RSS and Civil Servants: In Governance, Unlike Politics, Neutrality Matters

Video Producer: Jaspreet Singh

Video Editor: Kriti Saxena

Yeh Jo India Hi Na, here, our government servants cannot afford to forget the significance of the word ‘nishpakshta’ or ‘neutrality. For all government and police officials, for our judges and our defence forces — being neutral, taking no sides, being totally without prejudice while doing their jobs — is paramount. It’s the cornerstone of their key responsibility — serving the Indian people.

But how is that likely to play out if government servants go ahead and become active members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and take part regularly in its activities? Not well.

Because the RSS is not a politically neutral organisation. It shares an ideology with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). It is opposed to the ideology of other major Indian political parties — the Congress party, the Samajwadi Party, the Trinamool Congress, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Communist parties, and others.

Across the decades, every top BJP leader has been an RSS member. The RSS regularly deputes its members to the BJP for political work. During elections, RSS ‘karyakartas’ or cadres do hit the ground in support of the BJP. Both are clearly joined at the hip. Have we ever heard of the RSS canvassing Rahul Gandhi or Mamata Banerjee? Of course not.

Also Read

When Rahul Gandhi Takes on BJP-RSS, He Does So as a Principled Hindu

Picking the RSS is ‘Picking a Side’

If a serving government servant chooses to be a part of the RSS, he or she is picking a side, and after picking a side, how can they claim to be impartial at work? Will they serve those citizens better who are RSS or BJP supporters? They might. Will they be prejudiced against those who don’t support the BJP? They may be. Will they work well under politicians from non-BJP parties? Will they agree with their policies and administrative decisions? Will they toe their line? Maybe not.

And if government servants became partial and prejudiced, would that be healthy for India? Or for any government service or government department? Surely not.

There was a reason why government servants were not allowed to take political sides, and not be part of any sectarian organisations such as the RSS or the Jamaat-e-Islami. While the RSS professes to look out for the interests of the Hindus, the Jamaat-e-Islami claims to look out for the interests of the Muslim community.

But an Indian government servant cannot put the interests of any one community over the other; naturally, they cannot be involved with either of these groups.

Also Read

Mohan Bhagwat's Speech Confirms That RSS' 'Open Licence' to Modi is Under Review

Sardar Patel Got it Right, in 1949

This is exactly what a 1966 Home Ministry circular said — because the activities of RSS and the Jamaat-e-Islami are political in nature, government servants would be “liable to disciplinary action” if they associated with either of them.

Now, some argue that the RSS is not a political party. And they are right, it is not a political party. It does not contest elections. But that too, does not matter. Here's why.

Right since 1949, when then Home Minister Sardar Patel framed the rules for India’s civil servants, which were formalised as the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules of 1964, and the All India Services (Conduct) Rules of 1968, all central government employees, including IAS, IPS, and Indian Forest Service officers, could not be a member of “any political party or any organisation which takes part in politics”. Nor can they “take part in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity.”

So, the RSS was covered by the ban because while it is not a political party, it is an organisation that ‘takes part in politics’, and does ‘aid’ and ‘assist’ political activity.

Let us also understand that since 1949, every successive government, even BJP governments, has stood by this crucial rule, because neutrality matters.

Also Read

'Manipur Waiting for Peace,' Says RSS Chief in First Remarks After Elections

DoPT Directive Legitimises ‘Bias’

So, it is troubling that a Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) circular has lifted this ban, and that too, selectively, ie, just on government servants joining the RSS, while allowing the ban on joining the Jamaat to stay unchanged. This is not to say that the solution lies in allowing government servants to join the Jamaat-e-Islami if they wish, because it too, is a sectarian organisation.

In recent years, we have seen army generals, judges, and civil servants joining political parties straight after exiting their jobs, which has raised serious questions about their ‘hidden biases’ while in service. This DoPT directive goes even further. It essentially allows central civil servants to be openly partisan.

The next step down this slippery slope will be to 'reward' government servants who join RSS activities and 'punish' those who don't. What will happen to merit then?

Also, do we really want our central government services to be split down the middle with officers taking political sides? It will wreck the fabric of every central government service.

Ban was Not Anti-RSS, It was Pro-neutrality

Meanwhile, responding to a petition filed by a retired central government employee, a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge has called the 1966 ban on government servants joining the RSS a ‘mistake’, describing the RSS as an ‘internationally renowned organisation’. But that is not what we are debating. The issue here is not the reputation or stature of the RSS, but the fact that it clearly stands on one side of the political aisle.

The MP judge also questioned the banning of government employees from taking part in the religious, social, and cultural activities of the RSS. But then, would the government allow its officials to take part in the social, cultural, and religious activities of the Jamaat-e-Islami? If the answer is ‘no’, then clearly we are being partisan about which organisations are currently ‘kosher’ and which are not.

I believe we should be ruled by the sagacity of Sardar Patel, and allow it for no such organisation. It is a slippery slope, and he saw that and nipped it in the bud way back in 1949, and we should be glad that he did.

As the issue is sensitive, significant and complex, it does need to be referred to the Supreme Court. The top court was quick to take down the Uttar Pradesh administration’s order for food stall owners on the Kanwar Yatra route to display their real names. Let’s hope it shows the same swiftness if and when this case comes before it.  

Let’s Not Legitimise ‘Neta-Bureaucrat Nexus’

There is another view - that the influence of the RSS has grown across various government departments and services, irrespective of the 1966 ban. That may well be the collateral of the BJP’s phenomenal rise and success over the last 30 years.

Similarly, in previous decades, there were bureaucrats who were seen to be close to the Congress party too. The ‘alignment’ of senior state government officials and police personnel to influential regional political parties is a known phenomenon.

But surely, such ‘informal loyalties’ are not healthy, and surely, we cannot advocate legitimising them. Allowing government officials to join organisations that are a part of the political support system of a certain ideology, amounts to allowing them to ‘take sides’.

A government servant may assert that he will be neutral in his work, but how comfortable would a Muslim citizen be in approaching such a bureaucrat if his social media is peppered with his regular and proud participation in RSS events?

Yeh Jo India Hai Na, here, the neutrality and impartiality of our government servants, our police, and our judicial officers — guarantee our democracy and our secularism. And that should be non-negotiable.

Also Read

RSS's Growth and Influence in Governance Over the Years Made 1966 Ban Irrelevant