On a blistering summer evening in Nagpur, nearly a thousand men in brown trousers, white shirts, and black caps stood in formation as a saffron flag was raised, marking a graduation ceremony for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) workers. This vivid scene, described in a recent FT Weekend Magazine article, “A hundred years after it was founded, India's Hindu-nationalist movement is getting closer to its goal of a Hindu-first state,” captures the enduring presence of the RSS, a century-old Hindu-nationalist organization.
However, the article, a rare one of a controversial organisation by a top global media house, authored by Andres Schipani and Jyotsna Singh, also highlights sharp criticisms of the RSS’s ideology and influence, raising concerns about its impact on India’s pluralistic society.
Founded in 1925 by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar in Nagpur with just 17 followers, the RSS was rooted in Hindu supremacy and territorial nationalism, inspired by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s 1925 work "Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?". The organization has since grown into a vast network, reaching into sectors like the judiciary, military, and business.
“They want to change society,” Christophe Jaffrelot, a South Asia expert at Sciences Po and King’s College London, is quoted as saying. “They want to change the values of the people, and that is the ultimate goal.”
The article portrays the RSS as a tightly knit community, fostering a sense of brotherhood among volunteers who wear uniforms, sing nationalist songs, and train in Hindu-centric philosophy. “The message of the daily meetings is a restoration of a sense of community among Hindus,” especially those feeling “rootless,” wrote Walter Andersen and Shridhar Dandekar in "Hinduism’s Challenge".
The RSS emphasizes cultural Hinduism, with its national joint editor stating, “Though it talks about Hindu religion, it is not a religion or book. The purpose is to be proud of your ancestors, of your dharma, which does not mean religion but duties, ideas, and values.” Its community work—such as manning a hospital mortuary during a crisis in which 19 people died—is praised internally. “The Sangh’s work has been increasing, despite… opposition and resistance from its critics,” wrote Manmohan Vaidya, an RSS joint general secretary.
Yet, the article also highlights significant criticisms of the RSS’s ideology and actions. Critics accuse the organization of promoting bigotry and exclusivity toward India’s minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians. A 1955 government intelligence report quoted Hedgewar as asserting that “Hindus would dominate the future government of India, and it was for them to say what political rights and privileges were to be conceded to non-Hindu elements.”
This perspective—rooted in Savarkar’s skepticism about the loyalty of non-Hindus to a Hindu state—fuels accusations that the RSS seeks to marginalize minorities. Jaffrelot argues, “They want minorities to become second-class citizens. If this is not politics, what is politics?” He criticizes the RSS’s expansive network, noting, “The whole family is a huge network, infiltrating all kinds of milieus, including the judiciary, including the army, including the business community. They are everywhere, all centralized in the same way, under the same umbrella.”
The article quotes Devanura Mahadeva, a former RSS member who later became disenchanted, offering a scathing critique in his book "RSS: The Long and Short of It". He writes, “History is whatever they believe—for us RSS, their beliefs are the same as the world’s Hindu right-wing parties,” likening the RSS to global far-right movements.
The RSS’s influence is evident in its ties to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a former RSS member. The article notes that policies like tightening laws on religious conversions, policing cow slaughter (sacred to Hindus), and building a temple at the disputed Ayodhya site align with the RSS’s Hindu-first vision. “There are so many policy changes which have happened according to the vision of RSS, so we appreciate it,” a senior RSS official in Nagpur told the authors.
The article criticizes recent moves, such as a controversial April 2025 bill placing Muslim endowments under government control, which critics argue undermines minority rights. The RSS’s accusations of “love jihad”—alleging Muslim men court Hindu women to convert them—further stoke tensions in a country where Hindus make up 80% and Muslims 14% of the 1.4 billion population, it asserts.
Despite its political influence, the RSS ironically maintains that it is not a political party. Jaffrelot notes that Madhavrao Sadashivrao Golwalkar, who led the RSS from 1940 to 1973, “did not want RSS people to become politicians because they would become dirty, forget the rules, the values.”
Yet, this distinction is superficial, the article argues, given the RSS’s policy impact. Some RSS leaders also express discomfort with Modi’s cult of personality, particularly his claim of being “sent by God,” which clashes with the organization’s ethos of collective loyalty. Jaffrelot warns that the RSS’s vision of a Hindu-first state is unattainable, stating, “They live in a different world from the ideal world… You will never be sufficiently Hindu. You will never be sufficiently strong.”
Still, the RSS remains optimistic about its future, notes the article. Its current chief, greeted with orange bindis at the Nagpur ceremony, told The Organiser in May that within 25 years, the RSS will “unite the entire” Hindu community, declaring, “The RSS’s future looks good—strong.” Volunteers like Ratna Sharda, who joined at a young age, reflect this dedication: “As long as I remember, I’ve been in my RSS uniform. I have no other uniform of childhood.”
Public reactions on X reveal deep divisions, the article says. Supporters praise the RSS’s cultural pride and community work, while critics condemn its exclusionary ideology and threat to India’s secular fabric. The RSS’s mission to reshape India’s cultural and political landscape is gaining traction—but this, the article suggests, may deepen divisions in India’s diverse society.
Comments