Whose past gets remembered, and who it's remembered for
The RSS's official self-history doesn't lie about facts so much as it curates them. Temples were desecrated in medieval India. Mughal emperors did wage brutal wars. None of that is invented. What's manufactured is the frame, the decision to isolate one category of violence (Muslim rulers against Hindu subjects) and elevate it into the defining trauma of a civilisation, while erasing every other actor and every other victim from the same history. That selectivity isn't an accident. It's the machinery that makes a nationalist movement's other, quieter commitments, to caste hierarchy, to a subordinate role for women which look like inheritance rather than choice.
Historians who've actually done the archival work on medieval India tell a much less convenient story than the RSS's. Richard Eaton, a historian who has spent his career reading the same Persian-language court chronicles the RSS's version of history claims to draw from, found that ruling dynasties in the subcontinent targeted temples even before Islamic rule arrived, and did so by deliberately singling out temples associated with a rival, defeated king. Temple desecration, in other words, was an established Indian political practice with roots that predate the Turkic conquests entirely, a way of humiliating a rival dynasty's claim to legitimacy, not a religious assault. And the traffic wasn't one-directional which when Hindu rulers conquered Muslim-held territory, they typically left mosques and shrines standing, just as Muslim rulers often protected temples that weren't linked to a defeated enemy court. Eaton points out something the RSS's histories conveniently skip, i.e. Hindu kings also plundered and desecrated temples belonging to rival Hindu kings, a well-documented pattern that barely registers in popular memory next to the story of "Muslim invaders." None of this erases real atrocities committed under Muslim rule, Mahmud of Ghazni's sack of Somnath was genuinely devastating, and pretending otherwise would be its own kind of dishonesty. But it means the RSS's account isn't "Hindu victimhood under a uniquely cruel outside force." It's warfare, conquest, and the routine cruelty of pre-modern state power, the same currency every dynasty on the subcontinent traded in, including Hindu ones against each other. Singling out the Mughals as uniquely villainous isn't history. It's just the selection of one enemy from a crowded field of equally violent claimants to power, chosen because that enemy is still a usable political category today and rival Hindu dynasties aren't.
But, wait! The deeper problem isn't the history, it's what the history is for. "Hindu Rashtra" is presented as a restoration of unity and dignity to a wounded civilisation. But the unity on offer has always had a ceiling, and Dalits have lived directly under it. Former RSS member Bhanwar Meghwanshi's memoir, “I Could Not Be Hindu”, documents senior members refusing to eat food cooked in his home as a child and throwing it away, and later denying him the elevated rank of pracharak specifically because he was Dalit, an account from someone who spent years inside the organization, not a hostile outsider. Scholars who study the Sangh's actual approach to caste describe its strategy in blunt terms that it pushes for samarasata (assimilation) rather than Samanta (equality), each caste is meant to keep its place, and its relative privileges, intact, and the organization has generally welcomed Dalit participation only so long as it doesn't come with demands for equality on par with privileged castes. Even RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has said the quiet part out loud, telling an interviewer: "The Sangh should not get into eradicating or opposing caste." That's not a rhetorical slip. It's the position. Historian of the organization's origins go further, arguing the RSS's founding moment in 1920s Nagpur wasn't simply a response to Muslim political assertion but it was also a reaction to a Dalit mobilization already gathering strength in the same city as Ambedkar's early anti-caste organizing spread. On this reading, a movement selling Hindu "unity" was assembled partly to blunt an anti-caste revolt from below. Whatever unity Hindu Rashtra promises, it was never designed to unmake the caste order but was built, at least in part, to hold that order together against people trying to leave it.
The RSS's treatment of women runs on the same logic, elevate the symbol, withhold the substance. Women aren't organizationally part of the RSS at all, they were shunted into a separate body, the Rashtra Sevika Samiti, founded in 1936 specifically because letting women train alongside the RSS's celibate male pracharaks was considered improper. Nearly ninety years later, that structure hasn't changed. Scholars studying the Samiti describe its foundational logic starkly that the RSS exalts women as goddesses and as Bharat Mata, but that reverence functions as a façade that lets patriarchal structures go uncontested while dressing subordination up as empowerment. The RSS's own leadership supplies plenty of evidence for that reading. Mohan Bhagwat has said outright, "There is nothing called marital rape. Marriage is a sacred bond," and has attributed sexual violence not to patriarchy but to the erosion of "Indian culture" under Western influence, at one point distinguishing between rape happening in "Bharat" versus "India," a framing critics note sits oddly alongside the fact that the RSS's own male cadre wears Western-style khaki shorts as its uniform while lecturing women about traditional dress. Golwalkar, the RSS's most influential ideologue after its founder, held up the Manusmriti, a text that ranks women alongside animals and "untouchable" castes in social worth, as a model lawgiving text he believed should shape independent India's constitution, a position Ambedkar answered by publicly burning the book. Even the Samiti's own name signals the limit, un like the RSS, it carries no word for "self", in its title structural admission that its members organize in service of family and nation, not their own autonomy. The rare RSS statements gesturing toward gender equality, Bhagwat, occasionally saying men and women have "equal potential," or that women alone should decide what's best for women, read less like a genuine reversal and more like image management layered on top of an unmoved foundation. The organizational facts (no women in the RSS proper, no institutional power for the Samiti, no departure from Golwalkar's framework of women as primarily mothers) haven't budged in nine decades.
What connects the historical framing, the caste politics, and the treatment of women is the same move performed three times: take a hierarchy that benefits a specific group, uppered-caste Hindu men, and redescribe it as timeless cultural inheritance rather than a system somebody built and somebody else has to live under. "Hindu Rashtra" sounds like restoration. In practice it restores a particular Hindu's claim to authority, not the Dalit swayamsevak denied rank in his own organization, not the sevika whose wing has no word for self-determination in its name, not the historical Hindu kings whose own temple-plundering wars don't fit the story. The RSS isn't wrong that history contains real violence and real loss. It's that the specific violence it remembers, and the specific violence it doesn't, tracks suspiciously well with who benefits from the amnesia.
To be fair to the other side of this, since it's a live and genuinely contested argument in Indian public life, RSS defenders would say the organisation has shifted on some of this so called, Bhagwat, has voiced support for continuing caste reservations "as long as necessary," and has made statements affirming formal gender equality. They'd argue an organization this large and structurally decentralized (tens of thousands of independently run shakhas) can't be reduced to its worst individual actors or its most regressive historical texts, and that its social-service record among Dalit and tribal communities complicates a purely oppressive reading. Critics would respond that these are exactly the "cosmetic gestures" scholars have documented which are nothing more than the verbal concessions that track political pressure (from Ambedkarite politics, from the reservations debate) without any real change to the organizational structures that keep Dalits out of leadership and women out of the RSS proper. That tension which is rhetoric that moves, structure that doesn't, is really the crux of the whole disagreement, and it's worth weighing the evidence yourself to see which side it points toward.
Comments
Post a Comment