No enemy, no RSS ideology: Biggest threat to Mother India
The manner in which Jawaharal Nehru University Students' Union president Kanhaiya Kumar was roughed up in Patiala House Court premises, while being brought to be produced in the courtroom, in the presence of observers from the Supreme Court who were there to ensure the security of Kanhaiya and everybody else targeted by the RSS-BJP, has brought back memories of the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition incident.
The people associated with Sangh Parivar are quick to accuse others who do not believe in their ideology, of being anti-national at the slightest pretext or sometimes even without any concrete evidence, but are themselves guilty of having scant regard for the Constitution of this country or any respect for law and order.
At present the biggest threat to this nation is from the Sangh Parivar itself which is hurtling the country speedily towards anarchy. Those of Hindutva ideology feel that under the present dispensation they are free to beat up anybody or even kill without attracting any punishment, as the police is under one of their own, Rajnath Singh, the home minister, who was quick to point out that JNU incidents were instigated by Hafiz Saeed without providing any proof for this claim.
Today, there is a raging debate in this country. People believing in Hindutva ideology claim to be patriots, accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being anti-national. The dubious actions of the RSS-associated people make us question their categorisation. Is it enough to be called a patriot if you hold a picture of Mother India, raise "Vande Mataram" slogans, wave the Indian Tricolour, hurl abuses at Pakistan and beat up anybody who disagrees with any of these things?
The Delhi BJP MLA OP Sharma said that if he had a gun he would have shot the anti-national people. If we think that the violence perpetrated by terrorists or Naxalites is wrong, how is the violence by the Right wing justified? It is amazing that police and judiciary continue to be mute spectators of all their acts of vandalism.
The policies made in this country are making the rich richer and increasingly distancing them from the poor. Half the children born in this country are malnourished. One-fourth of children are victims of child labour. Of the one thousand children born, 47 die at child birth and 14 more die before they reach the age of five years. When one lakh children are born, 200 mothers die during childbirth.
Since the country has adopted the economic policies of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation about three lakh farmers have committed suicide as they were not able to repay their loans. Shouldn't the people who make policies for this country, who are responsible for the abovementioned deaths and extreme levels of poverty in this country, be called anti-national?
Some private corporations are in debt to the extent of a total of Rs 1.14 lakh crores to the banks of this country which have conveniently decided to call these unpaid loans as Non-Performing Assets. In a country where poor live in the shocking state described above, will it not be considered anti-national to simply write off the loans of private corporations in this manner?
Should people who indulge in corruption and pocket public money for private gains not be called anti-national? BJP has always talked about bringing back the black money stashed in foreign banks but nobody likes to talk about the black money in our economy which helps the corrupt and criminal enter our legislatures.
Are people using this black money not anti-national? Is seeking foreign capital to set up industrial units, which will be free to exploit our labour, not anti-national?
Is giving rights over natural resources to national-multinational corporations to make profit and denying our own citizens access to them not anti-national?
For example, Pepsi and Coca Cola are exploiting our underground water resources and taking away the profits to US. Should helping them set up units in India not be called anti-national? Is helping students cheat in examinations and thereby jeopardising their future not anti-national?
On the other hand is it not patriotic to help the empowerment, in any way, of marginalised sections of this country? Is the act of enabling a child to attend school, who is otherwise unable to do so, not an act of patriotism? Is helping a needy person access medical help for treatment not a patriotic act? Does it not count as patriotism to organise socioeconomic weaker categories of people to fight for their basic rights so that they may improve their living conditions?
Is it not patriotism to help any victim seek justice from the system? Will it not be considered a patriotic act to raise voice against injustice so that some people are not harmed and demand the right policies so that people are benefitted?
Is it not patriotic to raise a voice against misuse of public money by the government so that the resources may be equitably distributed? For example, will it not be wise to demand reduction in defence budget and simultaneously work on resolving bilateral problems with neighbours whom we consider enemy so that the saved resources could be spent on education, health care, employment generation, etc, which will benefit citizens of our country as well as fellow deprived citizens of our enemy country, which too will reduce its defence budget in response.
Is this not patriotism? In fact, this kind of patriotism is in the interest of our nation as well as our neighbours, who presently see us as a threat.
If we examine carefully the idea of nation is as divisive as the ideas of religion and caste, all of which are artificial categories created by human beings. The concept of nation should meet the same fate as in Europe, where there are no armies on the borders and one can cross from one country into another without requiring a passport or a visa.
We hope that one day we will be able to cross from one country into another just like we cross over from one district to another, in South Asia as well. In such a concept of nation the Right-wing people will not have an opportunity to practice their ideology because there will be no takers for it.
The RSS ideology exists only so long as there is an enemy, either real or imagined. This is the biggest contradiction of the Hindutva ideology. This implies that the existence of RSS is dependent on the existence of their enemy. That is why targeting an enemy is the focus of all RSS activities. This is the reason wise people do not fall in their trap.