BJP’s One Nation, One Election proposal echoes the deep distrust the second RSS chief had of the federal system, which India’s regional parties do not want to be weakened
Madhav Sadashivrao Gowalkar, the second head of the RSS. Pic/FilmIndia Magazine
A reading of Bunch of Thoughts, a collection of writings and speeches of M S Golwalkar, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s second chief, shows he consistently opposed the federal structure of the Indian Constitution. On at least three occasions in two decades, Golwalkar advocated amending the Constitution to provide for a unitary form of government, arguing that only “One State, One Legislature, One Executive” could preserve the “oneness of Bharat.” Golwalkar’s ideas constitute the foundational philosophy of the RSS and the Bharatiya Janata Party.
ADVERTISEMENT
It is instructive to return to Golwalkar in the backdrop of the furious debate over the two bills providing for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the Assemblies of states and Union Territories, popularly known as One Nation, One Election (ONOE). The BJP’s ONOE proposal is perceived as a threat to India’s federal structure, for the tenure of every state Assembly will be aligned with that of the Lok Sabha, effectively curtailing the former’s autonomous existence. Even more significantly, the national agenda will likely overwhelm state issues in simultaneous elections. People will be prompted to think nationally, not regionally, at the time of voting, obviously, to the disadvantage of regional formations.
Unbeknownst to all, Golwalkar’s shadow looms over the ONOE debate.
Bunch of Thoughts records Golwalkar first critiquing the federal structure in an article he wrote following the publication of the State Reorganisation Commission’s report in 1956. The report proposed rearranging states on the basis of language, a principle the Congress accepted in its 1920 Nagpur session—but which the Nehru-led Congress did not implement, fearing language could lead to the partition of India, as religion did. Nehru revised his opinion under the public pressure caused by Potti Sriramulu’s death during the fast he undertook, in 1952, for creating the Telugu-speaking state of Andhra Pradesh.
Golwalkar’s article, Wanted a Unitary State, claims the federal system emerged not out of India’s political exigencies, but because those who “helmed the struggle for freedom” failed to realise that India was “One Country, One People and One Nation.” Their philosophical blindness had them commit to constituting India into a federation of linguistic states even decades before Independence. They could have set right the historical mistake when the Constitution was being framed, for the condition then, Golwalkar says, was “extremely congenial to the formation…of a Unitary State—One Country, One Legislature, One Executive Centre—running the administration throughout the country.”
But this opportunity the founding fathers squandered, in their obsession for a federal State. Their folly spawned the movements for creating linguistic states. How? It is because the very existence of the federal Constitution fans “sentiments denying firm faith in the oneness of the motherland.” The only remedy, therefore, is to amend the Constitution to “bury deep for good all talk” of federalism.
Golwalkar’s argument is simplistic, for he presumes the linguistic movements are birthed only because the Constitution provides for the federal system. It, therefore, follows: Make the Constitution unitary and people will realise the futility of aspiring for linguistic states. But what if they still insist on them? Golwalkar does not ask this question, but implicit in his formulation is the idea that a unitary Constitution would justify the State to suppress the linguistic movements, for preserving the “oneness of the nation.”
In a note to the National Integration Council, published in Bunch of Thoughts under the chapter Affirm Basic Truths, Golwalkar portrays the oneness of the nation as synonymous with the “Hindu Nationhood of Bharat.” For Golwalkar, the Hindu nationhood is presumably undermined every time a new demand for a linguistic state is voiced, for it foregrounds the refusal of Hindus speaking different tongues to live together in one administrative unit. Golwalkar says as much: “In a way, it [federal system] negates the truth of a single nationhood and is, therefore, divisive in nature.” Such was his fear of the regional, the subnational.
As late as February 1973, months before his death, Golwalkar advocated the idea of “one government, one legislative authority” in a speech he delivered in Bangalore. He said, “I have not been able to understand what connection there is between democracy and having many legislatures. One Central Legislature for the whole of the country should satisfy the demands of democracy.”
Five decades later, the BJP seeks to deploy ONOE to stamp out regional aspirations, and ensure the domination of the national. The two bills encapsulating ONOE proposals will unlikely get enacted, as the BJP lacks the two-thirds majority in Parliament required for passing them. Yet the debate over ONOE deepens the Golwalkarian idea of the oneness of the nation.
In India’s political lexicon, One Nation, One Election is one more addition to the list of slogans subtly affirming the nation’s oneness, such as One Nation, One Tax; One Nation, One Civil Law; One Nation, One Ration Card; and even One Nation, One Grid, One Frequency. Their catchiness, even absurdity, cannot conceal the Golwalkarian distrust and fear of India’s diversity, which he wanted steamrolled through a unitary Constitution—and that is now being attempted through the backdoor. ONOE can facilitate the BJP to conquer south India, the reason why its chief ministers are hostile to simultaneous elections.
The writer is a senior journalist and author of Bhima Koregaon: Challenging Caste
Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
The views expressed in this column are the individual’s and don’t represent those of the paper
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
