Dhirendra K Jha’s book Golwalkar: The Myth Behind the Man, The Man Behind the Machine presents itself as a critical examination of M S Golwalkar’s impact on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and his ideological influence on Hindutva politics. However, a closer look reveals that the book is far from an impartial historical analysis. Instead, it is a selective narrative, laden with biases and factual inaccuracies, crafted to discredit the RSS and its ideological principles.
Jha’s book is clearly influenced by an ideological bias, as he does not approach the subject with impartial academic scrutiny. Instead, his aim appears to be reinforcing preconceived notions about the RSS and Hindutva. Rather than engaging with a wide range of primary sources, Jha selectively quotes incidents and writings of Golwalkar, while ignoring the broader socio-political context in which these ideas were formed. This approach mirrors the tendencies of leftist historiography, which has often been criticized for suppressing alternative perspectives to fit a predetermined ideological narrative.
A significant flaw in Jha’s argument is his misrepresentation of Golwalkar’s influential work, Bunch of Thoughts. Jha presents Golwalkar’s ideas in a disjointed manner, deliberately focusing on controversial excerpts while disregarding key elements that highlight his emphasis on national unity and discipline. For example, Jha distorts Golwalkar’s views on minorities, portraying him as an advocate of exclusion, when in reality, his philosophy was rooted in cultural nationalism that prioritized India’s civilizational unity over ethnic division.
Manipulation of Historical Facts
Jha’s book reflects a pattern typical of Marxist historiography—deliberately overlooking primary sources that contradict the desired narrative. A glaring omission in his work is Golwalkar’s clear and consistent opposition to communal riots and violence. Despite efforts to portray him as an extremist, Golwalkar repeatedly emphasized that the RSS was a socio-cultural organization dedicated to nation-building, a fact supported by numerous historical records, including government reports. Additionally, the book completely neglects the significant contributions of the RSS in India’s post-independence national security. During the 1962 Indo-China War and the 1965 Indo-Pakistan War, the RSS actively supported relief efforts and mobilized volunteers for national defence.
Jha, however, conveniently overlooks this, focusing instead on exaggerated claims about Golwalkar’s alleged affinity for authoritarian ideologies. He also perpetuates the widely circulated but factually unsubstantiated claim that Golwalkar was influenced by Nazi ideology. This argument is based on selective quotes and deliberate misinterpretations. Golwalkar’s reference to Germany in We, or Our Nationhood Defined, was a mere observation, not an endorsement. He explicitly rejected the notion of racial supremacy, a key fact that Jha’s narrative conveniently disregards. A more objective scholarly work would recognize that Golwalkar’s ideological framework was shaped primarily by Indian philosophical traditions and a deep respect for civilizational continuity rather than by European fascism.
A Misleading Portrayal of the RSS’s Role in Indian Politics
A significant portion of Jha’s book seeks to perpetuate the narrative that the RSS has always harboured anti-democratic inclinations. This claim falls short of substantiation, especially given the RSS’s active engagement in democratic processes, particularly through its affiliate, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and its unwavering support for electoral democracy. Notably, during the 1975 Emergency, when civil liberties were severely restricted, the RSS played a pivotal role in organizing resistance, yet Jha fails to acknowledge this crucial contribution. Furthermore, the book overlooks Golwalkar’s commitment to social unity and national integrity, which extended well beyond the Hindu community. The RSS, since its inception, has worked towards unity across caste lines, a reality that contradicts Jha’s attempt to portray it as a body solely dominated by upper-caste interests.
A Pattern of Leftist Distortion in Historical Narrative
Jha’s book aligns with a broader trend within leftist academia that has consistently sought to vilify Hindu nationalist figures while exonerating their ideological counterparts. In India’s academic space, especially post-colonial scholars have often tried to delegitimize nationalist movements that do not conform to their worldview. Prominent figures like Golwalkar, Savarkar, and Deendayal Upadhyaya have been misrepresented, their works selectively quoted, and their legacies distorted in an attempt to create a divide between nationalism and democracy. Jha’s book follows this same pattern—it lacks the scholarly rigor, historical integrity, and intellectual honesty needed for an in-depth examination of Golwalkar’s legacy. Instead, it is politically motivated, aimed at tarnishing the image of the RSS by constructing a mythical portrayal of Golwalkar rather than engaging with his actual intellectual and organizational contributions to Indian society. Jha’s work falls short of being an academic analysis and instead reads as a polemical exercise meant to reinforce a specific ideological stance. By distorting Golwalkar’s writings, ignoring vital historical contexts, and fabricating a false narrative, Jha continues a long-standing tradition of leftist attempts to undermine Hindu nationalism. A truly objective historian would engage with the full scope of Golwalkar’s legacy, including his pivotal role in national unity, social service, and ideological clarity in India’s nationalist discourse. The core flaw of Jha’s book is its refusal to acknowledge any positive contributions from Golwalkar or the RSS. Rather than being a genuine historical analysis, it is a partisan attack designed to fit a pre-existing narrative, undermining the pursuit of truth. For readers seeking an objective understanding of Golwalkar’s impact, it is advisable to turn to primary sources and more balanced academic works rather than relying on Jha’s biased interpretation.
Comments