Indians are naive and gaullible to such an extent that they are carried away even by microscopic lies of the politicians. It is an open secret that Narendra Modi and BJP diligently follow the diktats of the RSS. The policies and programmes of the Modi government are framed and decided by the Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat. This has been made explicitly clear by none else but by Modi himself when he did not inform about his decision to withdraw the farm bills even to his cabinet colleagues and BJP. Only one person knew about it and he was Bhagwat.
Obviously in this backdrop Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat saying that the RSS had no control over Modi government has indeed been intriguing. His statement needs to be decoded as to what made Bhagwat to come with such statement. The plausible clarification could be that Bhagwat has been angry with Modi and his style of functioning. Though Modi tries to give the impression that he has been following the dictates of Bhagwat, the assertion of RSS chief that Sangh cadres and leaders have been helping the BJP and Modi government makes it clear that they are not getting the respect which they deserved.
On December 18 while he said “They have different executives, different policies, and different working methods” he also observed “Thoughts and culture are of the Sangh and that is effective. The main people are working there (in the government), they belong to the Sangh and will remain so.”
While he confesses that the main people are working with the BJP and Modi government, he at the same time asserts that the RSS has no control over the Modi government. It is really beguiling how Bhagwat could make two contrary elucidations. Will Bhagwat clarify why RSS has kept his leaders with BJP and with the Modi government? His Saturday statement only endorses and strengthens the common belief and perception that Modi has been losing his charm and appeal. The most rational narrative is the RSS cadres and Hindu protagonists have developed dislike for him and are no more willing to be identified with him.
Otherwise there is no other reason for Bhagwat to distance the RSS from Modi. Nevertheless it could also be a part of his strategy to work for the victory of the BJP without showing its affection and affinity to Modi. Behind the façade of not supporting Modi, his strategy may be to motivate the rank and file to strive to preserve the interest of the Sangh.
It cannot be denied that Bhagwat has been primarily responsible for criminalising the political culture of the country. It was his apathetic attitude towards the lynching and perpetration of hate politics that criminalisation of politics has become institutionalised and endemic. Ever since Modi became the prime minister the Sangh cadres had turned mercenaries. During the first term of Modi’s government nearly 300 persons were lynched. Shockingly Bhagwat never condemned these killings or even advised the Sangh cadres to refrain from criminal activities. Even today the Sangh cadres are indulging in such gruesome crimes. But one development has also taken place, Modi has cautioned the Hindu Bhakts to maintain restrain. Probably this might have been disliked by the RSS chief who is still busy propagating the anti Muslim politics.
Bhagwat’s observation has featured prominently in the public domain just when it has become blatantly clear that Modi government is run by the bureaucrats and the BJP and Sangh leaders on deputation to BJP have no say in the governance. Though these bureaucrats are not for putting a break on the the politics or are in favour of penalising these vigilantes, of course they hold that large scale violence was giving a bad name to the Modi and his government.
It is a coincident that Bhagwat made this rib-tickling observation when the bureaucrats managing PMO have been issuing directives to ministers and the secretaries of the ministries. It is a known fact that bureaucrats sitting in the PMO run the government.
In this backdrop the statement of Bhagwat ought to be taken seriously: “The Sangh has been running for 96 years by overcoming all obstacles and since so many volunteers are getting ready so they will not keep quiet or sit idle. Wherever there is a need to work in society, they are always available. The works done by the swayamsevaks prove that they do not just run the Parliament, they take the people of the society with them, they are independent and autonomous.”
RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat saying that DNA of all the people of India is the excellent example of expressive classical lie. On Saturday Mohan Bhagwat said “The DNA of all the people of India from 40,000 years ago is the same as that of the people of today. The ancestors of all of us are one, because of those ancestors our country flourished, our culture continued”. This has been a strategic move to create confusion and widen the diversities between the Hindus and Muslims. Through this reflection he intended to ballyhoo the politics of identity. This would no doubt put the Hindus and Muslims against each other as both the communities would try to assert their respective identities.
In recent years the RSS has been desperately trying to play the game of identity politics. This would make the Hindus conscious of their communal relevance and identity. This would pit them against the Muslims. True enough Bhagwat has been making wrong interpretation of the historical facts and trying to conceal the fact who are we Indians? Genetics is bringing bad news for the politics of identity: He is trying to deceive the Hindus that we are all migrants.
We have noticed how the identity politics played a crucial role in 2019 election. The Saqngh and Modi focussed on identity politics primarily because of economic discontent, making BJP turn to identity and other non-economic issues. Under Bhagwat’s strategic design once again the identity politics will play a crucial role in 2022 UP assembly election and also in Lok Sabha election of 2024. The RSS will focus on the identity and origin of the Hindus. So far, theories about how Indians were formed were based on linguistic analysis and archaeology. But this time Bhagwat plans to give a twist by raising the issue of DNA.
Eminent scholars point out that based on the DNA evidence, “the transition in India from free intermarriage to endogamy took place about 70 generations ago; that is, about 1600 years ago.” With the post-Gupta rise of South Indian kingdoms such as the Rashtrakutas, Cholas, and Chalukyas, many Brahmins were invited south to serve as scribes, ritual priests, and administrators, presumably, some assimilation and intermarriage still took place. They lived among the inhabitants of present-day southern India shortly over 35,000 years ago.
Scientists have established two groups Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and Ancestral South Indian (ASI), though the terms do not actually reflect the modern distribution of these ancestral populations: everyone in South Asia is a mix of ANI and ASI, and there are no unmixed groups, regardless of language, region, religion, or caste. However, the proportion of ANI is greater in the northwestern part of the subcontinent, and lower in the south. People with ANI ancestry are “related to West Eurasians (people of Central Asia, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Europe)”.
Thus, it is true that the majority of Indians are primarily descended from people who have been in South Asia for at least the last 10,000 years, but much of their ancestry comes from an ancient migration from the Middle East. Most Indian Muslims are descended from the same Indian population 10,000 years ago that also gave rise to Indian Hindus, but perhaps with slightly more Arab, Persian, and Turkic admixture. However, there have been linguistic shifts throughout India. Both the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian families of northern and southern India seem to originate from outside the subcontinent.
Bhagwat has been desperately trying to prove that all Indians have the same DNA. This is a tactical ploy to assert and establish his Hindutva politics. Significantly The Hindus believe that evry person’s DNA is separate and unique. In fact Mohan Bhagwat has been making serious attempts to rewrite the Indian genetic history about what or who constitutes India and denying the country’s history of diversity. (IPA Service)