RSS Mathura Meeting: Have the Daggers Been Withdrawn?

There’s a need to recognise that in this round, Modi and his core loyalists have implicitly taken back the key pronouncement of declaring absolute self-sufficiency, as articulated by party President, JP Nadda towards the fag end of the electoral campaign in the third week of May.

(Photo: X/RSS)

Uncharacteristically explicit were the assertions by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Sarkaryavah (general secretary) Dattatreya Hosabale while addressing the media at the conclusion of the Akhil Bhartiya Karyakari Mandal's session in Mathura on 26 October, bringing down the curtains on an acerbic phase of the relationship between the Bharatiya Janata Party and its ideological fountainhead, especially Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his core aides.

The development, almost five months after the BJP’s not-so-inspiring electoral performance in the Lok Sabha polls in the face of excitable '400-par' claims, has clearly come after protracted and uncharacteristic barbs followed by both sides.

There’s a need to recognise that, in this round, Modi and his core loyalists have implicitly taken back the key pronouncement of declaring absolute self-sufficiency, as articulated by party president JP Nadda towards the fag end of the electoral campaign in the third week of May.

Nadda, it may be recalled, stated in the interview – granted to the Indian Express – certainly after due clearance from Modi given his pre-eminence within the party – that the BJP was now “saksham” (capable) to run its own affairs independent of the RSS. The party president’s unequivocal declaration of operational separation from the RSS confirmed murmurs in the grapevine that the swayamsevaks were by and large not turning out for BJP candidates, save in constituencies where local party bosses successfully cajoled the functionaries.

Nadda’s statement confirmed what was being contrastingly discussed in circles close to the Sangh Parivar, that after the BJP’s ‘comfortable’ victory, its leaders would declare the party as a functionally autonomous unit within the former. Venturing on such a path was being seen as yet another step in the self-paved road Modi chose to walk on after becoming Gujarat Chief Minister in October 2001.

Almost from his first day in office, Modi consciously decided to exclude the RSS and its provincial leadership from all consultative processes before formulating policy and taking key decisions.

Such channels of communication existed previously, not just in Gujarat, but in other states too where the BJP was in power. In discussions on the BJP’s intention to step outside the RSS-held umbrella, Modi's move was seen as a step towards self-determination of sorts even while remaining ideologically committed to Hindutva.

Nadda statement's that the party no longer required the support of the RSS for winning elections was effectively a retaliatory move and merely confirmed murmurs audible, from when the euphoria over the Ram temple’s consecration faded, that the Sangh was refraining from canvassing support for BJP candidates. It was said that the RSS leadership, steeped in the tradition of never allowing the vyakti (individual) to establish hegemony over the sangathan (organisation), was particularly peeved at Modi and his loyalists for making the election campaign principally centred around the prime minister.

Eventually, the RSS leadership had the last laugh when the BJP returned an underwhelming performance. Not to let the issue die down, Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat immediately embarked on a series of scathing diatribes. Over the next several weeks, from specifying the attributes of a ‘true’ sevak, to the taunt that declaring the self as ‘god’ was a new trend, Bhagwat did not leave much to imagination, even though he did not name anyone.

The gulf between Bhagwat and Modi appeared odd given that personal ties between the two dated to the early 1970s when both were initiated into the ways of the Sangh Parivar. Furthermore, the latter also considered the former’s father, Madhukar Rao Bhagwat, as a revered and inspiring RSS leader.

A testimony of the high regard that Modi had for Bhagwat senior was evident in his 2008 book, Jyotipunj, in which Modi profiled some iconic RSS leaders and Madhukar Rao Bhagwat was featured along with luminaries like Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar and Laxmanrao Inamdar, Modi’s own ‘guru’.

But the visible cleavage between Modi and the Sarsanghchalak was conspicuously evident in the weeks after the verdict was declared on 4 June. This underscored the fact that for a person groomed within the Sangh Parivar, the issue is always more important than any individual, however well-known and close he/she might be. Modi too was groomed in the RSS and held various positions of responsibility and important charges till 1987 when he was deputed to the BJP.

Quite clearly, Bhagwat did not approve of the ‘deviations’ in Modi’s personality, particularly after 2014 when he developed a penchant for speaking about himself in the third person. Prior to the 2024 election campaign, this disquiet was not expressed. Despite invectives against unidentified leaders, although the target was evident, it was also clear that Bhagwat was not waging a battle to vanquish any individual, especially Modi, who, despite his moral digression as per the RSS compass, remained a valuable asset and certainly the most effective electoral mascot of the ideological fraternity.

The challenge, however, was to rein him in slightly, if not to the extent that others can be controlled, but at least to ensure that he does not run rampant like he threatened to before the results, with his perceived nod to Nadda to declare ‘no further necessity’ with respect to the RSS.

The Lok Sabha results, however, demonstrated that the RSS and its network of swayamsevaks had showcased their capacities in their absence, at least in the key state of Uttar Pradesh where the BJP’s performance fell to an unforeseen mark – 33. It was, thus, evident that the BJP still “needed the RSS” in certain circumstances in the future, especially during elections, as was evident from the verdict in Haryana.

The first sign that all talk of the BJP taking a step out of the umbrella-like presence of the RSS had come to a naught was when news came that the BJP attended the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Akhil Bharatiya Samanvay Baithak (RSS coordination meeting in which each of the 32 top affiliates participated) in Palakkad, Kerala. In fact, there could not have been more weighty representation at the three-day affair from 31 August to 2 September, than the two who turned up to make a presentation and listen to other affiliates: Nadda and General Secretary (Organisation), BL Santosh.

Significantly, Hosabale, while declaring that all was well between the Sangh and the BJP, left no doubt that the RSS leaders had comprehended the full import of Nadda’s interview. Not just making the first direct reference to the May statement, the person holding the senior-most executive position also said that the RSS brass had “understood the spirit of Nadda’s statement... What Nadda meant was that BJP should not depend on RSS to contest elections. Our brother may have said this, but we didn’t feel anything. I had lunch at (Nadda’s) home after that. There is no tension. If something happens within the organisation, we know how to fix it.”

Quite evidently, the ‘fixing’ has been done by the RSS extending unqualified support to the known bête noire of the dominant group within the BJP –Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath. That the relationship between the chief of the Gorakhnath Math and Modi along with his loyalists remains frosty at best, is among the least guarded secrets within the BJP. Even the BJP’s poor performance in UP during the LS polls was attributed to the divergent approaches and squabbles over ticket distribution.

After the verdict, there was an attempt by the BJP’s central leadership to hold the UP CM responsible for the poor showing. But by backing a controversial statement made by Adityanath in the context of Bangladesh, the RSS has demonstrated that he has their support. The UP CM has in recent weeks repeated his slogan, “Batenge to katenge....Ek rahenge to nek rakenge (Will be slaughtered if divided... Unity will make us worthy)” at several public rallies in response to the alleged atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh following the recent political unrest there.

Not insignificantly, Hosabale invoked the “spirit of Adityanath’s words,” adding that whenever Hindus have “forgotten the spirit of the religion, troubles will come; brotherhood will be broken, power will be lost, faith and culture will be destroyed.” Significantly, Hosabale’s back to the ‘basics’ call using the ruse of Adityanath’s statement, follows the tone and tenor of Bhagwat’s Vijaya Dashami speech earlier this month.

Hosabale’s efforts at fostering unity within the BJP should force its leaders to present a more united facade in UP, especially in the run-up to the crucial bye-elections in nine assembly constituencies in the state.

The Lok Sabha verdict this year made it imperative for Modi to govern with a more consultative approach. After faltering initially, and feeling the pinch for his failings, Modi has shown signs of restoring the cabinet system of governance, at least in appearance. For the moment, the BJP high command has come to terms with the necessity of accepting the status quo within the Sangh Parivar, insofar as the RSS-BJP relationship is concerned.

From Hosabale’s assertions, it appears that the pause button will be hit on the sarcasm-laced statements that Bhagwat has made in recent months. Furthermore, as being witnessed in Maharashtra, the parivar is being marshalled at full strength by the RSS to campaign for the BJP without formally referring to elections, and purely by emphasising the need for Hindu unity.

(The writer is an author and journalist based in Delhi-NCR. His latest book is 'The Demolition, The Verdict and The Temple: The Definitive Book on the Ram Mandir Project, and he's also the author of 'Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times'. His X handle is @NilanjanUdwin. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)