RSS-BJP’S FAKE LOVE FOR TRICOLOUR WILL NOT WASH OFF THEIR CRIME OF PERSISTENTLY DENIGRATING THE NATIONAL FLAG!

 

RSS-BJP’S FAKE LOVE FOR TRICOLOUR WILL NOT WASH OFF THEIR CRIME OF PERSISTENTLY DENIGRATING THE NATIONAL FLAG!

 

RSS-BJP rulers of India have suddenly developed immense love for the Indian national flag. According to press reports under “Har Ghar Tiranga” [Tricolour at every home] campaign Centre facilitated hoisting of the Tricolour at 24 crore homes across the country from August 13 to 15 as part of the celebration of the 75^th year of India’s independence. Even PM Modi who long back identified himself as a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and a Hindu nationalist (Hindu nationalists are committed to replace the Tricolour with the saffron flag) changed his social media profile picture to ‘Tricolour’.

 

Even a chameleon would look like a minion in face of Hindutva rulers’ change of colour regarding the National Flag. To get familiar with the criminal hypocrisy of the RSS-BJP one has just to access the archives of RSS and Hindu Mahasabha led by RSS ‘Veer’, VD Savarkar. Let us begin with the RSS.

The (RSS), since its inception in 1925, has been opposed to the Tricolour as the Indian national flag. In order to be familiar with the boundless dislike that the Hindutva fraternity has had towards the national flag, one has just to access the archives of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha led by V.D. Savarkar.

Some correspondence

The RSS hated anything which symbolised the united struggle of the Indian people against British rule. The case of the Tricolour is the most pertinent one. In December 1929, the Congress, at its Lahore session, called upon the people to observe January 26, every following year, as Independence Day by displaying and saluting the Tricolour (it was the flag of the national movement at that time with the charkha in the middle). When January 26, 1930 was approaching, K. B. Hedgewar, as Sarsanghchalak and founder-Supremo of the RSS, instead issued a circular on January 21, 1930 to all RSS shakhas to worship the bhagwa jhanda (saffron flag) as the national flag.

Violating the national consensus, the circular asked all in charge of the Shakhas to hold a meeting of their respective swayamsevaks at 6 p.m. on Sunday, January 26, 1930, at the respective sanghasthans (places where shakhas are held) and offer “salutation to the National Flag, i.e., the Bhagwa Dhawaj.” 

[Palkar, NH (ed.), Dr. Hedgewar: patr-roop Veyakti Darshan (Hindi translation of Hedgewar’s letters), Archana Prakashan, Indore, 1981, p. 18.] 

It must be noted that this circular has never been withdrawn.

M.S. Golwalkar, one of the most prominent ideologues of the RSS and top leaders while addressing a Gurupurnima gathering at the headquarters of the RSS in Nagpur on July 14, 1946, stated: “It was the saffron flag which in totality represented Bhartiya [Indian] culture. It was the embodiment of God. We firmly believe that in the end the whole nation will bow before this saffron flag.”

(Golwalkar, MS, Shri Guruji Samagr Darshan, vol. i, Bhartiye Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p.98.) 

On the eve of Independence when the ramparts of Red Fort were being readied for the hoisting of the Tricolour by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, the common man was marching with the Tricolour in every part of India and hoisting the National Flag on house tops. But, shockingly, the English organ of the RSS, Organiser, in its issue dated August 14, 1947, denigrated the National Flag [the ‘mystery behind the bhagwa dhawaj’] with the following words: “The people who have come to power by the kick of fate may give in our hands the Tricolour but it will never be respected and owned by Hindus. The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country.”

So according to the RSS Indian National Flag was never to be respected by Hindus. It was a bad omen and injurious for the country.

An editorial

The Organiser, in an editorial (‘The Nation’s Flag’ July 17, 1947), reacting to the news that the committee of the Constituent Assembly of India on the National Flag had decided in favour of the Tricolour as the National Flag, wrote: “We do not at all agree that the Flag ‘should be acceptable to all parties and communities in India’. This is sheer nonsense. The Flag represents the nation and there is only one nation in Hindusthan, the Hindu Nation… We cannot possibly choose a flag with a view to satisfy the desires and wishes of all the communities…We cannot order the choice of a flag as we order a tailor to make a shirt or coat for us…”

So, this was the view on the design of the Tricolour which represented the three colours symbolising freedom, equality and fraternity.

After 1947

Even after Independence, it was the RSS which refused to accept the Tricolour as the National Flag. Golwalkar, while denouncing the choice of the Tricolour as the National Flag, in an essay entitled ‘Drifting and Drifting’ in the book, Bunch of Thoughts (collection of writings/speeches of Golwalkar), wrote: “Our leaders have set up a new flag for our country. Why did they do so? It is just a case of drifting and imitating….Ours is an ancient and great nation with a glorious past. Then, had we no flag of our own? Had we no national emblem at all these thousands of years? Undoubtedly we had. Then why this utter void, this utter vacuum in our minds?”

(Golwalkar, M.S., Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu Prakashan, Bangalore, 1966, pp.237-38.)

Shockingly, RSS chief was comparing design of the Tricolour which represented three colours symbolizing, freedom, equality and fraternity with the stitching of a shirt or coat by a tailor! It was height of shamelessness, worst kind of denigration of the National Flag carrying which thousands of patriotic Indians had sacrificed their lives.

Savarkar’s hatred for the Tricolour

Savarkar too refused to accept the Tricolour as the national flag. Demanding its boycott, he declared in a statement on September 22, 1941: “So far as the flag question is concerned, the Hindus know no flag representing Hindudom as a whole than the ‘Kundalini Kripanankit’ Mahasabha flag with the ‘Om and the Swastik’ the most ancient symbols of the Hindu race and policy coming down from age to age and honoured throughout Hindusthan… Therefore, any place or function where this Pan-Hindu flag is not honoured should be boycotted by the Hindusanghatanists [members of the Hindu Mahasabha] at any rate…The Charkha-Flag in particular may very well represent a Khadi-Bhandar, but the Charkha can never symbolise and represent the spirit of the proud and ancient nation like the Hindus.”

(Bhide, A.S. (ed.), Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the President’s Diary of his Propagandist Tours Interviews from December 1937 to October 1941, na, Bombay pp. 469, 473.)

Well-known socialist leader and a leading freedom fighter, N. G. Goray was witness to a shocking incident in 1938 when the Hindutva cadres tore up the Tricolour and physically attacked the renowned freedom fighters. He squarely held Savarkar and Hedgewar responsible for it. According to Goray: “Who attacked the May Day procession? Who assaulted men like Senapati Bapat and [Gajanan] Kanitkar? Who tore up the national flag? The Hindu Mahasabhaites and the Hedgewar boys did it all…They have been taught to hate the Muslims in general as Public Enemy Number 1, to hate the Congress and its flag… They have their own flag, ‘the Bhagwa’, the symbol of Maratha Supremacy.”

[Congress Socialist, 14 May 1938.]

The campaign by the government of the day, i.e., “Har Ghar Tiranga”, could have had credibility had the Bhartiya Janata Party government been able to convince the RSS to discard its agenda of denigrating the Tricolour and its project of replacing the Tricolour with a saffron flag. It may be noted here that the saffron flag is part of a larger project of diluting the democratic-secular polity of India.

The patriotic Indians must demand public apology from the BJP rulers as they claim to be members of the RSS for this persistent denigration of the Tricolour. This anti-national lot must not be allowed to use our National Flag to cover-up their anti-people and anti-national agenda.

(The RSS and Hindu Mahasabha sources quoted in this article are from their publications.)

[A shorter version of it appeared in The Hindu, 26-08-2022 titled ‘The Tricolour campaign and notes from the past: The mentors of the government of the day have long been opposed to the Tricolour as the national flag’. LINK: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-tricolour-campaign-and-notes-from-the-past/article65811067.ece]

Shamsul Islam

Link for some of S. Islam's writings in English, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati and video interviews/debates:

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

Facebook: https://facebook.com/shamsul.islam.332

Twitter: @shamsforjustice

http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/

Email: notoinjustice@gmail.com

 

[Shamsul Islam taught political science at the University of Delhi. 

 

PM MODI IDOLIZES SAVARKAR: 2ND KILLING OF THE TRUE MARTYRS OF INDIA’S FREEDOM STRUGGLE!

 

PM MODI IDOLIZES SAVARKAR: 2^ND KILLING OF THE TRUE MARTYRS OF INDIA’S FREEDOM STRUGGLE!

August 15, 2022 democratic-secular India completed 75 years of its eventful journey. It was a great occasion being celebrated as Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav [Nectar of grand celebration]. However, it was sad as well as shocking that our PM chose this very day to idolize VD Savarkar by elevating him to the pantheon of great martyrs and freedom fighters of the Indian freedom movement in his customary address from the ramparts of Red Fort. PM Modi expressed indebtedness “to Pujya Bapu, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Babasaheb Ambedkar, Veer Savarkar, who devoted all their life on the path of duty towards the nation. The path of obligation has been their sole life path. This country is grateful to Mangal Pandey, Tatya Tope, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru, Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla Khan, Ram Prasad Bismil and countless such revolutionaries of ours who shook the foundations of British rule. This nation is grateful to those brave women, be it Rani Lakshmibai, Jhalkari Bai, Durga Bhabhi, Rani Gaidinliu, Rani Chennamma, Begum Hazrat Mahal, Velu Nachiyar, who showed the mettle of women power of India”.

The truth is that by equating Savarkar with the above named martyrs and freedom fighters PM was not only resorting to terrible lies but also denigrating the true freedom fighters. His claim that Savarkar too “devoted all their life on the path of duty towards the nation…who shook the foundation of British rule” is bereft of any truth. It is tantamount to the 2^nd killing of true martyrs and freedom fighters. 

Let us compare PM’s idolization of Savarkar with the writings of Savarkar and records of his activities available in the archives of the Hindu Mahasabha in order to know the truth.

Savarkar’s journey from Indian nationalist to Hindu nationalist

It is true that Savarkar penned THE INDIAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1857 in 1907 in which he glorified the joint struggle of Hindus and Muslims in the 1857 rebellion. In this tome, proscribed by the British rulers, he underscored the fact that Hindus and Muslims “were both children of the soil of Hindusthan. Their names were different, but they were all children of the same Mother; India therefore being the common mother of these two, they were brothers by blood”. He went to the extent of praising the Jehadi spirit Moulvi Ahmed Shah in the liberation war of 1857. “The great and saintly Ahmed Shah had woven fine and cleverly the webs of the Jehad—the War of Independence—through every corner of Lucknow and Agra.”

However, Savarkar’s incarceration at the CJ brought fundamental change in his idea of India. His first official biographer, Dhananjay Keer corroborated the fact that while leaving the Cellular, he gave this mantra: “One God, one country, one goal, one race, one life, one language” which was later concretized as Hindutva. The reason for discarding commitment to an all-inclusive India and turning Islamophobic was provided by Savarkar himself: “A large number of the wicked warders consisted of Mussalmans…And the prisoners under them were mostly Hindus. The Hindu prisoners were persecuted…”

It will be interesting to know that Savarkar was the only one at Cellular Jail who presented the persecution at the hands of the warders as a Hindu-Muslim issue. Barindra Kumar Ghosh (known as Barin, younger brother of Aurobindo Ghosh) in his memoirs, THE TALE OF MY EXILE made it clear that Muslim prisoners too suffered at the hands of these Cellular Jail officials. ““In the Andamans it is they [warder, petty officer, jamadar etc.] who are in-charge of everything and have the authority…Ramlal sits a little cross-wise in the file, give him two blows on the neck. Mustafa did not get up immediately he was told to, so, pull off his mustache. Baqaullah is late in coming from the latrine, apply the baton and unloose the skin of his posterior—such were the beautiful proceedings by which they maintained discipline in the prison.”

Barin was also witness to the fact that there were kind hearted Pathan warders who on many occasions “secretly brought out a dish of meat…I do not know whether any food prepared by the famous Draupadi herself could have been as savoury as that dish with suh a gusto did I devour it”.

The truth is that Savarkar used the persecution by the Muslim jail officials as an alibi to legitimize his abandonment of commitment to Indian nationalism. The renowned historian R. C. Majumdar who is regarded as a true ‘Bhartiya’ by the Hindutva brigade while sifting heaps of official papers relating to the Cellular Jail in the course of writing of his landmark book on the CJ, Penal Settlement in Andamans could not avoid commenting, “that the incarceration in the Andamans had produced a great change on the great revolutionary leaders [Savarkar, his brother and Barin] and their attitude towards the British Government and their view of destroying it by revolution or secret conspiracies had suffered a radical change”.

Savarkar preceded Jinnah in propounding two-nation theory

Muslim League [ML] under MA Jinnah demanded Pakistan in March 1940. Long before it Savarkar had laid down two-nation theory. In his book HINDUTVA (1923) he declared India to be the homeland of Hindus only and Muslims could not be part of Indian nationhood. He declared: “The root meaning of the word Hindu, like the sister epithet in Hindi, may mean only an Indian, yet as it is we would be straining the usage of words too much-we fear, to the point of breaking-if we call a Mohomedan [sic] a Hindu because of his being a resident of India.”

Muslim league under MA Jinnah demanded Pakistan in March 1940. Long before it Savarkar had laid down his two-nation theory. In his book HINDUTVA (1923) he declared India to be the homeland of Hindus only and Muslims could not be part of Indian nationhood. He declared: “The root meaning of the word Hindu, like the sister epithet in Hindi, may mean only an Indian, yet as it is we would be straining the usage of words too much-we fear, to the point of breaking-if we call a Mohomedan [sic] a Hindu because of his being a resident of India.”

Savarkar took over the leadership of Hindu Mahasabha [HM] in 1937. While addressing the 19th Session of Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in the same year stated: “As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India…India cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.”

Hindu Mahasabha led by Savarkar declared unconditional support to the British government during Quit India Movement

The Quit India Movement began on August 9, 1942 as per Gandhi's call to 'Do or Die' in order to expel the British from India. The British rulers swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8th itself. Over 100,000 arrests were made which included the total top leadership of Congress including Gandhi, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were killed in violence, many shot by the police and army. Congress was banned. It is not generally known that during these times of repression Savarkar announced full support to the British rulers. Addressing the 24th session of the HM at Kanpur in 1942, Savarkar outlined the strategy of the Hindu Mahasabha of co-operating with the rulers in the following words: “The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Co-operation [with the British].” He called upon HM councillors, ministers, legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies to offer “Responsive Co-operation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance…”

 

Hindu Mahasabha led by Savarkar ran coalition governments with Jinnah led Muslim League during Quit India Movement

 

What it meant at the political front was unambiguous. HM and ML joined hands in running coalition governments in Bengal and Sind (and later NWFP). Defending this collusion between HM and ML against Congress Savarkar stated, "In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition Government. The case of Bengal is well known. Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissiveness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and socialable [sic] as soon as they came in contact with the HM and the Coalition Government, under the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the able lead of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities."

It is to be noted that Mookerji was deputy premier and held the portfolio of suppressing QIM in Bengal.

Backstabbing Netaji Subhash Chander Bose

The Savarkar rehabilitation squad wants us to forget about the terrible betrayal of Netaji by Savarkar. When Netaji was planning to liberate India militarily, Savarkar offered full military co-operation to the British masters. Addressing 23^rd session of Hindu Mahasabha at Bhagalpur in 1941, he declared: “our best national interests demands that so far as India’s defence is concerned, Hindudom must ally unhesitatingly, in a spirit of responsive co-operation with the war effort of the Indian government in so far as it is consistent with the Hindu interests, by joining the Army, Navy and the Aerial forces in as large a number as possible and by securing an entry into all ordnance, ammunition and war craft factories…Again it must be noted that Japan’s entry into the war has exposed us directly and immediately to the attack by Britain’s enemies…Hindu Mahasabhaits must, therefore, rouse Hindus especially in the provinces of Bengal and Assam as effectively as possible to enter the military forces of all arms without losing a single minute.”

According to HM documents Savarkar was able to recruit one lakh Hindus in the British armed forces.

Savarkar’s mercy petitions were no ruse but instruments of abject surrender

Veer Savarkar submitted at least 5 mercy petitions [MP] in 1911, 1913, 1914, 1918 and 1920. Savarkarites claim that these were submitted not as an act of cowardice but “as an ardent follower of Shivaji, Savarkar wanted to die in action. Finding this the only way, he wrote six letters to the British pleading for his release”.  A perusal of the two available mercy petitions will prove that there cannot be a lie worse than the claim that Savarkar’s MP petitions were in league with the tricks which Shivaji used to hoodwink the Mughal rulers successfully. The mercy petition dated 14th November, 1913 ended with the following words:

“[Therefore] if the government in their manifold beneficence and mercy release me, I for one cannot but be the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English government which is the foremost condition of that progress. …Moreover my conversion to the constitutional line would bring back all those misled young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me as their guide. I am ready to serve the Government in any capacity they like, for as my conversion is conscientious so I hope my future conduct would be. By keeping me in jail nothing can be got in comparison to what would be otherwise. The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and therefore where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the Government?”

The petition dated 30^th March 1920 from this prodigal son of the British masters ended with the following words: “The brilliant prospects of my early life all but too soon blighted, have constituted so painful a source of regret to me that a release would be a new birth and would touch my heart, sensitive and submissive, to kindness so deeply as to render me personally attached and politically useful in future. For often magnanimity wins even where might fails.”

There was nothing wrong on the part of the CJ detainees in writing mercy petitions to the British. It was an important legal right available to the prisoners. Apart from Savarkar, Barin, HK Kanjilal, and Nand Gopal too submitted petitions. However, these were only Savarkar and Barin who sought forgiveness for their revolutionary past. Kanjilal and Nand Gopal did not demand any personal favour but status of political prisoners.

Savarkar secured remission of 37.5 years in his sentence of 50 years

Savarkar was incarcerated at Andamans on July 4, 1911 for two life terms [50 years]. On May 2, 1921 [after NINE years TEN months] he was transferred along with his elder brother, Babarao, to the mainland. He was finally released conditionally on January 6, 1924 [total imprisonment TWELVE years SIX months] from Yeravda Jail.

Was Savarkar a rationalist who stood for scientific temper and fought against Untouchability?

Savarkar is glorified as a rationalist and crusader against Untouchability. Let us compare these claims with Savarkar’s beliefs and acts as recorded in the HM archives. He declared Manu to be the lawgiver for Hindus and emphasized that once we “re-learn the manly lessons” he taught with others. According to him “our Hindu nation shall prove again as unconquerable and conquering a race as we proved once” when lawgivers like Manu ruled. He declared Manusmriti to be “most worship-able after Vedas…Today Manusmriti is Hindu law”.

He gave personal guarantee that “the Hindu Maha Sabha shall never force any legislations regarding the entry of untouchables in the ancient temples or compel by law any sacred ancient and moral usage or custom prevailing in those temples. In general the Mahasabha will not back up any Legislation to thrust the reforming views on our Sanatani brothers so far as personal law is concerned”.

Savarkar defended Hindu Princes who were British stooges

Savarkar was a great defender of the Hindu princes ruling native India. According to Savarkar, the Hindu princes were not only co-religionists but also descendants of the brave Hindu kings in the past and thus their ‘power in emergency’. In fact, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS both proudly described the Hindu princes ruling native India in league with the British rulers as ‘Shakti-sthan’ (centres of power) of Hinduism. It surely meant that Hindu sectarian leadership had neither any idea about the aspirations of toiling Hindu masses nor believed that Hindu princes were nothing but fifth column of Britain in India. The crucial fact should not be missed here that only those princes (both Hindu and Muslim) who remained absolutely loyal to foreign rulers by contributing men and material in suppressing the ‘Mutiny’ were retained as native rulers by the colonial masters in the post 1857 period.

These Hindu rulers as true and committed henchmen of the White masters never allowed any democratic activity in their kingdoms. There were endless instances of rape, killing, maiming and terrible persecution of political activists demanding basic human rights in these native states. Indian freedom struggle is witness to innumerable cases when subjects in these states were not allowed even to unfurl Tricolour.

Mysore was a Hindu princely state where 26 patriotic Indians were massacred by the police of the ruler for daring to salute Tricolour. Shockingly, it was in defence of this massacre which had sent a wave of indignation throughout India that Savarkar sent the following message to the Mysore Hindu Sabha session at Shimoga on April, 17, 1941: “The chief aim of the Mysore State Hindu Sabha must be to consolidate and strengthen the Hindu power in the Hindu State and to stand by the Maharaja and the Hindu State in weal and woe extending the most loyal and patriotic support to them in defending the Prince and the State against any subversive activities carried on by any non-Hindu forces or by the Hindu dupes of the Pseudo Nationalistic organisations.”

Savarkar advised Queen of England to hand-over India to Nepal King as he was the King of all Hindus of the world

Savarkar even suggested to the British Queen of England that India before it slips out of her hand “should be handed over to an equal an independent ally of Britain like His Majesty the Nepal King” who was the sovereign of all Hindus of the world.

Savarkar secured rupees 60 monthly pension from the British rulers

According to the first official biography of Savarkar by Dhananjay Keer [Veer Savarkar] “the District Magistrate of Ratnagiri fixed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 50 and later raised it to RS. 60”.

These are really sad times for the largest democracy in the world that a personality antithetical to all its ideals is being presented as an icon with total disregard to historical facts available even in the Hindutva archives.

Shamsul Islam

Link for some of S. Islam's writings in English, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati and video interviews/debates:

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

Facebook: https://facebook.com/shamsul.islam.332

Twitter: @shamsforjustice

http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/

Email: notoinjustice@gmail.com

आरएसएस की तिरंगे से नफ़रत और इस के प्रचारक प्रधान मंत्री मोदी का तिरंगे से प्यार का राज़!

 

आरएसएस की तिरंगे से नफ़रत और इस के प्रचारक प्रधान मंत्री मोदी का तिरंगे से प्यार का राज़!

मौजूदा प्रधान-मंत्री मोदी ने जब वे गुजरात के मुख्यमंत्री थे विश्व की एक नामी समाचार एजेंसी राइटर्स [Reuters] से 12 जुलाई 2013 को एक साक्षात्कार में ख़ुद को हिन्दू राष्ट्रवादी बताया था। उन्हों ने यह सच भी साझा किया था कि उन्हों ने हिन्दू राष्ट्रवाद के सबक़ आरएसएस में रहकर सीखे और उनको राजनैतिक नेता के तौर पर गढ़ने में आरएसएस के महानतम दार्शनिक और दूसरे सरसंघचालक गोलवलकर की सब से बड़ी भूमिका थी।   

आरएसएस ने स्वतंत्रता संग्राम के दौरान हर उस चीज से नफ़रत की,जो ब्रिटिश हुकूमत के खिलाफ भारतीय जनता के एकताबद्ध संघर्ष का प्रतीक थी। इसे समझने के लिए तिरंगा, राष्ट्रीय-ध्वज, एक सही मामला है। दिसंबर 1929 में कांग्रेस ने अपने लाहौर अधिवेशन में पूर्ण-स्वराज का राष्ट्रीय लक्ष्य निर्धारित कर दिया और जनता से अपील की कि 26 जनवरी,1930 को तिरंगा फहराकर उसका सम्मान करते हुए स्वतंत्रता दिवस मनायें और ऐसा हर साल करें। तब तक तिरंगे को राष्ट्रीय ध्वज मानने पर आम सहमति हो गयी थी। उस समय तिरंगे के बीच में चरखा होता था। इसकी खुली अवहेलना करते हुए सरसंघचालक डा. हेडगेवार ने आरएसएस की सभी शाखा संचालकों के नाम 21 जनवरी 1930 को एक परिपत्र जारी किया जिस में आदेश दिया गया था कि: “आरएसएस की तमाम शाखायें सब स्वयंसेवकों की संघस्थान पर 26 जनवरी 1930 शाम को सभा करें और हमारे राष्ट्रीय-ध्वज अर्थात भगवे झंडे को सलामी दें।”  

[NH PALKAR (ed.), डॉ हेडगेवार पत्र-रूप व्यक्ति दर्शन (हेडगेवार के पत्रों का संकलन), अर्चना प्रकाशन इंदौर, 1989, प्रष्ठ 18]

 

तिरंगे के प्रति इस नफ़रत की परिपाटी का गोलवलकर ने भी वफ़ादारी से परिपालन किया।  14 जुलाई,1946 को गुरु पूर्णिमा के अवसर आरएसएस के नागपूर मुख्यालय पर इकट्ठे लोगों को संबोधित करते हुए कहा कि भगवा ध्वज संपूर्णता के साथ हमारी महान संस्कृति का प्रतिनिधित्व करता है। यह ईश्वर का प्रतिरुप हैः "हमें पक्का विश्वास है कि अंत में पूरा देश भगवे ध्वज को नमन करेगा।" [श्री गुरुजी समग्र दर्शन, vol. 1, p. 98.]

आरएसएस के अंग्रेजी मुखपत्र 'आर्गेनाइज़र' ने संविधान सभा की समिति में सभी दलों और सभी समुदायों को मंजूर तिरंगे को राष्ट्रीय-ध्वज के रुप में मान लेने के फ़ैसले  की ख़बर पर ज़बर्दस्त ग़ुस्सा ज़ाहिर करते हुए 'दि नेशनल फ्लैग’ शीर्षक से 17 जुलाई,1947 के अपने संपादकीय में लिखाः

"हम इस बात से बिल्कुल सहमत नहीं हैं कि राष्ट्रिय झंडा 'देश के सभी दलों और समुदायों को स्वीकारिये होना चाहिए' । यह शुद्ध बेवक़ूफ़ी है। झंडा राष्ट्र का प्रतीक है और देश में केवल एक राष्ट्र है, हिन्दू राष्ट्र, जिसका लगातार चलने वाला 5000 साल का इतिहास है।  हमारा झंडा इसी राष्ट्र और केवल इसी राष्ट्र का प्रतिनिधित्व करना चाहिए। हमारे लिए यह मुमकिन नहीं है कि हम एक ऐसा झंडा चुनें जो की सभी समुदायों की इच्छाओं और आकाँक्षाओं को संतुष्ट कर सके। यह बिल्कुल ग़ैरज़रूरी, अनुचित है और पूरे मामले को और उलझा देता है।...हम अपने झंडे को उस तरह नहीं चुन सकते हैं जैसे कि हम एक दर्ज़ी को एक क़मीज़ या कोट तैयार करने लिए कहते हैं...

"अगर हिन्दुस्थान के हिन्दूओं की एक साझी सभय्ता, संस्कृति, रीति-रिवाज और शिष्टाचार, एक साझी भाषा और साझी परम्पराएं थीं तो उनका एक झंडा भी था। एक ऐसे झंडा जो सब से पुराना और महान था बिलकुल उसी तरह जैसे की वे और उनकी सभ्यता है। हमारे राष्ट्रीय झंडे के बारे में किसी भी फ़ैसले  से पहले हमें इस ऐतिहासिक परिप्रेक्ष्य का धियान रखना चाहिए, ना की उस ग़ैर ज़िम्मेदारी से जैसे हाल ही में किया जा रहा है। यह सच है की विदेशी आक्रमणों के कारण जो भयावहता उन के साथ आई, अस्थायी विफलताओं ने हिन्दुओं के राष्ट्रीय ध्वज को अन्धकार में धकेल दिया। लेकिन हम सब इस बात को जानते थे की  एक दिन यह ज़रूर महानता और प्राचीन महिमा को छुवेगा और लहरायेगा। इस ध्वज  के अद्वितीय रंग में ऐसा कुछ है जो देश के प्राण औऱ आत्मा के लिए अत्यंत प्रिय है और यह रंग भोर का अद्भुत रंग है, जो पूर्व की दिशा में धीरे किंतु राजकीय सूर्योदय के वक्त प्रकट होता है। इसी तरह हमारे पूर्वजों ने हमें विश्व को जीवनी शक्ति देने वाला यह ध्वज सौंपा है। वे सिर्फ अज्ञानी और दुष्ट हैं जो इस ध्वज के अद्भुत आकर्षण, उसकी महानता और भव्यता को देख नहीं सकते। यह आकर्षण, महानता और भव्यता उतना ही गौरवशाली है जैसा कि स्वयं सूर्य है। यह ध्वज हिंदुस्तान का एकमात्र सच्चा ध्वज बन सकता है। राष्ट्र को यही और एकमात्र यही स्वीकार होगा।"

भारत की स्वतंत्रता से मात्र एक दिन पहले आरएसएस के अंग्रेज़ी मुखपत्र आर्गेनाइज़र (14 अगस्त,1947) में तिरंगे को को शर्मनाक हद तक अपमानित करते हुवे लिखा:

“वे लोग जो किस्मत के दांव से सत्ता तक पहुंचे हैं वे भले ही हमारे हाथों में तिरंगे को थमा दें, लेकिन हिंदुओं द्वारा न इसे कभी सम्मानित किया जा सकेगा न अपनाया जा सकेगा। तीन का आंकड़ा अपने आप में अशुभ है और एक ऐसा झण्डा जिसमें तीन रंग हों बेहद खराब मनोवैज्ञानिक असर डालेगा और देश के लिए नुक़सानदेय होगा।"

स्वतंत्रता के बाद जब तिरंगा झंडा राष्ट्रीय ध्वज बन गया तब भी आरएसएस ने इसको स्वीकारने से मना कर दिया। गोलवालकर ने राष्ट्रीय झंडे के मुद्दे पर अपने लेख ‘पतन ही पतन’ [‘विचार नवनीत’ 1966 में आरएसएस दुवर प्रकाशित प्रकाशित गोलवलकर के लेखों/भाषणों का संग्रह, प्रष्ठ 237] में अपने विचार व्यक्त करते हुए लिखाः

“उदाहरण स्वरूप, हमारे नेताओं ने हमारे राष्ट्र के लिए एक नया ध्वज निर्धारित किया है। उन्होंने ऐसा क्यों किया? यह पतन की ओर बहने तथा नक़लचीपन का एक स्पष्ट प्रमाण है"

श्री गुरूजी आगे चलकर अपने लेख में उस सोच की खिल्ली उड़ाते हैं जिसके अंतर्गत तिरंगे झंडे को भारत की एकता का प्रतीक मानकर राष्ट्रीय ध्वज के रूप में स्वीकारा गया। तिरंगे झंडे को राष्ट्रीय ध्वज के रूप में पसन्द किये जाने पर उनका कहना हैः

‘‘कौन कह सकता है कि यह एक शुद्ध तथा स्वस्थ्य राष्ट्रीय दृष्टिकोण है? यह तो केवल एक राजनीति की जोड़तोड़ थी, केवल राजनीतिक कामचलाऊ तत्कालिक उपाय था। यह किसी राष्ट्रीय दृष्टिकोण अथवा राष्ट्रीय इतिहास तथा परम्परा पर आधारित किसी सत्य से प्रेरित नहीं था। वही ध्वज आज कुछ छोटे से परिवर्तनों के साथ राज्य ध्वज के रूप में अपना लिया गया है। हमारा एक प्राचीन तथा महान राष्ट्र है, जिसका गौरवशाली इतिहास है। तब, क्या हमारा अपना कोई ध्वज नहीं था? क्या सहस्त्रों वर्षों में हमारा कोई राष्ट्रीय चिह्न नहीं था? निःसन्देह, वह था। तब हमारे दिमागों में यह शून्यतापूर्ण रिक्तता क्यों?’’

आज़ादी के बाद भी यह सब लिखकर आरएसएस ने उन शहीदों का घोर अपमान किया जो वतन के लिये शहीद हो गये और जिन की लाशें तिरंगे में लपेट कर सम्मानित की गयीं। 

तिरंगे के प्रति सावरकर की नफ़रत

आरएसएस की तरह सावरकर भी ब्रिटिशराज के ख़िलाफ़ भारतीय जनता के एक-जुट संघर्ष के सभी प्रतीकों से नफ़रत करते थे।उन्होंने तिरंगे को राष्ट्र-ध्वज या स्वतंत्रता संघर्ष का झण्डा मान ने से मना कर दिया था।हिंदू महासभा के कार्यकर्ताओं के नाम 22 सितंबर 1941 को जारी बयान में उन्होंने घोषणा की –

"जहाँ तक झंडे का सवाल है, हिंदू लोग समग्र हिंदुत्व का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले उस झंडे के सिवा और किसी झंडे  को नहीं जानते, जो कुंडलिनी कृपाणांकित महासभा का झंडा है, जिस पर ओम् और स्वास्तिक अंकित हैं, जोहिंदू जाति और नीति के प्राचीनतम प्रतीक हैं और हिंदुस्थान में युगों-युगों से सम्मानित हैं। वास्तव में यह हरिद्वार से लेकर रामेश्वरम तक लाखों लाख हिंदुओं के लिएमान्य है और वे उसे फहराते हैं। यह हिंदूमहासभा की हर शाखा पर हज़ारों केन्द्रों पर फहराते हैं। इसलिए जिस स्थानया आयोजन में इस हिंदू झंडे का सम्मान नहीं किया जाता, उसका हिंदू-संगठनवादी हर क़ीमत पर बहिष्कार करें...चरख़े वाला झंडा खादी भंडार का भले प्रतिनिधित्व कर सकता है, लेकिन चरख़ा हिंदुओं की गौरव-पूर्ण भावना और प्राचीन राष्ट्र का कभी प्रतीक नहीं बन सकता। फिर भी जो लोगचाहें, वे इस के साथ खड़े होसकते हैं, लेकिन हम हिंदू-संगठनवादी अपने प्राचीन हिंदू झंडे के अलावा किसी और झंडे के नीचेन खड़े हो सकते हैं और न उस की रक्षा कर सकते हैं।"

[Bhide, A. S. (ed.), Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Whirlwind Propaganda: Extracts from the President’s Diary of his Propagandist Tours Interviews from December 1937 to October 1941, na, Bombay pp. 469, 473.]

फ़िलहाल आरएसएस में सब से शक्तिशाली व्यक्ति, प्रधान-मंत्री मोदी ने ज़बरदस्त पलटी खायी है। तिरंगे से जानी दुश्मनी रखने वाली संस्था आरएसएस से जुड़े होने के बावजूद वे तिरंगे पर प्यार उंडेल रहे हैं। 13 से 15 अगस्त के बीच ‘हर घर तिरंगा’ लहराया जायेगा और उन्हों ने अपने सोशल मीडिया ‘हैंडलेस’ पर भी तिरंगा लगा दिया है। अगर यह सब ईमानदारी से किया जा रहा है तो उन्हों ने ख़ुद और आरएसएस के पूरे नेतृत्व को पूरे देश से तिरंगे के लगातार किये गये अपमान और भर्त्सना के लिये माफ़ी मंगनी चाहिये।

अगर ऐसा नहीं किया जाता तो आरएसएस से जुड़े लोगों का, प्रधान-मंत्री समेत तिरंगे से प्यार एक धोका और बदचलनी ही माना जायेगा। इस का साफ़ मतलब होगा कि आरएसएस-भाजपा शासक दमनकारी और लूट पर टिके राज पर पर्दा डालने के लिये तिरंगे का इस्तेमाल कर रहे हैं। इस के लिये इतिहास उन्हें कभी माफ़ नहीं करेगा!

शम्सुल इस्लाम

14-08-2022