Bharat Disinformation International Media Misinformation News Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Rebuttal United States USA

Belling The Bellingcat-Exposing Its Advocacy by Implication

Dr. Aniket Pingley Bellingcat’s investigation of two US charities, Sewa International USA and Ekal Foundation, finds “no evidence” of wrongdoing, yet it is built to leave the opposite impression by invoking the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. This rebuttal reads that subtext line by line.https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2026/10/06/dafs-india-rss-donations/ Before anything else, readers should hold two facts about the Bellingcat article in view. Its title is “Groups Associated With India’s Far-Right Receive Millions Through US Donor-Advised Funds.” A little way into the text, the authors write: “There is no evidence that DAF grants funded the RSS, only that they went to organisations that appear to have connections with the RSS.” I ask readers to keep that sentence in mind through everything that follows. An organisation whose stated aim is to build people for constructive work in every field of life, and which has pursued that aim for a century, will naturally have a wide network of individuals. The diaspora, too, will carry that network abroad, sustained by strong cultural ties to India. Participation in many sectors is not infiltration; it is what service produces. The RSS is a body of individuals, not a registered entity, and Indian law permits that. It openly calls India a Hindu nation, as any civilisational movement may state its idea of itself. A US commission can call for sanctions, and the RSS will keep its course. What cannot be sustained is the practice of painting it as sinister, openly or through subtext, and then stigmatising everyone associated with it. Bellingcat’s article follows a familiar method for raising alarm about the RSS. It first labels the organisation “far-right,” then brings in an expert’s opinion, and finally tells readers that nearly a hundred US politicians have pledged to refuse funding from RSS-linked groups. What it leaves out, however, is that the pledge was announced in the context of the RSS chief delivering the message of Universal Oneness at an interfaith gathering in New York. Let me state my position at the outset. Bellingcat’s article is designed to unsettle the sponsors of donor-advised funds, and it does so through what I call advocacy by implication. Just as it deliberately leaves out the context of “Universal Oneness,” saying less than it knows, I will show how its broader hypothesis is itself out of context. The article masquerades as investigative journalism while employing a sophisticated form of dog-whistling. I will take it apart step by step. A donor-advised fund exists to make charitable giving simpler, more consolidated and more sustained over time. One qualification the article leaves out is that a donor can attach a purpose to a grant recommendation. Such restricted grants are common and tend to be larger: the DAF Research Collaborative’s 2024 national study found that restricted grants were generally of higher value. In charitable giving, the donor’s conscience comes first. Can Bellingcat show that any of these donors was seeking out RSS-specific projects? It cannot, and the article says as much: “There is no evidence that DAF grants funded the RSS, only that they went to organisations that appear to have connections with the RSS.” That sentence is the escape hatch. The article reports that all of Ekal USA’s foreign grants during 2020–2024 went to the Ekal Vidyalaya school projects in India. So what does this insinuation offer the sponsors, whose business is to administer these funds for a fee? The article analyses the period from 2020 to 2024 without addressing the context of those years: 2020 and 2021 were the pandemic years. It is reasonable to ask how much of the giving during that period went towards buying, shipping and installing oxygen concentrators in India. Oxygen has no ideological spectrum; it is the same for the far-right, the centre and the far-left. According to Sewa USA’s own reporting, more than 87% of the DAF funds it received during this period came in the two pandemic years. As I said earlier, in charitable giving, the donor’s conscience comes first, and bringing the RSS into the story will not change what moves a donor. If Bellingcat wants to invoke the RSS, it should also look at the record of how Indian law-and-order authorities enlisted RSS volunteers for last-mile delivery during the pandemic. This is where the article’s coding is most refined. The passage reads: “Some DAF sponsor organisations have previously faced criticism for granting money to charities that have promoted homophobic, anti-immigrant or anti-Muslim views.” The article never says which charities those descriptions refer to. By placing this passage alongside its discussion of two charities it calls “linked” to the RSS, it invites readers to read the RSS into the list. The advocacy by implication continues. The article quotes Professor Brunson as saying that DAF sponsors “absolutely have the right and ability” to halt the processing of donations to certain organisations. Placed here, the quote tells sponsors that, because their grants reach charities “linked” to the RSS, they are free to pause them. No sentence says so. The implication does the work. That is advocacy by implication. So, what is Bellingcat’s article for? Not for the charities, which it accuses of nothing. Not for the reader, who is handed a set of figures and infographics without a basis for comparison. Its only remaining reader who can act is the sponsor. A label, an expert and a count of politicians tell these readers what to call the groups, how to feel about them, and that others have already taken a position. A passage about sponsors “criticised” for funding charities associated with hateful views, followed by a reference to the ability to halt DAF transactions, tells them that their peers have acted and that the decision is theirs. The article’s gravest fault is not any single sentence. It is the kind of knowing it models. The Bhagavad Gita has a name for it. In the eighteenth chapter, Krishna describes three grades of knowledge. The highest sees one undivided reality running through all that appears divided. The lowest, tāmasa jñāna, is knowledge that “clings to

Bharat Canada Hindus Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) United Kingdom United States World

218

Mohan Bhagwat in West: Challenging Preconceived Narratives

Dr Gautam Kumar Jha Mohan Bhagwat’s recent journey through United States, Canada and United Kingdom came at a time when Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has completed a century of existence and continues to evoke sharply contrasting perceptions, particularly outside India. For its supporters, RSS represents cultural nationalism, social service and civilisational continuity. For many of its critics within and outside, however, RSS is viewed through the prism of majoritarianism and religious exclusion. These differing perceptions were distinctly visible during the tour. His appearances in United States attracted protests and renewed criticism of RSS, including allegations concerning religious freedom. RSS rejects such characterisations while Indian government also contested broader international assessments that it considers selective or prejudiced. Against this backdrop, Bhagwat’s three-nation tour offered an opportunity for direct engagement and conversation. It did not, and could not, settle every controversy surrounding RSS. What it did was allow international audiences to hear its chief articulate the organisation’s position on questions that have generated sustained debate: Hindu identity, Muslims in India, religious diversity, the Indian diaspora, civic loyalty and the RSS’s understanding of humanity itself. Pluralism versus Unity in Diversity One of the most interesting features of Bhagwat’s American engagements was the connect he drew between two apparently different political and civilisational experiences. United States, he observed, frequently speaks of pluralism while India speaks of unity in diversity. For Bhagwat, diversity and unity are not contradictory: diversity is a natural expression of human society, while an underlying unity binds people together. At Madison Square Garden in New York, addressing Universal Oneness gathering, he argued that India’s larger responsibility was to demonstrate that unity and diversity could coexist, not merely through preaching, but through practice. India is extraordinarily diverse in language, religion, ethnicity, food, customs and regional identities. Any conception of Indian nationhood that ignores these differences would therefore be incomplete. Bhagwat instead described diversity as a decoration of an underlying unity and argued that it must be accepted, respected and protected. More significantly, he extended the principle beyond protecting one’s own identity: just as individuals seek to preserve their own identities, he argued, they must recognise and protect others’ identities. This provides an important counterpoint to binary interpretations of cultural nationalism in which the assertion of one identity necessarily requires the suppression of another. Muslim Question, Challenging Perceptions One of the most consequential parts of Bhagwat’s American visit concerned a question that has long surrounded discussions about RSS: the place of Muslims within its conception of Bharat. In New York, Bhagwat addressed the issue in categorical terms, arguing that a Hindu who believes there should be no Muslims in Bharat contradicts the very idea of being Hindu. He linked this position to recognition of different paths towards the same ultimate truth and to respect for the dignity of every human being. The visit, therefore, placed a clearer version of Bhagwat’s stated position before an international audience. His conception of Hindu identity, as articulated during the tour, was not based on uniformity of race, religion or creed, but on an idea of civilisational belonging capable of accommodating different religious paths. A particularly interesting response came from an American Christian commentator who said that the controversy surrounding Bhagwat’s visit prompted him to investigate RSS and listen repeatedly to Bhagwat’s speeches. Explicitly identifying himself as a Christian rather than a Hindu, he remarked that much of Bhagwat’s message resonated with values he recognised in his own faith. One commentator cannot represent American opinion. His reaction is nevertheless useful because it demonstrates what direct communication can accomplish. Strong cultural or emotional ties to an ancestral homeland can sometimes raise questions about loyalty to country of citizenship or residence, and Bhagwat addressed this by distinguishing between janmabhoomi and karmabhoomi. He argued that the country where members of diaspora live, work and build their lives is their karmabhoomi and therefore entails civic obligations. Affection for India as janmabhoomi should not come at the expense of responsibilities towards the society in which they live. This presents diaspora not as a population divided between two loyalties, but as a bridge capable of retaining civilisational and emotional connections with India while participating fully in another national community. Over centuries, Indian diaspora has played a crucial role in nation-building and development of countries where they settled. At the same time, many have remained connected to Bharat through what may be described as an enduring cultural umbilical cord. These people-to-people connections have therefore become an important dimension of India’s relations with Western countries. Political relations may fluctuate, governments and priorities may change, but diaspora communities, educational networks, businesses, families and cultural associations often provide a deeper sense of continuity. New York to Toronto: Vishwa Bandhu Bhagwat carried the same broad message to Canada. His visit culminated in the Hindu Vishwa Bandhu programme in Toronto where the emphasis remained on Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, the world as one family, and on respecting each other rather than erasing diversity. He made distinction between Vishwa guru and Maha shakti, arguing that India’s aspirations should not be understood merely in terms of becoming a conventional superpower. Instead, he associated India’s historical influence with knowledge, service and a civilisational concern for humanity. In this understanding, national resurgence need not mean domination over others. Rather, India’s rise should contribute to a more united world, where civilisational confidence goes together with coexistence, respect for diversity and concern for human well-being. Toronto to London: Celebration of Oneness Final leg of Bhagwat’s journey took him to London during September 2-7, 2026. British programme broadened the tour from diaspora outreach to a more explicit civilisational and interfaith dialogue. Bhagwat met faith leaders, academics, researchers and other public figures and visited religious institutions including the Shree Swaminarayan Mandir in Willesden and the Khalsa Jatha British Isles Gurdwara. The programme culminated in the ‘Celebrate Oneness’ interaction in London on 6 September, attended by more than 600 participants representing 326 organisations. Echoing his ‘universal oneness’ message in America, Bhagwat explained that diversity should be understood in relation to

Bharat Education Hindus Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

262

Going Beyond Government!

Broad civic engagement as part of RSS transformative agenda draws heavily from Bharat’s ancient ethos to build a modern society. Vinod Kumar Shukla Foundational philosophy of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) posits that Vyakti Nirman (individual / personality development), coupled with Charitra Nirman (character building) and Samaj Nirman (social development) naturally culminates to Rashtra Nirman (nation-building). These core tenets have guided the organization since its inception. This enduring commitment stems from a deeply held conviction that true societal progress requires awakening citizens to their fundamental duties toward society and nation for greater collective good. By systematically undertaking symbiotic tasks of Vyakti Nirman and Charitra Nirman, RSS facilitates a widespread consciousness of Nagrik Kartavya (civic duty). This emphasis forms one of the five essential pillars of social transformation, collectively termed Panch Parivartan, introduced by RSS as part of its centennial agenda. These five transformative imperatives comprise Samajik Samrasta (social harmony), Kutumb Prabodhan (family enlightenment), Paryavaran Sanrakshan (environmental conservation), Nagrik Kartavya (civic duties) and Swa or Swadeshi (self-reliance). Through this framework, RSS endeavours to construct a disciplined, self-reliant and ethically grounded society that redounds to benefit of all citizens. Core principles of civic duty advocated within this vision encompass full compliance with law of the land, alongside a concerted effort to encourage citizens, particularly the younger generation, to study and comprehend Constitution of India, its Preamble, and its Fundamental Duties. Civic responsibility manifests in maintaining cleanliness in shared public spaces, curbing unnecessary noise pollution and upholding decorum in public conduct. It further demands exercising restraint and dignity in public discourse, practicing personal discretion in everyday actions, honouring elders while mentoring younger generations, prioritizing national interests and civic obligations over individual privileges and consistently conserving precious resources like water to uphold civic order across public life. In contrast to predominantly materialistic Western paradigms, traditional Indian society remains inherently value-based, with ancient Indian scriptures consistently elevating duty (Kartavya) above rights. From foundational wisdom of Vedas to comprehensive codes of Dharmasutras and diverse philosophical treatises, classical Indian literature prescribes detailed guidelines for social conduct. These texts established explicit norms for civic behaviour and codified specific penalties and fines for non-compliance. A prime illustration is found in Chanakya’s Arthashastra, a treatise written approximately 2,400 years ago. In Book II, Chapter XXXVI, Chanakya stipulates: “Whoever throws dirt in the street shall be punished with a fine of 1/8th of a pana; whoever causes mire or water to collect in the street shall be fined 1/4th of a pana; whoever commits the above offences in the king’s road (rajmarga) shall be punished with double the above fine.” This exhaustive chapter outlines rights, responsibilities, and civic obligations binding common citizens, skilled professionals, and state officials alike. Consequently, concept of a structured societal order is deeply rooted in Bharat’s ancient heritage and has been practiced throughout its history. However, as unbridled materialism and consumerism assume dominance in modern life, moral ethics, traditional values, and personal duty often recede into background. In such a climate, written statutes and constitutional frameworks become necessary instruments to delineate fundamental rights and duties, causing external rule of law to supplant internal moral regulation. Yet, if every citizen conscientiously fulfils their intrinsic duties, the transformation will extend far beyond individual lives to enrich the broader social fabric and enhance national pride. Furthermore, widespread self-regulation inevitably alleviates the heavy strain placed upon overburdened law enforcement agencies and judicial systems. When citizens proactively fulfil their civic responsibilities, state intervention is minimized. Meaningful improvement in the public sphere often hinges upon adherence to relatively simple, everyday habits. Consider, for instance, water conservation. Although Earth is designated as ” Blue Planet ” because water covers approximately 71 per cent of its surface, nearly 97 per cent of that volume consists of saline ocean water. Of the remaining three percent of global freshwater, less than one percent is readily accessible for human consumption. While certain regions of Bharat enjoy an abundance of potable water, this availability should never be treated as license for waste. In practice, however, squandering water remains widespread; thus, water conservation directly correlates with sustaining life. Curbing waste and cultivating active water preservation must be recognized as essential civic obligations. Similarly, energy security represents a crucial global concern, particularly for developing and underdeveloped nations. Rationalizing energy consumption, spanning petroleum products to electrical power, helps preserve foreign exchange reserves, protects the natural environment, and mitigates financial strain on individual households. Addressing energy waste requires fundamental behavioural adjustments. It is common to observe individuals conversing by the roadside with vehicle engines idling, or leaving air conditioners, lighting, and electrical appliances operating in vacant homes and offices where they serve no purpose whatsoever. Related challenges manifest daily on the roads, where responsible driving is vital to ensuring safe transit for everyone. Hundreds of thousands of lives are lost annually in road accidents due to widespread disregard for traffic regulations, a tragedy that could be dramatically curtailed through a heightened sense of civic compliance. Across society, everyday infractions abound: drinking water is mindlessly squandered to wash vehicles and clean floors, traffic laws are flagrantly flouted whenever law enforcement is absent, tax evasion is routinely sought, taxpayer-funded public property is vandalized by anti-social elements, protesters, and addicts, and food is carelessly wasted at immense scale. Enacting ever-more stringent legislation cannot solve these challenges alone; real progress depends upon cultivating an internal ethical consciousness within the general citizenry. Civic duty equally encompasses a citizen’s democratic obligation to participate actively in elections across all tiers of governance. In this realm, the efforts of RSS to boost voter turnout across various electoral cycles have been noteworthy, serving to significantly complement official government initiatives. Swayamsevaks actively engage in voter awareness drives, urging citizens to exercise their franchise while providing practical assistance, such as helping elderly and infirm voters reach polling booths, thereby setting a powerful example of civic engagement for the younger generation. These persistent lapses highlight areas where citizens of Bharat are frequently criticized for a perceived deficit in civic sense, a quality indispensable for societal

Bharat Hindus Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) United Kingdom United States USA World

261

RSS: Massive, Complex and Quickly Evolving!

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh a vast, powerful Hindu volunteer organization has become target of a counterproductive Western campaign. Bill Drexel Mohan Bhagwat idrees mohammed/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images Mayor Zohran Mamdani found time in his busy schedule to condemn a visit to New York two weeks ago by the head of an Indian nonprofit that almost none of his constituents had ever heard of. The visitor was Mohan Bhagwat, chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS, the vast Hindu volunteer organization that trained Prime Minister Narendra Modi and founded the party he leads. On Aug. 29, Mr. Bhagwat addressed some 5,000 people at Madison Square Garden at an event billed as a celebration of “universal oneness.” Mr. Mamdani, when pressed at a news conference to cancel the booking, called the RSS’s Hindu nationalist vision “exclusionary” and its rise “incredibly troubling,” while conceding the city had no authority over a private event. Others joined in, too. The federal U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which has sought sanctions against the RSS, called for Mr. Bhagwat’s visa to be revoked. Before his subsequent Toronto appearance, nearly 270 organizations asked Ottawa to bar him and consider designating the RSS a terrorist entity. In London, where he spoke this week, numerous groups asked Mayor Sadiq Khan to deny him any city-controlled venue. The campaign borrows its playbook from the effort to make a pariah of Zionism—so directly that the anti-RSS protest outside Madison Square Garden turned on itself over Israel, with demonstrators shouting down Brad Lander, a congressional nominee who had come to join them, for being a Zionist. As with the campaign against Israel, the effort to isolate the RSS damages American interests more than its target. Founded in central India in 1925, the RSS runs roughly 83,000 regular neighborhood gatherings across India—an hour of physical drills, songs, games and instruction in its account of Hindu civilization, meant to strengthen the character of young Indian men. The atmosphere is something like the Boy Scouts, and nearly all of its roughly five million participants are unpaid, often attending daily before work. These volunteers are motivated by a shared sense of patriotism and see themselves as strengthening their country. Its influence is even larger than the numbers indicate. The RSS acts as the vanguard of the broader Hindu nationalist movement and has incubated some 2,500 spinoff organizations, including one of Hinduism’s most representative religious councils, India’s largest labor union, and its largest private-school network. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which it founded, has grown to become the largest political party in the world, claiming more than 140 million members. And the RSS and its network act as an accelerator for the BJP’s top talent: Mr. Modi began as a full-time RSS organizer, joining a cadre who vow to forgo marriage and personal wealth. Several of Mr. Modi’s cabinet ministers, state chief ministers and other senior officials were similarly drawn into the BJP through the RSS’s orbit and meet periodically with its leaders. Western disapproval isn’t going to hamper an organization this large and potent. Slamming the door on India’s most influential civil-society organization accomplishes nothing, save empowering the factions of the RSS to which its critics most object, which tend to agree that there is little conversation to be had. Critics allege that the organization’s ideology amounts to Hindu supremacy, casting India’s sizable Muslim and Christian minorities as intruders in Indian history and relegating them to second-class citizenship. Mohandas Gandhi’s assassin was at one point an RSS member, and though he maintained he had left the organization in favor of a more assertive approach to activism, the association has marred the RSS’s reputation. Reports of rising violence against minorities in areas of India where the BJP is strongest have dogged Hindu nationalism’s political ascent, and the RSS has been accused of participating, which the organization denies. But like India itself, the RSS is massive, complex and quickly evolving. Even its sharpest critics concede its outward-facing work largely consists of charity and social-service projects, many of which are extremely popular. India is home to one-sixth of humanity, breakneck modernization and the world’s most ethnically, religiously and linguistically diverse population, so some degree of social friction is unavoidable, however tragic. When social unrest arises, it can be difficult in the chaos to know how much responsibility can be assigned to the RSS or its affiliates, and RSS members frequently claim misattribution from their political adversaries. Moreover, in recent years senior RSS figures have made public statements about caste and Muslims that are very hard to square with the charges against them and the most objectionable statements of the organization’s early leadership. These may be smoke screens, as critics claim, but may also be signs that the organization is moderating under the responsibilities of leading a social movement that commands political power. One need not endorse the RSS’s views to know that it is imperative the U.S. engage with it and seek to understand it. India is on track to become the world’s third-largest economy, is indispensable to the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, and is increasingly consequential in a restive Middle East. With public appearances like those that drew Mr. Mamdani’s condemnation, the RSS has indicated an interest in greater international engagement. That should be a welcome development to anyone hoping for more productive U.S.-India relations. (Drexel is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, London. This write up was first published by Wall Street Journal on September 7, 2026)

Bharat Hindus Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) United Kingdom United States USA World

277

Brief: RSS for Universal Oneness

Between 25 August and 7 September 2026, in the closing weeks of its centenary year, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh carried a hundred years of experience to three countries. Dr. Mohan Bhagwat, its Sarsanghchalak, addressed an interfaith summit and the Universal Oneness Celebration at Madison Square Garden in New York, delivered the keynote at Hindu Vishwa Bandhu in Toronto, and closed the visit at a Celebration of Oneness in London. In each setting, one recognition held: that truth is one though human beings describe it differently, that diversity is the natural expression of an underlying unity rather than its contradiction, and that service is owed to the whole rather than to those who share one’s own identity. He told faith leaders that dialogue and service must proceed together. He told the diaspora that loyalty to the land they live in comes first, and that what they carry from Bharat is meant to be lived rather than merely remembered. He told a room in London, in his own words, that we should give our emphasis to what unites us rather than what divides us. This brief documents those engagements in full, drawing on primary transcripts, official releases and the addresses as delivered. Download it here.

Bharat Hindus Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) United States USA World

294

From Swami Vivekananda to Dr. Mohan Bhagwat: The Continuing Journey of India’s Spiritual and Intellectual Tradition

Priyank Kanoongo New York’s Madison Square Garden is not merely a vast auditorium; it is one of those prestigious platforms in the world where the presentation of an idea becomes, in itself, a part of global dialogue. The address delivered from such a platform by Dr. Mohan Bhagwat, Sarsanghchalak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, assumes special significance because it reflects not merely the message of an organisation, but the continuity of India’s long spiritual and civilisational tradition of thought—one of the most influential expressions of which in the modern world was Swami Vivekananda’s Chicago address of 1893. In Chicago, Swami Vivekananda presented before the world an India whose spiritual consciousness possessed the ability to view diverse beliefs and faiths not as mutually conflicting, but as different paths leading towards the truth. He did not confine the Indian perspective merely to tolerance; rather, he connected it with the higher ideal of acceptance. He spoke of a civilisation that, throughout history, had provided refuge to communities fleeing religious persecution and had accommodated different faiths within itself. In his address, India was not merely a geographical entity; it emerged as a civilisation whose strength lay not in eliminating diversity, but in carrying diverse identities together. More than a century later, Mohan Ji’s address appears as a contemporary expression of that very civilisational vision. It is here that the most important ideological connection between the two emerges. Swami Vivekananda introduced the world to India’s spiritual vision; Mohan Ji connects that same vision with the social and global questions of the present day. Swami Ji presented the coexistence of different religious traditions as one of India’s spiritual achievements, whereas Mohan Ji presents it as the Indian vision of “Unity in Diversity”—eliminating diversity is not the solution; what is necessary is to recognise the underlying unity within it. This difference is not merely one of language; it also reflects the requirements of the two different eras. During Vivekananda’s time, the question was how the world should understand an India viewed through a colonial lens, and with what confidence India itself should recognise its civilisational strength. Today, the question is different. The world is technologically more interconnected than ever before, yet divisions based on identity, religion, culture, race and ideology have also intensified in many societies. At such a time, the question is: what can India offer to the world from its thousands of years of experience of coexistence? Mohan Ji’s answer appears to lie in this very civilisational consciousness of India. His interpretation of Hindutva in the address also emerges within this broader context. Rather than limiting Hindutva to any single mode of worship or narrow religious identity, he associates it with a way of looking at life and society in which an individual looks beyond oneself towards society, understands duties alongside rights, and experiences a sense of oneness amid diversity. In this context, his view that if someone believes that Muslims should have no place in India, such thinking does not understand the fundamental spirit of Hindutva, assumes particular significance. It points towards a conception in which India’s civilisational unity is not based upon the exclusion of any community or the denial of its identity, but upon the ability to carry different communities together. Here, a clear resonance of Swami Vivekananda’s tradition of thought can be heard. For him too, India’s spiritual strength did not mean victory over another faith or its elimination. He saw India’s strength in the fact that this land had given space to different beliefs, maintained the possibility of dialogue among them, and did not restrict the search for spiritual truth to any single path. Mohan Ji connects this very spirit with the contemporary questions of social harmony and human unity. Another important dimension of his thought is his appeal to Indians living abroad. Remaining connected to one’s motherland and cultural roots while simultaneously demonstrating loyalty, honesty and responsibility towards one’s land of work are not contradictory ideas. It is equally necessary to fulfil one’s responsibilities towards the country and society in which one lives and with which one’s labour, life and future are connected. This brings forth a broader element of the Indian perspective in which preserving one’s own identity and respecting the existence of others go hand in hand. “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” does not mean eliminating one’s distinct identity; rather, it means developing the capacity to view the world as one family while remaining rooted in one’s own identity. The relevance of this idea has increased even further today. Technology has reduced geographical distances, but social and ideological distances have increased in many places. Identity-based conflicts, religious polarisation and cultural clashes have become major questions in global discourse. At such a time, India’s civilisational experience cannot remain merely a memory of a glorious past; it must be transformed into an idea that is useful for the present and the future. It is here that the broader significance of Mohan Ji’s address becomes apparent. The India that Vivekananda presented confidently on the world stage was politically subjugated. His challenge was to ensure that the world did not view India merely through the lens of poverty, colonial subjugation or backwardness, but also understood its profound philosophical, spiritual and cultural consciousness. Today, circumstances have changed. India is independent, it engages with the world with confidence, and its role in global discourse has steadily increased. Therefore, the presentation of India’s civilisational vision can no longer remain confined merely to explaining itself to the world; it naturally also carries an aspiration to contribute towards finding solutions to contemporary global challenges. This is the most significant transformation in the journey from Chicago to Madison Square. Then, India was telling the world—understand us in the light of our reality and our civilisation. Today, India can also say—understand our civilisational experience; perhaps it may contain answers to some of the questions confronting today’s world. Yet, within this transformation, a profound continuity remains. Swami Vivekananda carried India’s spiritual strength to the West, but he also urged India to

Bharat Hindus Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) United States USA World

295

Civilisational Dialogue and Global Oneness

A century of service, and the centenary visit of Dr Mohan Bhagwat to the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. On 25 August 2026, Dr Mohan Bhagwat, Sarsanghchalak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, began a three nation tour of the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, at the invitation of local associations and community organisations in each country. The visit falls within the centenary year of the movement he leads, and the head of the world’s largest socio-cultural voluntary movement rarely addresses audiences abroad. Across the three countries the tour opens a civilisational dialogue, in gatherings of the diaspora and in meetings with Hindu organisations, community associations and leaders drawn from science, technology, business, academia and public life.Hindu organisations, community associations and leaders draw This brief sets out the context. It traces the hundred year journey of the RSS from a small gathering in Nagpur in 1925 to more than one hundred thousand local gatherings sustained without fees, salaries or external funding, and records the service that has accompanied it, from the three thousand Partition relief camps of 1947 to the 342,000 swayamsevaks who served at 67,000 locations during the pandemic. Its closing chapters turn to what that century offers the world. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, the world is one family, is not an inheritance to be recited but a working proposition, and it is placed here alongside the lessons of a hundred years on harmony in societies, on the family, on ecology, on self reliance and on civic character. These are questions every society is now asking. They are offered freely to all who are asking them.

Bharat Canada Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) United Kingdom United States USA World

261

Let the Dice Roll!

RSS chief’s message of Universal Oneness in New York, Toronto & London would put to rest intellectual terrorism of extreme intolerant variety. K.A. Badarinath There are ways to silence and push into a corner an opponent. You can vilify, frame, abuse or discredit him or her. You can try and delegitimise or caricature someone to reflect your antipathy or sheer opposition to him or her. If the opponent is an organization with irrefutable and unassailable standing, then go after its boss. This is how Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) sarsanghchalak Dr Mohan Bhagwat has been targeted. In the brilliant movie ‘The Taj Story’ directed by Tushar Amrish Goel, Paresh Rawal who plays the lead role of Vishnu Das talks about ‘intellectual terrorism’ of obnoxious variety that distorts Bharat’s history, ethos and teachings. While trying to frame RSS and Bhagwat, perhaps this strategy was operationalized big time in the Western landscape of US, Canada and United Kingdom by usual ‘intellectual terrorists.’ Such characters who claim to be intellectuals were branded as ‘dimagi naxals’ by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his 80-th Independence Day address from ramparts of Red Fort. Though, Modi spoke of those with naxal or Left extreme mindset with conviction to annihilate opponents in Indian context, such elements have been active and extreme even in Western theatre. When RSS Chief Dr Mohan Bhagwat touches down in New York today, the noise seeking ban on RSS is bound to hit the stratosphere. A handful of Left extremists and radical Islamists have been on rampaging spree across social media with their ‘intolerance’ and demand to prevent RSS chief from participating as keynote speaker at an inter-faith conference of over 6000 US residents in Madison Square Garden on this Saturday. Over 200 organizations have come together to hold this ‘Universal Oneness’ conference to send out a message of interconnectedness under aegis of Ahead (American Hindus for Engagement and Dialogue) Forum. This civilizational dialogue in US will feature multi-faith leaders to promote spirituality, peace, engagement at societal level in the backdrop of conflicts and wars waging in West Asia and Eastern Europe. Scores of civic leaders, representatives of public institutions, community and interfaith organizations representatives apart from huge Hindu community in United States is expected to converge at ‘universal oneness’ conference. Such gatherings are scheduled to happen in both Toronto and London during next fortnight as RSS chief criss-crosses Canada and United Kingdom to spread the message of community service, environment friendly lifestyles, civic engagement, family systems, sustainable development alternatives and above all ‘Vasudaiva Kutumbakam’ that denotes entire world as one big happy family. One is reminded of the historic Parliament of Religions held in Chicago, Illinois on September 11, 1893 where Swami Vivekananda had taken stage with the message of universal oneness and introduced Hindutva or Hinduness as a way of life seeped in tolerance, inclusiveness and universal acceptance. Harmony amongst people pursuing different faiths was the core of Swami Vivekananda’s message then. And, today its no different. RSS chief Dr Mohan Bhagwat goes there with message of ‘universal oneness’ for peace and prosperity of global communities. Rooted in respect and harmony, this dialogue of faith leaders is expected to open a big dialogue on global stage. In recent years, His holiness Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr to Pope Francis have pushed for ‘global togetherness’ for communities around the world to prosper against backdrop of conflicts, disease, backwardness, illiteracy, limited access to resources or excessive consumerism having destabilizing effect on humanity. Amidst the good, bad and the ugly campaigns happening around the world, RSS chief would take positive message of peace from Bharat, present the RSS related facts, selfless service done in 100-years and clear misconceptions on Hindutva and Bharat. A forward looking statement on what next going forward is again a big possibility. While diaspora engagement, meetings with business persons and prominent Indian origin people are scheduled in New York, Bhagwat would meet top Sikh community leaders in Toronto and London. Canada leg of Dr Bhagwat’s trip in particular is significant given calls by Khalistani extremists mounting an aggressive anti-Hindu campaign. While most Sikh leaders, businessmen, community and public representatives have dissociated from Khalistani narratives against Bhagwat and RSS, Islamist radicals (not many Muslims) propelled by Pakistan’s dirty tricks department seems to have supported the campaign. In both London and Toronto apart from New York, Hindu diaspora dialogue, different stakeholders’ meetings would mark RSS chief’s visit to Western world. Dr Bhagwat’s visit would be in continuation of the civilizational dialogue that RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale initiated earlier this year as part of the centennial thrust. Creating a market place for goods, services with production and consumption at the core has been central to Western concept of globalization. With the message of universal oneness, spiritual oneness and sanatan dharmic values, Dr Bhagwat would pursue his own view of globalization once initiated by the Hindu faith leaders like Swami Vivekananda. Taking global interconnectedness beyond technology and economic spread is something central to RSS chief’s visit to three top western countries. Let’s hear him out!(author is a veteran journalist, Director & Chief Executive of Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies, a non-partisan think tank based in New Delhi)

Bharat Education Opinion Policy Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

424

RSS Chief Sides with Gen Z, Alpha

Were Jantar Mantar protests peaceful to trigger dialogue in spirit of ‘reasoned debate’ to forge consensus on education reforms? K.A. Badarinath Bharat’s youth who fall under 35-years age bracket total to over 800 million. Only a few thousands of these youngsters joined Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) led Jantar Mantar protests on NEET paper leak last month. Genuine students, irrespective of their ideological moorings, that sought educational reforms, corrective measures against paper leaks may not be treated as ‘anti-national’. And, they have the right to protest, take to streets in a peaceful formation or even get loud. Protests are one way of leading to consensus on core education issues in a large diverse democracy like India that’s on path to constant reform. In a democratic polity like India’s, protests are perfectly fine. Even this instrument of protests has to be used with lots of wisdom and responsibility in forging consensus on reforming education system that may have fallen short of student’s expectations and aspirations of youth. This seems to be tone and tenor with which Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Dr Mohan Bhagwat for the first time articulated the organization’s position on recent protests in New Delhi while interacting with thousands of Gen Z and Gen Alpha at an event in Mumbai on Thursday. The 49-days protests were however not entirely peaceful as envisioned by Bharat’s Constitutional visionary Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar in several of his writings. RSS chief made a specific reference to Dr Ambedkar’s line on peaceful protests in his public interaction with youth. Ambedkar held peaceful protests on several occasions unlike violence, hooliganism and stone pelting witnessed in recent Jantar Mantar protests infiltrated by rowdy sheeters, drug peddlers, rapists and criminals. Dr Ambedkar had led thousands of people in 1927 against caste-based discrimination in accessing drinking water from wells. This protest is easily seen as one of the most unique and popular as ‘Mahad Satyagraha.” Kalaram Temple entry satyagraha in 1930 was yet another peaceful movement that was held under leadership of Dr B.R. Ambedkar seeking end to untouchability of low caste Hindus. Ambedkar sought equal rights to temple entry in Nashik as an issue of ‘fundamental human dignity’. In a speech on November 25,1949, Dr Ambedkar had argued stringently against unconstitutional methods and disruptions terming them as ‘grammar of anarchy’. In fact, Dr Ambedkar wanted communities, citizens groups and stakeholders to take recourse to constitutional means like Parliament and elections for seeking redress to their issues. When Dr Bhagwat referred to Ambedkar’s line on peaceful protests, not many would have gauged the context and its significance. RSS chief’s messaging seems to be crystal clear. There’s no place for violence unlike what happened during the CJP protests. Culture of reasoned debate in Bharat was highlighted by the RSS chief in the context of protests held by students. Well, did the protestors trigger a reasonable debate on their issues? It’s a big question. Second big rider pointed to by Dr Mohan Bhagwat was that protests should not lead to divisions in the society or bring about divisiveness. But, did the Jantar Mantar protests pass this test? Well no. Only some genuinely concerned students and their families were there seeking changes in education system. But then, anti-social elements took control of narratives as well as the dais at Jantar Mantar. Stone pelting was resorted to by anti-social elements akin to what we had witnessed in Kashmir valley terrorists backed street incidents. Students’ issues took a back seat. Instead, protests got politicised with several opposition parties jumping in lending an anti-Modi twist to the protests. Left extremists who joined the protests claiming to be heirs of Dr Ambedkar were in fact seeking relevance as their guerilla war waged against democratic institutions got wiped out. In fact, the RSS chief brought the conversation back on issues that mean a lot to students and youth. Dr Mohan Bhagwat pushed for setting aside six per cent of GDP for education making it affordable and accessible to all. RSS has also argued against commercialization of educational institutions as avenues for profiteering at the cost of students and youth. At the same time, RSS chief has pin pointed to ‘collective responsibility’ of entire Indian society for taking education to all and not leaving it in exclusive domain of government. So, bringing meaningful debate on education engaging students and youth as big stakeholders may be the way forward. (Author is Director & Chief Executive of Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies and a veteran newsman)

Bharat Hindus Opinion Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

307

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

Blog Post