We must shape Indian society beyond shakhas: RSS scholar

As the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) marks its 100th year, The Federal speaks with historian Vinayak Chaturvedi, whose research revisits VD Savarkar’s ideological project and its deep influence on the Sangh. He explains how Savarkar’s framing of Hindutva shaped the organisation from its early decades, why Golwalkar treated him as an ideological senior, and how Savarkar’s late-life blueprint for cultural dominance continues to shape institutions today.

Did Savarkar inspire the formation of the RSS?

Savarkar’s conceptualisation of Hindutva offered the clarity that early Hindu nationalist thinkers were seeking. His argument that Hindutva is a history created an intellectual foundation for imagining a Hindu nation. Hedgewar’s circle accessed Savarkar’s writings through V.V. Kelkar, who was close to him, and Hedgewar even published two of Savarkar’s early books.

Vinayak says that the RSS’s formation clearly reflects this continuity — in its understanding of Hindu identity, its reading of history, and its ideas of cultural nationalism and rashtra.

What connects early RSS leaders like Hedgewar and Golwalkar to Savarkar’s writings?

Golwalkar read Savarkar closely, especially Essentials of Hindutva and Gomantak, and wrote letters thanking him for shaping his thinking on Hindu Rashtra. In these exchanges, Golwalkar treats Savarkar as an intellectual senior whose ideas carried authoritative weight.

This correspondence shows how deeply Savarkar’s arguments influenced Golwalkar’s later political articulations as RSS chief.

Why did Golwalkar object to Savarkar’s comparison between the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League?

The comparison seems uncomfortable because critics even today view both organisations as mirror images of religious nationalism. Savarkar believed nationhood rested on religious identity; he saw the Mahasabha and the League as operating within that framework.

Golwalkar may have found the comparison problematic because it placed the Mahasabha on the same conceptual plane as the League. But Savarkar’s reasoning remained consistent: both movements grounded politics in religious-historical identity.

Savarkar supported both Nazi Germany and Zionism. How did he justify this contradiction?

Savarkar celebrated Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland as completing its “fatherland,” and he supported Zionism’s struggle for reclaiming the “holy land.”

Within his framework of fatherland, motherland and holy land, both projects appeared to fulfil territorial and civilisational goals. Vinayak says Savarkar’s support for Nazi territorial nationalism and the Zionist project emerged from the same logic: nationhood built on history, land and sacred geography.

To him, these positions were consistent, even if morally disquieting.

Did Savarkar become disillusioned with the RSS?

There is evidence of friction, though the remark widely attributed to him — that the RSS volunteer “was born, joined the RSS, and died without accomplishing anything” — remains difficult to authenticate. What is clear is that disagreements were common within the Hindu Mahasabha and between its leaders and the RSS.

After the Gandhi assassination, Savarkar was in a politically vulnerable position, and tensions likely sharpened. Vinayak notes that such internal discord was typical across the Hindu Right, and Savarkar was not immune to it.

What was the Hindu Rashtra Dal, and how close was Savarkar to it?

The Hindu Rashtra Dal emerged around the same time as the Hindu Rashtra Sena, founded by Dr. Parchure of Gwalior. Godse and Parchure tried to merge the two bodies but eventually split. Both organisations trained young men in drills, discipline and paramilitary-style routines.

Savarkar supported these efforts because he believed that militarised and organised Hindu youth were essential for shaping the future nation. Beyond this broad interest, little is known about how he envisioned the Dal’s long-term role.

You’ve said today’s institutional changes echo Savarkar’s late-life strategy. How so?

In his final years, Savarkar laid out how Hindus should shape society beyond the confines of shakhas. He argued that Hindus must found publishing houses that would shape public discourse; they should write books that reframe the civilisational story; they must study history rigorously and reinterpret it from a Hindu vantage point; they should build intellectual institutions capable of influencing generations; and they needed to craft narratives that place Hindu experiences at the centre of national identity.

Vinayak says that when we observe today’s shifts in educational curricula, research institutions and cultural bodies, the imprint of Savarkar’s strategy becomes evident — whether viewed as reconstruction or ideological capture.

(The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in the initial draft, our editorial team reviews, edits and refines the material before publication. At The Federal, we combine AI efficiency with human expertise to deliver credible, nuanced journalism.)