top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

Bhagwat bats for culture over politics

Mohan Bhagwat, Sarsanghchalak, RSS during the lecture on the occasion of the centenary year of RSS at Nehru Centre Auditorium in Worli on Saturday. | Pic Bhushan Koyande Mumbai: On the centenary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh its present (6 th ) Sarsanghchalak Dr. Mohan Madhukar Bhagwat termed the RSS as a civilizational movement dedicated to serving humanity, cultural unity and social organization rather than power, protest or politics. Addressing a centennial lecture series before a...

Bhagwat bats for culture over politics

Mohan Bhagwat, Sarsanghchalak, RSS during the lecture on the occasion of the centenary year of RSS at Nehru Centre Auditorium in Worli on Saturday. | Pic Bhushan Koyande Mumbai: On the centenary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh its present (6 th ) Sarsanghchalak Dr. Mohan Madhukar Bhagwat termed the RSS as a civilizational movement dedicated to serving humanity, cultural unity and social organization rather than power, protest or politics. Addressing a centennial lecture series before a packed audience, the 75-year-old said that RSS runs more than 1.3 lakhs service activities all over the country encompassing education, healthcare, disaster relief and social welfare without accepting any kind of government funding. “We sustain these activities with the personal contributions of Swayamsevaks and the co-operation of society. The RSS had decided beforehand that apart from organizing the entire society, it has no other task. That work which facilitates the completion of all other good works and fulfils all noble goals, that work is the Sangh’s mission,” Dr. Bhagwat declared. This narrow but decisive role of the RSS from its inception in 1925, and the organisational works enable the fulfilment of every other national and social objective, and its self-driven social responsibility, he added. Rubbishing the notion that RSS was born as an ‘opposition to any group of ideology’, Dr. Bhagwat pointed out that the RSS did not emerge as a reaction, a protest platform, a publicity vehicle or to bid for power, but was formed for the long-term betterment of the ‘rashtra’ with emphasis on cultural unity. The RSS was not "against anyone" and did not work as a reaction to any incident, Bhagwat said, adding that its focus was supporting and strengthening positive efforts underway in the country. The Sangh was also not a paramilitary force even though it conducts route marches, and though its volunteers wield the lathi, it should not be seen as an "akhada" (wrestling club), Bhagwat said. Nor is the RSS involved in politics though some individuals with the Sangh background are active in political life, he added. He acknowledged India’s diversity in languages, food habits, religious practices, deities, rituals and regional differences, but said all these co-exist within a shared cultural framework. “There is one identity that unites us all and we call it a Hindu. It’s a broader cultural and civilisational term and not religious…, Bharat is not just a geographical entity, but represents a cultural attitude.” reiterated Dr. Bhagwat. The Sarsanghchalak also referred to the prevailing interpretation of ‘secularism’ (‘Dharma-nirpekshata’) and said it implies ‘indifference to religion’ which does not represent the country’s civilizational reality. Instead, Dr. Bhagwat suggested ‘Panth-nirpekshata’ or equal respect for all faiths as a more accurate expression in the Indian context, as “Bharat is a nation rooted in dharma representing ethical duty, social harmony and moral order rather than religious dogma”. The RSS chief emphasised how national strength flows from social cohesion and not coercion as real unity cannot be imposed by law or force, but must arise out of mutual respect, shared values and collective discipline, with service being the most effective tool bridging society and ideology. Referring to RSS founder Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, Bhagwat described the difficult circumstances of his childhood including the death of both his parents due to the plague at age 13 and the financial hardship he suffered subsequently. Hedgewar actively participated in various movements during the freedom struggle, including the Vande Mataram agitation in his school days, Bhagwat said. When he cleared the matriculation examination with a first class, some people in Nagpur raised funds to send him to Calcutta (Kolkata) for medical education, where he came in contact with revolutionary groups, Bhagwat said. Recalling an anecdote from that period, Bhagwat said Hedgewar operated under the code name "Koken", inspired by the name of a person called Kokenchandra. Once a police team which had arrived to arrest Kokenchandra instead detained Hedgewar, an incident documented in a book by Rash Behari Bose, he said. Bollywood bows for #RSS100 Bollywood mega-star Salman Khan, along with film-maker Subhash Ghai, writer-poet Prashoon Joshi, singer Adnan Sami and actress Ashwini Bhave were among the dignitaries who attended the centenary celebrations of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). They attentively listened to RSS Sarsanghchalak Dr. Mohan M. Bhagwat as he enlightened the organisation’s 100 year long journey, its ethos, mottos and service to the nation without hankering for political power, at the Nehru Centre. As Khan arrived, there was quite a flutter with many people whipping out their mobiles to click photos or videos, but he was quickly whisked in by the security personnel.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page