RSS : - FROM SHAKHAS TO STREETS: WHEN IDEOLOGY BECOMES MOBILISATION

 

Riots Are Not Accidents What Official Records, Courts and Commissions Have Said

Communal violence in India is often explained away as emotional overflow or administrative failure. Yet across decades, official commissions, statutory bodies, police records and courts have documented patterns of organised mobilisation, ideological conditioning and political confidence. While criminal law fixes guilt on individuals, institutional and ideological responsibility has been repeatedly recorded by inquiry bodies.

What follows is not opinion. It is a compilation of direct commission quotes, court citations and recorded allegations, presented as part of public record.

 

DIRECT COMMISSION QUOTES

Liberhan Commission (Babri Masjid 1992)

“The demolition of the disputed structure was the result of a concerted and planned action of the Sangh Parivar… including the RSS, VHP and BJP. None of this could have been achieved without the organisational support and mobilisation of these bodies.”

Another key finding:

“The RSS was not a marginal presence. It was central to the planning, coordination and execution of the programme leading to 6 December 1992.”

 

Srikrishna Commission

“There is no doubt that the Shiv Sena and Hindu communal organisations were responsible for the second phase of the riots.”

While RSS was not named as the primary actor, the Commission noted:

“The role of Hindu communal organisations with ideological affinity cannot be ignored in the spread and perpetuation of violence.”

 

Justice D P Madon Commission

“Members of the RSS actively participated in inciting passions and organising Hindu mobs.”

 

Concerned Citizens Tribunal (Justice V R Krishna Iyer)

“The violence was not spontaneous. It was organised, planned and executed with the active participation of Sangh Parivar organisations, including the RSS.”

 

National Human Rights Commission on Gujarat 2002

“There was a systemic failure of the State to protect citizens, and evidence suggests organised groups were allowed to operate with impunity.”

 

SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT CASE CITATIONS

Nathuram Godse Background

Gopal Godse v Union of India, Bombay HC (1961)
Court noted ideological proximity of Gandhi’s assassins with Hindu extremist thought, though not convicting RSS as an institution.

This judicial observation recognised ideological radicalisation even while fixing criminal guilt only on individuals.

 

Babri Masjid Cases

M S Golwalkar v Union of India is not a case
Relevant cases are:

• Dr M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360
• CBI v Kalyan Singh, (2017) 7 SCC 444
• L K Advani v CBI, (2017) 7 SCC 453

The Supreme Court acknowledged organised mobilisation leading to demolition.

In CBI v Kalyan Singh and L K Advani v CBI, the Court restored conspiracy charges and rejected the argument that demolition occurred due to sudden emotional frenzy or administrative helplessness.

 

 

Gujarat 2002

National Human Rights Commission v State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 767

The Supreme Court described Gujarat riots as a case of “modern day Neros” watching while people burned.

The Court transferred trials outside Gujarat, citing failure of rule of law and risk to fair trial.

 

Delhi Riots 2020

State of NCT of Delhi v Tahir Hussain, Delhi HC 2021

Court discussed organised mobilisation and conspiracy, while emphasising individual criminal liability.

While trials are ongoing, judicial observations again rejected protest gone wrong explanations in certain areas.

 

KEY INCIDENTS AND ALLEGATIONS

1. Mahatma Gandhi Assassination

After Gandhi’s assassination, the Government of India banned the RSS. Home Ministry records cited a climate of hatred and militant propaganda.
While Nathuram Godse had left RSS formally, the Kapoor Commission later recorded ideological proximity.

 

2. Jabalpur Riots

Justice D P Madon Commission observed organised mobilisation and role of Hindu communal groups, including RSS workers, in inciting violence.

 

3. Meerut Riots

Fact finding reports documented coordinated rumour spreading and mobilisation by Hindu and Muslim organisations. RSS linked outfits were named among Hindu groups active on the ground.

 

 

4. Babri Masjid Demolition

The Liberhan Commission squarely blamed the RSS, VHP, BJP leadership for systematic planning and mobilisation leading to demolition and nationwide riots.

 

5. Mumbai Riots

The Srikrishna Commission found that Shiv Sena and Hindu communal organisations, with ideological overlap with Sangh Parivar, played a leading role in violence.

 

6. Gujarat Riots

The Concerned Citizens Tribunal, NHRC, and several journalists recorded RSS shakhas and VHP networks being used for logistics, mobilisation, and targeting.
Courts convicted individuals but not the organisation.

 

7. Muzaffarnagar Riots

Police records and media reports noted organised mobilisation, provocative speeches, and circulation of fake videos by Hindu nationalist groups linked to the Sangh ecosystem.

 

8. Delhi Riots

Independent investigations and charge sheets alleged ideological mobilisation and street level coordination by individuals associated with Hindu nationalist groups. Cases remain contested in courts.

 

LEGAL POSITION CLARIFIED

No Indian court has convicted RSS as an organisation
Multiple commissions have recorded its ideological and organisational role
Criminal law fixes individual guilt, not ideological guilt
Commissions expose patterns that courts cannot ignore but are not punitive

This distinction is fundamental to understanding how institutional accountability escapes judicial punishment while remaining documented in public record.

 

 

WHY DENIAL FAILS

Organisations routinely rely on technical legality to deny responsibility. But constitutional morality is not limited to courtroom acquittals. When ideological ecosystems repeatedly appear across decades of violence, denial becomes political strategy rather than factual rebuttal.

Silence after riots, absence of internal disciplinary processes, and political rehabilitation of accused individuals convert plausible deniability into moral endorsement.

Courts punish crimes. History judges systems.

 

CONCLUSION

From Gandhi’s assassination to Delhi 2020, official records repeatedly challenge the myth of spontaneous riots. They document organised mobilisation, ideological conditioning, political silence and confidence of impunity.

No Indian court has convicted RSS as an organisation
Multiple commissions have recorded its ideological and organisational role
Criminal law fixes individual guilt, not ideological guilt
Commissions expose patterns that courts cannot ignore but are not punitive

Denial does not erase this record.
Legal acquittal does not mean moral innocence.
History will not read only judgments. It will read patterns.

Accountability is not hatred. It is democracy’s last defence.

 

REFERENCES

Commissions and Tribunals

1. Liberhan Commission of Inquiry Report (2009), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberhan_Commission
2. Justice B N Srikrishna Commission Report (1998), Government of Maharashtra
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srikrishna_Commission
3. Justice D P Madon Commission Report (1962), Government of Madhya Pradesh
   https://www.mha.gov.in/en/documents/commissions-inquiry
4. Concerned Citizens Tribunal on Gujarat 2002, Crime Against Humanity, chaired by Justice V R Krishna Iyer
   https://cjp.org.in/concerned-citizens-tribunal/
5. National Human Rights Commission Proceedings on Gujarat Riots (2002)
   https://nhrc.nic.in/

---

Supreme Court and High Court Judgments

6. Gopal Godse v Union of India, Bombay High Court, 1961
   https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1783372/
7. Dr M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360
   https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1570821/
8. CBI v Kalyan Singh, (2017) 7 SCC 444
   https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196014248/
9. L K Advani v CBI, (2017) 7 SCC 453
   https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100876344/
10. National Human Rights Commission v State of Gujarat, (2009) 6 SCC 767
    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1858682/
11. State of NCT of Delhi v Tahir Hussain, Delhi High Court, 2021
    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138984876/

 

Historical Inquiry

12. Justice J L Kapur Commission Report on Gandhi Assassination (1969)
    https://www.mha.gov.in/en/documents/gandhi-assassination-report

 

Author’s Introduction

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a commentator on law, politics and society. His writings blend legal insight with social critique and aim to provoke reflection on power, justice and public conscience.

 

Gods, Demons, and the Great Indian Confusion: Dharma versus Communalism

 

Gods, Demons, and the Great Indian Confusion: Dharma versus Communalism

The Old Game of Wordplay

India, land of a thousand tongues and a million gods, has always had a way with words. We turn mantras into missiles, slogans into scripture, and sometimes, deliberately, confusion into policy. One such confusion that festers in our public life today is the blurring of two utterly different ideas: Dharma and communalism. One is the timeless rhythm of existence, the other a toxic by-product of politics. But, as with so many things in modern India, the counterfeit is often peddled as the real.

Dharma: A Symphony, Not a Slogan

In Sanskrit, Dharma comes from dhri, to sustain. It is what keeps the universe upright when everything else tilts. It is not a sect, not a ritual, not even a religion in the narrow Western sense, but the music that holds life together—truth, justice, compassion, duty. The Rig Veda whispered millennia ago: Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti—Truth is one, the sages call it by many names.

Swami Vivekananda, who had little patience for hollow piety, thundered: “They alone live who live for others, the rest are more dead than alive.” His vision of Dharma was expansive, a river into which many tributaries could flow. Osho, the iconoclast, went further. “Whenever religion becomes organized, it loses the fragrance of truth,” he said. For him, Dharma was not an institution but an inner search: “Truth is not outside to be discovered, it is inside to be realized.” Between Vivekananda’s trumpet-call to service and Osho’s meditation on self-realization, we glimpse Dharma as it truly is—elastic, inclusive, liberating.

Communalism: The Counterfeit Coin

Now contrast this with communalism. Communalism is not faith but its counterfeit coin. It parades as religiosity but is minted in the furnaces of fear and suspicion. It is the belief that one community’s triumph depends on another’s humiliation, that the temple cannot stand unless the mosque falls, that purity can only be found in exclusion.

It is worth remembering that communalism in India was not born in the temple courtyard but in the counting house of politics. The British perfected it as divide and rule; post-independence politicians have refined it as divide and win elections. From the blood of Partition to the rumour-factories of WhatsApp, communalism is a story written in headlines and hashtags, more about power than prayer.

When Dharma Builds Bridges and Communalism Builds Walls

The difference is almost childishly simple. When a gurudwara opens its langar to all, that is Dharma. When a cow is lynched in the name of religion, that is communalism. When a church tends to the sick without asking their faith, that is Dharma. When mobs burn that same church, that is communalism. Dharma integrates, communalism dismembers. Yet the counterfeit is now pushed so aggressively that many mistake the poison for the cure.

The Politics of Confusion

This deliberate confusion is the masterstroke of our age. To question communalism is to be told you are questioning faith. To demand equality is to be accused of insulting tradition. To resist bigotry is to be branded anti-national. As Osho foresaw, “Religion becomes a shield for violence, politics uses it as a mask.” We live precisely in that masquerade.

The RSS-BJP ecosystem has perfected this sleight of hand. Dharma is reduced to a costume for power; communalism is dressed up as cultural pride. Loudspeakers blare not devotion but domination. Hashtags are hurled like stones. Every dissenting voice is painted as a traitor, every minority citizen as a threat. It is a theatre where the sacred is sacrificed daily on the altar of propaganda.

Vivekananda’s Warning in the Age of Trolls

Vivekananda, who once dazzled Chicago with his plea for universal tolerance, saw this danger long before Twitter was invented. “Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with violence… had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now.” One can only imagine what he would have said of today’s troll armies, spewing venom under the guise of defending faith.

The Existential Choice Before India

For India, the most diverse democracy on earth, the distinction between Dharma and communalism is not academic—it is existential. If we live by Dharma, we preserve pluralism, we defend tolerance, we nourish our democracy. If we descend into communalism, we barter away all three for a handful of electoral slogans.

The irony is that those who claim to “protect” religion are often its greatest vandals. They confuse decibel levels with piety, mobs with morality, spectacle with spirituality. True Dharma does not need slogans. It is quiet, like the hand that feeds the hungry. It is intimate, like the prayer whispered without cameras. It is eternal, like the truth that survives long after propaganda collapses.

Conclusion: Choosing the Real Over the Counterfeit

The task before us is both simple and difficult. We must learn, again, to separate the eternal from the ephemeral, the genuine from the counterfeit. Dharma is eternal, communalism is transient. Dharma liberates, communalism enslaves. Dharma sustains, communalism corrodes.

In reclaiming Dharma we are not defending one religion against another; we are defending humanity against its own worst instincts. India’s future—indeed, the future of all plural societies—depends on choosing the real over the counterfeit, the symphony over the slogan, the bridge over the wall.

---

Author’s Note
Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a writer on law, politics, and society. He believes in reclaiming the universal essence of Dharma from its communal distortions.