How RSS sends clear signals to intended groups while evading accountability

RSS effort to distance itself from Panchjanya as thin as its claim of being a 'cultural organisation'

The controversy generated by the cover-story article in the Hindi weekly magazine, Panchjanya, levelling wild and unsubstantiated charges against Bengaluru-based I-T major Infosys, and the formal clarification issued on Sunday, September 5, by the all India Prachar Pramukh (Publicity Chief) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Sunil Ambekar, is yet another instance of the sangh parivar cunningly articulating sharply contentious viewpoint, but ensuring that it is not held accountable for it. 

At the end of each of such episodes, despite officially disassociating itself from the indictment, the message is always sent to the intended target - in this case the corporate world. The message is loud and clear this time too, despite the distancing: if you wish to continue business without political disruption, either unequivocally back the current regime or at least, do not engage with, or support, its adversaries.

Quite clearly, the official chief publicist was asked to issue the clarification formally distancing the RSS from the ferocious ideological attack on Infosys because of the uproar caused by the Panchjanya article. It is likely that someone high up in the government would have intimated the Nagpur-based leadership to issue such a statement because the government has taken up the matter with the company. Despite Ambekar's statement, Panchjanya stood by the article indicating that this section of the sangh parivar remains firm on its stand of criticising Infosys.

Although it is well established that the Panchjanya, alongside Organiser, the weekly published in English, is very much part of the sangh parivar, Ambekar tweeted: "Panchjanya is not the mouthpiece of the RSS and the said article or opinions expressed in it should not be linked with the RSS." Yet, he also spoke for its editor, saying the particular article "only reflects individual opinion of the author."

In an attempt to formally disengage the RSS and its affiliates from the unsubstantiated accusations against Infosys for glitches in the new income-tax portal, Ambekar acknowledged that the company "has made seminal contribution in progress of the country."

Ambekar's viewpoint is a sharp contrast to accusations in Panchjanya against the IT major. The article asked if there was a "premeditated conspiracy" behind the inability of the company to deliver satisfactory services for users of the IT portal. It further stated that allegations were doing the rounds (not mentioned who levelled these) that the company's management was deliberately attempting to "destabilise" the Indian economy.

The article asked several more questions, including: 

Was Infosys bagging crucial contracts from the government (websites for GST and Ministry of Corporate Affairs were awarded to it earlier) by consciously bidding very low to disrupt the system?

Was Infosys allowing itself to be used by anti-national forces to harm Indian economic interests?

The article mentioned that time and again Infosys was accused (again not mentioned by who) of consistently aiding "Naxalites, leftists and tukde-tukde gang". Accusing the company of consciously positioning people of a certain ideology in crucial positions, the article further questioned if "such a company gets important government tenders, wouldn’t there be a threat of influence from China and the ISI?"

The unproven list of charges against Infosys also include a claim that it is deliberately queering the process of filing I-T returns because it wishes to force the government to reverse its decision to promote 'swadeshi' companies. It says that whenever any Indian company is shown in poor light for reasons of performance and capacity to deliver quality, glitch-free services, aspersions are cast on Indian abilities and this government's Aatmanirbhar Bharat initiative.

Despite Ambekar's effort to wash his organisation's hands away from these accusations, the attempt does not hold much water because the bond with Panchjanya is more than 75 years old. Once India's independence became imminent after the end of the World War II, the RSS emphasised on establishing affiliated organisations. 

This included the formation of Bharat Prakashan Trust in 1946 and swayamsevaks raised Rs 4,00,000 approximately by selling its shares. On July 3, 1947 the Trust started publishing the Organiser, and after the RSS was banned following Mahatma Gandhi's assassination, Panchjanya in Hindi and Rashtra Shakti in Marathi were launched. Atal Behari Vajpayee was the first editor of the Hindi magazine.

Ambekar is technically correct in asserting that the periodical is not an organ of the RSS, the way Saamna is for Shiv Sena, or Peoples Democracy for the CPM. But then this effort to distance itself from the periodical is as thin as its claim of being a "cultural organisation" and that the BJP is an independent party and has no formal ties with the RSS.

The truth however, is that these so-called 'independent' entities are either often manned by RSS members (Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself was a pracharak till 1987 when he was 'deputed' to the BJP), or run by people who are guided by the Hindutva philosophy. Vajpayee had famously remarked during his visit to the US in the late 1990s: "Once a swayamsevak, always a swayamsevak."

Quite often RSS functionaries were deputed as editors to these papers and returned to the parent body post tenure. Seshadri Chari, well known public representative of the RSS, is a former editor of the Organiser, while Tarun Vijay, former Rajya Sabha member, once headed editorial operations of Panchjanya. 

In common parlance, all affiliates within the sangh parivar -- there are close to 40 most crucial organisations active in various sectors -- are symbiotically linked and they meet at regular intervals through the year in samanvay baithaks (co-ordination meetings), attended by key office-bearers of these affiliates.

Let there be no doubt, sentiments voiced in the contentious, and even libellous, article in Panchjanya, echo the opinion of a wide cross section within the sangh parivar, even within its leadership. But permitting so-called autonomous organisations to criticise not-so-faithful individuals, companies or organisations, the RSS sends a clear signal to intended groups while evading accountability.

The Panchjanya was 'used' similarly by the RSS leadership in 2015 when Mohan Bhagwat's contentious call for "review" of the reservations policy was published in his interview and kicked up a storm and damaged BJP's prospects in the Bihar assembly elections.

The attack on Infosys has to be read within the context of the recent Piyush Goyal tirade that business practices of industries in India were against national interest. He specifically criticised the Tata Group during his address at the Confederation of Indian Industry’s annual meeting. After a controversy ensued, the trade association took down the video of Goyal's address from its YouTube channel.

News reports mentioned that Goyal spoke of the need to go beyond the "me, myself, my company" approach, which suggests that he was essentially suggesting they enrol as partners in the government and BJP's vision of nation-building. The grouse against Infosys, and some of its stalwarts, appears to be due to their contrarian thinking on certain issues.

The Panchjanya episode and Goyal's uncharitable remarks are also indicative of arrogance becoming all pervading within the sangh parivar, although whenever the situation turns turbulent, the RSS can formally cite 'no connection'. But this is a claim that will have few takers.

(The writer is a NCR-based author and journalist. His books include The RSS: Icons of the Indian Right and Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times. He tweets at @NilanjanUdwin)