The ongoing churn to chart the future path of the Hindutva movement is not new. It has been an underlying debate for at least the last decade, perhaps longer. One group derides Ambedkar for his commentary on Hindu scriptures and deities. Another gives him considerable latitude, justifying his views in light of the historical injustices inflicted upon the lower castes for decades, if not centuries.

The struggle is real, and the Hindutva movement is in dire need of clarity and purpose.

This article attempts to explore the nuanced viewpoints of three major figures and organisations: B.R. Ambedkar, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. A literal or superficial reading of these figures would not do justice to the scale and depth of their work.

Let us begin with the elephant in the room.

Ambedkar

First, there should be no whitewashing the fact that the so-called "lower castes" were oppressed to a significant extent in India. Isolated exceptions cannot be presented as the norm. Even a cursory reading of social history, combined with extensive travel across the country, makes this clear. The oppression was not merely economic; over time, it became deeply embedded in the social fabric of society. Any attempt to justify it must, and should, be seen as morally untenable.

Therefore, Ambedkar must be viewed from this standpoint.

For many leaders and organisations, including the RSS and Sri Aurobindo, nationalism was seen as an extension of Hindu culture. Inspiration was drawn from Sanatan Dharma, which naturally translated into allegiance to the land.

Ambedkar fundamentally challenged this assumption. While remaining deeply nationalist, he sharply criticised Hindu systems and symbols. His views on Islam and Christianity are also well known. As much as he criticised Hinduism, he was equally critical of transnational religious identities, which he believed could threaten national sovereignty.

Thus, Ambedkar disrupted the established intellectual comfort zone. The Hindutva movement needed answers, not merely to respond to him but to achieve internal clarity.

A more nuanced reading of Ambedkar suggests that he repeatedly warned Hindu society of the consequences of excessive internal stratification, especially in the face of organised religious blocs. In works such as Annihilation of Caste and his writings on Partition, he argued that a divided society would always be vulnerable when confronted by more unified forces.

Stratification exists within Islam and Christianity as well. However, Ambedkar observed that these communities often prioritised collective action when dealing with external challenges, setting aside internal divisions when necessary. History offers numerous examples of such cohesion.

This, then, was Ambedkar's second challenge to Hindu society: how could a deeply stratified civilisation survive in a world where numbers, unity, and organised action matter?

Savarkar

Savarkar attempted to address both these concerns independently and through his own intellectual framework.

A realist and a rationalist, Savarkar possessed a sharp understanding of both global politics and Hindu society. In his seminal work Hindutva, he introduced the concept of Punyabhoomi (holy land), broadening the definition of Hindutva. According to him, all religious traditions that originated in this land naturally belonged within the civilisational fold of Hindutva.

This was significant. It implied that one need not be "Hindu" in a narrow religious sense to be nationalist. A Buddhist or a Sikh, for instance, could be equally nationalist because their spiritual and cultural roots lay in Bharat.

While this accommodation was not entirely unprecedented, Savarkar deserves credit for re-articulating it at a time when Hindu society appeared deeply fragmented.

On the question of caste oppression, Savarkar was equally forthright. He recognised the grave injustices inflicted upon certain communities. His work in Ratnagiri was explicitly aimed at social reform within the Hindu fold. He opposed conversions and sought solutions for oppressed castes within Hindu society itself.

Where Ambedkar ultimately chose conversion to Buddhism, Savarkar remained committed to reform from within. Yet for both, nationalism remained paramount. Neither entertained the idea of a transnational religious identity superseding national allegiance.

To summarise:

Ambedkar posed two fundamental questions:

Can one be nationalist without being Hindu?
Can a deeply stratified Hindu society remain viable and just?

Savarkar answered the first by expanding Hindutva to include all indigenous traditions. On the second, he advocated dismantling caste hierarchies and ensuring dignity within the Hindu fold, at least in principle and in his social reform initiatives.

RSS

The RSS emerged with the explicit aim of organising and unifying Hindu society. Drawing intellectual inspiration from Savarkar's articulation of Hindutva, it maintained that all sects originating in this land form part of a broader Hindu civilisational identity.

On social oppression, the RSS broadly followed Savarkar's line: reform must come from within. Although the Sangh was mostly given its ideological shape by Guruji Golwalkar and Balasaheb Deoras, it undertook social initiatives in rural and marginalised regions over decades with a dual objective: bridging caste divisions and strengthening social cohesion.

The organisation gradually recognised a fundamental truth: social reform would remain superficial unless leadership is cultivated from OBC, SC, and ST communities. Leadership is not merely symbolic; it represents genuine upward mobility and confidence.

Ambedkar himself became a symbol of socio-political leadership for Dalit communities. Historical examples such as Swami Vivekananda's efforts in Kerala also demonstrate how transformative leadership can alter social consciousness.

The RSS, with its organisational discipline and long-term approach, invested in cultivating leadership across domains: politics, education, social work, entrepreneurship, and religious life. The prerequisite was ideological commitment and organisational discipline, not caste identity.

Narendra Modi is often cited as one such example. His public symbolism and political trajectory are presented as evidence that Hindutva seeks to transcend rigid caste hierarchies. Beyond him, numerous individuals from diverse backgrounds now lead various affiliated organisations.

Removing structural barriers to leadership required sustained effort. The argument from within the movement is that ability, not caste, should determine opportunity.

Has the RSS fully answered Ambedkar's second question? Perhaps partially; perhaps not entirely. Social transformation at civilisational scale is an ongoing process.

Contemporary Reflections

Has the RSS mastered social transformation? Certainly not. Like any large movement, it operates within a learning curve.

Were all recent policy decisions flawless? No movement or ecosystem is immune from missteps.

But does one flawed decision justify denigrating an entire century-long effort? That would be intellectually shallow.

We are navigating a complex civilisational transition. In a democracy, numbers, demography, and organisation matter. Contradictions are inevitable in a civilisation as old and layered as ours. The task is not to create noise but to persist in reform while remaining self-critical.

None of us, neither grassroots workers nor academic researchers, possess all the answers. Mistakes will occur while steering a ship of this magnitude.

If there is one enduring lesson, it is this: leadership must be nurtured, grounded in Hindu identity, across every caste and community, whether in politics, religion, entrepreneurship, scholarship, or social service. Inclusion must not remain rhetorical; it must translate into daily action.

At the very least, this much we owe to society.

Adarsh Pandit

Get Swarajya in your inbox.