Pages

Powered By Blogger

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:

  1. Cultural Homogenization: Replace India’s plural identities with a singular Hindu identity.
  2. Political Mainstreaming: Create pipelines from classrooms, unions, and cultural events into BJP’s political base.
  3. Historical Revisionism: Reframe history as Hindu heroism versus foreign villainy, marginalizing contributions of minorities.
  4. 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.

 

No comments: