Marking the centenary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), its chief, Mohan Bhagwat, yet again spoke of Hindu Rashtra, a theocratic nature of the India that was rejected during the freedom struggle and, most importantly, by the Constituent Assembly, which framed the Constitution of India, the 75th anniversary of which is being celebrated across the country.

The RSS chief made a vein attempt at presenting a sanitised version of the Hindu Rashtra by explaining that it is not the same as a “Hindu nation”. He claimed that “...Hindu Rashtra has nothing to do with power”, excludes none and ensures justice for all "without any discrimination.”

Bhagwat, in his speech, also argued against the caste system that is widely practiced even today. But how can he reject the caste system while justifying the idea of a Hindu Rashtra whose building block is caste?

Engaging in communal rhetoric, the RSS chief said that while the Sangh would not launch any movement for getting back the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura to the Hindu fold, RSS members were free to join any agitation with this aim in their individual capacities.

The RSS chief's statements signal an intent to stoke communal tensions to neutralise the massive mobilisation of people around Rahul Gandhi’s claim of vote theft by the Bharatiya Janata Party and Modi in collusion with the Election Commission.

Twisting the meaning of independence

Bhagwat had claimed that while August 15, 1947, marked only India’s political independence, the consecration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya on January 22, 2024, ushered in the country’s ‘real’ independence. He gave the perverse logic that the nation’s spirit was lying dormant till 2024 and it was activated only after the Ram Mandir was consecrated.

By twisting the meaning of independence, Bhagwat clearly dismissed the ethos of the freedom struggle anchored in secular values which opposed the idea of a Hindu Rashtra. If he could give such a spin to the idea of independence and disfigure its core meaning, his interpretation of a Hindu Rashtra – by conveniently hiding its violent, offensive and harmful aspects – testifies to the trick he is adopting in its defence.

But it is not just Bhagwat who is peddling the idea of a Hindu Rashtra and the convoluted idea of real independence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has taken an oath owing allegiance to the Constitution, equated Ram with rashtra and dev (deity) with desh (country) while speaking in Ayodhya on the day the Ram temple was consecrated. Never before have such declarations been made by an Indian prime minister or president.

In fact, the first President of India, Rajendra Prasad, participated in the consecration of Somnath temple in Gujarat on May 11 1951 against the advice of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. While doing so, he spoke about the inescapable reasons behind India adopting the policy of secularism. He also referred to his visits to dargahs, mosques, churches and gurudwaras with the same feeling of respect with which he visited the temples of his faith. Prasad made a crucial point that  “…the policy of religious intolerance has always been and shall ever continue to be a failure”.

Bhagwat’s call to reclaim mosques

Bhagwat, apart from pleading for a Hindu Rashtra, asked RSS members to participate in their individual capacities in any movement to reclaim the Gyanvapi and Shahi Idgah mosques. This is a departure from his earlier stand against looking for a temple and Shiv Ling in every mosque.

Also read: Adding to Modi's – and India's – Woes, Bhagwat Stirs the Pot on Kashi, Mathura

Such rapid shifts in stance reveal a clear intent to target places of worship belonging to other faiths, in direct contravention of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which mandates that the character of shrines must remain as it was on August 15, 1947.

It must be noted that Bhagwat has remained silent when the so-called Dharam Sansads – attended by BJP and RSS leaders – issued calls for the killing of Muslims and for their complete exclusion from economic, political, and social life. Against this backdrop, Bhagwat’s claim that the RSS’s vision of a Hindu Rashtra excludes none and guarantees justice for all without discrimination rings hollow.

Idea of Hindu Rashtra has always been rejected

B.R. Ambedkar presciently wrote in his book Pakistan or Partition of India that Hindu Raj would result in a calamity and should be resisted with all our might.

The RSS chief should be mindful of the fact that when Sardar Vallabhai Patel asked the Hindu Kingdom of Travancore to join the Indian Union, its Dewan, Ramaswamy Iyer, refused to do so on the grounds that its sovereignty flowed from Lord Padmanav, who could not be made subservient to the sovereignty of India.

Hindutva ideologue V.D. Savarkar, whom RSS reveres, supported the Dewan's stand and attempted to foil Patel’s efforts to make Travancore a part of India. Bhagwat should refresh his history lessons and see how Savarkar, who advocated Hindutva, supported the ruler of Travancore in not joining the secular Indian Union.

On May 15, 1950, one year after the integration of that princely state with India, Patel visited Travancore and urged people not to get carried away by “the false cry of Hinduism in danger” raised by a section of people there. He assured them that Hinduism would never die in India.

It is well known that Calcutta in 1948 was embroiled in post-partition violence and Patel in his address to a vast gathering in that city on January 3, 1948 rejected the idea of Hindu Rashtra and asserted, “There could be no serious talk of a Hindu state.”

Bhagwat’s pleadings for a Hindu Rashtra therefore are endangering India and its Constitution, and people must step up to save both.

S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K R Narayanan.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.