RSS archival records reveal 'historical opposition' to secular, federal constitution and inclusive nationhood
A new report authored by political analyst and academic Shamsul Islam, titled "Anti-National & Anti-Hindu RSS: Documentary Evidence from Its Archives", offers a critical examination of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) using archival documents from the organization itself. Drawing entirely from published material in RSS journals, speeches of key leaders, and official publications, the report seeks to scrutinize the ideological evolution and stated positions of the RSS since its founding in 1925.
According to the report, the RSS leadership, particularly during the early years of Indian independence, consistently rejected the idea of a secular, democratic, and inclusive Indian nation. Citing editorials from the RSS mouthpiece Organizer in the months leading up to and following August 1947, the report notes repeated expressions of opposition to the concept of a composite nation of Hindus and Muslims. For instance, in an editorial titled “Glorious Hindu Nation” dated July 3, 1947, the publication described Hindu-Muslim unity as a trap and claimed that India should be recognized solely as a Hindu nation. In another editorial, “Whither,” published on August 14, 1947, the RSS rejected the idea that multiple communities could constitute the Indian nation, asserting that “only Hindus form the nation.”
The report also documents the RSS’ disapproval of the tricolour flag, which was adopted by the Constituent Assembly as the national flag. In the Organizer issue of July 17, 1947, an editorial stated that the national flag should not aim to accommodate all communities, calling the tricolour a “politician’s patchwork” and arguing instead for the adoption of a saffron flag symbolizing Hindu culture. The report cites similar arguments in M. S. Golwalkar’s writings, particularly in his collection Bunch of Thoughts, where the tricolour is described as a product of Western imitation and political compromise.
On the question of national identity, the RSS is shown to have rejected the name “India” in favour of “Hindusthan.” An Organizer editorial dated July 31, 1947, asserted that “India” failed to reflect the shared culture and traditions of the Hindu majority and proposed that the Constitution, national flag, and language should all be distinctly Hindu in character. The report points out that terms like “Hindusthan” themselves derive from Persian origins, suggesting historical complexities in such naming debates.
The RSS’ position on India’s Constitution is also addressed at length. The report cites Golwalkar’s criticism of the Indian Constitution as lacking any “Bhartiya” content and dismissing it as a “hotchpotch” of Western ideas. In Bunch of Thoughts, Golwalkar argues that the Constitution should reflect the values found in ancient Hindu scriptures, particularly Manusmriti. An Organizer editorial from November 30, 1949, likewise complains about the absence of Hindu constitutional traditions and praises Manusmriti as a text that commands universal admiration and spontaneous obedience.
The report draws attention to Golwalkar’s classification of “internal threats” to the nation, which include Muslims, Christians, and Communists. These groups are described in Bunch of Thoughts as undermining national unity. Golwalkar asserts that the partition of India did not resolve the “Muslim problem” and claims that Muslim communities in India maintain hostile ties with Pakistan. Similar suspicion is extended to Christians and Communists, who are accused of political subversion and moral corruption.
Citing the Organizer issue of September 25, 1947, the report records the RSS’ demand that all Muslims in Delhi be transferred to Pakistan following partition-related violence. The report notes that Golwalkar continued to express distrust toward Muslims in public speeches well into the 1960s, often without offering concrete evidence to support his claims.
The RSS’ stance against federalism is another key issue in the report. Golwalkar, in a 1961 communication to the National Integration Council, is quoted as stating that federalism fosters separatism and should be abolished in favour of a unitary government. This idea is further expanded in Bunch of Thoughts in a chapter titled “Wanted a Unitary State,” which proposes the elimination of autonomous states in favour of central rule.
The report also examines the ideological influence of caste hierarchy within RSS thought. Golwalkar’s writings cite the Purusha Sukta to justify the caste system as a divine manifestation. According to him, the Hindu nation is defined by this fourfold caste arrangement. The report supplements this with direct quotations from Manusmriti that prescribe harsh punishments for lower castes and codify female subjugation. These prescriptions, the report notes, are at odds with the democratic and egalitarian framework of the Indian Constitution.
The role and status of women in RSS ideology is also explored. The organization’s women’s wing, Rashtriya Sevika Samiti, was founded in 1936 and refers to its members as “sevika” (servants), in contrast to male “swayamsevaks” (volunteers). The prayer recited by Sevika Samiti members emphasizes modesty, chastity, and obedience, while urging women to inspire male relatives toward moral conduct. The male counterpart’s prayer contains no such instructions. The report also cites statements by senior RSS figures suggesting that women’s primary role should be confined to household duties.
The report references controversial views on race and South Indian communities expressed by RSS ideologues. In a 1960 speech, Golwalkar allegedly endorsed a theory of racial “improvement” through crossbreeding between northern Brahmins and southern communities, a position the report characterizes as racist and patriarchal. A similar sentiment was echoed in 2017 by former Organizer editor and BJP MP Tarun Vijay, who was widely criticized for comments contrasting North Indian and South Indian populations based on skin colour.
On the topic of organizational strategy, the report refers to the RSS publication Param Vaibhav Ke Path Par, which outlines how the RSS has created multiple affiliated bodies to carry out its work. According to the publication, many of these entities operate without formal registration or accountability. The report quotes a passage in which the RSS describes how its workers disguised themselves as Muslims in post-Partition Delhi to infiltrate Muslim League circles. A letter from Rajendra Prasad to Sardar Patel in 1948 is cited to support this claim, expressing concern about RSS plans to incite communal violence through such tactics.
The report does not restrict its criticism to national issues but also questions the RSS’ representation of Hinduism. It argues that the organization’s exclusive focus on upper-caste, Brahmanical interpretations undermines the diverse and pluralistic traditions within Hindu philosophy. The report points out that by rejecting the independence of Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism, the RSS reduces these traditions to mere branches of Hinduism.
Shamsul Islam maintains that these conclusions are based exclusively on archival records and statements made by RSS leaders over several decades. He invites readers and critics to verify the primary sources and respond through legal or academic means if any material is found to be inaccurate.
The report’s publication contributes to ongoing public discourse about the ideological roots and political influence of the RSS in contemporary India. While supporters of the RSS have maintained that the organization represents cultural nationalism and social cohesion, the report presents a contrasting interpretation rooted in its historical texts and leadership statements.
Comments