The objective is not simply to address the Indian diaspora but to establish a sustained conversation with the wider institutions that shape public discourse in Britain. and, as a byproduct, to further deepen relations between India and the UK to new highs.
For an organisation that its detractors have routinely described as secretive, insular and hostile to pluralism, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh appears to be doing something rather unexpected as it celebrated its centenary year – opening the doors to engagement. That was the underlying message at a press interaction with Sunil Ambekar, Akhil Bharatiya Prachar Pramukh of the RSS, at the Courthouse Hotel in London following Mohan Bhagwat’s arrival in Britain on September 2. Bhagwat’s London visit, part of the RSS centenary celebrations, has been markedly different from a conventional political or diaspora tour. According to Ambekar, the RSS chief has held significant closed-door interactions with academic institutions, public policy think tanks, parliamentarians, business leaders and community figures. The objective, Ambekar made clear, is not simply to address the Indian diaspora but to establish a sustained conversation with the wider institutions that shape public discourse in Britain and, as a byproduct, to further deepen relations between India and the UK to new highs.
Much of the Western conversation about the RSS has historically taken place without the RSS in the room. For decades, its critics have defined it through labels ranging from majoritarian to authoritarian and fascist. During Bhagwat’s visit, organisations such as Hindus for Human Rights, allegedly linked to India’s main opposition, the Congress, and other activist groups sought to mobilise agitation, while Labour MP Nadia Whittome and others raised objections to his presence. Similar attempts had preceded his appearance in New York. Yet the RSS’s response has been strikingly simple: In a democracy, all are welcome to opine. Ambekar argued that disagreement is entirely legitimate in a democracy and that the RSS is prepared to engage with its critics rather than seek their silencing. There is an irony here. Some of Bhagwat’s opponents had sought to prevent him from engaging with British society in the name of defending pluralism. But pluralism, by definition, cannot mean allowing only those opinions that conform to an established ideological consensus. If Bhagwat is wrong, why not let him speak and dismantle his arguments? That question perhaps explains the significance of the RSS’s new international outreach better than any slogan.
Beyond the caricature
Ambekar spent considerable time explaining what he believes the RSS actually represents and outlining its social contribution over the past century. He pointed to the organisation’s extensive network of social service initiatives and its involvement in relief and community work, arguing that the RSS’s public image in the West is frequently constructed through the prism of its critics rather than through direct engagement with its members and activities. This does not make the RSS immune from criticism. Nor should it. An organisation that has existed for a century, and which has played such a consequential role in Indian public life, should be subjected to intense scrutiny. But scrutiny cannot be a dishonest caricature. And this distinction became particularly important when Ambekar was asked about allegations linking the RSS to the 2022 Leicester disturbances. The allegation has become an increasingly familiar feature of Western commentary on the organisation, appearing in sections of the media, political discourse and academia. Ambekar dismissed it categorically, describing claims of RSS involvement as bizarre and vicious and insisting that the organisation had no role in the Leicester disturbances. Ambekar’s answer was unequivocal – the RSS had no involvement in the Leicester riots, and no incriminating evidence has been presented by British law enforcement agencies.
Is the RSS reinventing itself? I put a more pointed question to Ambekar privately. Is the RSS reinventing itself? Is the organisation, confronted with changing political realities and a dramatically altered global environment, consciously moving towards becoming more palatable to Western audiences? His response was revealing.
The RSS, he said, was always centrist
The problem, in his assessment, was not that the organisation had changed but that people with their own biases and ideological assumptions had constructed a definition of the RSS that bore little resemblance to what it believed itself to be. That answer may not satisfy its critics. But it provides an important insight into how the organisation views its current international outreach. The RSS does not appear to believe it is moderating its philosophy for Western consumption. Rather, it believes it is amplifying what it sees as a longstanding misunderstanding. And at the heart of that argument is Hindutva. Ambekar rejected the Western tendency to equate Hindutva with a religious doctrine or Hindu supremacy. He described it instead as a civilisational concept, rooted in an inclusive worldview – the essence of being a Hindu and the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the idea that the world is one family). That formulation will undoubtedly be challenged. But it should first be understood.
The Muslim question
The timing of Bhagwat’s international outreach is particularly significant because his recent interventions have directly challenged one of the most persistent assumptions about the RSS. In New York, Bhagwat said that any Hindu who believes Muslims should have no place in Bharat is not a Hindu. That statement angered sections of the Hindu Right even as his wider visit provoked fierce opposition from the Left and Islamistlinked campaigners. It was an extraordinary political moment. Those who believe the RSS is fundamentally exclusionary were confronted with its chief explicitly asserting that Muslims belong in India. And some who regard themselves as defenders of Hindu interests were equally uncomfortable with the proposition. Yet Bhagwat’s argument is fundamentally pragmatic. India has approximately 200 million Muslims. They are not a temporary demographic anomaly waiting for history to correct itself. They are citizens, voters, soldiers, professionals, entrepreneurs and neighbours who are as much a part of the Indian Republic as anybody else. A politics that imagines an India without its Muslims is therefore not only morally problematic but politically and demographically absurd. But acknowledging Muslim citizenship does not require surrendering the right to criticise Muslim political institutions or Islamist ideology. That distinction is essential. A serious democracy judges institutions and ideologies by their conduct and arguments, not by collective guilt.
The conversation Britain needs
That may ultimately be the real significance of Bhagwat’s London visit. The RSS is attempting to move the conversation away from protest politics and towards institutional engagement. The message from Ambekar was that this engagement is not intended to be a one-off exercise. The organisation wants to maintain a continuing people-to-people relationship with Western societies. That is a strategically important shift. India’s relationship with Britain is no longer confined to governments and diplomats. Millions of people of Indian origin are embedded in British public life, from business and medicine to academia, politics and civil society.
The RSS is now entering its second century. It has survived colonial rule, Independence, Partition, the Emergency, political upheaval and the transformation of India’s political landscape. Its influence is too substantial to be dismissed through slogans. Adit Kothari is a Calcuttan residing in London as a Pravasi Bharatiya, working to dismantle the plethora of false narratives and misinformation on India and Hindutva.
