I recently happened to watch two videos back to back: in one of them, the speaker labelled Vivekananda and Bharathiyar as “Sanghis”; in another, the scholar Maraimalai Adigal was described as a Tamil chauvinist. At first, I was startled, but then I realised that this was indicative of the general tendency of contemporary political narratives. Politics today has reached a state of intense polarisation that creates the base for extreme emotions—consolidated in the form of either passionate loyalty or virulent hatred.
Such polarisation is impossible to achieve without deliberate overgeneralisation and a broad-brush approach, which erase all nuance. In the absence of a balanced historical perspective, both sides readily mount an attack upon any neutral third party. Political discourse passes from scholars and intellectuals into the hands of shrill motormouths on either side. This way, both the party in power and the opposition end up sharing a similar mindset making the fascists as well as the anti-fascists guilty of adopting a monolithic stance.
Why has contemporary discourse degenerated to such a degree? Let me quote an example to explain this phenomenon. On the occasion of the birth centenary of Swami Vivekananda in 1963, the RSS leader Eknath Ranade, who later established the Vivekananda Memorial in Kanniyakumari, brought out a book titled Swami Vivekananda’s Rousing Call to Hindu Nation. Anyone reading the book, which has sold millions of copies in the past half century, is liable to assume that Vivekananda was a forerunner of the RSS’ founders.
Similarly, a contemporary editor compiling a volume of Maraimalai Adigal’s thoughts on language can easily project him as the precursor to the leaders of the identity politics of Tamil nationalism. The present social media ecosystem leaves little space for extensive reading. As a result, it is merely a handful of random quotations taken out of context that determine the course of thinking.
In a climate where impassioned oratory alone attracts attention, it is small wonder that oversimplification and sweeping generalisation recur on a constant basis. This explains how geniuses of yesteryears are force-fitted into the framework of contemporary political identification. Adopting such a view, one can easily brand Adi Shankara and Badarayana as Sanghis. By the same token, Thiruvalluvar may perhaps be dubbed a Tamil ethnonationalist.
Also Read | RSS versus the Constitution
A certain mindset ubiquitous on social media today has a profound impact upon thought itself: everybody on these platforms is compelled to project themselves in public as radicals and revolutionaries. The only way to achieve this is by resorting to vituperation and vicious polemics. On the other hand, seldom do these keyboard warriors show up at any genuine protest on the ground. In fact, their virtual battlefields exist only as replacements for any meaningful real-world action; in these phony realms, insubstantial forms clash with other insubstantial phantoms. Yet, they create an intense pressure that constricts all manner of thought and expression. It becomes well-nigh impossible for anyone in such an atmosphere to adopt a balanced and historically informed attitude to any issue.
It is these extremists who end up branding Vivekananda a Sanghi and handing him over to the Hindutva brigade. Indeed, they similarly consign into the hands of Hindutva forces all the revered heroes of the Indian renaissance. This posse of imbecile ideologues have no idea of the enormity of cultural wealth they are gifting away to their opponents in the bargain. The need of the hour is, in fact, a sustained struggle against the tendency to slip into generalities. It is an uphill task because distancing oneself from these incendiary positions and assuming a neutral stance is tantamount to painting a target on one’s own back; one instantly makes enemies on all sides.
Fascism thrives on majority support
Fascism is distinct from military dictatorship; it is an ideology that ascends to power with the sustained support of the majority. It is possible to understand its appeal only by learning how it garners such popular support. In fact, the evolution of fascism everywhere in the world follows the same trajectory. First, a form of cultural renaissance occurs at a certain point in history.
Soon, its underlying principles and beliefs are consolidated into cultural institutions. Then these institutions spawn a populist movement, which embarks on a course to capture power. Once its proponents occupy the citadels of power, the ideology metamorphoses into full-blown fascism. Therefore, at the root of every fascist movement lies an authentic cultural renaissance that can stake claim to a long, genuine history and a positive, progressive contribution to society. Without appreciating the subtleties of how the ideology itself evolved, one cannot truly comprehend the politics of ethnonationalism or religious supremacism. Any wilfully blind opposition devoid of such understanding only succeeds in strengthening these forces by turning over to them the cherished icons of their own culture.
Once they unwittingly surrender these heroes to the other side, all their actions against the politics of religious or racial supremacists are prone to be portrayed as an assault on these icons. Will India ever turn its back on Vivekananda? Will Tamil Nadu ever reject Bharathi? The sad truth is that the attacks upon Vivekananda and Bharathi only serve to bolster the interests of Hindutva.
All-religion prayer held in Tiruchi on Subramania Bharati’s birth anniversary for the welfare of flood-hit people, December 11, 2015. | Photo Credit: A. MURALITHARAN
As a movement, the RSS traces its origins to an authentic moment of cultural reawakening in Indian history. The Indian cultural renaissance was born of religious reformation movements spearheaded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati (Arya Samaj) and Raja Rammohan Roy (Brahmo Samaj). Both the institutions they set up addressed themselves to the English-educated Indians of their day. Their agenda was to integrate the ancient thoughts and beliefs of our land with modern European thought characterised by its humanist, egalitarian outlook as well as rational thought and scientific temper.
The towering figure epitomising these movements is Swami Vivekananda. That his spiritual vision was Vedanta made him even more successful, since Vedanta is fundamentally integrative in nature. Its originator Badarayana defines his vision with the phrase, “Tat tu samanvayat”—that which is known only by reconciliation; Krishna, a later teacher of Vedanta, in the Bhagavad Gita, calls the same integrative principle “Yoga.” In fact, the phrase “yogatma margam” signifies dialectics. The third major integrator was Adi Sankara, who brought together the six religious traditions of his day, besides harmonising Vedanta with the teachings of Buddhism, on account of which he was berated by the orthodox as “Prachanna Bauddha” (Buddha in disguise).
Vivekananda’s prime contribution was the creation of a philosophical school that can be termed Neo-Vedanta. Whilst the old guard of Vedanta had turned stagnant in traditional math settings and been trapped in ritual observances, he initiated a modern and dynamic configuration of Vedanta. In doing so, he paved the way for us to approach the pinnacles of Western culture and grasp their essence by relating it to the highest philosophical achievement of Indian thought.
He is the most reliable bridge between the East and the West. To this day, what counts as the most influential intellectual movement to emerge in India is Neo-Vedanta: it produced thousands of scholars and renunciates; it established hundreds of educational institutions in every field of cultural activity—be it media and journalism, art, or modern literature—it was neo-Vedantic thought that led to the Indian renaissance. Throughout the country, the pioneering figures of modern Indian culture are all neo-Vedantis. One may cite Subramania Bharathi, Kumaran Asan, Kuvempu, Kandukuri Veeresalingam Panthulu and Rabindranath Tagore as examples. The neo-Vedantis, such as Narayana Guru and his disciples, were also at the forefront of social work, rushing to the rescue of the distressed, particularly in times of disaster such as droughts.
Inspired by cultural rennaissance
The Indian nationalist movement, too, needs to be seen only as an extension of the Neo-Vedantic wave. The foundational symbols of the movement, such as the flag of the Congress, the slogan “Vande Mataram”, and the associated sentiments were all drawn from the cultural renaissance inspired by Neo-Vedanta. It is from the same substratum that the RSS also sprouted. Its founder Keshav Baliram Hedgewar was strongly attracted to Vivekananda’s movement.
The organisational structure of “sevak sangh” (service society) created by the RSS was, in fact, modelled on the mission of monks that Vivekananda had founded. Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, popularly known as Guruji within the movement, was a self-proclaimed devotee of Swami Vivekananda. Indeed, Vivekananda remains the ideal role model for many, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi today.
It is from the Indian cultural renaissance that the RSS has drawn all its insignia and instruments of action. The daily prayer of the RSS, “Ekatmata Stotram” (hymn of unity), includes a list of Indian greats by whom they are inspired. (Gandhi’s name was a late addition to the list.) This particular intellectual lineage was what the Indian cultural renaissance movement had shaped for itself through constant internal dialogue over half a century. Indeed, most of the issues raised by the RSS in the past 50 years have been the same ones that the Indian renaissance had tried to address.
For instance, during the colonial period, aggressive efforts for religious conversion had been undertaken under the aegis of the then rulers. As part of this effort, the entire cultural and intellectual legacy of Hinduism was grossly distorted and maligned. The colonialist Europeans of that time simply failed to understand Hindu culture; in fact, the Hindus themselves were quite ignorant of the essence of their tradition. Therefore, it was not unusual for the thought leaders of the time, right from Vivekananda to Narayana Guru and Chattampi Swamikal, to respond to such criticisms.
The same line of argument becomes, in the hands of Golwalkar, an attack upon other religions; in his elaborate essays, he turns their statements into simplistic sloganeering and tokenistic opposition. Similarly, the primary reformist ideals of the Neo-Vedantic cultural movement such as the abolition of untouchability and the repudiation of caste differences have been adopted by the RSS as its mission.
All said and done, the RSS is not a cultural movement but a populist one—and some crucial distinctions exist between the two. Cultural movements are fundamentally intellectual in character and are envisioned by scholars and reformers. Therefore, they admit internal dissent and debate; they foster an environment in which internal contradictions organically emerge. In fact, it is through such dialectics that the movement, as a whole, progresses.
Their primary aim is the rejuvenation of culture and it is for the purpose of cultural transformation that they address the public at large. On the other hand, what we call populist movements mobilise public support through propaganda, by using the symbols and sentiments of the prevailing culture in order to capture power. Their motive force is neither an agenda to reform society nor a mission to rejuvenate culture; it is the pursuit of political power, plain and simple. They realise that popular support is best garnered by deploying subliminal cultural symbols and striking a chord with deep-rooted public sentiments. However, these populist fronts are incapable of creating such an elaborate cultural matrix of their own.
RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat pays floral tribute to a picture of Bharat Mata at the centenary celebrations of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi, on August 27, 2025. | Photo Credit: Ishant Chauhan/ANI
Therefore, they appropriate the vast legacy of imagery and iconography from foregoing cultural movements. They then proceed to create simplified versions of these icons, shorn of all their subtleties, and invest them with exaggerated emotional valence. Through every channel at their command, they launch forceful campaigns to propagate these stolen symbols and to profit from their appeal. This is all that the RSS and the Hindu renaissance movement have in common.
Descent into populism
In reality, it is extremely difficult to tell apart a cultural renaissance movement from its populist counterpart. The latter constantly foregrounds the legendary figures associated with the renaissance as its own forerunners; it puts them on a pedestal and propagates their ideas and symbols through impassioned rhetoric. When a populist movement hijacks a cultural movement, it creates an illusion of carrying forward the cardinal values of the latter to a large audience. This may seem like the long-awaited success of the cultural movement on a practical plane. I have often observed even political pundits being baffled, unable to distinguish between the two.
Ironically, the leaders of cultural movements themselves sometimes choose to act in tandem with their populist offshoots, since they mistake such movements to be the authentic carriers of their own ideals to the larger masses. They go the extra mile to confer their blessings and heap praises on such movements. However, soon after they have played their part, they are promptly jettisoned by the power-hungry populists since they no longer serve their political interests. This is, unfortunately, a recurring phenomenon, and the history of the RSS is replete with such examples.
What is the real difference between a populist movement and a cultural one? Only two differences clearly transpire in the way a populist movement handles debate and dissension both within and without. First, the vast network of opinions and standpoints existing within a cultural movement are flattened by force into a monolithic stance. The dialogue that takes place, for instance, between Neo-Vedanta and the various other Vedantic schools is highly nuanced, but the RSS subsumes all these differences under the singular umbrella of “Hindu unity”.
Secondly, it transforms the healthy debate between the cultural movement and elements outside it into a pretext for acrimony. It exploits difference to manufacture otherness; it weaponises disagreement to construct an all-out enmity and stokes the fires of hatred against the newfound enemy. For example, Neo-Vedanta has had a long-running dialogue with Christianity; it accepts some specific elements of the Christian world-view while refuting others. However, Golwalkar depicts Christianity as the enemy of all Indian culture in his book Bunch of Thoughts. A revealing example of this communal venom in recent times was in the reaction of online Hindutva mobs to the celebration of Christmas at the Ramakrishna Math in Chennai last year—they castigated the math for what they deemed an act of betrayal.
At first sight, a populist movement that was formed as a spurious remake of a genuine cultural renaissance movement would seem in its own field of action to be an idealistic mission. In fact, it is not uncommon to see committed idealists and dedicated servants in its fold. Although the leadership of the movement might hanker after power, more often than not its followers tend to be unselfish. Many of them prove to be neither ethnic nor linguistic chauvinists. As individuals, they are likely to be quite sweet-natured, with strong faith in the ideals put forward by the cultural renaissance.
Transformation in to fascism
However, as the populist movement advances towards positions of power, it acquires a distinct fascist character. That is when it dawns upon the idealistic minority that the movement allows no room for any idealism and that all its pretentious slogans are but the tools of propaganda. At this point, all that is open to them are two unenviable choices: a meek compromise or a silent exit. Displacing them, there come the unabashed power grabbers, political brokers, and absolute thugs. This marks the transformation of the movement into a consummate fascist outfit.
As a matter of fact, a populist organisation that occupies the seat of power has no other alternative: it has to perpetuate its doctrine of “hate for the other” by necessity, since it was the momentum of such hatred that catapulted it to power in the first place. Once in power, the incumbent leadership might advocate moderating the campaign of hatred since it could pose problems to the very functioning of the government. But the engines of hate, once set in motion, can only move inexorably forward.
The same RSS that was behind the demolition of Babri Masjid to make way for the construction of the Ram temple today appeals to its cadres not to dig up the relics of the past, including the tomb of Aurangzeb. However, the sundry outfits spawned by the RSS are fanatically surging on. The daily prayer of the RSS now includes a phrase acknowledging Mahatma Gandhi, but when the members of these fringe offshoots justify the actions of Nathuram Godse or shoot at Gandhi statues, it looks the other way. After all, it consolidated its massive following only by targeting the “other” and stoking the fires of fear and hatred; if it were to abandon the politics of hate, its vast base of followers will begin to dissipate. The BJP, the political face of the RSS, which usually presents a front of inclusive development, quickly resorts to a hate campaign whenever the cohesion of its vote bank is threatened.
Social activist K. N. Govindacharya with Sree Radhananda Bharathi Swamy during a talk on nationalism at PGRRCDE auditorium, Hyderabad, April 1, 2016. | Photo Credit: K.V.S. Giri
Unless the democratic forces in the country today clearly understand this evolutionary trajectory—the idealism that inspired a cultural movement transforming into populism and eventually fascism—they will never succeed in countering organisations such as the RSS.
If its opponents continue to push their narrative that the RSS is a terrifyingly fascist, fundamentally casteist, and regressively traditionalist organisation, any youngster introduced to the RSS and exposed only to its idealism will only conclude that the opponents are enemy agents all out to malign and abuse.
Therefore, it is necessary to explain to the youth how idealism devolves into populism and fascism. There is a need to pinpoint when the organisation furthers its professed ideals and when it takes recourse to the politics of hate. What makes the RSS a formidable force today is the inability of its opponents to put across these fine distinctions to the public at large. Those who oppose Hindutva end up branding everyone who happens to have Hindu cultural moorings as Sanghis, meting out the same treatment to iconic figures of the Hindu renaissance. That is how they unwittingly swell the numbers of the RSS and continuously strengthen its base.
Same roots, divergent approaches
Ironically, the Indian National Congress too grew from the same substratum from which the RSS sprouted. Fundamentally, the Congress is a populist movement too; it also made use of the symbols and sentiments cultivated by the Hindu cultural renaissance, simplified them, and propagated them among the public.
However, a team of leaders from three generations within its ranks—Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Mahatma Gandhi, and Jawaharlal Nehru—steered the Congress towards modern democratic values, ushering in ideas of equality, scientific temper, and integrative vision. Even then, there remained in the party some leaders who subscribed to an ideology akin to that of the RSS.
Former Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee with veteran social activist Nanaji Deshmukh during Sampurna Kranti Diwas observance in New Delhi, June 5, 2004. | Photo Credit: Shanker Chakravarty
However, in the dialectics of history, it was the Gandhi-Nehru faction that won out. On the other hand, RSS too had in its fold leaders such as Nanaji Deshmukh and K.N. Govindacharya who stood for a tolerant outlook and constructive approach to a certain degree. In fact, it was during the period of Govindacharya that the BJP formally accepted and foregrounded Gandhian economics. Unfortunately, such moderates were defeated and shown the door. Instead, the politics of hate triumphed in the party with L.K. Advani at the helm of affairs.
The other day I was talking to a prominent thinker in Kerala; he was, of course, anti-Hindutva. He was concerned about the appropriation of Narayana Guru by Hindutva forces. His angle on the whole issue was that Narayana Guru must be approached only as a social reformer.
I asked him, “Would you prefer to see Narayana Guru stripped of his Advaita?” Although startled at first, he admitted that he would—the sheer absurdity of accepting a philosopher sans his philosophy was beyond his comprehension. I asked him, “If the Hindutva brigade foregrounds Narayana Guru primarily as an Advaitic saint, which way would the public sway?” He responded, “It is for us to educate the public.”
This is where the problem really lies. The mind of the public is not a lump of clay that can be kneaded and moulded at will. On the intellectual plane, the public might be rather shallow, allowing the intelligentsia to manipulate it to a certain degree. However, it is worth remembering that people are not driven by reason alone; their unconscious mind is collective and primordial.
Also Read | The slow, steady march of Hindutva in South India
What can appeal to it is only an array of ancient images and archetypes. Cultural renaissance movements skilfully refashion these images to cater to contemporary needs; populist movements use them to further their own ends; fascism weaponises them. Note the similarity between the image of the meditating Buddha from antiquity and the iconic visual of a modern Vivekananda in meditation—you will see what Modi’s recent photographs from Amarnath in a similar pose are an extension of. While fascism is armed with such powerful ammunition, all that their opponents brandish is a broad and ineffectual term of insult.
As outlined earlier, the common substratum of both the RSS and the Congress is the Hindu renaissance movement, which in turn was modelled on the European Renaissance. The Neo-Vedantic tradition engaged constructively with modern European values, ideals, and cultural principles. This dialogue continued within the Congress too. While Gokhale and Nehru adopted the dominant features of mainstream European culture, Gandhi eagerly embraced the countercultures that emerged within Europe, such as vegetarianism, hydrotherapy, and civil disobedience. Major European figures of the day, right from Romain Rolland to Leo Tolstoy, were in touch with Gandhi.
Indian nationalism’s European influence
Meanwhile, the RSS, which also grew from Hindu renaissance movements, adopted the European concept of cultural nationalism. From the 16th century onwards, European nations carved out identities on the basis of their dominant culture, in resistance to papal authority. The ideology of cultural nationalism thus became a key force in forging previously undifferentiated land masses into nation states. While the European nations chose language or race as their yardstick, the RSS used religion to determine who belonged to a nation.
Over the past three centuries, European powers constructed national identities by means of direct violence. Against their tendency to define nationhood along the lines of the mainstream culture of the land, diverse minority cultures in Germany, France, Italy, and England were up in arms. However, such uprisings were ruthlessly put down, emboldening state actors to unleash violence at will—leading to excessive militarism and the rise of dictators.
The list of despots in Europe is a long one, from Napolean to Charles de Gaulle. It was not until the disastrous reign of Hitler and Mussolini that Europe realised the perils of cultural nationalism. However, the RSS was formed in the heyday of European cultural nationalism, replicating both its ideology and its operations. Aggressively foregrounding a mainstream culture, oppressing every cultural other, consolidating power by promoting divisiveness and hatred are all tools borrowed from its European counterparts.
The RSS, which foregrounds an assertive Hindu identity, is fundamentally un-Indian in nature—its roots extend from the European ideology of cultural nationalism. Hindu culture, after all, advocates the path of integration—harmonising opposing schools and including them all in its fold has been its defining character. After all, this expansive landmass with thousands of tribes and hundreds of local traditions can hope to flourish only through the integrative vision of tat tu samanvayat (harmony of scriptures)—no other go. That is why Hindu culture has evolved to be the unifying thread that runs through thousands of disparate and often contradictory belief systems. By isolating a single strand of this culture to foreground it, the Hindutva ideologues are destroying the cohesion of the whole fabric.
I am a Hindu, an Advaiti, and a follower of Narayana Guru’s tradition. That is precisely why I identify myself as an opponent of Hindutva politics. The Hindu culture and philosophy I have learnt and inherited from my teachers is founded on the principle of samanvaya (harmony). I reject Hindutva as it is an alien ideology that has caused immense destruction in Europe and has been jettisoned even in the land of its origin. Since I am an Advaiti, I look up to Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer as one of my spiritual gurus; my teacher Nitya Chaitanya Yati also shared a similar regard. Any politics that seeks to alienate Muslims as a group and to sow discord against them is one I shall stoutly oppose—it is a force all out to destroy my culture.
In reality, what must be pitted against the politics of Hindutva is the true philosophy of Hinduism and its deep spiritual wisdom or mei-gnanam. The opponents of Hindutva have their task cut out for them: to dissociate Hindu cultural symbols from Hindutva politics and to repossess them in the right spirit.
B. Jeyamohan is a writer and critic.
Translated from Tamil by Iswarya V., a translator and critic who teaches English at the Department of Liberal Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education.
COMMents
SHARE