The Hindu Defeat: Failure of Leadership in Past & Present

Harsh Verma

As we debate on revitalizing Hinduism, it is essential to understand the reasons members

of other religions were able to vanquish Hinduism. It is only when the causes of downfall
are understood that measures can be taken to counteract their influence and bring in a
new dispensation. This is fundamental to any reform initiative or a call for a revival of
lost glory.
A lack of introspection on the other hand ensures that such factors continue to plague
society and undermine it from inside. This is the first of a mini series of articles which
will focus on three major factors which in my opinion led to the defeat of Hindus and
whose effect is still influencing us today: Failure of Leadership, Intellectual
backwardness and Caste system. This series of essays will also take into account the
collapse of the Majpahit empire in Java and the consequent Islamisation of the
Indonesian archipelago along with the current status of Indonesian Hindus.
The lack of effective leadership was a major factor in the Hindu defeat. Unfortunately the
same factors continue to plague the current socio-political Hindu leadership of the RSS.
This is not a comprehensive article on the RSS since that will come later. This essay
merely looks at the leadership failures in the past and shows how they continue in the
current leadership as well.
1. Inferior military leadership and the inability to adapt to new methods of warfare
Militarily, the Hindu leadership was weaker[1]. While the Turks came from a region
where expert military leaders used to develop new strategies and new weapons of war,
the Rajputs had stuck to their age old methods of warfare. Thus the Rajputs depended on
their infantry which was no match for the mobility and maneuverability of the Turkish
cavalry[2]. Further, the Rajputs used outmoded tactics and relied on elephants whose role
was dubious since they often trampled their own men. In contrast, when the Turks used
elephants they handled them with greater care and used them only to meet other elephants
or to break open gates[3].
As military leaders, the Turks came to understand that the Rajputs excelled in hand to
hand fighting. They understood the strong and weak points of their enemies and avoided
close combat as far as possible[4]. They excelled in archery and pushed this advantage in
every battle. In contrast, the Hindu leadership made no attempt to understand the
strengths and weaknesses of their adversaries and continued to fight stubbornly in their
age-old fashion, even when it did not give them results. The Turks were masters of
innovation, while the Rajputs were masters of habit. Not surprisingly they lost.
Even in military strategy, the Turks were superior. The Turkish generals functioned as
true leaders directing the movements of their troops and resorted to personal heroism
only at critical moments of their battle. On the other hand, the Hindu military leader paid
more attention to exhibition of personal valour than directing troops[5].
Further, while the Turkish generals saw to it that they remained away from the scrutiny of
the enemy, the Rajput leaders distinguished their elephants or horses with such
decorations that they could be spotted from afar. This helped the Turks wound or kill
them in full sight of the soldiers so that they became demoralized and often fled the
battlefield[6].
While the Turks kept reserves which were pressed into battle at critical moments, the
Rajputs committed all troops at one go so that reserve Turkish troops were able to defeat
a tired army with relative ease[7]. Neither did the Rajputs ever use any cunning strategies
such as clever maneuvering, feigned retreats, attacking from the rear or using spies or
bribes[8]. The Rajputs always fought a defensive battle while the Turks fought an
offensive one. The Turks fought to win while the Rajputs fought to build a reputation for
bravery.
Much is made of the fact that the Rajputs did not hurt common people and did not engage
in terror tactics like the Turks. What is not highlighted is the fact that Rajput commanders
were extremely careless of the lives of their soldiers and sacrificed them for a false sense
of personal prestige. In the event of a defeat, they never thought of disengaging from the
battlefield and leading the largest number of soldiers to safety. Therefore casualties were
extremely high on the side of the Rajputs, which severely limited future military
resources[9].
Finally, the Turks had superior technology in the form of new machines like majniqs,
arradasfor making breaches in forts. Shihabuddin captured Bhatinda with ease while
Prithviraj Chauhan took 13 months to do it even when he was extremely familiar with it.
In 1196-97, the Chauhans and Solankis were victorious in battle. However, they could
not capture Aibak who had withdrawn to the fort of Ajmer and despite their best efforts
they failed to breach the fort[10].
2. Individual vs. Ideology
The Turks fought with a missionary zeal, which received its expression in the form of
glorifying Islam as well as winning precious booty. In contrast, the Rajput armies had no
such incentive. They fought for the glory of a particular king and had no chance of
winning wealth or social position through their military prowess. Further, while the
Turkish soldiers were trained professionals who were well versed in the art of warfare,
the Rajput armies comprised feudal levies, who fought for their local leader, not even the
king. And they fought only so long as their leader fought in the battle. With his death or
defection, they too disappeared[11].
For this state of affairs, the Hindu kings were equally responsible. Instead of inspiring
their subjects and more importantly their armies to fight for the state, they sought to
direct all energies to themselves. The entire army then became a bodyguard for the king.
In such a case, it was easy for the Turks and Afghans to aim directly for the king, secure
in the knowledge that the fall of the king would end the war.
There was no second line of defence. This is what happened in the battle of Sindh. Once
Dahir fell, the resistance just collapsed like ninepins. And the same pattern was repeated
ad infinitum. The Hindu leadership just refused to learn from its mistakes. The battle of
Sind was fought in 712 AD. Mahmud Ghazni came in 1000 AD, Muhammad Ghori in
1192 AD and the Mughals in 1526 and 1556 AD. Each time the same pattern was
repeated. Hemu was actually winning the war with Akbar till he got an arrow in his eye.
The moment he fell down the entire army fled. The lessons of Sind had not been learned
even after 800 years. The leadership was just not willing to engage in self-introspection
and reform.
Due to the conflicting priorities of individual vs. ideology, Hindu ranks were replete with
traitors. The novel 'Somnath' by the Hindi language author Acharya Chatursen, throws
light on the situation at Somnath at the time of the invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni.
Acharya Chatursen reveals that there was a political struggle between two priests of the
Somnath temple. In order to gain precedence over the other, one of the priests named
Rudradeva actually helped Mahmud to gain access to the city so that the other priest
would be vanquished. What he did not bargain for was that Mahmud would kill him and
destroy the temple and loot all the wealth that had been promised as a bribe. Muhammad
Ghori received similar assistance from Govindraja, the son of Prithviraj Chauhan in
Ajmer and Ajaypala, a relative of Chandrasena of Baran. And this continued throughout
the Turkish reign.
Consider the fact that the army of Mahmud of Ghazni had Hindus as well. He even had a
Hindu general named Tilak. How could Hindus have agreed to become soldiers in the
army of a known iconoclast? The answer is that the concept of belonging to a larger
religious identity just did not exist. Hindus in Gujarat or the Gangetic belt were
foreigners for the likes of Tilak who were Hindus possibly of Afghanistan or the North
West frontiers. Possibly it made no difference to them that Mahmud was destroying
temples. These were not their temples and the Hindus of Gujarat or Mathura or Varanasi
were not their people. So long as their private coffers were being filled, nothing else
mattered.
3. Personal ambition and disunity
Hindu rulers never presented a united front to the Turks. They were intensely
individualistic or clannish. That Jaichand refused to help Prithviraj against Shihabuddin is
well known. What is often ignored is that they never acted in tandem. There were
numerous revolts against the Turkish occupation in the initial years but they were all
crushed because they were never co-ordinated. Had simultaneous revolts occurred with
the various Hindu chiefs acting in tandem with each other, they would have succeeded in
driving the Turks out. But uprisings were never co-ordinated because each chieftain was
fighting for his own petty kingdom.
If this was not enough, there was the overarching personal enmity with each other, which
was not even extinguished in the face of the Muslim onslaught. Not even the destruction
of temples in their own kingdoms would motivate them to cast aside hereditary or
political enmity and unite to face the Muslim invasion.
What else can explain the fact that Ramchandra Deo of Devagiri helped Malik Kafur to
invade the south? Malik Kafur's army had destroyed temples at Devagiri and continued
its iconoclastic campaign in its further invasions. Yet Ramchandra did not even protest.
The four kingdoms of the south were enemies of each other. That the northwest of the
country had fallen into Turkish hands and that the Turks had come to occupy the whole
of northern India made no difference to them. When Allauddin had attacked Deogiri in
1296, his victory had been due to the fact that Ramchandra Deo's son Shankar Deo had
taken the major part of the army to fight a battle with the Hoysalas. Thus fellow Hindus
were to be attacked but not the Turkish kingdom of Delhi. When Kafur attacked the
Hoysala kingdom, its ruler had gone to fight the Pandya kingdom. And when Kafur
attacked the Pandya kingdom, the estranged brother of Vira Pandeya as well as the
Hoysala king Vira Ballala out of his personal enmity for the Pandyas helped Kafur to do
so[12].
Shah Jahan demolished the great temples of Orcha in front of the eyes of the captains of
the Sisodiyas, Rathors, Kachhwahas and Hadas who stood docilely[13]. When
Aurangzeb was destroying temples none of his Hindu nobles protested for fear of
destroying their career prospects at court. The famed Rathor chiefs who prided
themselves on their so called descent from Suryavanshis and Chandravanshis of myth
looked the other way when Aurangzeb destroyed the temples of Mathura and Varanasi.
Even after this destruction, the Rajput chiefs continued serving Aurangzeb and rose in
revolt only when Aurangzeb coveted the throne of Marwar.
The situation was no different in Indonesia. Raden Vijaya had founded the Majpahit
empire in Java in a stroke of genius. He took advantage of Kublai Khan's attack on the
then Singosari kingdom. When the Mongol troops were exhausted after defeating the
native troops, Raden Vijaya made a surprise attack on the Mongols and defeated them.
Thus was founded the great Majpahit empire in 1292 AD. If only Rana Sanga had taken
the same action.
But Raden Vijaya's progeny soon forgot his lessons. When the Islamic kingdoms were
engaged in attacks on the Majpahit empire, its Hindu nobles used the opportunity to set
up their own kingdoms and war with each other. While the Islamic kingdoms acted in
concert with each other, they could count on the fact that the new Hindu kings would
engage in warfare rather than co-operate with each other. And by the time the Hindu
remnants of Majpahit realized the threat, it was too late.
4. Inward Orientation and the refusal to look outside Indian boundaries for threats
The Gurjara Pratiharas made no attempt to dislodge the Arabs from Sind and believed
that they would remain ensconced in those domains. That the Arabs were expanding their
influence throughout the known world made no difference to them. Only the Shahiya
dynasty put up any fight. It was the Shahiya king Jayapala who attacked Subuktgin in his
capital.[14] But they received little help from any of the other Hindus. The fact that India
escaped attacks in the 8th and 9th century from the passes of Afghanistan owes to the
might of the Shahiyas who kept a constant watch over the Indian borders. With their
downfall the borders were open for any marauder to come for rich pluckings.
When Muhammad Ghori was consolidating his empire, Prithviraj Chauhan did nothing.
He did not even gaze towards the west and preferred to fight battles with the rest of India.
Had Muhammad Ghori been attacked while his power was in its infancy the course of
Indian history would have been changed. In fact what is not known is that Muhammad
Ghori turned towards Punjab only because it was being ruled by the weak successors of
the Ghaznavids. The Chauhans could have dislodged them easily but their main target
remained fellow Hindu kings not the enemy from the northwest[15].
As late as the 16th century, the Rajput kings had failed to learn their lessons. Rana Sanga
invited Babur to invade India and then kept away. Sanga had the golden opportunity of
attacking Babur while he was recovering from his fight with Ibrahim Lodi. But Sanga
had fantasies that Babur would disappear after his fight. Three centuries of Turko-Afghan
rule had not taught any lessons to the Rajput kings. Their foolish pride saw their
subjugation and India's domination.
The Hindu rulers refused to help each other against attacks by the Turks etc. Thus both
Vijaynagar and Orissa were at constant warfare with each other over territory. It never
occurred to them that they could or should undertake a joint front against the Deccani
states or even the Delhi Sultans who were unpopular and weak. In fact Krishnadeva Raya
could have very well emulated Rajaraja Chola and invaded the north.
In his memoirs, Babur feared the intervention of this king in the state of affairs in
northern India. But the south looked to the south or at the most to its northern borders and
even able rulers were bound by their own limited paradigms. So internecine was the
warfare between the Hindu kings that after the fall of Vijaynagar the last king of its
successor state ran to secure the aid of the Adil Shahis who were the cause of the
destruction of Vijaynagar. This was because his own Hindu feudatories were trying to rob
him. It was when the Adil Shahis targeted him that he took refuge in Mysore.
5. Lack of Character
The Rajput kings lacked the qualities of head and heart, which are so celebrated in Rajput
ballads. Rank cowardice was the rule of the hour especially when Mahmud engaged in
his expeditions[16]. Mathura and Varanasi did not even put up a fight and its rulers just
vacated the city. There was no attempt to harass Mahmud while he was deep inside the
Gangetic heartland. Had they even created problems of commissariat and hampered
Mahmud's supplies, he would have been compelled to withdraw. A myth of victory had
been created around Mahmud and the Rajput kings were whole hearted believers in this
myth. In fact Mahmud only had to announce his targets and he could be certain that the
way would be open.
Vidyadhar, the Chandel king of Bundelkhand had formed a makeshift confederacy to
punish Rajyapala of Kanauj who had failed to provide any protection to Mathura and
Varanasi. Rajyapala was killed. Mahmud took it as a challenge and decided to punish
Vidyadhar. He met Vidyadhar in 1020-21. Vidyadhar had come with a huge army but he
lost his composure and ran away in the night. In the morning Mahmud found the field to
be empty and had a free hand in destroying the wealth of the Chandela kingdom.
Similarly, the Somnath raid had been announced a year in advance. Yet there were no
military preparations to meet Mahmud. Rather there was an increase in pilgrim traffic as
distraught devotees rushed to have a last darshanbefore Mahmud destroyed the temple.
The only defence came from devotees, not battle hardened soldiers. In fact when
Mahmud came, its ruler retreated without even offering battle[17].
6. Lack of Vision
Hindu kings had come to completely lack any initiative and vision. For the past thouand
years or more our leaders have had their sights on their petty turfs. Never did they think
of venturing out or setting up a new dispensation. Our religion and polity have actually
seen no change from those days. The only change was brought by the Turks and
Mughals. While Babur had the vision of creating a pan-Indian empire, none of the Rajput
chiefs of the time even thought of creating a pan Indian empire or establishing a sound
administrative system or bringing in much needed reforms.
The lack of vision is also the greatest failure of the Marathas. They had the desire to fly
the saffron flag from Attock to Kanyakumari but they behaved like little more than
brigands. Instead of building an empire and spreading order, they were responsible for far
greater mayhem. Like parasites they demanded Chauth and Sardeshmukhi which led to
massive exploitation of the peasantry, but did nothing to improve the land and increase its
productivity. They became such a menace that other Hindu rulers looked to their
downfall. In the decisive battle of Panipat in 1761, most of the Rajput rulers stayed away
hoping that the Afghans would defeat the Marathas as they did. Incidentally the same
factors which secured the victory of Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad Ghori continued
to play here. Bhao sahib was outmanoevered by Abdali and brought to decisive battle at
Panipat in unfavourable conditions[18].The lessons of war had not been learned even
after seven centuries.
Even after the defeat at Panipat, the Marathas refused to learn their lesson. They made
frequent raids on the Rajput kingdoms and left behind a trail of famine and destruction. In
1806, the Maharana of Mewar was so harried by the Marathas on the one hand and his
feudatories, the Rajput chiefs of Jodhpur & Jaipur on the other that he consented to the
murder of his daughter Krishna Kumari as the only way of preserving Rajput
independence. Yet the Marathas did not care. Between 1806 and 1817, Mewar was
ravaged so badly by the Marathas that it was reduced to a state of abject desolation. It
was this selfishness and cruelty of the Marathas towards their fellow Hindu brethren,
which pushed the Rajput chiefs to seek British protection which was accorded to them in
1817[19].
Fall of Hinduism in South East Asia
The failure of leadership is strikingly seen in the fall of Hinduism in South East Asia. Let
us examine the conversion of the Malay and Indonesian archipelago to Islam. The
following account has been gleaned from the Indonesian time line[20] and an analysis of
the defeat is offered. In the 1300s, Indonesia and Malaysia were being ruled by the
powerful Hindu-Buddhist Majapahit empire but its influence was declining towards the
end of the 14th century.
In 1401 a war of succession began in Majapahit, lasting four years and the power of
Majapahit begins to lessen. At this time, Paramesvara, a prince of Palembang ( a port in
Sumatra ) was driven from Palembang to Tumasik (today's Singapore) where he founded
the kingdom of Melaka. In 1414, Paramesvara converted to Islam. The archipelago
depended on trade and Arab merchants with Islamic proselytizing zeal had been
persuading local kings to convert in order to benefit from increased commercial ties with
West Asia. A thousand years earlier, trade with India had brought Hinduism. Now with
the ascendancy of the Arabs, Islam was to be favoured. But the conversion process was
complex and protracted and took over two centuries to complete.
Under the rule of Parameswara (who now called himself Iskander Shah) and that of his
successors, Melaka's trading fleets brought Islam to coastal areas of the archipelago. But
resistance to Islam was strong. In 1447 Kertawijaya, became King of Majapahit. He
converted to Islam on the advice of his wife, Darawati, a princess of Champa (in what is
now Vietnam) and began to spread Islam around the Javanese city of Surabaya. In 1451
he was murdered and replaced by Rajasawardhana, who hindered the spread of Islam in
Majapahit.
But Islamisation was occurring elsewhere with alarming speed. In 1456 Palembang in
Sumatra turned to Islam while the Islamic kingdom of Melaka conquered some regions
on the Malay peninsula and converted them to Islam. The nobility of the Majapahit
empire remained unconcerned about these developments and remained engrossed in
private power struggles. There were further disturbances in 1468 and many hindus left
Java for Bali.
In 1478, the Islamic kingdom of Demak was founded which began to make attacks on the
Hindu kingdoms. The Majapahit empire was now collapsing. The decisive moment came
in 1512, when King Udara, ruler of the kingdom of Pajajaran, a remnant of Majpahit
attacked Demak with the help of the King of Bali. Majapahit forces were driven back and
many more supporters of Majapahit fled to Bali.
The process of Islamisation now strengthened in East and Central Java. Demak's rulers
engaged in covert and overt missionary work in West Java to weaken the kingdom of
Pajajaran and its alliance with the Portuguese. As a result, the local ruler of Banten,
formerly dependent on Pajajaran, converted to Islam and joined Demak's side. About this
time much of Java began to convert to Islam, including Banten, Mataram and Central
Java, and Surabaya. In 1527, Demak finally conquered Kediri, another Hindu remnant of
Majapahit state. Demak, with help from Banten, defeated Pajajaran and Pajajaran
kingdom was pushed away from the sea. It was the only Hindu kingdom left on Java.
However the rest of the archipelago had still not converted. Kalimantan, much of
Sumatra and Celebes remained under the rule of Hindu kings. In fact the kingdom of
Gowa in Celebes was aggressively expanding under its Hindu kings. But such a state of
affairs was not to last for long. In 1565, Kalimantan converted to Islam while in 1579, the
kingdom of Banten took the remaining part of Pajajaran in Java and converted it to Islam.
The kings of the archipelago seemed to have recognized the state of affairs. In 1600 the
Raja of Minangkabau area in Sumatra who had so far resisted converted to Islam. In 1605
the King of Gowa in Celebes converted to Islam and invited other kings to do the same.
On their refusal to do so, Gowa attacked them and converted them to Islam.
The turn of the century saw the revolt of the Hindus and the kingdom of Balambangan
was founded in East Java. In 1633, the sultan of Mataram raided east Java. The kingdom
asked the Dutch for help but was refused. Balambangan then asked the King of Gelgel in
Bali for help. Initially the sultan was defeated but he managed to conquer it. Balinese
forces retook the area in 1647, but their power was weakened in 1660 when the Balinese
kingdom split into nine states. And their influence on Java ended. This pulled down the
curtain on Hinduism in Indonesia. Hindus would now be confined to Bali and a portion of
Lombok island.
Unlike India where Islam was imposed by foreign conquerors, local princes converted to
Islam especially in the coastal areas to gain wealth and power and then used Islam as a
vehicle for their political aspirations. Why were the Hindus defeated? The answers are
not hard to glean from the available evidence. As in India, Hindu kings refused to put up
a united front against Islamic kings and remained ensconced in personal intrigues. While
Islamic influence was growing in the coast, the Hindu nobility in Java was engaged in
power struggles so that they failed to realize the seriousness of the threat till it was too
late.
Even when they acted it was largely in isolation, not in unison. The ruler of Balambangan
took the help of Bali only after the Dutch refused to help. And the ruler of Pajajaran was
abandoned after a joint campaign with Demak failed. Pajajaran existed till 1579 but
received no more help from Bali. It was clear that Islamic kings were uprooting
Hinduism but Hindu kings failed to raise a common front against the threat.
By 1530, Java had largely succumbed to the Islamic states but there were powerful Hindu
kings elsewhere whose support could have been utilized. No initiative was taken by the
Balinese king to combine forces with the king of Gowa or Kalimantan or Sumatra. Nor
did the Balinese take any initiative to move against the Javanese states in the 1600s when
the entire island was racked by warfare by competing Islamic kings. The Balinese saw
themselves as the heirs of Majapahit and saw no commonalities with other Hindu kings.
It was the narrowness of the worldview of the Balinese which allowed precious
opportunities to slip by. The final straw on the camel's back was the propensity of Hindus
to retreat rather than fight. In 1468, 1512 and 1527, large numbers of Javanese Hindus
fled to Bali to escape disturbances and persecution. This flight rather than fight response
was a primary cause of the fall of Hinduism and its confinement to Bali.
But this is not all. Islamic rule in Indonesia was followed by rapid Islamic missionary
activity in which entire populations were converted often forcibly to Islam. But nothing
mattered to the Balinese princes. It was the famed Hindu priest Nirath who had once been
an outcaste for marrying a Shudra girl who came to the rescue. Nirath went on
reconversion efforts to other parts of the archipelago and helped many of those who had
been forcibly converted to return to Hinduism. But his was a solitary effort and he
received no help. And when he became the target of assassination attempts, none of the
Balinese princes moved to help him. Later when those who were reconverted by Nirath
were again converted to Islam, the Balinese princes turned a deaf ear to their cries.
How are the factors that defeated Hindus centuries ago operating today? Let us look at
factors which have been identified as the cause of the Hindu defeat and examine their
relevance for our times.
1. Lack of Vision
The lack of vision is still apparent in the Hindu leadership of today. The 60s and 70s saw
great interest among westerners in the Hindu religion. Yet the Hindu leadership never
made any effort to invite them to be Hindus. In fact in many temples restrictions on non-
Indian Hindus are still prevalent. And the Hindu leadership has done nothing to make life
hospitable for anyone wanting to be a Hindu. The leadership will warn about the increase
in Islamic population but will do nothing either to create conditions which would
encourage Hindus remain within the fold or create a supportive environment for the
integration of others who are interested in the Hindu religion. The Hindu Reform group
has several Caribbean members, and several have complained that the RSS brand of
Hinduism with its India-centric focus is not suitable for them. However the same blind
policies continue.
Suggestion: The RSS needs to develop a platform for Hinduism that is not solely related
to India and reach out to non Indians as well as the Indian Diaspora in their own milleu.
Many westerners would be interested in Hinduism but there is a real need to reach out to
them and create a supportive atmosphere so that they feel welcome in the Hindu fold.
There is the need to fashion a global Hindu identity than merely an India based one.
2. Inability to adapt to new methods
The Hindu leadership has failed to adapt to professional skills needed in the world today.
There is indeed a media bias against Hindu causes but the solution lies not in blaming the
media but creating an atmosphere conducive to building relationships with the media.
There is a complete lack of professionalism and public relations skill in dealing with
media.
The RSS consistently gives out press statements to the media which are absolutely
terrible. Those who release the statements do not even know how to write and present
facts in a cogent manner. Further, RSS members regularly write letters to the media
which are filled with abuse and hate mail. Frustration and anger ooze from every
sentence which only leads to further hiatus with the media as well as others.
In the Hindu Reform group, I have tried in vain to request RSS members to examine the
format and content of their letters. Some of us who work in the media have even offered
to edit letters to be sent to the media by the RSS. But even the offers to aid have not been
heeded. Worse RSS members regularly demonise Indian newspapers and then expect to
be treated well by the media. Surely this is not possible. Time and again RSS members
have been cautioned at my group about the need to present their arguments logically and
create an image that was positive about themselves but no one has ever bothered to
consider these words. Instead, it has been easy to target the media.
Now I agree that there is a bias against the RSS and there is indeed a refusal on the part
of the Indian media to cover events where Hindus have been at the receiving end. This
was driven home to me when I was trying to raise attention on the tragedy in Bangladesh.
Some of us wrote to Indian newspapers requesting that they take up the tragedy. One of
our members who had contacts with the Birla family even got the owner of HT to request
the editorial board to take up the matter. But the editorial seemed to have rejected the
request since no such coverage was made. From other contacts I found out that it was
politically incorrect to cover events where Hindus were victims and therefore the terrible
tragedy would not receive the coverage it needed. And that turned out to be true.
Having conceded the reality of a bias, let me now elucidate the failure of the RSS
leadership. Every organization faces challenges and overcoming the challenges is a test
of the organization's character. Instead of meeting this challenge, the RSS has not even
evolved a strategy to deal with the situation. The RSS has been in existence for 75 years.
This should have been enough time to allow it to train new graduates and get them to join
the press.
Instead a policy of opposing English was espoused which only resulted in anti-RSS
people coming to the fore in the media. Further, the RSS/VHP do need to learn to adjust
to modern realities and make use of modern tools. This is an age old Hindu weakness.
The rajas who fought Ghazni and Ghori suffered from the same disdain for contemporary
realities and refused to adjust to changes happening elsewhere.
In contrast Christian missionaries get far more sympathetic coverage because they
inculcate good PR skills and take pains to cultivate a positive image with the press. Even
their disagreements with the media are never accompanied by slogan shouting, threats
and abuses that characterize the RSS's interactions with the media.
The refusal to look at methods has taken its toll in other spheres too. We are all agreed on
the idea that the leftist orientalist view of history is blinkered and suffers from
inconsistencies and inaccuracies. The proper way to have gone about correcting the leftist
distortions would have been to convene a conference of historians and thrashed out these
issues. Instead a controversy has been created and critics have been shouting about
historical revisionism which has found sympathetic ears everywhere.
The rajas of old never employed any professional soldiers as leaders of their armies and
the same disdain for professionals continues in the RSS. None of its leaders have been
trained in leadership. While Christian missionaries are regularly trained in leadership and
management development skills which enhance their personal effectiveness, the leaders
in the sangh parivar are left to their own wits. Unfortunately, that is not enough. Had they
been open minded, the lack of formal training could have been offset by the inputs gained
from new ideas seeping through other channels and a willingness to try and implement
those ideas. However that has not been the case. Individuals get prominence by mouthing
substandard abuse and have no idea of leading people to achieve a vision. A command
and control mechanism seems to be in place which may explain why the RSS places
heavy emphasis on obedience to elders. But such a leadership style is outmoded and will
not work in the 21st century.
Suggestion : The RSS must learn professional skills and employ professionals/train
volunteers in modern managerial skills. The RSS desperately needs to learn to interact
with the media to create a positive image not only for itself but its agenda. It must
recognize its faults and be willing to rectify the same.
3. Inferior Leadership Strategy
The rajas of yore never seemed to have employed any credible leadership strategy. They
seemed to have attacked the Turks not with a view to win India's freedom but to be
remembered by their followers for their bravery and for their ballads to be sung by Rajput
minstrels. The same pattern seems to be visible in the RSS. The failure of leadership in
the RSS is very grave.
Let us review the Jhajhar case from the point of view of leadership exhibited by the RSS
in this critical event. It is becoming apparent that the Jhajhar massacre was committed by
the police who proceeded to blame the RSS/VHP combine. The ever critical Indian media
found another stick to beat the RSS with and the newspapers were filled with details of
atrocities against dalits committed by the RSS. Many individuals including myself
believed these reports and condemned the RSS for a crime it did not even commit. What
could the RSS have done in this situation? Could the situation have been resolved to the
satisfaction of the RSS?
Actually the situation was not only salvageable but could have marked a turning point for
media coverage on the RSS. The RSS leadership should have immediately condemned
the incident and offered an independent enquiry to clear the matter. The sarsanghachalak
or someone high up in the RSS hierarchy should have also reached the spot as soon as
possible to inquire into the incident and show sympathy with the victims. This would
have demonstrated seriousness and resolve on the part of the RSS and built its credibility.
Secondly, a quick and independent enquiry should have been held and its results widely
publicized with special emphasis on the actual facts of the case and the guilty named.
This would have cleared matters. Thirdly it should have instituted a case of defamation
against the newspapers which made those baseless allegations and alerted the people to
the campaign of abuse against it. Starting out with difficulty, the RSS could have turned
the tables on its opponents and forever changed the nature of the spotlight on itself.
But it did nothing. In fact it did worse than nothing. Firstly there was absolute silence
which led all of us to believe that the RSS was hiding something. And then came the
statement by Acharya Giriraj Kishore that the life of a cow was more precious than the
life of a man. Acharya Kishore should never have made such a statement. It is highly
insensitive. Surely he could have been more sensitive to the sufferings of dalits. Further,
it suddenly 'proved' to all of us that the RSS was really involved in the crime and that it
was shielding the guilty. It brought condemnation from all quarters as all the enemies of
the RSS found another stick to beat the RSS with. This time the stick was provided by the
RSS itself.
There were so many alternatives available, any of which could have brought forth a new
dispensation for the RSS. It could have used the opportunity to announce positive steps to
protect the dalits and bring about a move to integrate the dalits more successfully into
Hindu society. Had such a step been taken, even the antagonistic media would have been
forced to accept that the sangh had done a good job.
It would have been forced to re-examine its attitude to the VHP. Neither did the RSS take
any effort to set up a transparent inquiry and bring the accusers to court. The result is that
the image of the RSS as villain is firmly etched in public memory. There was a golden
chance for the RSS to reverse stereotypes and bring laurels to itself. But the opportunity
was literally thrown away and abuse deliberately invited.
Neither is there any ability to think things through. Following the Gujarat riots, there has
been an attempt to consolidate a Hindu identity that would transcend caste and class.
Thanks to the findings of India Today (contested by others), there has been much chest
thumping that this strategy has succeeded. I have two responses to this. The first is that a
single election win cannot negate social contradictions. Even if the BJP wins, it will not
solve social problems which have been existing in society. Will that lead to upper castes
sharing power and resources with lower castes in the name of Hindu unity? Will dalits
feel emboldened as hindus to live lives of self respect and dignity no longer at the feet of
upper castes and feel free to engage in social interactions including marriage with upper
castes of similar socio-economic background? These are extremely important issues to be
addressed.
More importantly it is important to consider historical parallels. Even a more united
group like the Muslims have not stood united in the face of social forces. In 1947 almost
the entire community united to demand for Pakistan and then let loose a reign of terror on
Hindus in various areas of Pakistan. Yet in a few years the notion of Islamic unity had
dissipated and linguistic/regional sentiments came to the fore resulting in the birth of
Bangladesh. Now this happened to a religious community in which there is relatively
greater freedom in social interactions among members of different backgrounds.
Further, the Muslim identity is one that has been in existence for 1400 years and has been
stressed upon by all Islamic clerics. When even the Muslims couldn't stand united in the
face of linguistic & community identities, it is impossible to expect this show of unity to
last in the case of Hindus who hardly even acknowledge the legitimacy of a Hindu
identity. Unless serious reforms are undertaken in the Hindu community this sentiment
will dissipate soon and take with it any semblance of the Hindu identity.
Secondly, despite the so called hindu wave, Modi the newly acclaimed sardar of Gujarat
has vacated his Rajkot seat because he fears lack of support from members of the Patel
caste. Which Hindu unity are we talking about?
Suggestion: The RSS needs to develop leadership and visioning skills and learn to work
out appropriate strategies. It must constantly seek opportunities to improve its image and
take constructive steps to further the Hindu cause. The RSS must strategise to achieve
results and create positive vibes in the media rather than seek to gain publicity anyway.
4. Individual vs Ideology
The RSS could perhaps be commended for the fact that it has been able to recognize the
importance of ideology over individuality. Previously individuals acted alone and their
actions were not effective. The ideology of Hindutva has been created with a view to
promote Hindu unity and create a platform which would encourage Hindus to act
together in common interest for the sake of Hindu dharma. The sentiment is highly
laudable but there are several problems.
Hindutva has been used to develop a positive self consciousness for the Hindu identity. In
the process many hindutva supporters have attacked other religious traditions especially
those involved in attacks on Hinduism. Unfortunately, this attack has gone too far. Now
supporters of Hindutva refuse to look at the problems which are gnawing at Hinduism
from within. Instead of looking at our own problems which induce Hindus to convert,
Hindutva has focused on targeting other religions which provide the final and immediate
inducements. It is because of such insensitivity that Hinduism is declining and people are
joining in droves to leave Hinduism. The movement of people going out of the Hindu
religion is a trickle which is fast gaining momentum and will become a raging flood if
injustices continue.
Suggestion: The RSS must seriously look at problems within the Hindu community than
continue blaming other religions. Hindutva ideology needs to develop a perspective
which allows and even encourages self introspection to weed out mistakes.
5. Inward Orientation
The factor of inward orientation continues with the blind attack against westernization.
Thus attacks on Valentine's Day have made it highly unpopular in urban India, but this
has not diminished the popularity of this celebration. Recently the Indian Express carried
reports of camps being held by the VHP for girls near Bombay. Apart from the military
style training at these camps, the girls were asked to abjure from wearing jeans and
western wear. What is the problem with jeans and casual western wear? Further,
professional standards demand that all professionals dress smartly in western style. It is
unwise for the RSS to hit out at professionals and professional standards.
In any case the charge of western wear being shameful or titillating needs to be discarded.
Recently there was a statement from information minister Sushma Swaraj that Indian
films should not show kissing and love scenes. It is an attitude that has been endorsed by
the RSS. But our leadership needs to remember that Hinduism has always been accepting
of sensuality. The temples of Khajuraho, Konark and Vijaynagar have been decorated
with erotic sculpture and are a reminder to the freedom of our society and the liberality of
the attitudes of our ancestors. Surely that can be retained. In the ancient period, when the
Greeks came in contact with India, both cultures benefitted each other. The
westernization of today may be considered a second wave of westernization after the first
one in the early Christian era. India gained much in the sciences especially astronomy,
architecture and numismatics. Graeco-Roman lifestyles were also common. Yet these
changes were readily accepted by our ancestors. Why is there so much opposition now?
Suggestion: The RSS must work in tandem with current lifestyles and trends rather than
blindly oppose them. Westernization is here to stay and is perfectly capable of co-existing
with Hindu beliefs. It is important that the RSS differentiates between Hindu beliefs and
principles on the one hand and Hindu practices (which in any case depend on time, place
and culture) on the other. It is practices which need to be changed but not core beliefs.
Any dogmatism in this regard will only result in Hindu youth turning away from
Hinduism as many have already done.
6. Disunity
The RSS needs to support the cause of Hindu unity. RSS members complain of the
injustice meted to Kashmiri pandits by the media and the political establishment but in
spite of being part of this political establishment for the past few years, they have not
come up with strategies to redress these issues. When the Hindus of Bangladesh faced
persecution, neither the BJP government nor the RSS took any cogent measures for the
relief of these Hindus. The IDRF did raise funds to help victims but surely more could
have been done to raise the issue in the international media and even in India. Similarly
the Balinese Hindus continue to suffer at the hands of Islamic extremists throughout
Indonesia. As pointed out in this article, many Indonesian Hindus have been forced to
convert to Islam or Christianity. The RSS needs to become aware of the unique identity
of Indonesian Hindus and the issues they face in their society.
Nor has personal ambition been subordinated to a larger cause. The 'Italian dog' statement
of Togadia is a prime example. RSS members seem to be taking to muttering street
abuses in public forums in order to increase their own stock vs others. That there is a
chasm between the old and the young guard is wellknown. But let me ask some hard
questions? What is Togadia's contribution to securing relief for Hindu Kashmiri pundits?
What concrete steps has he taken in this regard? There are none. Real work has been
ignored for creating a hungama that will secure public attention and notoriety and help in
the game of one-upmanship over others in the organization.
Recently, Togadia gave a lengthy interview to columnist Tavleen Sigh for Indian
Express. Now Tavleen Singh is a responsible journalist who has voiced her concern over
Islamic fundamentalism and covered grievances of Hindus. If anything, she should have
received a modicum of respect. Further, the interview was going to be published in a
major newspaper so polite manners was a basic minimum guideline by which Togadia
should have abided. Instead, Togadia was at his best or worst depending on one's
framework. Several times he threatened to stop the interview and his demeanor was
extremely insulting. In behaving as he did, he and therefore the Sangh lost the
opportunity to gain a fair hearing from a committed writer.
Indeed it is because of people like Togadia that terms like the 'Ugly Hindu' are bandied
around which also stick. The evidence left by the likes of Togadia is so overwhelming
that even neutral people become anti-hindu. And his example is spurring others to behave
irresponsibly. Recently another RSS leader in Bhopal who also belonged to the BJP
disrupted a Buddhism meet. The leader entered the venue shortly after the departure of
CM Digvijay Singh and started shouting that a pamphlet contained insults to Ram, Sita
and Hanuman. The cry was taken up by BJP leaders who went on a rampage tearing up
pamphlets and disrupting the meeting. Such behaviour is deplorable and can only
strengthen the enemies of the RSS.
In this context it would be well to consider Ramesh Rao's description of the RSS which
he aptly described in his article 'Don't Coddle the Goons'. According to Ramesh Rao, “the
RSS is a loose configuration of organizations with a tangled network of communication
lines, a long history of poor conflict management, unwise exercise of patience at the
wrong times and foolish bravado at other times, little control over truant members, and a
plethora of affiliates, some of whose leaders have become power centers to the detriment
of overall organizational efficiency and salience[21].” I couldn't have put it better.
The same problem of disunity is also present in Indonesia. Allow me to provide the
information in some detail. Following independence, the republic of Indonesia declared
the principles of Pancasila. The foremost principle was 'Belief in the One and Almighty
God'. This was followed by the Ministry of Religion formulating a definition of religion
(agama) that required a sacred tradition to be monotheistic, universal and scriptural in
order to qualify as religion. This step led to a wide variety of ethnic religions being
equated with primitive animism and the hindu beliefs in Bali were among these.
Such beliefs and their adherents became the target of proselytisation efforts by Christian
as well as Islamic missionaries. In 1961, the Balinese religious leaders who had so far not
identified themselves as Hindu unanimously declared that the Balinese religion was
Hindu and received official recognition and consequently government aid from the
Ministry of Religion after a long struggle[22].
Subsequently several other ethnic religions also declared themselves to be Hindu after
Sukarno began to lay stress on loyalty to an established religion and to escape becoming
targets of Christian and Islamic missionaries. These ethnic religions began receiving
Hindu priests who were from Bali. Unfortunately the Balinese failed to respect local
sentiments and began to impose a Balinese conception of Hinduism which denigrated the
beliefs and practices of ethnic communities and proclaimed cultural and religious
superiority for the Balinese.
This has led to considerable resentment amongst ethnic communities which has not only
prevented them from developing a strong sense of solidarity but also led to reconversion
to either Christianity or Islam. Others have even advocated a separation of Hinduism. In
turn the Balinese themselves were divided on lines of social status, education and sect
which made Hindu unity impossible[23].
A further problem now emerged in the 1980s with the government of Suharto advancing
the interests of Islam. As a result of this there was a massive cut in financial support on
the part of the Indonesian state. Unlike Muslim and Christian congregations who received
considerable foreign funding, the Balinese had none which led to the closure of several
state aided schools and temples throughout Indonesia. If this was not enough,
fundamentalist Muslims as well as Christians openly began to denigrate Hinduism.
Forced conversions to either of the two religions have been taking place in government
institutions outside Bali.
As a result many Balinese have begun developing contacts with Indian Hindus which has
been aided by the Indian expatriate community in Indonesia. Many modern Balinese have
begun adopting Hindu practices from India since Balinese temple rituals cost much
money as well as time. This has alarmed traditionalists in Bali as well as other parts of
Indonesia and a clash is brewing. Martin Ramstedt, a scholar on Balinese Hinduism
warns that the clash of traditionalists with neo-Hinduism “threatens to dwarf the future
development of Hinduism in Indonesia[24].”
In turn the Balinese Hindus feel shortchanged by Indian Hindus. Personal conversations
with Mr. Ramstedt reveal that the Balinese have been put off by claims of cultural and
religious superiority on the part of Indian Hindus so that the gulf between the two
communities has not been bridged. In fact they feel pride in preserving the ancient rituals
of Hinduism which did not even survive in India.
Suggestion: The RSS must disallow its leaders from engaging in abusive language and
behaviour as a way to gain attention. Such behaviour boomerangs on the RSS and the
Hindu community it seeks to represent as a whole. Leaders in the RSS must be asked to
take concrete steps to resolve issues rather than engage in shouting and screaming
tamashas which are so popular today. Extreme care should be taken while engaging with
members of other religions especially related faiths like Buddhism.
Further, the RSS must reach out and develop links with Indonesian Hindus in Bali. This
should be part of a larger effort to help Hindus facing persecution across the world. The
RSS needs to develop strategies to bring about amelioration of their problems rather than
cry about them. And Hindus across the world need to be given the freedom to develop
Hinduism according to their local mileu instead of imposing a selective variation of India
centric Hinduism on them.
To conclude, it is high time that the Hindu leadership considered not just the historical
mistakes but also the ones it continues to make today. The situation within Hinduism is
becoming intolerable for several deprived communities and the leadership of Hindu
organizations is only adding to the problems, not solving them.
The mistakes of the past led to our slavery. The mistakes of the present will imprison our
future.
Bibliography
[1]A.B.Pandeya, Early Medieval India, P.34-35, Central Book Depot, Allahabad,
[2]Ibid
[3]Ibid
[4]Ibid
[5]Ibid
[6]Ibid
[7]Ibid
[8]Ibid
[9]Ibid
[10]Ibid
[11]Ibid
[12]L.P.Sharma, Madhyakaleen Bharat, p.131, Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Agra
[13]Abraham Eraly, Emperors of the Peacock Throne, P.507, Penguin India, New Delhi
[14]L.P.Sharma P.48
[15]L.P.Sharma P.45
[16]L.P.Sharma P. 28
[17]L.P.Sharma P. 28
[18]Percival Spear, A History of India, P. 75, Pelican, London
[19]John Keay, India Discovered, P.194, Harper Collins, London
[20]Sejarah Indonesia Website ( Indonesian time line )
[21]Ramesh Rao, Don't Coddle the Goons, Sulekha
[22]Martin Ramstedt, Hinduism in Modern Indonesia, P. 141, Indonesia: A New
Beginning ( Edited) Satish Chandra Baladas Ghoshal, Sterling Publishers, New Delhi
[23]Martin Ramstedt P.159-160
[24]Martin Ramstedt P.163