Dissent and democracy: Why RSS endorses right to peaceful protest

India is facing deep political polarisation, with ideological differences increasingly turning into hostility. A section of the political class is drawing parallels between the democracy in our country and its decline elsewhere. In this context, RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat has willingly emerged as a democratic counsellor for both the state power and those who define themselves as political have-nots.

The RSS has endorsed the right to protest and dissent and earlier Bhagwat rejected the theory of foreign interference in every agitation. At the same time, he has cautioned against protests being hijacked by external forces. He aptly asserted that “the western storms” can’t transcend India’s boundary. It shows the RSS’s determination to change the narrative. Therefore, his Vijayadashami speech was not merely a celebration of the RSS’s 100 years but an inaugural address for its next century.

The first important aspect of the speech is its emphasis on people’s right to stage protests and the state’s moral obligation to essentially engage them in dialogue. But he also warns against violence and the exploitation of movements by the forces seeking to destabilise the country.

In Latin America, the Pink Tide saw left-wing governments seek greater independence from American influence, alongside interventions by external powers and non-state actors. These developments raise questions about powerful countries shaping political outcomes elsewhere. Neo-imperialist forces may oppose leaders and countries challenging their economic and diplomatic dominance and use non-state actors to exert pressure.

For the first time in India’s democratic tradition, certain elements are trying to create a narrative of regime change. This is undemocratic and unconstitutional as it means using extra-constitutional means to overthrow the government and the system. The term has been used by Naxalites and communist movements, including during the Telangana struggle of the 1950s.

During the Emergency, opposition leaders from the Jana Sangh, Congress (Organisation) and socialist parties were jailed and the RSS was banned. Yet the demand was for the lifting of the Emergency and fresh elections. The opposition sought a change of power through the ballot. The use of regime change today raises questions about the narrative’s origins and the possible role of foreign think tanks and resources.

Students and young protesters should not be presumed to share such intentions. Their protests can be independent and democratic, and their grievances must be respected. My concern is that some left-wing elements, whom Modi described “Dimagi Naxals”, and anti-India forces may exploit their grievances to spread unrest and dissatisfaction. This is not a figment of imagination as the country witnessed left-oriented intellectuals’ uprisings soon after Modi assumed power. The award-return campaign launched by them in 2015 is its example. It shows there is institutional bias against the RSS, the BJP and Narendra Modi. I believe this bias has parallels with attitudes among some non-state actors in the western world.

The second important aspect of Bhagwat’s speech is responsiveness. He said that people must be able to place genuine demands before the government, which is morally bound to consider them. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has emerged as a highly responsive leader. When students raised concerns about NEET and other issues, the government set aside its political ego. This weakened forces seeking confrontation between the state and its people. But it should be symbiotic.

Bhagwat’s message is to end the binary between the state or political class and the people. Political parties identify themselves with the people before elections, but a divide often emerges afterwards. The relationship must remain based on dialogue and resolving grievances. Bhagwat’s speech is therefore resolution-centric, seeking to move the government and protesters towards addressing legitimate demands.

This reflects the spirit of Babasaheb Ambedkar’s address to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949. Ambedkar warned against unconstitutional methods once democratic institutions became available. Violence and force had to give way to peaceful democratic means. He also warned of threats to democracy and sovereignty from within India, invoking Mir Jafars and Jaichands to illustrate internal betrayal.

Bhagwat’s emphasis on non-violence reflects a similar argument: democratic grievances should not fracture society or undermine national unity. Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated through satyagraha that mass mobilisation could challenge colonial authority despite severe repression. Those who claim Gandhi’s legacy must uphold non-violence.

The RSS, too, adopted satyagraha following its ban in 1948, imposed after Gandhi’s assassination amid allegations against the organisation. It responded through peaceful protest rather than violence. The government must likewise respond to peaceful movements, while protesters must recognise that violence weakens their cause and deepens social divisions.

Bhagwat’s speech also addresses Parliament and the opposition. Demands must be debated and resolved through parliamentary procedures. The phrase sarak aur sansad captures the relationship between the street and Parliament. Protests can bring neglected grievances to the forefront and compel governments to act, but Parliament must remain the principal institution for debating legislation and resolving political disputes. Undermining Parliament and using the streets to highlight demands by the opposition parties shows the lack of republicanism among them. It is a dangerous trait.

When we adopted parliamentary democracy, we evolved a consensus that political transformation should take place through the ballot, not the bullet. Here Bhagwat strongly argues in favour of constitutional morality. It also indicates the RSS’s willingness to engage itself with constitutional democracy more than the past.

The RSS has always played a social role and should not be seen as a conservative or right-wing force. Its socioeconomic activities have expanded its presence among young people and disadvantaged communities over the past decades.

Bhagwat has sought to build trust in society. The RSS has faced criticism over its ideology, its position on Muslims and religious conversion, and its relationship with the BJP. Since becoming RSS chief in 2009, Bhagwat has addressed these issues. Since the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, religious polarisation has remained significant in Indian politics. Bhagwat and the RSS have sought to build trust with minority communities through public statements and ideological engagement. I believe Bhagwat has challenged the image of the RSS projected by its opponents and opened the way for dialogue. His open dialogues in Vigyan Bhawan in Delhi in the RSS centenary year and in other parts of the country has been intended to end the colonial mode of binaries and confrontations among ideologies and religious groups. But trust requires sustained engagement and action also by adversaries of the RSS, demonstrating a commitment to social and religious diversity.

Another significant aspect of the speech is its attempt to advance an eastern perspective against what I regard as a dominant western narrative. Bhagwat’s reference to “western storms” concerns protests against the state as well as cultural influences that, in his view, weaken social cohesion, family structures and environmental responsibility.

This argument is linked to Panch Parivartan, which Prime Minister Modi praised after Bhagwat’s address. The five transformations focus on social harmony, family values, environmental protection, civic responsibility and the removal of colonial-era attitudes.

Decolonisation is central to this agenda. Since 2014, the government has sought to repeal colonial-era laws and change inherited institutional practices. The repeal of 1,700 laws, cited in this context, is part of that process. Bhagwat’s emphasis on Swadharma calls for freeing the Indian mind from colonial attitudes and building confidence in its cultural and civilisational traditions. Environmental protection and the removal of untouchability are equally important.

Panch Parivartan also calls on social organisations to focus on fundamental social change rather than become extensions of electoral politics. India has a long tradition of social movements, but many have become politicised. Social and political movements serve different purposes; one cannot replace the other.

Bhagwat’s use of “We, the people of India”, drawn from the Constitution’s Preamble, expresses the idea that despite our diversity and differences, we are one people. This unity encompasses our civilisational legacy, culture, sovereignty and history.

The RSS distinguishes between citizenship-based nationality and civilisation-based nationality. The Constitution remains essential, but, in this view, it must be accompanied by an understanding of India’s civilisational inheritance. The challenge is to reconcile this perspective with constitutional citizenship. India’s diverse religions, traditions and cultural practices must be accommodated while preserving the equal status of all citizens.

The author is an RSS thinker and former Rajya Sabha MP.

As told to Pratul Sharma