RSS at 100 | Was the Sangh anti-colonial? Not at all, says historian

As the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) marks its centenary, The Federal speaks with historian Mridula Mukherjee about the organisation’s origins and its stance during the freedom struggle. In a wide-ranging conversation, she argues that communal politics arose from colonial strategies and contrasts it with inclusive Indian nationalism.

Why does the RSS centenary matter, and how are you framing this discussion on its origins and role?

I do not agree that there were “two streams” of anti-colonial thought. The approach that produced the Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS and, on another side, the Muslim League was not anti-colonial at all. Communalism—as Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or otherwise—was a colonial construct and the ideological descendant of a colonial point of view, not of an anti-colonial one. The only people with a credible claim to the anti-colonial stream are those—Congress, socialists, communists, others—who actually fought the British. It is pointless to theorise anti-colonialism while refusing to fight the colonial power ruling you. Treating medieval rulers as the “real” colonisers and equating their co-religionists in modern India with them is illogical and ahistorical.

Watch | RSS at 100: 'Hindu Mahasabha emerged because Congress avoided religious issues'

From the 1840s in Maharashtra, and then strongly from the 1860s–70s with figures like Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, RC Dutt, GV Joshi and MG Ranade, we see a coherent critique of British colonialism. That body of thought led to mass politics—through Swadeshi and then Gandhian movements. This stream is distinct from communal ideologies that later claimed the “nationalist” label.

You mentioned the RSS’s founding in 1925. Was it a spontaneous creation, or did it emerge from specific ideological currents?

It was not a sudden idea. The RSS drew on the thinking of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar—notably Essentials of Hindutva—and on networks around BS Moonje and the Hindu Mahasabha. Crucially, the RSS was not set up as a political party but as a volunteer-style, semi-secret, militant organisation to mobilise youth and support a political project aligned with the Mahasabha. The inspiration included fascist and Nazi organisational models; Moonje’s 1931 visit to Italy and meetings in Rome are revealing, but even earlier the intent was clear: build a cadre separate from electoral politics.

Savarkar, constrained at times to Ratnagiri, still influenced events; his brother Babarao Savarkar and Moonje were active. KB Hedgewar—Moonje’s protégé—operated within this ecosystem. The pattern of maintaining organisational distance from electoral contests while shaping politics through affiliated bodies has continued into later decades (ABVP, BMS, VHP, etc.), giving the RSS plausible deniability for actions by its affiliates.

How significant was the RSS by the time of the Dandi March and Civil Disobedience (1930)? Did it participate?

By 1930 the RSS was very small, present mainly in parts of Maharashtra. Hedgewar resigned organisational charge during that period. The RSS did not join the Civil Disobedience Movement; any participation by individuals was framed as personal. An internal explanation given later was that Hedgewar could “influence youth” in jail with RSS ideas—an image-management tactic that helped project nationalist credentials without the organisation committing to the Gandhian movement.

This anxiety to appear nationalist—“Hedgewar went to jail,” “Savarkar suffered Andamans”—recurred, even though after Savarkar embraced communal politics he ceased anti-imperialist activity. If the RSS had been genuinely nationalist, it would have joined Civil Disobedience as an organisation. It did not.

You argue communal politics is a product of colonial rule. How does that history shape your reading of RSS ideology versus Indian nationalism?

After 1857, the British oscillated between targeting and then courting different communities, ultimately institutionalising division through elite patronage, separate electorates and parallel institutions. Communal politics is thus tied to loyalism.

Indian nationalism, by contrast, must be inclusive—religious, caste, linguistic, cultural and ethnic diversity are intrinsic. Calling Hindu nationalism “Indian nationalism” via wordplay (Hindu = Bharatiya = Indian) is an obfuscation. If the project truly included everyone, why insist on a religiously marked label?

The RSS literature has been openly hostile to Congress and Gandhi, accusing them of weakening Hindus and “appeasing” Muslims. Its narratives stoked insecurity—portraying Indian Muslims as future invaders in league with external Muslims, or invoking demographic fears—classic methods to communalise a community.

What about the late 1930s: Hyderabad agitations, and the Congress versus Hindu Mahasabha–RSS roles?

In princely Hyderabad, the State Congress (distinct from the Indian National Congress’s British-India structure) launched a satyagraha against the Nizam’s autocratic rule. Mahasabha–RSS elements also entered the field with a communal framing. To avoid confusion, State Congress leaders such as Swami Ramanand Tirth consciously withdrew, differentiating their democratic campaign from a communal mobilisation. The period shows how these formations sought mass presence but with different objectives and rhetoric.

How do you assess the stance of Savarkar and allied groups during World War II (1939–45)?

When the Viceroy declared India at war without consultation, Congress ministries resigned in protest, creating a constitutional crisis. Mahasabha leaders offered coalition support to the Raj in some provinces—Bengal, Sindh, NWFP—demonstrating the loyalist logic of communal politics.

Savarkar’s call to “militarise Hindudom” and urge Hindus to join the British Indian Army was couched as self-strengthening. But against whom was this strength to be deployed? Plainly not the British. The implication was preparedness for a post-Raj communal confrontation.

The RSS did not support Quit India (1942). British intelligence noted RSS training camps, tracked their curricula, and assessed the organisation as non-threatening to the wartime government. With Congress leadership in prison, communal organisations, including the Muslim League and RSS, used the vacuum to expand.

Does this history undercut current claims that the RSS participated in the freedom struggle?

Yes. Contrary to political claims today, the RSS as an organisation did not take part in the major anti-imperialist movements. Its primary focus was mobilising Hindus against Muslims and against inclusive nationalism. The sharpest invective in its canon is often against Congress and Gandhi, more than against Muslim communalists.

Even in Partition narratives today, school texts aligned to this perspective downplay British responsibility and foreground Congress “acceptance,” ignoring that the British held all decisive cards till August 15, 1947. Congress leaders accepted Partition as a last resort to avert civil war, consistent with their refusal of a majoritarian, violent solution.

Indian nationalism sought to carry everyone together. If a significant section demanded separation, the humane nationalist response was negotiation, not coercion. That principle distinguished inclusive nationalism from communal nationalism.

So your bottom line on the RSS and the national movement?

From conception to the 1940s and beyond, the RSS aligned with a communal, loyalist ideology rooted in colonial frameworks, not with anti-imperialist mass politics. Its distance from Congress-led movements was strategic and sustained. Understanding this history clarifies why claims to an anti-colonial legacy do not withstand scrutiny.

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 creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.