akrishnarao

Tag: Mohan Bhagwat

  • Mid-Course Correction: Why Dharmendra Pradhan’s Exit is a Wake-Up Call

    ‘Today’s youth have not strayed from the right path. They are not acting without direction. One should engage in discussion with them, but not control them. They ask for reasons, not rules. They seek explanations. Curiosity is their trait. Rebellion is their nature’.. These words were spoken not by some Communist leader, but by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat. On July 24, as he was speaking these words at the Vishwa Mangalya Sabha held at the Ambedkar International Centre.. just one kilometer away at Jantar Mantar, an aggrieved group of youth was expressing intense anger. Exactly 24 hours later, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned from his post. ‘Though delayed, a good thing was done in the end..’ commented 92-year-old Murli Manohar Joshi. A day before Bhagwat made his statement, that veteran grandee commented that the lathicharge on students was atrocious. Joshi also justified that the students’ anxiety regarding the examination system was legitimate.

    Examining these developments closely reveals that it was not only the pressure from the youth, but also the pressure from internal forces within the BJP and the Sangh that led to Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation. It also becomes clear how much internal disquiet the intensity of the Cockroach Janata Party’s protest demonstration at Jantar Mantar created within the BJP, albeit belatedly. Sonam Wangchuk, an educator and environmental activist from Ladakh who strengthened the Cockroach Janata Party’s protest through his hunger strike unto death, was once a supporter of Modi. When Article 370 was revoked and Ladakh was separated from Jammu and Kashmir, he overflowed with joy. When the BJP promised to include Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule, he campaigned in favor of the BJP during elections. Wangchuk even turned down Rahul Gandhi’s invitation to participate in the Bharat Jodo Yatra. The BJP turned such a person against itself. Not just him, among the young men and women who came to Jantar Mantar, there were many who once admired Modi and the BJP and later turned against them. ‘I too voted for Modi along with my parents. When I was coming to the Jantar Mantar demonstration in Delhi, they did not raise any objection at all,’ said a young woman. BJP leaders themselves say that even in the houses of several Union Ministers and MPs, their children expressed solidarity with the CJP demonstration. In the Jantar Mantar demonstration, many engineers, fashion designers, MBA and law students, and children of farmer families were seen from several states along with Punjab, Mumbai, Haryana, and Telangana. Wearing loose jeans, t-shirts, various kinds of attire, and bands tied around their heads, these youth cannot be linked to any political party.

    It is surprising that these very students are deciding the Parliament’s agenda today. After the commencement of the monsoon session of Parliament, the Lok Sabha functioned smoothly for the first time on Tuesday afternoon after seven days. The students were the reason for that. They were responsible not only for Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, but also for the government hastily bringing a bill to prevent irregularities in exams, for the Prime Minister announcing this bill late at night, and for the opposition finally agreeing to a debate. From Smriti Irani to Dharmendra Pradhan, four education ministers have changed during Modi’s tenure. During every education minister’s tenure, there was some controversy or the other. But the situation of having to resign due to student pressure arose only for Dharmendra Pradhan. When Dharmendra stepped into the Parliament premises after resigning, BJP MPs gave him a grand welcome chanting ‘Zindabad’ to him. They crowned him. For what? On whose orders and why did they honor him? It is clear that this was done to claim that even when knocked down, their upper hand remains. Who suffers the loss due to this? Is it not them?

    Many people across the country connected with the young men and women who conducted a peaceful protest demonstration for over a month, demanding that the Education Minister take moral responsibility for the exam paper leak. When they marched towards Parliament and their heads were fractured by lathicharges, and pellet fragments penetrated the bodies of those youths, many felt deep anguish. If those in the CJP were anti-social elements, why did Union Ministers hold three rounds of discussions with their representatives? Why did they promise to discuss reforms in the education system with them as well?

    In reality, in every movement, some amount of violence and destruction keeps taking place. Even in the Sampoorna Kranti movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan, there were allegations that a conspiracy was hatched to blow up railway bridges with dynamite. Violence broke out during the anti-reservation movement as well. Many times, after police brutality occurs, this angle of anti-social elements is brought forward to justify it. That alone does not take away credibility from the entire movement. Portraying every protest as a crime might work for a while, but it will not work at all times. Those in the ruling system must learn to respect the anger of protesters. Otherwise, a permanent hostility towards governance systems will be formed. This wisdom is evident in the comments made by Mohan Bhagwat, even if belatedly.

    Actually, had Congress acted properly, the need for students to take to the streets would not have arisen. Congress did not raise its voice strongly until after seeing the response to the formation of CJP on June 6. After the paper leak occurred in the first week of May and the exam was cancelled on May 12, Congress did not make enough efforts to respond strongly and hold the government accountable. Rahul Gandhi, who organized a student rally named ‘Chatron Ki Goonj’ in Kota, Rajasthan on June 17, disappeared for the next 23 days and spent time in Germany. Rahul showed signs of movement again only after the founder of CJP entered Delhi and intensified their protest, with just three days left for the Parliament session to begin. It was proven that if there is no continuity and daily active presence in politics, the situation goes into someone else’s hands. Congress must realize that theatrically organizing dharnas and getting arrested as in the past will not gain public sympathy. Since 2014, Congress has been stalling Parliament and holding protests. What change has come in electoral politics or in the government’s stance? With just a month-long protest, the Cockroach Party was able to make the government back down. Why did Congress and the opposition lack such moral strength?

    Just because bills are introduced in Parliament, it cannot be said that changes will come in the education system. Just by opening new IITs and medical colleges, the quality in higher education cannot be improved. To this day, not a single Indian university finds a place among the top hundred universities in the world. Even though the size of the Union Budget increases enormously every year, the share allotted to education in the Union Budget over the last 12 years has decreased significantly. In 2013–14, 4.65 percent of the total Union Budget was allocated to education, whereas by 2025–26, that share has fallen to 2.5 percent. Priority in the country is decreasing not just for education, but also for research. Going into the pages of history reveals that during the Congress regime, BJP leaders like Murli Manohar Joshi, Arun Jaitley, Sushma Swaraj, Narendra Modi, and others heavily criticized educational standards, facilities in educational institutions, and the lack of connection between higher education and employment. So to what extent has the situation changed now? Despite test papers leaking multiple times, why did the idea of setting up fast-track courts not arise earlier until students came onto the streets? In 2024, re-examinations were not conducted in certain test centers until the Supreme Court intervened. Now, the entire examinations had to be cancelled. Moreover, they are promoting it as a grand achievement that they are organizing exams properly on a war footing without loopholes. Days might even come when they claim in election manifestos that they conducted exams properly without paper leaks!

    PM Modi described the intervening period until achieving Viksit Bharat by 2047 as Amrit Kaal. The protest by the swarm of cockroaches during this Amrit Kaal should be considered, in a way, an auspicious development that served as an eye-opener for the government. Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation need not be considered a humiliation. It should be regarded as an opportunity to engage in self-introspection over the developments that occurred and take appropriate measures. Perhaps realizing this very fact, Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani was entrusted with the responsibility of Chairman of the Task Force on NTA exam reforms. It was under his leadership during the UPA tenure that the Aadhaar project, which stood as the largest biometric identification system, took shape. He played a key role in the digital transformation currently visible in the country. Technical experts and intellectuals have no affiliation with parties. That is why Modi entrusted him with key responsibilities. If the government moves forward in this same direction and takes steps to bring key changes in the governance system rather than always focusing on politics, there is no one who would not appreciate it. There is an opportunity to take such mid-course correction measures in another three years. If that does not happen, the ruling party itself stands to lose!

  • “Between Inclusiveness and Centralization: The RSS at a Crossroads”

    What direction does Mohan Bhagwat’s idea of “Sarvesham Avirodhena” — accepting everyone without opposition — suggest for India? The question has gained renewed relevance as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) enters its centenary phase and its chief addresses diverse audiences across the country. His meetings are drawing an unusually wide cross-section of society. Academics, doctors, lawyers, business leaders, artists, poets, writers, sportspersons, actors, media professionals, former judges, and representatives of voluntary organizations have attended his interactions. Even individuals who once sharply criticized the RSS, as well as those who earlier remained neutral, are now seen at these gatherings. In Mumbai, prominent film personalities were present to listen to him, and in Hyderabad even left-leaning participants attended his address. The sheer diversity of attendees has itself become a subject of discussion, raising questions about whether this reflects ideological curiosity, political pragmatism, or a broader search for direction in uncertain times.

    “Accepting everyone without opposition” implies social harmony that transcends divisions of religion, caste, language, and class. It suggests that minorities are partners in the national journey rather than adversaries, that ideological diversity is natural in a plural society, and that the strength of the nation ultimately rests on the character and discipline of its citizens. Within the RSS framework, this aligns with its long-standing objective of organizing Hindu society. At the same time, Bhagwat has acknowledged that certain earlier hardline positions — particularly some formulations associated with M. S. Golwalkar’s book Bunch of Thoughts — were shaped by specific historical contexts and should not be treated as eternal doctrine. This acknowledgment is widely viewed as an effort to recalibrate ideological emphasis for contemporary India.

    The historical evolution of the RSS provides important perspective. The organization was founded in 1925 by K. B. Hedgewar. An often-overlooked detail is that Hedgewar continued as a member of the Indian National Congress until 1935, even after establishing the RSS. This reflects the fluidity of nationalist politics in the early twentieth century, when ideological boundaries were not rigid. The period witnessed internal debates between moderate and radical tendencies within the Congress, the emergence of Mahatma Gandhi as a mass leader, the formation of the Communist Party of India, the influence of global ideological currents, and powerful social reform movements.

    Among the most significant of these reform efforts was the Mahad Satyagraha of 1927 led by B. R. Ambedkar. At Mahad, Ambedkar mobilized Dalits to assert their right to draw water from a public tank, challenging the entrenched system of untouchability. The movement was a forceful assertion of equality and dignity within Hindu society. The RSS emerged in this broader atmosphere of social churning, when caste hierarchy, representation, and reform were intensely debated. Hedgewar’s emphasis on transcending caste divisions must therefore be understood within this larger historical context.

    After Hedgewar’s death, the RSS underwent further transformation. The distance between the Congress and the RSS widened as Jawaharlal Nehru adopted a European-influenced model of secularism, and the Quit India Movement spearheaded by Gandhi and Nehru sought to rejuvenate mass resistance against colonial rule. Under Golwalkar, the trauma of Partition and communal tensions sharpened the articulation of cultural nationalism. Later, under Balasaheb Deoras, the organization expanded its social and political engagement. Deoras maintained working relations with leaders across ideological divides, including Indira Gandhi and P. V. Narasimha Rao, reflecting a pragmatic openness to dialogue. He also played a role in facilitating the merger of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh with the Janata Party in the post-Emergency period, a development that eventually led to the formation of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This phase demonstrated that the RSS could influence political realignments while retaining organizational distinctiveness.

    In contemporary India, however, the distinction between the RSS and the BJP is often blurred in public perception. Bhagwat has repeatedly stated that the RSS does not seek political power and should not be equated with the BJP. Yet the BJP’s prolonged tenure under Narendra Modi has given rise to what critics describe as a “one man–one party” model, where political authority and electoral appeal are highly centralized around a single leader. Symbolism has reinforced this perception. When Bhagwat was seen standing behind Modi during the Pranaprathista of Lord Sriram at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, many observers naturally assumed that Bhagwat stands behind Modi in all his actions and decisions. Such imagery strengthens the impression that ideological and political authority function in close alignment, even if institutional distinctions are formally maintained.

    This generates a fundamental tension. If “Sarvesham Avirodhena” calls for inclusiveness and accommodation, can it coexist with a political structure that appears increasingly centralized? Supporters argue that decisive leadership is necessary in a complex global environment. Critics counter that inclusiveness requires institutional pluralism, space for dissent, and broader participation in shaping national priorities.

    Bhagwat’s recent remarks have also addressed economic and intellectual concerns. He has expressed reservations about uncritical globalization and about the long-term implications of the Indo–US strategic and economic relationship. Observers debate whether such engagements enhance India’s autonomy or deepen structural dependencies. At the same time, Bhagwat has emphasized the urgency of building strong indigenous research ecosystems. Cultural confidence, in his view, must be matched by sustained investment in knowledge creation and innovation. However, India continues to invest less than one percent of its GDP in research and development, and the country lags significantly behind China in scientific and technological advancement.

    Ultimately, Bhagwat’s articulation suggests a vision rooted in cultural nationalism, social cohesion, character building, intellectual self-strengthening, and broad societal outreach. Yet the credibility of “Sarvesham Avirodhena” will depend not merely on its rhetorical appeal but on how effectively it addresses caste inequities, minority concerns, centralized political authority, research deficits, and strategic economic choices. India stands at a transitional juncture reminiscent of earlier periods of ideological debate and reform.

    The final and perhaps most consequential question, therefore, is whether the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh under Bhagwat will actively shape this trajectory. Will it function primarily as a cultural and moral force, offering broad civilizational guidance while maintaining distance from day-to-day politics? Or will it intervene more directly in shaping policy priorities, influencing debates within the Bharatiya Janata Party, and moderating the balance between centralization and inclusiveness?

    If “Sarvesham Avirodhena” is to move beyond rhetoric, the RSS under Bhagwat may have to demonstrate through institutional conduct, public messaging, and social initiatives that inclusiveness is compatible with ideological conviction and strong leadership. Its engagement with questions of social harmony, minority outreach, caste reform, federal balance, and knowledge-driven development will be critical. In that sense, whether the RSS chooses to remain a guiding influence or becomes a more assertive actor may significantly shape how India’s democratic and civilizational journey unfolds in the decades ahead.