Latest news with #Hedgewar
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
K B Hedgewar and the roots of the RSS: A progressive movement that is misunderstood
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been an important component of India since the 1930s. In March 1934, there was a two-day discussion on the RSS's ideology, leadership and activities in the Legislative Council of the Central Provinces & Berar. Again, in February 1947, the Central Assembly debated these issues. The change in the power dynamic in national politics since the 1990s is largely attributed to its organisational and ideological impact. Isn't it ironic, then, that the founder of RSS, K B Hedgewar's vision and action got little space in these conversations? There is, however, an exception. In the pre-Independent period, after his death on June 21, 1940, newspapers and journals across the country, from Modern Review, edited by Ramananda Chatterjee and published from Calcutta, to the Marathi daily Kesari, founded by Gangadhar Tilak in Pune, debated his idea of India for months. At the age of 36, he visualised a movement whose sole objective would be to regain India's civilisational characteristics. He did not initiate a new stream of Hindutva. Rather, for him, the consolidation of Hindus was a means to achieve all-around development of the nation. During his time, the efforts to unite Hindus were based on philanthropy and preaching the ideas of social reformers on the one hand and the politics of the Hindu Mahasabha on the other. Both approaches proved, by and large, to be inadequate to address the basic causes of injustice and discrimination against marginalised castes. In A Dying Race (1908), U N Mukherji vehemently criticised upper-caste and -class Hindus for being insensitive to their own people. This was among the first works that put forth the idea that the reasons for the decline of Hinduism, besides the threats from Semitic religions, were its internal weaknesses. Three years later, B R Ambedkar questioned the claims of the Congress, Hindu saints, socialists and communists in What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables. Hedgewar believed that symbolism and social Fabianism cannot lead to a sense of equality and social cohesion – what the RSS calls samrasta. This was a visible departure from the elitist approach based on high-minded speeches and symbolic programmes like co-dining and co-option of social groups to address socio-cultural problems. Hedgewar realised feudalism was the mother of status-quoism, and the social and political elites had a stake in it. Even the revolutionary claims of socialists and communists against it were confined to speeches and resolutions. Hedgewar turned the table. He did not solicit support or patronage from any major political personality or massive funds during his 15-year leadership of the RSS. He relied on school and college teachers, clerks, graduates and common men, including orphans, to build up a movement. Others considered them just part of a crowd. Hedgewar groomed them as leaders of social and cultural movements. RSS workers actively spread the idea of undoing caste hierarchies. The 'untouchability' question has been dealt with systematically by the Sangh. For this, it silently bore the brunt of conservatives. A conglomeration of saints of all streams and sects, along with the Shankaracharyas in Udupi in 1969, dealt the death blow to the abiding, false perception among a powerful section of religious leaders and upper castes that untouchability had religious sanction. RSS Chief M S Golwalkar was the architect of this great leap forward. The battle against social conservatism — across countries and epochs — has been the most difficult of tasks. Despite Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Obama, the acrimony between Black and White people persists in the US. Apartheid's legacy of inequality continues in some ways today, despite decades-long campaigns against it. The dynamism of an organisation and ideology is rooted in its openness, ability to accept its limitations and introduce corrective measures. The RSS possesses these features. Early on, it carried out surveys in hundreds of villages in Maharashtra to compare the Sangh's intent to foster social change with its actual effect. In 1974, the third Sarsanghachalak Balasaheb Deoras said, 'Untouchability should go lock, stock and barrel.' Mohan Bhagwat gave this principle a practical formulation as a task for the organisation – to ensure 'common wells, common temples and common mortuaries.' In 1910, the Census Commissioner E A Gait issued a questionnaire to determine who was a Hindu. It included questions about those who were deprived of using common wells, ponds, mortuaries and temples. Known as the Gait Circular, it was eventually withdrawn before the 1911 census after protests by Hindu leaders, including Lajpat Rai. Hedgewar was aware of the pitfalls of electoral politics. The RSS remained at a distance from the political activities of the Hindu Mahasabha, which wanted trained swayamsevaks to work for its agenda. Hedgewar's position upset the Mahasabha and the leaders of other Hindu organisations. Critics of the RSS ignore these internal challenges when they view Hindutva as a singular entity. Nathuram Godse was one such disillusioned worker who, along with four Hindutva activists, wrote to Savarkar, blaming the RSS for wasting the energies of Hindu youth. The files of the Mahasabha in the Prime Minister's Museum and Library, Teen Murti (Delhi) have umpteen such examples of clashes between the Sangh and Mahasabha. This is reflected today, too. Many feel the RSS is too liberal on the minority question. Hedgewar avoided binaries both in principle and practice. This is a reason that RSS cadres do not hesitate while helping and serving non-Hindus — from food camps in 1950 and during the India-China war in 1962 to earthquake relief in Latur in 1993 and the plane crash in Ahmedabad in 2025. Stray statements and local incidents must not be seen as emanating from the RSS's philosophy. Using them as such only obstructs healthy dialogue and harms national interest. RSS had a modest beginning. It worked without an office or sign signboard for years. Office bearers were created after three years. Till then, it functioned like a commune. 100 years of the RSS is an occasion for both its critics and admirers to understand the message of Hedgewar: Selflessness and keeping the common person at the centre will keep an ideology and movement alive. The writer is a former Rajya Sabha MP (BJP)
Scroll.in
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
‘The idea that KB Hedgewar was an ultra-Hindu is patently false': Biographer Sachin Nandha
Hedgewar: A Definitive Biography by Sachin Nandha delves into the life and philosophy of the elusive Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) founder Keshav Baliram Hedgewar. The biography sheds light on Hedgewar's philosophy of cultural nationalism, his contributions to the socio-political cultural landscape of his times, and highlights his radical vision to fight the caste barriers within the RSS framework. Hedgewar's early critique of the increasing ritualism among Brahmins during British rule, including his distrust of the militant philosophy of Subhas Chandra Bose and private disagreements with Gandhi over his strict adherence to non-violence, is also covered. The biography charts Hedgewar's journey from an orphaned child in colonial India to becoming the mastermind behind RSS, one of the world's most secretive and largest voluntary organisations that completed its 100 years of existence. In an interview with Scroll, author Sachin Nanda talked about how the biography locates Hedgewar within the political and cultural ferment of his time, his key influences while growing up in poverty leading up to the creation of the RSS, his role in creating Shakhas to build social capital, and why he believes Hedgewar should not be labeled as an 'ultra-Hindu' or someone who 'hated' minorities. This biography claims to be a definitive biography of Hedgewar. How is this biography different from other biographies published earlier on Hedgewar and what are some unique insights and new archival information you were able to bring forth about his role and contribution within and outside the RSS? This is the first biography of Hedgewar in the true sense of the word. Previous works have largely been hagiographies – reverential, one-sided portrayals. This book took over seven years to research and write. It's grounded in archival material, over 700 references, and includes both focused and unstructured interviews with individuals connected to the RSS since the 1930s. What makes it unique is the attempt to locate Hedgewar within the political and cultural ferment of his time – inside and outside the RSS – while resisting both vilification and blind admiration. What were some key influences on Hedgewar while growing up that shaped his worldview and ideology of cultural nationalism that led to the founding of RSS? How did his exposure to Western education shape his understanding of political systems and nationalism? The early death of Hedgewar's parents left a deep emotional imprint – he was raised in poverty but later adopted by Dr BS Moonjay, one of Nagpur's wealthiest and most influential nationalists. This gave him access to both hardship and privilege, grounding him in India's social realities. He was deeply disturbed by the backwards condition of women and the fragmented state of Hindu society. He saw how the 'tyranny of custom' meant that women had almost no access to healthcare and medication that could have saved many thousands of lives during cholera outbreaks. Though rooted in tradition, Hedgewar had a curious and open mind. His time in Calcutta exposed him to revolutionary politics, and Western thinkers (from the age of 14) – Mazzini's nationalism, Marx's class analysis, Nietzsche's will to power, and even Greek political philosophy. He read widely and saw value in ideas that could help rebuild Indian society with discipline, unity, and pride. His vision for the RSS was neither orthodox revivalism nor blind Westernisation – but a fusion of Indian cultural rootedness with the organisational and philosophical insights he absorbed from across the world. He realised that the answer to India's problems was not political but cultural – and that Indian society was trapped by caste, class and creed, which had to be overcome if India was to reclaim its position as a great civilisation again. What was the motivation and thought behind the creation of RSS Shakhas which Hedgewar was instrumental in establishing? What kind of social and cultural capital was he hoping to reap through these Shakhas for the growth of RSS? Hedgewar's creation of the Shakha was, in many ways, a response to the deep deficit of social capital within Hindu society. India lacked the civic glue – networks of trust, norms, and cooperation – needed to build strong, inclusive institutions. Hindu society, fragmented by caste, region, and sect, had never developed the habits of collective action beyond its rigid hierarchies. Hedgewar's critique was not aimed outward – it was directed inward, at Hindu society itself. The Shakha was designed as a daily ritual of reform: a caste-blind, community-centric space where young men could forge bonds across social divisions, learn discipline, and cultivate a sense of shared civilisational responsibility. His vision was to rebuild Hindu society from the bottom up, laying the cultural foundations for a future India that was cohesive, self-confident, and capable of collective action. You write in the biography that in order to understand modern India, it should be viewed through the legacy of RSS founder Hedgewar. Why do you think Hedgewar shouldn't be looked at with a preconditional mindset formed by academics who, as you write in the biography, 'label him as an ultra-Hindu and hater of minorities'? To reframe the assertion in your question, I believe there are many ways to understand modern India. But no understanding can be complete without engaging seriously with the RSS – and that journey must begin with Hedgewar. He may well be more influential today than any of his contemporaries, precisely because of how deeply the institution he founded has shaped Indian society and politics. The idea that Hedgewar was an 'ultra-Hindu' or a hater of minorities is not just reductive – it's patently false. In seven years of research, I found no evidence, no data, no statements by him that support that claim. On the contrary, while at university, Hedgewar was deeply influenced by a Maulvi named Liaqat Hussain. His framework was not one of religious exclusion – it was about psychological unity with the nation. The red line for him was desh bhakt i – a profound emotional connection to the land and its civilisation. This inevitably came into tension with orthodox Islamist clerics of the time, who saw desh bhakti as a form of idolatry. So, the conflict wasn't about faith per se, but about whether loyalty to the nation could transcend religious dogma. The 1920s were a period of rupture – between Hindus and Muslims, between castes, between linguistic and regional identities. The RSS's early reputation as anti-minority must be understood in that turbulent context. Hedgewar was not a bigot. He was a complex and subtle thinker who recognised that to build a nation, one needed to bridge capital – something to unify diverse groups. For him, desh bhakti was that bridge: a shared emotional and cultural bond that could transcend sectarian lines and forge a common civilisational purpose. Can you elaborate on the idea of cultural nationalism that Hedgewar and RSS came to espouse? And where did he situate the minorities and their religious and cultural identities in this nationalism? Cultural nationalism, as Hedgewar conceived it, is distinct from political nationalism. Political nationalism is often tied to statehood, electoral power, or constitutional identity – a capture of the State. Cultural nationalism, by contrast, is about emotional belonging – a shared sense of civilisational continuity, values, and memory that binds people across time and difference. Hedgewar's idea was rooted in the belief that India was not just a geography but a civilisation. His vision wasn't to erase differences but to find a common thread – desh bhakti – a deep psychological commitment to the nation and its culture, which could serve as a unifying principle. In this framework, minorities weren't excluded. They were invited to participate in a shared national project, provided there was alignment on that emotional bond to the land and its heritage. Hedgewar wasn't seeking uniformity; he was looking for coherence. He believed that each group could retain its unique identity, but that the nation required bridging capital – the kind of social trust and civic relationships that link people across group boundaries. Robert Putnam makes the distinction between bonded and bridging social capital. Bonded capital ties people within a group; bridging capital connects people across groups. Hedgewar recognised that Hindu society lacked both. His effort, through RSS and the Shakhas, was to create a framework where bonded capital could grow amongst Hindus in order to bring coherence and then bridging capital across castes/creeds – by building a cultural nationalism that was broad, cohesive, and rooted in desh bhakti rather than religious affiliation. The challenge that Hedgewar faced, and the RSS still face, is that desh bhakti in this sense is tantamount to idolatry for conservative Deobandi clerics who resist this path, frightened that their identity will be subsumed. India will need to solve this problem sooner or later; or face further ruptures in the future! What do you make of assessments that say Hedgewar's idea of cultural nationalism and Hindu-centric ideology was a form of exclusionary nationalism detrimental to social cohesion that further marginalised minority communities in India? Critics often conflate two very different ideas: political nationalism and cultural nationalism. Political nationalism is concerned with capturing state power – rajya – in order to shape society. Political parties, by their nature, operate in this domain. They mobilise vote banks, often by constructing an 'us' versus 'them,' and in doing so, risk falling into majoritarianism. Whether it's the BJP or the Congress, both have, at times, prioritised one group over another to consolidate political capital. Hedgewar's idea of cultural nationalism is fundamentally different. It's not about state power – it's about building a rashtra, society. For him, the nation was not a political construct but a civilisational one. The RSS, in his conception, wasn't to be a political party but a cultural force – a space where people of all castes, classes, and creeds could find common cause through desh bhakti, a deep emotional and psychological union with the land and its civilisational ethos. So to say that Hedgewar's vision was exclusionary misunderstands both his intent and the institutional architecture he laid down. His red line was never religion – it was disloyalty to the idea of India as a shared civilisational space. The test was not what God you prayed to, but whether you saw yourself as part of the rashtra – and were willing to act in service of it. Of course, any cultural movement can be distorted in later years. But if one reads Hedgewar closely, it becomes clear he was trying to transcend India's divisions – not deepen them. His idea of nationalism was not to marginalise minorities, but to invite all into a unifying project – provided they could emotionally invest in the shared destiny of the nation. One should also note that Patriotism is not akin to desh bhakti – this is also another false application which creates linguistic confusion in popular discourse. By this same account Hedgewarian thought forces Muslims in India, not as a collective, but as individuals, to reflect – and ask themselves if they wish to be part of this civilisational project, or not? Is it compatible with being Muslim? What does it mean to be a desh bhakt, and a Muslim? These are questions that I do not claim to know, nor can I answer them. But Indians of all creeds will have to face up to these difficult questions sooner or later. Hedgewarian thought might give a 'way out of the fly bottle' The biography touches on Hedgewar's radical plans to combat the caste system which he came to loathe. What was his plan to integrate all castes within the RSS at the organisational level and how successful was he in dismantling the caste barriers within the RSS? Hedgewar loathed the caste system. He believed it had fractured Hindu society and weakened its capacity for collective action. His tool for addressing this was the Shakha – a deliberately secular, egalitarian space where young Hindu men, regardless of caste or class, could play, eat, and train together. It was revolutionary for its time. He understood that social reform couldn't be forced – it needed to be lived. Through physical exercise, gamification, and shared routines, the Shakha built social capital – trust, bonding, and cooperation across caste lines. Over time, participants were introduced to a shared historical and cultural consciousness through lectures and discussions – a slow, subtle reshaping of identity. The early RSS was very much this kind of space – as Gandhi himself acknowledged during his visit in 1934, when he noted the absence of caste discrimination in an RSS camp. That kind of testimony says something about the kind of social experiment Hedgewar was quietly running. I don't have enough reliable data to fully assess how successful the RSS has been in dismantling caste barriers within the RSS – but we do have clarity on the Hedgewarian intent and method. Why was Hedgewar opposed to Gandhi's strict adherence to nonviolence? What were some of these private disagreements with Gandhi in the context of communal and colonial violence during India's struggle for independence and their influence on the ideological foundations of RSS? Gandhi was a political nationalist. In that sense, he wanted to capture the state and then build a new India. Hedgewar was a cultural nationalist who had felt that the fundamental bonds between individuals were weak, and the society too fractured to build a state that could be held accountable. So Gandhi was top down; Hedgewar was bottom up. Furthermore, Hedgewar believed in diffused power; the RSS in his time was highly devolved and each Shakha was an autonomous outfit working independently, held together by the Prachaarak order, which is akin to the friars of medieval Europe. Gandhi was dictatorial – this is well evidenced; and often used his veto to drive policies he believed in even when his committees held differing views. The national flag controversy is a case in point. Also, Gandhi naively later sidelined nationalists such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1888–1958), while pandering to Deobandi conservative clerics. In his final speech to the RSS Prachaaraks before his death, you quote Hedgewar telling RSS workers that the 'final redemption of Hindu society will only happen through the Sangh.' What did he mean by that? The Sangh means community. Community implies a surplus of social capital. The redemption of 'Hindu society' could only come through rebuilding the social capital amongst the vastly divergent Hindu groups.
Time of India
04-06-2025
- General
- Time of India
Remembering an organizer par excellence: Madhav Sadashivrao Golwalkar
Among various leaders who have spearheaded mass organisations in India, Madhav Sadashivrao Golwalkar, also known as Guruji Golwalkar, is distinctly remembered for his organisational prowess and credited for his exemplary leadership. During his tenure as the Sarsanghchalak, the RSS managed to overcome multiple existential challenges, achieved unprecedented expansion in Shakhas and the grassroots network, and successfully established multiple new organisations. Dr Hedgewar Spotted Guruji's Organisational Prowess. Guruji's organisational prowess was spotted by Dr Hedgewar himself. Both met each other in 1932, and later that year itself, Dr Hedgewar invited Guruji as one of the Chief Guests for the Vijayadashmi celebrations in Nagpur. Guruji was merely 26 years old at that time. It is obvious that something about him must have stood out for Dr Hedgewar that he decided to invite him as the Chief Guest in Nagpur. A few years later, in February 1939, Dr Hedgewar conducted a ten-day-long Chintan at Sindi, near Nagpur, to discuss the organisational structure and procedures of the RSS. Apart from his colleagues, Appaji Joshi ji and Nanasaheb Talatule ji, the meeting was attended by a select group of young Karyakartas, including Guruji. An article in Appaji Joshi ji's memoirs mentions an informal conversation between him and Dr Hedgewar. The latter had asked what if they were to nominate Madhavrao Golwalkar as the next Sarsanghchalak. To this, Appaji had replied, 'Excellent'. Guruji and Sangh's Organisational Culture The Sangh's steady expansion and success in mobilising and training Karyakartas have been attributed to its robust organisational structure. Various practices in the Sangh's organisational culture were either initiated or strengthened by Guruji. Over the years, these practices were actively adopted by innumerable Pracharaks and Karyakartas. The Sangh practice of staying with Karyakarta families during Pravaas started with Guruji, who embedded it as a systematic arrangement. Guruji travelled across the country for organisational expansion and spent considerable time with Karyakartas. He once said, 'The train is my home', as he used to travel so regularly. During visits to various states for Sangh activities, he would never stay in a hotel or a Dharamshala. He would only stay with workers or office bearers. Over the decades, this practice has played a pivotal role in strengthening the organisation as it enabled Pracharaks to directly engage with Swayamsevaks and their families, understand their concerns, and motivate them to actively undertake organisational work. Moreover, during his visits, Guruji used to actively interact with Karyakartas and their families across the country. Usually, he would meet parents and well-wishers of Karyakartas together, followed by one-to-one meetings. Apart from official work, he would utilise these interactions for understanding local traditions, cultures and languages. Encouraging full-timers Guruji used to consistently advise that the success of organisational work was contingent on own resources and efforts rather than others. In 1941-1942, there was an acute need for young Karyakartas to expand organisational activities and fulfil the growing demand for Sangh activities. Guruji urged young Swayamsevaks: 'We need Pracharaks…we need Pracharaks'. He emphasised that, 'Karyakartas don't fall from heaven. For this, we will have to make efforts ourselves and create Karyakartas from amongst ourselves. We will have to walk the path of duty with firm resolve and austerity by giving up all thoughts about our personal lives…the mission before us is enormous with very little time in hand…..Let us close all the doors of our personal lives and take a pledge to put in concerted effort. Let us become Sanyasis for one year.' Efforts led by him bore fruit, and innumerable young Karyakartas beyond Nagpur volunteered to dedicate themselves full-time to the organisational work of the RSS. Leadership in tumultuous times A hallmark of Guruji's organisational leadership was leadership by example. During the ban on the RSS, he was arrested and initially kept in the Sivni jail in Maharashtra. Subsequently, he was moved to the Baitul jail, which was considered to be similar to Cellular jail in Andaman and usually meant for dangerous prisoners rather than political prisoners. Despite the horrible conditions of the Baitul jail, Guruji maintained his policy under arrest: 'no demands, no complaints'. His consistency had a positive effect on the cadre and motivated them in testing times. The ban on the RSS was lifted at midnight on July 11, 1949, and Guruji was released from the Baitul prison on July 13. He immediately started Pravaas for organisational work. In addresses to Swayamsevaks across the country over the next couple of months, Guruji encouraged them to focus on organisational activities rather than ruing over government actions. On July 24, Guruji addressed Swayamsevaks at the Parshuram Mahavidyalaya. He clearly stated, 'What had to happen has happened, but there is no need to swell with pride'. He appreciated Swayamsevaks for maintaining due conduct during the Satyagraha, not breaking any rules, and avoiding confrontation with the government. Guruji's qualities as a leader focused on the growth of the organisation is evident in the fact that he did not demonstrate any kind of vengeance against the government. He said, 'This is our government, why should we oppose it? Why should we have animosity towards it?' He added, 'It is true that there are differences between the government and us, but is there any place where there are no differences? There are differences even within families.' In August 1949, Guruji received a rousing welcome from Swayamsevaks when he visited Delhi. In his speech, Guruji thanked supporters, re-emphasised the Sangh's objectives and encouraged them to continue their work. He said, 'Obstacles come up on the path of renaissance of Bharatiyataa, and that too from our own people. But, against whom should we show our anger? People who desire to destroy this national life force may express anger any number of times, but one who has envisioned this grand national personality, he cannot be angry.' His words of encouragement for Swayamsevaks were: 'We shall move ahead in this job of human-building and move ahead towards progress of Bharatvarsh, looking at various problems from cultural perspectives in accordance with their wishes and feelings, and build a well-organised power-house for the nation.' Growth of the Sangh Parivar Guruji played an instrumental role in the founding of various Sangh Parivar organisations. It is helpful to recall some initial interactions between Guruji and Pracharak Dattopant Thengadi ji that culminated in the formation of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh. In 1950, Thengadi ji received an invitation from the President of INTUC, the Congress-affiliated trade union, PY Deshpande, to work for their organisation. Guruji asked him to join the organisation and advised, 'Follow the discipline of the organisation you are going to work.' Thengadi ji's rich experience led to the founding of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh in 1955. A unique aspect of the BMS has been the commemoration of Vishwakarma Jayanti as Bharatiya Shramik Divas. This was based on Guruji's advice, as Thengadi ji had once asked him whether there is an honoured day for labour in Bharatiya tradition. Guruji had mentioned Vishwakarma Jayanti in response to this query. Similarly, Guruji played a crucial role in the entire process that culminated in the formation of Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram and Vishwa Hindu Parishad, from initial conversations to formal foundation. Apart from mentoring the establishment of new Sangh organisations, Guruji also motivated them to remain independent and self-sufficient. This is evident in his conversation with Balasaheb Deshpande, who played a key role in founding the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram. In 1958, the Madhya Pradesh government denied a grant to Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram after initial approval. Deshpande was clearly told that it was due to their association with the Jana Sangh. When Guruji heard about this matter, he clearly advised that such organisations should be self-reliant and conduct all activities with people's cooperation instead of dependence on government funds. Conclusion In this light, Guruji was more than a person leading an organisation. He was a builder of movements, individuals, and institutions. Through discipline, vision, and quiet determination, he inspired Karyakartas to devote themselves to national awakening. His legacy as an organiser par excellence lives on in every dedicated Karyakarta and every institution that he helped create. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Hindu Society Must Awaken Now: RSS at 100, Bhagwat Calls for a Dharmic Future
Nagpur: As the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ( RSS ) approaches its 100th anniversary on Vijayadashami this year, the organisation stands as a unique, nationwide force rooted in the ideals of dharma, culture, and national unity. In the backdrop of the Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha (ABPS), held from March 21–23, and just before the launch of Operation Sindoor, RSS chief Sarsanghchalak Dr Mohan Bhagwat sat down for an in-depth, in-house conversation. A part of the interview is reproduced here. Q: As a Swayamsevak and the Sarsanghchalak, how do you view this 100-year journey of the Sangh? Dr Hedgewar initiated this mission with deep thought and clarity. The challenges before the nation were assessed, and through experience and experimentation, a suitable course of action was developed — one that proved effective. By 1950, there was growing confidence in the Sangh's methods, and it was clear the work could move forward despite all obstacles. What followed was a nationwide expansion and the integration of Swayamsevaks into various walks of life. Over the next four decades, their character, actions, and spirit of belonging earned the trust of society. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo After the 1990s, it became evident that the country could be governed with these very values. The next step is ensuring that this spirit spreads across society — sincerely, selflessly, and in unity — to elevate Bharat to its highest potential. Q: What were the major milestones in this 100-year journey? Initially, the Sangh had nothing. There was no recognition of its ideology or availability of means of propagation. There was nothing except neglect and opposition in society, not even Karyakartas. If you fed this data into a computer, it would predict a premature death for this entity. Yet, it endured. During Partition, the RSS played a vital role in protecting Hindus. It survived a govt ban and emerged stronger by 1950. The Emergency of 1975 became a turning point when the Sangh's constructive role in restoring democracy made society realise its strength. Later, through movements like the Ekatmata Rath Yatra, Kashmir-related awareness campaigns, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Andolan, and Vivekananda Sardhshati (150th birth anniversary), along with large-scale Sewa (service) work, the Sangh's credibility spread across all layers of society. Q: In the Sangh's centenary year, what is the aim of 'Panch Parivartan' (Five Transformations), and how will it be put into action? 'Panch Parivartan' is the Sangh's centenary vision for deep-rooted societal change through everyday behaviour. It's not about symbolic gestures but reshaping mindsets and habits at the grass roots. The goal is to build a society anchored in unity, discipline, and cultural identity — led by individuals who live these values, not just speak of them. Samajik Samarasta (Social Harmony) stresses genuine inclusivity. Unity must be lived — temples, cremation grounds, and public resources should be equally accessible to all. Kutumb Prabodhan (Family Enlightenment) Relief for the world lies in our traditional values, found in family customs and national practices. Family enlightenment means reflecting together, agreeing, and living these values. The family must be re-established as a global model rooted in sanskaras (values). Paryavaran (Environmental Awareness) focuses on daily habits: saving water, cutting single-use plastic, and planting trees. Swa (Selfhood) Conduct must reflect national selfhood — living our traditions at home in food, dress, language, and worship. Use Swadeshi products until self-reliance is complete. Trade globally, but on our terms, not under pressure. This is true self-based living. Lastly, Civic Duties underline the importance of lawfulness, constitutional respect, and public decency. Swayamsevaks will lead by example, spreading these changes through Shakhas. When practised consistently, these transformations aim to build a more harmonious, self-aware, and responsible society. Q: What is the resolve for the next 25 years? The aim is to unite the entire Hindu community and build a strong, self-reliant nation. But the vision goes beyond national boundaries. Since the time of Dr Hedgewar, the goal has also been to shape a world guided by dharmic values. As early as 1920, he urged the Indian National Congress to declare that complete independence for India also meant working to liberate the world from the grip of capitalism. This broader mission — to uplift humanity through an Indian worldview — has been part of the Sangh's thinking from the very beginning. Q: The Sangh turns 100 and Bharat will mark 100 years of independence in 2047. How will Bharat become a Vishwaguru, and how should we respond to those trying to divide society? The Sangh's process already counters these threats. We've moved forward by confronting self-oblivion, selfishness, and divisiveness. Today, we have society's trust. If we continue working with unity and dedication, the impact will be far greater than the sum of individual efforts. If we stay organised and dedicated, what is usually '1 + 1 = 2' will become '1 + 1 = 11'. A strong, united Bharat will set an example that the world will follow. In fact, a senior Karyakarta said in 1992 that the world would form its own versions of RSS. After 2047, this global transformation will begin and it won't take a century, just 20–30 years. Q: What is your final message to well-wishers, thinkers, and the Hindu society in this centenary year? The Hindu society must awaken now. Leave behind selfishness and divisions. Live a personal, family, social, and professional life rooted in Dharma and Hindutva. That alone will lead to a self-reliant, righteous, and powerful Bharat. The world is waiting for a new path and Bharat, which means Hindu society, has to provide it as a divine duty. We've had agricultural, industrial, and scientific revolutions. Now, we need a Dharmic revolution — I am not talking about religion, but based on human life has to be reorganised based on Truth, Purity, Compassion, and Austerity. Sangh's work must be understood as a divine responsibility. Let us rise above 'me and mine' and live together as an example for the world to follow.
Indian Express
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Political storm over move to name Palakkad school after Hedgewar
The BJP-controlled Palakkad municipality's decision to name a school for disabled children after RSS founder K B Hedgewar has come under criticism from the CPI(M) and Congress. Congress and CPI(M) councillors clashed with their BJP counterparts in the council meeting, which ratified the decision to give Hedgewar's name to the upcoming special school. Palakkad is one of the few local bodies in Kerala controlled by the BJP. Opposition councilors turned up for the meeting with placards reading 'Who is Hedgewar'. BJP leader and municipal chairperson Prameela Sasidharan on Tuesday said, 'There is no change in the decision. BJP is ruling the municipality and we will decide on naming the institutions. The Congress and CPI(M) can protest against the decision.' Pointing to some institutions in Kerala having been named after Variamkunnath Kunhahammed Haji — a leader of the 1921 Mappila rebellion — Sasidharan said, 'The town hall in Malappuram is named after Haji. Was he a freedom fighter? We will decide whose name to be given for the school.' Congress legislator from Palakkad, Rahul Mamkoottathil, said, 'This is an ideological issue. We will counter this move politically and legally. Only through violence can BJP and RSS implement their communal agenda.' Congress state president K Sudhakaran and Opposition leader V D Satheesan will visit Palakkad on Tuesday evening to take forward the protest over the naming of the school after the RSS founder. The CPI(M) also held a protest outside the municipality. Party district secretary E N Suresh Babu, who inaugurated the meeting, said,'We will never allow BJP to name an institute after a traitor. Congress is helping the RSS to implement their agenda. The Congress's agitation on this issue is just drama.' Two weeks ago, Hedgewar was at the centre of another controversy in Kerala when his portrait was displayed during a temple festival. The temple, Sree Krishnaswamy temple in Kollam, is controlled by the state government-run Devaswom board. The board has ordered a probe into the matter.
