The RSS and India’s Civilisational Approach to Islam and Muslims

Mohan Bhagwat’s address on Hindu–Muslim unity frames the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as a civilisational integrator, rather than as a narrowly religious or political actor.

AI generated image

In a gathering that would have seemed improbable even a decade ago, Dr. Mohan Bhagwat, the Sarsanghchalak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), recently delivered an address to an audience that included Muslim intellectuals and community leaders. The speech marked a clear articulation of how the RSS now understands its role in India’s plural society, and how it defines Hindu identity as it enters its second century.

Rather than offering policy prescriptions or political assurances, Bhagwat set out a philosophical framework. His intervention positioned the RSS as a civilizational actor concerned with long-term social cohesion, historical continuity, and the restoration of trust across communities.

Reframing Narratives

Bhagwat framed Hindu–Muslim discord not as a civilizational inevitability, but as the product of historical disruption. The divisions that define contemporary communal politics, he argued, were hardened most decisively under British colonial policy after 1857, when India’s diversities were deliberately reorganised into fault lines.

Against this backdrop, he invoked the older civilizational process of satmikaran, the capacity to absorb difference without erasing it. Shakas, Kushans, and Huns were integrated into the Indian social fabric.

Even after the arrival of Islam, he acknowledged, conflict existed, but so did a tendency toward coexistence and accommodation. That process was repeatedly obstructed and ultimately distorted by later historical interventions.

The “thousand-year baggage” that burdens relations today are therefore real, but contingent. It is accumulated through history, not intrinsic to society. From this diagnosis followed Bhagwat’s most pointed formulation. “The RSS has come to fulfil, not to destroy,” he declared.

In doing so, he rejected the framing that “Hindus and Muslims must become one,” arguing that such language presupposes a division that is itself false. Society, in his view, is already one.

The task, as Bhagwat articulated it, is not unification through negotiation or compromise, but recognition. It is the recovery of a unity that has been obscured, rather than the construction of something new.

The RSS is thus positions itself not as a broker between communities, but as an organisation seeking to restore awareness of a shared civilizational continuum that precedes and transcends hardened religious categories.

Historical Precedents

Bhagwat located this outreach within a longer arc of RSS history. He recalled that under Balasaheb Deoras in the post-Emergency period, representatives of Jamaat-e-Islami visited RSS offices, and RSS members attended Eid gatherings. The present initiative, he suggested, follows an established pattern of engagement, though the current moment offers conditions more conducive to sustained dialogue.

He also drew upon figures beyond the RSS. Referring to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s parliamentary speeches, Bhagwat noted that Ambedkar identified bandhubhav, fraternity, as the necessary foundation for social equality. Without it, provisions for political and economic equality would remain hollow. “Fraternity itself is dharma,” Bhagwat observed, quoting Ambedkar.

Equally important was his treatment of M.S. Golwalkar’s Bunch of Thoughts. Bhagwat explicitly situated the text in its historical context, describing it as a response to the circumstances of its time rather than as settled or timeless doctrine.

This historical grounding also shaped Bhagwat’s emphasis on method. Dialogue, he stressed, must be patient and incremental. The process that led to this meeting itself took a decade, and mistrust accumulated over centuries cannot be undone quickly.

Progress must begin with trust among sensible people on both sides and expand gradually. “If we rush, we will spoil things,” he warned. Dialogue, in this framing, is not a tactical exercise, but a long-term civilizational responsibility.

Bhagwat explicitly rejected the idea of “Hindu” as a religious designation. “Hindu is not a religious connotation,” he stated plainly.

To illustrate the point, he referred to Guru Nanak’s account of Babur’s invasion, in which the suffering of both Hindu and Muslim women is described together. The episode highlights that the primary distinction at that moment was not religious, but between those rooted in the land and an external aggressor.

This understanding explains the RSS’s flexibility on nomenclature. Whether one uses ‘Hindu,’ ‘Hindavi’ or ‘Bharatiya’ is secondary to the substance of belonging. The underlying identity remains the same.

Bhagwat underscored the demographic dimension of this claim by asserting that the overwhelming majority of India’s population descends from common ancestors.

He located this view within a longer philosophical tradition, citing the Vedic dictum “ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti.” Truth is one, though it is described in many ways. Religious paths are therefore not competing claims to exclusive truth, but different expressions shaped by circumstance, place, and human limitation.

He illustrated this through simple analogies. A half-filled bottle, he noted, can be described as half-empty or half-full; others may say the bottle is too large or the water insufficient. Each description refers to the same reality, yet reflects the observer's perspective rather than the object itself.

He reinforced the point with a parable attributed to Khalil Gibran: cats believe divine blessing takes the form of falling mice, while dogs are convinced it comes as bones.

That Bhagwat reached for a Lebanese poet, shaped by both Christian and Islamic traditions, to illustrate a Vedic philosophical point is itself telling. It signals the inclusive register he sought to establish, one in which wisdom is recognised across civilisational boundaries.

Bhagwat addressed contentious issues directly. On lynching and mob violence, he was unequivocal. No sensible Hindu, he said, would advocate such acts, and whenever they occur the RSS has condemned them. Criminal behaviour must be addressed through the law, and the organisation will not shield those found guilty. The RSS, he emphasised, works through discipline, restraint, and social responsibility, not reaction or vengeance.

He was similarly candid about the RSS’s relationship with political power. Many in government are former colleagues from RSS shakhas, and he can speak to them. At times, his words carry weight. Yet political organisations remain autonomous, guided by their own constraints and calculations. The RSS’s influence is real, but limited. It is influence without command, and proximity without control.

Bhagwat was clear that this approach reflects organisational direction rather than personal initiative. The vision he outlined has been discussed and accepted within the RSS leadership down to the provincial level, with an emphasis on gradual and disciplined implementation.

What he offered was not a policy blueprint, but a philosophical foundation for coexistence. India’s future, in this framing, depends on whether its people can see themselves as one society with many traditions, rather than as competing communities defined by hardened identities. Diversity is not a problem to be managed, but a strength to be sustained.

The road ahead is demanding, and the work required is substantial. Yet Bhagwat’s address leaves little doubt about the direction the RSS now seeks to pursue. It is a direction grounded in civilizational continuity, social fraternity, and sustained engagement.

The responsibility, as he framed it, is not to invent unity, but to remember it and live by it.

(The writer holds a Ph.D. in Economics from IIM Calcutta, an MBA from IIM Calcutta, and a B.Tech from IIT Kharagpur. He is currently a faculty member at Bhavan's SPJIMR, Mumbai. Views personal.)