BALRAJ MADHOK: RSS PRACHARAK AS CHRONICLER OF DE-GENERATION IN THE RSS TOP BRASS

 

BALRAJ MADHOK: RSS PRACHARAK AS CHRONICLER OF DE-GENERATION IN THE RSS TOP BRASS

Shamsul Islam

 

With Balraj Madhok's death on May 2, 2016 an era of old guards of Hindutva politics comes to an end. A senior RSS pracharak till his death was paid handsome tributes by the RSS leaders including PM Modi, himself a senior pracharak, for being a "stalwart leader of Jan Sangh. Balraj Madhok ji's ideological commitment was strong & clarity of thought immense. He was selflessly devoted to the nation & society. [I] had the good fortune of interacting with Balraj Madhok ji on many occasions". The RSS also issued a formal condolence message signed by the supremo Mohan Bhagwat on behalf of all swayamsevaks, referring to his contribution of commitment to nation and society in less than 4 lines. It is intriguing that memory of Madhok was being reduced to being a leader of Jan Sangh. He was a leading RSS pracharak on whom his organization relied for initiating prominent Hindutva projects. This reductionist attitude of the present RSS leadership towards his contributions to the politics of RSS is the outcome of a design to hide Madhok's role as a chronicler of the degeneration which was spreading as an epidemic in the high echelons of the RSS in 1970s and 80s.

 

Balraj Madhok needs no introduction in Indian politics, espe­cially of the Hindutva variety. Born in 1920 in Gujranwala (now in Pakistan), he was closely associat­ed with the RSS, most of the times function­ing as a prominent organizer since 1942. As RSS pracharak he was the in-charge of Jammu & Kashmir State in pre-Partition days, the responsibility that he continued to hold till 1948 when he was ordered to leave the state by the Shiekh Abdullah Government. In Delhi, he edited the English organ of the RSS, Organizer, founded student organiza­tion of the RSS, ABVP, in 1948, and teamed up with Shyama Prasad Mukherji in establishing political wing of the RSS, Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS) in 1951. He held the cru­cial posts of All India Secretary of the BJS (1951-1965), presidentship of Delhi BJS (1954-1963) and all this culminated in his tak­ing over as President of All India BJS (1965­-1967). It was during his stewardship of All India BJS that the party made significant gains in the general elections of 1968 by reducing Congress in minority in many states. He was elected to the Lower House of the Indian Parliament, Lok Sabha, twice (1961 & 1967) from Delhi.

 

Madhok despite his busy life as politician wasanindefatigable writer too, and is known for his controversial political writings. In fact, he was mainly responsible for articulat­ing the Hindutva’s ideological response to the problem of minorities specially Muslims by propounding the theory of ‘Indianization’ in 1969. Madhok also penned his autobiographical writings —Zindagi Ka Safar –1 and Zindagi Ka Safar–2, the first two volumes of his journey of life appeared in 1994. It is after 9 years that third volume in this series, Zindagi Ka Safar –3: Deendayal Upadhyay Ki Hatya Se Indira Gandhi Ki Hatya Tak (Journey of Life-3: From the Murder of Deendayal Upadhyay to the Murder of Indira Gandhi) was published. This volume was full of shocking inci­dents and explosive facts concerning RSS. The canvass of this part of the autobiography covered political happenings between 1968 and 1984, starting with the controversial death of newly appoint­ed President of BJS, Deendayal Upadhyay and ending with the death of Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi. It is true that issues and controversies raised in the 3^rdvolume of Madhok's autobiography were in public domain earlier also, but the first hand shocking facts pre­sented in this autobiography about the con­troversial death (which Madhok described as murder) of prominent leader, ideologue and thinker of RSS, Deendayal Upadhyay and the complicity of some of the then RSS cadres namely Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Nana Deshmukh led to a hell of a controversy demanding explanations from the concerned leaders. Madhok even held the then sarsanghchalak (supremo) of RSS, Balasaheb Deoras guilty of shielding the above duo in their misdemeanors. If Madhok's autobiography is to be believed then the RSS top brass had already reached its nadir of degeneration. The most significant aspect of this autobiography was that Balraj Madhok penned it as a living swayamsevak (pracharak).

 

While outlining the nature of his treat­ment of the incidents and facts in his autobi­ography, Madhok wrote in the foreword, “I have tried to present the prominent incidents of this stormy era, my experiences and their influence on me, Jan Sangh and life of Nation with factual and objective narration and eval­uation. Being a student of history I have always kept in mind the universally accepted principle of history, ‘facts are sacred’ though there may be different interpretations.”

 

Madhokwas of the firm view that Deendayal Upadhyay’s murder on February 1, 1968, was the harbinger and beginning of a vicious rising storm which derailed the Jana Sangh. Before unfolding the mystery of Upadhyay’s murder he raised few questions:"Why was he murdered, who were the people involved in the conspiracy, what was their aim and goal behind this conspiracy all this is still shrouded in mystery. But all this will (surely) be unveiled as cir­cumstantial evidences about his murder are quite revealing.” (p. 14­-15)

 

Madhok’s autobiography aimed atexposing the con­spiracy of Deendayal Upadhyay’s murder by unveiling facts one by one, thus becoming a crucial legal document also. While straightforwardly coming to the identity of the murderers of Deendayal Upadhyay he made the following significant statement: "One thing is clear. Behind the murder of Deendayal Upadhyay was neither the hand of Communists nor of any thief...He was killed by a hired assassin. But conspirators who sponsored this killing were those self-seekers and leaders with a criminal bent of mind of Sangh-Jan Sangh." (p. 22)

 

The autobiography went to tell of a concerted attempt by the killers to keep facts under wraps:“Though those jealous self-seekers to whom the finger of suspicion points, in conspiring the murder of Deendayal Upadhyay, are benefitting by his name, but do not want truth of his murder to come out. However, as a student of history I believe that the blood of Deendayal Upadhyay will be avenged, history will do justice to him and those who conspired to kill him will be sub­jected to a curse.” (p. 15)

 

This autobiography written by a swayamsevakwas absolutely non-hesitant in pointing fingers towards Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Nana Deshmukh as main conspirators in the murder of Deendayal Upadhyay, the president of BJS. He categorically stated: “Information gathered from difference sources points the fingers of suspicion in the murder of Deendayal Upadhyay towards them.” (p. 23)

 

According to the autobiography, Deendayal Upadhyay was assassinated by those who were kept out of leading positions of the BJS by Deendayal Upadhyay as president. It is to be noted here that Deendayal Upadhyay after taking over presidentship of BJS from BalrajMadhok in December 1967, had kept out both Atal Behari Vajpayee and Nana Deshmukh from important posts. According to Madhok, Upadhyay was murdered because, “he was constantly striving that ill-reputed people should get no promotion in BJS, so that reputation of the organisation is not tar­nished. For this reason some characterless self-seeking people were finding him a stum­bling block in their path of self-seeking fulfillment.” (p. 145)

 

Who these characterless self-seekers were, Madhok minced no words in telling their names. According to the autobiography, even Madhok was familiar with them as President of BJS. According to him: “Some time back when I was the President of Jana Sangh, Jagdish Prasad Mathur, in-charge of the Central Office, who was staying with Atal Behari at 30, Rajendra Prasad Road, had complained to me that Atal had turned that house into a den of immoral activities. Every day new girls were coming there. Things were getting out of hand. So as a senior leader of Jana Sangh I have dared to bring to your notice this fact. I had some information about character of Atal, but the situation had deteriorated so much, I did not know. I called Atal to my residence and in a closed room inquired from him about matters raised by Jagdish Prasad Mathur. The explanation he offered further proved the facts conveyed by Jagdish Prasad Mathur. Then I suggested to him that he should get married, otherwise, he was bound to get a bad name, and the reputation of Jan Sangh was also bound to suffer.” (p. 25)

 

As a close and keen observer of devel­opments in BJS in the immediate post Deendayal Upadhyay period he was astonished to find that a dominant section of the RSS lead­ership was bent upon making Atal Behari Vajpayee President of BJS. This was hap­pening despite the fact that Madhok did bring all these facts to the notice of the then sarsanghchalak of RSS, MS Golwalkar. According to the account given in the autobi­ography the meeting took place in Delhi in early 1970. “After listening to my talk he [Golwalkar] kept quiet for some time and then said — ‘I know of the weaknesses of the character of these people. But I have to run an organization. I have to take everybody together, so like Shiva I drink poison everyday.’” (p. 62)

 

The autobiography went on to relate developments which seemed to be replicating some Mughal court intrigues. "It has been the tradition of Jana Sangh that if the president expires before completing his term, senior vice-president is given the responsibility for the rest of the term. So I thought that Shri Pitamber Das or Principal Dev Prasad Ghosh will be given this respon­sibility. Atal Behari Vajpayee was nowhere in the reckoning (Atal Behari Vajpayee kisi ginti maen nahin thaa). I was stunned when informed that Sangh leaders wanted to make Atal Behari Vajpayee President.

 

“Immediately after becoming President he removed Jagannath Joshi from the impor­tant post of organization in-charge (sangath­an mantri) and appointed Nana Deshmukh to this post. Thus two persons, who got immedi­ate benefit from the murder of Shri Upadhyay, were those about whom Shri Upadhyay dur­ing the tenures of his General Secretaryship and Presidentship had adopted a conscious policy of keeping away from important posts.”(pp. 16-17)

 

Balraj Madhok in his autobiography made serious allegations against Atal Behari Vajpayee and Nana Deshmukh for thwarting any investigation about the real murderer of Deendayal Upadhyay. According to him whatever public posture RSS might have taken about Upadhyay’s death, Atal Behari Vajpayee treated it as a simple accident. When Madhok entered into a debate with Atal Behari Vajpayee on this issue, he retorted in following words, as quoted in the autobiography; “Deendayal was a hot-headed (jhagraloo) person, might have picked a fight with someone in the train and in the scuffle got pushed out and died, do not call it murder.” (p. 16)

 

Madhok also goes on to narrate in details how both Atal Behari Vajpayee and Nana Deshmukh tried to mislead Chanderchud Commission of Enquiry which was constituted to find the truth about Upadhyay’s death. “When Chandrachud Commission started the enquiry I was informed that BJS President (Atal Behari Vajpayee) has given the whole responsibility of presenting Jan Sangh’s case before the Commission to Nana Deshmukh so from Jan Sangh side only those would appear as witnesses who have been cleared (picked) by Nana Deshmukh and without his permission no other member of Jan Sangh should go to appear as witness. I was expecting that I will surely be presented before the Commission but I did not figure in the list of witnesses presented by Nana Deshmukh...In such a situation Chandrachud Commission failed in unraveling the mystery of this murder. The attitude which was adopted by Atal Behari Vajpayee and Nana Deshmukh in relation to the enquiry commission and the kind of witnesses presented can only draw this conclusion that instead of unveiling the truth they were interested in a cover up.” (p 19)

 

Madhok also found the hand of Balasaheb Deoras, who became sarsanghchalak of RSS after M S Golwalkar, in the murder of Deendayal Upadhyay. According to him, “after becoming the president of BJS the stature of Shri Deendayal Upadhyay grew further. Then the possibility that hemight become the next sarsanghchalak of RSS used to be expressed. This possibility was unacceptable to some of theself-seeking Sangh people, specially BalasahebDeoras. They started feeling that due to Deendayal their chances of furtheradvancement might bejeopardized. Possibly, thisis the reason that after themurder of Deendayal, he not only took direct interest in making Atal BehariVajpayee President ofJana Sangh but alsohelped in covering up themurder of Deendayal. He wanted me to stop talking about it as a murder and describe it as an accidentlike him. But I was notready to hide a fact witnessed by my own eyes and verified.” (p. 21)     

 

This autobiography also highlighted the degenerated personal and political life of Balasaheb Deoras. Referring to the Emergency days of 1975, it goes on to tell that, “Sarsanghchalak of the Sangh, Shri Bala Saheb Deoras was held under MISA. In contrast to the life of struggle and idealism of Shri Golwalkar, he was fond of good living. That is the reason that he wrote two letters on August 22, 1975 and November 10, 1975 to Indira Gandhi for reconsidering her attitude towards the Sangh and lifting the ban from it. He also wrote a letter to Shri Vinoba Bhave requesting him to try to remove from Indira Gandhi’s heart anti [Sangh] feelings." (p. 188-189)

 

According to the autobiography, Atal Behari Vajpayee and company continued to make all kinds of efforts to finish off his political career. They even succeeded in expelling him from the primary membership of BJS in 1973. Madhokwas bitter about L. K. Advani who allowed him to be a puppet in this vicious game. Madhok wrote that his expulsion was “an immoral, unconstitutional and criminal act. In this Sarkaryavah of the Sangh, Balasaheb Deoras, and some other parcharaks including Madho Rao Mulay and organising secretaries played a prominent role. They used Atal as a shield and Advani as a puppet.” (p. 144)

 

Madhok reserved special mention for ‘Iron Man’ of Hindutva, LK Advani. “The position of Lal Krishan Advani was like a puppet. He was not qualified for the post [presidentship of BJS] which was given to him after discarding many senior workers. I knew through my personal experience that he is a boneless wonder. He has neither personal integrity nor opinion. But he is lucky. The office which he had got due to the offerings (prasad) of Vajpayee and officials of Sangh, keeping aside its honour, he acted as a bonded labourer, for any work assigned to him.” (p. 146)

 

This autobiography is significant in many respects. Firstly, if there is even an iota of truth in the charges levelled by Balraj Madhok, who was no small fry and a leading light of the Hindutva brigade then how safe is India in the hands of the present ruling clique can very well be guessed. These are serious allegations and need national investigation.

 

If these were lies then it needed to be shared with the nation and Balraj Madhok brought to book. Secondly, it was not for the first time that serious allegations of indulgence in criminal activities by important individuals/organisations of the Hindutva camp surfaced. The Gujarat carnage showed that criminal minds were leading the ruling party. This autobiography traces the roots of this dehumanization and degeneration. Thirdly, this autobiography once again proved that Hindutva is no Parivar with a healthy mind and body. It is a ruthless gang of power seekers which can go to any length for its kill. Like any fascist set up it is packed with people who specialize in treachery, debauchery and self-destruction.

 

Deendayal Upadhyay ki haththya se Indira Gandhi ki haththya tak by Balraj Madhok (which is part 3 of his Zindagi ka Safar) is available from Dinman Prakashan, 3014 Charkhaywalan, Delhi-110006.

 

Shamsul Islam

May 3, 2016

notoinjustice@gmail.com

For some of S. Islam's writings in English, Hindi, Urdu & Gujarati see the following link:

http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam

Facebook: shams shamsul

Twitter: @shamsforjustice

 

 

PROFESSOR FAIZAN MUSTAFA’S QUESTIONABLE DEFENCE OF PARTISAN INDIAN HIGHER JUDICIARY F

 

PROFESSOR FAIZAN MUSTAFA’S QUESTIONABLE DEFENCE OF PARTISAN INDIAN HIGHER JUDICIARY

Faizan Mustafa, a Professor of law and vice-chancellor of National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR University of Law Hyderabad established by Legislative Assembly of Telangana) in a recent write-up (‘Muslims and Judiciary: We do not have Muslim or non-Muslim judges in India’, the Indian Express, July 8, 2022) disclosed that in 1997 he refused to undertake a project on the role of Muslim judges as it was against the ingrained ethos of Indian judiciary; the non-partisan character. However, the current write-up dealt with the issue of treatment of Muslims by the Supreme Court (SC); Faizan presenting the defence of the Supreme Court of India. This write-up surely was in response to the mounting criticism in India and abroad that Indian judiciary, specially, its higher echelons have succumbed to the majoritarian pressures and were being ‘managed’ by the RSS-BJP rulers committed to Hindutva.

CLAIM: JUDGES ARE SENSITIVE TO MUSLIM ISSUES

Faizan stressed that “Judges have been not only fair but also sensitive to Muslim causes”. It is a problematic statement. Are Muslim causes not also Indian causes? To take few contemporary examples: Are Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, indefinite incarceration of hundreds of youth/intellectuals/journalists under terror laws, protests against CAA and subsequent repression of the activists, bulldozing of residences and protests against abrogation of the Article 370 only Muslim issues? These issues much maligned as ‘Muslim’ issues, in fact, test Indian polity’s constitutional commitment towards democracy, social-political-religious equality, secularism, federalism, Rule of Law (even Rule by Law) and independent judiciary.

REALITY: INBUILT HOSTILITY

Faizan’s defence of the SC started with the defence of Justice D Y Chandrachud whom he described as a “scholar judge”. Faizan stated: “On June 20 [2022], Justice D Y Chandrachud was asked about the judiciary’s treatment of Muslims at King’s College London. Justice Chandrachud didn’t take offence to the question but answered it politely…our judges do not have the litigant’s religious identity in mind while dispensing justice.”

 As another proof of the non-partisan character of the SC he referred to the 2019 SC judgment in Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, which included Justice D Y Chandrachud as member of the bench which delivered the judgment. According to Faizan, in this case SC,

 “Termed the installation of idols in 1949 and the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as ‘egregious wrongs’ [and said] the Babri Masjid was not constructed after the demolition of a Ram temple and pointed out that the Archaeological Survey of India report had not found any evidence of such a demolition. It had also observed that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, protects and secures the fundamental values of the Constitution”.

However, for reasons known to the Professor only, he did not elaborate why despite all these glaring facts and proofs even corroborated by the Honourable non-partisan Justices it was decreed by the non-partisan highest court of India that due to the “faith and belief of Hindus…that Janmaasthan of Lord Ram is the place where Babri Mosque has been constructed” a Ram Temple must be built there. It is important to note that Babri mosque-Ramjanam Bhoomi case was not a Hindu-Muslim issue which was made out by Hindutva organizations and later SC falling for it.

Babri Mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992 by an illegal assembly of Hindutva zealots gathered in Ayodhya by the RSS and its fraternal organizations. It was not an issue between Hindus and Muslims but between Hindutva organizations and democratic-secular Indian polity. The mosque was demolished despite orders of the SC, assurances by the RSS/BJP leaders to Indian Parliament and the then PM Narsimha Rao. Rao gave solemn promise both to the Parliament and Indian nation (from the ramparts of Red Fort on August 15, 1993) that wrong would be undone and the demolished Mosque would be built at its original site.

As if it was not enough, SC allowed the same organizations (Vishwa Hindu Parishad, an appendage of RSS) to construct Ram Temple which had admitted playing leading role in demolition of the Mosque. Thus what Hindutva juggernaut could not accomplish on December 6, 1992 was facilitated by SC.

Faizan kept silent on how later Justice Chandrachud violated unanimous judgment in Babri mosque-Ramjanam Bhoomi case in which he was part of the bench. Renowned political analyst, Ashutosh stated that 1991 judgment was expected to put at rest the Hindutva project of demolition of innumerable mosques. On the contrary,

“While hearing the Gyanvapi petition, Justice Chandrachud opined that the 1991 Act does not stop the ‘ascertainment of the religious character of the place’…Now anyone can go to court and put a question mark over the veracity of any mosque or temple or Gurudwara or church or a synagogue and request to change its status…Therefore the Supreme Court has practically made every religious place in the country suspect and disputed. Would it be correct to say that the Supreme Court in its deliberation has, mistakenly, been impacted by the majoritarian thought process?”

ARREST OF TEESTA SETALVAD AND SREEKUMAR

Faizan praised Supreme Court Justices Surya Kant and Justice J B Pardiwala [July 1, 2022] for making,

“scathing observations against ex-BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma for speaking against the Prophet. Justice Surya Kant blamed her for the tragic killing in Udaipur”.

The Justices deserved thanks for this gesture. However, Faizan forgot to deliberate on what the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar did to renowned human rights’ activist, Teesta Setalvad and a senior much decorated police officer, Sreekumar. Minimum, he should have read what former SC Justice Madan B Lokur (who happens to be member of both academic and general councils of the law university headed by Faizan) wrote on this issue. He stated that Teesta was “Condemned by Innuendo” of the Gujarat police prosecutors and

“it is tragic that the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to unilaterally decide who should be arrested and why? That is certainly not the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as we know it, except in the case of contempt of court. And, even in a case of contempt, the Supreme Court hears the alleged contemnor before judgment and arrest.”

NO RELIEF FOR MOST OF THE DISSIDENTS

It is sad that Faizan who happens to be VC of a University (whose Chancellor is chief justice of Telangana High Court) and known as expert on legal/judicial issues can be so untruthful. He admits “that many [meaning countless] young Muslims had been arrested on terror charges under successive governments” but resorted to a grave lie when stated that “the accused in many such cases were acquitted clearly demonstrates that ordinary Muslim litigants have been getting justice from our judges”. Faizan as a Professor must know that a teacher should never bungle with the facts. These are not countless Muslims only but countless Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Dalits who have been languishing in jails under terror laws without hearings, grant of bails or any kind of judicial intervention. Faizan as a researcher of Indian judiciary should have read tribal and human rights’ activist Jesuit Fr. Stan Swamy’s factual report on the pathetic condition of incarcerated youth in jails most of them hailing from Dalit and minority stocks. Does Faizan need to be reminded that Fr. Swamy was the oldest prisoner [83 years old] incarcerated under terror laws on October 8, 2020 and was given interim bail only on May 28, 2021 for treatment when there was no chance of his survival? He died on July 5, 2021. 

TWO KINDS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Faizan Mustafa refuses to admit that Indian higher judiciary delivers two kinds of justices which not only affect Muslims but other minorities, Dalits and women too. Whenever the country witnesses the large-scale violence against minorities and Dalits, the search for perpetrators continues endlessly and criminals rarely punished. Major incidents of violence against minorities like Nellie massacre (1983), Sikh massacre (1984), Hashimpura custodial massacre of Muslim youth (1987), pre/post-Ayodhya mosque demolition violence against Muslims (1990-92), Gujarat carnage (2002) and Kandhmal cleansing of Christians (2008) are testimony to this reality.

The status of anti-Dalit violence is no different. The major incidents of persecution and massacre of Dalits; 1968 Kilvenmani massacre, 1997 Melavalavu massacre, 2013 Marakkanam anti-Dalit violence, 2012 Dharmapuri anti-Dalit violence (all in Tamil Nadu), 1985 Karamchedu massacre, 1991 Tsundur massacre (all in AP), 1996 Bathani Tola Massacre, 1997 Laxmanpur Bathe massacre (all in Bihar), 1997 Ramabai killings, Mumbai, 2006 Khairlanji massacre, 2014 Javkheda Hatyakand, (all in Maharashtra), 2000 Caste persecution in (Karnataka), 5 Dalits beaten/burnt to death for skinning a dead cow 2006, 2011 killings of Dalits in Mirchpur (all in Haryana), 2015 anti-Dalit violence in Dangawas (Rajasthan) are some of the thousands of incidents of the Dalit persecution. In almost all these cases perpetrators are yet to be identified. Even if identified the prosecution rate never exceeded 20%.

On the other hand, the Dalit and minority 'perpetrators' of violence are efficiently put on trial by constituting special investigation teams and punished by fast track courts. In order to meet the end of justice and national security they are hanged and jailed. But when the victims are Dalits or minorities no such urgency is shown. In such cases Indian State is fond of playing commission-commission. Commissions after commissions would be constituted to see that the heinous crimes disappear from the public memory. The horrendous massacre of Sikhs in different parts of India is a living testimony of this criminal attitude of the Indian justice system.

BALANCING IS NO JUSTICE

Faizan as a legal luminary must understand that justice is not an art of balancing but requires honesty to call spade a spade. It would be travesty of justice if our examination of independence of higher judiciary is shackled by the binary; SC versus Muslims. SC has not been able to expedite its scrutiny of terror laws, use of Pegasus for snooping on journalists, activists, constitutionality of CAA, political bonds and Article 370, anti-working class laws, hate mongering to name few. This judicial inertia is prolonging the misery (of being incarcerated) of hundreds of political activists, journalists, lawyers, human rights activists and trade unionists. It is whole of India which needs an independent judiciary and not a merciful SC for Muslims only!

Shamsul Islam

 

आरएसएस के शीर्ष नेतृत्व के वैचारिक, नैतिक, सामाजिक और राजनैतिक पतन की दास्तान: आरएसएस के प्रचारक बलराज मधोक की ज़बानी    

बलराज मधोक (1920-2016) की 1963 में छपी आत्मकथा, ज़िंदगी का सफ़र-3-दीनदयाल उपाध्याय कि हत्या से इंद्रा गांधी कि हत्या तक, हर उस इंसान को पढ़ना ज़रूरी है जो आरएसएस के राष्ट्र-समाज-इंसानियत विरोधी चरित्र को समझना चाहता है। आरएसएस का यह दावा रहता है कि वे हिंदु धर्म/हिंदुओं के पुनर्जागरण और पुनरुत्थान के लिये 1925 में अस्तित्व में आया। इस के अनुसार आरएसएस हिंदुओं के लिये एक ऐसा अनोखा इकलौता आदर्श संगठन है जो उन्हें आध्यात्मिक, नैतिक और भौतिक विकास के शिखर पर ले जाना चाहता है ताकि दुनिया उन के सामने नतमस्तक हो। लेकिन सच इन दावों से कितना भिन्न और शर्मनाक है इस का भरपूर अंदाज़ा आख़री सांस तक आरएसएस से जुड़े रहे हिन्दुत्व के प्रमुख विचारकों में से एक, बलराज मधोक की आपबीती पढ़कर लगाया जा सकता है। बलराज माधोक 1938 में आरएसएस के संपर्क में आये और 1942 में इसके प्रचारक (पूर्णकालिक कार्यकर्ता) बने और आख़री सांस लेने (मई 2, 2016) तक इस के सदस्य रहे। उन्हें आरएसएस की तरफ़ से राष्ट्रीय महत्व कि ज़िम्मेदारियाँ दी गयीं। आरएसएस के प्रचारक बनते ही उन्हें जम्मू-कश्मीर रियासत का ज़िम्मा दिया गया, श्यामा प्रसाद मुकर्जी के साथ मिलकर उन्हों ने आरएसएस के जेबी राजनैतिक संगठन जनसंघ की 1951 में स्थापना की और उसके अध्यक्ष बने, आरएसएस के एक और जेबी छात्र संगठन, अखिल भारतीय विद्यार्थी-परिषद की 1949 में स्थापना की, 1960 में गौ-हत्या विरोधी आंदोलन को संगठित किया तथा आरएसएस की तरफ़ से पहली बार उन्हों ने 1968 में बाबरी मस्जिद की जगह राम मंदिर बनाने की मांग की। 1969 में उन्हों ने देश के अल्पसंखियाकों विशेषकर मुसलमानों के विवादस्पद ‘भारतीयकरण’ की अवधारणा पेश की।

आरएसएस को इतनी गहराई से जानने वाले बलराज मधोक ने जो इस के सब से महतपूर्ण विचारक माधव सदाशिव गोलवलकर से भी सीधे संपर्क में थे ने, ही आरएसएस के नेतृत्व के पतन के बारे में जो शर्मनाक जानकारियाँ दी हैं वे बहुत विचलित करने वाली हैं, इन्हें हमेशा छुपाया गया। बलराज मधोक की आप-बीती के अनुसार, आरएसएस का शीर्ष नेतृत्व अय्याशी, आरएसएस के भीतेर हत्याओं और साज़िशों में लिप्त था। मधोक प्रत्यक्ष उदाहरण देकर बताते हैं कि आरएसएस के सरसंघचालक, गोलवलकर और बाला देवरस इन सब को रोकने के बजाये आरएसएस में मुजरिमों की टोली को संरक्षण देते रहे। मधोक पर यह इल्ज़ाम भी नहीं लगाया जा सकता कि उन्हों ने यह सब इस लिए लिखा क्योंकि उन्हें आरएसएस से निकाल दिया गया था। उन की मौत पर आरएसएस के तरफ़ से जारी निम्नलिखित ख़त इस बात की गवाही देता है कि मरते-दम तक आरएसएस से जुड़े थे। इस पत्र के आतिरिक्त बलराज मधोक की पुस्तक से ऐसे पन्ने यहाँ पेश हैं जिन्हें पढ़कर यह समझना जरा भी मुश्किल नहीं है कि आरएसएस इस देश के लोगों, ख़ासकर हिंदुओं के लिए कितना ख़तरनाक है। और अगर आरएसएस से जुड़ी इस पतित चरित्र वाली टोली इस देश पर राज कर रही है तो देश को सर्वनाश होने से कौन बच सकता है! पर क्या  इस देश के लोग ऐसा होने देंगे!! [शम्सुल इस्लाम, 16-06-2022. ईमेल: notoinjustice@gmail.com]

बलराज मधोक के देहांत पर आरएसएस का शोक-प्रस्ताव इस सच्चाई को सिद्ध करता है कि वे मरते-दम तक आरएसएस से जुड़े थे।

 

ज़िंदगी का सफ़र-3: दीनदयाल उपाध्याय कि हत्या से इंद्रा गांधी कि हत्या तक DINMAN PRAKASHAN, CHARKHEWALAN, DELHI-110006. MOBILE: 98732 38067. EMAIL: dinmanprakashan@gmail.com

 

दीनदयाल उपाध्याय कि हत्या करवाने वाले षड्यंत्रकारी आरएसएस-जनसंघ के ऊंचे पदों पर बैठे महत्वाकांक्षी और अपराधी परवर्ती के लोग थे। नाम जानकार आप चकित रह जायेंगे!

 

जनसंघ का केन्द्रीय दफ़्तर (30 राजेंद्र प्रसाद रोड, नई दिल्ली) कैसे व्यभिचार का अड्डा बना। ये अय्याश कौन थे?

जब बलराज मधोक ने आरएसएस के सरसंघचालक, गोलवलकर से शिकायत की तो उन्हों ने चुप रहने का आदेश दिया!

दीनदयाल उपाध्याय के आरएसएस से जुड़े क़ातिलों को सज़ा दिलाने और नैतिक तौर पर पतित आरएसएस के बड़े नेताओं को निष्कासित करने की मांग करने पर बलराज मधोक को कैसे जनसंघ (आरएसएस का भाजपा से पहले का राजनैतिक संगठन) से निकाल गया।

लाल कृषण आडवाणी एक कठपुतली, बिना हड्डी का चमत्कार

आरएसएस का तीसरा सरसंघचालक बाल साहिब देवरस एक जीवन सुविधा भोगी था जिस ने 1975 की राष्ट्रीय आपातकालीन स्तिथि की घोषणा के बाद इंदिरा गांधी से बिनती।

आरएसएस ने किस तरह जनता पार्टी से विश्वासघात किया।