'RSS stood with British': Congress says INC 'fought for freedom'; reminds PM Modi of VD Savarkar's allegiance

In recent discussions surrounding the centenary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Indian National Congress (INC) has raised significant questions regarding the RSSs historical contributions to Indias freedom struggle. This scrutiny comes in the wake of Prime Minister Narendra Modis commendations of the RSS for its role in nation-building. The Congress party has taken this opportunity to remind the public of the RSSs ideological roots, particularly its association with Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a figure whose allegiance to the British during the colonial period has been a point of contention. The Congress partys critique is rooted in a broader narrative about the RSSs historical stance during pivotal moments in Indias fight for independence. According to Congress leaders, the RSS not only failed to actively participate in the freedom struggle but also supported the British government during critical junctures, such as the Quit India Movement of 1942. This movement was a significant call for immediate independence from British rule, and the Congress party argues that the RSSs actions during this time were contrary to the sacrifices made by countless Indians who fought for freedom. In my experience, political narratives often reflect deeper ideological divides within a country. The Congress partys assertion that the RSS stood with the British is not merely a historical claim; it is an attempt to frame the current political discourse around issues of patriotism and national identity. The Congress has emphasized that while it was engaged in direct action against colonial rule, the RSS was reportedly more focused on its ideological pursuits, which some critics argue were aligned with the British interests. The historical context is crucial in understanding this debate. Savarkar, a prominent ideologue of the RSS, is often cited for his controversial views and actions during the British Raj. Research indicates that Savarkar was imprisoned for his revolutionary activities, yet his later writings and political alignments have led to accusations of him being sympathetic to British rule. This duality in his legacy complicates the narrative surrounding the RSS, as many view it as an organization that has historically prioritized its ideological goals over direct action against colonial oppression. Experts agree that the RSSs foundational principles, which include a focus on Hindu nationalism, have often overshadowed its historical role in the freedom movement. The Congress partys reminders of Savarkars allegiance serve to question the legitimacy of the RSSs claims to patriotism. According to official reports and historical analyses, the RSSs participation in the independence struggle was minimal compared to that of the Congress and other political entities that actively campaigned against British rule. Furthermore, the Congress party has pointed out that the RSSs advocacy for the Manusmritia text that outlines a hierarchical social ordercontrasts sharply with the egalitarian principles that many freedom fighters espoused. This juxtaposition is significant as it highlights the ideological rift between the two organizations. The Congress party positions itself as the champion of social justice and equality, while the RSS is often viewed as promoting a more exclusionary vision of Indian identity. The implications of this ongoing debate extend beyond historical analysis; they resonate with contemporary political dynamics in India. As observed, the RSS has gained substantial influence in shaping the current governments policies and national narrative. The Congress partys criticisms reflect a broader concern about the direction of Indian democracy and the values that underpin it. By invoking historical allegiances and contrasting them with the RSSs present-day actions, the Congress aims to rally support among those who prioritize a more inclusive vision of India. In light of these discussions, it is essential to consider the perspectives of various stakeholders. While the Congress party emphasizes its role in the freedom struggle, supporters of the RSS argue that the organization has contributed to nation-building in other ways, such as through social service initiatives and community development programs. This perspective suggests that the RSSs contributions, while different from those of the Congress, are nonetheless valuable in the context of Indias growth and development. As the centenary of the RSS unfolds, the discourse surrounding its historical role and contemporary relevance is likely to intensify. Experts predict that this debate will continue to shape political alignments and public perceptions in the lead-up to future elections. The Congress partys efforts to frame the RSS as an organization that historically aligned with British interests may resonate with voters who are concerned about the implications of the RSSs ideology on Indias democratic fabric. In conclusion, the ongoing dialogue between the Congress party and the RSS reflects deep-seated ideological divisions within Indian society. By questioning the RSSs historical contributions and reminding the public of Savarkars complex legacy, the Congress aims to assert its position as the true representative of Indias freedom struggle. As this narrative unfolds, it will be crucial for voters to critically assess the historical claims and contemporary implications of these political discourses. The future of Indias democratic identity may very well hinge on how these historical narratives are interpreted and understood in the context of modern governance and national unity.