“Gibbons, Spengler, Lecky and Cantu, eminent authorities in the history of rise and falls of civilisations, have clearly stated that peoples and nations rise when they become conscious of their potential powers as substantiated with the deeds and facts of their past. It is this lack of national awareness and consciousness that stand in the way of national resurrection in India. The sleepy are to be awakened, the ignorant are to be educated, and the potential perfection inborn in man, in an Indian, to be developed. P. 12 … The old distinctions and divisions, which our British masters taught by dividing up our country into innumerable castes, communities, factions, still continue. These factions weakened us, and our strength will come in forming a united national front with a strong, unmistakable national character. “National character and national unity before everything”, is the motto the Guruji of the RSS has placed before the nation” (p.36).
– Father Antony Elenjimittam, Philosophy and Action of RSS for the Hind Swaraj, The Laxmi Publications, Mumbai, 1951
On July 23, 2025, Dattatreya Hosabale, Sarkaryavah of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), relaunched the book Philosophy and Action of RSS for the Hind Swaraj, written by Father Antony Elenjimittam. Around the same time, the discussion about the newly introduced school textbooks by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) was at its peak, primarily focusing on the history of the Mughal era. Two seemingly distant events share a commonality – an attempt to correct fictitious narratives and establish facts in the national interest.
While completing the difficult and still glorious journey, the RSS continues to face the battle against fake narratives in the intellectual space. From the British period to the UPA raj, painting RSS thought and functioning as communal, fascist, anti-minority, Brahminical and patriarchal has been a favourite narration of intellectuals and practitioners of communalism in the name of secularism. Many books and articles have been written about the RSS in the last few years, both supporting and criticising the movement. Interestingly, none of them ever attempted to read and quote Father Elenjimittam, who wrote the first serious commentary on the RSS philosophy from a non-RSS perspective. He was the one who coined the term “pseudo-secularism” and clearly articulated that “secularism without Indian culture is anti-national” and even asserted that Gandhi ji would be considered “anti-secular” by such a definition. The book also asserts that “peoples and nations rise when they become conscious of their potential powers as substantiated with the deeds and facts of their past”. A committed practising Christian writes, “The resurrection and the national rejuvenation of India, which the RSS heralds as the message and mission of the Sangha, is historically based on the varied experiences and experiments India had in her long history. Its triple order is: Unity, Humanity, Freedom”. A comprehensive analysis based on the Sangh literature and personal interactions concludes that the RSS is the genuine carrier of Gandhian ideals as outlined in Hind Swaraj. When the project of framing RSS in the Gandhi assassination case was in its initial stages, Father Elenjimittam’s intellectual argument was an important exercise, which later scholars conveniently neglected. Organiser Weekly published a review of the book in its weekly edition dated December 3, 1951, which became a reference point for the revival of the seminal text, initially published on Vijayadashami of 1951.
The discussion on NCERT books is not very different. Self-certified historians who believed in the colonial distortions or Communist Manipulations came ranting about calling the Mughal era as ‘dark period’ in the history of Bharat. Frankly, the books are not just about history. As per the norm, all school textbooks are being introduced in line with the spirit and expectations of the National Education Policy (NEP). They are meant to promote experiential and inquiry-based learning, encouraging students to ask questions, think critically, and understand scientific concepts through real-world contexts in their mother tongue. They also attempt to integrate Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Earth Sciences while instilling environmental awareness, values, and insights from Bharatiya knowledge systems. Is it a crime to teach Bhaskaracharya in Mathematics and Acharya Kanad in Physics? Is it communal to integrate so-called classical and tribal arts and teach students to learn common philosophical traditions based on science through pottery, music, and painting? The science textbooks attempt to integrate the Bharatiya scientific tradition, from medicine to metallurgy, with Artificial Intelligence, thereby bridging traditional skills with the latest ones in the vocational education course. Similarly, in history books, the Marathas and Ahoms receive due space while recounting the facts about the brutalities of Arab, Turk, and Mongol invasions. Shouldn’t students receive a national perspective based on facts, or should they continue to remain under the impression that the Mughals taught us architecture and the British brought science to India?
As Father Elenjimittam argued, “It is nationalism alone that is the remedy to the cancer of communalism”. Any attempt to equate Bharatiya Muslims with Mughals is promoting communalism and separatism, as they are not the inheritors but the victims of invaders. Telling and accepting the facts would heal historical wounds, rather than covering them up. Ignorance of Bharatiya languages, scientific and spiritual traditions, philosophy and culture has made us slaves of foreigners. Over the last seventy-five years, Bharat has been striving to regain that national consciousness within the framework of its democratic constitution. The rededication of Father Elenjimittam’s book and the introduction of new textbooks by NCERT should be viewed in the spirit of facts over fiction and decolonisation for renationalisation. That is the way forward for the real Hind Swaraj.
Comments