In his Dussehra speech this year, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat attacked ‘wokeism’, calling it an ideology that will cause the destruction of families and in turn, the society. Writing about Bhagwat’s speech, the RSS intellectual Brahmin Ram Madhav says that the “destructive, all-devouring forces” out to destroy the unity that Bhagwat referred to were “cultural Marxists or wokes”. The ‘wokes’ were accused of capturing institutions like media and academia, and plunging education, culture, politics, and social environment into chaos. Bhagwat held the ‘wokes’ responsible for creating a “vicious cycle of fear, confusion, and hatred” and described their modus operandi as “mantra viplav”.
The question that arises then is — what is ‘wokeism’? Never has there been any course on wokeism in Indian universities. I have never read about it, even though I am an ardent reader of new schools of thought. But the RSS seems to have done quite a bit of research on ‘wokeism’. After its almost ten-year-long rule through its brainchild Bharatiya Janata Party, with two powerful leaders – Narendra Modi and Amit Shah – at the helm, the RSS has now discovered that ‘wokeism' is posing a ‘serious threat’ to family and societal life in India. What is this ‘wokeism’ that even the Indian intellectual circles do not know of?
The Cambridge Dictionary defines woke as “aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality”. The word, which originated in African American English, began to be widely used in the 2010s as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. It came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial justice, sexism, and LGBTQIA+ rights, as well as ideas of the American Left, such as white privilege and reparations for slavery in the United States. “By the end of that same decade it was also being applied by some as a general pejorative for anyone who is or appears to be politically left-leaning,” says Merriam Webster.
The RSS leader, with his Dussehra speech, made out ‘wokeism' to be a dangerous concept that Indians should not fall prey to. The Dalits, Adivasis, Shudras, and Other Backward Classes (OBC) of India must be thankful to Mohan Bhagwat for bringing the idea of ‘wokeism' into their lives and discourse. If in America it refers to reparation for slavery, in India the productive masses must think about demanding reparations for their historical slavery. The enormous wealth that Brahmin-Bania industrialists have accumulated without investing any amount of labour actually belongs to the Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs. It is caste that causes such an ownership disorder. If the priestly and business castes, who constitute a very small number, own disproportionate wealth and properties, how can the RSS accept that as the rightful, nationalist property ownership of those castes?
Among the top 100 wealth owners of India, there is not a single Dalit, Adivasi, or OBC person. Instead, there are millions of producers who are landless and homeless. History holds records of millions who starved to death in this very Matru Bhoomi, despite the massive labour power they invested in the agriculture fields and industries. The RSS never cared for their life, and were, until recently, talking about cultural nationalism. Now they have turned to attacking Marxists, who, in fact, have remained unbothered about culture and caste in India, calling them cultural Marxists, and attributing the ‘wokeism’ discourse to them.
Only after Gramsci’s writings reached them did a small section of Dwija Marxists invoke the cultural discourse with an Italian mode and speak about subalternism in India. Now Ram Madhav writes that it is these Gramscian cultural Marxists who, having captured educational, media, and literary institutions, are disturbing the Indian family and social systems. Additionally, ever since Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party began talking about caste census, the RSS is trying to portray them as ‘wokeists’ and cultural Marxists. But the BJP used the OBC bloc to come to power by projecting Narendra Modi as an OBC. Was it not wokeism then?
In the last hundred years, the RSS has never campaigned for fair, let alone equitable, distribution of resources for those Indians who produce food by investing their labour. If the philosophy of ‘wokeism’ supports the idea of dignified survival of humans, it must be invoked by the Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs, at least in the future. The RSS thinks that any demand for a share in the Brahmin-Bania wealth is a social disturbance. They want the Dalits to live as Dalits, Adivasis should live as Vanavasis, and Shudras as subordinates to the Brahmin-Banias. The Shudras, including Jats, Patels, Marathas, Reddys, Kammas, Velamas, and Nairs (apart from all OBCs) along with Dalits and Adivasis, must oppose the Brahmanic design of the RSS.
After the birth of RSS, the situation of the productive masses has become worse, as it has supported the Brahmin-Bania exploitation without any hesitation. With globalisation, the Brahmin-Bania monopoly capitalists were fully integrated into the RSS network. There was a collective design to push wealth into the hands of the Brahmin-Bania monopoly. During Congress rule, the same castes profited from the expanding capitalist wealth. Within the last 30 years, the Brahmins and Banias of India have reached a stage where their members find themselves in the top three richest families in the world.
At the same time, the Dalit/Adivasi/Shudra working masses remain among the poorest of the poor. When they demand a share in the wealth, the RSS sees social chaos in that attempt. But when they silently suffer hunger and death, the RSS sees cultural nationalism in the tragedy.
RSS is an organisation of male, unmarried persons. There are also instances where some married young men left their wives and parents to join the RSS. When young men leave the parents who brought them up, remain totally unconcerned about familial responsibilities, and work for the RSS, what is happening in the process? Is that ‘wokeism' of the RSS kind or not?
The RSS follows the models of the Buddhist Sangha system of ancient times and the Catholic Jesuit system of the mediaeval era. However, the only difference is that the Catholic Jesuit system did not accept married persons even if they wanted to join the order after leaving their spouse. They trained young students in their theological colleges and recruited them to teach in their schools and colleges, and to work as pastors in the churches. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that these three models are anti-family.
In Sanatana Dharma, marriage does not become a hindrance to temple priesthood. However, Brahminism encourages sainthood in which marriage is not the norm. Even now, there are many such saints and sadhus with deep connections with the RSS. These saints are not involved in any form of social service like teaching, or serving the sick in hospitals. They simply sit, travel, and think of self- salvation. Is that not anti-family?
How did Communists, who neither preached celibacy nor remained unmarried, become anti-family and cultural anarchists? Even the liberal leaders and workers in Congress never preached against family. The only top leader who has remained unmarried in the Congress is Rahul Gandhi.
Previously, the RSS stumbled upon a sudden discovery of urban Naxals in India. Now, as the debate around caste census has gained traction, the new awakening of the Shudra/OBC, which the RSS calls ‘wokeism’, is taken to be dangerous. The Shudra/OBCs should see through the RSS design of promoting Narendra Modi as an OBC to get their votes. Unless the Shudras and OBCs in the RSS understand this design and wake up from their cultural slumber, India as a nation cannot develop.
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist, and author. His latest book is The Clash of Cultures—Productive Masses Vs Hindutva-Mullah Conflicting Ethics. Views expressed here are the author’s own.