insistent demand on the part of the public and the Constituent Assembly would be well advised to carry out their wishes.”

Importantly, Organizer in an editorial (titled ‘Whither’) on the very eve of Independence, dated 14 August, 1947, while rejecting the whole concept of a composite nation wrote: *****************************************“Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. Much of the mental confusion and the present and future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of the simple fact that in Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must be built on that safe and sound foundation…The nation itself must be built up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations.”[ii]

RSS branded the concept of a composite Indian nation as a British conspiracy and went on to decry Mr. Hume (one of the founders of the Indian National Congress) for advancing the theory that “Muslims were equal partners in this land of the Hindus—Hindusthan—and propagated the theory that Hindus and Muslims combined could only make a nation. Unfortunately, neither the Hindu masses nor the leaders could see the trap and they began to honestly believe that India’s salvation lay in Hindu-Muslim unity, for which they strove with all their might. Things proceeded according to British plan and the Muslims began to claim equal partnership in the country.”[i]

The editorial (titled ‘Glorious Hindu Nation’) in the maiden issue of the English organ of RSS dated July 3, 1947 strongly rejected any talk of an Indian nation where Hindus and Muslims would stay as equal partners. It branded the concept of a composite Indian nation as a British conspiracy and went on to decry Mr. Hume (one of the founders of the Indian National Congress) for advancing the theory

WHY HINDUISM IS DIFFERENT FROM HINDUTVA OF RSS/BJP? ************************************ Hinduism is the dominant religion of India or Hindustan (land of Hindus) and Nepal and is also practiced by many people of Indonesia, Cambodia, Srilanka, Philippines, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and some caribbean island states. The term Hindutva, on the other hand, was coined by Hindu nationalist leader and champion of Hindu causes, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, in his famous 1923 pamphlet ‘Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?’.The term Hindutva has been nursed and popularized by the largest Hindu nationalistic conglomerate Sangh Parivar and its numerous affiliates. Hindutva is more political in meaning, connotation, and emphasis. Hindutva has been and is still being used as a very powerful political weapon in the hands of the pro-Hindu politico-religious umbrella organization namely Sangh Parivar, which is very powerful and financially extremely well placed. Sangh Parivar, through its numerous affiliates, wants to establish a political and social system with clear hegemony of Hindus either by birth or through conversion.

MS Golwalkar, became the leader of the RSS in 1940. In his view, the RSS had pledged to achieve freedom through "defending religion and culture", not by fighting the British. Golwalkar lamented the anti-British nationalism, calling it a "reactionary view" that, he claimed, had disastrous effects upon the entire course of the freedom struggle.

The RSS' opposition to, and vitriolic attacks against, the Constitution of India continued post-independence. In 1966 Golwalkar, in his book titled Bunch of Thoughts asserted: Our Constitution too is just a cumbersome and heterogeneous piecing together of various articles from various Constitutions of Western countries. It has absolutely nothing, which can be called our own. Is there a single word of reference in its guiding principles as to what our national mission is and what our keynote in life is? No!

1950 the Organizer, RSS mouthpiece, carried another article, titled "Manu Rules our Hearts", written by a retired High Court Judge named Sankar Subba Aiyar. It stated: "Even though Dr. Ambedkar is reported to have recently stated in Bombay that the days of Manu have ended it is nevertheless a fact that the daily lives of Hindus are even at present-day affected by the principles and injunctions contained in the Manusmrithi and other Smritis. Even an unorthodox Hindu feels himself bound at least in some matters by the rules contained in the Smrithis and he feels powerless to give up altogether his adherence to them."