Updated on: Nov 09, 2025

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat on Sunday addressed the long-standing perception of the RSS as being aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), stating that the organisation’s support is not for a political party or individual but for policies it deems correct for the nation. Speaking at the ‘100 Years of Sangh Journey: New Horizons’ event in Bengaluru, Bhagwat elaborated on the political engagement of RSS members and the ideological parameters that guide their participation.

Bhagwat emphasised that the RSS does not officially support any political party and does not mandate its members to join any particular party. He said, “We don’t have a special affinity towards one party. There is no Sangh party. No party is ours and all parties are ours because they are Indian parties.” According to him, the organisation’s engagement in politics is policy-driven rather than partisan.

However, Bhagwat pointed out a structural reality: while the RSS allows its members to enter politics, the “doors” of most parties remain closed to Sangh members. “One party says, ‘Oh, you are RSS wallah, get out. We don’t want you here.’ Another party says, ‘No, we have resolved not to let anybody enter our party unless he forgoes his relationship with the Sangh.’ So every door is closed for a Swayamsevak. The only open door, he seeks refuge there — he goes to the BJP,” he said.

The remarks underline why, historically, many RSS members have found a natural pathway into the BJP. The BJP, widely recognised as the ideological offspring of the RSS, has traditionally been receptive to Sangh members entering politics, while other parties have generally discouraged dual membership. Bhagwat was careful, however, to separate ideological support from personal or party allegiance, stating, “We will exert our force to support the right policy, not an individual, not a party, but policy.”

Illustrating this principle, Bhagwat cited the example of the Ram Mandir movement in Ayodhya. He said the Sangh volunteers supported the construction of the temple as a policy issue, and since the BJP backed it, they naturally aligned with the party’s stance. “If Congress or any other party had supported it, we would have supported them as well,” he remarked. This statement was seen as an attempt to clarify that the RSS’s alignment with BJP is circumstantial, rather than intrinsic, stemming from the party’s willingness to adopt policies endorsed by the Sangh.

The issue of dual membership, in which individuals maintain allegiance to both a political party and the RSS, has historical significance. It was a central factor in the collapse of the Janata Party government in 1979. The Janata Party, which had formed the first non-Congress government in independent India after its 1977 electoral victory, was a coalition of several parties, including socialist factions, regional parties, and the Bharatiya Jan Sangh (BJS), which later became the BJP. Conflicts arose because legislators from the BJS retained their RSS affiliation, which led to ideological friction with other members of the coalition. Bhagwat’s remarks subtly recall this episode, emphasising that the RSS’s engagement in politics is principled, not opportunistic.

Bhagwat’s comments also touch upon a long-debated question in Indian politics: the extent to which the RSS exerts influence over BJP policy and decision-making. By framing the organisation’s support in terms of policy, Bhagwat reinforced the narrative that the RSS does not dictate party decisions but encourages policies that align with its ideological framework. The implication is that any party, if willing to embrace these policy positions, could potentially gain Sangh support.

The RSS chief further reflected on the practical challenges for its members who wish to participate in politics. The organisation has traditionally been cautious about direct political engagement, with most activities focusing on social, educational, and cultural work. Bhagwat explained that this separation preserves the Sangh’s organisational ethos while allowing members to exercise their individual political agency in parties that accept their dual identity.

Observers noted that Bhagwat’s speech is likely aimed at countering criticisms that the RSS functions as a shadow political entity exclusively propelling BJP’s agenda. By stressing that Sangh support is policy-driven and not party-driven, Bhagwat sought to present the RSS as a national movement with ideological priorities rather than partisan loyalty.

The chief also addressed the broader issue of political inclusivity. By stating that all parties are “ours because they are Indian parties,” he suggested a theoretical openness to engagement with any party that upholds policies in line with the Sangh’s vision. In practice, however, given the reluctance of other parties to accommodate dual membership, the BJP remains the primary avenue for RSS members seeking political office.

Bhagwat’s articulation of the RSS’s approach highlights a nuanced strategy: maintain organisational independence, foster ideological consistency, and support policies conducive to national interests, regardless of the party implementing them. This perspective positions the RSS as a non-partisan guardian of cultural and national priorities, while acknowledging that political realities, such as party receptiveness to dual membership, shape actual affiliations.

The speech in Bengaluru also served to reiterate the RSS’s historical role in Indian politics and society. By linking contemporary practices with historical episodes such as the Janata Party collapse and the Ayodhya movement, Bhagwat offered a contextual understanding of why RSS members have gravitated towards BJP while simultaneously asserting that this alignment is a matter of policy congruence rather than organisational bias.

Bhagwat’s framing of the RSS’s political engagement has implications for the ongoing discourse on the separation of ideology and party politics in India. Critics have long argued that the RSS functions as an ideological mentor to BJP, effectively guiding policy from behind the scenes. Bhagwat’s statements, emphasizing policy over partisanship, are aimed at countering such perceptions, suggesting that the Sangh’s primary goal is to advocate for policies it considers beneficial to India, regardless of which political entity implements them.

In summary, Bhagwat’s remarks clarify the RSS’s stance regarding political engagement: the organisation does not endorse political parties or individuals but supports policies it considers correct for the nation. While the BJP remains the primary political outlet for RSS members due to its acceptance of dual membership, this is portrayed as a practical outcome rather than an ideological preference. By citing historical examples and contemporary issues, Bhagwat sought to underline the principle that Sangh support is conditional on policy alignment, not personal or partisan allegiance.

His statements also underscore the careful balancing act the RSS performs between remaining a socio-cultural organisation and enabling members to participate in electoral politics. The overarching message is that the RSS operates on the basis of ideological conviction and national interest, with political affiliations emerging organically rather than through organisational compulsion.

Bhagwat’s clarifications are expected to resonate widely in political and academic circles, contributing to ongoing debates on the relationship between the RSS and BJP, the role of ideology in Indian politics, and the principles guiding Sangh members who enter the political arena. By framing its engagement as policy-centric rather than party-centric, the RSS positions itself as a custodian of ideology and national interest, rather than a partisan entity, reaffirming its foundational narrative as it marks 100 years of organisational journey.