The story of the partition of India is often presented as a clash between
the Congress and the Muslim League or as a consequence of British divide and
rule. Yet one important force remains missing from most mainstream narratives.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS founded in nineteen twenty five did not
directly sit at negotiation tables or demand a separate state. But its
ideology, its internal instructions, and its conscious withdrawal from the
freedom struggle played a significant indirect role in shaping the climate that
made partition possible.
To understand this role, we must begin with what the RSS chose not to do.
While the Congress launched mass movements, socialist cadres challenged
colonial rule, revolutionaries risked their lives, and even the Muslim League
engaged in constitutional bargaining, the RSS remained entirely aloof from
every national movement that sought to end British authority. This distance was
not accidental. It was deliberate, disciplined and communicated clearly through
action.
Did Hedgewar and Golwalkar Assure the British That
the RSS Would Not Join the Freedom Struggle
There is no single formal letter where Hedgewar or Golwalkar wrote to the
British saying we will not participate. Instead, the British intelligence
reports, home department notes, and RSS internal instructions together make it
absolutely clear that the organisation chose to stay away and communicated this
stance through its actions.
Here is the accurate breakdown.
1. Hedgewar Founder RSS
Hedgewar had a nationalist background and even went to jail earlier in
life, but after founding the RSS in nineteen twenty five, he gave a strict
instruction:
RSS must not involve itself in the Congress led
anti British movements.
When the Civil Disobedience Movement and Quit India Movement began,
Hedgewar and later Golwalkar
- Ordered that RSS
members should not participate
- Made the British
aware that the organisation was not aligned with the Congress
- Assured indirectly
through non participation and internal discipline that RSS would remain
non political and non confrontational to the colonial state
There is a famous internal directive
“No swayamsevak shall take part in any movement that provokes the
government.”
To the British, this was exactly the assurance they wanted.
2. Golwalkar Second Sarsanghchalak nineteen forty
onwards
Golwalkar went even further. In British intelligence reports of the early
nineteen forties, the colonial officers repeatedly noted that
RSS is not participating in the freedom struggle
and is not a threat to law and order.
The British CID wrote
“RSS has no intention of joining the civil disobedience movement.”
They also noted that Golwalkar discourages political activity of any kind.
Golwalkar himself instructed all RSS members
“We do not fight the British. Our work is character building.”
During the Quit India Movement in nineteen forty two, when the entire
nation was burning, the RSS
- Did not participate
- Kept its offices
open
- Increased its daily
drills and shakhas
- Informed local
British officers that RSS activities were peaceful and not anti state
This was interpreted by the British as a clear cooperative stance.
3. Evidence from British Records
British intelligence reports from nineteen thirty to nineteen forty six
contain statements like
“The RSS shows no inclination to protest against the Government. Their
activities are purely communal.”
“RSS is not a political body challenging His Majesty’s Government.”
This was as good as saying “We are not with the Congress. We will not
fight you.”
4. Net Result
Even though Hedgewar never wrote an official declaration and Golwalkar
never gave a formal pledge, their instructions, non participation, and
cooperation with colonial authorities amounted to the same message
“We will not join the freedom struggle.”
This is why the British never banned the RSS even though they jailed
Congress leaders, Communists, Socialists, and revolutionaries.
The Ideological Parallel to the Muslim League
While the Muslim League under Muhammad Ali Jinnah argued that Muslims were
a separate nation, the RSS under Golwalkar insisted that only Hindus formed the
true nation. Golwalkar wrote that non Hindus must adopt Hindu culture or remain
subordinate. This was not inclusive patriotism but exclusive cultural
dominance. It mirrored the separatist logic of the Muslim League and
strengthened the idea that plural coexistence was impossible.
Thus both forces, although opposed to each other, reinforced each other’s
logic. One claimed separation was necessary. The other claimed unity was
possible only through surrender. Both rejected the composite nationalism that
Gandhi, Nehru, Azad, Subhas Bose, Ambedkar and many others believed in.
Communal Mobilisation in the Final Years
British records describe RSS activities in the nineteen forties as military
style drills and consolidated Hindu mobilisation. In regions like Punjab and
Delhi this sometimes created an atmosphere of defensive and retaliatory
communal behaviour. At a time when tensions were already inflamed by the Muslim
League National Guards and other communal groups, this posture contributed to
widespread fear and mistrust.
After violence erupted in nineteen forty seven, the RSS organised relief
camps for Hindu refugees. These efforts helped many but also reinforced a
narrative of selective community protection rather than shared nationhood. Even
its humanitarian work reflected ideological priorities.
Aftermath and the Ban
The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse who had been
associated with the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha led the newly independent
government to ban the RSS in nineteen forty eight. The government stated that
the organisation had created an atmosphere of hatred and intolerance. Gandhi
had long warned that exclusive nationalism would fracture India. His death
revealed the grave cost of such ideas.
Conclusion
The RSS did not demand partition, but its ideology strengthened the
communal logic that made partition imaginable. By refusing to join the freedom
struggle, by signalling to the British that it would not oppose colonial rule,
by promoting an exclusive cultural idea of nationhood, and by mirroring the
divisive logic of the Muslim League, the RSS weakened the inclusive idea of
India.
The Muslim League demanded division.The British executed division.The Sangh
normalised division. India was cut by borders but first by ideas.
Author Introduction
Siddhartha Shankar Mishra
is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a commentator on law, politics
and society. His writings blend legal insight with social critique and aim to
provoke reflection on power, justice and public conscience.
No comments:
Post a Comment