Ram and Hindutva Politics

 

The story of Rama is one of exile, restraint, duty and moral conflict. It is a story that has travelled through centuries, languages and imaginations, most memorably through the Ramayana. Yet, what we witness today is not merely devotion to Rama but the political reconstruction of his image into a tool of mobilisation. The transformation is neither accidental nor organic. It is deliberate, strategic and deeply consequential.

Hindu civilisation has never been singular in its expression. It has thrived on plurality, contradiction and localised traditions. Shiva, Krishna, Durga, Kali and countless folk deities coexist without a rigid hierarchy. The divine in Hindu thought is expansive, often resisting neat categorisation. Against this background, the elevation of Rama as the singular emblem of Hindu identity marks a shift from spiritual diversity to political uniformity.

The appeal of Rama for political appropriation lies in his narrative clarity. Unlike Shiva, who embodies paradox, or Krishna, who revels in ambiguity, Rama is often presented as Maryada Purushottam, the ideal man who adheres to duty above all else. This image lends itself easily to the construction of a disciplined, orderly society. The idea of Ram Rajya becomes not just a philosophical aspiration but a political slogan. It is simple, emotionally resonant and capable of mass reproduction.

The turning point in this transformation can be traced to the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. What began as a religious claim over a contested site gradually evolved into a nationwide political campaign. The movement did not merely seek the construction of a temple. It sought the consolidation of identity. Rama was no longer just a deity of devotion but a banner under which political allegiance could be organised. The chant “Jai Shri Ram,” once an expression of faith, acquired a sharper, more assertive edge, often functioning as a marker of belonging or exclusion.

At the heart of this shift lies Hindutva, a modern ideological project that seeks to define Indian identity in primarily cultural and religious terms. Hindutva does not engage with the theological richness of Hinduism. Instead, it simplifies, selects and standardises. In doing so, it chooses symbols that can be easily communicated, replicated and politicised. Rama fits this requirement perfectly. His story is linear, his virtues are easily codified, and his image is widely recognisable.

This process, however, comes at a cost. The reduction of a complex civilisation into a singular narrative inevitably erases diversity. Regional traditions, alternative interpretations and dissenting voices are pushed to the margins. The rich philosophical debates that characterise Hindu thought are replaced by uniform slogans. Faith becomes performance, and devotion becomes spectacle.

There is also an inherent contradiction in the political use of Rama. The Rama of the Ramayana is not a figure of aggression. He is a king who questions himself, who suffers the consequences of his decisions and who embodies restraint. His story is as much about doubt as it is about duty. The political projection of Rama, on the other hand, often emphasises strength without introspection, authority without ambiguity. It is a selective reading that prioritises utility over integrity.

Moreover, the use of religious symbols in politics alters the nature of both. Politics becomes infused with moral absolutism, leaving little room for disagreement. Religion, in turn, becomes instrumental, valued for its ability to mobilise rather than its capacity to inspire reflection. The line between faith and power begins to blur, and in that blur, both are diminished.

It is important to recognise that the prominence of Rama in contemporary discourse does not necessarily reflect the lived reality of Hindu practice across India. In many regions, Shiva remains the central figure of devotion. In others, Krishna’s playful divinity dominates. Goddess traditions continue to hold immense significance. The attempt to project a singular, uniform identity overlooks this diversity and imposes a narrative that is more political than spiritual.

The question, therefore, is not about Rama himself but about what is being done in his name. When a deity becomes a political instrument, the focus shifts from values to visibility. The loudness of the chant begins to matter more than the depth of belief. In such a scenario, the risk is not just the distortion of religion but the erosion of democratic space. Symbols that unify can also divide when they are used to draw boundaries.

India’s strength has always lain in its ability to accommodate multiplicity. Its traditions have survived precisely because they have resisted homogenisation. The attempt to centralise Rama as the definitive symbol of identity runs counter to this ethos. It narrows the vastness of Hindu thought into a single frame, convenient for politics but inadequate for a civilisation.

To engage critically with this phenomenon is not to question faith but to defend its integrity. Rama does not need political endorsement to remain relevant. His story has endured for centuries because it speaks to human dilemmas, not because it serves political agendas. To reduce him to a slogan is to diminish that legacy.

In the end, the issue is not whether Rama should be revered. He already is, in countless ways across the country. The issue is whether reverence should be orchestrated, amplified and directed for political gain. When faith becomes a tool, it ceases to be free. And when it ceases to be free, it loses the very essence that made it powerful.

The challenge before India is not to choose between gods but to preserve the freedom to choose them. That freedom is the foundation of both its spirituality and its democracy. Any attempt to control, standardise or politicise it must be examined with care and resisted with clarity.

 

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.

 

Icons and Ironies in the Politics of Faith

 

History has a mischievous sense of humour. It delights in placing unlikely ingredients into the same political kitchen and watching later generations argue about the recipe. Few comparisons reveal this better than the public images and private ironies surrounding Savarkar, Gandhi, and Jinnah. Each became a towering symbol. Each is now packaged as a simplified mascot. And each, if resurrected, might politely decline the brochure written in his name.

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar presents the first paradox. A Chitpavan Brahmin who did not treat diet as destiny, he openly consumed meat and spoke in rational and utilitarian terms about cow protection and cow slaughter. His writings show that he approached the cow less as a divine mother and more as an economic animal. This alone is enough to make many of his present day admirers reach for selective quotation and spiritual white correction fluid. Savarkar’s personal habits were strikingly modern for his time. Anecdotes describe him as someone who enjoyed meat and fine drink, sometimes jokingly said to be paired with Zetsun whiskey, whether literally or in spirit. The larger point stands. His cultural politics was orthodox in identity but flexible in lifestyle. He separated personal conduct from political mobilisation with impressive convenience.

Savarkar was a master of ideological engineering. He understood that identity, when sharpened, becomes a political weapon more efficient than any sword. His project of Hindutva was not merely religious but civilisational and territorial. It was designed as a binding glue as well as a boundary wall. He wrote with clarity and force. He argued with discipline. He provoked with purpose. But there was also a theatrical quality to the construction. The champion of cultural purity was personally unburdened by ritual purity. The architect of Hindu consolidation was socially radical in some reforms yet rigid in civilisational definition. It is as if the chef refused to eat from the menu he so passionately marketed.

Then comes Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who appears at first glance as Savarkar’s mirror opposite. A devout Hindu and a lifelong vegetarian, Gandhi turned personal discipline into public method. His politics wore a moral costume and often insisted that everyone else try it on. Yet Gandhi’s great disruption was not dietary but democratic. He invited disagreement. He tolerated critics. He argued in public and corrected himself in public. He spiritualised politics but also pluralised it. His Hinduism was deeply felt but rarely framed as a citizenship test.

Gandhi’s irony lies elsewhere. The most religious of the three often behaved in the most politically inclusive way. He could be stubborn, moralising, and occasionally impractical, but he did not build his politics on permanent enemies. He built it on conversion of hearts, including the hearts of his opponents. Empires prefer rebels with bombs. They find rebels with conscience extremely inconvenient. Gandhi’s method was slow, exasperating, and annoyingly humane. In a century addicted to strong medicine, he prescribed moral physiotherapy.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah completes the trio with perhaps the sharpest twist. Urbane, impeccably dressed, trained in law, and culturally Westernised, Jinnah was not known for religious orthodoxy in personal life. He enjoyed wine. Many accounts suggest he was indifferent to ritual observance. Some controversial claims even suggest dietary choices forbidden in Islam. Yet history crowned him as the great spokesman of Muslim political destiny. Nothing proves that politics is a costume party better than this transformation.

Jinnah was not a cleric. He was a constitutionalist who lost faith in constitutional guarantees. His demand for Pakistan grew not from seminary theology but from political distrust and strategic calculation. He mobilised religious identity with a lawyer’s precision rather than a preacher’s passion. The result was a religious nation argued into existence by a secular mind. It is one of history’s grand ironies that personal liberalism can sometimes produce public separation.

Here is where the satire matures. Savarkar and Jinnah, despite standing under different flags, used strikingly similar political techniques. Both converted community identity into political currency. Both warned their followers of cultural danger. Both argued that coexistence without dominance was a risky bargain. Their languages differed. Their symbols differed. Their emotional audiences differed. Their strategic grammar often did not. Each ran a campaign of civilisational anxiety with impressive intellectual packaging.

Gandhi alone refused to fully enter this marketplace of fear. He spoke of civilisation too, but as an ethical experiment rather than a guarded fortress. While the other two drafted blueprints for political separation of identities, Gandhi drafted invitations for moral coexistence. He was frequently ignored, sometimes opposed, and eventually canonised in ways that also simplify him unfairly. Saints are often edited more aggressively than sinners.

The lesson is not that one man was pure and the others were villains. The lesson is that political memory is a talented fiction writer. It removes inconvenient habits, upgrades symbolic value, and airbrushes contradictions. The meat eating nationalist becomes a mascot of ritual culture. The secular barrister becomes an icon of religious destiny. The spiritual democrat becomes a harmless statue on currency notes.

If there is humour in this, it is dry and durable. History does not just repeat itself. It also rebrands itself. And the loudest brand ambassadors are often those who have not read the full manual.

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.

 

Disclaimer : - The views expressed here are interpretive and satirical in nature, meant for discussion and reflection, not personal or religious offence.

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

When Life Was Just Life — Before Sanatan Became a Slogan

 

The Hollow Saffron Chest-Thumping of Our Times

There was a time when life was simple and quiet. People lived without the need to declare their faith every morning or defend it every evening. There were Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians, but they were never counted, categorized, or constantly reminded of who they were. Religion was a personal matter, something that guided the inner self, not a label carried in the marketplace of politics.

In those days, words like Sanatan and Hindu were known but rarely spoken in daily life. They belonged to scriptures and spiritual discourse, not to political rallies or social media posts. Faith was silent and sincere, practiced in homes and hearts, not performed on screens. A visit to the temple or a namaz at the mosque was an act of devotion, not a declaration of ideology. People were not divided into Sanatanis and anti-Sanatanis; they were just neighbours and friends.

But somewhere along the way, the sacred turned into spectacle. The essence of Sanatan Dharma, which meant eternal truth and universal harmony, has been reduced to a slogan of power and exclusion. The political class discovered that religion can mobilize better than governance. And so, the ancient word Sanatan was pulled out of the scriptures, polished with propaganda, and planted in the middle of political discourse.

The result is a new breed — the Political Sanatani. Unlike the spiritual Sanatani who seeks truth and self-realization, the Political Sanatani seeks validation and visibility. He is loud, angry, and forever offended. His idea of dharma is not about duty or compassion but about dominance. He confuses pride with piety and outrage with devotion. In his world, silence is weakness and shouting is strength.

What was once a path to inner peace has become a battlefield of identity. Temples have turned into political stages, festivals into campaigns, and symbols of faith into instruments of control. The Sanatan that once preached tolerance now fuels suspicion. The Hindu who once believed in universality is being told to choose sides. The spiritual richness that once defined India is being replaced by a culture of noise and narcissism.

The tragedy is not that religion has entered politics; it is that politics has entered religion. The quiet dignity of faith is lost in the echo of self-proclaimed defenders who understand neither spirituality nor service. True Sanatanis never needed to prove their belief through aggression. Their faith was reflected in conduct, in compassion, in respect for all forms of life.

There was a time when life was just life. No loud claims, no defensive postures, no television debates about gods and identities. People lived their faith, not displayed it. Perhaps it is time to return to that silence — where devotion was private and peace was public.

---

When Sanatanism Became a Badge

There was a time when the word Sanatani evoked quiet reverence. It carried the weight of centuries, the spirit of compassion and tolerance, of a civilization that survived invasions and partition without losing its soul¹. Today, it has become a mere badge, flaunted with the pride of a schoolboy waving a forged report card. People scream kattar Hindu or kattar Sanatani, as if loud slogans can substitute for depth of understanding.

---

Dharma: Lost in Translation

Dharma, the bedrock of our civilization, is not about costume dramas or aggressive sloganeering². It is a principle as old as the Rig Veda³, as subtle as the Upanishads⁴, and as practical as the Gita⁵. It is the law of righteousness, the path that maintains harmony in society and balance within oneself.

Ask today’s kattar Hindu about dharma, and he will look at you blankly. His understanding begins with “Jai Shri Ram” and ends with a WhatsApp forward about his neighbor’s diet.

---

Lessons from the Real Sanatanis

The Sanatana tradition survived because of nuance, not noise. Ashoka turned from violence to nonviolence after Kalinga⁶. Adi Shankara united India through debate, not division⁷. Vivekananda called Hinduism the mother of all religions because of its tolerance⁸.

If they returned today, they would be appalled at the market of saffron chest-thumping — where noise is worshipped and wisdom ignored.

---

Politics, Power, and Pretence

Chest-thumping sells. Politicians realized long ago that religious passion rouses the masses⁹. Instead of teaching the Gita’s lesson of selfless action, they hand out soundbites. Instead of spreading Upanishadic wisdom, they host venomous TV debates.

Those who scream Sanatan dharma khatre mein hai cannot recite two shlokas¹⁰. Their temples are in their bank accounts, where donations are tallied, and power worshipped. They are counterfeit priests in the marketplace of faith, selling slogans while delivering division.

---

The Irony of Misguided Devotion

In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna to fight not out of hatred but duty⁵. Yet today’s champions distort dharma into diet, dress, and daily outrage. They weaponize gods who once represented love.

Khushwant Singh once said that religion in India had become more a matter of ritual than morality¹¹. The saffron scarf is worn not as a symbol of renunciation but as a uniform of intimidation. Loudspeakers drown out silence, hashtags smother reflection. We are left with noise without knowledge, anger without awareness, faith without foundation.

---

History’s Warnings

Every time religion becomes a weapon, civilizations pay the price. The Crusades¹², the Taliban¹³, and India’s communal riots¹⁴ prove this. The Sanatana tradition never feared other paths, yet today’s self-proclaimed defenders attack difference. In doing so, they betray the very tradition they claim to protect.

---

True Sanatanism Today

To be truly Sanatani today means returning to the essence of dharma — truth, compassion, balance, and self-restraint. It is not about what you wear or eat; it is about how you treat the other.

When we live this way, we will no longer need labels like kattar Hindu or kattar Sanatani. Faith will reclaim its dignity, and religion will regain its silence.

---

The Last Word

The word dharma is held hostage by fools who know not its meaning. They scream louder than saints, parade in saffron, and preach purity but act in politics. They are not protectors of Sanatana — they are its greatest danger.

As Gandhi reminded us, dharma is found in truth, not temples¹⁵. Tagore warned against the prison of narrow domestic walls¹⁶. Ambedkar showed that caste and ritual are shackles, not dharma¹⁷.

Their words echo across time, but who listens in an age addicted to noise?

---

Author’s Note

The writer, Siddhartha Shankar Mishra, is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. He writes on politics, history, and society with a satirical edge inspired by Khushwant Singh.

📧 ssmishra33@gmail.com

---

References

Footnotes

1. Romila Thapar, A History of India, Vol. 1. ↩

2. S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy. ↩

3. Rig Veda, Mandala 1. ↩

4. Upanishads, Chandogya Upanishad. ↩

5. Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2. ↩ ↩²

6. Romila Thapar, Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. ↩

7. Swami Gambhirananda, Adi Shankaracharya: Life and Philosophy. ↩

8. Swami Vivekananda, Speech at the Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893. ↩

9. Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics. ↩

10. Media accounts and public statements of right-wing activists. ↩

11. Khushwant Singh, The History of Sikhs. ↩

12. Thomas Asbridge, The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land. ↩

13. Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. ↩

14. Gyanendra Pandey, The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India. ↩

15. M.K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj. ↩

16. Rabindranath Tagore, Nationalism. ↩

17. B.R. Ambedkar, The Annihilation of Caste. ↩

 

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.”
3. 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.
4. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

 

RSS: Appropriators, Not Protectors, of Hinduism

 

I. The Foundational Myth: RSS and the Invention of a Hindu Rashtra

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was founded in 1925 by Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, not as a spiritual movement but as a socio-political response to what it perceived as the “weakness” of Hindus in the face of Muslim and colonial assertiveness. From the outset, its project was not religious renaissance but cultural consolidation—to forge a monolithic Hindu identity under the banner of Hindutva, a term coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

Savarkar, an atheist by conviction, redefined "Hindu" not in terms of faith, but in terms of race, land, and culture:

“A Hindu means a person who regards this land of Bharat as his Fatherland (Pitrubhumi) and as his Holyland (Punyabhumi).” – V.D. Savarkar, Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? (1923)

This definition excluded Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others whose holy lands lay outside India, regardless of how long they had lived in the subcontinent. It was the RSS that took this exclusionary idea and built an organization dedicated to it—modelled not after any Hindu religious institution, but more akin to paramilitary groups.

Swami Vivekananda once warned against such distortion:

“Religion is not in doctrines, in dogmas, nor in intellectual argumentation. It is being and becoming.”

– Swami Vivekananda

---

II. RSS vs Hindu Spiritual Traditions: A Philosophical Betrayal

Traditional Hinduism is deeply pluralistic—accommodating atheism (as in the Carvaka school), materialism, non-dualism (Advaita), dualism (Dvaita), and the path of devotion (Bhakti) side by side. Its saints—from Kabir and Basava to Mirabai and Ramanuja—challenged caste, ritualism, and orthodoxy in the name of a more humane and just divine order.

By contrast, the RSS’s interpretation of Hinduism is rigid, caste-endorsing, and obsessed with external markers—language, dress, dietary habits, and militarism—rather than inner transformation. It has no scriptural base, nor does it emerge from Vedic or Upanishadic traditions.

“The essence of Hinduism is not cow protection or temple construction. It is truth, non-violence, and renunciation.”

– Mahatma Gandhi

Gandhi was never accepted by the RSS. In fact, they hated his inclusive vision and blamed him for being too accommodating to Muslims—a view that culminated in his assassination by Nathuram Godse, a former RSS worker.

---

III. Political Exploitation: RSS and the Rise of BJP

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was formed in 1980 as the political arm of the RSS after the collapse of the Janata Party. Though the RSS formally claims to be “cultural,” it exerts vast control over the BJP’s leadership, electoral strategy, and policy agenda. No BJP Prime Minister—whether Vajpayee or Modi—has ever openly defied the RSS.

The Ram Janmabhoomi movement of the late 1980s and early 1990s, led by the VHP and the BJP under the watchful eye of the RSS, was the defining moment of this transformation. The demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 was not a religious act but a carefully orchestrated political campaign that catapulted the BJP into national relevance.

“The destruction of the Babri Masjid is the biggest blot on Indian secularism and was no spontaneous act of the mob but a planned conspiracy.”

– Liberhan Commission Report, 2009

This act triggered widespread riots, thousands of deaths, and communal polarization that has continued to define Indian politics.

---

IV. The Cult of Majoritarianism: Manufacturing the “Other”

The RSS-BJP ideology depends on constructing a permanent “other” to rally Hindu identity. Muslims have been the primary target, framed as invaders, anti-nationals, or "appeased minorities." Christians have also been demonized, especially in tribal areas.

The cow becomes more important than human life. Love Jihad replaces employment as a priority issue. The Tablighi Jamaat becomes a scapegoat during a pandemic, while lynch mobs become vigilantes in service of gau raksha (cow protection).

“Hindutva is not Hinduism. Hindutva wants uniformity; Hinduism is plural. Hindutva wants loyalty to one language, one nation, one leader; Hinduism speaks hundreds of languages and bows to hundreds of gods.”
– Arundhati Roy

---

V. Social Hypocrisy: Brahmanism in the Guise of Hindu Unity

The RSS pays lip service to Dalits, but its ideological core is deeply Brahmanical. It has opposed inter-caste marriages, never demanded temple entry for all Hindus, and its leadership has historically come from the upper-caste male elite.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, sharply criticized the RSS. He did not see it as a force for Hindu unity but as a reactionary organization seeking to maintain caste hierarchies:

“Hindu society is a myth; the caste is the real social unit.”

– Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste

It is no accident that Ambedkar rejected Hinduism and embraced Buddhism.

---

VI. Conclusion: From Dharma to Dogma

The RSS has not protected Hinduism—it has politicized, militarized, and distorted it. Hinduism’s spiritual strength lies in its diversity, its questions, its self-doubt, its non-violence. The RSS’s project replaces this with certainty, aggression, and cultural supremacy.

In doing so, it has not defended Hindu civilization—it has betrayed its soul.

---

Author’s Note:

Siddhartha Shankar  Mishra is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a political commentator. He writes on issues at the intersection of law, democracy, and cultural identity. He can be reached at ssmishra33@gmail.com.