Hindu Hindutva and the Great Betrayal

 

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh RSS the ideological mothership of the BJP and its extended family of front organisations has performed one of the most cynical feats in modern Indian politics: the hijacking of a civilisational identity called Hindu and the conversion of it into a political war cry called Hindutva. This transformation has not just polarised India it has permanently altered the national character weaponising religion not for spiritual awakening but for electoral arithmetic and majoritarian muscle flexing.

Make no mistake: the word Hindu was never a religion to begin with. It was a geographical identity a loose term describing the people living east of the Sindhu Indus River. Over centuries it evolved into a mosaic of faiths practices contradictions and philosophies. A way of life some said. A civilisation others argued. But it was never a monolith and certainly never an ideology. That distortion that vile simplification came with Hindutva.

And who brought it The RSS. An organisation that sat out Indias independence movement. While Mahatma Gandhi was being arrested while Nehru was in jail and while countless Indians were laying down their lives for swaraj the RSS was busy doing drills in khaki shorts perfecting salutes and preaching cultural nationalism inspired not by Ashoka or Akbar but by Mussolini and Hitler.

Yes you read that right. The early Hindutva ideologues Savarkar Golwalkar Hedgewar looked to fascist Europe for inspiration. Golwalkar even praised Nazi Germanys race pride as a model for India to follow. These are not accusations these are documented facts buried deep in their writings and conveniently omitted from their propaganda.

Fast forward to today and you will see the same legacy playing out only this time with more money more media and more menace. The RSS and its political face the BJP have turned the Hindu Hindutva binary into a mass production factory of fear and fiction. Under the guise of cultural renaissance they have peddled myths revised history textbooks and reduced Indias rich diversity into an Us versus Them narrative.

Who is this Them Muslims Christians liberals dissenters anyone who questions their monopoly over nationalism or dares to see Hinduism as something deeper than temple photo ops and cow vigilantes. The irony is sharp: a movement that claims to protect Hinduism does not even understand it.

Let us talk plain. Hinduism is about questioning. About doubt debate dialectics. The Upanishads are not instruction manuals but conversations. The Gita is not a war mongering tract but a discourse on duty renunciation and inner conflict. The Rig Veda does not say my god is better than yours it says truth is one the wise call it by many names. Can this be the foundation of an exclusivist ideology Of course not.

But the Sangh does not care. Its project is not religious it is political. It does not want to protect Dharma it wants to consolidate votes. Its soldiers do not chant mantras they hurl abuse online and drag citizens out of trains for eating beef. The average RSS foot soldier is not meditating under a Bodhi tree he is manufacturing hate under a fake Twitter handle.

Look at how they operate: with slogans not substance. With symbols not spirituality. From Love Jihad to Ghar Wapsi from cow protection to Ram Mandir every issue is designed not to unite Hindus but to divide India. They promise cultural pride but deliver cultural paranoia. They invoke Bharat Mata but abuse her very ethos.

And what about the so called Hindu Rashtra they dream of A theocratic state run by scriptures and mob sentiment The idea itself is anti Hindu. Hinduism has survived precisely because it did not have a Pope a single Book or a rigid dogma. It allowed Buddha to challenge the Vedas Kabir to ridicule rituals and Meera to dance with her Krishna. Can the same tradition tolerate hate campaigns and moral policing Can it live under lynch mobs and textbook lies

Of course not. But these are inconvenient truths for the Sangh. So they whitewash history. They erase uncomfortable facts and rewrite the past as per their political convenience. Tipu Sultan becomes a tyrant Gandhi becomes irrelevant Ambedkar becomes a Hindu mascot and Savarkar becomes a reluctant patriot. This is not history it is fiction wrapped in saffron.

Worse the children of the very leaders who scream Bharat Mata ki Jai send their own kids to convent schools to Ivy League universities abroad to air conditioned enclaves of globalisation. The public is fed cow dung and WhatsApp forwards the private elite lives in gated hypocrisy.

And yet this con has worked. The RSS BJP machine has managed to convince a majority of Indians that being Hindu means hating the Other. That defending culture means destroying coexistence. That ancient India was some kind of golden theocracy that must be recreated through violence and exclusion.

It is the greatest betrayal of Hinduisms spirit and Indias soul.

It must also be said that the so called secular parties allowed this to happen. By appeasing the minorities in token ways and abandoning grassroots education they created a vacuum that the Sangh filled not with values but with venom. Where the Congress once promised Garibi Hatao the BJP today offers Muslim Hatao. The slogans have changed but the scam remains.

So where do we go from here

First we reclaim the difference between being Hindu and being Hindutvavadi. You can be a proud Hindu and reject the RSS. You can chant Om and oppose lynching. You can visit temples and still stand for constitutional rights. Do not let them tell you otherwise.

Second we must call out their hypocrisy. Loudly repeatedly and unapologetically. When a mob kills in the name of cows ask why the same godmen dine in Dubai. When they invoke Rashtra ask where their kids study. When they talk of sabhyata civilisation ask about unemployment education and healthcare. Strip the mask off. Mock the fraud.

Lastly we must revive the secular inclusive argumentative tolerant ethos of this land the real India. The India of Ashoka of Kabir of Tagore of Ambedkar not the sanitised saffron tinted circus that the RSS wants us to clap for.

Because if we do not we risk losing not just Hinduism but India itself.

As Khushwant Singh had warned before his death India will survive only if it remains a secular state. Once it becomes a Hindu Pakistan it will perish.

The clock is ticking. And the Sangh is watching.

 

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra
Advocate Supreme Court of India and Political Commentator

The Forgotten Role of the Sangh in the Partition of India

 

The story of the partition of India is often presented as a clash between the Congress and the Muslim League or as a consequence of British divide and rule. Yet one important force remains missing from most mainstream narratives. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS founded in nineteen twenty five did not directly sit at negotiation tables or demand a separate state. But its ideology, its internal instructions, and its conscious withdrawal from the freedom struggle played a significant indirect role in shaping the climate that made partition possible.

To understand this role, we must begin with what the RSS chose not to do. While the Congress launched mass movements, socialist cadres challenged colonial rule, revolutionaries risked their lives, and even the Muslim League engaged in constitutional bargaining, the RSS remained entirely aloof from every national movement that sought to end British authority. This distance was not accidental. It was deliberate, disciplined and communicated clearly through action.

---

Did Hedgewar and Golwalkar Assure the British That the RSS Would Not Join the Freedom Struggle

There is no single formal letter where Hedgewar or Golwalkar wrote to the British saying we will not participate. Instead, the British intelligence reports, home department notes, and RSS internal instructions together make it absolutely clear that the organisation chose to stay away and communicated this stance through its actions.

Here is the accurate breakdown.

1. Hedgewar Founder RSS

Hedgewar had a nationalist background and even went to jail earlier in life, but after founding the RSS in nineteen twenty five, he gave a strict instruction:

RSS must not involve itself in the Congress led anti British movements.

When the Civil Disobedience Movement and Quit India Movement began, Hedgewar and later Golwalkar

• Ordered that RSS members should not participate
• Made the British aware that the organisation was not aligned with the Congress
• Assured indirectly through non participation and internal discipline that RSS would remain non political and non confrontational to the colonial state

There is a famous internal directive

“No swayamsevak shall take part in any movement that provokes the government.”

To the British, this was exactly the assurance they wanted.

---

2. Golwalkar Second Sarsanghchalak nineteen forty onwards

Golwalkar went even further. In British intelligence reports of the early nineteen forties, the colonial officers repeatedly noted that

RSS is not participating in the freedom struggle and is not a threat to law and order.

The British CID wrote

“RSS has no intention of joining the civil disobedience movement.”

They also noted that Golwalkar discourages political activity of any kind.

Golwalkar himself instructed all RSS members

“We do not fight the British. Our work is character building.”

During the Quit India Movement in nineteen forty two, when the entire nation was burning, the RSS

• Did not participate
• Kept its offices open
• Increased its daily drills and shakhas
• Informed local British officers that RSS activities were peaceful and not anti state

This was interpreted by the British as a clear cooperative stance.

---

3. Evidence from British Records

British intelligence reports from nineteen thirty to nineteen forty six contain statements like

“The RSS shows no inclination to protest against the Government. Their activities are purely communal.”

“RSS is not a political body challenging His Majesty’s Government.”

This was as good as saying “We are not with the Congress. We will not fight you.”

---

4. Net Result

Even though Hedgewar never wrote an official declaration and Golwalkar never gave a formal pledge, their instructions, non participation, and cooperation with colonial authorities amounted to the same message

“We will not join the freedom struggle.”

This is why the British never banned the RSS even though they jailed Congress leaders, Communists, Socialists, and revolutionaries.

---

The Ideological Parallel to the Muslim League

While the Muslim League under Muhammad Ali Jinnah argued that Muslims were a separate nation, the RSS under Golwalkar insisted that only Hindus formed the true nation. Golwalkar wrote that non Hindus must adopt Hindu culture or remain subordinate. This was not inclusive patriotism but exclusive cultural dominance. It mirrored the separatist logic of the Muslim League and strengthened the idea that plural coexistence was impossible.

Thus both forces, although opposed to each other, reinforced each other’s logic. One claimed separation was necessary. The other claimed unity was possible only through surrender. Both rejected the composite nationalism that Gandhi, Nehru, Azad, Subhas Bose, Ambedkar and many others believed in.

---

Communal Mobilisation in the Final Years

British records describe RSS activities in the nineteen forties as military style drills and consolidated Hindu mobilisation. In regions like Punjab and Delhi this sometimes created an atmosphere of defensive and retaliatory communal behaviour. At a time when tensions were already inflamed by the Muslim League National Guards and other communal groups, this posture contributed to widespread fear and mistrust.

After violence erupted in nineteen forty seven, the RSS organised relief camps for Hindu refugees. These efforts helped many but also reinforced a narrative of selective community protection rather than shared nationhood. Even its humanitarian work reflected ideological priorities.

---

Aftermath and the Ban

The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse who had been associated with the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha led the newly independent government to ban the RSS in nineteen forty eight. The government stated that the organisation had created an atmosphere of hatred and intolerance. Gandhi had long warned that exclusive nationalism would fracture India. His death revealed the grave cost of such ideas.

---

Conclusion

The RSS did not demand partition, but its ideology strengthened the communal logic that made partition imaginable. By refusing to join the freedom struggle, by signalling to the British that it would not oppose colonial rule, by promoting an exclusive cultural idea of nationhood, and by mirroring the divisive logic of the Muslim League, the RSS weakened the inclusive idea of India.

The Muslim League demanded division.The British executed division.The Sangh normalised division. India was cut by borders but first by ideas.

---

Author 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.

 

 

WHERE THE MIND IS WITHOUT FEAR

 

WHERE THE MIND IS WITHOUT FEAR

Constitution Day and the Distorted Legacy of Power

---

Introduction: A Day That Reveals the Truth

Constitution Day should renew our faith in the values that hold the republic together. It should remind us of a nation imagined through justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It should return us to the dream of freedom where the mind is without fear and knowledge is free. Instead, it exposes a deep contradiction. Those who celebrate the Constitution with loud speeches belong to an ideological tradition that rejected it from the very beginning. The louder the praise, the greater the dishonesty. This is the paradox of our political moment.

---

The Constitution as the Republic’s Moral Foundation

The Constitution is not just a legal text. It is a moral foundation. It protects the citizen from the power of the state. It ensures that birth does not define destiny. It treats every human being with dignity. It restrains authority through principles, not favour. It imagines a nation where the poorest person stands equal before law with the most powerful.

But the present climate reveals how far the republic has drifted from this foundation. Fear is used as a method of rule. Propaganda replaces knowledge. Institutions bend before power. Social divisions widen while those meant to govern speak of unity. A document built on equality struggles to survive under those who treat it as a ceremonial object rather than a governing discipline.

---

The Ideological Roots of the Crisis

To understand the erosion of constitutional values today, one must confront the ideological foundation of the ruling political ecosystem. The present political structure draws its intellectual influence from the writings and speeches of M S Golwalkar, the most important ideologue of the organisation that shapes their worldview.

Golwalkar’s rejection of the Constitution was not vague or diplomatic. It was clear, structured and unapologetic. He argued that the Constitution had nothing Indian in it. He complained that it borrowed democratic ideas from many countries. He criticised the Constituent Assembly for choosing a modern republican model instead of drawing from ancient social codes.

He said openly that India did not need a modern Constitution. He insisted that the nation should have accepted ancient law books as its governing framework. Among these he pointed to Manusmriti as an ideal source of law. This was the same text that endorsed caste hierarchy and social inequality. Ambedkar had torn it publicly to reject its oppressive vision. Golwalkar, in contrast, praised it as an authentic foundation for India.

This was not a difference of opinion. It was a direct conflict between the inclusive republic the Constitution created and the cultural state Golwalkar imagined.

---

Golwalkar’s Rejection of Democracy

Golwalkar repeatedly expressed distrust toward democracy. He believed that democratic structures were not suited to the Indian character. He criticised universal equality, calling it artificial. He believed in hierarchy as a natural social order.

This view goes against the core of the Constitution, which declares that every citizen stands equal before the law regardless of caste, religion or culture. Where the Constitution sees a political community, Golwalkar saw a cultural collective. Where the Constitution sees citizens, Golwalkar saw subjects of a cultural identity. Where the Constitution promotes fraternity across differences, Golwalkar emphasised uniformity through cultural dominance.

This ideological conflict still shapes the political culture of today.

---

The Refusal to Honour National Symbols

The organisation influenced by Golwalkar refused for decades to hoist the national flag at its headquarters. They claimed the tricolour did not reflect their cultural view of the nation. Only after public pressure did they raise it.

This refusal was not trivial. It revealed a deeper discomfort with the inclusive national identity the Constitution created. A flag that represents unity across communities did not suit an ideology built on cultural singularity. A republic built on equality did not fit their vision of ancient hierarchy.

---

The Present Government and the Performance of Constitutional Loyalty

Today the government that draws strength from this ideological tradition speaks about the Constitution with great emotion. They organise events. They praise Ambedkar. They quote constitutional verses. Yet every institutional action tells a different story.

Dissent is criminalised.
Agencies are weaponised.
Media is pressured.
Universities are censored.
Federal balance is weakened.
Minority rights are eroded.
Public expression is monitored through fear.

This is not constitutional governance. It is governance wearing constitutional clothing.

A government that truly believes in the Constitution does not need propaganda to show loyalty. Its actions reflect loyalty. Its institutions reflect independence. Its society reflects harmony. But today the Constitution is celebrated in speeches and violated in practice.

---

Erosion of Institutions and the Rise of Fear

The Constitution survives not because it is written. It survives because institutions protect it. Today those institutions stand weakened. Investigative bodies behave like political tools. Public universities fear disapproval from authority. Independent journalism struggles to breathe under pressure. The judiciary carries the burden of delay and political shadow.

Fear has become the unspoken language of governance. Citizens fear expressing their thoughts. Activists fear legal threats. Journalists fear targeted cases. Students fear disciplinary action. When fear governs society, the dream of constitutional liberty collapses.

---

Tagore’s Vision and the Republic’s Conscience

Tagore’s lines offer a moral mirror to the republic. He imagined a nation without fear, without narrow divisions, without falsehood. The Constitution tried to build that nation. Today the distance between Tagore’s vision and reality grows wider. Fear has replaced courage. Propaganda has replaced knowledge. Divisions have replaced unity.

Tagore spoke from the depth of truth. The question today is whether citizens can still speak from that depth.

---

The People as the Final Defenders of the Republic

Governments may change. Ideologies may shift. Institutions may weaken. But the Constitution survives only if citizens protect it. The people are the final guardians of the republic. They hold the moral responsibility to challenge injustice, defend liberty and demand accountability.

When institutions fail, the people must rise with conscience. The republic belongs to them, not to those who rule temporarily.

---

Conclusion: Constitution Day as a Call for Courage

Constitution Day should not be a ritual. It should be a reminder that the republic stands at a turning point. The conflict today is not between political parties. It is between constitutional morality and authoritarian desire. Between a nation built on equality and a nation shaped by hierarchy. Between a future of freedom and a future of fear.

The Constitution cannot protect itself. Only citizens can. Only truth can. Only moral courage can.

---

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.