Which organisation (now in power) denigrated Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad?
You bet. It is Modi's RSS – a parasitical FALSEHOOD-BASED organisation that is trying to even take over the Gandhi jayanti after having DISTRIBUTED SWEETS UPON HIS MUREDER.
There is ample proof in the documents of the RSS which conclusively establishes the fact that RSS denounced movements led by revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad and their associates. Not only that, they hated even the reformist and moderate movements conducted by leaders like Gandhiji against the British rulers.
Here is a passage from Bunch of Thoughts decrying the whole tradition of martyrs: “There is no doubt that such men who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them”.14 Could there be a statement more insulting and denigrating to the martyrs than this? [The Freedom Movement & The RSS: A Story of Betrayal, by Shamsul Islam]
2.5RSS deliberately did NOTHING in the 1942 Quit India movement
After RSS doing NOTHING (EVER) against the British, who said during Quit India 1942 “the Sangh decided not to do anything directly”?
Modi's RSS IS A SOLELY ANTI-MUSLIM ORGANISATION.
It never did ONE bit to support the struggle against the British. [See this]. Instead it KILLED the greatest leader of the freedom struggle: Gandhi. It not only celebrated the killing of Gandhi by distributing sweets, it continues to praise Nathuram Godse and recentlywondered why Godse didn't kill NEHRU, instead.
99.999999 per cent of its violent activities are directed at Muslims, and Hindus who want a peaceful, united India.
"In 1942 also there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time too the routine work of Sangh continued. Sangh decided not to do anything directly". [Golwalkar, in Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan, Vol. IV, Nagpur, n.d., p. 41, cited in The Freedom Movement & The RSS: A Story of Betrayal, by Shamsul Islam]
NOTHING. NOT ONE IOTA OF WORK THE RSS OR HINDU MAHASABHA DID AGAINST THE BRITISH. ALL THEIR EFFORTS WERE TOWARDS DIVIDING THE COUNTRY AND HATING THE MUSLIMS.
He specifically said that RSS was NOT anti-British:
Guru Golwalkar in fact made it clear that the variety of nationalism which the RSS espoused had no anti-British or anti-imperialist content whatsoever: “The theories of territorial nationalism and of common danger, which formed the basis for our concept of nation, had deprived us of the positive and inspiring content of our real Hindu Nationhood and made many of the ‘freedom movements’ virtually anti-British movements. Anti-Britishism was equated with patriotism and nationalism. This reactionary view has had disastrous effects upon the entire course of the freedom movement, its leaders and the common people” [M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Bangalore, 1996, p. 138, cited in The Freedom Movement & The RSS: A Story of Betrayal, by Shamsul Islam]
3.The thoughts of key thinkers/ leaders of the Hindu Taliban movement
3.1VD Savarkar 1883-1966
Although not an RSS member, Savarkar and his Hindu Mahasabha were very closlely affiliated with members of the parivaar. Two thousand RSS workers gave his funeral procession a guard of honour. [Source]
More on Savarkar: http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1915/19151160.htm
Savarkar was an EXTREME RELIGIOUS BIGOT. Almost every word he wrote insisted on religious DISTINCTIONS among the people of India. He muddled up the idea of a nation with religion. Liberty and constitutional principles were entirely foreign to his mental make up. His vicious writings continue to influence India, with the current ruling party BJP being his greatest fan.
I’ve compiled these here.
3.1.2Promoter of two-nation theory
“When Savarkar propounded his two-nation theory—the first to explicitly do so in South Asia—it was a clear sixteen years before the Muslim League embraced the idea of the Hindus and the Muslims as two distinctive nations” [The Demonic and the Seductive in Religious Nationalism: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the Rites of Exorcism in Secularizing South Asia by Ashis Nandy, February 2009]
Savarkar’s Hindu Mahasabha was the first major organisation to promote a two-nation theory (See also details in my manuscript DOF).
19th Session – at Karnavati – 1937
‘Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they are. India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main; the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.’
Note: This was at the 1937 session of the Hindu Mahasabha, being the FIRST PUBLIC DECLARATION IN INDIA BY A MAJOR ORGANISATION OF THE DEMAND FOR TWO NATIONS IN INDIA
Further: “ there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India” (PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - AKHIL BHARATIYA HINDU MAHASABHA 1937)
Later, in 21st Session Calcutta-1939
‘in India we Hindus are marked out as an abiding Nation by ourselves. Not only we own a common Fatherland, a Territorial unity, but what is scarely found anywhere else in the world we have a common holyland which is identified with our common Fatherland.’
3.1.3Hate monger unmatched
V.D. Savarkar (1942). Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? Poona City: S.R. Date. Page 32: “Hatred separates as well as unites.” (Referring to the “need” to hate Muslims)
“In a public speech in 1925, Savarkar said that Indians had to learn to eschew soft values like ‘humility, self-surrender and forgiveness’ and cultivate ‘sturdy habits of hatred, retaliation, vindictiveness’.” [The Demonic and the Seductive in Religious Nationalism: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the Rites of Exorcism in Secularizing South Asia by Ashis Nandy, February 2009]
3.1.4India is reserved for Hindus, he insisted
He was a man dripping with hatred for Muslims, Jews and Christians. In his "Presidential" address at the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha in Nagpur in 1938, he said:
With every sympathy with the Jews outside India, the Hindus must therefore, oppose the present Congressite proposal of inviting or allowing any new Jewish colony to settle in India. India must be a Hindu land, reserved for the Hindus.
So far as the Moslem minority is concerned, I have already dealt with it at length. In short we must watch it in all its actions with the greatest distrust possible. Not only while we are engaged in our struggle for liberating India but even after India is free we must look upon them as suspicious friends and take great care to see that the Northern Frontiers of India are well guarded by staunch and powerful Hindu forces to avoid the possible danger of the Indian Moslem going over to the alien Moslem nations across the Indus and betraying our Hindusthan to our non-Hindu foes. [Source]
“an Indian Moslem if he is a real Moslem-and they are intensely religious as a people-cannot faithfully bear loyalty to India as a country” [PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS - AKHIL BHARATIYA HINDU MAHASABHA 1938]
Also, “our state must raise a mighty force exclusively constituted by Hindus alone, must open arms and munitions factories exclusively manned by Hindus alone…”(Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya Writings of Swatantrya Veer V.D. Savarkar (Poona, 1964) (cited, Politics of Violence, p.185)
3.1.5Promoter of rape of Muslim women
“In 1965 at the age of 82, Savarkar wrote in the wake of the India-Pakistan war that took place that year: ‘Pakistan’s barbaric acts such as kidnapping and raping Indian women would not be stopped unless Pakistan was given tit for tat.’” [The Demonic and the Seductive in Religious Nationalism: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the Rites of Exorcism in Secularizing South Asia by Ashis Nandy, February 2009]
This was not an isolated example:
To spite admirers who might think this to be an aberration, in 1965 at the age of 82, Savarkar wrote in the wake of the India-Pakistan war that took place that year: ‘Pakistan’s barbaric acts such as kidnapping and raping Indian women would not be stopped unless Pakistan was given tit for tat.’ [Source]
3.1.6Promoter of Nazi ‘soutions’
“A nation is formed by a majority living therein. What did the Jews do in Germany? They being in minority were driven out from Germany" [cited in Maria Casolari, Hindutva's foreign tie-up in the 1930s: Archival evidence, Economic and Political Weekly, January 22, 2000]
3.1.7Involved in the murder of Gandhi
“If only Savarkar’s bodyguard and his secretary had testified against him in court, he would have been convicted for Gandhi’s murder” [Savarkar and Gandhi’s murder, by A.G. Noorani.
“In the first week of January 1948, Karkare and a Punjabi refugee boy came to see Savarkar and they both had an interview with Savarkar for about half an hour or 45 minutes. Neither of them came to see Savarkar again. Apte and Godse came to see Savarkar about the middle of January 1948, late at night. The statements of both these witnesses show that both Apte and Godse were frequent visitors of Savarkar at Bombay and at conferences and at every meeting they are shown to have been with Savarkar. …. This evidence also shows that Karkare was also well known to Savarkar and was also a frequent visitor. Badge also used to visit Savarkar. Dr Parchure also visited him. All this shows that people who were subsequently involved in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi were all congregating sometime or the other at Savarkar Sadan and sometimes had long interviews with Savarkar. It is significant that Karkare and Madanlal visited Savarkar before they left for Delhi and Apte and Godse visited him both before the bomb was thrown and also before the murder was committed and on each occasion they had long interviews. It is specially to be noticed that Godse and Apte were with him at public meetings held at various places in the years 1946, 1947 and 1948.”
Had the bodyguard and the secretary but testified in court, Savarkar would have been convicted.
From a review of his book Savarkar and Hindutva .
Savarkar and Hindutva throws fascinating new light on V D Savarkar, the main ideologue of the idea of Hindutva – his worldview and the love-hate relationships he shared with the RSS in general and specifically with M S Golwalkar, the second sarsangchalak, or supreme chief, of the RSS. Revered as a fighter for Indian independence by the right, and reviled as a fascist ideologue by the left and secular forces, Savarkar has long been a controversial figure.
Noorani succeeds in bringing to the fore the tremendous gap between the precepts and practice of the Hindutva icon. On the one hand, Savarkar ‘mourned’ the lack of unity and bravery shown by Hindus in history; yet on the other, he had no qualms in exhibiting cowardice in times of adversity. For instance, Noorani writes, in November 1913 Savarkar swore that he was ready to “serve the government in any capacity they like” in return for the colonial regime commuting his life sentence. Likewise, several decades later, he was ready to eschew politics completely when he was arrested for his alleged role in Gandhi’s assassination.
As for that allegation of involvement, Noorani discusses the J L Kapur Commission, set up in 1966 to revisit Savarkar’s role in the conspiracy to assassinate Gandhi. That Savarkar had died a few years before the Commission finalised its report demonstrates the weakness of the prosecution that, in 1948, had allowed Savarkar to go free despite his clear role in Gandhi’s murder.
Although Noorani discusses the tensions between Savarkar and the RSS, the point seems to warrant a far more detailed analysis. Few people know that Savarkar castigated the RSS in no uncertain terms on multiple occasions, and that the RSS responded in kind. On one such occasion, Savarkar said, “The epitaph for the RSS volunteer will be that he was born, he joined the RSS and died without accomplishing anything.” Of course, that did not stop Savarkar and the RSS from joining hands to pay obeisance to the British in 1942 during the ‘Quit India’ movement, even as thousands of government employees resigned en masse. During this time, while the RSS preferred not to join the overwhelming anti-British campaign, instead concentrating on its ‘cultural’ agenda, Savarkar went one step further: undertaking a tour of India, he exhorted Hindu youth to join the British military, with the call Militarise the Hindus, Hindu-ise the nation!
During the early years of this decade, the Sangh Parivar suddenly ‘re-discovered’ Savarkar after a tactical silence around this controversial figure. In fact, in 2002, L K Advani, then the BJP’s foremost exponent of Hindutva, mustered enough courage to laud Savarkar as a national hero. Noorani suggests this was another attempt on the part of the Sangh “to displace Gandhi from his position as a symbol of Indian nationalism”. The chasm between these two figures is indeed yawning, yet both have had huge impacts on the fabric of modern India. While building a case for the unifying potential of Hindutva, Savarkar never questioned the caste system and its attendant violence, nor the manner in which Hinduism, in Noorani’s words, “fashions and romanticises caste unity through regulating caste hierarchy to bolster power, even as class, culture and gender interrupt the verticality of caste.” Yet the ascendance of Hindu hegemony has trivialised the idea of secular reform within the Indian polity, and ensured that Hindutva-isation is not noted as a threat to mainland national security – the ban on the RSS on a few occasions notwithstanding.