CIHS – Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies

Date/Time:

Rising above Caste, Creed & Social Status

RSS strongly believes that distortions that have crept in need to be addressed as Hindu society goes about reclaiming its lost glory. Vinod Kumar Shukla Bharat that holds Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam (world is one family) as its philosophical foundation frequently faces accusations of being oppressive, unjust and regressive towards certain sections of its own people. But, how far does this charge hold true? To argue that Bhartiya society is innately regressive is historic mischaracterisation. Claims that its civilizational pathway inherently denies equal rights are unfounded. It is true, however, that Bharatiya society lately fractured along caste lines due to a rigid, hereditary system that crept in is a distortion that is neither correct nor intrinsically Indic. Throughout civilizational history spanning over 5,000 – 7,000 years, institutional aberrations were bound to occur across different eras and regions. Yet, Bhartiya society not only recognised these flaws at certain period of time but proactively corrected them from within. Emergence of Mahatma Gautam Buddha, Mahavir Swami, Adi Shankaracharya, Sant Kabir, Guru Nanak and innumerable other saints and social reformers demonstrate a robust internal tradition of reform and corrective processes operating under larger Sanatan umbrella. But it is foreign interventions that profoundly impacted both social fabric and collective psyche of Bharat. While Islamic invasions brought existential threats to life, faith and dignity, European colonizers deployed strategic narratives designed to divide and disintegrate Hindu society. Modern concept of ‘caste’ was one such foreign intervention manufactured by drawing a false parallel with ancient concept of Varna. English word “caste” is derived from Portuguese and Spanish word ‘casta’ which means race, lineage or breed. This European construct is being used to demonize Varna by Breaking Bharat brigade which was not hereditary. Most of ancient Bhartiya treatises explicitly state that Varna is determined by work profile, merit, conduct rather than birth. As Skanda Purana, the largest one, notes: जन्मना जायते शूद्रः संस्काराद् द्विज उच्यते। वेदपाठात् भवेत् विप्रः ब्रह्म जानाति ब्राह्मणः।। (Book VI, Nagara Kanda, Chapter 239, Verses 31-34) “By birth, everyone is a Shudra (an ordinary person). By undergoing purificatory rites and moral education, one becomes a Dwija (twice-born). By studying Vedas, one becomes a Vipra (learned), and one who realizes Brahman (the Ultimate Truth) is known as a Brahmana.” This clear distinction is reinforced in Srimad Bhagavad Gita, where Lord Krishna reveals to Arjuna: चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागश: । तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विद्ध्यकर्तारमव्ययम् ॥ 4.13॥ “Four categories of occupations were created by me according to people’s qualities and activities. Although I am the creator of this system, know Me to be the non-doer and eternal.” Srimad Bhagavad Gita further dwelves that varna system is not by birth but by action when it says: ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप । कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणै: ॥ 18.41॥ Duties of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras—are distributed according to their qualities, their guṇas (and not by birth). But contemporary discourse around caste has been heavily shaped by colonial interventions, Western framing and specific ideological agendas by falsely equating it with Varna. Both external and internal forces working against interest of Bharat have weaponized the caste narrative to delegitimize Hindu tradition, value system and civilization, blaming it for systemic discrimination while ignoring historical distortions introduced by the British. Clearly birth-based caste system finds no support in Vedic traditions. All these distortions were done with a purpose. To disrupt the social harmony of a self-sustaining Bhartiya society, colonial administrators used censuses and codifications to institutionalize and freeze fluid social groups. Communities that once enjoyed social mobility were boxed into rigid hereditary categories. The first all-India census was conducted in 1871, followed by classifications under H H Risley in the 1901 census that formalized these divisions. Risley operationalized theory that varna, however ancient, could be rigidly applied to all modern occupations and groups in Bharat. Thrusted upon the society and repeated for generations, this artificial classification became a major impediment to social harmony. In present context, companies like Cisco and some state legislatures in United States continue to drive the narrative of caste as an impediment to social and economic progression in Bharat and hence identified caste as an issue of concern. Against this backdrop, Samajik Samrasta (Social Harmony) initiative of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) gains significance aiming to counter these distortions and restore the original spirit of civilization. In modern digital age, where social media often exacerbates social fractures, targeted grassroots intervention becomes even more vital. Samajik Samrasta is intensified in centenary year of the RSS which ideated on five core social transformative ideas as ‘Panch Parivartan’ (Five Transformations). Samajik Samrasta is one of them. Anticipating threat posed by caste divisions, many of which were legacies of the colonial era and aberrations within the Bharatiya society, RSS initiated its anti-discrimination work decades ago. Dr Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, founder and first Sarsanghachalak (chief) of RSS included erasing internal divisions within Hindu society as one core vision of the organisation, believing that national strength could not be built on a divided Hindu society. Way back in 1925, he emphasized that every Swayamsevak (volunteer) must embrace shared civilizational identity as Hindu first, transcending caste lines. Second Sarsanghchalak M S Golwalkar while defending the functional philosophy of the varna system, strongly criticized its degeneration into a rigid, birth-based hierarchy renamed as Caste by the British. He also denounced untouchability as a historic deviation from true Hindu principles and called for its total elimination. Even M K Gandhi advocated for original concept of Varna while Dr B R Ambedkar, in his seminal work ‘Who Were the Shudras?’ posited that Shudras were originally part of the Kshatriyas (the second Varna). He quoted several scriptures to suggest that there were three Varnas at some places and four elsewhere. However, his quest remains that who were modern days Shudras? Subsequent RSS leadership accelerated these social integration efforts. The third Sarsanghchalak, Balasaheb Deoras, placed equality and social harmony at centre of organization’s outreach, famously declaring in 1974: “If untouchability is not wrong, then nothing is wrong in the world.” Current Sarsanghchalak, Mohan Bhagwat, continues to

Read More

Futuristic Blueprint for Humanity

Panch Parivartan of RSS provides a transformative package for Bharat while communities globally could adopt the model. Vinod Kumar Shukla ​For its centennial events, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideated on five core social transformative ideas as ‘Panch Parivartan’ (Five Transformations). Samajik Samrasta (Social Harmony), Kutumb Prabodhan (Family Enlightenment), Paryavaran Sanrakshan (Environmental Protection), Nagrik Kartavya (Civic Duties) and Swa / Swadeshi (Self-Reliance) as areas into which the Hindu-centric organization would like to work on. These initiatives serve as tools to transform Bharat’s society and provide a template for global communities. These five transformative campaigns represent collective resolutions to prepare people of Bharat to deal with futuristic challenges. By fostering essential behavioural changes, they aim to drive national renaissance and build stronger, self-reliant Bharat: Samajik Samrasta (Social Harmony) ​Pluralism is as old as the civilization of Bharat itself. It is a heritage where diverse ideas including contrarian philosophies and opposing viewpoints have not only been welcomed but have coexisted and flourished. People of Bharat are inherently seekers who engage in dialogue rather than denying or negating the very existence of others. ​Samajik Samrasta programme is to promote unity and eliminate discrimination based on caste, creed or social status to build an inclusive society. In an ancient civilization like Bharat, social realignments are periodic necessity. RSS vision of social harmony begins with breaking down caste and community barriers. This is exemplified by call for Hindus to share “one temple, one well and one crematorium,” effectively erasing caste segregation at its source. While this is a prominent example, continuous efforts are being made to extend support to every section of society that feels marginalized or left behind. ​Kutumb Prabodhan (Family Values) ​After the individual, family constitutes the most vital unit of any society or the nation. Family being foundational unit, nurturing strong familial values, healthy dialogue within the family members and constructive cultural traditions in the household is primary objective of Kutumb Prabodhan. ​Over time, the institution of the family has weakened due to various factors, facing a continuous onslaught from Western influences and those in Bharat swayed by them. RSS aims to strengthen this very institution, recognizing that a resilient family structure builds a robust society and consequently, a strong nation. In Bharat, family values are not viewed as a form of bondage; rather, they are the cornerstone of personal growth and social stability, nurturing responsible, compassionate citizens. ​Paryavaran Sanrakshan (Protection of Environment) ​Today, entire globe faces the fury of nature, a direct consequence of unimpeded exploitation of natural resources. Encouraging sustainable living, tree plantation and a lifestyle that respects nature is deeply embedded in Bharat’s civilizational ethos, where the earth, rivers, seas, air, water, trees, moon and sun are traditionally worshiped. ​In championing culture and civilization, RSS is simply advancing these ancient tenets that treat environmental protection as a cardinal rule of life. Through Panch Parivartan, RSS has made an “environment-friendly lifestyle” a core focus area. The message of Paryavaran Sanrakshan—saving water and using natural resources judiciously—is now transcending generations with each age group adopting its own methods to protect the planet. It represents a collective movement where different people take diverse paths toward a common cause. ​Selfhood & Self-Reliance (Swa) ​If there is anything that was severely eroded over past millennium, it was sentiment of Swa (Selfhood). Realizing essence of Swa is crucial; it begins with taking pride in indigenous roots, promoting local economies and embracing “Swadeshi” way of life as against western economic aggression. This is the core of being self-reliant and proudly Bharatiya. ​The element of Swa extends beyond economic independence to encompass cultural self-confidence. This principle is applied through a five-fold transformative agenda known as Panchamukhi Vikas, which focuses on Swa (Self-Reliance), Shiksha (Education), Swasthya (Health), Sanskar (Culture) and Artha (Economy). Civic Duty (Nagrik Kartavya) ​The citizens of Bharat are frequently criticized for a perceived lack of civic sense, which is vital for the transformation of any society. The RSS seeks to instil deep sense of duty among citizens, encouraging them to follow rule of law, adhere to constitutional obligations and maintain social decency apart from participation in societal governance. ​This also includes a citizen’s democratic duty to exercise their franchise during elections. While many people harbour cynicism toward “the system,” Panch Parivartan urges citizens to actively change the system from within instead of merely complaining. Among the five resolutions, Environmental Protection is the most critical for survival of mankind. The immediate priority is raising awareness about vital importance of environmental conservation and educating people on how to achieve it. As pressure on natural resources intensifies, several interventions have become urgent: protecting fresh drinking water bodies, undertaking large-scale afforestation to combat global warming, balancing oxygen levels, preventing soil erosion and eliminating single-use plastics to safeguard rivers, farmlands and oceans. The RSS seeks to address these challenges by blending traditional ecological practices with civic responsibility and community-driven movements. ​The greatest immediate challenge is rapid development-linked urbanization which leaves a heavy negative footprint on the environment. Western model of development has caused maximum ecological harm. In contrast, Bharat not only talks but proposes eco-friendly development models. It also proved by achieving its initial goal of reducing emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 –35 per cent well ahead of 2030 deadline and has since escalated its ambition, targeting a 47 per cent reduction by 2035. ​However, global progress on this is hindered by a long-standing schism between developed and developing nations. Many developed countries are reluctant to compromise or deviate from high-emission paths that initially secured their wealth. Consequently, developing nations are being pressured to reduce their carbon footprints disproportionately while others falter—such as the United States’ past withdrawal from climate agreements. The list of faltering nations is long. Denying access to eco-friendly technologies and funding arrangements by the stubborn Western leadership is yet again an issue ​Bharat not only abides by Paris Agreement but advocates for a sustainable development model that rejects aggressive consumerism. This model aligns with ancient Indian wisdom, which emphasizes that humanity is an integral

Read More

Bhojshala Verdict: Constitutional and Historical Perspectives

On May 15, 2026, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a historic decision recognizing the Bhojshala complex as the temple of Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati), overturning 2003 dual-use arrangement barring namaz on Fridays inside the site. Court established an evidence-based system for resolving heritage disputes based on the ASI’s 2024 scientific study, historical evidence connecting the site to Raja Bhoj’s Paramara-era Sanskrit learning center and the persistence of Hindu worship while allowing the Muslim community to seek alternate site for a mosque in the Dhar area. The decision, which prioritises historical and archeological evidence over administrative compromise, is a significant development in India’s heritage jurisprudence.

Read More

RSS at 100: A Civilisational Dialogue

In April 2026, in the centenary year of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). RSS Sarkaryavah, Dattatreya Hosabale, undertook a sequence of engagements across the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany. During his engagements, he addressed Chatham House in London, the inaugural THRIVE 2026 summit at the Stanford Faculty Club, the Hudson Institute in Washington, the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Berlin, alongside Nobel laureates, legislators, academic communities, business leaders, community leaders and members of the Indian diaspora in all three countries. Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies has released RSS at 100: A Civilisational Dialogue, a structured account of these engagements and of the philosophical foundations on which the world’s largest socio-cultural movement now offers a hundred years of reflection and experience to humanity at large for global good. Download & Read Full Brief:

Read More

Referendum Farce: Story Written in Karachi, Staged in New York

Rohan Giri On April 29, 2026, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun announced a Khalistan Referendum voter registration drive from the Karachi Press Club. He was speaking via video link from New York. He was targeting Sikhs who live inside Bharat. The venue, the man and the medium together tell a story that his words never could. There is a particular kind of political performance that is designed not to succeed, but to persist, not to achieve a goal, but to manufacture the appearance of. On April 29, 2026, Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) chief Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a man proscribed under Bharat’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act along with his organisation, delivered precisely such a presentation from the Karachi Press Club. Speaking via video link from New York, he announced that SFJ would launch a phased voter registration drive for the purported Khalistan Referendum targeting Sikhs residing across all Bharatiiya states. Beginning in Delhi, moving to Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, and ending the registrations in Punjab itself. The sequencing was revealing. A movement that claims Punjab as its spiritual and political homeland does not begin its campaign there. It begins in Delhi, because it knows Punjab will not listen. Bharatiya officials did not miss the significance of the venue. Pakistan’s establishment was openly offering its platform to an organisation that has called for violent attacks inside Bharat and the assassination of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The SFJ has glorified terrorist Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and treated perpetrators of the Air India Kanishka bombing in which 329 people were killed, as heroes. That Pakistan now provides this group a podium at one of Karachi’s most visible press institutions is not coincidence. Pakistan is playing this game out in the open and is not even bothering to conceal its backing to a terrorist organisation. The brazenness is itself the message, a message directed not at Sikhs in Bharat, but at the ISI’s own operatives, diaspora handlers and global media amplifiers, telling them that the Khalistan project retains state-level patronage. One has to look at trail of its failures in order to comprehend why Karachi has now again emerged as this campaign’s operational hub. In order to undermine and divert Indian government, the ISI started protracted proxy war by aiding the Khalistan movement in Punjab, as this timeline already makes clear. Since 1980s, this tactic has never been formally discontinued. What has changed is the terrain. Operations for SFJ have become significantly harder in Canada and United Kingdom where governments have come under growing domestic and diplomatic pressure to scrutinise separatist activities more carefully. With Western soil getting increasingly inhospitable, Rawalpindi has fallen back on what it controls directly. Offering Karachi Press Club to Pannun is a desperate move to rake up the movement in Bharat after multiple attempts have failed, as officials have assessed. Timing of April 29 announcement was again not coincidental. That same week, Punjab Police dealt another significant blow to ISI – Khalistan terror network recovering a cache that included a rocket-propelled grenade, two packs of RDX, a metallic improvised explosive device, hand grenades, detonators, high-end pistols, wireless sets and timer switches which meant to be used in massive attacks across the state. Director General of Police Gaurav Yadav confirmed the recovery was linked to an ongoing investigation into the Shambhu railway track IED blast case, as well as grenade attack on the Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) office in Moga in 2025. This was not an isolated seizure. In prior weeks, Punjab Police had busted two separate ISI-backed Babbar Khalsa International terror modules recovering RPG launchers, additional IEDs, RDX and a fleet of vehicles with accused persons linked to Pakistan-based handler Harvinder Singh Rinda. The farce of referendum announcement and arms consignments are not parallel stories. They are part of same story, one being propaganda arm and the other as operational arm of the same ISI-directed network. Pannun’s remarks at Karachi press conference stripped away whatever pretence of a civic movement SFJ has had claimed till date. He also claimed that 1.8 million people had participated in the referendum worldwide (a figure that Intelligence Bureau officials dismissed as fabricated, noting that the SFJ has consistently fudged numbers in the past, putting out exaggerated figures to give the impression of traction for a movement that demonstrably lacks it). He pledged to back Pakistan to the fullest in the event of any future tensions with Bharat. He heaped praise on Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir, the same officer who, after Bharat’s Operation Sindoor in May 2025, was promoted to Field Marshal by the Pakistani government for his role in the conflict. A designated terrorist, operating out of New York, cheering a Pakistani general from a Karachi press club, Pannun promised to stand with an adversarial state against Bharat. One must ask: who precisely is Pannun speaking for? The answer is not the Sikh community. The referendum in itself carries no significance whatsoever. SFJ held the first phase of its unofficial and non-binding referendum exercise in London in October 2021. Since then, it has conducted similar theatrics in Canada, Switzerland and Australia, each time claiming record numbers that no independent body has verified. Not one government has moved a single step towards recognising outcome. The reason is structural given that international law’s right to self-determination applies to peoples under colonial domination or foreign military occupation. Bharat’s Sikhs meet neither criterion. They are full citizens of the world’s largest democracy, represented at every level of Bharatiya state from Parliament to judiciary, armed forces to highest office on the land. The legal and philosophical scaffolding for the farcical Khalistan referendum does not exist anywhere in serious jurisprudence. What SFJ produces instead is theatre, elaborate, expensive and entirely hollow. Punjab’s own ballot boxes deliver most decisive verdict. The 2022 Punjab Assembly elections saw Aam Aadmi Party win 92 of 117 seats, majority 79 per cent on an agenda of governance, farmers’ welfare, and electricity. The demand for a separate Sikh homeland did not feature in that mandate. The trauma of

Read More

Dismantling Hindutva: Unfinished Balkanisation of Bharat!

Vinod Kumar Shukla Push to break up Hindus is not a standalone debate; it reflects a broader, coordinated effort to reshape the civilisational identity of Bharat. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, proponent of two-nation theory started Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in Aligarh in 1875 that evolved to Aligarh Muslim University in 1920. It took just 66 years for the university to turn into an arsenal of Muslims and students as its best soldiers. This is what Mohammad Ali Jinnah told students of the university in March 1941. Under Jinnah’s tutelage, a committee of writers from All India Muslim League was constituted with Jamil Uddin Ahmed, a teacher at AMU as its convener to bring out ‘Pakistan Literature Series’ to push for a separate homeland for Muslims. The importance that Muslim League gave to AMU students can be discerned from the fact that ‘Muslim University Muslim League’ was given the status of a separate unit. The target was obviously Hindus and the project was to seek a separate land for Muslims. In this backdrop, AMU or any other institution seeking to ‘Dismantle Hindutva’ or hold campaigns or seminars on hateful discourse like ‘Annihilate Hinduism’ should not come as a surprise. It’s part of a larger design. Through these campaigns, unfinished Balkanisation project of India seem to be pursued rampantly. Under the guise of ‘freedom of speech and expression’ and hiding behind hyperbolic academic jargons, a section of people not only target multi- millennia old ‘way of life’ Hindutva but dog-whistle against the faith they practice. There seems to be a systemic onslaught from outside Bharat and within through corporate funding mechanisms. Exploiting faultlines within Hindu society seem to be the way to go. Several educational institutions like AMU have become a tool to propagate anti-Hindu narrative and now technology has come handy to amplify these messages across platforms. A sari-clad man with beautiful ear pieces on a poster with ‘Annihilate Hinduism’ in the background at Azim Premji University went viral on social media last week. Some claim that the poster was old. But that is irrelevant as such campaigns surface periodically with new plans. Otherwise how does one explain Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Association’s ‘Sanatana Abolition Conference’ on September 2, 2023. The event was graced by then minister in Tamil Nadu government Udhayanidhi Stalin, son of M K Stalin. Udayanidhi equated Sanatana Dharma to “dengue” and “malaria”, calling for its complete ‘eradication’. This extreme Hindumisia is institutionalized and such events happen routinely at institutions like Ashoka University, O P Jindal Global University, a few IITs and even some central universities. There is another set of institutions like AMU, Jamia Millia Islamia, Osmania University and Jadavpur University where ‘a reform agenda’ to ‘Sanatan dharma’ is articulated. Can such reforms be pursued say with Muslims or Christians? Palestinian [Hamas] terrorists were glorified in November 2023 at IIT Bombay during an online talk delivered by radical Leftists. Ashoka University witnessed anti-Hindu hate speech when students demanding caste census and reservation raised slogans like “Brahmin – Baniyawaad Murdabad”. In February 2024, a programme, “Ram Mandir: A Farcical Project of Brahmanical Hindutva Fascism” was held at O P Jindal University. A group which goes by Revolutionary Students League claimed that Pran Pratishtha Ceremony at Ayodhya Ram Temple on January 22, 2024, exposed “the inherent violence and anti-people nature of the Brahmanical Hindutva fascist state”. Global push on “Dismantling Global Hindutva” (DGH) is equally strong and gets a big pat from their friends in India and vice versa. The DGH campaign was a three-day online academic conference in September 2021 seeking to mobilize scholars from dozens of US and other universities. These self-styled scholars were to examine Hindutva as a political ideology. Hindu advocacy groups labelled the campaign as Hinduphobic which was backed by assorted forums in universities including Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, and Columbia. Employees at Tata Consultancy Service (TCS) were allegedly found to be involved in ‘Love Jihad’ and conversion activities was the unstated agenda of ‘Ghazwa e Hind’. Azim Premji University, whose parent company is Wipro, ran a campaign to annihilate Hinduism.  But, the university claimed that it did not host any event titled ‘Annihilate Hinduism,’ explaining that offending images came from a talk on ‘Politics of Emotions’ and were taken out of context. Employees of IT behemoths, whether shouting slogans to Annihilate Hindutva or involving in conversion by deceit and management turning a blind eye on the cases of targeting Hindus, smacks of conspiracy at certain level. It’s also clear that conversion by any means is part of ‘Annihilate Sanatan’ agenda. ‘Smash Brahmanical [Hindutva] Patriarchy is universal woke symbol of modernity and liberation as former CEO of X (the then Twitter) Jack Dorsey posed with a group of journalists, activists and writers during his 2019 visit to Bharat. These activists held placards that read “Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy”. Institutionalizing dismantling of Hindutva is getting bigger with institutes like Azim Premji University, AMU, Ashoka, TCS, Accenture and Tech Mahindra besides many foreign institutions becoming the hotspots. Universities like JNU celebrate demons like Mahishasura just to mock at Hindu deities like Goddess Durga. In several institutions students pursuing social sciences get roped in for anti-Hindu propaganda. These incidents revolve around insults heaped on Hindu deities, portraying Hindu traditions negatively and academic discussions that are blatantly biased. IIT Bombay students staged a play titled “Raahovan” in 2024 that was derogatory and portraying characters in the Ramayana vulgarly. In a PhD entrance exam question paper of 2024, IIT Bombay asked students to discuss if “Hindutva is hegemonic or counter-hegemonic.” A faculty member in humanities department of IIT Delhi told a foreign media outlet in 2023 that future of India would be without Hinduism. A conference at IIT Delhi faced intense backlash for promoting one-sided, anti-Hindu narratives and western critical race theory. IIT Gandhinagar has been in news for its disproportionate focus on Islam-related topics while holding anti-Hindu viewpoints. A campaign initiated by a pseudonymized user alleged that a project named “DeepFaith,” described as an AI-powered Islamic research initiative

Read More

RSS in US: Civilizational Bridge @100

Without losing Bharatiya identity, diaspora can become vital link with host nation by demonstrating its complete commitment. Arun Anand Commemorating its centennial, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has begun a serious conversation with a bevy of stakeholders in the West especially the United States and Europe. As part of its global outreach, RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale undertook a significant visit to United States in April 2026. It’s more than a routine diaspora engagement. This tour represented a carefully crafted civilisational outreach—one that combined reflection on a hundred-year journey with a forward-looking articulation of Bharat’s intellectual and cultural role in a rapidly transforming world. At a time when global discourse is increasingly shaped by technology, geopolitics and identity debates, Hosabale’s visit sought to position the RSS not merely as an Indian organisation but as a participant in a wider philosophical conversation about humanity’s future. Civilizational Dialogue in Silicon Valley The intellectual centre piece of the visit was Hosabale’s address at Stanford University during the Thrive 2026 conference. Speaking before an audience comprising technologists, entrepreneurs and members of the Indian diaspora, he framed his intervention around a central proposition: that modern technological advancement must be guided by deeper ethical and civilisational wisdom. Drawing from Indic traditions, he argued that knowledge systems in India have historically refused to separate the spiritual from the scientific. Ancient texts, including the Upanishads, were presented not merely as theological works but as repositories of inquiry into the nature of the human mind, the cosmos, and existence itself. In this view, the fragmentation of knowledge into rigid categories science versus spirituality is a relatively recent phenomenon. Hosabale suggested that this integrated approach offers valuable insights in an age defined by artificial intelligence, ecological stress, and social inequality. He advocated what he termed a “holistic lifestyle,” contrasting it with excesses of consumerism and unchecked technological ambition. The emphasis was not on rejecting modernity, but on anchoring it within a broader ethical framework. At the heart of this framework lies the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, the belief that the world is one family. Hosabale presented this not as a rhetorical flourish, but as a practical principle for navigating global fragmentation and conflict. Science, Knowledge & Civilisation A key theme that ran through his address was the need to revisit and revitalise Indic knowledge systems. Centuries of disruption particularly during protracted periods of foreign rule led to erosion and marginalisation of indigenous intellectual traditions, he averred. As a result, many scientific ideas embedded within cultural and spiritual texts were either forgotten or dismissed as superstition. Today, he argued, there is a renewed effort in India to recover and systematise this knowledge. Education, in this context, becomes central, not merely as a means of economic advancement but as a tool for reconnecting society with its intellectual heritage. Hosabale emphasised that scientific inquiry and spirituality were not opposing forces. Rather, they complement and enrich each other. Historically, scholars engaged in both domains simultaneously, integrating empirical observation with philosophical reflection. This integrated approach also carries ethical implications. He proposed that any technology intended for human welfare must be evaluated on three touchstones: economy, ecology and ethics. Technological progress that generates inequality, exploits nature or violates moral norms, he warned, ultimately undermines both society and the environment. Equally significant was his emphasis on democratization of knowledge. While knowledge production has accelerated globally, access to it remains uneven. A truly equitable world, in his view, requires insights from all civilizations that be shared widely, enabling a more balanced and inclusive global order. Redefining Diaspora Role Beyond intellectual discourse, Hosabale’s engagement with Indian diaspora carried a clear and pragmatic message. Addressing gatherings in Silicon Valley, he urged Indian-origin communities to demonstrate complete commitment to countries they inhabit. For the diaspora, he stated, contributing to progress and well-being of their host nation is basic dharma. This articulation is significant in contemporary debates around identity and belonging. Rather than encouraging a divided loyalty, Hosabale advocated a model of integration rooted in responsibility and participation. At the same time, he encouraged diaspora to remain connected to Bharat’s cultural and civilisational values. This dual identity, being fully American while retaining an Indian cultural consciousness was presented as strength rather than a contradiction. In effect, the diaspora becomes a bridge: grounded locally, yet carrying a global civilisational perspective. Path Ahead: Balancing Extremes A recurring thread throughout the visit was call for balance. Hosabale warned against dangers of an unrestrained race for technological dominance, one that prioritises speed and scale over sustainability and human well-being. He argued that traditional Indian thought offers a corrective: a worldview that emphasises harmony with nature, respect for all forms of life and an understanding of interconnectedness of existence. This perspective, he suggested, is particularly relevant in addressing contemporary challenges such as climate change and social fragmentation. The concept of “knowledge guided by wisdom” emerged as a central motif. Knowledge, when divorced from ethical judgment, can lead to arrogance and exploitation. When guided by discernment, viveka, it becomes a force for collective good. Conclusion Dattatreya Hosabale’s 2026 visit to the United States was not merely a commemorative exercise marking RSS centenary. It was an attempt to articulate a vision, one that situates Indian civilizational thought within global debates on technology, ecology and human coexistence. By engaging with Indian diaspora and intellectual communities in Silicon Valley, RSS signalled its intent to participate more actively in shaping global narratives. The emphasis on loyalty to host nations, cultural rootedness and ethical balance reflects a nuanced approach to globalisation, one that seeks integration without loss of identity. (Author is a senior journalist & columnist. He has authored more than a dozen books)

Read More

Canada’s Bill C-9 and Its Implications for Hindus and Khalistani Extremism

With the enactment of Bill C-9 (Combatting Hate Act), Canada’s legislative stance on hate speech, extremist iconography and religious space protection underwent an important change. The law establishes penalties for intimidation at religious institutions motivated by hatred and makes it illegal to publicly display insignia associated with terrorist groups. The law is both a chance for legal protection and a test of the legitimacy of enforcement for Canada’s Hindu minority, which is dealing with an increase in temple destruction, intimidation, and hate speech related to Khalistan. The rule was passed in response to growing worries about targeted animosity toward Hindu populations, temple destruction, and radicalization of the diaspora.

Read More

Khalistani Terror Propaganda Put Bharat, US on Edge

Free run given to SFJ that equated Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Iran’s Khamenei reflect insensitivity of US & Canada.  N. C. Bipindra Latest provocative images and videos posted on social media by Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) have triggered a controversy intersecting free speech, diaspora politics, territorial integrity, global diplomacy and international relations.  SFJ frames its posts and messages as a free speech exercise asserting democratic rights within United States. But, the content portraying Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei killed in airstrikes by US and Israel on February 28, 2026 is of serious concern. Such messaging not only constitutes indecency and insensitivity but crosses limits and enters the realm of hostile propaganda, incitement of violence, deliberate misinformation and intolerable provocation. US authorities, particularly President Donald Trump, who calls Modi his good friend, should not turn a blind eye to such provocative content. For New Delhi, such freedom to propagate violence against India’s elected prime minister on US soil should have potential consequences for India-US relations. To understand why the SFJ’s post and its contents are contentious and objectionable, it is important to consider both the nature of messaging and broader political context in which the proscribed terrorist organisation operates. SFJ has no ground support in India, particularly the Sikh-majority Punjab province, but it operates freely in US and neighbouring Canada with impunity. SFJ advocates balkanisation of India, in particular, creation of imaginary Khalistan, a proposed independent theocratic Sikh state carved out of only Indian territories. An illegal Khalistan map that SFJ has released in last few years conveniently ignores territories that are now part of Pakistan but were historically ruled by Sikh emperors. But, the map includes present-day Indian provinces of Punjab, Haryana, Sikh-majority areas of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh with Shimla as its future capital. The reasons for not claiming Pakistan’s Punjab and other provinces that were part of the erstwhile Sikh kingdom’s rule are not so difficult to fathom. Trump administration and Mark Carney government must read two key research reports released by US-based Hudson Institute and Canada-based Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI). Hudson Institute’s ‘Destabilisation Playbook: Khalistan Separatist Activism within the US’ authored by Aparna Pande, Husain Haqqani, C. Christine Fair and others present two main arguments that warrant attention of Trump administration. The Hudson Institute’s September 2021 report calls for investigations into Khalistani groups’ activities in US noting that these were directly involved in numerous terror attacks around the world including 1985 Air India’s ‘Kanishka’ bombing that left 329 people including Canadians dead and to shed reluctance to act on intelligence provided by India. MLI’s September 2020 report authored by senior Canadian journalist Terry Milewski, titled ‘Khalistan: A Project of Pakistan’ argues that the separatist movement was designed to subvert national security of both Canada and India, a serious threat that Carney’s government should be vigilant about. Those two reports would help Western democracies that are open to understand dangers of allowing SFJ and self-styled general counsel Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to be haughty. SFJ was banned in India in 2019 for threatening its sovereignty and territorial integrity. But, US and Canada are inviting such treacherous tendencies to grow within their territory without realising that the snake they feed would come back to bite them tomorrow, if not today. Indian proscription notwithstanding, SFJ continues to hold farcical “referendums” in US, Canada United Kingdom and Australia attempting to mobilise sections of Sikh diaspora around Khalistani cause. The latest social posts along with a video shared by SFJ are controversial due to their tone, tenor and intent. Equating Modi with Ali Khamenei is a clear attempt to draw parallels between a democratically elected popular leader of India and head of a theocratic state, often regarded as adversarial to West, particularly the US. This can’t be just criticism of Indian government or simply free speech, but rather a deliberate bid to delegitimise and demonise the Indian state, its political leadership and 1.4 billion Indians before the global audience and calling for destablising India through elimination of its prime minister or overthrowing the existing regime. Hudson Institute and Macdonald-Laurier Institute reports point to “playbook” and “project” against India, its political leadership and its people. In particular, use of “India’s Khamenei Alive” slogan juxtaposed with reference to Iran’s Ali Khamenei is a calculated attempt to evoke hostility, suspicion in US to frame India as a strategic adversary of West alongside Iran. Contrasting the phrase “Iran’s Khamenei dead” with “India’s Khamenei alive” is suggestive and goes beyond political free speech and commentary. It stops short of an explicit call to assassinate Indian prime minister. It normalises the idea of dastardly outcomes that can be interpreted as endorsement or glorification which is more troubling. Such rhetoric in democratic societies may not meet strict legal threshold for incitement but is nonetheless considered irresponsible and potentially vicious. SFJ’s post escalates issue by portraying India as an “enemy” of US. This messaging contradicts reality of India-US ties that have grown into a comprehensive strategic partnership since 2007 encompassing defence cooperation, economic ties and shared strategic interests in Indo-Pacific region grounded in values common to both nations. SFJ’s narrative-building is an attempt to influence public opinion and policy discourse in the West particularly United States. This messaging is sensitive, as it weaponises diaspora activism to advance geopolitical perceptions. The objection to such content is rooted in broader pattern associated with SFJ activities. Over the years, the proscribed fringe outfit has carried on inflammatory and divisive campaigns from controversial slogans to provocative demonstrations at Khalistan-related events. Its members have defaced Hindu temples in US and attacked Indian diplomatic missions. These actions have regularly pushed the boundaries of acceptable political expression and free speech. While some such instances have drawn condemnation in host nations, they highlight the fine line between activism and provocation that governments such as Trump’s and Carney’s should be mindful of. The US may have protection for free speech under First Amendment in its Constitution, but highly offensive and objectionable messages directly incite violence and

Read More

Did SOAS Institutionalise Hinduphobia on behalf of George Soros?

The Leicester unrest of 2022 generated a crowded and contested reporting ecosystem. By the time the SOAS commission published Better Together: Understanding the 2022 Violence in Leicester in February 2026, the evidential field already included rapid-response briefs, computational forensic analysis, fact-finding reports, media investigations, and an ongoing UK government-commissioned review. The key analytic question, therefore, is not whether the SOAS report entered a vacuum. It did not. The real question is whether it fairly integrated the prior evidential landscape, or whether it reorganised that landscape through a pre-set ideological frame. Across the pre-2026 reporting ecosystem, a striking convergence is visible. Reports issued by CIHS, NCRI, CRT/Charlotte Littlewood, and CDPHR differ in method, tone, and institutional location, yet they repeatedly arrive at two common findings. First, disinformation and influencer amplification were not incidental features of the Leicester violence; they were causal drivers in escalating tensions, shaping perceptions, and mobilising individuals towards real-world confrontation. Secondly, Hindus were not merely one community among many caught in a diffuse breakdown of cohesion. They were, in significant respects, targets of online incitement, doxxing, false attribution, intimidation, and attacks on property and religious symbols, much of which these reports attribute to Islamist factions and allied misinformation ecosystems operating in and around Leicester. This matters because media gatekeeping failed at a critical moment. The prior reports, especially NCRI, CIHS, and CRT, converge on the claim that unverified influencer narratives were elevated into mainstream discourse without sufficient due diligence. In that environment, misinformation ceased to be rhetorical noise and became operationally consequential. False claims about “RSS terrorists”, “Hindutva thugs”, or organised Hindu extremism were not simply descriptive errors; they shaped how violence was interpreted, whom authorities and media treated with suspicion, and which communities were left exposed. The result was not neutral confusion, but a reputational inversion in which Hindu victims could be reframed as presumptive aggressors. It is against that background that the SOAS commission report must be read. The report adopts the formal language of inquiry, relies on mixed methods, and includes an express statement that Open Society Foundations had no influence over its methods or findings. Yet the report was privately funded, publicly linked to a reported £620,000 OSF grant, and conducted in parallel with an already existing UK government review. In a politically charged communal context, that institutional configuration was always likely to attract scrutiny. Even if one accepts the non-interference disclaimer at face value, such statements do not settle the deeper question of whether funding relationships, institutional culture, or ideological priors shaped the report’s framing, priorities, and recommendations. The central criticism advanced in this paper is not that the SOAS report contains no useful material. On the contrary, its own descriptive sections document anti-Hindu harm in serious terms, including intimidation, attacks in Hindu neighbourhoods, and the Shivalaya Mandir incident. The problem lies elsewhere: in the report’s interpretive and policy architecture. While acknowledging anti-Hindu targeting and admitting verification limits around some claims concerning alleged Hindutva-linked organisational involvement, the report nonetheless elevates “Hindutva extremism” into the principal prescriptive concern. In doing so, it produces a structure in which Hindus are descriptively recognised as having suffered harm, yet prescriptively positioned as the primary object of suspicion and institutional management. That asymmetry is the report’s most serious flaw. A report can document harm accurately and still institutionalise bias through the categories it privileges and the remedies it recommends. In the Leicester case, the cumulative evidential landscape pointed first towards protection: countering disinformation, recognising anti-Hindu prejudice, scrutinising Islamist mobilisation, and repairing failures of media and civic response. The SOAS commission instead shifts the centre of gravity toward the ideological containment of “Hindutva”. That is not a neutral synthesis of the evidence. It is a policy reorientation with downstream consequences for safeguarding, public discourse, community recognition, and the equal treatment of Hindus in Britain. This report therefore proceeds from a narrow but important contention: the SOAS commission should not be assessed only by what it says, but by what it does institutionally. Read against the wider evidential record, it raises a serious question as to whether a privately funded, politically salient inquiry helped recast a pattern of anti-Hindu victimisation into an official-sounding framework of Hindu suspicion. If so, the issue is larger than one report. It is whether elite institutions, media ecosystems, and donor-linked inquiry structures together contributed to the normalisation of a one-sided narrative of Leicester—one with damaging implications for public trust, social cohesion, and the recognition of Hinduphobia in the United Kingdom. Prior reports and what they establish The pre-2026 report ecosystem is largely overlapping. It contains briefs, computational forensics, and fact-finding studies. The correct analytic method is to compare what each report credibly establishes, given its methods, and then evaluate whether the SOAS commission report fairly integrates that evidential landscape or reorganises it into a pre-set ideological frame. The Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies (CIHS), an independent Delhi-based think tank issued rapid-response briefs in September 2022. Its Leicester briefs highlights that organised Islamist entities and individuals targeted Leicester’s Hindu population and that over fifty Hindu properties and vehicles were damaged in targeted attacks; it further records that Leicester police refuted the kidnapping narrative, and it names Majid Freeman as a prominent misinformation disseminator. CIHS reports there after have been tested against the computational and police-referenced work in NCRI and CDPHR. The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) report is the most technologically explicit computational study. It describes multi-platform data collection and applies machine learning, natural language processing, network analysis and OSINT to build a timeline of malicious narratives and mobilisation patterns. Its headline figures include that AI models detected calls for violent action on Twitter during the Leicester events, with 70% of those calls directed against Hindus and 30% against Muslims. Crucially, NCRI also states that disinformation about Hindus as “bloodthirsty and genocidal” motivated attacks by recruiting online reinforcements to real-world engagements, and it explicitly criticises mainstream outlets for failing due diligence and amplifying Majid Freeman as a “central agitator”. This is not an aesthetic

Read More