6 min readOct 23, 2026 04:31 PM IST First published on: Oct 23, 2026 at 04:31 PM ISTMohan Bhagwat’s Vijayadashami speech centred on India’s democracy, which shows the RSS’s willingness to engage with the larger question of the relationship between the people and the state. It has done so in the past as well, particularly in the mid-1970s when it was at the centre of the struggle against state power. During that time, it broadened its social base and took the opportunity to engage in dialogue and build common ground with people and groups that were once adversaries. Jayprakash Narayan saw “revolutionary potential” in the RSS, and the Socialists revised their opinion. But things are different now. The Sangh is now largely associated with state power. The disclaimer, though, is its uninhibited support for peaceful democratic protests. Against this broader backdrop, Bhagwat’s speech provides a critical framework for serious debates about our constitutional democracy. This also indicates the Sangh’s pause on cultural issues or “soft power”. Common RSS swyamsevaks’ affinity for the Narendra Modi government is due to its impressive delivery on the cultural front. It has succeeded in undoing the de-Hinuduisation programme of the Nehruvians.Bhagwat is a philosopher-activist. He is aware that the prolonged campaign and battle for the Ram Janmabhoomi temple led to a polarisation that is both religious and ideological. Moreover, the BJP government’s cultural agenda has sharpened it. Congress, the Left and other secularists now have the choice to either adopt “soft Hindutva” or remain politically marginalised. It is at this moment that they are trying to gain relevance by piggybacking on students’ protests and grievances. Despite their sizable presence in Parliament, Congress and its allies have failed to make political gains. They are organisationally moribund and attached to their old ideologies.AdvertisementThe battle in the streets becomes important in a democracy when the state seizes democratic and constitutional rights. In India, there is no dearth of anti-BJP and particularly anti-Modi propaganda. Parliamentary debates and discussions have witnessed the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, using every tool at his disposal to question the legitimacy of the government. Opposition spokespersons enjoy optimum space in TV debates to criticise the government. Nevertheless, they are pushing a narrative of “democratic decline”. They also enjoy unqualified solidarity from Western intellectuals, including the foreign press, in this regard.Also Read | ECI’s course correction is welcome, need for accountability remainsThis is the reason behind Bhagwat denouncing the flawed comparison between Indian socio-economic realities and events in France or Bangladesh. In a democracy, no government is immune from protests against its policies and programmes. Both success and failure are part of the governance script. The Modi government’s outreach to the deprived and marginalised gives it strong support from farmers, the poor, women and tribal communities. That’s why the Opposition has failed to translate its propaganda against the government into votes. The onus of their failure is not on the Election Commission. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls process may have some flaws. Does that mean that the entire process is undemocratic, biased, communal and unconstitutional? Can anyone justify the presence of more than two crore deceased and one crore duplicate names in the electoral roll? The “reversal” of the RSS in comparison to 1974 is not without logic.The RSS makes a distinction between peaceful protests based on genuine grievances — such as the one related to the NEET examination — and systematic and organised efforts to spread disaffection, transforming the innocent into violent tools by visible and invisible forces. World history is replete with umpteen examples of the Western bloc and the US’s dislike for strong leadership in developing countries. Bhagwat’s warning of a foreign hand is not to blame protesters but to caution them.AdvertisementBhagwat’s suggestions are not confined to protesters but also to the process of governance. Institutions like Parliament and the judiciary must not face an erosion of capabilities and credibility. There is at the current moment a feeling of “anti-politics”, which the political class fails to visualise. This is, perhaps, due to the fact that a large number of politicians lack either the ability or willingness to try and transcend their ideologies and social origins and appeal to a broader swathe of the people. Democracy flourishes when it produces icons who earn trust across generations and social divides. Sometimes subjective frustrations get consolidated on even small and avoidable issues. Therefore, the question is not about partisan politics but rather a deeper introspection by the political class as a whole.you may likeBhagwat’s speech also exhibits the fundamental creed and capacity of the RSS to respond to different contexts, something contemporary movements lack.It has shown a willingness to respond even to unfair criticisms in service of fostering a national conversation. For example, in M S Golwalkar’s celebrated book, Bunch of Thoughts, the “three internal threats” speech has been omitted in the recent edition. Although the words were aptly contextualised, they were used for vilification.Another creed of the RSS is anti-individualism. It does not deify its leaders, not even founder K B Hedgewar, unlike the communists who still treat discredited figures like Stalin and Mao as icons. That is a reason why Bhagwat’s intervention on Vijaydashami is not only a part of “ideological camaraderie” with the Modi government but also part of its ethos against disruption by the Opposition and the upholding of constitutional morality by the government.The writer is a former BJP Rajya Sabha MP