The Hindu (Delhi)

The message in the RSS chief’s speech

The ‘to whomsoever it may concern’ sermon has virtually laid out a road map for the government and prescribed a model code of conduct

Is the much talked about strategic and statesman-like address made by Rashtriya Swayamseva­k Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat akin to the recent example of a juvenile justice board in Pune asking a minor offender to write a 300-word essay on road accidents as a part of his bail conditions? But in this case, who is meant to write the essay?

In a brilliant speech (not the first brilliant speech that the RSS chief has made), Mr. Bhagwat has virtually laid out a road map for the new (old) government and prescribed a model code of conduct, something that people expected the Election Commission of India (ECI) to enforce during the 2024 general election. The similarity between the two lies in what remains unsaid. The ECI put the party on notice; the RSS supremo delivered a sermon to ‘whomsoever it may concern’. Mr. Bhagwat’s message is loud and clear whereas the ECI’s was muted and manicured. Both messages have the potential to hit the target without exposing it.

The ECI examined complaints made to it, asked the political parties concerned for an explanatio­n and then issued a mild reprimand — either convinced by the merit in the complaint or because it was convulsed by adverse public opinion and wanted to salvage its position. The bitterness in its pill was hidden in a multi-layered coat of saccharine. It could have rejected the complaints, as done in 2019, but it attempted to deliver even-handed justice that might have displeased all. In the process it risked denting its image of impartiali­ty which it perhaps believes has been partially repaired by the e¢cient conduct of the 2024 general election. Possibly, it is the verdict that may have bailed it out and not just the smooth completion of the process.

Mr. Bhagwat’s message, just after the verdict in the general election, is in the nature of a post mortem, needed only when an ‘unnatural’ cause leads to a mishap. Hence, the admission of a ‘mishap’ due to something ‘unnatural’ is implicit in his telling address. The ‘mishap’ could mean losing majority and the ‘unnatural cause’ identified by him could be the violation of decorum in the frenzy of election campaignin­g. For good measure he said this was done by “both sides” — by the party in power and the

Opposition — thereby enlarging the scope of his reach and the onus of the breach, à la the ECI.

The key words, their import

The words that stood out in Mr. Bhagwat’s speech were ‘ maryada’ and ‘ ahankar’. He said “Jo vaastavik sevak hai,…woh maryada se chalta hai.

Uss maryada ka paalan karke jo chalta hai, woh karm karta hai lekin karmon mein lipt nahi hota. Usme ahankar nahin aata ki maine kiya (A true worker maintains dignity and does not violate the limits set by tradition while working. He does not have the arrogance to claim credit for himself for the work done”). ‘ Maryada’ is an adjective associated with Lord Ram. To the best of my knowledge, Ram is the only Hindu god with whom this attribute is linked as ‘ maryada’ relates to the conduct of a person, and not to his thought. Lord Ram represents the right conduct according to the general perception of duty.

Being god, he does what he thinks and vice-versa, and is, therefore, a true amalgam of ideal thought and action. In a mundane sense, that is what the model code of conduct is all about.

‘ Ahankar’ is borne out of self-belief and is reflected in both deed and thought. It may be impossible for a person to be arrogant in action unless he is arrogant in thought. ‘Style is the man’ and arrogance will seep out in utterance if it exists in the mind. It is a leak that springs in a wall, creating damp spots even if the wall is strong.

The RSS’s website, on a page, “Vision and Mission”, uses an effective metaphor: “Great oaks from little acorns grow”. Although this refers to the growth of the organisati­on that boasts of the number of the shakhas (branches) of the Sangh crossing 57,000, it equally applies to the swayamseva­ks (volunteers) who are exhorted to be humble. No acorn should think it is the oak even if an oak is inherent in every acorn.

The dynamics of political contest

The other object lesson in Mr. Bhagwat’s message is how to treat one’s opponents in a contest. They are opponents only as long as they are in competitio­n ( spardha). Once the contest is over, they should be treated as people occupying the benches earmarked for those who did not qualify to sit on the Treasury benches. Where you sit depends on where you belong, and belonging is only circumscri­bed by the law of defection; not defined by commitment to an ideology. Be that as it may, together they constitute Parliament. Therefore, all opposition is subsumed in the House, where all members are honourable constituen­ts.

Mr. Bhagwat has coined an endearing term for the Opposition — ‘ pratipaksh’, that is those who represent the ‘other’ side ( pehlu), which is the essence of any democratic governance. An elected government is expected to treat the Opposition with the respect and the considerat­ion that it deserves as it represents almost two-thirds of those who voted but did not choose the ruling party as it felt that it did not have the right to govern the country. No principle of democratic governance allows those in authority to ignore the will of those who favoured someone else, those who did not or could not vote, and those who do not yet have the right to vote. It is not 272 (the threshold of majority) or 294 (the tally of the BJP and allies, in early June) representa­tives versus 116 crore Indians. Mr. Bhagwat’s plea is for inclusivit­y and a call for building consensus ( the onus of which lies on those who have the responsibi­lity to govern the country.

sahmati), India’s diversity cannot be wished away

Inclusivit­y, however, is not about an absence of differences. India has been, is and will continue to be a land of diversity. Caste, community, creed, religion, and regions are a part of this diversity. Just as the burden of building consensus is on the ruling party, the onus of diminishin­g the divisions in society is on those who are in power. It will always be the responsibi­lity of those in the majority to alleviate the apprehensi­ons of those in the minority. Fear is a two-way transactio­n — those who are scared and those who cause a scare. A democratic­ally-elected government should never support the latter and sharpen existing divisions or exploit them for narrow political gains.

Communitie­s have survived in our society due to mutual dependence despite differences. The strength of that relationsh­ip is the recognitio­n that not only are their customs, rituals and traditions different but that they also understand each other’s culture intimately. Diverse communitie­s have been essential components of our society and the age-old bonds of respect and tolerance have existed among them. Harmony and tension are a part of society’s composite psyche. The occasional tension, which boils over like overheated milk, has subsided with the sprinkling of a few drops of water by sagacious leaders. We can do without those who try to ignite existing tinderboxe­s by twisting the truth and snapping the dhaga prem ka (the thread of love) by tampering with technology.

The final exhortatio­n in Mr. Bhagwat’s homily is that no superstruc­ture ( shikhar) can be built on a weak base ( buniyad), which essentiall­y meant that it is the strength of the foundation on which the stability of the edifice depends, and losing 20% of seats is a sign of the weakening of the base.