Articles for a Cause: September 2025

September 25, 2025

Part 3: Hindutva vs. the Republic – The Legal and Constitutional Implications of the ‘Bharatiya’ Network

Introduction: The Constitution vs. the Cultural Camouflage

India’s Constitution does not merely describe the nation—it defines the Republic. Secularism, equality before law, and freedom of religion are not ornamental ideals but enforceable guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 25–28. Yet, while the framers imagined a plural India, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its “Bharatiya” network have consistently sought to reimagine India as a Hindu Rashtra. Their strategy is deceptively simple: operate through organisations that wear the mask of “Bharatiya” culture, while pushing a sectarian political agenda. The legal battleground lies in how courts, especially the Supreme Court, have interpreted this tension between culture and religion, democracy and majoritarianism.

The Constitutional Promise

At the heart of India’s secular vision lies a delicate balance:

Article 14 & 15: Guarantee equality and non-discrimination.
Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
Article 26–28: Autonomy of religious denominations, regulation of secular activities, and ban on state-funded religious instruction.
Preamble: Declares India to be sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.

This framework doesn’t erase religion but ensures that the State itself is neutral. Yet, neutrality is exactly what the Sangh seeks to dismantle.

Judicial Crossroads: Supreme Court’s Troubled Tryst with Hindutva

The judiciary has been both the guardian and, at times, the unwitting enabler of Hindutva politics.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Landmark ruling affirming secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution.
State governments pursuing religion-based policies can be dismissed under Article 356.
This judgment fortified the constitutional shield—but its force would soon be diluted.

Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kunte (1996)

The infamous “Hindutva is a way of life” judgment.
Justice J.S. Verma held that references to Hindutva/Hinduism are not necessarily communal, but cultural.
This ambiguity became the Sangh’s legal goldmine, allowing them to drape political Hindutva in the cloak of “Bharatiya culture.”

Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017)

A seven-judge bench barred seeking votes in the name of religion, caste, language, or community.
However, it did not overturn the 1996 “way of life” precedent—leaving the Sangh with rhetorical breathing space.

Other cases like Ramesh (1988) upheld free speech in controversial films, showing that courts will protect artistic critique of communalism, even as they hesitate to fully tackle its political form.

The result: a jurisprudential vacuum. Secularism is declared “basic,” but Hindutva masquerading as culture slips through the cracks.

The Sangh’s ‘Bharatiya’ Playbook

The RSS has mastered the art of constitutional evasion. Its affiliated organisations rarely brand themselves explicitly “Hindu.” Instead, they adopt the term “Bharatiya”—invoking nationality, not faith.

Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) – labour front.
Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) – student wing.
Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) – farmer front.
Seva Bharati, Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, Vishwa Hindu Parishad – outreach under cultural/charitable guise.

Behind this vocabulary of nationhood lies a singular agenda: to embed Hindutva into every institution—labour, education, agriculture, charity, culture—while skirting the constitutional limits on religion in politics.

This camouflage is not accidental but tactical. The courts’ ambiguity allows the Sangh to argue that it is not promoting “religion” but “national culture.”

The Legal and Democratic Dangers

Erosion of Electoral Integrity

Election campaigns infused with communal slogans are shielded by the “way of life” loophole.
The constitutional ban on religion in politics is undermined in practice.

Minority Rights under Siege

Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience to all. Yet, the Sangh’s monopolisation of “Bharatiya” identity excludes Muslims, Christians, Dalits, and even dissenting Hindus.

Judicial Inconsistency

The Supreme Court’s dual stance—affirming secularism while tolerating Hindutva rhetoric—erodes its institutional authority.
This inconsistency creates space for the Executive to exploit.

Redefinition of the Republic

What begins as semantic play (“Bharatiya” = cultural, not communal) risks transforming India’s legal DNA—from a secular republic into a Hindu majoritarian state.

Why This Matters Now

The current moment is perilous. With the Sangh’s political arm entrenched in power, the “Bharatiya” camouflage is no longer merely semantic—it is legislative and administrative reality. From education policy to citizenship laws, Hindutva is dressed up as nationalism. Courts are left grappling with whether to enforce the Constitution’s secular command or to allow the slow-motion drift into majoritarianism.

The responsibility lies not only with the judiciary but with civil society, legal scholars, and citizens to demand clarity. The Sangh thrives in ambiguity. The Republic survives only in principle made practice.

Conclusion: From Ambiguity to Accountability

The battle for India’s future is not fought only in elections but in courtrooms and classrooms, in the language of judgments and the vocabulary of politics. So long as Hindutva hides behind “Bharatiya,” it weaponises culture against the Constitution.

The call to action is clear:

The judiciary must revisit the “way of life” judgment and draw a firm line between religion and culture.
Political parties must be held accountable to the secular oath of office.
Citizens must recognise that “Bharatiya” is not a synonym for Hindu—it is a plural, constitutional identity.

Until then, the Republic remains vulnerable—its secular spine bent under the weight of a borrowed word.

Author’s Note

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. He writes on law, politics, and society, with a focus on how constitutional ideals are being reshaped by ideological agendas.

September 20, 2025

Part 2: The Ideological Agenda – What Lies Behind ‘Bharatiya’

When an organization adds the word ‘Bharatiya’ to its name, it seems harmless—even patriotic. But peel back the saffron curtain, and you find not a neutral cultural project, but a systematic Hindutva agenda crafted by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). From Vidya Bharati to Vigyan Bharati, from Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh to Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, the term Bharatiya does not stand for Indian pluralism—it stands for an exclusivist vision of India as a Hindu nation.

The mask is cultural; the intent is political. To understand this, one must listen to the words of the Sangh’s own leaders.

The Ideological DNA of ‘Bharatiya’

The RSS is not coy about its vision. In his 1939 manifesto We, or Our Nationhood Defined, M.S. Golwalkar declared:

“The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and revere Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture … or may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizen’s rights.”

This is the raw ideological core that trickles down into every Bharatiya affiliate. When Vidya Bharati writes textbooks, when Vigyan Bharati organizes science fairs, when Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram works with Adivasis, the hidden curriculum is always the same: assimilation into a Hindu-first identity.

Savarkar’s Narrow Nationhood

The roots go even deeper, to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the father of Hindutva. In Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? (1923), Savarkar defined the boundaries of the nation as follows:

“A Hindu means one who regards this land of Bharatvarsha, from the Indus to the Seas, as his Fatherland as well as his Holyland.”

On the surface, this sounds unifying. But in practice, it excludes every Indian whose holy land lies elsewhere—Muslims, Christians, Jews, Parsis. Thus, Bharatiya becomes shorthand for Hindu, narrowing the meaning of Indian-ness itself.

Deoras and the Call for a Hindu Nation

The RSS often claims it is merely a social service organization. Yet its own leaders have said otherwise. Balasaheb Deoras, the third Sarsanghchalak, bluntly stated in 1974:

“RSS will not rest until it turns Hindu society into a united, powerful force and until it transforms the entire nation into a Hindu nation.”

This is the political heart beating beneath the ‘cultural’ skin. When the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh negotiates with the government, when Bharatiya Kisan Sangh protests in rural India, they are not neutral unions—they are tools in the larger project of turning the Indian republic into a Hindu rashtra.

The Continuity into the Present

Fast forward to the present, and the mask has grown thinner. Mohan Bhagwat, the current RSS chief, declared in 2018:

“The RSS believes the people of India are Hindus. Hindutva is India’s identity.”

This claim erases pluralism in one sweep. If all Indians are Hindus, then Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and tribals are either subsumed or erased. The very word Bharatiya becomes a Trojan horse: it suggests inclusivity, but enforces uniformity.

BJP: The Political Arm of the Network

The RSS maintains the legal fiction of being non-political. Yet the Bharatiya Janata Party is its most powerful creation. No one expressed this more honestly than Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who in 1995 declared:

“The Sangh is my soul.”

This admission closes the circle. The cultural affiliates create the ecosystem, the ideological training ground, and the voter base; the BJP translates it into electoral power. Behind the veil of ‘Bharatiya’, the Sangh Parivar has built the largest ideological-to-political conveyor belt in independent India.

Why the Word ‘Bharatiya’ Matters

Words are political weapons. By monopolizing the word Bharatiya (Indian), the RSS positions itself as the sole representative of the nation. Competing organizations—whether secular NGOs, independent trade unions, or minority associations—appear less authentic, even unpatriotic.

Thus:

Vidya Bharati suggests it teaches “Indian” knowledge, but really it saffronizes education.
Vigyan Bharati suggests it promotes Indian science, but often it propagates pseudo-science with Vedic labels.
Sanskar Bharati suggests it preserves culture, but it selectively curates Hindu majoritarian culture.
Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram claims to uplift tribals, but it rebrands Adivasis as “Vanvasis”—forest-dwelling Hindus—denying their independent identities.

This linguistic strategy converts patriotism into partisanship.

The Agenda Behind the Camouflage

When you join the dots, the agenda is clear:

Cultural Homogenization: Replace India’s plural identities with a singular Hindu identity.
Political Mainstreaming: Create pipelines from classrooms, unions, and cultural events into BJP’s political base.
Historical Revisionism: Reframe history as Hindu heroism versus foreign villainy, marginalizing contributions of minorities.
Electoral Polarization: Use “Bharatiya” credibility to sway rural voters, workers, and tribals into Hindutva folds.

Conclusion: The Mask Slips

If ‘Bharatiya’ truly meant inclusive Indianness, it would celebrate diversity. Instead, in the Sangh lexicon, it is a codeword for Hindutva. As Golwalkar, Savarkar, Deoras, Bhagwat, and Vajpayee themselves admit, the long project is nothing less than the transformation of India’s secular republic into a Hindu rashtra.

And that is the danger. By hiding this agenda under a patriotic word, the RSS has created the perfect camouflage. To expose it, we must do what the Constitution demands: separate culture from politics, religion from state, and nationalism from majoritarianism.

Otherwise, tomorrow’s India may find that the word Bharatiya no longer belongs to all its people, but to one ideology alone.

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. He writes on law, politics, and society, exposing the intersection of ideology and power.

September 15, 2025

The Bharatiya Network – Part 1: Branches of the ‘Bharatiya’ Tree

Whenever you come across an organization that proudly calls itself “Bharatiya,” chances are you’re looking at an offshoot of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). From schools and farmer unions to trade bodies and cultural associations, the Sangh has carefully cultivated an empire of affiliates that work under the deceptively patriotic banner of “Bharatiya.”

The design is deliberate. The prefix “Bharatiya” disarms critics—who would dare oppose something that claims to represent the nation itself? Yet beneath the surface lies a sprawling ecosystem created to normalize Hindutva in every sphere of Indian society.

This first part of the series maps the branches of this tree—one root in Nagpur, many “Bharatiya” branches across India.

Political Arm: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)

The most obvious “Bharatiya” branch is the Bharatiya Janata Party, the political wing of the Sangh Parivar. Formed in 1980 as a successor to the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (founded in 1951 by Syama Prasad Mookerjee with RSS support), the BJP today is the ruling party of India.

While the RSS claims to be “cultural,” the BJP is its political channel. The ideological backbone of the BJP—from the uniform “national culture” to the framing of Muslims as outsiders—flows directly from Nagpur. Electoral gains, laws on citizenship and conversion, and cultural campaigns like the Ram Mandir are all manifestations of the Sangh’s long-term vision.

Youth & Student Fronts: ABVP and Beyond

The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) is the RSS’s student organization and one of the most visible in universities. It dominates campus politics in many states, using nationalism as a rallying cry and often clashing violently with Left student groups.

ABVP is not just about student union elections—it is about shaping future leadership. Its members are trained in ideological debates, grassroots mobilization, and political discipline. Many BJP leaders, from Arun Jaitley to J.P. Nadda, rose through ABVP ranks.

Alongside ABVP, the Akhil Bharatiya Shiksha Samiti works in colleges and schools, ensuring that educational spaces become fertile grounds for Hindutva narratives.

Labor & Farmers’ Bodies: BMS and BKS

The Sangh has not ignored workers and farmers—two groups central to India’s socio-economic fabric.

Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) is India’s largest trade union, founded in 1955. Unlike traditional Left unions, BMS emphasizes “nationalism over class struggle.” It discourages strikes against the state, aligning labor protests with the RSS’s idea of national duty rather than workers’ rights.
Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS), founded in 1979, similarly positions itself as a farmers’ body. Yet, its approach often dilutes confrontational demands, preferring to promote “Swadeshi” and “self-reliance” over systemic reforms.

Both organizations appear independent but are designed to prevent farmers and workers from drifting toward socialist or Leftist alternatives.

Education & Culture: Vidya Bharati and Beyond

Education is central to the Sangh’s long game.

Vidya Bharati runs over 12,000 schools with more than 3 million students. The stated goal: to create youth “infused with patriotism and Hindutva values.” Syllabi often glorify Hindu kings, mythologize history, and minimize India’s pluralistic traditions. Alarmingly, Vidya Bharati schools have been allowed to run Sainik Schools in Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, embedding ideological leanings in military-linked education.

Beyond schools, culture is another battlefield:

Sanskrit Bharati promotes Sanskrit not just as language revival but as cultural supremacy.
Sanskar Bharati organizes arts and cultural programs infused with nationalist themes.
Kreeda Bharati revives indigenous sports with Hindutva undertones.
Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana seeks to rewrite history textbooks, turning myths into “facts” and reframing India’s past as a continuous Hindu civilizational arc.

Social Outreach & Welfare: Seva Bharati and Kalyan Ashram

One of the Sangh’s most effective strategies has been welfare. During natural disasters or community crises, its volunteers appear in saffron scarves providing relief. This builds local goodwill and credibility.

Seva Bharati, founded in 1979, provides medical camps, relief work, and educational initiatives. But its outreach often doubles as recruitment, bringing marginalized communities into the Hindutva fold.
Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, started in 1952, works among Adivasis, but its long-term goal is assimilation into a Hindu identity, erasing distinct tribal cultures and traditions.

These groups blur the line between social service and ideological expansion.

Intellectual & Professional Wings: Lawyers, Scientists, Thinkers

The Sangh also created specialized bodies for professionals and intellectuals.

Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (lawyers’ body) influences debates in the judiciary, legal reforms, and even student legal training.
Vigyan Bharati promotes “Indian science,” often blending mythology with scientific claims—remember speeches about plastic surgery in ancient India or Pushpak Vimana as evidence of aviation.
Prajna Pravah brings together academics, writers, and intellectuals to reframe nationalism through Hindutva lenses, often trying to influence curricula and public policy.

Even in digital and research spaces, newer fronts like Research for Resurgence Foundation (RFRF) aim to push a “Bharatiya model” of science and technology, aligning innovation with ideology.

The Strategy of Expansion

The RSS’s genius lies in its structure. Unlike a single mass party, it built a federation of bodies each targeting a segment of society—students, workers, farmers, teachers, lawyers, tribals, scientists, artists. Every Indian can find a “Bharatiya” organization that speaks their language, shares their identity, and pulls them into the Sangh’s ideological orbit.

Each branch has plausible deniability: Seva Bharati says it is humanitarian, Vidya Bharati says it is educational, BMS says it is labor-focused. Yet all share a loyalty to the RSS worldview.

Conclusion: Many Branches, One Root

Mapping these organizations reveals the scale of the Sangh Parivar’s project. This is not accidental or piecemeal—it is the slow, careful building of an alternate state within the state.

The “Bharatiya” prefix is the camouflage. It signals patriotism, but what it truly signals is affiliation. Behind the façade of neutral names lies a coordinated ideological campaign to reshape India’s pluralism into a Hindu-first identity.

From a child in a Vidya Bharati classroom to a farmer in a BKS rally, from a lawyer in Adhivakta Parishad to an artist in Sanskar Bharati—the network ensures that every sphere of Indian life has a saffron echo.

One root, many branches. And unless we see through the “Bharatiya” branding, we risk mistaking an ideological project for national service.

Next in the Series (Part 2): The Ideological Agenda – What Lies Behind ‘Bharatiya’