By Badri Narayan, Vice-Chancellor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences
The Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSS), popularly called ‘Sangh’, is celebrating its centenary. Various celebrations are being organised by it to relate its meaning and vision to the majority of society. Its chief Mohan Bhagwat recently delivered an insightful lecture in Delhi upon this occasion, and a similar event is being planned in Mumbai.
During its 100 years-long journey, the Sangh has expanded itself significantly. It has connected with people across caste, community, regional, and class lines. A Sangh karykarta (worker) told me, “We are everywhere—from among the homeless, jhuggi -jhopadi (slums), to apartments and bungalows.” It’s interesting to observe that the RSS and Communist Party of India (CPI) were formed in same year, 1925—one in Nagpur and another in Cownpore (Kanpur).
The RSS was established to create a samaras (equitable) society for the construction of a Hindu rashtra (nation), while the CPI was formed based on the notion of class struggle. One can easily observe that the Sangh ideology has proved its relevance and had an impressive reception. On the other hand, communist ideology has constantly been losing its relevance. The questions that emerge are why and how? The answer may be found via a deep ethnographic study on how these organisations work with the common people.
The Sangh was established in Nagpur with a vision of nation-building through inculcating Hindutva as an inspirational ideology. It started working on both levels—vyakti nirman (cultivating ethics in people with nationalist commitments) and rashtra nirman (nation building). So, from the start, it evolved a national vision guided by national requirement and not local and parochial ones. Thus, the first success factor was integrating ideology with praxis in their work culture. Second, they disseminated their ideology through the process of social work, and did not limit themselves to preaching and speeches. They asserted their presence less through ideology and more through social work and services, helping them create an effective balance between ideology and praxis. On the other hand, communists gave heavier emphasis on the politics of their ideology and lesser on forging social connects through non-mobilisational social actions.
However, one privilege that the Sangh has had is that since its ideology is deeply rooted in Hindu socio-cultural samskaras (values), they don’t need to impose their ideology through social actions. Their ideology appears as a social ideal, creating trust among people as compared to the communist ideology, which proposes foreign political ideals. These are not usually well-received by the Indian psyche, which prefers adjustment over conflict. While working in the field, it has been observed that the Indian social psyche feels uncomfortable with the language and politics that emerges around terms like protest, struggle, and conflict; however, it easily accepts terms like inclusion, confluence, and togetherness—feelings which the Sangh has evolved in its discourses and practice.
Third, while studying the Sangh ethnographically, it was observed that Sangh pracharaks (functionaries) forge intimate familial relationships as they work with communities through participating in their family functions, ritual-based ceremonies, religious programmes, and other activities. By doing so, they establish sukh-dukh (joy and grief) relationships and always offer to help people with their everyday problems. Pracharaks interact with people as members of their families and not as outsiders, building trust and receptibility. As the root of their ideology lies in Indian philosophy, life, and social samskaras, it intensifies when it is associated with nationalist sentiment. The emotional connect, sense of intimacy, and social services embedded with nationalist feelings gives an edge to the Sangh in terms of dissemination, and it has built its image as that of an organisation which works during natural calamities and national emergencies. This has won them significant trust among the common people.
It is interesting to observe that religious samskaras, sense of ‘Indian-ness’, and Hindutva have social roots and contribute towards the Sangh’s influence capital, making their presence vibrant within communities. They appear as key metaphors in the diction of dissemination. When deeply analysed, this diction can be seen to have emotional connection, intimacy, and familial bonds. Communists and other similar organisations mostly fail in cultivating such connections with the common people in their language. For example, the Sangh cadres use ‘bhaisahab’ (brother) when addressing people, while communist cadres use terms like ‘comrade’, which seem unfamiliar. The Sangh cadres use terms frequently used to address people with familiarity, while communists uses terms like ‘proletariat’, ‘class struggle’, or ‘salaam’, which are not part of Indian colloquialisms. The Sangh also constantly adapts new terms, languages, and dictions in their communication and in practice, keeping them relevant in changing times.
The Sangh has cultivated its image as an agency of social change, a catalyst of nation building, and a social reform institution, which has granted it with immense public trust. Its conduct towards and involvement with society and community as well as its socially-rooted mobilisational diction always retain it within public consciousness. Its strength has also been realised by leaders like Ram Manohar Lohia, Jay Prakash Narayan, and many other visionary politicians time and again. Recently, its harsh critics and competitors—CPI leaders such as Prakash Karat and a few others—also directed their cadres to learn from the Sangh , especially their community integration and social service. Karat, the general secretary of CPI(Marxist), in one of his 2014 lectures, suggested that trade unions learn from the way RSS makes inroads among the common people of India. Thus, every public organisation must take inspiration from the Sangh’s working model and integrate itself with the communities it serves through understanding their socio-cultural samskaras. Being involved with the common populace in their everyday lives would also be essential. A society with diverse textures and threads requires this at the very least.