When Faith Traveled: Islam’s Long Journey into India

 

The coming of Islam to India is often explained through only one lens, that of invasion and political conquest. This narrow view hides a far more complex and human story. Islam reached India through trade, travel, spiritual exchange and social transformation long before it arrived through armies. Conversions happened through many different processes, including voluntary acceptance, social mobility, spiritual attraction and community integration. To understand this history honestly, one must look at geography, economy, caste structure, politics and religious movements together.

Early Contact Through Trade on the Western Coast

India had strong maritime links with West Asia long before the birth of Islam. Arab traders were visiting ports of Kerala, Konkan and Gujarat for spices, pearls and textiles even in pre Islamic times. After the rise of Islam in the seventh century, these traders became carriers of the new faith along with their goods.

These merchants did not arrive as conquerors. They came as business partners. Many settled in coastal towns, married local women and became part of the social fabric. Over time, some local families adopted Islam through daily interaction, friendship and inter marriage. This process was slow and peaceful and happened across generations.

The Muslim community of Kerala known as Mappila Muslims is widely believed to have grown from these early contacts. Their culture shows deep local roots in language, food and social customs, proving that Islam in India adapted itself to regional life rather than replacing it.

The First Indian Traditionally Said to Accept Islam

According to long standing tradition in Kerala, a Chera ruler known as Cheraman Perumal is believed to be the first Indian to have accepted Islam. Popular accounts say that he traveled to Arabia, met Prophet Muhammad, accepted Islam and took the name Tajuddin. While returning to India he is believed to have died on the way, but before that he instructed that mosques be built on the Malabar coast.

Modern historians debate the historical certainty of this story because there is limited contemporary documentary proof. However, this tradition has deep cultural roots and is preserved in regional chronicles and Muslim community memory in Kerala. Whether fully historical or partly legendary, the story reflects early contact between India and the Islamic world through peaceful routes rather than military ones.

The First Mosque in India

The Cheraman Juma Mosque at Kodungallur in Kerala is traditionally regarded as the first mosque in India. It is believed to have been established around 629 CE by Malik bin Dinar, an early Muslim scholar who is said to have come to India along with other companions to spread Islamic teachings.

While historians debate the exact date of construction, there is broad agreement that some of the earliest mosques in India were built on the western coast through merchant communities and religious teachers, not through rulers or soldiers. Several mosques along the Malabar coast are linked by tradition to Malik bin Dinar and his companions, indicating that Islam spread in this region through spiritual networks and trade connections.

Entry Through Sindh and the First Political Rule

The first major political conquest by a Muslim ruler in the Indian subcontinent occurred in 712 CE when Muhammad bin Qasim defeated the ruler of Sindh. This brought parts of present day Pakistan under Muslim administration.

However, political control did not immediately result in mass religious conversion. Local populations largely continued practicing their own religions. The new rulers were more concerned with collecting revenue and maintaining stability than changing religious identity. Religious communities were allowed to manage their own institutions and customs.

This shows that political conquest and religious conversion did not always move together. The spread of Islam as a faith followed a different path from the spread of Muslim political power.

Expansion of Muslim Rule and Society in North India

From the eleventh century onward, various dynasties established Muslim rule over large parts of northern India, including the Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire. These periods saw warfare, destruction and political restructuring, but conversion was not consistently imposed as state policy.

Many Hindu elites served in courts, military and administration. Rulers were often more interested in loyalty and revenue than religious uniformity. While some rulers adopted stricter religious positions, others followed policies of tolerance and inclusion.

Conversion did occur during this period, but mostly through social processes rather than government orders. People converted for reasons ranging from spiritual belief to social opportunity.

The Powerful Role of Sufi Traditions

Perhaps the most important factor in the spread of Islam in India was the Sufi movement. Sufi teachers traveled widely across villages and towns, speaking local languages and living among common people. They preached devotion to God, humility, compassion and equality.

Sufi shrines became social centers where people of all religions gathered. Food was served freely and spiritual guidance was offered without discrimination. For many communities facing social exclusion under rigid caste structures, Sufi spaces offered dignity and belonging.

Conversion through Sufi influence was usually slow and emotional, based on personal trust and spiritual experience. This kind of conversion did not require rejection of local culture. Instead, many Sufi practices blended with regional music, poetry and customs.

Social and Economic Reasons Behind Conversion

Religion does not spread only through belief. It also spreads through social realities. In medieval India, caste divisions were harsh and deeply entrenched. For many lower status communities, conversion to Islam offered a way to escape inherited discrimination.

Islam taught formal equality among believers, at least in principle. This message was attractive to groups that faced social humiliation. Conversion also sometimes opened access to new occupations, military service and administrative roles.

In agricultural regions like Bengal and Punjab, conversion often occurred alongside settlement and farming expansion. New villages developed under Muslim landlords and over time religious identity shifted gradually rather than through sudden change.

This means conversion was often linked to everyday life decisions, not dramatic moments of religious coercion.

Was Conversion Ever Forced

History must be truthful. There were instances of coercion, destruction of religious sites and pressure to convert, especially during periods of war. Some rulers did use religion as a tool of power.

But forced conversion cannot explain the large Muslim population of India. If conversion had been mainly violent and systematic, resistance and revolt would have been constant and religious diversity would not have survived as it did.

Most historians agree that while violence occurred in specific contexts, the overall growth of Islam in India happened through social and cultural integration rather than constant compulsion.

Growth of Muslim Society Over Centuries

Once Muslim communities were established, they grew naturally through family life and community continuity. Over time, Islam became deeply Indian in language, food, dress and social behavior.

Bengali Muslims, Deccani Muslims, Kashmiri Muslims and Malayali Muslims developed distinct regional cultures. They spoke local languages, followed regional traditions and participated in local economies.

This shows that Islam did not remain an external identity. It became woven into the fabric of Indian society.

Timeline of Cultural Integration

Seventh to ninth century
Muslim traders settled in coastal towns. Mosques were built in local architectural styles. Arabic words entered local languages. Mixed families created blended traditions.

Tenth to twelfth century
Sufi teachers moved inland. Shrines became shared spiritual spaces. Devotional poetry developed in local languages. Islam spread through village level interaction.

Thirteenth to fifteenth century
Stable Muslim rule allowed social mixing. Persian influenced court culture shaped art and language. Indo Islamic architecture developed. Communities shared festivals and customs.

Sixteenth to eighteenth century
Mughal period saw cultural synthesis in painting, literature and music. Local languages absorbed Persian vocabulary. Social boundaries remained but cultural exchange flourished.

Nineteenth century onward
Colonial policies hardened religious identities. Census and political representation made religion a political category. Earlier fluid identities became rigid community labels.

Regional Patterns of Integration

In Kerala, Muslims followed matrilineal traditions in some communities and spoke Malayalam. Food and dress remained regional.

In Bengal, Islamic faith blended with folk culture and rural traditions. Bengali remained the primary language of religion and daily life.

In the Deccan, Dakhani language mixed Persian with Telugu and Marathi. Local food and clothing dominated daily life.

In Kashmir, Islamic traditions blended with earlier spiritual practices. Poetry and philosophy reflected both influences.

These examples show that Islam in India never erased regional identity. It absorbed it.

Modern Political Misuse of History

In present times, history is often simplified and used for political mobilization. Narratives of permanent conflict are promoted to divide communities. This ignores centuries of shared culture, mixed families and joint participation in economic and social life.

Most Indian Muslims are not descendants of foreign invaders. They are descendants of Indians who adopted Islam and remained rooted in their regions. Their culture, language and ancestry are Indian.

Recognizing this truth is essential for social harmony and constitutional values.

Understanding Conversion Without Fear

Conversion should not be seen only as loss or betrayal. Throughout history, people across the world have changed faiths in search of dignity, meaning and belonging. India itself has seen movements between religions for centuries.

Understanding this process does not weaken any religion. It strengthens social maturity by accepting that faith is deeply personal and historically complex.

Conclusion

Islam came to India not through one event but through many journeys. Traders brought it to the coast. Teachers carried it inland. Rulers established political structures. Communities adapted it to local life. Converts shaped it into regional cultures.

The story of Islam in India is not only about power. It is also about people, choices, relationships and shared history. It is part of the Indian story, not separate from it.

Reducing this long and layered history into slogans of invasion or victimhood serves politics, not truth. A mature society must face its past with honesty and confidence, not fear.

---

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.

Christianity in India Civilizational Roots Colonial Distortion and the Politics of Conversion

 

The history of Christianity in India is far older deeper and more complex than the narratives circulating in present political debates. It did not arrive with colonial cannons or imperial charters but entered the subcontinent quietly through trade routes spiritual exchange and cultural accommodation. To understand Indian Christianity honestly one must separate three distinct phases its ancient civilizational roots its colonial distortion and the modern political manufacture of conversion myths. Only then does the picture become historically coherent and intellectually fair.

Arrival of Christianity in India

Christian tradition and a strong body of historical scholarship hold that Christianity came to India in the first century of the Common Era around the year fifty two. It is associated with the arrival of Saint Thomas the Apostle on the Malabar Coast of present day Kerala. This coast was already integrated into a vibrant Indian Ocean trade network linking India with West Asia the Roman world and East Africa. Jewish traders Arab merchants and Persian Christians frequented these ports long before Europe emerged from antiquity.

Christianity therefore did not arrive in India as an alien ideology but as one among many spiritual currents flowing through an already plural society. The earliest Christian converts were local Jewish communities and sections of upper caste Hindu families particularly among Namboodiri Brahmins according to long standing tradition. These communities came to be known as Saint Thomas Christians or Nasranis.

An Indian Christianity not a European transplant

For nearly fifteen centuries Indian Christianity developed without European involvement. This alone demolishes the popular claim that Christianity in India is a colonial implant. During this long period Indian Christians spoke local languages followed Indian customs dressed like their neighbors and organized themselves as jati like communities within the Indian social order.

Their liturgy was in Syriac not Latin. Their theology was linked to Eastern Christian traditions rather than Roman Catholicism. Their churches resembled local architectural forms often indistinguishable from temples except for the cross. Festivals included oil lamps flowers processions and music rooted in Indian aesthetics. Christianity here did not seek to replace Indian culture but lived within it.

Crucially there was no alliance with political power. Indian Christians had no state backing no army and no institutional machinery to enforce belief. They survived through acceptance coexistence and ethical credibility. Hindu rulers donated land to churches just as they did to temples and Buddhist monasteries. Jewish Christian and Hindu communities lived side by side on the Malabar Coast with remarkable harmony for centuries.

Caste and social reality

A difficult but necessary truth is that Indian Christianity did not abolish caste instantly. Converts carried their social identities into the new faith as was common across Indian religious traditions. Buddhism Jainism and even Bhakti movements did not erase caste overnight. Religion in India historically adapted to social realities before gradually questioning them.

This does not weaken the ethical force of Christianity but rather situates it honestly within Indian society. Social transformation was slow contested and evolutionary not revolutionary. The expectation that a faith should instantly dissolve entrenched hierarchies is a modern moral projection not a historical reality.

The colonial rupture

The character of Christianity in India changed dramatically only in the sixteenth century with the arrival of European colonial powers particularly Portugal. With colonialism faith became entangled with empire. European missionaries often dismissed indigenous Christian practices as inferior or heretical. Latin liturgy was imposed. Local traditions were suppressed. Cultural arrogance replaced accommodation.

The Goa Inquisition stands as a dark reminder of how Christianity when fused with state power can become coercive and violent. Importantly this coercion was directed not only at Hindus and Muslims but also at Indian Christians who resisted European control.

The most powerful symbol of this resistance is the Coonan Cross Oath of sixteen fifty three when thousands of Indian Christians publicly vowed never to submit to foreign ecclesiastical domination. This was not a rejection of Christianity but a rejection of imperial Christianity. Indian Christians fought to preserve their indigenous identity and autonomy.

Distinguishing ancient and colonial Christianity

This distinction is vital yet deliberately blurred in modern discourse. Ancient Indian Christianity was decentralized non coercive and culturally integrated. Colonial Christianity was centralized coercive and culturally imperial. To blame the former for the crimes of the latter is historically dishonest.

Conversion during the ancient period was rare gradual and personal. Communities remained small endogamous and socially embedded. Mass conversion as a phenomenon emerged only under colonial conditions where material incentives institutional pressure and power asymmetry existed. Even then it was not universal nor uncontested.

The manufacture of conversion myths

The modern obsession with conversion is not rooted in historical experience but in political anxiety. For nearly fifteen hundred years conversion was not a social panic in India. It became one only in the twentieth century when democracy enabled marginalized communities to exercise choice.

Conversion myths thrive because they serve power. They portray oppressed groups as victims without agency and dominant groups as eternal guardians of culture. They erase caste violence and social exclusion while blaming faith choice for social instability.

People do not abandon ancestral traditions lightly. When they do it is rarely due to theological persuasion alone. It is often a response to humiliation exclusion and denial of dignity. Conversion becomes a moral accusation only when equality threatens hierarchy.

Indian secularism as civilizational instinct

India did not invent pluralism in nineteen forty seven. It inherited it from its own civilizational past. The subcontinent has always accommodated multiple philosophies rituals and belief systems. Disagreement was normal dissent was sacred and belief was personal.

Pre modern Indian rulers governed without enforcing religious uniformity. They supported multiple institutions across faiths. The idea that one religion must dominate public life is not Indian but imported from exclusivist political theologies elsewhere.

The Constitution of India did not impose secularism as a foreign concept. It codified a lived historical reality while attempting to protect it from modern majoritarian politics.

Power not belief is the real danger

The consistent pattern across history is clear. Religion becomes violent not because it exists but because it captures power. Christianity without empire coexisted peacefully for centuries in India. Hinduism without state enforcement absorbed dissent and diversity. Islam without political absolutism flourished intellectually.

The danger lies not in faith but in the fusion of faith with state authority. When belief becomes law dissent becomes treason and diversity becomes threat.

Conclusion

Christianity in India is not a colonial shadow but an ancient Indian presence. Its roots lie in trade not conquest in dialogue not domination. Colonialism distorted its image and contemporary politics weaponizes that distortion. Conversion myths collapse under historical scrutiny. Indian secularism emerges not as imitation but as memory. India never feared many religions. It feared one religion becoming power.

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.

 

The Long Shadow of Golwalkar and the Making of a Majoritarian Republic

 

The Rise of Golwalkar and the Transformation of the RSS

When Dr K B Hedgewar founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in 1925 he imagined a disciplined cultural organisation that would uplift a disillusioned Hindu society. But the ideological transformation of the RSS truly began only after his death in 1940 when M S Golwalkar succeeded him as Sarsanghchalak. Hedgewar had prioritised unity self discipline and restrained political engagement. Golwalkar however infused the organisation with a doctrinal clarity that turned the RSS into a structured project of Hindu nationhood. Under him the RSS became a cadre based institution where unity was not a celebration of diversity but a demand for cultural homogeneity. The shakha became the forge where a generation was trained to view India not as a plural republic but as a sacred civilizational homeland of Hindus.

Defining a Hindu Nation Civilizational Identity over Civic Citizenship

Golwalkar’s writings such as we or our nationhood defined and bunch of thoughts placed Hindu identity at the centre of national belonging. He repeatedly argued that minorities could remain in India only if they accepted the cultural supremacy of the Hindu way of life. In his imagination citizenship was not a contract among equals but a system of graded belonging where Hindus claimed cultural primacy while others were expected to assimilate. Religious diversity was not an asset to be nurtured but a deviation to be corrected. The RSS under Golwalkar thus shifted from cultural self confidence to cultural majoritarianism a shift that would later echo through Indian politics long after his death.

Divergence from the Freedom Struggle and Antagonism toward Gandhi

While Jawaharlal Nehru Subhas Bose Sarojini Naidu and countless others mobilised mass movements for independence Golwalkar chose to keep the RSS away from the anti colonial struggle. He believed that strengthening Hindu society internally was more important than confronting the British externally. Critics argued that this posture conveniently shielded the RSS from colonial repression while distancing it from the moral authority of the freedom movement. Golwalkar accused Gandhi of weakening Hindu society by engaging with Muslim leaders and seeking unity through persuasion rather than cultural dominance. The RSS distance from the freedom struggle was therefore not accidental but ideological born of a suspicion that mass nationalism diluted Hindu primacy.

A Warning three weeks before the Assassination

In the winter of 1947 shortly after the bloodshed of Partition M S Golwalkar addressed a gathering where he condemned what he saw as moral weakness and appeasement in national politics. In that fraught atmosphere as Gandhi persisted with his final fasts calling for harmony and the release of withheld funds to Pakistan Golwalkar’s words carried a dark edge. At a public meeting in early December 1947 he declared that certain policies pursued by national leaders were unIndian and satanic and added that we have the means whereby such men can be immediately silenced if they continue to harm Hindu interests.

“On 8 December 1947, RSS chief M S Golwalkar at a rally described certain government and Gandhi-led policies as ‘unIndian and satanic’ and declared that ‘we have the means whereby such men can be immediately silenced’ if they stood in the way of protecting Hindu interests.”

This was not an order nor a call to arms yet the sentiment reflected a deep and open hostility toward Gandhi’s final effort to preserve moral citizenship across faiths. When seen in the hindsight of Gandhi’s assassination only weeks later this remark remains an enduring and troubling reminder of the volatile ideological climate of the time.

Gandhis Assassination the RSS Ban and a Permanent Stain of Suspicion

The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi on 30 January 1948 intensified scrutiny of this hostility. Though Golwalkar and the RSS were not legally proven to be part of the conspiracy the fact that Nathuram Godse had once been associated with the organisation and had absorbed similar ideological influences cast a long shadow. The government banned the RSS arguing that the ideological poison that had vilified Gandhi could no longer be ignored. The ban was lifted a year later only after the RSS formally declared respect for the Constitution. But this episode left a stain that history has never fully washed away for it raised the question of whether cultural nationalism can slide into moral absolutism where dissent is seen as a threat rather than a voice to be engaged.

Recasting Public Image without Abandoning Majoritarian Ideology

After the ban was lifted Golwalkar worked hard to present the RSS as socially constructive. Educational and charitable work expanded and the language of public statements became more cautious. Yet he never surrendered the idea that India must be rooted in Hindu cultural primacy. Minorities were recognised but their equal belonging remained conditional on acceptance of majority cultural norms. The RSS under Golwalkar mastered the art of balancing constitutional language with a cultural imagination that waited for its political moment.

Golwalkars Legacy in the Modi Era Majoritarian Ideas Enter State Policy

Nearly eight decades later Golwalkar’s influence has travelled from the shakha ground to the centre of power. Narendra Modi a lifelong RSS pracharak articulates a political vision that resonates deeply with Golwalkar’s worldview. Policies such as the Citizenship Amendment Act the promotion of a Uniform Civil Code and the centrality of Hindu cultural symbols in national politics all reflect this continuity. The inauguration of the Ayodhya temple by a sitting Prime Minister blurred the line between state authority and religious symbolism in ways that fulfil long standing RSS aspirations. Critics argue that this represents the political mainstreaming of Golwalkar’s vision turning cultural majoritarianism into the guiding framework of governance.

From Cultural Movement to Political Blueprint The Constitution Reimagined

Golwalkar had criticised the framers of the Constitution for not rooting the document in Hindu philosophical tradition. Today his critiques resurface indirectly through institutional shifts that seek to harmonise state authority with majoritarian cultural norms. Revised textbooks emphasise ancient Hindu achievements national universities are pushed toward cultural revivalism and public rhetoric routinely frames diversity as fragmentation. What was once a cultural mission now appears to many observers as a political blueprint enacted through electoral legitimacy.

Is the RSS Communal The Ideology of Unity through Assimilation

The RSS rejects the label communal and claims it seeks unity. But unity of what kind. When equal citizenship is conditional on cultural assimilation and when plurality is tolerated only if it bows to majority norms unity becomes indistinguishable from a project of majoritarian dominance. The question is not whether the RSS preaches hatred. The deeper question is whether its ideological structure produces exclusion and hierarchy by redefining citizenship through cultural identity rather than equal rights. In this sense the RSS may not call itself communal but its framework inevitably creates communal outcomes because its idea of India is rooted first in culture and only then in citizenship.

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.

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.