What are the implications for secular democracy of the recent decision of
the union government to lift the decades-old ban on civil servants and
judges joining the RSS?

This is the subject of the latest episode of Yeh Daag Daag Ujala- the
Karwan e Mohabbat series with Scroll.in of long-form discussions on the
state of the Indian republic.

Ashok Sharma, retired diplomat and ambassador to Kazakhstan and
Finland; Nilanjan Mukhopadhya, writer and journalist with particular interest
in Hindutva nationalism and writer of a definitive biography of Narendra
Modi and on the icons of the RSS; and Akshaya Mukul, journalist turned
writer, researcher, scholar and author of the milestone Gita Press and the
Making of Hindu India; discussed with Harsh Mander, peace and justice
worker and writer.

The discussion first reflected on the true nature of the RSS, and its myriad
associated formations, which we call the Sangh Parivar. All agreed that the
official defence of this decision with the claim that the RSS is a cultural and
not a political organisation is a brazen falsehood. The preamble of the RSS
proclaims that its goal is to unite the diverse Hindu population into a unified
force to advance the Hindu Rashtra. This is in direct opposition to the
morality and pledges of the Indian constitution. Many judicial commissions
have also pointed to the role of the RSS in instigating and participating in
most major episodes of communal violence.

The panellists then underlined the paramount duties of civil administrators,
the police and the judiciary to defend the constitutional rights - including of

life, property and worship - of religious and caste minorities. This entails an
intensely humanist fairness and a steadfast adherence to the constitution.

Recognising that caste, religion, gender are critical fractures of Indian
society, the discussants expressed deep disquiet at the government order
that allows officials and judges who are tasked with defending secular
democracy and minority rights, to openly declare their allegiance to an
organisation that is avowedly opposed to both of these.

While anxious about the ways in which this order will contribute to the
further destruction of constitutional morality and practice, the discussion
ends with hope that even while the institutions of democracy decay, the
people of India will not allow the centuries-old traditions of pluralism to be
destroyed.