|
Hindu revivalism remains a growing force in India today. It is also a concern
among the millions of displaced Hindus scattered around the world. Its roots lie
in the belief that Hinduism is an endangered lifestyle. This notion is fuelled
by the political assertiveness of minority groups, efforts to convert Hindus to
other faiths, suspicions that the political authorities are sympathetic to
minority groups and the belief that foreign political and religious ideologies
are destroying the Hindu community. Every morning at sunrise, groups of men in
military-style uniforms gather together before saffron coloured flags, in all
parts of India, to participate in a common set of rituals, physical exercises
and lessons. For one hour each day, they are taught to think of themselves as a
family with a mission to transform Hindu society. (Andersen and Damle 1) They
are the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the largest and most influential
organization in India committed to Hindu revivalism. The RSS or National
Volunteer Organization, is perhaps the most interesting of any of India's social
movements.
The growth of the RSS provides a detailed illustration of India’s changing
face. The purpose of this paper is to provide the reader with an early twentieth
century view of an organization that emerged out of frustrations among India’s
Hindu revivalists. These revivalists were discontent with the work of
nationalists in politics, and determined to unify the Hindus of India against
the “alien” threats within the nation. The origins of nationalist movements in
nineteenth century India can be traced to the expansion of Western, English
education. Those attracted to the new education came primarily from high caste
Hindu groups. Many of the proponents of social, political and religious reform
among Hindus were drawn from this English educated class. Until very late in the
nineteenth century, most politically articulate Indians were willing to
collaborate with the colonial administration. However, a shift from
collaboration to criticism began in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Two broad movements emerged among Hindus seeking to define their national
identity: modernists and revivalists. The modernists adopted models of social
and political change based upon Western patterns; they appreciated many of the
Western philosophies and wanted India to follow suit. The revivalist view was
based on returning to a Hindu antiquity that was thought to be superior for
governing India—a “Hindu” nation. Many felt that this desire to recreate the age
of Hindu grandeur was also a result of English education; ideas of patriotism
and nationalism crept into these peoples way of thought. It was the English
study of the Indian way of life that added to the revivalist movement.
Revivalism included those who wanted to preserve the traditional social order as
well as those who sought to reform Hindu society as a way of strengthening Hindu
solidarity. The RSS traces its roots to the revivalist feelings that were
present at that time. The Hindu revivalists sought to recover fundamental truths
about their people.
They argued that the loss of national consciousness had created conditions
that facilitated British domination of the land. By appealing to an idealized
past, the revivalists reminded the Hindu public of the suffering and degradation
experienced under British rule. The call for independence was a logical
next-step, for the degraded present could only be overcome by eliminating the
foreign intruders who had supposedly disrupted the original blissful society.
Muslim rulers and the British were identified as sources of that disruption and
many revivalist spokesmen sought to place limits on their political power and on
their cultural influence. The proposed changes in Hindu society were justified
by the proposition that the changes were not new at all, but were in fact a
revival of older, purer forms of Hindu culture that had degenerated during
foreign rule. Opposition to British rule increased among both the moderates and
the more extremists, as the contradictions between colonial rule and new
aspirations became obvious. Criticism of India’s colonial status was supported
by observation of British attitudes. The British viewed Indians and Indian
culture as inferior.
Educated Indians were considerably upset when the British began to
characterize them as feminine, cowardly and unrepresentative of the native
culture. The racial arrogance often expressed by European officials, businessmen
and missionaries, made a substantial contribution to the nationalist sentiment.
Constitutional reforms that offered increased Indian participation in the
legislative bodies and bureaucracy did not match expectations. The Western
educated Indians believed that they should enjoy the same civil liberties as the
English. With the development of new techniques of agitation, the government
undermined popular trust by enforcing regulations that further diminished civil
liberties. The claims that British economic policies caused a drain of wealth
from India, further enforced the view that the British were fundamentally
unconcerned with the country’s well being. (Andersen and Damle 30)
Developments in the late nineteenth century created conditions conducive to
the expansion of revivalism. Nationalism was beginning to assert itself. The
revivalist message, based on traditional Hindu concepts regarding society, was
appealing to many Indian Hindus. In pre-independent India, the premier
nationalist organization was the Indian National Congress, an umbrella
organization that accommodated a variety of interests including those of the
revivalists. However, the Congress was not entirely successful in adequately
satisfying all groups. Many Muslim leaders felt that Westernized Hindu elite,
who controlled the Congress, did not adequately respond to Muslim interests. The
same sentiments were shared by Hindu revivalist leaders regarding the Hindu
community. The founder of the RSS doubted whether the Congress, which included
Muslims, could bring about the desired unity of the Hindu community.
As the Hindu and Muslim leaders within these communities continued to feel
unfairly represented, they turned to forming other political organizations
claiming to represent their respective groups. It would be appropriate to note
that there was no cohesive community, either Hindu or Muslim, in India that was
united. These communities were divided by many barriers, and developed in each
region differently, both politically and socially. What these organizations did
represent was a certain aspect of their respective communities that was very
defensive in nature. The RSS was established in 1925 as a kind of educational
body whose objective was to train a group of Hindu men who would work together
to unite the Hindu community, so that India could once again become an
independent country. The RSS emerged during a wave of Hindu-Muslim riots that
had swept across India at the time. The RSS viewed communal rioting as a symptom
of the weakness and division within the Hindu community, and argued that
independence could be achieved only after the splintered Hindu community,
divided by caste, religion, language, and sect, united.
(Andersen and Damle 32) The formation of the RSS can be attributed to the
defensive nature of the Hindu community at the time. The deterioration of
Hindu-Muslim relations and the continual frustration with the Indian National
Congress led to the rise of the RSS. During India’s pre-independence period, the
two leaders of the RSS, its founder Keshav Baliram Hedgewar and Madhav Sadashiv
Golwalker, felt that a fundamental change in social attitudes was a necessity
before any changes occurred in the nation. The creation of a properly trained
force of nationalists would be the first step in altering such attitudes. Most
revivalists argued that Gandhi’s efforts in the early 1920s to strengthen
Hindu-Muslim bonds by lining up the Congress organization behind the Muslim
protest against the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire encouraged Muslim
separatism. When he launched his first major non-cooperation movement in India
on August 1, 1920, one of the issues was the British unwillingness to satisfy
Muslims on the Turkish issue.
|
