The relationship between Government employees and socio-political organisations in India has been a subject of ongoing policy decisions and debates. A significant development in this context occurred when the Congress government restricted the Union Government employees from participating in events and activities organised by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). These restrictions now stand repealed by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government, marking a notable shift in policy.
The Government’s decision to repeal these draconian orders on central Government employees is a welcome step as the restrictions curtailed the individual’s freedom of speech and expression and their right to dissent and constructive criticism of the policies for welfare.
For the uninitiated, like the 50-year-old young man crying madly here and there, the RSS is a volunteer organisation committed to upholding the civilisational ethos, values, culture, and tradition and serving the nation unconditionally. The RSS played a significant role in shaping India’s socio-political landscape, including in India’s freedom struggle while confronting Congress’s distorted histories, biased political systems, and corrupt policymaking approach since India gained Independence. It works for national unity and social inclusion and ensures the welfare of all without any bias. The organisation has contributed significantly to various social causes, including disaster relief, education, and health initiatives. Preventing government employees from participating in such activities deprives society of valuable human resources and hampers civic engagement.
Ever since Independence, the Congress has tried to malign the RSS’ image in front of the nation. Fortunately, it hasn’t succeeded. With the three Office Memorandums (OM’s), 3/10(S)/66, 7/4/70-Est(B), and 15014/3(S)/80-Estt. (B) in dated 30/11/1966, 25/07/1970, and 28/10/1990, on central government employees, it curtailed their freedom, spread hatred in society, and restricted individuals from working for society and the nation. These draconian orders restricted employees from participating in any RSS event or activity. Further, it put a complete ban on Union Government employees attending RSS shakhas(local branches) or participating in their activities, prohibited government employees from joining or associating with the RSS, and threatened potential disciplinary action against employees violating these orders. Above all, Congress intentionally made these restrictions based on the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which regulate the conduct of government employees.
The UPA government’s restrictions adversely impacted Union Government employees, who were forced to choose between their government service and involvement with the RSS. Those found violating the orders faced the risk of disciplinary action, which could affect their job security and career progression. Employees who sympathised with the RSS ideology felt their personal beliefs were being unfairly targeted. The orders led to heightened monitoring of government employees’ activities outside of work.
However, the BJP’s move to repeal these restrictions is rooted in a different interpretation of individual rights and the role of civil society in a democracy. The party argues that these restrictions infringe upon the fundamental rights of government employees, particularly their freedom of association and expression. By prohibiting participation in the RSS events, the government was overstepping its bounds and unfairly targeting a specific organisation.
The repeal argued that in a vibrant democracy, individuals should have the right to associate with organisations of their choice as long as these associations do not interfere with their official duties. The Government contended that blanket restrictions on participation in the RSS events amounts to discrimination and violates the principle of equal treatment under the law. Furthermore, the repeal asserts that the RSS should not be singled out for such restrictions when participation in other social, cultural, or religious organisations is not similarly constrained.
The argument for repealing these restrictions also touches upon the broader issue of civil liberties in a democratic society. Advocates maintain that the government should not have the power to dictate an individual’s associations or beliefs outside their professional responsibilities. They argue that as long as government employees maintain impartiality and professionalism in their official capacities, their affiliations should not be a matter of government regulation.
The NDA Government provided several reasons for repealing the UPA’s restrictions. The government argued that the order infringed upon employees’ fundamental rights. The repeal was based on the stance that the RSS is not a political entity and should not be subject to such restrictions.
The Government cited previous court rulings that did not categorise the RSS as a political organisation. The BJP government viewed the UPA’s restrictions as ideologically motivated and sought to correct this imbalance. The Union Government employees have welcomed the decision.
The repeal of the UPA’s restrictions involved several legal aspects as well. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 governed the conduct of Union Government employees and were central to both the implementation and repeal of the restrictions. The repeal was partly justified by protecting government employees’ fundamental rights, particularly freedom of association. The government cited court rulings that did not classify the RSS as a political organisation and used these as a basis for the repeal. The decision involved considerations of constitutional principles regarding citizens’ rights and the functioning of the civil society.
Repealing the UPA’s restrictions on RSS participation is more than just a policy reversal; it represents a pivotal moment in negotiating the boundaries between politics, ideology, and public service in India. It can be viewed as restoring individual freedom and recognising the RSS’s cultural significance.
Lastly, the BJP’s move should be seen as a step towards protecting individual rights and fostering a more inclusive democracy. It should be seen in the broader context of India’s ongoing negotiation of its democratic principles, balancing diverse interests, ideologies, and constitutional values.
It highlights the dynamic nature of Indian democracy and accentuates the ongoing process of negotiating the boundaries between state, society, and individual rights—a process that is central to the growth and maturation of any democratic system.
As India navigates these policy reversal issues, it has the opportunity to set an example for other diverse, multicultural democracies worldwide.
Comments