Just as the historical horror of the partition of India is indelible in history and no one can forget or deny, so no one can deny or ignore the fact that the ideological forefathers of the present rulers have nothing to do with the freedom of India. fight was Not only this, he was the first to introduce the idea of ’two nations’ based on religion – Hindu and Muslim, which was later adopted by the Muslim League and on the basis of this he got Pakistan.
The umbilical cord of the present rulers of India and their political organization (Bharatiya Janata Party) is associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Hindu Mahasabha. Both these organizations not only stayed away from the freedom struggle but also openly opposed it.
Not only this, in the form of ‘Quit India Movement’ started in 1942 when India’s freedom struggle was in its fastest and decisive phase, during this time RSS and Hindu Mahasabha leaders went sided completely with the British government as they opposed this move. were were
The dreamer and founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had started singing the tune of Pakistan much later by breaking away from the freedom movement, but the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha believed from the beginning that both Hindus and Muslims are separate nations. And the two can never be together. Just as the Muslim League was engaged in spreading hatred of Hindus among the Muslims of the country, so the RSS was engaged in spreading hatred of Muslims in the minds of Hindus. That is, both types of communal forces were working on the agenda of British rule.
Incidentally, the RSS never hid its distance from the freedom movement and its campaign of hatred towards Muslims. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS and the first Sir Sanghchalak (1925–1940), carefully kept the RSS out of the freedom struggle against British rule.
Hedgewar took the utmost care that none of his activities should link him with opponents of British rule. It is also accepted in Hedgewar’s official biography: “After the establishment of the Sangh, Dr. Saheb used to talk only about the Hindu organization in his speeches. The comments about the government used to be insignificant.
Rejecting the Congress call for a united struggle of all communities in the country under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, Hedgewar had said, “Hindu culture is the lifeblood of Hindustan. Therefore, it is clear that if wants to protect India, we must first nurture Hindu culture.
Hedgewar had also condemned Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt Satyagraha and said, “Today going to jail is considered a sign of patriotism. Until then, the liberation of the nation is impossible.
In the context of the Congress’s Salt Satyagraha and the growing repression of the British government, he instructed the RSS workers: “Under no circumstances should the RSS be endangered by this current movement.”
After Hedgewar’s death in 1940, Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar alias Guruji, the leading commentator of the RSS and second Sar Sanghchalak, also made no secret of his dislike for the independence movement. How he disliked any movement or program against the British rulers can be gauged from his words: “There is another reason for the necessity of the idea of always engaging in routine work. Now and then there there is a great upheaval in the mind due to the situation arising in the country. This upheaval took place in 1942. Before that there was also a movement in 1930-31. At that time many people had gone to Dr. ji (Hedgewar) .
This ‘delegation’ requested Doctor ji that the country should get independence from this movement and therefore the Sangh should not be left behind. At that time, when a gentleman told the doctor that he was ready to go to prison, the doctor said to him, “Sure you are going, but who will take care of your family?” The gentleman said, “I have made appropriate arrangements not only to manage the family for two years, but also to pay the fine as required.” On this the doctor said, “You have made all the arrangements, so now go out to do the work of the Sangh for two years.” After going home, those gentlemen did not go to jail or go out to do Sangh work. ” (Shri Guruji Samagra, Volume 4, pages 39-40)
This account presented by Golwalkar clearly shows that the aim of the RSS was to discourage and indifference the common people to the freedom struggle. Especially those patriots, who used to come home wanting to do something against British rule. Incidentally, the attitude of the RSS towards the Quit India movement of 1942 can also be known from this statement by Golwalkar: “Even in 1942 there was a strong movement in the minds of many people. Till and all at that time the regular work of the Sangh continued. Apparently the Sangh decided to do nothing. But there was agitation in the minds of the Sangh volunteers. The Sangh was said to be an organization of inactive people, the his words are meaningless. Not only the people outside, but many Sangh volunteers also said so. He also got very angry.” (Shri Guruji Samagra, Volume 4, Page 40)
Thus the statement of Golwalkar himself shows that the RSS did not directly participate in the cause of the ‘Quit India Movement’. But it is not known from any publication or document of RSS or any statement of Golwalkar himself that what kind of RSS participated indirectly in the ‘Quit India Movement’. Golwalkar’s statement that the “day-to-day work” of the RSS continued as it was during the Quit India Movement is very significant. What was this day job? It is not at all difficult to understand. This task was to widen and deepen the gap between Hindus and Muslims parallel to the Muslim League. Pleased with this “great service” of his, the British rulers also rewarded him with their grace. Significantly, the RSS and the Muslim League were never banned under British rule. In other words, both organizations were free to play freely.
In fact, Golwalkar himself never claimed that the RSS was an anti-British organisation. Long after the departure of the British rulers, Golwalkar said in one of his speeches in the city of Indore in Madhya Pradesh in 1960: “Many people used to work with the inspiration that the country should be liberated by driving out the British. This motivation waned after the British formally left. There was really no need to be so motivated. We must remember that in our commitment we mentioned the freedom of the nation by protecting religion and culture. There is no mention of the absence of the British .
More thoughts news
RSS has also ridiculed the sacrifice
The RSS not only kept aloof from their freedom struggle but also contemptuously ridiculed the people who sacrificed their lives for freedom. These people do not hold a very high position in the eyes of the Sangh. The Sangh believes that those who have sacrificed themselves while fighting must surely have committed some mistake.
How sad and painful it must be for anyone who has reverence and respect for the martyrs of the freedom struggle, that the RSS tends to look down on the martyrs who laid down their lives against the British. Golwalkar summarized his original thoughts on the tradition of martyrdom in this way: “Undoubtedly, the self-sacrificing people are superior and their philosophy of life is predominantly masculine. It is much higher than the common man who gives himself up silent to fate and remains fearful and indolent. Yet we have not held these people up as ideals before society. We have not regarded sacrifice as the highest point of greatness to which man aspires. Because, ultimately instance, they failed to achieve their objective and failure means that there was some serious mistake” (MS Golwalkar, Vichar Navneet p. 281)
It is clear from these thoughts of Golwalkar that not a single RSS volunteer was martyred while fighting the British rulers, far from going to jail.
It is also worth mentioning that from 1925 to 1947 there is not a single sentence in the entire literature of the RSS, which condemns the barbaric oppressive incidents like Jallianwala Bagh. Contemporary RSS documents do not record any protest against the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev by the British government.