Jul 6, 2025 07:01 IST First published on: Jul 6, 2025 at 07:00 ISTShareThe Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is unwavering in its goal to establish a Hindu rashtra (Hindu nation). The concept of a Hindu rashtra is borrowed from the Holy Roman Empire (800-1800 CE) or the Caliphate (632-1258 CE), and prescribes a nation governed according to Hindu scriptures. Sometimes, the RSS may seem to retreat but will not wander or go astray; it will wait for a propitious time to strike. Hindu rashtra has many sub-goals such as repealing Article 370 of the Constitution, building a grand Ram temple at Ayodhya, laying exclusive claim to holy places like Varanasi and Mathura, and replacing the Babasaheb Ambedkar-drafted Constitution by a constitution based on Manusmriti.Fountainhead of RSS-thoughtThe modern nation-state is based on citizenship. The central pillar of a Hindu nation will be the Hindu religion. M. S. Golwalkar, the second sarsanghchalak of the RSS (1940-1973), called ‘Guruji’, in his book, We, or Our Nationhood Defined, wrote:Advertisement“The foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e. of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen’s rights.”Golwalkar is venerated by the RSS and remains the fountainhead of RSS-thought. There is no evidence that the RSS has changed its views on Hindu rashtra. On the contrary, the RSS vocally supported the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). The RSS also supports the government’s efforts to throw out or push back ‘unlawful’ immigrants, especially Bangladeshis and Rohingyas. (The government paused the NRC only when it found that the implementation of the law had the unintended result of identifying many thousands of Hindus as non-citizens.)Soon after Mr Modi formed his second government in 2019, he struck at the state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K). The use of Article 370(1)(d) and (3) to nullify Article 370 was, to say the least, bizarre and constitutionally suspect. The Supreme Court held that the ‘amendment’ to the Constitution without following the procedure laid down in Article 368 was unconstitutional. Yet, the Supreme Court saved the situation for the government by holding that the exercise of power by the President under Article 370(1)(d), applying all the provisions of the Constitution to J&K, had the same effect as abrogation of Article 370. However, the Court left several seminal questions unanswered. The government won bragging rights though it lost on the legal issue of abrogation.AdvertisementThe 400 Paar FiascoIn April 2024, emboldened by his belief that his 10-year rule had ushered in the Amrit Kaal (golden age), Mr Modi raised his sights and aimed at winning 400 seats in the Lok Sabha election. The I.N.D.I.A. parties waged a spirited battle with the slogan ‘save the Constitution’. The slogan resonated with the people who voted in favour of continuing a BJP-led government but with a severe limitation: they gave the BJP just 240 seats, less than a simple majority in the Lok Sabha. That check has constricted Mr Modi’s power to amend the Constitution — so far.Undaunted, the RSS has set the ball rolling:🔴 The first arrow was the pseudo-democratic idea of One Nation, One Election (ONOE). A pre-scripted report was obtained and a joint parliamentary committee has been enabled to go around the country to obtain ‘views’ — until the time is ripe to pass the O.N.O.E. Bills.most read🔴 The next arrow was shot by Mr Dattatreya Hosabale, general secretary of RSS. He dubbed as unconstitutional the addition of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble to the Constitution, and demanded their deletion. The Congress and other Opposition parties condemned the demand. The Vice President of India, Mr Jagdeep Dhankar, weighed in with the observation that the two words were a ‘festering wound’. Mr Hosabale’s demand triggered a political debate and Mr Dhankar wading into the debate raised eyebrows.To Stoke Communal FiresThe word ‘secular’ is anathema to the supporters of Hindu rashtra but can a plural, diverse, multi-religious and democratic country be anything but secular? I admire the French who are pre-dominantly Catholic but fiercely secular. The other word ‘socialist’ has no fixed meaning; it is often used to describe a welfare state and the BJP cannot deny that India is a welfare state. The addition of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ did not radically alter the basic structure of the Constitution. In fact, the Supreme had held in 1973 that ‘secularism’ is a basic feature of the Constitution and in 1980 that ‘socialism’ permeated the Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36 to 51). The demand of Mr Hosabale is not based on any constitutional principle or societal need but is raised only to stoke the fires lit by the communal forces.It will be a betrayal of their core principles if the TDP, JD(U), AIADMK, LJP, JD(S), NCP and others support the RSS/BJP. The I.N.D.I.A. parties must gear up for a battle which they will surely win.