Dr.Faheemuddin AhmedTalks toSyed Sadatullah Husaini,National Presidentof Jamaat-e-Islami Hind
One hundred years have passed since the founding of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Recently it also celebrated its centenary. On this occasion the organisation’s long and controversial journey has been widely discussed in the media and public circles. In this context, it is important to understand the ideological foundations, aims and objectives of this organisation, which adheres to the ideology of Hindutva. Here we conducted a special interview with Syed Sadatullah Husaini, a renowned scholar and National President of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind – the largest and most organised organisation of Muslims in India.
Q: Looking at the hundred-year journey of the RSS from its founding in 1925 until today as a whole, what are the basic factors behind its ideological, political and organisational development?
A: There are three major factors. The first factor is some of their internal characteristics. Positive features such as a strong organisation, comprehensive and long-term planning, disciplined trained cadre, the skill of gradual outreach across different sections of Hindu society, the art of absorbing dissenters into their fold, and perseverance, patience and steadfast struggle for their goals in all kinds of circumstances – along with these, traits like craftiness, opportunism, deception and excessive use of power have also given them material advantages.
Second, there are some historical contingencies which, with active manoeuvrings and shrewdness and through expert strategy, they turned to their advantage. Notable among these are the English rule and its constraints; the Hindu-Muslim tensions created under the British; the Partition; the India-Pakistanwars; the Emergency period and then the Janata government; the Mandal Commission report; the policy of economic liberalisation (and the alliance of religion and market); globalisation and some opportunities it produced,etc.
Third and most importantly, the many mistakes, wrong attitudes and shortcomings of their rivals created gaps and favourable opportunities for them. This includes the opportunism and corruption of the Congress and several secular parties; the ideological retreat, demoralisation and disunity of socialist, Dalit and communist movements; and the defensive politics, emotional reactions and institutional weaknesses among Muslims themselves – all played a major role.
Q: What are the ideological foundations of the idea of “Hindutva”? Is it merely religious nationalism, or a comprehensive cultural, political and civilizational concept? And what place or conception does it hold for Muslims?
A: Some consider it merely a sectarian movement; some view it as the Indian version of racialist movements in the U.S. and South Africa; and some see it as a historical continuation of Brahminical dominance. My considered view is that all these factors are present in the movement, but they are not its defining features. Fundamentally it is an ideological and civilizational movement. Their main objective is to shape India’s identity, its collective aspirations, its moral conception, and its collective mind and memory into a uniform Hindu selfhood.
The primary psychological fuel of this movement, which I call “collective envy,” is the belief that, like Abrahamic religions and especially Islam, Hindu traditions constitute a structured system of thought, a comprehensive civilization and a universal community. This movement is essentially a product of those longings; some scholars therefore rightly call its concepts a semitization of Hinduism.
They have no problem with the racial or physical existence of Muslims, but the worldview, ideology and civilization of Muslims are the real rival in their entire project. Their fight is not against the Muslim body but against the Muslim mind – the mind that is not willing to be absorbed into the dominant cultural current (physical attacks are essentially aimed at cultural subjugation). Their ultimate objective is a kind of Indian Muslim community that, by adopting collective amnesia, forgets its civilizational heritage and distinctive values; stripped of cultural and intellectual self-confidence, it thinks, speaks, feels and dreams within the scope of a Hindu-coloured national identity.
Q: In the pre-Independence era, what was the basic axis of RSS’s struggle? Was its stance toward British rule two-faced or opportunistic as some historians claim?
A: There is no doubt that they played no role in the freedom struggle; there is even evidence of collusion with the British. From their point of view, making of a Hindu nation was their primary priority. It was their narrow sectarian worldview that madethem view the sustainable ideological and civilizational foundations of Muslims as a major problem; building a more stable basis for Hindus was their main task at this stage. They understood that every colonial power eventually declines, and when it declines the society that is more organised and has more enduring civilizational strength becomes its inheritor. Because of their sectarian and divisive outlook, they wanted that when the British left, it should be the Hindu society that inherits power, not a plural inclusive society. To them the English period was a historical opportunity – a period to be retained until the consolidation of Hindu identity and the internal organisation of Hindu society was complete. Their relationship with English colonialism brings into light their worldview. The target of their narrow nationalism was not external powers but a section within the country, as it had been in the past and remained at the time.
Q: After Independence, how did RSS carve a space for itself within Indian democracy and the secular constitution? How do you view the period from the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 up to 2025?
A: After Independence, the RSS entered Indian politics as an “ideological orphan.” Apparently, there was no place for it in a secular republic, but gradually it began to make room. The period up to the Emergency was the period which I call the camouflage phase. The RSS learned the art of assuming disguises: creating space in society through service, capturing minds through continuous propaganda, and infiltrating centres of power through proxies — these were the tactics of that era, and they executed all three skilfully. Until the Emergency, public disillusionment with Congress had become common; people were looking for an alternative. They (the RSS) took the Janata Party as an opportunity and participated in it, and then began to present themselves as a direct political alternative. In 1992, during the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, they experimented with street power and later used that experience to mobilise the public on a large scale. During that very period, in different ways and through varied strategies they gained penetration into every section of India’s complex social system. Since 2014 a new phase began aimed at aligning state and society; they succeeded greatly in harmonising the government, party, bureaucracy, business and media.
At every stage their method was to understand the demands of the phase, fulfil those demands with discipline, wait patiently for the next stage, remain silent when silence was needed, retreat when necessary, and act deftly when required; gradually neutralise opponents, adopt different disguises and masks according to the situation, and treat deception and cunning as legitimate means – this summarises their whole struggle.
Q: Now that RSS and its ideological allies occupy full power and are moving their anti-Muslim agenda forward clearly, what are the biggest challenges facing Indian Muslims?
A: The biggest challenge is for Muslims to understand the real nature of the challenge. Their situation is neither identical to that of African Americans in the U.S. nor to Jewish people in fascist Germany. Neither does the history of Dalits in India provide a direct model, nor do the various eras of Muslim victimhood after Independence provide complete lessons. This is a wholly unique challenge and requires an equally unique response. It is impossible to confront it without deeply understanding its dynamics.
The most important aspect of this challenge is ideological and civilizational. Unfortunately, awareness of this aspect is very weak. As I have said, elimination of ideological and civilizational identity and self-confidence is their (RSS’) main objective. The most effective means to this end is the powerful narrative of demonization. The aim is to isolate the community through narrative war on political, economic, civilizational and psychological fronts and to inflict a comprehensive civilizational defeat. Politically the problem is no longer limited to the lack of representation; the core problem is the delegitimization of Muslims’ political existence. Muslim participation is increasingly portrayed as ‘communalism’ or ‘appeasement’, and the absence of Muslims from the political stage has been turned into a desired value. The only option is for Muslims to present themselves as a political force founded on a clear agenda of justice and fairness for all people of the country.
Economically, the efforts to weaken them have become institutionalised. Their isolation is not limited to temporary tricks but is being pursued through policy reforms. Civilizationally, a completely new grammar of nationality has been normalised in which Muslims are cast as a monstrous villain of history, a burden on democracy and a permanently suspicious element. Creating an atmosphere of fear and terror to psychologically paralyse the entire community is also one of their important objectives. Defensive mentality, intense sense of victimhood, reactionary psychology, alienation from self, history, civilization, institutions and leadership – the more these states prevail among Muslims, the easier their civilizational defeat becomes. Right now, theirentirefocus is on this psychological strategy, and that is the major challenge.
Q: RSS sometimes talks about “Muslim outreach” or attempts at dialogue. What to you is the reality of these efforts? Although both sides have felt the need for dialogue, meaningful and fruitful negotiations at individual and collective levels have not taken place.What are the causes for it, and what should the shape of dialogue be now?
A: So far the experiences have not been encouraging. Rather than open and sincere conversation, the real interest seems to be optics: instead of healthy discussion on positions and circumstances, the focus seems to be on improving their image. For meaningful dialogue a kind of moral symmetry is necessary; that is, you must be willing to act in the way you expect others to act. If you remain silent on hate speeches, participate in state repressions, continue to promote prejudices, and then come forward with a list of good-behaviour lectures, that cannot be called honest dialogue. What is happening now is not dialogue but a campaign to make people submissive: Muslims should say nothing, only listen and obey. This is not dialogue but a monologue of power, not engagement but an edict. Dialogue should take place, but the first condition for dialogue is a full and unwavering agreement on some universal values of truth and justice. Only on that foundation can dialogue advance. Without this, no agenda for dialogue can be formed and no meaningful result can be produced.
When will RSS be ready for such a meaningful dialogue, and will it be ready at all? It’s hard to say. Real dialogue should involve the broader society, and there are still ample opportunities for that. Within the Sangh ecosystem such elements can be found, with whom exchanges – however limited – could be advanced; efforts should be made in this regard and are being made.
Q: During the Emergency, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind had contacts with the Sangh that were not pursued later. Did we become indifferent, did the Sangh turn away, or did later circumstances remove the need for that engagement?
A: The answer is in the lines above. During the Emergency there was indeed an environment conducive to healthy dialogue. In jails both movements raised a joint voice against tyranny and repression. But once out of jails, the paths diverged. The Sangh turned the experience of victimhood into a ladder to power, and the very tyranny and repression it had earlier jointly opposedbecame a symbol of its own conduct.
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind has always advocated principled and meaningful negotiations with all sections of the country and has been working continuously toward that. But power has severely harmed the Sangh’s ideological and moral credibility. There have always been different views about the Sangh in the country; the experiences of the past decade have disappointed those who once held any optimism and have validated the worst fears. Given the policies current governments are pursuing – normalising discrimination, exclusion and hatred as proud policy elements, and the Sangh’s complicity in these shameful, unethical actions – in this entire scenario, engagement with them has become very difficult.
We hope that some sense of conscience awakens within their ranks, that the intoxication of power recedes, and that the intensity of authoritarian ambitions for comprehensive dominance diminishes, so that healthy negotiations with them may become possible.
Q: The Sangh has always presented itself as broadminded, inclusive, aiming to build a strong organisation on the basis of unity by bringing all sects together and creating a dignified India. Who could object to such goals? Yet while talking of including Muslims in the national mainstream, in practice it weakens their identity, institutions and political voice. How do you view this contradiction?
A: This is deeply linked to the Sangh’s system of thought. As I said, RSS’s greatest concern is the ideological and civilizational identity of Muslims. They do raise slogans of unity and harmony, but their vision of harmony is the eradication of all kinds of diversity. They invite Muslims to the mainstream, but by mainstream they mean a cultural environment where Muslim history is a crime, Muslim identity is detestable, and Muslim institutions are a burden. To them unity means a complete cultural assimilation in which all civilizational units are absorbed into a majority culture and take on a uniform Hindu civilization. Clearly, Muslims cannot accept this situation. This is the root of the conflict. In a country like India the secret of unity and harmony lies in honouring unity and diversity and maintaining cultural diversity with utmost honour and respect. The Sangh must understand this. Whether or not the Sangh understands it, it is necessary to try to make all the people of India understand it.
Q: In a changing India where Muslim identity is being limited at state and social levels, what should be the future course of action for Muslims? Since Indian Muslims have so far lived under the belief that a liberal democracy’s constitutional safeguards were sufficient, their reactions to temporary tests were issue-centric. Now the constitution and its spirit are being hurt and they feel threats to their identity and existence. Should the Muslim community in India develop a new narrative of Islamic identity?
A: Yes, not just a new narrative but changes in overall behaviour. We must move out of a defensive, survival mindset. These circumstances must become the basis for solid internal change. The theory of collective psychology says that a renaissance begins with existential challenges. Nature has provided Indian Muslims with the ground for a great renaissance; sowing the seed on this ground is their responsibility. I always give youth a slogan: “Renaissance through resilience” – that should be the main theme of our collective attitude now. Instead of reacting to temporary issues, the focus should be on substantial long-term transformation. With the goal of reconstruction and organisation in mind, pursue silent, serious struggle and await better opportunities – that should be the summary of our course of action. There was a concern that the Sangh would focus on slow, sustainable ‘social change’; if that had been the case, it would have posed a bigger challenge. But in the important and decisive phase of their history, they chose a storm-like rapid takeover. Storms come fast and do great damage but pass quickly. This storm too will pass as quickly as it came; after it subsides, India will go through a major process of reforms. Preparing for that phase should be the main focus. Options for action in the present circumstances are limited. Possible resistance must occur, but more attention should be paid to becoming more active and capable of playing a key role in post-RSS India.
For this purpose, I always say Muslims should concentrate on three kinds of constructive work: narrative building, alliance building, and institution building. Patient focus on these constructions can rescue them from the mirage.
Q: If opportunities for preaching and propagation are restricted, what strategy should be adopted to convey the Divine message and the Seerah of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺacross the country?
A: Opportunities for preaching are never restricted; only the methods and approaches change. It is part of the Divine design that propagation (da’wah) goes through different phases. The existence of Muslims itself is da’wah. The essential requirement for da’wah is not freedom of expression but a conscious conscience and a sensitive heart within the preacher. If that exists, da’wah finds its path in all circumstances. Muslims can present Islam’s practical testimony through their individual roles, family and societal models, and through their institutions and distinctive characteristics. They can emerge as a mercy to humanity. For the nation’s development and for sustainable justice, they can spearhead a unique programme in the light of Islamic teachings. Through all these means, the message of Islam emerges clearly. Even if the microphone is switched off, our existence should become the loudspeaker.
There are two fundamental needs: one, Muslims’ individual and collective behaviour should truly reflect Islamic teachings; and two, instead of isolating themselves, Muslims should continuously engage with the broader society so that people understand Islam through Muslims’ words and deeds rather than through media narratives. Solid and result-oriented efforts are required on both fronts.
Q: What lessons can other movements learn from RSS’s hundred-year journey?
A: This is an important question. Certainly, there is a lot for movements to learn and also warnings to note in RSS’s centennial journey. The topic requires detailed analysis; here I can only outline a few headings.
First Lesson: Control sentiments and impulses and maintain steadfast long-term struggle. The Qur’an calls this patience and considers it the most important secret of a people’s progress. The art of working quietly away from show, persisting even after election defeats with renewed effort and belief, keeping the flame of conviction alive during storms of opposition – continuity and perseverance are virtues. One characteristic noted about them is the discipline of silence and invisibility: the skill of remaining quiet where necessary, and performing service discreetly without seeking credit.
Second Lesson: For ideological movements, political influence is tied to deep social and ideological roots. They cannot gain political power merely by shouting political slogans from day one. Their political strength is deeply connected to social and civilizational factors whose development requires long, patient struggle and sometimes deliberate detachment from immediate political actions.
Third Lesson: Thoughts and ideas effect social change only when they adopt the form of institutions; institutions become effective if they meet two conditions: they articulate a dream of an alternative civilization (institutions that work on existing grounds do not transform society), and they create an ecosystem – institutions in every sphere of life that are interlinked and together reveal glimpses of an alternative civilization.
Fourth Lesson: The importance of training a disciplined cadre. Movements do not thrive by following crowds. Mass formation is subsidiary; the first phase is training committed cadres, cultivating high capabilities, combining skills with selflessness, sincerity and discipline. Without these, even a mass will be ineffective.
Fifth Lesson: Leadership is not about glitter – not grand images, slogans, rallies or rhetorical flourish, nor familial prestige or hereditary allure. The first asset of leadership is sincerity and sacrifice, and the second assetis intelligence and temperament. It is not only the sacrifice of life, wealth, or personal interests – sincerity and selflessness are shown through giving up one’s position when needed, sacrificing fame and prestige, letting go of one’s career, stepping back, staying away from the limelight, or even speaking a truth that may upset others. These are all different expressions of sincerity and sacrifice.Intelligence and temperament means solid knowledge and deep insight into thought and ideology, a profound understanding of circumstances, the ability to make the right decision at the right time, the skill of identifying opportunities and using them promptly, exploring new paths, and seeking innovative solutions.
As for warnings, there is a whole list; but I will suffice with mentioning just one.Movements need patience, waiting and self-control during testing times, but they need those qualities even more when successful. Haste during the stage of success, and compromising on principles in the rush for absolute power, can reduce the fruits of years of patience to mere moments of indulgence.It is the haste in the final stage that will ultimately lead to the downfall of the Sangh.Another major reason for the Sangh’s downfall lies in the hollowness of its ideology, its tendency toward oppression and injustice, and moral vices such as arrogance and pride.A major warning is that movements cannot achieve sustainable progress solely through good strategy or favourable traits of their followers; it is necessary that their ideas, objectives and principles are just and truthful.
These lessons and warnings contain essential guidance for Muslim movements and Islamic movements in particular.
Q: Considering RSS’s past and present, what prediction can be made for India’s future?
A: Extremist movements are always founded on negative psychologies like collective narcissism, collective envy and historical revenge. Such movements may suddenly gain power in certain favourable circumstances and succeed in creating mass frenzy and hysteria in society, but that frenzy is never permanent. The only thing that can extend its life is a counter-frenzy that rises against it.
History shows that such periods of tyranny, oppression, chaos and corruption often become precursors to major transformations. Fascism in Italy and Germany, ethnic nationalism in the Balkans and Eastern Europe, and the disasters of communist despotism ultimately led those regions toward new eras of justice, human rights and democratic reforms. Mostoften, it is precisely such chaos and disorder that have served as the fertilizer which prepares fertile ground for lasting change.
I believe that in our country too, the evil-mongering of communal forces will eventually lead to fundamental reforms. The people will sooner or later be compelled to understand that equality, justice and coexistence are the only path to the country’s stability, and they will be prepared for concrete changes in the light of these experiences. Muslims should wait for and prepare for that phase. For this purpose,I have proposed six points in my book:
- Avoid reactionary frenzy. Emotional counter-reactions and manic retaliatory behaviour on the one hand, and fear, demoralisation and self-abandonment on the other – both kinds of reaction prolong the life of such storms. Avoiding both of these, making efforts to adopt a stance based on perseverance, steadfastness, patience and wisdom is the real gift such circumstances can yield to Muslims.
- Focussing most on the practical testimony of Islam. Presenting Islam through preaching, service, and exemplary individual and collective conduct; thusshowing a pure model of Islam clearly to the people.
- Promoting a new politics based on justice and fairness. Our politics should move beyond the cycle of identity-politics and optics-driven secular politics. Neither identity-driven communal politics nor optics-driven secular politics should be the norm. Their destructive consequences are well established; Muslims have been harmed by both since 1857. Now a new era of agenda-driven politics of justice should begin, where a clear agenda for the welfare of all sections of society forms the basis of politics.
- Building institutions. Patiently focus on concrete institution-building in every sphere of life. The collective testimony of Islam’s social concepts is possible only through institutions. Institutions outlast individuals but require lifelong focus, discipline and sacrifices from their founders.
- Continuous negotiations with the majority. Engaging in healthy negotiations at every level so that Islamic teachings become clear and a broad consensus emerges on values of justice and fairness that we advocate and that are in everyone’s interest. Stopping being inward-looking and restricted to our own issues; preparing ourselves for a long, patient outreach campaign.
- Broad engagement and cooperation and alliance: These negotiations should result in maximum engagement with diverse sections, the emergence of common goals, and a spirit of joint struggle for those goals.
We should be neither voices of fear nor merely whines of complaint. We should not be trapped in prideful narratives of identity nor consumed by calls for vengeance. Our effort should be to become the conscience of this country – the voice that echoes justice, mercy and equality to every heart, a unifying force that connects the country’s fragmented sections. Our destiny should not reflect the hatreds of this era but embody their solution. This is not an impossible dream. The prevailing conditions have created ample opportunity for this. It can be achieved, and through it Muslims can transform these challenges into a great opportunity.