COMMUNISTS have always been a thorn in the flesh for the rightwing. It therefore comes as no surprise that the October 11, 2026 issue of the Organiser, the RSS mouthpiece, has once again resorted to the familiar tactic of attempting to falsify history and attack communists in furtherance of its communal agenda. The editorial of the weekly, while eulogising Ashok Singhal on his birth centenary, declares that “The Communist-Islamist machinations on the intellectual front was the biggest hurdle to Ram Mandir reconstruction.”

In its attempt to defend the indefensible, the RSS seeks to discredit those who questioned its historical claims, challenged its communal mobilisation and defended the secular foundations of the Indian Republic. This canard is an attempt to substitute insinuation for historical evidence and communal prejudice for reason. The Communists all along held that they are not opposed to the construction of a temple. What we had objected to was the destruction of a mosque for the building of a temple. We continue to maintain that the movement for the construction of the temple at Ayodhya at the very spot where the Babri Masjid stood was born more out of communal politics of the RSS/BJP than out of religious sentiments, which they sought to exploit.

There is a world of difference between respecting religious sentiments and endorsing the political project of converting a religious symbol into an instrument of majoritarian domination. Those scholars who have developed Indian historiography as a modern social science based on scientific evidence examined the evidence concerning the claims over the Babri Masjid site and questioned assertions that could not withstand scrutiny. To portray such scholarship as a conspiracy is to suggest that historical research is legitimate only when it validates the RSS’s viewpoint.

It needs mention that the Supreme Court in its November 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya title case, even while awarding the disputed site for the construction of a temple, characterised the destruction of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 as a violation of the rule of law. The attempt to portray the communists as allies of Muslim fundamentalism collapses when examined against their actual political record. It is an established fact that communists have consistently opposed religious fundamentalism of all hues. Apart from majoritarian communalism, communists have also resolutely opposed both Muslim fundamentalism as also Khalistani separatism. Over 200 communist party workers and sympathisers were martyred in Punjab at the hands of the Khalistani extremists. Many of our comrades were killed in Kashmir for taking a stand against separatists in the valley.

The Communist position was not to conflate Sikh identity with Khalistani extremism. It was to defend the rights of Sikhs and Punjabis in general while opposing those who claimed to speak for the entire community through violence. It also opposed the Congress government and its opportunistic handling of the Punjab crisis, including attempts to use extremist elements for short-term political advantage. We also incurred the wrath of Muslim fundamentalists at different points of time. The controversy surrounding the Shah Bano judgment provides a telling example. In 1985, the Supreme Court upheld a divorced Muslim woman’s right to claim maintenance under Section125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The subsequent campaign by conservative Muslim religious leadership against the judgment pressurised the Rajiv Gandhi government into enacting the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The communists did not accept the argument that the interests of the Muslim community could be represented exclusively by its conservative religious leadership. We opposed the Bill and faced the ire of Muslim fundamentalists.

Likewise, opposition to caste oppression, untouchability, patriarchy and religious obscurantism is not hostility towards Hindus. The RSS, however, prefers to erase these distinctions. By labelling every criticism of Hindu communalism as pro-Muslim, it seeks to make its own political programme immune from scrutiny. This hatred for communists can be traced back to the freedom struggle. It is also necessary in this connection to make a comparison of the role played by the communists as opposed to the one played by the RSS in the freedom struggle. The role of communist freedom fighters in India’s independence struggle is well documented. All nine founding members of the CPI(M) Polit Bureau were freedom fighters who spent long years in British jails and subsequently faced imprisonment under Congress rule. Com A K Gopalan hoisted the national flag on August 15, 1947, in Cannanore (Kannur) jail, where he was imprisoned by the British. Harkishan Singh Surjeet, who was still in school, was arrested in 1932 for pulling down the Union Jack and hoisting the Tricolour in Hoshiarpur, Punjab. The Cellular Jail in the Andamans bears testimony to the sacrifices of communists and revolutionaries.

The RSS, by contrast, purposefully stayed away from the freedom struggle, concentrating instead on communal mobilisation. Its sole claim of a connection with the national movement rests on V D Savarkar, whose dubious record exposes the hollowness of this claim. Historian R C Majumdar documents Savarkar’s mercy petition of November 14, 1913, seeking release from the Cellular Jail. Savarkar promised to become “the staunchest advocate of constitutional progress and loyalty to the English government”, declaring that he abhorred the methods of violence employed earlier and would uphold law and constitutional methods (Penal Settlement in Andamans, pp.211–213; Frontline, April 7, 1995). Thereafter, Savarkar’s politics was directed primarily against the Congress and Left-led movements rather than British rule. As Hindu Mahasabha president, he ensured that the Quit India Movement of 1942 received no support from his organisation and called upon Hindus not to participate. He instructed Hindu Sangathanists holding government positions to remain in service and perform their regular duties (Amba Prasad, The Indian Revolt of 1942; A.G. Noorani, Frontline, December 1, 1995). The Bombay Home Department itself recorded that the RSS had “refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August 1942” (The Brotherhood in Saffron, 1987).

RSS-Jinnah-Ideological Convergence

The two-nation theory, which helped pave the way for Partition, was not the exclusive creation of Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Savarkar had articulated it earlier. Addressing the Hindu Mahasabha in Ahmedabad in 1937, he declared: “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” (Samagra Savarkar Vadmay, Vol. 6, 1963–65). In 1939, he reiterated that Hindus constituted a nation in their own right. When in In March 1940, Jinnah similarly argued that Hindus and Muslims were two nations whose union in a single state would lead to discontent and eventual breakdown, Savarkar subsequently declared that he had “no quarrel with Mr Jinnah’s two-nation theory”, affirming that Hindus and Muslims were two nations (Indian Annual Register, 1939 and 1943).

M S Golwalkar in We, or Our Nationhood Defined conceived India primarily as a Hindu nation where national identity was derived less from constitutional citizenship and more from cultural belonging. This distinction is fundamental. Ambedkar critically analysed the claim that Hindus and Muslims constituted separate nations and considered the political consequences of defining nationhood through religious identity. Ambedkar was categorical: “Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but also insist that there are two nations in India — one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation. They differ only as regards the terms and conditions on which the two nations must live.” In fact, while addressing RSS cadres in Bombay in October 1947, Golwalkar declared: “I owe my love for Sangh to Mr. Jinnah”. He accepted the linkage and acknowledged how they complemented each other. (Shamsul Islam: Golwalkar’s We or Our Nationhood Defined: A Critique).

Following Gandhi’s assassination, the government banned the RSS on February 4, 1948. The ban was lifted on July 10, 1949, following negotiations in which the RSS agreed to function as a cultural organisation rather than participate directly in politics. It subsequently helped establish a political vehicle under its influence. In 1951, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the precursor of the BJP, was founded. The BJP, the political successor of the Jana Sangh and the principal political instrument of the RSS, having acquired state power, seeks to transform India’s secular democratic republic into an intolerant Hindutva Rashtra, undermining the constitutional principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. The demolition of the Babri Masjid demonstrated the dangers of allowing religious mobilisation to override constitutional obligations. The subsequent normalisation of majoritarian politics has further weakened the distinction between the state and religious majoritarianism. Indian secularism was never based on denying religion its space. It was based on the separation of religion and the State. The Hindutva project seeks to redefine this plural nation through majoritarianism, in which Muslims and Christians have to repeatedly demonstrate their patriotism. The RSS cannot hide its divisive role in Indian politics by repeatedly levelling false and unsubstantiated allegations against the communists. But it would be foolhardy to expect anything else from the ardent followers of Joseph Goebbels.