THE RSS BAN, AND THE LIFTING OF THE BAN by S. Sankaran, The Editor, E-Touch

We are here to deal and analyze the arguments and counter arguments of the essays published in the recent Hindu  newspaper –

qArticle titled “The forgotten promise of 1949” by Vidhya Subramanian and her reply article titled – “Written constitution was indeed a pre-condition” – Link for original article & Link for her reply article

q Article titled “ The RSS ban, and how it was reversed – Lifting of proscription was unconditional” by S. Gurumurthy  repudiating Vidhya Subramanian’s contentions - Link

Apart from these 3 links, Vidhya Subramanian had quoted two links – 1. Link - Government of India July 11, 1949 Notification Lifting the ban & 2. Link – News report from the Hindu during those periods. 

As it would be too much strain  for the readers to browse the 4 links to know the issues, I like to jot down the points that were discussed and disputed by these two personalities.

Vidhya Subramanian in her first article titled “The forgotten promise of 1949” published in the Hindu  had accused : The RSS wrote a non-political role for itself as part of an undertaking it gave Sardar Patel. The overt political role it has assumed in 2013 is a breach of that agreement and its own constitution.

For that S. Gurumurthy in his rejoinder article titled - Lifting of ban on RSS was unconditional -  had explained:  Vidya Subrahmaniam asserts that Sardar Patel lifted the ban on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1949, because it had promised to be non-political, but it reneged on it in 2013. But publicly known facts recalled here contradict her assertion.

S. Gurumurthy had placed these arguments as well: The ban was lifted unconditionally. Here is the proof. In a written statement to the Bombay Legislative Assembly on September 14, 1949 (Proceedings p2126) the Home Minister Morarji Desai admitted that the ban on RSS was no longer considered necessary; it was lifted unconditionally; and the RSS gave no undertaking. If no undertaking was indeed given in 1949, where is the question of reneging on it in 2013?

The above are the basic facts.  Now our job is simply to read Vidhya Subramanian’s counter to S. Gurumurthy’s assertion that the RSS had not given any written undertaking to the  Government of India for lifting the ban on them. 

For specific assertion by S. Gurumurthi that the RSS had not given any written undertaking, Vidhya Subramanian had this to say: Written consitituion was indeed a pre-condition.  She had said: “That a written constitution with specific undertakings was a pre-condition for lifting the ban is fully established by the Government of India’s  July 1949 notification lifting the ban.

Now we have to simply  peruse the quoted evidence – viz. Government Notification as  referred to by Vidhya Subramanian to know  whether there is the specific reference  to the  undertaking or specific reference about  agreeing to the non-political  stance by the RSS. 

Let me quote the passages wherein the government had stated the reasons  prompting them to lift the ban on RSS.

Extracted from  July 11, 1949 Government Notification :  The R.S.S. leader has undertaken to make loyalty to the Union Constitution and respect for the National Flag more explicit in the Constitution, of the R.S S and to provide clearly that  persons believing in or resorting violence  and secret methods will have no  place in the Sangh.  The R.S.S. leader has also clarified  that the Constitution will be worked on a democratic basis . In particular, the office of the Sanghchalak  would, in  effect, be elective in that the successor  would be nominated with the consent of ihe  then Karya Kari Mandal.

In the same notification, the following passage is worth our notice:  The Government of India conveyed to the RSS leader their reaction on the draft constitution and the RSS has now generally accepted the suggestions made by the Government of India and the clarifications made by the RSS indicate that the relevant provisions of the Constitution are intended to be  worked in the spirit contemplated by the Government. 

Actually the Government of India had lifted the ban even before the finalization of the written constitution for the RSS. Hence, even before the passing of RSS Constitution, the ban was lifted. Hence even there was no constitution existing at the time of lifting the ban and Vidhya Subramanian’s argument that written constitution was indeed a pre-condition becomes weak and hollow. 

T.R. Venkatrama Shasthri, former Advocate General of Madras  and head of the Servants of  India Society who had drafted the RSS Constitution,  argued with the Government of India to lift the ban on RSS for which he was confronted with the question: Though RSS profess to be a non-political body, they may turn into one overnight. For that Shastri replied: And so they may. If they did, it would be no crime.

At the time of lifting the ban, it seems that RSS did not have a written constitution  - only a constitution in its draft stage.  Even in the government notification, there are mentions about the constitution ,  non-violence and no secrecy in  its activities,  respect to the national flag etc. and there is no specific reference as to  the condition for RSS to be  a non-political body. Actually, the RSS wants to be non-political body – that does not mean that they can be silent spectators for all on-going political happenings.  If the BJP is listening to the advices of RSS in their policies and even in selection of  candidates for elections, it is a tall  claim to paint the RSS as  a political party on that count alone .

In short, Vidhya Subramanian’s rejoinder fails to make sense.