Article by Badal Saroj
Reporter: Sanjay Parate
RSS Sarsanghchalak Dr. Mohan Bhagwat has recently returned from a visit to the United States. The groundwork for this visit had already been laid in April by an RSS delegation led by Sarkaryawah Dattatreya Hosabale.
On April 23, at the Hudson Institute in Washington, RSS ideologue Ram Madhav, while presenting the organisation’s case before Bethany Polis Morrison, Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. State Department, said: “America asked us to stop buying oil from Iran and Russia, and we complied. America imposed a 50% tariff, and we accepted it. Later, when an 18% tariff was imposed, higher than on many others, we accepted that too. Despite strong criticism from the Opposition, we followed everything America asked of us. Yet America does not trust India. What exactly does America want from India?”
It is important to note that, in this context, “India” was effectively being used to refer to the RSS rather than the Indian nation, particularly given the recommendations previously made by U.S. bodies concerning the organisation, including calls for sanctions.
Dr. Bhagwat’s visit was a continuation of this effort. During his trip, he had much to do and much to say. He spoke about the coexistence of Hindus and Muslims, met representatives of American business houses, attended a food programme at ISKCON—an organisation that has often faced criticism from sections of the religious establishment associated with his ideological camp—and addressed a gathering of Indian-Americans at Madison Square.
One of the most striking aspects of his address was his invocation of Donald Trump’s favourite slogan, “America First,” without directly naming Trump. Bhagwat spoke about the duties of Indian-Americans and urged them to remain loyal to the United States. His words were:
“Maintaining a connection with India, the land of one’s birth, is a matter of personal choice and is not an obligation. But under all circumstances, they must remain sincere and loyal to America, their land of work.”
Such advice was neither necessary nor appropriate. In diplomatic discourse, leaders generally avoid making statements that could imply that their own country should be secondary to another nation. The United States is a country built from people of diverse origins, and it is difficult to recall another national leader publicly suggesting such a duality in which loyalty to the country of origin could be treated as optional.
In this sense, Bhagwat went even further than Ram Madhav. The words may have been addressed to Indian-Americans, but the message appeared equally intended for President Trump.
The irony is that these remarks came at a time when the Trump administration was publicly threatening and humiliating India. Even setting aside developments following the Pahalgam attack and the pressure exerted on India during trade negotiations, the American administration continued its aggressive rhetoric even while Bhagwat was praising loyalty to the United States.
Trump adviser Peter Navarro, citing a report titled The Great Transshipment Scam, claimed that India was “fully on America’s radar screen” among countries allegedly involved in repackaging or manipulating Chinese goods. He also threatened countries including India with punitive action under strict provisions.
On September 1, the United States reportedly warned BRICS countries, under India’s chairmanship, against any attempt to weaken the U.S. dollar’s position in global trade or pursue “de-dollarisation.” This came despite India’s efforts, under pressure from Washington, to avoid positions at BRICS summits that could be interpreted as explicitly anti-American.
One would naturally expect any fearless Indian public figure to at least express concern over such behaviour. If not condemnation, perhaps displeasure; if not displeasure, at least disagreement or regret. Yet Bhagwat said nothing of the sort.
As former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee might have put it: “This is not a good thing, Doctor Sahib.”
The Message on Hindu-Muslim Coexistence
A section of Bhagwat’s remarks in New York received considerable attention, particularly on social media. He was reported to have said:
“If a Hindu thinks that there should be no Muslims in India, then he will no longer remain a Hindu.”
Some interpreted this as a deeply significant statement that would disappoint those RSS supporters involved in targeting Muslim street vendors, questioning their kitchens, or engaging in provocative activities outside mosques.
But there is nothing particularly new in such a statement. Bhagwat has made similar remarks from time to time.
If his words are read carefully, however, the ideological distinction becomes apparent. From V.D. Savarkar to M.S. Golwalkar, the argument was not necessarily that Muslims or followers of other religions could not live in India. Rather, their writings envisaged their presence without equal citizenship rights.
The same ideological framework has historically had implications for Dalits, Adivasis, women and others. Yet applying it identically to Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or Sikhs is complicated because, as non-Hindus, they do not fall within the traditional framework of the Manusmriti.
Therefore, the more significant part of Bhagwat’s New York speech was not his statement on Muslims, but his remarks on caste.
He said that “every human being has equal dignity and there is no distinction among human beings on the basis of birth or caste.”
He further stated that “any form of discrimination on the basis of caste or community is completely contrary to the RSS’s ideology of Hindutva.”
He also spoke of unity as the fundamental reality despite caste differences, and said that although society may contain many castes, “no caste is higher or lower and everyone should receive equal human dignity.”
These remarks become particularly interesting when viewed against events taking place in India at the same time.
Manu’s Reality on the Ground
While Bhagwat was speaking in New York about equality and human dignity, incidents across India continued to highlight the persistence of caste discrimination.
Around Independence Day, reports emerged from villages that Dalit, tribal and women sarpanches were being prevented from hoisting the national flag. Many elected representatives from these communities have repeatedly complained that they are not even allowed to sit on their own chairs in their own offices.
In another incident, a BJP legislator reportedly complained that she was not allowed even to touch a brick at a temple being constructed in her own constituency.
The issue was not limited to unknown individuals or minor local positions. After a public meeting addressed by Mallikarjun Kharge, Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and a senior national politician, in Haldwani, an alleged purification ritual involving a yajna and Ganga water was reportedly carried out on the stage and surrounding area because Kharge belongs to the Dalit community.
The contradiction became even more striking because the BJP itself appeared to point towards elements associated with the broader Sangh ecosystem.
Initially, BJP leaders offered contradictory responses. BJP president J.P. Nadda condemned the incident and said that the party did not support such behaviour. Subsequently, a campaign emerged claiming that no such incident had occurred.
Later, however, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami and BJP state president Mahendra Bhatt acknowledged the incident. While distancing the BJP from it, they also defended or justified aspects of the purification ceremony.
Dhami said:
“None of the BJP workers were involved in the purification ceremony.”
Mahendra Bhatt, however, openly defended the event held at the Ramleela Maidan in Haldwani.
The alleged organiser, Girish Chandra Pandey, president of the Shri Ram Sena Dharmarth Seva Nyas, reportedly said that the purification ritual had been conducted to restore the sanctity of the place and make it suitable for a yajna.
When these developments are viewed alongside the aggressive slogans raised at Jantar Mantar in the name of abolishing reservations, and the abusive language reportedly directed at nearly 90% of India’s population, a larger political picture begins to emerge.
It suggests that a particular ideological battle over caste, representation and social equality is being prepared for the coming days.
Bhagwat and Swami Vivekananda
Supporters of Dr. Mohan Bhagwat attempted to portray his American visit as comparable to Swami Vivekananda’s historic visit to the United States 133 years ago.
But there is an important difference.
Swami Vivekananda was not merely a remarkable religious philosopher; he was also a powerful social reformer. He was an unusually forthright speaker who, while defending Hindu philosophy, openly condemned its social distortions.
His criticism of religious narrow-mindedness and caste discrimination was so severe that even many committed atheists would hesitate to express it with the same force.
Vivekananda regarded social narrowness and caste oppression as major obstacles to Indian civilisation. His writings contain hundreds of statements on the subject. A few are worth recalling.
He said:
“What has our religion been reduced to? Only untouchability—‘Don’t touch me, don’t touch me.’ We do not even touch them and drive them away saying, ‘Away, away.’ Are we human beings?”
He also observed:
“There is no religion on earth that preaches the glory of humanity in such a high voice as Hinduism, and there is no religion on earth that has strangled the poor and lower castes with such cruelty as Hinduism.”
He further argued that the oppression historically exercised by Brahmins and Kshatriyas had ultimately returned upon them as the consequences of their own actions.
And in another passage, he wrote that Brahmins had monopolised religious scriptures and social rules and had convinced other communities that they were inferior. If a person is repeatedly told, “You are low, you are low,” Vivekananda argued, eventually that person begins to believe it himself.
These were not merely abstract theological observations. They were a direct condemnation of caste oppression.
The Ideological Contradiction
It is difficult to believe that Dr. Bhagwat and senior RSS leaders are unaware of these historical arguments. But the fundamental question is whether the RSS sees its mission primarily as religious or political.
Critics argue that its ideological framework is rooted not only in religious thought but also in a political conception of nationalism articulated through texts and historical figures associated with the Sangh tradition.
They point to the writings of Savarkar and Golwalkar, including Hindutva, We, or Our Nationhood Defined and Bunch of Thoughts, as important sources for understanding this ideological framework. They also cite the writings and records associated with B.S. Moonje and his interaction with European fascist movements.
Indian-Americans and the 61 organisations that reportedly distanced themselves publicly from Bhagwat’s visit were aware of these ideological debates. That, perhaps, explains why some chose to publicly dissociate themselves from the RSS chief’s American tour.
The central contradiction, therefore, is difficult to ignore.
In New York, the message was equality, human dignity and rejection of caste discrimination. In India, incidents associated with caste hierarchy and social exclusion continue to surface.
The question is not merely what is said abroad. The real test is what happens at home.
And that is where the distance between the rhetoric of human dignity and the politics of Manu becomes most visible.
— Badal Saroj
The author is editor of Lokjatan and Joint Secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha.
Reporter: Sanjay Parate
