This year, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the world’s largest social organization, entered its centenary year. To mark the occasion, a special conference titled Vyakhyanmala was held on September 26, 27, and 28 at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi. Nearly 1,300 participants—including politicians, judges, diplomats, and social workers attended the three-day lecture series. During the event, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat reflected on the organization’s hundred-year journey and outlined its vision for the future of the Sangh and of Bharat.
It was in this speech that the subject of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ arose. Dr Mohan Bhagwatji made it clear that Hindu Rashtra does not mean a ‘Hindu nation’ in an exclusionary sense, but rather a state where no one is left out and justice is ensured for all. That Bhagwat’s remarks were unpalatable to a certain section was hardly unexpected. A Bengali newspaper reported: “Historians and political analysts say that the freedom fighters and the framers of India’s Constitution had explicitly rejected the idea of a Hindu Rashtra. Therefore, Bhagwat’s statement is dangerous for both the country and the basic structure of the Constitution.”
We live in a country where our forefathers like Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo felt proud to call themselves as Hindu, but to see ourselves cool we chose to be ‘secular’. And we are not properly secular also, we are anti Hindu, anti Bhartiya Culture and civilization. The problem isn’t ours, it is the mindset, which has been established in our mind gradually, for a long time. Have you ever seen any Hindu attack other religions or their religious places? No, still our so-called intellectuals never used the term ‘Peaceful’, when they talk about Hindus. There are so many ‘why’, but the answers are quite the same.
Again, we see concern in people’s minds when any issues arise like ‘Hindu Rashtra’. They think other religions would feel unsafe if such anything happens. But what is the reality? They feared those who never attacked any religions in the name of religion. So, that is the narrative, which always wants to defame Hindu Dharma and Bharat as well. In reality India has had Muslim Presidents, Governors, Cabinet Ministers, Chief Ministers, and leaders of opposition parties. Contrast this with Pakistan or Bangladesh, where Hindus despite being indigenous communities rarely occupy high offices and often face systemic exclusion. Mosques across India function freely. Azan on loudspeakers, Friday prayers on streets, and religious gatherings happen without fear of state retaliation. Can the same be said about Hindu temples in Pakistan or Bangladesh, where attacks and desecrations are tragically routine? India’s Muslim population has grown steadily since 1947, from around 35 million at Partition to over 200 million today.
This growth is not possible in a state that supposedly marginalizes or persecutes a community. Compare this with Pakistan, where the Hindu population has dropped from 15% in 1947 to barely 2% today. So, those who try to create a hotchpotch regarding these issues, portraying that they are concerned about Indian minorities, actually all are a game of eyewash.
The fear of Hindu Rashtra did not emerge organically. It was cultivated. From colonial times, British administrators fostered divisions by portraying Hindu unity as a threat to minority safety. This ‘divide and rule’ psychology was inherited by a large section of post-Independence intellectual circles, particularly the Left-leaning academia. I have just small questions to those feared people, who tell about ‘Radical Hindutva’, in reality which has no examples, are they not afraid about other radical groups? Are they able to talk about secularism in Pakistan or Afghanistan? And when they talk about ‘other religions would feel unsafe if such things happen’, I just have a small question, are Muslim women of Afghanistan much safer in Islamic country Afghanistan than Hindu majority nation Bharat? A report published in the United Nation news website wrote, “Three years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan has led to the ‘striking’ erasure of women from public life, which is also reflected at the community and household levels, a senior official with the UN agency championing gender equality said on Tuesday.”
(Source: Penn, D. (2024, August 13). Afghanistan: Taliban rule has erased women from public life, sparked a mental health crisis. UN News. Retrieved from https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1153151)
Why is it that when Islamic nations proudly call themselves ‘Islamic Republics’, there is little outrage in global discourse? Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and even Bangladesh constitutionally privilege Islam. Nobody questions their democratic credentials solely on this ground. Similarly, countries in Europe openly acknowledge their Christian heritage in national symbols, flags, or state functions. Yet, when India’s Hindu identity is asserted even in cultural terms, it sparks global alarm. This double standard exposes the politics behind the Hindu Rashtra narrative. It is not about protecting minorities but about ensuring Hindus remain apologetic for their identity. In international media, ‘Hindu nationalism’ is demonized, but ‘Islamic identity’ or ‘Christian heritage’ are treated as normal cultural markers.
Eminent author Maria Wirth in her book ‘Why Hindu Dharma is under Attack by Muslims, Christians and the Left’ has pointed out this narrative war. She wrote, “First, those educated Indians have a problem only with ‘Hindu’ India, but not with ‘Muslim’ or ‘Christian’ countries. For example, Germany is a secular country, and only 49 per cent of the population is registered with the two big Christian churches (Protestant and Catholic).” [Wirth, M. (2025). Why Hindu Dharma is under attack by Muslims, Christians and the Left. Vitasta Publishing.]
A fundamental misunderstanding lies at the heart of the debate. Hindu Rashtra is not about setting up a Hindu theocracy. Hindu civilization itself has no history of theocratic control. Unlike Abrahamic religions, Hindu dharma does not rest on one book, one prophet, or one dogma. Its essence is pluralism, acceptance, and debate. This is the only religion who says, “Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti”. That means, Scholars express the same truth in different forms. If Bharat is to be called a Hindu Rashtra, it simply means that India acknowledges its civilizational foundation, rooted in Sanatana Dharma. It does not mean non-Hindus will be second-class citizens. The inclusive nature of Hindu thought ensures that. In fact, it is this very inclusiveness that allowed Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam to flourish in India long before secular constitutions were drafted.
Instead of asking ‘What is the problem with Hindu Rashtra?’ we should ask: ‘Why is Hindu Rashtra seen as a problem only when applied to Hindus?’ Is it wrong for the world’s oldest living civilization to assert its cultural roots in its nationhood? Is it wrong for Hindus, who form over 80% of India’s population, to expect recognition of their heritage in public life? If Islamic Republics, Christian-majority nations, and Buddhist kingdoms are acceptable, why must Hindu identity alone be demonized? The real problem, therefore, is not Hindu Rashtra itself but the deliberate misrepresentation of it. By equating it with exclusion and authoritarianism, critics attempt to deny Hindus the dignity of their civilizational self-expression. India’s strength lies in its diversity, but diversity does not mean rootlessness. Hindu Rashtra, in its true sense, does not threaten minorities; it only affirms that India’s soul is Hindu, as said by Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo.
The narrative of Hindu Rashtra as a ‘danger’ is a manufactured fear, recycled year after year to defame Hindus and delegitimize their aspirations. Meanwhile, the lived reality of Muslims in India contradicts this fear showing instead a community that thrives with rights, opportunities, and freedoms far greater than what Hindus enjoy in neighbouring Islamic states. The time has come to call out this hypocrisy. The debate on Hindu Rashtra must move beyond propaganda and fear-mongering, towards an honest recognition of India’s civilizational identity. For a nation to embrace its roots is not a problem, it is a source of strength. The real problem lies in denying that right to Hindus alone.
