Inside the RSS Archive: What Their Own Records Reveal | Dr. Shamsul Islam

In this episode of Nous , Ali Javed speaks with Dr. Shamsul Islam, a leading scholar of religious nationalism whose work critically examines the ideological foundations of the RSS, Hindutva, and the politics of the Hindu Rashtra. A former professor at Delhi University, Dr. Islam is known for his unique methodological approach: critiquing the RSS and Hindutva politics not through external criticism, but by rigorously examining their own internal documents, biographies, and historical records.

The conversation traversed the origins of the Two-Nation Theory, the role of the RSS in India's freedom struggle, and the distinction between Hinduism as a culture and Brahmanism as a political project. Here are the key takeaways from this illuminating dialogue.

The Origins of the Two-Nation Theory

One of the most provocative historical corrections Dr. Islam offers concerns the "Two-Nation Theory"—the idea that Hindus and Muslims constitute distinct, separate nations. While popular history often attributes this theory solely to the Muslim League and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Dr. Islam argues that the intellectual seeds were sown much earlier by Hindu nationalists.

Citing historical records from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Dr. Islam pointed to figures like Rajnarayan Basu and Nabagopal Mitra, who began articulating the idea of a distinct "Hindu nation." He further highlighted the writings of Bhai Parmanand and later, Lala Lajpat Rai, who, as early as the 1920s, suggested partitioning territory based on religious demographics.

"The Two-Nation Theory was not just a Muslim League invention," Dr. Islam noted. He argued that Savarkar and the Hindu Mahasabha championed this division long before it became the political platform for the partition of India, effectively feeding into the colonial objective of divide and rule.

RSS and the Freedom Struggle

A central theme of Dr. Islam’s work is the scrutiny of the RSS's role during the Indian independence movement. He contends that the organization, formed in 1925, largely stayed away from the anti-colonial struggle.

Dr. Islam discussed K.B. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, noting that while Hedgewar did go to jail during the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1921, he did so as an individual Congressman, not as an RSS leader (as the organization had not yet been formed). More critically, Dr. Islam pointed out that during later mass movements like the Quit India Movement of 1942, the RSS as an organization did not participate. He argued that the RSS's focus was not on fighting the British but on organizing Hindus against what they termed "internal enemies"—Muslims and Christians.

Brahmanism vs. Hinduism

A crucial distinction made during the interview was between "Hinduism" and "Brahmanism." Dr. Islam argued that Hinduism is a diverse, pluralistic cultural tradition where practices vary widely—from diet to worship—across regions. In contrast, he described the ideology of the RSS as "Political Brahmanism," which seeks to enforce a singular, hierarchical social order.

He suggested that this ideology is fundamentally at odds with the democratic ethos because it relies on the inequality inherent in the caste system. "Brahmanism believes in inequality," Dr. Islam stated, referencing texts like the Manusmritito argue that the worldview promoted by Hindutva ideologues treats women and lower castes as second-class citizens. He posited that the resistance to the Constitution of India by certain right-wing factions stems from this desire to maintain a caste-based hierarchy.

The Myth of "Muslim Rule"

Challenging the narrative of a monolithic "Muslim Rule" in medieval India, Dr. Islam offered a more nuanced historical perspective. He argued that empires like that of the Mughals were essentially coalition governments run in partnership with upper-caste Hindus, particularly Rajputs.

He pointed out that high-ranking officials, military commanders, and ministers in the Mughal administration were often Hindus. The conflicts of that era, he suggested, were political battles for power rather than religious wars between Islam and Hinduism. By framing these historical periods solely through a religious lens, modern political narratives distort the complex reality of India’s shared past.

Conclusion

Dr. Shamsul Islam’s research serves as a reminder of the power of archives. By going back to the primary sources—the letters, biographies, and manifestos of the organizations in question—he challenges contemporary political myths. His work suggests that the battle for India's identity is not just about the present, but about who gets to define the past.

As the interview concluded, the message was clear: understanding the history of the RSS and the freedom movement is essential for comprehending the political currents shaping modern India.