The Sangh Parivar is neither ready to abide by Hindu religious norms nor to uphold constitutional principles. In fact, it wholeheartedly rejects ‘Indian morality’, if such a thing exists. That is why, despite proclaiming itself guardian and protector of all Hindus, it has failed to safeguard funds intended for its own ‘magnificent Ram temple’.On June 26, reports surfaced from Ayodhya that Champat Rai, general secretary of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust and another trustee, Anil Mishra, had resigned. This information was unconfirmed for some time, and the trust then said the resignations would be deliberated upon in its meeting on July 11.Many were left incredulous. Ever since the donations scandal surfaced, they had clung to the hope that – if not willingly, then at least after facing a wave of public shaming – these individuals (and other trustees) would feel a sense of duty or guilt. But appealing to their conscience seemed to be a futile exercise.Still, there was some hope that they would step forward to admit, if not their direct involvement in the embezzlement, at least their failure to safeguard devotees’ donations. Many had hoped that, as an act of atonement, the trustees would step down, paving the way for an impartial and credible investigation.After all, they must surely know that their positions on the trust grant them power to influence the investigation as well as tamper with evidence. A fair inquiry cannot take place until they remain trustees, which also defeats Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath’s pledge to ‘separate the wheat from the chaff’ – reveal the complete truth about the affair.This is especially relevant since the allegations extend beyond merely embezzling donations. There are also charges of corruption and kickbacks related to the purchase of land and construction materials for the temple. In this scenario, the most probable outcome of their remaining in office is obvious: It was nearly three weeks after the theft came to light that First Information Reports (FIR) were filed against a few minor players, while the “big fish” remain “unnamed”.Dismantling of the moral groundPublic astonishment was indeed justified. Going by reports, Champat Rai and Anil Mishra did not acknowledge the immense pressure they were under (a result of the internal turmoil among the “heroes” of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) since news of the embezzlement broke. Instead, they resigned reluctantly and belatedly, still claiming to hold the moral ground. By that point, they had no moral standing left to speak of.They had already compromised their moral authority by failing to file a timely FIR regarding the embezzlement and by seeking refuge in the state government’s Special Investigation Team (SIT). In fact, their only remaining option was to attempt to salvage their reputation and their resignations offered that pretext.Also read: Ram Temple Funds Theft Case Deals the RSS One of Its Biggest-Ever Blows in Its Centenary YearMeanwhile, the trust’s treasurer, Swami Govind Dev Giri Maharaj, failed even at this attempt at damage control. Despite the massive financial losses incurred by the trust during his tenure, he chose only to confirm these two had offered their resignations instead of offering to step down himself.Those well-acquainted with the workings of the Sangh Parivar, its affiliate organisations and the governments controlled by them felt absolutely no surprise at this sequence of events.And how could they be surprised? Forget history, they have seen the current regime – the patron and driving force behind the trust and its trustees – consistently shifting its moral stance over the last twelve years. Whenever a situation became inconvenient, the government either turned its back on some previously stated principle or resorted to mockery.The government has disregarded even ‘constitutional morality’, without which the oath to the constitution which all governments swear loses all meaning.Recalling what Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar said on November 4, 1948, when presenting the draft constitution to the Constituent Assembly, makes it clear why Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Sangh Parivar, the government and its Cabinet ministers show complete disregard for constitutional morality, although it is the backbone of the rule of law and the constitutional framework. It is clear that they harbour scant respect for it and feel no inclination to address this absence.Babasaheb had said that constitutional morality is neither natural nor innate. Instead, it must be acquired and adopted through practice. He emphasised the necessity of this practice, noting that the dissemination of such morality – whose spirit does not arise spontaneously – is absolutely indispensable for sustaining democracy in the everyday lives of the people in the country.Disregard for constitutional moralityAmbedkar did not hesitate to say that Indians still had a lot to learn about democracy before they could cultivate an egalitarian morality, because India was not inherently democratic. He was clear: whether the constitution functions in the spirit in which it was framed would ultimately depend on whose interests an elected government chooses to prioritise in its policies.Similarly, in his final speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, he warned that rulers devoid of this moral compass could destroy the Constitution’s underlying spirit without altering a single written word of it – simply by changing how the administration is run.Constitutional morality suggests that if any government ministry commits such a serious error or misappropriation that impacts millions of people, then moral responsibility rests with the minister concerned, who should accept responsibility and resign without waiting for anyone to ask, rather than holding on to office under the pretence of collective Cabinet responsibility. Our democratic history is filled with numerous such instances when this moral principle was upheld.However, just a year after Modi’s first government took office, on June 24, 2015, when resignations were being demanded from then External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and then Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje in connection with the highly publicised controversy involving Lalit Modi, then Home Minister Rajnath Singh had announced, “In this government, ministers don’t resign. This is not the UPA, it is the NDA government.” This statement made it clear that the government had decided to abandon all constitutional ethics.Now, after the recent episode involving Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, numerous questions have been raised regarding the repeated paper leaks in significant examinations like NEET-UG, CBSE and CUET, as well as major blunders, irregularities and corruption in the On-Screen Marking (OSM) and evaluation systems, while the functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA) has itself come under scrutiny.However, despite being responsible for the mess, neither has the minister resigned from his post nor did Modi ask him to step down or urge the President to dismiss him. This only suggests that the current regime has, in its third term, successfully achieved the goal of “transcending all constitutional morality”.Moreover, it has figured out that adhering to constitutional morality would prevent it from achieving its own interests and those of its favourites. These can only be achieved by acting contrary to the objectives and sentiments of the constitution. Therefore, the government conveniently forgets that constitutional morality is linked to the soul and values of the constitution established by law.The question of Hindu moralityFor the sake of argument, assume that the Sangh Parivar’s longstanding animosity towards the constitution is true. It is to be expected, then, that figures such as Champat Rai and Anil Mishra will emulate the Modi government’s contempt for constitutional morality as well – just as ministers like Dharmendra Pradhan have.The Sangh Parivar – which trumpets the slogan ‘Say with pride, we are Hindus’ – does not even abide by Hindu ethical principles. Had it done so, the loot of the Ram temple’s coffers under its management would never have occurred. And Opposition leaders condemning the organisation over this plunder would not have been likened to Marich, Khar-Dushan and Ravana, a way of accusing them of trying to tarnish Ayodhya’s reputation.A recent quote from an article by senior journalist Arun Kumar Tripathi, published in Ayodhya’s daily Janmorcha, is particularly relevant. He writes:The Sangh Parivar, which constantly emphasises Sanatan Dharma and its values, cites Vedic literature that describes a man as accountable for five foundational debts – panch rinani. At the same time, it is said that it is man’s duty to make persistent efforts to liberate himself from these debts. This concept has been interpreted as “man fulfilling his duty” by Sachchidanand Hiranand Vatsyayan ‘Agyeya’.These five debts are – Deva Rin (debt to the divine), Rishi Rin (debt to the sages), Pitra Rin (debt to ancestors), Nri Rin or Manushya Rin (debt to humanity) and Bhuta Rin (debt to nature/all beings). Pitra Rin urges a person to fulfill his responsibilities towards the family, while the other debts connect him with the responsibilities towards the society and nature. Rishi Rin emphasises the importance of preserving and advancing the wisdom received from sages, whereas Deva Rin is not merely an external ritual of worship, but its purpose is to invoke the dormant deity within. Nri Rin inspires man to serve human society and nature.Nri Rin can be repaid only when the entire human race is imbued with a sense of universal compassion, whereas Bhoot Rin can only be settled when it is acknowledged that an individual’s existence is not solely reliant on human society. Elements such as water, air, the atmosphere, the animals and birds, trees and forests, mountains, rivers and seas also contribute to it.In his article, he asks whether the Sangh Parivar has ever made efforts to instil this eternal moral grounding within Hindu society.He then answers the question, writing that over the last 12 years, the organisation (Sangh Parivar) has raised its voice against crime, corruption and immoralities only when they have been committed by its opponents. When misdeeds are perpetrated by individuals associated with its own organisation, party or government, it remains silent, defends them or diverts attention away from them by bringing up other matters.Breach of trustThe Sangh Parivar is neither willing to abide by Hindu ethics nor to uphold constitutional principles. In fact, what it rejects the most strenuously is ‘Indian morality’, if something like it exists! That is exactly why, despite proclaiming itself the guardian and protector of all Hindus, it has failed to safeguard donation funds intended for the ‘magnificent and divine Ram Temple’.And that is also why, despite wearing the garb of a cultural organisation, the avarice of its volunteers has rendered all avowed ethical principles and logical frameworks irrelevant.Recall that many of its so-called “scholars” are left dumbfounded when asked whether they believe in constitution-based democracy or Ram Rajya. What does that Ram Rajya have to offer, which the existing constitution fails to provide? And which aspects of this constitution will be omitted in Ram Rajya? How can the concepts of Akhand Bharat and Hindu Rashtra coexist, given their inherent contradictions?Do not forget that throughout the Ram Mandir movement, the Sangh Parivar seldom allowed any morality to interfere with its personal interests and its “politics” (indeed, politics, as this movement was completely politicised). Had they allowed ethics any role, the current situation would not have arisen, where the people of Ayodhya ask, “What is new about it?” following the embezzlement of Ram Temple donations.Also Read: ‘Ram temple offering controversy: What is new in what is happening in Ayodhya?’History bears witness that this outfit paused the Ram Mandir movement to suit the comfort and convenience of its volunteers, and revived it at its discretion. It persistently referred to its political manoeuvres as strategic. The extent to which this strategy could be deemed unethical is evident from the reality events convey: the Babri Masjid was demolished in broad daylight, before the eyes of the global media, on December 6, 1992, but none of its volunteers or activists have ever admitted to any involvement in the act.The statement made by then chief minister Kalyan Singh, asserting, “We did what we promised,” remained confined to meetings and public gatherings, failing to find takers in any court of law.Now, since the embezzlement has been exposed, its attitude towards the temple, Hindu faith and the deity has also been completely laid bare. The episode reveals just how little it cares about the faith of millions of Ram bhakts across the country – by prioritising the collusion of faith and irrationality.Not long back, it seemed incapable of restraining itself from “belittling” Ram by elevating Modi, who was shown leading Ram by his hand, as superior to the deity.Amidst all this, how could this entity expect its workers counting the donations to remain ethical and honest? Especially when their recruitment lacked any transparency – there are even speculations that a “recruitment scam” also took place in the temple.In any case, to borrow Arun Kumar Tripathi’s words again, it is these actions of the Sangh Parivar that are beginning to cast doubt, at least to some extent, on the assessment of thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi, Vivekananda and Aurobindo – that despite all the evils that have crept into Hindu society, it still possesses enough moral integrity to uphold a constitution founded on the principles of equality, liberty and fraternity. And that, despite being the majority, Hindu society will take the interests of minorities into account, make decisions in consultation with them and preserve and maintain an increasingly liberal approach towards different sections of society.Evidently, regardless of the implications and outcomes of Champat Rai and Anil Mishra’s resignations, searching for its moral foundation is like looking for meat in an eagle’s nest. Had that not been the case, they would have thought a hundred times before choosing the path of deceit and betraying the faith of countless innocent devotees who believed Lord Ram’s arrival would usher in better days for them.Krishna Pratap Singh is a senior journalist based in Faizabad (Ayodhya).Translated by Naushin Rehman. Read the original on The Wire Hindi.