The Saffron Swastika - The Notion of Hindu "Fascism"
Editor's intro:"Ramesh N. Rao is an associate professor of Communication at Truman State University, Missouri and serves on the Consultative Committee on Indic Traditions and Conflict Management at Columbia University. He has worked as a copy editor atThe Hinduand received a PhD from Michigan State University". CJS wallia]
At Last, A Worthy Defense of the RSS!
It isde rigueuramong BJP and RSS watchers that you use the term "fascist" to brand them both and that any attempt at explaining or understanding the RSS viewpoint be viewed with suspicion if not derision. You have to use the label "Sangh Parivar" or the "saffron brigade" frequently in any analysis of the Hindutva movement, or even when expressing your dismay at the vile deeds of the Afghan Taliban or the traitorous expressions by the Student Islamic Movement in India. When discussing any matter Hindu, or any modern Indian social issue like dowry deaths, illiteracy, casteism, religious conflict, or the status of women you should not fail to drag in the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the "unmarried, male gerontocracy" which heads the RSS and the BJP's supposedly "contradictory" social and economic policies. You may, while at this exercise, use the label "the Hindu Taliban" with as much anger, disgust and mockery as you can muster. You could also liberally use the terms "Hindu nationalists", "Hindu fundamentalists" and "Hindu Right" in your analysis of the "Hindu fascists".
If you didn't do so and if as an academic, or as a columnist for an English daily you dared to disagree with the fashionable and predictable take on the RSS, you could as well kiss academic tenure and media credibility goodbye. And if you were a graduate student and if you went looking in the few "South Asia" programs in Western academe for a mentor who would guide you to do an impartial thesis on the Sangh Parivar, you might as well be in search of the proverbial needle in the proverbial haystack. And in case you struggled anyway to work your way through a thesis even partially favorable to the Sangh parivar, don't even bother to apply for a position at any prestigious university. At Jawaharlal Nehru University, till recently, if you had by mistake touched the "brotherhood" with a barge pole you would have been a pariah, an outcaste. And if you wished to interest a university press or any "mainstream" publisher in your book on the "parivar", you would have been shunned, unless your treatise happened to lambast the wearers of "khaki knickers".
Unless you swore by the "good works" of Romila Thapar and Gyanendra Pandey, unless you paid homage to the wisdom of Nehru and Gandhi and unless you dismissed and derided Golwalkar, Hedgewar and Savarkar, you would not have gained membership in the exclusive "secularist" academic clubs. And unless you had learned to parrot the gobbledygook of the Indian Left and of the Western post-modernist, feminist, post-structuralist brigade you would have been called "mediocre" and a Hindu nationalist. You could have toiled long and hard and you might have found all kinds of evidence to show that what the RSS did and said and what its leaders espoused and acted upon were justified, not only at a particular time and context in the past, but even at present and you would have not been paid heed to. Worse yet, you would be branded a "fellow traveler" of the "Hindu nationalist movement" and someone with a "radical anti-Muslim persuasion". Indeed, that was the vicious swipe delivered in a footnote by Thomas Hansen, a Dane with a barely-hidden anti-Hindu agenda (see his pretentious "The Saffron Wave"). That swipe was taken against Elst, whose new book, I submit, is the best-researched and most thorough analysis of the RSS and its affiliates and of the "notion of Hindu 'fascism'". Sure, this latest and the best of Elst will be ignored, or marginalized, or dismissed by the travelers on the "secular" (but may be no longer secure) bandwagon. That is so because there are very, very few truly secular and objective scholars in the field and because too many vested interests have too much at stake to come out and acknowledge they were wrong.
Elst, as his substantial "underground" following knows, is a linguist, historian, political scientist, prolific writer, brilliant mind and a wonderful raconteur. I am proud to claim him as my good friend. He is the author of the newly released two-volume tome, The Saffron Swastika The Notion of Hindu "Fascism"(1, 070 pp, New Delhi: Voice of India, Rs 900). So, what the Left, the fashionable English language media in India and the party-hoppers in New Delhi will not tell you about his latest book, his magnum opus, I hope to tell you here. But only when you buy the book and read it will you realize the sweep of this treatise and the command over the subject matter that Elst exhibits. You will be mesmerized and awed by Koenraad's six-year effort, but you may yet again find that all that is explained and substantiated in this book will most probably be ignored by those who love to hate the "parivar".
I have gained a little bit of a reputation on the internet as "another proponent of the 'Saffron' viewpoint". So, what I have to say about Koenraad's magnificent effort may be quickly dismissed by those with "ill will" towards me. That is the nature of the game. But realize that modern academe (fueled and driven by post-colonial, post-modernist, post-et al., theory with a liberal dash of corrosive Marxism) is loathe to face reality and seek objectivity in matters Indian because of the fear of what it will have to confront in itself: self-hate (among upper caste Hindu academics), sheer hate (among Dalit "intellectuals", Muslim pamphleteers, Christian propagandists and Communist contortionists) and authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies (in Western academics and their Indian camp followers). But you need to hear about this book because one day you may say with pride and relish, "I read the review, bought the book and I now own the rare hardbound two-volume set". That is, if you are not like many "South Asianists" who categorically dismiss the Hindutva movement and who absolutely despise the "Saffron Brigade" without any discussion of the merits of the RSS case.
I have in the past four years found out that "liberal academics" in "South Asian" studies are almost viscerally predisposed to maligning and criticizing the BJP and the "Sangh Parivar". This despite the fact that a large number of Indians are supportive of the concerns expressed by the BJP and the RSS on matters Indian and Hindu. Would people support the RSS if the "Sangh Parivar" was a raging, hate-mongering, fascist organization? Judging from most of the writings and critiques of the RSS and the BJP, one would wonder how the Indian voter was duped into electing the BJP. Remember, this is the same electorate that we are constantly told is "wise", that they rejected Indira Gandhi after the Emergency, that they cannot be fooled and that they know what is good for them. Would it not be important to ask what is it about the BJP that appeals to enough contemporary Indians that the BJP coalition has now been in power longer than the two preceding governments?
As one friend put it, "if our motivation is to deny agency to the 'fascist' Hindutva/Hindu Nationalist Movement, we will fail. The 'Saffron camp' draws considerable theoretical and political mileage from what they call an 'anti-Hindu bias' in Western academic discourse, claiming as they do that approaches to historical evidence are guided by underlying neo-colonial and/or retrofitted Marxist political agendas. Obviously, the first casualty is lively academic debate: ironically it is not the RSS and the VHP who are stifling the discussion."
Western liberal and Indian Marxist responses to the BJP/RSS are not only propagandistic but also based on patently incorrect and even manufactured data. Yet, browse through almost any book on the RSS, or read what is on innumerable internet sites maintained and supported by "Left/secular" academics and you will not see one fellow academic or intellectual question the false premises, the manufactured theses and the patently vile caricatures of the movement and its leaders. These academics and their camp followers proclaim they are fighting obscurantism, when they themselves employ obscurantist and devious methods to discredit their Hindu-centric rivals, whom they always label as right-wing fascists, the opposite to their enlightened leftist school of thought. You will be amazed at their double-standards and even more amazed that they are either not aware of them or that they will contort their "intellectual" positions even more than a Chinese acrobat can bend her body.
Unfortunately, scholars who are deeply concerned about the "secular/Left" tar-and-feather sport, choose to remain silent while the "secular" bandwagon rolls on, crushing anyone who disagrees with the "fashionable but fake" analysis of India's history and of the parivar's social, political and civilizational agenda. In private, some of these academics may express their worries, even disgust at the political motivations and the poor scholarship of the "Left/secular" brigade, but they don't ever work up the courage to stick their necks out and take the authoritarians to task. One is reminded of the Germans who kept quiet about the Nazi policy against the Jews and realized too late what their silence led to the holocaust. Silent too these people are, Elst points out, about the larger extermination of peoples, in the Soviet Union and in China and the whitewashing of that gory history.
Elst's thesis is that in today's academic and political world there is no worse label one can apply to a group or a person, as "fascist". "Fascist" is almost always conflated with "Nazi" and the terms are used interchangeably. The demon term "fascist" is consistently, willfully and regularly applied to the RSS and its affiliates by Indian Left/secular scholars, is mindlessly picked up and disseminated by the English-language media in India and which in turn is marketed worldwide by the Western media. In bed with the Indian "secularists" are their Western academic cheerleaders. They jump up and down both on the sidelines and in the center of the academic field exposing their bright red "ideological undergarments" while clothed outwardly in "liberal" garb. Elst argues that the term "fascist", originally marketed as a demon-term by the Communists, has now been used not just by Marxist academics but equally assiduously by Christian and Islamic spokespersons in their willful and dangerous campaign of calumny against all ideas and groups Hindu.
Elst elaborates in clear, careful detail that it is Communism, Christianity and Islam that share with Nazism its worst characteristics -- racism, anti-Semitism, exclusivism, totalitarianism and terrorism. How these Christian, Communist and Muslim groups have been able to carry out this propaganda against Hindus and Hinduism and more specifically against the RSS and its affiliates is a story that Elst tells with amazing panache and through careful research whose scope and sweep is so vast and so meticulous that even his worst detractors cannot fail to acknowledge. From dissecting the works of well-known authors like Jaffrelot and Hansen, to unpacking the mediocre thesis of Marzia Casolari, to understanding the true nature of the work of the maverick Nazi-sympathizing Savitri Devi (nee Maximiani Portas), Elst has embarked in this book on a journey that only he could have undertaken and that only he could have finished with such style.
Hinduism has always been multi-vocalic (which the Left acknowledges) and the present proponents of Hindutva are by the very nature of Hinduism cannot but be similarly multi-vocalic (which the Left vehemently denies). Elst points this out not just by assertion but by going to original sources, by providing the necessary political and historical context for the utterances of the likes of Savarkar, Golwalkar and others and by showing the readers what exactly these men said and in what context. He tells the reader about the likes of N. Ram and other Hindu-baiters, who have used crude cut-and-paste techniques to draw vulgar caricatures of the RSS leaders. And how these "secularists" praise the likes of Mao as saviors of mankind. N. Ram, editor of the magazineFrontline, has put his considerable wealth and family empire behind the campaign to demonize the RSS and he has hired a band of "eminences" willing and eager to carry out their brand of thuggery on the reading public and the hapless parivar.
This book by Elst is the first formidable challenge to such thuggery. As he says in the foreword, it took him six years to build up his case and he indeed has built a formidable one. Elst has drawn from a vast variety of sources, Indian, European, American and Asian. His knowledge of Hindi, English, Dutch, German, French and Flemish enables him to draw from a myriad sources newspapers, magazines, scholarly tomes and encyclopedias published in all those languages (Elst knows Mandarin too, just in case a Beijing "mandarin" wrote something about Indian politics!). Thus, his encyclopedic knowledge of the subject of Hindu "fascism" enables him to ferret out material from all kinds of unlikely sources, including David Duke'sMy Awakening, in which the White supremacist says his life was changed when he saw a "little, brown, half-caste Indian girl" at one of the temple-ruins near Delhi. The girl, Duke says, was covered with sores and held out her hand to him, begging for money. So, what does this make the White supremacist think? "On the way back to my room I wondered if, in a few hundred years, some half-black descendant of mine would be sitting among the ruins of our civilization, brushing away the flies, waiting to die". The term "half-caste" is used deliberately (for what does this Louisiana lout know of half-castes in India!) to put forward his racist agenda: Blacks and Whites should not cohabit. Blacks and Whites are different. If they ignore that and co-mingle and cohabit, voila, you will have India repeated in the United States!
This is the face and thrust of White racism and Elst points out how utterly wrong the assertions by Hindu-haters about Hindu "fascism" (racism) really are. He says his work is part of a polemic, in which the "polemical arrows have all been shot from one side, replies from the other side being extremely rare and never more than piecemeal". If the arrows should be continued to be aimed at the Hindutvavadins, I hope the men and the women in the Hindutva trenches will equip themselves with this formidable quiver of arrows that Elst has with such brilliance and hard work assembled together. But it may be hard for the "RSS-wallahs" to challenge the Left brigade simply because for too long they have neglected the art of skillful debate and intellectual pursuit. As Elst bemoans: "the RSS has contributed its own willful anti-intellectual prejudice. When Guruji took over in 1940, he turned a de facto situation into a firm commitment: discursive thinking was to be shunned by the true RSS activist. When he saw junior activists reading books or papers, he would interrupt them: 'Have you got nothing useful to do for the Sangh?'" (p. 170).
It was not that Golwalkar sought to train "mindless" soldiers of Hindutva but that as a biologist and scientist he did not comprehend the mode of "critical thinking" in the humanities; that as a spiritual person he was skeptical of the powers of the intellect compared to that of deeper layers of consciousness; that he was aware of the dangers of endless debate that led to inaction; and that he was disgusted by the "intellectualism" of the Communists whom he considered traitorous. Elst therefore submits: "Intellectual poverty is the reason why the Sangh Parivar is not writing its own history. And why it is speechless when its enemies spread mendacious lies about Golwalkar" (p. 171).
Where are the battle-lines in the almost one-sided ideological war waged against the RSS? The first chapter in the book lays them out. First of all, the question whether there is anything like Hindu "fascism" is addressed. Everyone, from the lazy journalist to his conspiring editor and from Indian academics to their Western supporters, including the clever Muslim and Christian propagandists, has used the label "fascist" to paint the proponents of Hindutva into a corner. Elst shows how this is done: most in a knee-jerk fashion and some through intellectual sleights of hand. This sleight of hand is adeptly exercised by the likes of Hansen who in the concluding chapter of his book on Hindutva says, "Throughout this work I have presented evidence and arguments that in many ways support the conclusion that the RSS represents a kind of 'swadeshi fascism'". Elst points out that in the whole book Hansen never discusses any connection of the Hindutva movement with fascism, but still concludes the way he does, giving the lazy journalist and the Christian propagandist what they seek: the quotable one-liner.
Elst makes his stance clear in the beginning. He is not at all convinced that the Hindutva movement is either a fascist or a Nazi movement, but that the opponents of Hindutva have waged a very successful defamation campaign. He says: "Those who have ever suffered defamation by influential media will know what the impact on their own lives is and why their enemies have such good use for this weapon. Many of your friends and acquaintances, debating partners, actual or prospective employers, public institutions and the other media will acquire a negative opinion of you and will avoid you or dissociate themselves from you at the earliest opportunity. Few of them will ever ask your own version" (p. 5). Elst should know. He was hounded by a raging and loud mob of graduate students at the South Asia conference in Madison in 1996. No mainstream publisher has agreed to publish his books. In fact, this work, his best, was to be brought out by Harper Collins, but they went back on their word. Elst has not found a teaching position anywhere in Europe or the United States. He is consistently dismissed as a Muslim-hater (see the website named "Chingari" maintained by some Left/Marxist graduate students in Madison and see my review of Elst's book "Ayodhya and After" on this site -- http://indiastar.com/closepet2.htm). He is not a Muslim-Hater. What he says is that Islam teaches Indian Muslims hostility towards Hindu tradition and Hindus (p. 172), that Islam's goal is to make the whole world Muslim (p. 334), that Islam (not Hinduism) appealed to the Nazi leaders as a martial and highly natalic religion (p. 886) and that Islam has been more totalitarian than Catholicism in denying national identities and in replacing homegrown secular laws with the uniformSharia(p. 971).
What about the charge of "fascism" against the Hindutva movement? "Fascism", is derived fromfasces, the ancient Roman symbol of Republican order. While fascism has its ugly side, Elst points out that its victims can be numbered in the thousands as opposed to the millions of victims of Nazism and the tens of millions of victims of Communism. Nor were fascists more racist than the colonial powers (most importantly, the British) at that time. For Indians at that time, the "face" of racism was that of Churchill, not that of Mussolini. Fascism, unlike Communism, had a large and populist base and an ideological outlook that was shared by the common people. In fact, anti-Semitism and biological racism (aspects of Nazism) was not even peripheral to Fascism and wherever fascists came to power it was essentially a secularist movement.
However, fascism would not have acquired the odium it has now, if not for the fact that it was chosen as a substitute for "National Socialism" (Nazism) by the Communists who did not want to acknowledge that "socialism" was part of Nazism. To allege or accuse that someone is fascist effectively kills debate and as can be evidenced in India, it is "profitable" to use it to label and caricature others. It is also extremely morally reprehensible. The moral reprehensibility is not discussed anywhere (except peripherally in Jaffrelot's work) because those who have profited from the use of that label are the ones who have wielded and exercised power in politics and in academe -- in the past fifty years. Elst points out that the "fascism" allegation against the Hindu movement is a rhetorical preparation for anti-democratic policies on the part of the "secularists". These anti-democratic policies include different civil codes for different religionists, the reservation system that has drained India of billions and brought mediocrity and worse to the fore, pampering of "minorities", etc. So, Elst argues that the "fascism" allegation is made in India without much relation to historical reality. More interestingly and importantly, fascists acquired their ill-repute precisely by implementing the Marxist methods of violent suppression of dissent, etc.
I will mention just one or two other important aspects of this book in closing.
One of the constant references in the attacks against the RSS is the supposed admiration of Hitler expressed by Golwalkar. But Elst has through careful research and by reading fully what Golwalkar spoke and wrote shows that Golwalkar had no sympathies with Hitler and that the invectives by the critics of Golwalkar against Golwalkar has been passed off as excerpts from the writing of Golwalkar (p. 118-121)! It would be foolish to think that Golwalkar had Hitler on his mind in the 1930s when he was actually championing the cause of genuine secularism. What obtained at that time in India was a system of privileges based on religion and Golwalkar saw the dangers of such a system. He was also writing in the context of the Muslim League's Two-Nation theory, which said that Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations. If indeed we were two separate nations and had to go our separate ways, how should we treat those Muslims who preferred to stay on in Hindu India? Golwalkar said that developments in Germany proved how difficult it was for two nations to exist in one state (not two peoples in one nation). Golwalkar regarded the Hindu-Muslim disunity as a very serious threat to India and he has been proved right over and over again in the past sixty plus years since he wroteWe, Our Nationhood Defined. What Golwalkar was discussing in what were, he later acknowledged, his first and rather immature speculations, was the connection between democracy and the need for a homogeneous population, as propounded by Western writers (of whom only one was German and moreover a Swiss-German at that!) and what he found in successful Western democracies to steer India away from the abyss of partition and civil war. Now, all that is twisted and stretched in the most clever and cunning ways by the master-contortionists, the Indian Communists (who by the way, as one of the latest newspaper reports point out, were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Soviet Union throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s and how the Communist government in West Bengal has scuttled all attempts at bringing the information out. See "From Russia with love, in dollars", The Hindustan Times, April 26, 2001, New Delhi and "Soviet records were in Kolkata all along", The Hindustan Times, April 27, 2001, New Delhi).
Elst carefully constructs his arguments and shows that the complicated and intricate story of anti-Judaism (Catholic and Muslims anti-Judaism as well as Communist/Stalinist hounding of Jews in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe) was beyond the ken of not just Golwalkar but most other Indian and Western leaders at that time. Elst makes a very important point:While Golwalkar wanted the "dissimilated" Muslims to identify with India, Hitler wanted the "assimilated" Jews to be dis-identified in Germany.Golwalkar of course warned of the danger of the continued existence in India of a non-assimilated minority with loyalties abroad but was never tempted by the Nazi view of Indo-European history and never advocated genocide or ethnic cleansing. What Golwalkar advocated was assimilation in a cultural sense. He did not reject biological assimilation which the Nazis did and because of which they are "racists", wishing as they did to rid Germany of Jews).
Elst concludes his argument by pointing out that the best proof that the Hindutva movement is not fascist is the proliferation of publications that criticize, berate and misrepresent Hindutva, not only when the BJP/RSS was in the opposition, but also when it is now in power. In fact, there has been a multi-fold increase in the vicious campaigns against the BJP and the RSS after the BJP formed coalition governments in 1998 and 1999. Not only that, BJP and RSS activists have been murdered and brutalized by Khalistani, Muslim-separatist, Christian and Communist terrorists. He says that critics and mockers of Hindutva and Hinduism have not had to fear for their lives and that the BJP has not arrested them, hounded them, or murdered them as the Communists have done in West Bengal and Kerala, as the Christian-inspired tribals have and continue to do so in the Northeast, as the Muslim-separatists do in Kashmir and as the Khalistanis did in Punjab.
There is much, much more to Elst's thesis than what I have presented here. It is a tour de force which, if the academic, Christian, Muslim, Communist and "pseudo-secular" camps were to allow, would turn the world of Indian politics and civilization and society upside down. I only hope this little and incomplete review will add to the small stream of supportive comments that one day may build up to a mighty river of Hindu renaissance.
(Note: Ramesh Rao's two-volume book on the BJP/RSS will be published by Har-Anand Publications, New Delhi in June, 2001.)