The Unfolding Sangh

Pallab Bhattacharyya

(Pallab Bhattacharyya is a former director-general of police, Special Branch and erstwhile Chairman, APSC. Views expressed by him is personal. He can be reached at pallab1959@hotmail.com)

On 8 August 2026, in a widely discussed conversation on The Tribune
platform with Gen Z and Gen Alpha students, RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat shared views on topics like dissent, reservations, education, LGBTQIA+ rights, talks with Pakistan, caste discrimination, and leadership that many people thought were quite different from the usual RSS views seen on social media. The debate that followed was not merely about one interview; it was about whether the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which entered its centenary year in 2025–26, is undergoing a significant ideological transformation or simply expressing old ideas in a new language. The answer lies in a careful reading of the organisation’s intellectual evolution over the past hundred years.

The RSS was founded by Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar in Nagpur on 27 September 1925 in the context of colonial rule, communal tension and what he perceived as the internal fragmentation of Hindu society. Hedgewar’s primary concern was organisational. He believed that a society divided by caste, region and social hierarchy could not sustain national strength. The shakha was designed as a disciplined social institution that would cultivate character, solidarity and service. Although deeply influenced by the cultural nationalism articulated by V.D. Savarkar, Hedgewar’s emphasis, while deeply influenced by V.D. Savarkar’s cultural nationalism, focused more on social consolidation than on theological uniformity. Hedgewar focused more on social consolidation than on theological uniformity. His critique of caste divisions and his insistence on collective organisation reveal that the founding impulse of the RSS was not only political but also sociological in nature.

The most decisive ideological shift occurred under M.S. Golwalkar, who led the organisation from 1940 to 1973. In “We, or Our Nationhood Defined” and later in “Bunch of Thoughts”, Golwalkar developed a theory of the nation based on cultural and civilisational homogeneity. His formulation treated India primarily as a Hindu nation in which minorities were expected to assimilate into the dominant cultural framework. This phase represented the high point of ideological exclusivism within the RSS tradition. It is this Golwalkarite formulation that continues to dominate much of the public perception of the RSS, especially in digital discourse where historical nuance is often absent.

Yet the intellectual history of the RSS did not stop with Golwalkar. A parallel stream emerged through Deendayal Upadhyaya’s doctrine of Integral Humanism. Formulated in 1965, it sought to provide an indigenous alternative to both capitalism and socialism. Upadhyaya’s emphasis on the integrated development of body, mind, intellect and soul, combined with ideas such as Antyodaya, decentralisation and social harmony, moved the Sangh tradition towards a more constructive vocabulary of inclusion and organic social evolution. While still rooted in a Hindu civilisational framework, Integral Humanism moderated the sharper edges of earlier exclusivism and created an intellectual bridge between cultural nationalism and social welfare.

Mohan Bhagwat’s recent statements become intelligible only within this longer trajectory. His claim stands out from the language of cultural separation by asserting that all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent share a common civilisational ancestry, regardless of their religion. His assertion that nobody needs to change their faith, his warning against searching for a shivling beneath every mosque, and his repeated emphasis on dialogue rather than confrontation suggest an attempt to redefine Hindu nationalism in civilisational rather than assimilationist terms. At the RSS centenary gathering in Nagpur, he described Hindu nationalism as acceptance and respect for diversity that binds society together in one thread. This is a notable reformulation of the concept.

The Tribune interview was particularly important because it addressed issues that resonate with younger Indians. Bhagwat described protest as a form of democratic dialogue and explicitly rejected the tendency to brand agitating youth as anti-national. He invoked B.R. Ambedkar’s constitutional method while discussing dissent, thereby locating disagreement within the framework of democratic legitimacy. On reservation, he accepted Ambedkar’s reasoning that affirmative action is justified as long as social discrimination persists. On education, he criticised excessive commercialisation and argued that education is a social necessity rather than merely a market commodity. Even on LGBTQIA+ individuals, while maintaining a conservative position on marriage, he acknowledged their place in society and spoke of India’s historical capacity for accommodation.

These positions do not amount to a wholesale embrace of liberal constitutionalism. Bhagwat remains cautious on marriage equality, advocates gradual social change and continues to frame many issues through the lens of social cohesion rather than individual autonomy. Nevertheless, compared with Golwalkar’s language of homogeneity, the shift is unmistakable. The conceptual centre appears to be moving from cultural exclusivity to civilisational pluralism.

The most intriguing aspect of Bhagwat’s intervention is his explanation of ideological change. He has argued that the RSS is not changing its essence but “unfolding” over time, like a seed becoming a mature tree. This metaphor is significant because it allows continuity and change to coexist. The organisation can claim fidelity to its foundational purpose while acknowledging that historical circumstances require new expressions of its old principles. Whether one accepts this argument or not, it reflects a sophisticated understanding of institutional evolution.

From a scholarly perspective, the RSS today appears to contain at least three identifiable intellectual strands: Hedgewar’s organisational nationalism, Golwalkar’s cultural majoritarianism, and Upadhyaya’s integral humanism. Bhagwat’s recent discourse draws heavily from the first and third while selectively distancing itself from the second. The tension between these strands explains why his remarks appear contradictory to many observers. Social media often treats Golwalkar as the definitive voice of the RSS, while Bhagwat attempts to redefine the organisation through a different genealogy.

The centenary offers the RSS a historic opportunity. If it genuinely wishes to contribute constructively to Indian society, it must move beyond rhetorical moderation and toward institutional transformation. The first requirement is an explicit affirmation that cultural diversity is intrinsic to Indian civilisation rather than a temporary obstacle to national unity. The Constitution’s vision of fraternity and equal citizenship can be interpreted not as a rejection of civilisational identity but as a democratic expression of it.

Second, the RSS should institutionalise structured dialogue with youth, minorities, Dalit organisations and women’s groups. Bhagwat’s willingness to engage in unscripted questions should become a permanent organisational practice. Third, the campaign against caste discrimination must be measurable. Opening temples, wells and cremation grounds to all, ensuring social integration within Sangh-affiliated institutions, and promoting inter-caste cooperation would provide concrete substance to the language of social harmony.

Fourth, the organisation should embrace what may be called constitutional patriotism. This does not require abandoning civilisational consciousness; rather, it requires recognising that the Constitution is the contemporary framework through which India’s civilisational diversity is governed. Ambedkar, Gandhi, Vivekananda, Tagore and Upadhyaya need not be treated as mutually exclusive traditions. Their common concern with human dignity, social responsibility and national cohesion provides a richer foundation for the RSS’s second century.

Finally, the RSS should redefine leadership in the manner Bhagwat himself suggested: leadership that creates leaders rather than followers. Cultural mobilisation alone cannot address India’s future challenges, which include technological disruption, ecological stress, inequality, demographic transformation, and social fragmentation. through cultural mobilisation alone. through cultural mobilisation alone. They require institutions that cultivate trust across communities.

The real significance of Mohan Bhagwat’s Tribune interview therefore lies not in whether it contradicts earlier RSS ideology, but in whether it signals the emergence of a more pluralistic understanding of nationalism. If the RSS can reconcile cultural confidence with constitutional equality and civilisational continuity with democratic diversity, its second century may become an era of social integration rather than social polarisation. In a country where diversity is the very grammar of civilisation, the highest form of nationalism is not uniformity but the ability to create unity without erasing differences. That ideal is as deeply rooted in India’s civilisation as it is in its Constitution.