Reactions to remarks expose global vs grassroots divide

Mumbai: RSS Sarsanghachalak Mohan Bhagwat’s recent assertion in New York that a Hindu who desires an India without Muslims is “not a Hindu” has triggered a fierce and multi-layered debate across the political spectrum and social media.

Addressing the ‘One World One Humanity’ event, Bhagwat emphasized that the true essence of being a Hindu mandates believing that all paths lead to the same God and that every human being possesses inherent dignity, irrespective of their religion.

While the statement was framed as a reiteration of the ancient Indian philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, the reactions it has elicited are far from unified, reflecting the deep-seated complexities surrounding the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s ideological messaging.

A significant section of social media users, including prominent RSS activists, welcomed the statement, framing it as a natural extension of traditional Hindu inclusivity. Taking to platforms like Facebook, right-wing commentators and seasoned activists such as Vishal Deshpande in Pune hailed the speech, vehemently arguing that there is nothing in Bhagwat’s postulation that had not been said from the RSS platforms in the past.

They maintained that the RSS chief was merely reiterating the foundational Hindu ethos and the organization’s long-standing, yet often misunderstood, stance on cultural nationalism. For these supporters, the speech successfully projected the universal tolerance inherent in Hinduism to a global audience.

However, for political opponents, minority leaders, and liberal commentators, the statement was met with intense suspicion and accusations of doublespeak. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi captured the prevailing skepticism among critics by taking to X to call it the “oldest trick in the RSS playbook,” where the organization allegedly reserves one set of conciliatory words for the global stage and a more polarising ideology for its domestic cadres.

Echoing this sentiment, Left leaders like CPI’s D Raja challenged Bhagwat to deliver the exact same speech on Indian soil, while Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal noted the irony of championing diversity abroad while allegedly undermining it at home. Even among moderate social media commentators who have long urged the RSS to adopt a more open approach towards Muslims, there was a lingering doubt.

Many theorized that this could be a calculated public relations exercise designed to project a moderate image internationally, or perhaps a deliberate strategy where a multitude of contrasting statements are floated by different sections of the Sangh Parivar to gauge the public mood and maintain plausible deniability.

Follower Base

Perhaps the most intriguing reactions emerged from within the broader right-wing ecosystem and the RSS’s own follower base, where the remarks exposed a palpable internal fracture.

Across platforms like Reddit and X, a vocal segment of right-leaning netizens expressed deep frustration, with some users accusing the leadership of practicing “one-sided secularism” and pandering to international galleries at the expense of core Hindu anxieties.

This ideological dissonance trickled down to the grassroots swayamsevaks as well, many of whom found the statement profoundly shocking. A seasoned RSS activist from Mumbai, speaking on the condition of anonymity, articulated this disconnect by asserting that swayamsevaks are trained to internalize only the ideological directives imparted during formal, closed-door training sessions, rather than taking cues from public platform grandstanding.

Ultimately, Mohan Bhagwat’s New York address has acted as a political Rorschach test. To his supporters, it is a definitive articulation of Hindu universalism; to his critics, it is an international masquerade; and to a section of his own foot soldiers, it is an uncomfortable deviation from the hardline narratives they navigate locally.

As the digital discourse continues to churn, the sheer variety of these reactions underscores a lingering challenge for the RSS: bridging the vast chasm between its global diplomatic posturing and its grassroots ideological realities.