He aired this definition of an Indian, while addressing a “Hindu Samagam” (Conclave of Hindus) at Bhopal on February 28. “Hindus are Indians and Indians are Hindus,” he declared.

Though the RSS has been holding this view from the very day of its inception in 1925, its re-iteration at Bhopal has significance. The Bharatiya Janata party,-the political wing of the RSS, at its national executive meeting held in Indore, about 200 km. from Bhopal, a week before the “Hindu Samagam”, had extended an Olive branch to the Muslims. The party had urged upon the Muslims to co-operate with it.

Probably, the idea of forging closer ties with the Muslims was rather unpalatable to the RSS chief and he indirectly served a warning to the BJP that the Muslims should not be treated on an equal footing with the Hindus.

Dr. Bhagwat's message was loud and clear. Non-Hindus should not consider themselves Indians. But while adopting this posture, Dr. Bhagwat forgot that what he was saying was against the provisions of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution gives all those who are born in India, the status of bonafide citizens irrespective of their religion, caste, creed, sex, language, etc. The Constitution treats followers of all religions as equals. It gives freedom to every citizen to practise and propagate his or her religion. It also extends this protection to those who are non-believers.

Thus, to say that only Hindus are Indians amounts to a clear-cut violation of the Constitution and is a punishable act.

The RSS claims that Hindu (or Hindutva) is not a religion but a way of life. It always cites a Supreme Court judgment to buttress its claims. But it conveniently ignores the fact that the Mr. Justice JS Verma, former Chief Justice of India, who headed the bench that delivered the contentious judgment, later clarified his stand, thus rendering the RSS' interpretation irrelevant.

Though publicly the RSS claims that Hindutva is a way of life and not a religion, in its literature and reference material, it expresses a totally divergent view. In its literature, the RSS has never digressed from Savarkar's definition of an Indian (Bharatiya). According to Savarkar, an Indian is one whose 'Matrabhoomi” (Motherland) and “Punyabhoomi” (Place of origin of religion) both are in India. According to this definition, Hindus, of course, can be regarded as Indians. Since the Constitution includes Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs (though Sikhs insist they are a separate religion) in the category of Hindus, they too can be treated as Indians. However, non-Hindus, according to Savarkar, are not Indians at all.

Now, let me quote from the official literature of the RSS. There is a booklet titled “Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain” (Declare with pride that we are Hindus). This booklet was brought out to mark the birth centenary of Guru Golwalkar, the second RSS chief. The book exhorts the Hindus to take the following oath, “I solemnly undertake to protect my dear motherland, Bharat Mata, unity of the country, our sacred Hindu religion and culture and its symbols, Gaumata, temples and our mothers and sisters. I undertake to protect the religious identity of all my Hindu brothers and sisters. May God give me the strength to fulfill this oath”.

The text of the above oath makes it clear as to who the RSS considers as Hindus. If the RSS really believed in the formulation that all Hindus are Indians and all Indians are Hindus, then wouldn't the above oath have included the undertaking to protect, besides temples, also mosques, churches, Gurudwaras, Buddhist viharas, etc. Thus, the RSS' definition of Hindu, as propagated from public platforms is very different from the one given in its official literature.

Then, let us take the text books that are taught in the RSS-run “Saraswati Shishu mandirs”. One of the textbooks, entitled “Sankriti gyan prashnottari” volume 8, on page 16 asks the children to “identify the religion to which the following sacred books belong”. The answer given is Ramayan (Hindu religion), Guru Granth Sahab (Hindu religion-Sikh denomination), Bible (Christianity) and Quaran (Islam). Thus, this booklet makes it clear that Hindus are those whose sacred book is Ramayana. By this yardstick, those whose sacred book is Bible or Quaran are not Hindus and thus not Indians. If the RSS chief sincerely believes that all Indians are Hindus, it must accept that Bible, Quaran and Guru Granth Saheb are also Hindu religious scriptures.

There is yet another contradiction in the formulations of the RSS. The Sangh insists that Hindus believe in the principle of “Vasudhev Kutumbakam” (the entire world is my family) but at the same time, it binds Hindus to the geographical limits of India as it is only India which it wants to turn into a “Hindu Rashtra”.

There was a contradiction even in the speech of the Sangh chief. He accused the Church of hatching a conspiracy to divide the Hindus. Thus, he claimed that the Christians are also Hindus and in the same breath, accused them of dividing the Hindu society! While making this allegation, Dr. Bhagwat, probably, forgot that it is powerful section of the Hindus itself that is dividing the Hindu society. This section is the Upper caste Hindus who want to condemn the Dalits to a sub-human life, forcing them to embrace Christianity and Islam.

Addressing the Samagam, Dr. Bhagwat declared that the doors of the Sangh were open for everyone. The question is whether they are open for Hindu women. An organisation that debars one-half of the Hindu population (women) from its membership can hardly claim to be the representative of the Hindus.

The Hindu Samagam at Bhopal was organised after an intensive campaign of more than two months. The volunteers of the Sangh visited 40, 000 Hindu families to raise funds for the meet. The organisers had claimed that at least two lakh people would attend the Samagam. But the audience hardly exceeded 20,000. Does it indicate the waning influence of the Sangh? Interestingly, the Sangh chief has called upon the youth of the country to join its ranks in large numbers. (IPA)