Opinion Faizan Mustafa writes: The message from Mohan Bhagwat’s words on unity

Recently, a Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that while there has been some talk about liberty and some efforts to achieve not only formal but even substantive equality, we as a nation have not emphasised enough the far more important concept of fraternity. The RSS chief, by emphasising unity, wants us to achieve the laudable goal of fraternity. Can we have fraternity if the loyalty of Muslims is constantly under suspicion? Can we remain united when a section of our media is serving up hate, and the daily conversation in the country is increasingly along the lines of “us” and “them”? Can our nation progress if the electorate is polarised just to win elections? Can we have unity if, constantly, we are told Hindus are under threat and Islam is in danger? Bhagwat has been trying to remove such anxieties from the minds of people.

In his latest statement, he said that “There were communities that came here from other places. We fought with them then, but they are gone now. Baharwale sab chale gaye, ab sab andarwale hai. (There are only insiders now), So we must live, forgetting the links with outsiders. Everyone here is part of us. If there is any difference in their thinking, we must talk to them. India’s unity is paramount and everyone should work towards that.”

Bhagwat has acknowledged that in India “some communities came from outside.” Historically speaking, just like the US, India had also received people from all over with open arms. Bal Gangadhar Tilak in his works Orion and the Arctic Home of Vedas has written that the Arctic region was the original home of Aryans. Even V D Savarkar believed in the Aryan migration. The crucial word is migration, as no Aryan king had invaded Indus Valley. Some historians argue that there is no evidence of the presence of horses in the Indus Valley region at the time. But the Rigveda is replete with several references to horses. Ideally, we should no longer get into debates on the issue of migration — as migration is entirely different from invasion. Besides, we are talking of migration or invasion at a time when the rigid boundaries of nations were not yet drawn.

The RSS chief has said, “we fought those who brought them”. If we are referring to the migration of communities, no one can be blamed. Migrations, after all, are an essential facet of humanity’s civilisational history. If he is referring to “invaders”, can we make a distinction between invasions in ancient India such as by Darius I (Iran), Alexander, the Kushans and Huns etc. and the Muslim invaders of medieval times?

Some Muslim invaders were, in fact, invited by Indian rulers themselves. For instance, Rana Sanga invited Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty. We cannot similarly overlook the fact that Rajputs were occupying top positions under Mughal rule. Many Mughal kings not only had Hindu mothers but are buried in India as they themselves severed links with their “outsider” ancestors. Accordingly, unlike with the British, no “drain of wealth “took place during Mughal rule. During the Delhi Sultanate too (1206-1526), several Hindus had influential administrative positions, including being governors of provinces. Babur was surprised to see the Hindu Khatri domination of the revenue department. If this is so, how did we “fight” those who brought these “foreign invaders”? Did we fight Jaichand, who had helped Mohammad Ghori in the battle of Tarain? Bhagwat himself once said that in the battle of Haldighati (1576), Muslims were fighting on the side of Rana Pratap and Man Singh was leading the forces of Mughal emperor Akbar. The Nizam and Marathas similarly did not support Tipu Sultan who was fighting the British. Who fought Mir Jafar, who had supported Robert Clive in the decisive Battle of Plassey in 1757?

The RSS chief is absolutely right in saying that the larger communities are our own and members of these communities are very much insiders. Those who have been living in India for centuries should not be called foreigners. Under citizenship laws, we grant citizenship to foreigners who stay in the country for a certain number of years. Despite several amendments, even today, a person born in India whose parents are Indian citizens is an Indian citizen.

Moreover, to achieve real unity, we should not point out the shortcomings of anyone – all of us have some. We must accept people as they are. Acceptance, not tolerance, should be our motto.

In passing, Bhagwat said that “…Because of our egos and the baggage of the past, we are afraid of being united. We feel if we involve ourselves with the worship of the motherland, which belongs to everyone, we will lose our identity.” It is here, one must understand that unity within diversity has been a part of India’s core identity. Unity is far more important than uniformity.

The mere assertion of identities is not necessarily a threat to the nation’s unity. In fact, suppression of identities leads to frustration and discontentment. Any federal country will have distinctive national and regional identities. A multi-faith, and multilingual nation like ours should certainly aim at the preservation of identities. But these identities cannot be allowed to go against the constitutional mandate. Assertion of identities that would weaken our nation cannot be permitted. But discrimination on the basis of certain identities like religion, caste, language, etc, is to be resisted with the full might of the state.

The RSS chief himself was categorical in emphasising that “our diversity is not a division but our unity.” Let us celebrate this diversity in everything including methods of worship. The real test of patriotism is: Are we willing to live and die for our motherland? Let us listen to the RSS Chief’s voice of reason and end the insider-outsider debate.

The writer is an expert in constitutional law