Even the RSS Isn’t Satisfied With the Modi Model: Internal Tensions Emerge
Critics will tell the unpleasant truth. But when even admirers don’t try to please the rulers with a song-and-dance show of lies and adulation, it is revealing. The subjects and metaphors used by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat in his customary Vijaya Dashami speech betrayed a growing unease with the Narendra Modi dispensation.
Giving vent to the exasperation with the popular development paradigm, Bhagwat said, “India should give the world a new model.” This can be interpreted as Bhagwat’s dissatisfaction with the Modi model of governance. He unambiguously demanded a new model. Admitting that an abrupt U-turn might not be possible, he suggested a smooth, gradual departure from the existing model.
But the issues he chose to highlight left no doubt about his displeasure with the prime minister. He expressed concern about the increasing gap between the rich and the poor and exploitation by the powerful. He also raised serious objections to environmental damage in the Himalayan region because of reckless development projects. Bhagwat also stressed on the need to learn from Mahatma Gandhi, whose simplicity and frugality might show the way out of this morass. Above all, he disapproved of hooliganism and violence and emphasised the need for social unity.
Contextualise this and you are able to decode the message. Crony capitalism has become a byword for the Modi government –the Congress defines the system as “Modani”. Veteran Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Murli Manohar Joshi not only presented a detailed report to the RSS on the miserable plight of India’s economy, he also wrote to the Supreme Court against the ill-effects of the Char-Dham project in Uttarakhand. It is clear that Bhagwat chose to offer a critique of the government at this critical juncture instead of endorsing Modi’s propaganda of unprecedented development.
Bhagwat did endorse Modi’s push for self-reliance but subtly made the point that inter-dependence of the global community in this age of liberalised economy cannot be wholly reversed. He went so far as to suggest that public revolt, like what was seen in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, happens primarily because governments become insensitive and unresponsive. Bhagwat stopped just short of declaring that Modi has failed to give a new vision to the world in these 11 years.
Does that mean the RSS would prefer a new leadership, more rooted in RSS philosophy, than that of Modi, who has run the system with the help of carefully chosen bureaucrats instead of relying on what Bhagwat described as the “collective experience” of the Sangh parivar and others?
Modi has continuously invented self-aggrandizing narratives with twin objectives – one, to divert the nation’s attention from real concerns; and two, to refurbish his own image as the strong leader who can make India “Vishwaguru”. Who knows better than Bhagwat that both the objectives now stand demolished?
Reinventing history?
When Modi sang “Ek akela sab pe bhaari”, the BJP danced in ecstasy, not realising that the entire party had been reduced to a mere support system for the supreme leader. Intoxicated by power, the BJP declared itself self-sufficient and said it did not need RSS support any more. Modi was flying high, caring little for the lesser mortals in the Sangh parivar. He picked anybody he liked from the crowd of MLAs and gifted him the chief minister’s crown, pushing aside entrenched forces who dared not sob or whine.
But power equations have changed dramatically after the 2024 election; the BJP lost majority in the Lok Sabha and Modi lost his swagger on the global stage. The unabashed ek-akela tune was recomposed so that it would be in tune with Nitish-Naidu tantrums. But the most striking change occurred in the relationship with the RSS.
Bhagwat, who had looked like a docile assistant during the inaugural ceremony of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, has clawed back his lost authority. Modi had to write articles, published in different languages, praising the RSS chief on his birthday. He hailed the RSS in his Independence Day speech and released a postal stamp and coin on its 100th anniversary. The RSS must have been delighted to see the prime minister inventing its role in the freedom struggle but even that did not prompt Bhagwat to reciprocate Modi’s gesture. Bhagwat avoided any spectacle on Modi’s 75th birthday.
The larger question, however, is the distortion of history by the prime minister. The world knows the RSS not only kept away from the freedom movement, they opposed the Tricolour and the Constitution of India. Ordinary citizens delivered their verdict in the first election, giving their strongest disapproval of RSS’s reluctance to fight colonial rule and its communal Hindutva agenda. In the parliamentary election in 1951-52, while the Bharatiya Jan Sangh won only 3 seats with a 3.06% votes, the Hindu Mahasabha won 4 seats with 0.91% votes. The Congress, which had led the freedom movement, won 364 seats with a 44.99% vote share, vividly reflecting the national sentiment at the time of Independence.
It is a tragedy that the prime minister of India is resorting to falsehood to legitimise the RSS.
Character-building
Mohan Bhagwat lays exceptional emphasis on character-building. He spoke of this in his Vijaya Dashami speech, insisting that the RSS was committed to shaping individuals who will honestly implement its vision. After 100 years of existence, the RSS should have produced hundreds of distinguished individuals to inspire the world. It needs to introspect why almost all illustrious personalities of international fame that modern India has seen, have found the RSS philosophy deeply problematic.
Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore, Sardar Patel, B.R. Ambedka – all of them rejected the communal RSS ideology. The contemporary intellectuals – Amartya Sen, Romila Thapar, Ashis Nandy, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Arundhati Roy, Raghuram Rajan, Partha Chatterjee, Purushottam Agrawal, Yogendra Yadav, among others – too believe that the Sangh parivar’s worldview is antithetical to constitutional principles that gave substance to the idea of India.
Can the Sangh parivar present one globally-acclaimed political scientist, philosopher, artist, poet, historian, economist who believes India can realise its true potential only under the RSS’s hegemonic control? Can India’s intelligentsia ever endorse the “character” developed in the RSS cradle as the true representative of Indian-hood?
Mohan Bhagwat should critically examine the character of governments run by the BJP, a party managed by people moulded by the Sangh’s ideology. Is the governance corruption-free and ethical? Do the governments have moral authority, or are they are seen as brutal systems with scant regard for constitutional principles? Is the RSS happy that “characters” built by it symbolise coercion, not compassion? Does it endorse the bulldozer as the mascot of a democratic government?
When people hear BJP chief ministers’ toxic rhetoric against Muslims, what will they think of Bhagwat’s sermons on peace and harmony? Effects of character-building should be manifested through words and deeds. Bhagwat says the RSS seeks unity in society, not antagonism towards any religion or community, while BJP governments continue to deal with Muslims through threats, discrimination and coercive action. Is appreciation of this hypocrisy a new form of patriotism in Amrit Kaal?
Bhagwat should understand his words on character-building will carry weight only if the society sees evidence of nobility on the ground. If a fake baba arrested for rape and murder is alleged to be close to the Sangh parivar, doubts will emerge. If a corrupt leader hounded by central agencies finds refuge in the BJP’s embrace, its claims of honesty will dissipate in the air. If thugs and rioters are nurtured by the Sangh parivar, lofty words on peace and harmony will invite contempt and ridicule. If traders and tricksters are presented as “sant samaj”, the society will be sceptical of RSS character.
It is truly ironic that a government blessed by those who lay emphasis on character-building is accused of vote-chori and manipulation of democratic processes. Empirical evidence, not hollow claims, will compel society to see merit in the “character-building” boast.
