The New York Times' topic page on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) aggregates a series of articles that paint a detailed portrait of this influential Hindu nationalist organization, framing it as a shadowy force that has profoundly reshaped modern India. Rather than a single story, the coverage spans years, emphasizing the RSS's century-long evolution from a fringe paramilitary group to a powerhouse behind the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration.
A standout piece, "From the Shadows to Power: How the Hindu Right Reshaped India" (published December 26, 2025), serves as a capstone, chronicling how the RSS—described as a far-right entity with members including Modi—has pursued a vision of India as a "Hindu-first" nation, often at the expense of its secular foundations. This article, along with others like "5 Key Moments in the Rise of India’s Hindu-First Powerhouse" from the same date, highlights the RSS's resilience against historical bans (including after Mahatma Gandhi's assassination in 1948) and its strategic infiltration into institutions such as education, media, and governance.
The NYT's narrative is largely critical, portraying the RSS's ideology as rooted in exclusionary Hindu supremacy, inspired by early 20th-century European fascism. Articles detail how this has manifested in real-world actions: the inauguration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya on the site of a demolished mosque in 2024, which symbolized triumph for Hindu nationalists while stoking anti-Muslim violence; the persecution of Christians and Muslims through mob lynchings, church vandalism, and discriminatory laws like the Citizenship Amendment Act; and the broader erosion of secularism in institutions like Jawaharlal Nehru University.
The coverage also explores global ripples, such as tensions in the Indian diaspora over Modi's Hindu nationalism, linked to events like the 2023 killing of a Sikh leader in Canada. Overall, the Times positions the RSS not just as a cultural outfit but as an authoritarian engine driving India's shift toward majoritarianism, with Modi and figures like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath as its political avatars. While the reporting is thorough and backed by historical context, it occasionally leans into a Western lens that equates Hindu nationalism with global far-right movements, potentially overlooking nuances in India's complex communal history.
Incorporating the perspective from Dinesh K. Vohra's YouTube live video review (titled "NYT Article on Modi & RSS: पूरा छद्म इतिहास खोल कर रख दिया - भारत का सबसे बड़ा घुसपैठिया RSS"), which has garnered over 6,000 views, adds a fiery, insider critique to the NYT's analysis.
Vohra, a Hindi-speaking commentator, meticulously translates and dissects the aforementioned December 2025 NYT article, amplifying its accusations by labeling the RSS as India's "biggest infiltrator"—worse than external threats like Bangladeshi migrants. He underscores the organization's fascist inspirations from Hitler and Mussolini, its non-participation in the independence struggle (instead aligning with British colonialists), and its vast network of 83,000 branches that recruit and indoctrinate youth through militaristic drills and saffron-flag loyalty over the national tricolor.
Vohra goes further than the NYT by drawing explicit parallels to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, calling RSS a form of "Hindu terrorism" that promotes violence against minorities—such as beef-related lynchings and economic boycotts—while hypocritically denying involvement.
He predicts the RSS's downfall akin to historical dictatorships, leaving a legacy of stigma. This video review complements the NYT's journalistic restraint with unfiltered outrage, making it a potent echo for anti-RSS voices in India, though its polemical style risks alienating moderate viewers.
The Role of Muslim Exclusivism in Promoting RSS's Fascist Ideology.
A deeper examination reveals how perceived Muslim exclusivism has historically fueled the RSS's rise and its fascist-leaning ideology of Hindu exclusivism. Founded in 1925 by K.B. Hedgewar amid communal riots, the RSS emerged partly as a reaction to what its proponents saw as aggressive Muslim separatism and historical domination.
The Mughal era's Islamic rule, often depicted in Hindutva narratives as invasive and oppressive to Hindu culture, laid early groundwork for Hindu revivalism. This was compounded by British colonial policies that exacerbated Hindu-Muslim divides through separate electorates and favouritism, compelling the formation of Hindu nationalist groups like the RSS to "awaken" Hindu pride and unity against perceived threats.
The pivotal moment came with the 1947 Partition of India, driven by the Muslim League's two-nation theory under Muhammad Ali Jinnah, which insisted Muslims constituted a separate nation undeserving of coexistence in a Hindu-majority India. Although Mr. Jinnah emphasis was how safeguard the minorities. For example Mr. Jinnah in his interview with the Tribune, Lahore on July 17, 1929 said:
“I want the public to look upon the question of Hindu-Muslim settlement,” added Mr. Jinnah, “not as communal question, but as a national problem. And to find a solution of this problem is, in my opinion, the business of every Nationalist, be he a Hindu or a Muslim or of any other community. It is question purely of safeguarding the minorities which is causing anxiety and trouble, not only in India but the world over. As you must have observed the league of Nations is at present seriously engaged with regard to minority questions in various States of Europe. Every country where there is a minority question, it had to tackle it in a manner which gave a sense of security to the minority. The fitness and successful working of any constitution depends upon how far the majority is able to carry the minority with them and thereby give them a sense of security in any constitution that may be framed. And we have to solve the problem in our country according to our conditions." (Read more)
This exclusivist demand for Pakistan—framed as essential for Muslim self-preservation—resulted in massive violence, displacement, and the creation of a Muslim-majority state, reinforcing RSS ideologues' view that Muslims were inherently disloyal "invaders" or "children of invaders" who prioritized religious identity over national unity.
RSS thinkers like M.S. Golwalkar drew from this to advocate a Hindu Rashtra (nation), where non-Hindus must assimilate or subordinate, explicitly citing Hitler's treatment of Jews as a cautionary tale against minority "disloyalty."
Post-independence, events like the 1980s Shah Bano case—where Muslim leaders pressured the government to overturn a Supreme Court ruling on alimony to uphold sharia law—were portrayed by Hindu nationalists as evidence of Muslim refusal to integrate into secular laws, further justifying RSS's push for uniform civil codes and anti-conversion drives.
In contemporary terms, instances of Muslim-majority areas enforcing strict religious norms (e.g., calls for sharia in pockets or resistance to interfaith marriages) have been weaponized by the RSS to stoke fears of "demographic invasion" or "love jihad," portraying Muslims as exclusivist threats that necessitate a strong Hindu counter-response.
This dynamic has propelled the RSS's fascist elements—militaristic organization, youth indoctrination, and suppression of dissent—by framing Hindu nationalism as defensive rather than aggressive. While the RSS's ideology is undeniably exclusionary and has led to violence against Muslims, it thrives on a narrative where Muslim exclusivism (real or exaggerated) acts as the catalyst, mirroring how inter-communal tensions in Kashmir or Pakistan's treatment of Hindus amplify RSS rhetoric.
Critics argue this is a self-fulfilling cycle, where RSS actions provoke minority insularity, but historically, Muslim-led separatism provided the ideological fodder for the RSS's ascent from margins to mainstream power.
No comments:
Post a Comment