By Bhogtotam Mawroh
BK Dey Sawian’s recent letter is a very important reminder of the misgivings that the followers of indigenous religion have against Christianity and explains why some are inclined towards RSS, which is against conversion. All proselytisation movements, whether it is religious or secular, employ various tactics that can include coercion and duplicity. As for the question whether “other socio-religious denominations are more secular and pluralistic than the RSS” the answer is ‘No’. Secular simply is the opposite of being religious and therefore by definition RSS or any other socio-religious denomination can never be called secular. They may engage in secular activities like social work, but if that is done with the intention of proselytisation, the distinction breaks down. The Indian state however is a different matter altogether.
The Preamble to the Indian constitution clearly states that India is a ‘Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic.’ One may argue that the term ‘Secular’ was a later addition, inserted during the 42nd Amendment in 1976, but the idea of secularism was always present. During Independence when the country was divided on religious lines, while Pakistan chose to identify itself as an Islamic state, India didn’t declare itself a Hindu state. RSS’s official policy of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ is a clear diversion from that. Supporters of the idea of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ might choose to defend the idea in many ways. One is by stating that the term Hindu originated as a description of people who live beyond Sindhu/Indus by the Greeks and hence it is non-sectarian. However, this line of argument does not consider how the term has been used ever since. The origin of the term does not determine how it is understood and used at current times. The term pagan was derived from the Latin paganus which in classical Latin means villager, rustic, civilian, non-combatant. Is this how pagan is being understood today? Another line of argument is that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life, i.e., culture. Firstly, religion is a form of culture and every religion provide guidelines regarding how to live, i.e., way of life. And secondly, Hinduism is a distinct religion with its own distinct history, philosophy, myths, rituals, deities which are different from those of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism and for that matter Niam Khasi/Niam Tre.
Most importantly though, the debate regarding RSS’s belief in the idea of secularism has actually been settled long back as the organization has itself constantly rejected the idea of secularism for India. This was recently reiterated in a RSS seminar held in Chennai where RSS’s All India Prachar Pramukh Manmohan Vaidya claimed that the concept of secularism is of foreign origin and all faiths and sects in India are one. Equating foreign-origin with being unsuitable is completely ridiculous and RSS does not believe that all faiths are one, which can be understood from its ideology and actions that stand in complete contrast to pluralism.
Pluralism, for me, can be summed up in the phrase often used to describe India ‘Unity in Diversity’. In this regard, I would like to bring up MS Golwalkar’s (RSS ideologue) own thoughts on this subject matter. According to him, the three internal threats that India faces are Muslims, Christians and Communists (from his book ‘Bunch of Thoughts’ which is freely available in the RSS official website). In this book he talks about the Muslim menace, termed Christians as being “bloodsuckers” and described Communism as “a sworn enemy of democratic procedure”. It is difficult to talk about unity in diversity when one considers those who don’t agree with their viewpoint (diversity) as enemies. This antagonism to other faiths is clearly brought out in the infamous Babri Masjid Demolition in which the ‘Liberhan Ayodhya Commission’ report (freely available on internet) implicated the RSS and VHP. More than a thousand people died in the ensuing riots. Destroying the symbol of faith of one community for constructing that of another is a murder of pluralism. This is but a natural progression from Gowalkar’s analysis and an organization such as RSS which believes in it is neither for Secularism nor Pluralism.
I would agree with BK Dey Sawian that “the concepts of secularism and plurality must first begin at home”. Meghalaya is a Christian-majority state not a Christian state, and the state cannot discriminate in terms of religious affiliations. If it does so, we have the right to protest against that. But while secularism can be enforced by the state, pluralism is a little different. It needs acceptance of differences by the society at large. Within our Khasi society we have Christians, Hindus (not Niam Khasi/Niam Tre type but mixed family), Muslims and atheists as well. In this, I do believe, we have a lot to do. But replacing one kind of exclusivists’ ideology with another is not the solution.