The statement delivered in Lucknow by Mohan Bhagwat, the chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, needs to be viewed in a comprehensive national context. The reason is that India’s culture, being rooted in Hindu traditions, has historically been inclusive and imbued with tolerance. Even before the arrival of Islam in India in the eighth century, the foundational values of Indian culture were universal, embracing all and promoting love and harmony among all living beings. Despite the advent of Islam, these core values did not undergo fundamental change, and even in the twentieth century India continued to proclaim the ideal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—the world as one family.
It was therefore not surprising that even after the country was partitioned on the basis of religion in 1947, the leaders of independent India had the courage to declare the nation secular. The primary reason was that the majority of Indians were Hindus who believed that the cultural ethos of this land was so profound that even non-Hindus could not remain untouched by it. Indeed, followers of all religions practiced in India, including Islam, have inevitably been influenced by Hindu culture. As a land of festivals and celebrations, India left a deep cultural imprint on all communities. This is why even today one can observe the strong influence of regional cultures on Muslims in Punjab and Bengal.
In this context, Mr. Bhagwat’s statement that every person living in India is a Hindu is not necessarily exaggerated. Historically, foreign invaders referred to all inhabitants of this land as “Hindus.” Even today, traces of this can be seen when Indian Muslims travel to Saudi Arabia for Hajj; they are often referred to there as “Hindi,” meaning people from Hindustan.
Mr. Bhagwat also expressed concern about casteism within Hindu society, stating that those who have been left behind on this basis must be uplifted with humility and effort. His message was clear: Hindu society must adopt a more humanistic outlook in the coming centuries and eliminate social inequality through internal reform. The RSS is often accused of supporting the Manusmriti, but it is important to note that caste divisions historically developed around professions and occupations. However, in the 21st century, education and knowledge are increasingly accessible to all sections of society, and occupational caste barriers are bound to diminish. It has also been a characteristic of Hindu society that individuals could transcend their birth-based identity through their actions. The example of Sage Vishwamitra, who was born a Kshatriya king but became a revered sage through his deeds, is often cited.
At the same time, it is also a reality that for centuries in India, people categorized as Dalits or so-called Shudras faced inhumane treatment based on birth. Therefore, in the 21st century—an age advancing beyond science into artificial intelligence—it is imperative to eradicate such discrimination at its roots.
Historically, Indians have possessed a scientific outlook, evidence of which can be found embedded in their culture. The tradition of worshipping nature as divine is unique to Hindu culture and reflects the environmental sensitivity of our ancestors. However, when India was partitioned into India and Pakistan in 1947, a line was drawn asserting that Hindus and Muslims constituted two separate nations. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the All-India Muslim League, argued before the British that Hindus and Muslims were distinct nations based on language, cultural consciousness, and historical traditions. Yet even at that time, many Muslims in India opposed partition and supported the idea of composite nationalism.
The RSS chief’s remarks can be seen as a reframing of this idea, expressing the view that everyone residing in India is culturally Hindu, even if their mode of worship differs, since they share common ancestry. It is a historical fact that after Muslim invasions, large numbers of local inhabitants converted to Islam and were incorporated into its traditions, while relatively few people actually migrated from Arab or other foreign lands.
There may be debate over which Muslim ruler saw the highest number of conversions, but the fact of religious conversion itself cannot be denied. In independent India, every citizen was constitutionally granted the freedom to propagate their religion. However, it is argued that some extremists misused this right by inducing conversions through incentives or other means, contributing to demographic changes, while Hindus generally refrained from such practices.
If India’s very identity is rooted in Hindu culture and its values, then it becomes the responsibility of its adherents to preserve the nation’s spirit. According to this perspective, there is little difference between Hindu nationalism and Indian identity. Therefore, the statement of the RSS chief should not be viewed through a narrow lens.
