Arise Bharat

• Dr Prashant Barthwal

Dhirendra K. Jha’s book Golwalkar: The Myth Behind the Man, The Man Behind the Machine positions itself as a critical exploration of M. S. Golwalkar’s role in shaping the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and his ideological influence on Hindutva politics. However, a closer examination reveals that the book is not an objective historical analysis but a work of selective narrative construction, riddled with biases and factual distortions aimed at maligning the RSS and its ideological foundations. 

Biased Intent and Lack of Scholarly Rigor 

Jha’s book is characterized by an evident ideological slant, wherein he does not engage in an impartial scholarly inquiry but rather seeks to reinforce preconceived notions about the RSS and Hindutva. Instead of engaging with a broad range of primary sources, the author cherry-picks incidents, selectively quoting from Golwalkar’s writings while completely ignoring the socio-political context in which they were produced. Jha’s approach is reminiscent of leftist historiography, which has long been accused of suppressing alternative viewpoints to fit its ideological framework. 

A fundamental flaw in Jha’s argumentation is his misrepresentation of Golwalkar’s seminal work Bunch of Thoughts. The author presents Golwalkar’s ideas in a fragmented manner, removing key aspects that emphasize national unity and discipline while fixating on controversial phrases, often interpreting them out of context. For instance, Golwalkar’s stance on minorities has been grossly distorted to paint him as an advocate of exclusion, when in reality, his ideas were rooted in cultural nationalism, which has always emphasized India’s civilizational unity rather than ethnic supremacy. 

 Misrepresentation of Historical Facts 

Jha’s work follows a pattern commonly observed in Marxist historiography—ignoring primary sources that contradict the desired narrative. One glaring omission is Golwalkar’s unequivocal stance against communal riots and violence. Despite attempts to paint him as an extremist, Golwalkar consistently maintained that the RSS was a socio-cultural organization committed to nation-building, a fact corroborated by numerous historical documents, including government reports. 

Moreover, the book completely ignores the significant role played by the RSS in India’s post-independence national security. During the Indo-China war of 1962 and the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965, the RSS actively contributed to relief efforts and mobilized volunteers for national defense. Yet, Jha conveniently dismisses this aspect, focusing instead on exaggerated allegations regarding Golwalkar’s supposed sympathy for authoritarian ideas. He also perpetuates the oft-repeated but factually weak claim that Golwalkar was influenced by Nazi ideology. This assertion is built on selective misquotations and deliberate misinterpretations. Golwalkar’s reference to Germany in We, or Our Nationhood Defined was purely observational and not an endorsement. He explicitly rejected racial supremacy, a fact ignored in Jha’s biased narrative. A more honest scholarly work would acknowledge that Golwalkar’s ideological framework was primarily drawn from Indian philosophical traditions and civilizational continuity, rather than from European fascism. 

A False Narrative of the RSS’s Role in Indian Politics 

A major portion of the book attempts to construct a myth that the RSS has always harbored anti-democratic tendencies. This claim is particularly weak given the RSS’s deep involvement in democratic processes through its affiliates like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its consistent support for electoral democracy. Even during the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in 1975—a period marked by the suppression of civil liberties—the RSS played a crucial role in mobilizing resistance, an event that Jha barely mentions, let alone acknowledges as a positive contribution. Furthermore, Jha conveniently overlooks Golwalkar’s emphasis on social unity and national integrity, which extended beyond the Hindu community. The RSS has, since its inception, promoted unity across caste lines, a fact that contradicts Jha’s attempt to depict it as an upper-caste-dominated entity. 

A Pattern of Leftist Misrepresentation 

Jha’s book fits into a broader trend of leftist academia’s longstanding efforts to vilify Hindu nationalist figures while exonerating ideological counterparts. The academic space in India has been dominated by scholars who, following the post-colonial tradition, have sought to delegitimize nationalist movements that are not aligned with their ideology. Figures like Golwalkar, Savarkar, and Deendayal Upadhyaya have consistently been misrepresented, their works selectively quoted, and their legacy distorted to create an artificial divide between nationalism and democracy.  This book is no different—it lacks the depth, academic integrity, and historical objectivity necessary for a serious engagement with Golwalkar’s legacy. It is a politically motivated attempt to discredit the RSS by constructing a mythical version of Golwalkar, rather than engaging with the real intellectual and organizational contributions he made to Indian society. 

Thus, Jha’s work fails as an academic work and succeeds only as a polemical exercise aimed at reinforcing ideological biases. By misrepresenting Golwalkar’s writings, ignoring key historical contexts, and selectively constructing a false narrative, Jha contributes to a long tradition of leftist attempts to delegitimize Hindu nationalism. A serious historian would engage with all aspects of Golwalkar’s legacy, including his contributions to national unity, social service, and ideological clarity in the Indian nationalist discourse.  The text’s fundamental flaw is its unwillingness to acknowledge any positive contributions of Golwalkar or the RSS. It is not a historical analysis but a partisan attack, designed to fit a predetermined narrative rather than to seek the truth. Readers interested in an objective understanding of Golwalkar’s legacy should turn to primary sources and balanced academic studies rather than relying on Jha’s agenda-driven misrepresentation.

(Dr Barthwal teaches Political Science in University of Delhi, writes regularly for various portals and newspapers)