History and hype: RSS’s claims of sacrifice for freedom examined

By Ram Puniyani* 

On the occasion of the 100th year of the RSS’s foundation, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a former Pracharak of the RSS, paid glowing tributes to the organization. He said that the RSS had made tremendous sacrifices for the freedom of the country and that in places like Chimur, it had organized protests. According to him, the RSS’s contribution to nation-building has been immense.

What is the real story? 

The freedom movement was rooted in the idea of composite Indian nationalism, inclusive to the core. Muslim communalists were struggling for a Muslim nation, while Hindu communalists (the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha) were working for a Hindu nation. Although Savarkar was not formally part of the RSS, he was a patron and ideological guide for the concept of Hindutva and the Hindu nation. 

After apologizing and securing his release from the Andamans and later from Ratnagiri jail, Savarkar distanced himself from the freedom movement. He received a princely pension of ₹60 per month (equivalent to nearly ₹4 lakh today) and actively assisted the British by helping them recruit soldiers for their army.

K. B. Hedgewar, who became the first Sarsanghchalak of the RSS, initially participated in the Khilafat movement and was imprisoned for a year. 

However, following the Moplah revolt in Kerala—which was primarily a peasant struggle against landlords—his Hindu nationalist leanings came to the fore, and he left the Congress. He later co-founded the RSS along with other Chitpavan Brahmins. 

The rise of Dalit movements and the Non-Brahmin Movement against feudal and caste hierarchies deeply disturbed these elites. Another major factor behind the formation of the RSS was Gandhi’s attempt to make the national movement inclusive of Muslims. The third important influence was the inspiration drawn from Mussolini and Hitler.

The difference in their idea of nationalism became evident when Pandit Nehru gave the call to unfurl the tricolor on January 26, 1930. Hedgewar also called for hoisting a flag—but it was the saffron flag. Even today, when a ₹100 coin has been issued to commemorate the 100th year of the RSS, it bears the image of Bharat Mata holding a saffron flag, not the Indian tricolor. 

Shamsul Islam, a noted scholar of the RSS, points out that the RSS’s English organ Organizer in its issue dated August 14, 1947, denigrated the national flag, writing that it would “never be respected and owned by Hindus” and that “a flag having three colors will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to the country.”

Hedgewar did participate in the Salt Satyagraha, but primarily to expand his organization by trying to attract freedom fighters who were imprisoned. He resigned temporarily from his post as Sarsanghchalak to go to jail, and after his release, resumed the same position. During this period, he discouraged others from joining the movement. The RSS as an organization did not take part in any anti-British struggle.

During the 1942 Quit India Movement, several claims regarding RSS participation proved hollow. Atal Bihari Vajpayee claimed he had participated in the movement. During the 1998 general elections, he wrote that he had worked for the RSS at the shakha level and had also participated in the freedom struggle. In reality, he was part of the RSS at that time, and when schools and colleges were closed, he returned to his village Bateshwar. He witnessed a procession related to the Quit India Movement as an onlooker and was arrested. He immediately dissociated himself in writing and was released within days. His statement at the time makes it clear that he was merely a bystander.

M. S. Golwalkar, who was Sarsanghchalak during the Quit India Movement, later wrote: “In 1942 also there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time too, the routine work of the Sangh continued. Sangh vowed not to do anything directly” (Shri Guruji Samgra Darshan, Vol. IV, pp. 39–40).

This ideologue of the RSS made it clear that fighting the British was not part of their agenda: “We should remember that in our pledge we have talked of the freedom of the country through defending religion and culture; there is no mention of the departure of the British from here.” 

In another passage, Golwalkar elaborated on the RSS’s position: “There was some unrest in the mind due to the situation developing in the country from time to time. There was such unrest in 1942. Before that, there was the movement of 1930–31. At that time many other people had gone to Doctorji (Hedgewar). The delegation requested Doctorji that this movement would give independence and Sangh should not lag behind. When a gentleman told Doctorji that he was ready to go to jail, Doctorji said, ‘Definitely go, but who will take care of your family then?’ That gentleman replied, ‘I have arranged sufficient resources not only for family expenses for two years but also to pay fines if required.’ Doctorji then told him, ‘If you have all the resources, then come out to work for the Sangh for two years.’ After returning home, that gentleman neither went to jail nor worked for the Sangh.”

Golwalkar further stated, “At that time too the routine work of the Sangh continued. Sangh vowed not to do anything directly. However, upheaval (uthal-puthal) in the minds of Sangh volunteers continued. Sangh is an organization of inactive persons, their talks are useless. Not only outsiders but also many of our volunteers spoke like this. They were greatly disgusted too.” However, there is not a single publication or document from the Sangh that sheds light on any significant role the RSS played, even indirectly, in the Quit India Movement.

Modi’s assertions have little to do with historical truth. The RSS is an organization that has always worked for the idea of a Hindu nation. It had no role in the freedom struggle, which was aimed at building a secular, democratic, and inclusive India.

—

*Youtube Facebook Instagram Whatsapp
Twitter Pinterest My Website