|
Hindutva’s founding myths, and
the RSS
Balraj Puri
 As far the
concept of Hindutva is concerned, there was never any clarity or
unanimity among the leaders of the BJP. The original discussion
between Syama Prasad Mookherjee and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar on
August 26, 1952, is now well known: the former requested the latter
to bless the Jana Sangh.
Savarkar wanted
the philosophy of the Hindu Mahasabha, ie Hindutva, to be adopted by
the Jana Sangh,which Mookherjee declined to do.
The Jana Sangh
instead adopted Integral Humanism, as propounded by Deen Dayal
Upadhya, its foremost ideologue and organiser, as the party’s
guiding ideology. But since the election results, BJP president
Rajnath Singh and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat have reiterated the
commitment of the two organisations to Hindutva and abrogation of
Article 370 which grants a special status to Jammu and Kashmir —
most recently in Jammu, at a meeting organised at the University
there on the occasion of 57th death anniversary of the founder
President of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Syama Prasad Mookherjee.
Launching a
Hindutva offensive from Jammu has historical antecedents, but is of
doubtful wisdom.
The BJP’s
predecessor, the Jan Sangh, launched its first popular movement in
the country from Jammu in 1952; and, of course, as recently as last
year it claimed that it would use the Amarnath shrine row to
kickstart a nationwide ‘mass agitation’. Yet it didn’t get anything
near a majority in the state assembly election — and, moreover, lost
both Lok Sabha seats in the region.
A more relevant
issue that has been recently raised is the claim of the RSS —
expressed by Mohan Bhagwat — that Mookherjee laid down his life to
oppose the theory of two constitutions, two flags and two heads of
state within one nation — the principle agreed upon under the Delhi
Agreement between Jawaharlal Nehru and the Kashmiri leader Sheikh
Abdullah in 1952.
 This claim is
factually incorrect. Yes, it is true that the Jana Sangh led by
Mookherjee came to Jammu to support the movement of the Praja
Parishad that had this objective.
But after a
prolonged correspondence with Nehru extending for two months of
January and February 1953, Mookherjee , in his letter to Nehru dated
February 17, 1953, offered to withdraw the agitation and support the
Delhi Agreement, which was to be implemented in the next session of
the J&K Constituent Assembly.
He further
suggested that both parties reiterate that the unity of the state
will be maintained and that the principle of autonomy will apply to
the province of Jammu — and of course to Ladakh and the Valley.
This was
precisely the formula to which I was able to persuade Nehru and
Abdullah to agree which they announced at a joint press conference
on July 24, 1952. The unfortunate and untimely death of Mookherjee
on June 23, 1953 only hastened the process of implementation of the
offer he made to Nehru.
The leaders of
the Praja Parishad agitation were released on July 1 and invited to
Delhi and on July 3, they met Nehru where they agreed withdraw their
agitation is response to the offer of regional autonomy. (It wasn’t
until many months after Mookherjee’s death that the Jan Sangh, under
directions from Nagpur according to Jan Sangh leader Balraj Madhok,
withdrew support to the Delhi Agreement and regional autonomy.)
Meanwhile a 45
page draft on autonomy was sent by the state government to the Praja
Parishad leader — Durga Dass Varma, then underground —which he
returned after approvalof the party experts. Truth be told, if every
aspect of the agreement between Nehru, Abdullah and Mookherjee on
autonomy of the state within India and of the regions within the
state had been implemented,
Kashmir
would not have turned into the problem it has become.
(The writer
is a J&K-based commentator and director, Institute of J&K Affairs.
This article appears courtesy Indian Express.)
9
September 2009
|
Read Also