Opinion Why there can be no dialogue between RSS and Chinese Communist Party
The difference between the CPC and RSS is fundamental. Expansionism is anathema to the RSS while it has been integrated into Chinese foreign policy
Sudheendra Kulkarni's article goes on to say that a dialogue between RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat and CPC head Xi Jinping can help bring both nations closer. 
-
Share -
-
-
The advocacy of dialogue between the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) and the RSS by Sudheendra Kulkarni (‘For Han-Hindu dialogue’, IE, June 6) is based on the flawed assumption that the reason for conflicts between the two nations is mistrust between India and China. The article goes on to say that a dialogue between RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat and CPC head Xi Jinping can help bring both nations closer. This perspective proved to be naive in the 1950s and the writer is still using it while the reality remains unchanged.
The CPC has not shown any change in its worldview. China’s actions and postures are seen as a threat to a multipolar world. Its Belt and Road Initiative, which intends to invest in more than 150 countries where more than 65 per cent of the world’s energy resources lie, indicates its ambition. The RSS perspective on the world order is non-hegemonic. It values people-to-people relationships through cultural and civilisational dialogues and discards Samuel P Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations”.
The difference between the CPC and RSS is fundamental. Expansionism is anathema to the RSS but it has been integrated into Chinese foreign policy. Even the concept of Akhand Bharat is not based on military adventurers or territorial aggrandisement. It is a natural ambition to gain the unity of land, people and culture. Burma was separated from India in 1937 but no one in the RSS or India has questioned its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Chinese modern history, on the hand, is replete with its claims on lands and people by using ahistorical arguments. China has been in conflict with Cambodia and Vietnam and its claims on the South China Sea also indicate its desire for domination.
It was China’s sabotage in the 1960s that led to the war with India. India not only lost 36,000 sq km of territory but the idea of a new world based on the noble principles of Panchsheel was killed. The RSS then too warned Nehru about China. Its chief M S Golwalkar (Shri Guruji) cautioned him not to trust the Chinese government. He saw China’s aim as being fundamentally expansionist. After all, this expansionism had led to the loss of Tibet, a haven of peace and spiritualism. Most of India — except the Indian communists — opposed Nehru’s policy of surrendering Tibet to China. Human rights violations in Tibet are well known. Jayaprakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia, J B Kripalani and Golwalkar — all of them expressed solidarity with the Tibetan people. The deep respect for the Dalai Lama, who is also the head of Tibet’s exiled government in Dharamshala, shows that Indians have not forgotten the colonisation of Tibet. And the RSS, of course, stands for its independence.
link=”https://indianexpress.com/section/opinion/” hlabel=”Must Read Opinions” hlink=”https://indianexpress.com/section/opinion/” pid=”1929664″ mlabel=”Click here for more” mlink=”https://indianexpress.com/section/opinion/”%5D
Mohan Bhagwat has emerged as a statesman who believes in the unity of opposites. His advocacy of nationalism is based on spiritual freedom and cultural unity. His eschewing of all types of radicalism gives the RSS a moral edge in the contemporary, conflict-ridden world. There is a continuity in the ideological and philosophical perspective of the RSS from its founder, K B Hedgewar to Bhagwat, which has also been characterised by the contextualising of ideology. This ensures that RSS is not orthodox in its vision and actions. The RSS belongs to an open society while the CPC represents a closed one. The former stands for a democratic system as it opposed the Emergency in 1977; the latter adores authoritarianism as its brutal action against the pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989 shows.
Kulkarni underlines the commonality of culture and the civilisational trajectory of India and China. This notion too carries little merit. In China, the party-state determines the culture and defines its contours. Its so-called soft power is based on propaganda, backed by its newly generated wealth. It has opened 525 Confucius centres in 146 countries and invites delegates from all over the world in literature, culture, and business to establish camaraderie as part of lobbying — not fraternity.
India does not have a history of cultural domination. It believes in spiritual democracy and cultural diversities. Emperor Ashoka sent his son and daughter, Mahendra and Sanghamitra, to preach to people abroad, not to subdue them. This is a unique trait, which was articulated by Swami Vivekananda while delivering lectures and interacting with people in Europe and the US. The RSS’s Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh in more than 70 countries has a history of more than eight decades and it has not come into conflict with either religion or nationalism of these nations. The RSS has established its credibility.
A dialogue between the RSS and CPC, then, would be anathema to the former. There are many who believe that dialogue should not be stopped — but it is unlikely to be constructive and fruitful when it happens between a cow and a fox.
The writer is with the Rashtra Sevika Samiti
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
