As the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)concluded its centenary celebrations on Vijayadashami (October 20, 2026), the organisation that began in 1925 as a cultural response to Hindu subjugation has grown into one of the most influential socio-political forces in the country. It runs 88,949 daily shakhas at 55,683 locations, while one of the 32 organisations it has inspired, the Bharatiya Janata Party, governs India. Yet, its legacy remains deeply contested. For many liberals and secularists, the RSS evokes a history of exclusion, communalism, and ideological bigotry. For its supporters, it represents discipline, service, and a proud assertion of Hindu identity. The question now is twofold: whether the RSS is evolving (whether there is, in fact, an RSS 2.0); and whether the rest of us, secular Indians, can find a modus vivendi with it.
Infographics | RSS: Mapping the saffron empire
A duality
The discomfort of secular and liberal Indians with the RSS is not without foundation. The organisation’s early years were marked by conspicuous silence and distancing from the freedom struggle. While Congress leaders courted arrest and endured colonial repression, the RSS abstained from anti-British agitation. Its tactical accommodation with the British Raj, and the Hindu Mahasabha’s with the Muslim League in the government of Bengal, in the waning years of Empire, reflected its prioritisation of Hindu consolidation over Indian nationalism.
Post-Independence, the RSS’s image was indelibly stained by its association, however indirect, with the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, which many of its cadres celebrated by distributing sweets. Though the organisation was banned and later exonerated, the ideological proximity between Nathuram Godse and the Sangh Parivar left a lasting scar. In subsequent decades, the RSS and its affiliates were frequently accused of complicity in fomenting communal discord, from the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 to the Gujarat riots of 2002.
Its intellectual canon, too, has been appalling: M.S. Golwalkar, the second Sarsanghchalak from 1940-73, praised Nazi Germany’s racial policies and commended Hitler’s treatment of the Jews as a model for Hindus in dealing with Muslims. His writings, once central to RSS pedagogy, portrayed minorities as threats to national unity, Mahatma Gandhi as an un-Hindu pacifist, the Constitution as divorced from Indian roots, and secularism as a western import. Even in more recent years, the organisation’s stance on women, emphasising domestic roles, child-bearing and cultural preservation over autonomy, has been labelled regressive, misogynist and patriarchal, and not only by women.
Yet, to reduce the RSS to a stereotype of intolerance is to ignore its vast and varied social footprint. During the Partition riots, RSS volunteers played a critical role in protecting, rescuing and rehabilitating Hindu and Sikh refugees, especially in Punjab. In times of national crisis — wars, earthquakes, floods, landslides — the organisation and its social service arm, Seva Bharati, have mobilised swiftly and effectively, often outpacing state machinery. Its educational initiatives, through Vidya Bharati schools and Ekal Vidyalayas, have brought basic literacy to remote tribal areas. Its health camps, blood donation drives, and charitable outreach have earned praise even from ideological opponents. For many Indians, especially in small towns and villages, the RSS is not a political entity but a provider of tangible services and moral discipline.
Signs of a ‘shift’
This duality — ideological bigotry on one hand, genuine civic engagement on the other — has long confounded observers. But recent years suggest a shift toward a more conciliatory posture. Under Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS has adopted a noticeably softer tone, publicly affirming Islam’s place in India (“Islam arrived in India and will remain in India”) and cautioning Hindus against religious provocation, famously urging Hindus to “stop looking for a Shivling under every masjid”, a notable departure from earlier combative rhetoric. The leadership now reinterprets “Hindu Rashtra” not as majoritarian rule, but as an inclusive civilisational ethos, quietly omitting from new editions Golwalkar’s most incendiary views in favour of appeals to national unity and service. Outreach to Dalits and tribals has expanded alongside cautious interfaith dialogue; during an August 2026 visit to the United States, Mr. Bhagwat championed pluralism, declaring that excluding Muslims contradicts Hindutva itself. Concurrently, the RSS frames its link with the BJP as hands-off: “We only give suggestions,” Mr. Bhagwat has said, distancing the organisation from the day-to-day decisions of government. “Things cannot be achieved through politics alone.”
Still, there is a widespread view among secular liberals that Mr. Bhagwat’s recent remarks are a tactical manoeuvre to make Hindutva acceptable to a broader, international audience rather than a fundamental change in core RSS ideology, which endorses or condones exclusionary and bigoted conduct in practice. To dispel such misgivings, we argue, the RSS chief must address critical issues with solid institutional and public messaging within India rather than relying on platitudes abroad. In particular, Mr. Bhagwat should clearly oppose any initiatives that violate the spirit of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 (particularly regarding temple reconstruction in Mathura and Varanasi, causes which Mr. Bhagwat says the RSS itself would not back while swayamsevaks are free to join them). He should deplore how anti-conversion legislation in Maharashtra shifts the burden of proof onto minorities during ordinary acts of worship, prompting churches in Mumbai to require self-attestations before permitting entry to non-Christians. He must demonstrate moral leadership by actively opposing physical attacks on Christian churches, priests and nuns, prayer meetings and burial grounds, while ensuring that the law is not weaponised against minorities, especially Muslims, through selective first information reports for offering namaz or the hasty use of bulldozers against religious structures without due process or appeal.
Institutionally, Mr. Bhagwat and the RSS should sanction leaders of the BJP and Sangh Parivar organisations for engaging in hate speech, while expressing his own anguish over why India’s communal atmosphere has become increasingly toxic despite a decade of inclusive public rhetoric. Without such concrete measures, Hindutva continues to align with a majoritarian understanding of democracy, with Hindus alone seen as the primary owners of the nation, making truly inclusive dialogue difficult. That would require the RSS to renounce and denounce vigilantism unequivocally, to uphold constitutional pluralism and inclusion, and to treat disagreement and dissent not as betrayal, but as proof of India’s democratic vitality, in its civilisational tradition of samvad (dialogue/conversation/discussion).
The next generation is watching
There is also a generational test here, and it may well prove a decisive one. A majority of Indians are under 35 years, and they will judge the RSS by what they see it do on the street and on their phones. By that measure the record is thin: meme pages, troll armies and vigilantes who act against everything Mr. Bhagwat has said, and do so in Hindutva’s name, have only multiplied, and it is hard to point to any instance of the RSS publicly disowning, let alone disciplining, any of them. If his words are meant, young Indians will expect to see them enforced. If they are not, the young will draw their own conclusions, and an organisation that has always prided itself on shaping the character of India’s youth will have failed the one audience that will decide its second century.
At 101, both the organisation and the nation stand at a political and civilisational crossroads. While its tone is softer and outreach broader, elements within the Sangh ecosystem still traffic in hate and exclusion. As the RSS’s influence grows across institutions, secular Indians face a profound dilemma. Acknowledging that cultural nationalism is now entrenched does not warrant embracing it, but it does demand engagement. Rather than seeking reconciliation at the expense of principle, secular liberals can challenge its inconsistencies, insist on inclusive governance, and achieve coexistence without surrender.
Shashi Tharoor is a fourth-term Member of Parliament (Congress party) from Thiruvananthauram, and the Sahitya Akademi Award-winning author of 29 books, including ‘Why I Am a Hindu’ and, most recently, ‘The Sage Who Reimagined Hinduism: The Life, Lessons and Legacy of Sree Narayana Guru’. His forthcoming book is ‘The Fight for Indian Liberalism’ (January 2027)