❈ ❈ ❈

The RSS Sends a Message

Saba Naqvi

It is the centenary of the RSS next year, and it is an organisation that plays the long game. Towards that end, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was a great enabler of their ideological agenda. But now that the BJP has crashed in the nation’s two most populous States, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, there is a realisation in the mothership that the party (which is the political wing of the RSS) has managed to retain power, albeit at the head of a coalition, only because of a surprise heist of 20 seats from Odisha.

In such a scenario, the recent utterances of the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat cannot be brushed aside as empty moral posturing or as an attempt to quickly occupy the opposition space. It must be read as a clear message to Modi, and it could be the beginning of a change in the power balance within the BJP and in its equation with the RSS. The RSS chief said, among other things, that a true sevak does not have arrogance. Given that the 2024 campaign was reduced to a message about “Modi ki guarantee” and that a once voluble party with multiple power centres is now a one-man cult, using the word “arrogance” was a clear signal from the head of the Sangh Parivar.

It was reinforced in a signed piece in the RSS magazine Organiser by Ratan Sharda, author of several books on the Sangh. He critiqued fighting from all 543 seats on Modi’s name as “self-defeating”. There were other scathing lines in the article, such as: “Targets are achieved by hard work on the field, not sharing posters and selfies on social media. Since they [BJP leaders] were happy in their bubble, enjoying the glow reflected from Modiji’s aura, they were not listening to voices on the streets.”

A very significant challenge to Modi, therefore, comes from within the Sangh Parivar. First, it is no accident that the high command did not follow the protocol of calling a meeting of the BJP’s Parliamentary Party that consists of newly elected MPs to elect their leader in the House. There was a meeting of NDA MPs, but significantly not a meeting of BJP MPs. The reason for this was that the RSS had positioned some MPs to not challenge Modi directly but to ask questions about the conduct of the election and the issue of fixing responsibility. This sort of conversation would have been par for the course in the era of the first BJP Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, but Modi was having none of that, so the meeting never took place.

Next, there are two leaders who have the absolute trust of the RSS: the MP from Nagpur Nitin Gadkari (Union Transport Minister) and the former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, who has now been given the Agriculture portfolio. Neither has been included in the Cabinet Committee on Security, which remains unchanged. Modi is signalling—both to allies and to his ideological family—that he will do it his way.

Still, it is useful to share an anecdote from the era when both Chouhan and Modi were seen as successful Chief Ministers. Both also happened to be OBCs, which was a deliberate RSS template in the post Mandal-Mandir era. At a meeting of the BJP held to assess State performances, the praise for Modi’s Gujarat model was countered by leaders who said that Gujarat was always a rich State, but the Chouhan model was more remarkable since Madhya Pradesh was performing well even after its bifurcation and the loss of its resource-rich parts to Chhattisgarh. A veteran recounts that even then, “already a cult hero, Modi did not like it”. This anecdote is applicable to equations today, as Chouhan represents a counter to the Modi persona of narcissism/authoritarianism combined with proximity to big capital. The RSS has kept quiet since it has also been a beneficiary of the Modi phenomenon, but there is a genuine liking and admiration for Chouhan who is modest (no arrogance, as the RSS chief would say) and is seen to have performed well in agriculture.

The other personality about whom there is speculation is Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath. The RSS does not hold him responsible for ticket distribution in the State, especially because it has become clear that he had limited influence, with Modi and Amit Shah using their greater clout. The Delhi duo obviously lived in the bubble of belief that the “Modi magic”, as reiterated by their loyal media servants, would overcome organisational rumblings and public disconnect. The “deluded high command”, to use the language of a veteran, also pushed the “400 paar” narrative that was clearly damaging because it reinforced the idea of constitutional change, which hurt the party in Uttar Pradesh. There is also a strong critique within the party about the handpicked social media team, which entirely missed this, obsessed as it is with petty and daily trolling.

A more serious view emerging from the RSS is that the Modi regime created confusion on the issue of a caste census—something the Sangh opposes fiercely. In some places the Prime Minister made quota promises and in others he did not. Today, the RSS believes that the potential gains from a formidable social coalition in Uttar Pradesh were lost because of this mixed messaging. Once the caste genie is out of the bottle, it is not easy to expect Hindutva issues to bring it together in this State’s political and social terrain.

No more mandir issues?

Also linked to this is the fact that the RSS did not create any mass movement on the mosque-temple demand in Mathura and Kashi. It is speculated that this was because the RSS chief signalled that more mandir issues will not work on the ground for the next few years. According to well-placed sources, the entire mobilisation on Kashi and Mathura was done by lawyers, some sadhus and sants, and local individuals with sporadic backing from the BJP. The RSS did not believe a mass movement on either issue would be “appropriate or successful”. As mandate 2024 showed, overplaying the Ram card also flopped.

While Adityanath is not being held directly responsible for the Uttar Pradesh debacle, should the RSS/BJP feel the need to project an OBC or Dalit face in the future then his Thakur caste would be a liability. Many veterans in the BJP insist that the perception of Adityanath as good in handling law and order would work in the Assembly election, but it is not clear which, individual or regime, will survive until then, as the next election in the State is due only in 2027. The NDA alliance did well in Bihar, but Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is the first author of the caste census, which makes the Sangh very uneasy. It is fundamentally a Brahmanical outfit that works on social engineering to uphold traditional caste structures.

The RSS’ anger with Modi also extends to Maharashtra, as the instruction to go for a smash-and-grab policy here by breaking other parties came from the Delhi high command. There is a clear view that the strategy damaged and lowered the morale of the BJP’s Maharashtra unit. With the State’s election due in a few months, it will be interesting to see how things pan out not just between the BJP and the opposition, but in the leadership and candidate choices the BJP makes from now on.

It is true that the RSS is BJP, and the BJP is frequently RSS. But what the RSS firmly believes is that Modi is not the BJP and that both party and parivar are bigger than the Prime Minister, who has turned out to be entirely biological.

(Saba Naqvi is a Delhi based journalist and author of four books who writes on politics and identity issues. Frontline magazine, a fortnightly English language magazine published by The Hindu Group of publications headquartered in Chennai, India.)

❈ ❈ ❈

The RSS Supremo’s Outbursts, a Denial By ‘Sources’ and the History

P. Raman

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat, in his customary address to a workers’ camp at Nagpur, said the true sevaks perform public work without arrogance (ahankar), causing no harm to others. Describing the just concluded election contest as “bitter”, he said that “decorum was not maintained during the campaign”.

Bhagwat said: “The kind of things were said, the way the two sides castigated each other, the way no one cared about social divisions being created because of what was being done, and for no reasons the Sangh was drawn into it.… Untruths were spread with the use of technology… How will the country function like this?”

The RSS chief’s outburst came as a bomb shell to the BJP establishment. It opened a new front for the leadership, already beleaguered by a stronger opposition and determined allies like the Telugu Desam Party. Given the RSS hierarchy’s complex system, an outright retraction was impossible. More over, the BJP’s relationship with Nagpur had deteriorated during the past few years.

And barely 10 days after Bhagwat’s outbursts, RSS outfits like the ABVP, Shiksha Bachao Andolan of Dinanath Batra and another affiliate Shikshasanskriti Utthan Nyas came out to blame the BJP government for mishandling the NEET exam. They openly criticised the National Testing Agency.

RSS outfits have been lying low ever since Nagpur – under an deal with Narendra Modi and Amit Shah way back in 2015 – had told affiliated organisations to hold back from protesting.

Now, as the mood shifted, there were frantic moves to try and get a contradiction. But four days after, all that was available was a vague ‘clarification’ from an unnamed ‘senior source’ in the Nagpur establishment. It claimed the RSS chief’s remarks were directed at the karyakartas, and not in reference to Modi or the government.

A quick look at the original text reveals that facts were otherwise. Look back to what Bhagwat said: “Elections are an integral part of democracy. Because of this, there is a tendency …but one should not use untruths. People have been elected. They will sit in Parliament and run the country through consensus. Consensus is our tradition.”

There are repeated references in Bhagwat’s address to Parliament and the duty of the political parties to maintain decorum and maryada, something the ruling party has breached. All this cannot be aimed at the ordinary karyakartas.

The BJP managers also promptly acted to silence those who ventured to join Bhagwat’s harangue. Indresh Kumar, a member of the RSS national executive, was forced to revise his earlier statement. The new Odisha chief minister Mohan Charan Majhi, who criticised Indresh Kumar, was also told to keep

The RSS mouthpiece Organiser had also carried a more elaborate article shedding light on the strained relationship between the two organisations. Written by an old parivar hand, it said that the dedicated workers were spurned and the “new age social media aided, selfie-powered experts” took over.

The article says such people ignored RSS workers. Another complaint relates to even senior leaders being unable to meet BJP ministers and leaders. The cult creation had reached such a state that even senior leaders said ‘Modi is the candidate in all the 543 constituencies’. The Organiser article said even the party workers were led to believe they did not need to work as “Modiji’s aura” will bring them votes in all constituencies.

Clearly, BJP president J.P. Nadda’s remarks that the party was now stronger and could manage without the RSS’s help, hurt Nagpur. This explained the extreme arrogance with which the BJP bosses treated the RSS. And a prominent friendly commentator concluded that the both sides needed each other and Bhagwat’s outbursts amounted a ‘rap on the knuckles’ for Nagpur.

For years, there has been no meaningful interaction between the RSS and Modi-Shah establishment. The RSS hierarchy’s differences with the government have been growing ever since the regime began taking to unbridled Modi-centric build-up and ideas such as him being Hindu Hridaysamrat. In 2019, Bhagwat himself had asserted his right to warn the regime whenever it ‘flounced’.

In 2021, the BJP played down Bhagwat’s criticism of its Covid management. Before this came his first major outburst when he said aid both the administration and government had dropped guard on dealing with Covid.

The choice of a new party president in place of Nadda will give us some idea about the existing relationship between the two sides. In the good old days before the Modi era, the RSS was duly consulted on the choice of the president and members of the BJP’s central executive committee. Will Modi-Shah agree to revive this process?

There were rumours in Delhi that during his Gorakhpur visit, Bhagwat will meet Adityanath, who in turn will sound the former out about the need for a patch-up. However, contrary to the earlier reports, there was no meeting between the two.

The RSS will hold its prant pracharak’s meeting in Ranchi on July 11-13. Next will be the annual coordination meeting of the affiliated organisations at Palakkad from August 31. By then, we will know more about the kind of relationship that is developing.

● ●

When the BJP was formed in April 1980, there was a broad consensus among the RSS and BJP leaders on three points: expand the new party by enlisting maximum number of ‘sikular’ Janata liberals, regular liaison with the RSS and prevent authoritarian trends in its hierarchy.

The last was a hangover of the anti-Emergency movement. With this in view, the RSS under the then sarsanghchalak Balasaheb Deoras decided to assign a few of its senior functionaries like Sunder Singh Bhandari to the nascent party as political ‘commissars’. They directly reported to Nagpur. In the initial stages, the system worked fairly well.

However, BJP’s first president Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the first to flout this arrangement. His policies alienated the RSS hierarchy to the extent that in the 1984 Lok Sabha elections, the party could win just two seats. L.K. Advani, who became president next, had a more or less smooth relationship with Nagpur.

After the BJP’s defeat in 2004 to which the RSS had immensely contributed, Advani also had a brush with Nagpur over his praise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He was forced to resign. And the RSS installed Rajnath Singh as the new party chief. Such was the control the RSS had on the BJP. Modi has snapped this umbilical cord and asserted his superiority. This has enraged the RSS.

● ●

The relationship between the RSS and BJP leadership ebbed during Vajpayee’s second inning as prime minister from March 1998. Public statements and warnings against Vajpayee by RSS leaders continued throughout his rule. While Bhagwats’s accusations are inexplicit and needed explanations, RSS under its sarsanghchalak K.S. Sudarshan had raised specific issues with Vajpayee like FDI in industry, small units, privatisation and Ayodhya.

All this was 15 years before Modi clamped down on free and frank debates within and outside the party organisation. Look at the bitter debates within the the RSS parivar from 1991 on economic policies. Apart from Sudarshan, BMS founder Dattopant Thengadi, Murlimanohar Joshi, K.R. Malkani, K.L. Sharma, Govindacharya and Jai Dubadhi argued that economic nationalism was as important as ‘cultural’ nationalism.

After intense debates at two meetings of the BJP’s central executive committee, at Gandhinagar the party adopted its consensus economic policy called ‘BJP’s Swadeshi Alternative’. It defined the areas where FDI is acceptable and emphasised the need for protection of the public sector.

Soon after the Vajpayee government began its second innings in 1998, the RSS began taking objection to the breach of the Gandhinagar document by the NDA regime. Thengadi alleged that Vajpayee, who had by then emerged the corporate media’s reform icon, was taking orders from the ‘Chambers’. Even the mild mannered RSS boss Rajendra Singh had in January 2000 joined the protests.

RSS outfits took objection to the regime’s every move to impose reform. Sample the following.

• In February 2000, RSS outfits opposed Samkhya Vahini, a foreign controlled firm that would dominate India’s land-based communication network. Subsequently, it was scrapped.
• An RSS-led Agra seminar in June 2000 opposed plans for 100% FDI in all industries and privatisation of the PSU banks.
• At an RSS workers’ camp in Agra in October 2000, Sudarshan said Vajpayee’s economic policies were aimed at ‘pleasing foreigners’.
• In February 2001, Vajpayee announced he had put on hold the Balco-Sterlite deal. But the next day, he said it was not dropped.
• In October 2022, Sudarshan at an intellectuals’ meeting lambasted the government for ‘falling prey to the WTO’.
• Disinvestment minister Arun Shourie in January 2003 lamented that disinvestment dropped by Rs 12,000 crore due to the parivar’s objections.

There was a lull in the tension following an agreement with Vajpayee at a meeting at the prime minister’s residence. There were about a dozen such meetings with the prime minister, attended by Sudarshan and his men and senior cabinet ministers and BJP functionaries like president Jena Krishnamurthi and Kushabhau Thakre, on different issues.

Pressures by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on issues like acquiring land for the Ayodhya temple and its ‘Chetna Yatra’ were other issues of differences. However, finally, in May 2003, Advani who by then became deputy prime minister, persuaded the RSS to agree to a ceasefire in view of the 2004 Lok Sabha polls.

(P. Raman is a veteran journalist. Courtesy: The Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia, and M. K. Venu.)