Karan Thapar 
In 2000-2001, K.S. Sudarshan, former RSS sarsanghchalak or chief told Karan Thapar that the Indian constitution is alien to the India ethos and culture. In the explosive interview, which has resonances to the current time, Sudarshan makes it clear that he doesn’t endorse or support it. He also reflects on ties with the BJP.
Below is the full text of the interview.
Karan Thapar: Welcome to Hard Talk India. 75 years after its establishment, is the RSS a Hindu militant organisation or have its critics misunderstood it? Is it a modern-day threat or an out-of-date irrelevance? And with the BJP-led government in power, is it listened to or is it ignored? Today, in his first major television interview after becoming the RSS sarsanghchalak, K.S. Sudarshan has agreed to answer these questions as well as many others. Mr. Sudarshan, your critics say that the RSS is a Hindu militant fascist organisation with an orientation that is anti-Muslim, anti-Christian. How do you describe the RSS yourself?
K.S. Sudarshan: First of all, it is not militant. Just having a certain drill does not make you a militant organisation. Secondly, it can never be fascist because for fascism, power is a must.
Ours is a voluntary organisation. How can an organisation be a fascist? Thirdly, we are not anti-anybody, neither anti-Muslim nor anti-Christian.
Let me then therefore try and understand what it stands for.
The RSS prayer commits its members to the fulfilment of a Hindu Rashtra. What is a Hindu Rashtra and how central to your ideology is this?
First and foremost, Rashtra is not a political entity. It’s a cultural entity. It’s a geocultural entity. And that way, they just evolve over a long period.
So you see India as a culturally Hindu entity? True so. And is this central to your belief?
Yes, it is central to our belief. We say that it is a Hindu nation, and it’s not a new nation.
It is the ancient-most nation in the world.
You have said of India, and I’ll quote, till such time that there is even one Hindu left, it will remain a Hindu Rashtra. Are you saying that in fact, in your eyes, India by definition is Hindu?
India by definition is Hindu. The culture of this country is Hindu. Because Hindus form the backbone of this nation.
So then where in this concept of a Hindu Rashtra do Indian Christians and Indian Muslims fit in? They are also part and parcel of this national line.
They are not from outside.
But they are not Hindus.
Maybe, because a Hindu does not mean a particular religion. Hindu means a particular culture.
You define Hindu not by religion but by culture.
Yes, we do so. And that culture is based on the concept of unity and diversity.
Are you also saying that all Indian Christians and Muslims, at some point in time before they converted, were in fact Hindus, and therefore the core identity of this entire country’s population is Hindu?
Yes, true so. Their forefathers were Hindu. And the blood flowing in their spines is also, and the blood of their forefathers is Hindu, simply because they have changed the mode of worship. That does not alleviate them from their cultural bonding.
Genetically, they are Hindu. That’s what you are saying.
They are Hindu, definitely. Moreover, even the Muslims in this country, when they go outside, are termed as Hindus. Those who go to Saudi Arabia, they are all called Hindus. They are Hindus.
And therefore you are saying that is proof that their core identity is Hindu.
Core identity is Hindu, and the people who belong to the Hindu is the name of the national of these people. To whichever religion they may be subscribing to.
One of your predecessors, Mr. Golwalkar, in his book, We Are Nation Defined, said that Indian Christians and Indian Muslims cannot but be foreigners until they discard their religion and culture. Do you subscribe to those views today?
No. First and foremost, they do not have a separate culture. First and foremost, the culture is always of the majority. And the people following different religions, they also should subscribe to the same culture. Because that is what democracy means.
So there is no such thing as a Muslim or a Christian culture. Indian Christians and Indian Muslims are Hindu in cultural terms.
No, no. Only thing is they should accept that. And I shall give an example of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru delivered a convocation address in Aligarh University in 1948. In that he said, ‘I am a Hindu. You are a Muslim. We may have different religions. And we have no religion also. But do you feel the same thrill about our cultural inheritance, which I feel belongs to me as much as it belongs to you?’
But there is a difference, Mr. Sudarshan. He talked about that as an Indian culture. You are calling it a Hindu culture. You are actually associating the culture with the Hindu religion.
Hindu is not a religion at all. When you say it is a religion, it is a relationship with God. There are so many religions in society.
Isn’t that what a religion is? A relationship between the individual and God, whether it is a Christian religion or a Muslim religion. That is religion by definition. So Hinduism is as much of a religion as Islam or Christianity.
It’s not. How? Because in Hindus, there are people who subscribe to God. There are agnostics, there are atheists. They are all called Hindus.
Forgive me for interrupting. There is a catch to what you are saying. You are saying that Indian Christians and Indian Muslims remain in a sense peripheral to your concept of a Hindu Rashtra unless they are prepared to accept your central tenet, which is that their core identity, regardless of their religion, remains Hindu. If they make that acceptance, they become part of a Hindu Rashtra.
If they don’t make that acceptance, they are peripheral to it.
No. What I mean to say is, ultimately they will accept this thing.
Only thing is, how you try to know what is happening is, because of the political competencies of different political parties, they are more concerned about the good bank.
You wish to persuade them rather than coerce them. Okay, let me put it like this. If you define India as a Hindu Rashtra, then how does the RSS relate to the present Indian constitution, and in particular, how do you relate to its political philosophy of secularism and special minority rights for Christians and Muslims?
The Hindu concept of state has always been secular. And therefore the state is different from what we call Rashtra. I do not equate it with nation, because nation, as it is conceived in the West…
So you accept the constitution as it is?
No. What we say is, this constitution does not reflect the basic ethos of this nation.
Precisely. M.S. Golwalkar, your predecessor, in his book A Bunch of Thoughts, says there is nothing in the constitution which we call our own.
This whole constitution is based on the Government of India Act of 1935. Some of the things from other constitutions have been added to it. It is not an evolved one. Are you saying it is alien to India’s character and thinking? True so. It does not reflect it.
Is this what you meant when just after you became Sarsanghachalak, you were widely quoted in the press as saying we should scrap the constitution?
I did not say scrap the constitution. I did not say scrap the constitution. When the question was asked, it was in context that the constitution was being reviewed, ‘what is your opinion?’. I told them that they say that the basic structure of the constitution should not be touched. But they have not defined the basic structure. If the basic structure is democracy, then there is a wide range to discuss. Because there are so many forms of democracy.
If the basic structure is special rights for minorities to give them a sense of security…
We do not accept the concept of minority at all. They are not minorities.
So there is no need for special rights either in your eyes?
True. That should not be.
Would you also go further? Would you say that in fact secularism therefore as a special articulated concept is irrelevant because Hinduism is secularism as you said a moment ago?
True so. Throughout our history, our state has never differentiated anybody. On the basis of its religion.
So you are saying that there is no need for the constitution to be actually secular? Hinduism guarantees that?
A political state will always be secular because it deals with secular matters. So therefore, you should not call it secular. And there was no word secular. It was put in during the emergency. There was no word in secular. Even the people said, this country is secular only because the Hindus are a majority in this country. And this thing was repeated by Sonia Gandhi also.
You think the constitution should therefore be amended to reflect this?
True so. We should evolve our own constitution. The constitution cannot be imposed on us. Since 1909, the whole constitution has been imposed on us. We have not evolved it. It must evolve.
So you want a thorough review of the constitution to reflect India’s actual Hindu character?
Not only myself, even Dr. Ambedkar said the same thing in his concluding speech over the constitution. He said, ‘each generation is a nation in itself. It can bind itself by the will of the majority to a particular legal system. But it cannot bind the coming generation’.
And you are not feeling bound today by a constitution that was created 50 years ago.
What I mean to say, it needs an utter review. It must be reviewed completely. Whether whatever we started with is fulfilled or not.
That’s the first question. And the second question with which this review must happen is to reflect what you call the essential, unchangeable Hindu character of the people. That’s your second reason. You are in fact saying that you would like a Hindu review of the constitution, to put it like that.
When you say Hindu review, again you are misinterpreting Hindu for a particular religion.
No, I’m saying Hindu in the terms in which you mean it now. A review of the constitution to reflect the Hindu cultural character of the people.
Our constitution should reflect our national ethos.
And at the moment you’re saying it doesn’t?
Definitely.
And so when Indian Christians and Indian Muslims and other minorities turn around and say, don’t touch the constitution, we are very happy with it, what do you say to them?
One thing is that those people who are being hoarse about this review of this constitution, they themselves have tampered with the constitution for the last 15 years. The political parties and even the Communist Party have passed a decision saying, scrap this constitution. Today they are defending it.
So you’re saying they have no right to object.
Definitely, they have no right to object.
At the very core of the ideology of the RSS is the belief that Indians are Hindu and India is a Hindu Rashtra.
That is an unshakable central core of your belief.
That is our article of faith.
In 1925 when the RSS was founded by Dr. Hedgewar, it was a single organization. Today you have a full parivar consisting of a lot of others. Let me put this to you. What is the relationship between the RSS and the Bharatiya Janata Party?
Our relationship is only with the swayamsevak. Because the Bharatiya Janata Party and the RSS, they are autonomous organizations, they have got different constitutions, they have got different objectives.
But it is part of the same parivar.
You can say it is a part of an ideological construct.
Of which the RSS is the centre, the mother?
True so. Because many of the censors who formed the Janata Party, first, and which was converted into BJP afterwards, they came from the RSS stock.
Quite right. And would I therefore be right in saying that the Bharatiya Janata Party was formed to realize further and create a political opportunity for the RSS ideology to be fulfilled?
What we say is that the Hindu ethos should reflect differently in every walk of social life. Of which one is the political field also. So our censors have gone to each and every field of social life.
So as you said, the BJP exists to reflect the Hindu ethos in the political field.
Yes.
Okay, so then when in 1998 and again in 1999, the BJP put its political ideology on the back burner to come to power, in your eyes, was that clever politics or was it a mistake?
As a matter of fact, when you are in politics, many times you have to make compromises. And you must allow them to do this. And they are doing that.
So compromise is essential to come to power, is that what you are saying?
Not that. But whenever there are certain political situations like that, in which you have to make compromises, you must give that much play to them to do it.
But nonetheless, as we said, the RSS is the core of the ideological circle within which the BJP lives. That being the case, was the BJP right to give up its commitment to the abrogation of Article 370, to the creation of a Uniform Civil Code, to the building of a Ram Temple, and in giving it up, has it strengthened itself or has it weakened its identity?
I don’t believe that the BJP has left all those things. It is only the NDA government, because they have specifically said…
The BJP has officially said it has put it on the back burner.
No, that’s alright.
But what we feel is that BJP is a political party. And as a political party, they must educate the public about the different programs which gave it a special niche in the hearts of the people over here. And therefore, it should not tie itself with only the NDA government.
In the NDA government, there are political parties also. They have not left their programs. But the BJP has left this programme.
So, the BJP has put it on the back burner as far as the government is concerned. Otherwise, the BJP should be free to educate the public or expand its organization according to it.
But is it doing that?
We feel that they should do it. They should do it. And if they don’t do it, because at the moment they are not doing it… It is for them to decide.
Tell me something. When compromises are made, and clearly here the BJP has made certain compromises by putting certain issues on the back burner. When compromises are made, they are judged at the end of the day by whether they paid off or not. As you see it, will this compromise deliver results or do you think the BJP could be the net loser?
That we’ll have to see when they complete the five-year term.
Are the BJP supporters, are the BJP’s well-wishers disillusioned with the party? It will have to see. When they go to the hustings, then it will be decided whether people are disillusioned or not.
You are suggesting, Mr. Sudarshan, that in fact people, when they go to the hustings, won’t vote for the BJP the same way again.
They may. They may not vote. Ultimately, it is the public who have to decide whether they are disillusioned or not. And they will also ultimately know it from the decision of the public only.
The tone and tenor of everything that you’re saying suggests that you yourself are disillusioned. You keep saying the BJP has to decide what it does, but you don’t sound as if you’re convinced by what it’s done.
What I mean to say is, we understand their compulsions.
That in the present set of circumstances, they have no other choice. They have no other choice, or they have to act under certain constraints. And particularly there are three constraints under which they have to work.
Quite right. The constraints are, of course, well known. Forgive me interrupting. But what I’m trying to understand from you is, do you think those compromises were worth making, or has the BJP lost something that made it different? Has it ceased to be the party with the difference?
As the thing stands today, we do not feel that it is acting as a party with a difference. And therefore, it is for the BJP to decide and know the pulse of the people.
Because if they do not put their finger on the pulse of the people, and that is for the party to decide, it’s not for the government. Ultimately, the party has to go to the general people, and the party has to know what the people are thinking about it. It is for them to decide.
You are also suggesting that the party has lost its ability to feel the pulse of the people.
Now, unless and until they lay more stress on their organisation, and try to educate the people, and try to know from them what ultimately the people are thinking, they will be cut away from the public, ultimately in a democracy.
Mr. Sudarshan, you are saying that by coming to power in the circumstances in which they did, the BJP organisation and the BJP ability to reflect the mood of the people, both of these are suffering.
At the present moment, it appears like that.
You are actually sending out an important message of correction if they listen to you, aren’t you?
It is for them to ultimately decide whether they will listen to us or not.
Sometimes they don’t listen to you?
They don’t. We cannot force anybody to listen to us. They are an autonomous organisation, they have to decide for themselves.
We can only suggest. They may accept our suggestion, they may not accept our suggestion. We cannot force anybody to do what we say, and we do not also claim that whatever we say must be accepted by them.
You give me the feeling that there are many occasions when you try to make suggestions and they haven’t listened to you. Is that the case?
Maybe, because ultimately we make our suggestions according to feedback that we get, and according to the perception that we have. They may have a different perception, they may have a different feedback also.
So they may decide.
And you are also saying that the longer they don’t listen to you, the greater the danger that when the next election comes, they will lose seats.
No, I cannot say that.
But it’s a danger.
I just suggest that we will have to look to these things, to listen to their cadre also, listen to the general public also, know the pulse of the public, and then decide what they have to do. The only thing is, even in the present constraints, if they can provide at least a good measure of a good government, then only people can say, well, till now we did not get a good government. If they can give a corruption-free government.
Let me put that to you. Are they giving good government? Are they giving corruption-free government?
As far as the central government is concerned, we cannot say anything.
Why?
Because they are working under constraints. But in Gujarat, they have done some very good experiments.
Let me come back and continue with the central government. The RSS believes that Article 370 should be abrogated. Far from abrogating it, this government is today talking to Hizbul Mujahideen without constitutional preconditions. Do you approve of that?
When the people are coming to the talking table, this should be welcomed.
But without preconditions?
Maybe. But ultimately, whether whatever they put has to be accepted or not, ultimately it is the government to decide. But what is the harm? Let them put forward their views.
In between, you were questioning the BJP and their decision, but now you are supporting the way they are handling the Kashmir talks. Is that correct?
Because ultimately it is for them to solve the problem, and the best way to solve the problem is to have a dialogue. Then they themselves are coming forward to have a dialogue. Let them have a dialogue.
What about the Prime Minister’s statement, as he put it, that we can have a dialogue in the name of humanity? Do you think that is a welcome remark, or is that a dangerous precedent?
Let us see what…The path of humanity is all right. But the path of humanity, ultimately what comes out of the talks.
That’s what counts.
That is important. Ultimately what comes from talks is important. Unless and until you talk to them, unless you try to know what their problem is, you will not be able to understand how to solve it. And today in Kashmir also, only one-sixth part of the valley has got a different opinion.
The rest, Jammu and Ladakh, want full integration of the state. And there are movements going on in that area for a triplication of the state.
Which are dangerous and you are against it. Let me come back once again to this question of the government’s policies.
On Kashmir, your central belief is that the government is wise to talk without preconditions. But would you say that the outcome has to be within the parameters of the Indian constitution? And so is there not a danger that if the talks are without preconditions, the government could find itself pushed against its will?
Not necessarily. There is no danger. It ultimately depends upon the sagacity of the government to steer clear from the pitfalls that may be there in such talks.
Are you confident that this government has that sagacity?
Yes, we are confident.
Because a moment ago, very clearly you were saying that this government has disillusioned its cadres and its supporters. It runs the risk of losing votes at the next election. It runs the risk of having made compromises without delivering results.
And now when we move to Kashmir, your entire attitude has become supportive and understanding. You believe that in fact there is no danger in holding talks without preconditions. There is almost a 180° u-turn here.
As a matter of fact, you cannot always deride all the policies of the government. Some of the policies that the government has put in place are good. And whatever policies are beneficial to the nation, you must support them.
A new voice of the RSS is speaking up. The dragon, if I may use that phrase, is deliberately presenting itself in a better, kinder, gentler light. Is this deliberate? Or is it simply that up till now we have misunderstood it?
I think it is because of the misunderstanding.
Because the problems in this country have to be talked out and solved. Without talking and solving, you will not come to any understanding at all. Let them talk.
You do not constrain, restrict them when they talk to the people. Let all these things come forward. Then we shall decide what happens.
A moment ago you said that on many things where you advise the government, they don’t listen. Is this an area where you think they will listen to you on Kashmir?
We never expect the government to listen to us. What we say is that we, in our perception, suggest certain things.
Perhaps they may be having greater feedback and they may be thinking in another direction. It is for them to decide. Ultimately, whatever the government does, it is according to their decisions.
We, as a volunteer organization, as a nationalist organization, having the interest of the nation, our touchstone is whether any decision of the government is in the interest of the nation or not. So ultimately, whatever comes out of the talks will have to be judged on the basis of whether it is in national interest or not. Let them talk. Let them come out.
Mr. Sudarshan, thank you for clarifying your position and for speaking so openly about some of your reservations, perhaps even your fears of the government, thank you very much indeed.
Transcribed by Manya Singh.