“Hindavi, Bharatiya, and Sanatan are synonymous. These words are not limited to geography alone; they carry a deeper civilisational meaning.”⁷

Here, “Hindavi,” “Bharatiya,” and “Sanatan” evoke notions of belonging beyond mere birthplace—suggesting a connection born of common values, practices, and spiritual mankind. This frames Hindu identity as inherent and cultural, not constrained by dogma or sectarian boundaries. Bhagwat further clarified that a true Hindu is one who embodies generosity, inclusivity, and moral accountability. In his words:

“Being Hindu means to be the most generous person in the world, one who embraces all… employs power to protect the vulnerable… Anyone who lives by these values … can be considered a Hindu, regardless of whom they worship, the language they speak, their caste, region or dietary practices.”⁸

This powerful statement positions Hindu identity as a moral-cultural orientation—defined by compassionate action, acceptance, and pluralism rather than ritualistic or sectarian markers. Underpinning Bhagwat’s views is the philosophical notion of Sanatan Dharma—presented as eternal, universal, and foundational to Indian civilization. In a prior keynote (Vijayadashami), he clarified:

“Dharma—that which binds society—is universal and eternal (Sanatan)… It is not a newly created entity but recognised as belonging to all humanity.”⁹

By locating Hindu identity in Sanatan Dharma, Bhagwat ties it to a timeless moral order—imbuing it with philosophical depth, cultural gravity, and universal relevance. within the confines of a broad societal frame, Mohan Bhagwat emphasized that Muslims are fundamentally woven into the tapestry of India’s social and cultural identity. His approach highlighted shared heritage, civic unity, and mutual respect—signifying a constructive stance aimed at bridging majority-minority divides. Bhagwat firmly rejected any notion that the RSS opposes Muslims. He stated that all religious communities—Muslims included—share a unified identity. He affirmed:

“Our ancestors and culture are the same. Worship practices may differ, but our identity is one. Changing religion does not change one’s community… Mutual trust must be built on all sides. Muslims must overcome the fear that joining hands with others will erase their Islam.”¹⁰

This statement underscores his core message: religious plurality does not negate a shared civilizational identity. Bhagwat went further to dismantle notions of alienation by asserting that Muslims and Christians in India inherently connect with a common cultural consciousness, emphasizing that their essence is Bharatiya, not foreign. He noted:

“Muslims and Christians will connect with the common consciousness of our past and shared culture. We may be Muslims, we may be Christians, but we are not Europeans, not Arabs or Turks — we are Bharatiya.”¹¹

This highlights a view of national belonging rooted in common heritage rather than religious demarcation. In his centenary lectures, Bhagwat appealed for trust and harmony across religious communities. He urged all communities—especially Muslims—to shed fears and recognize their place within the broader Indian narrative. His emphasis was on building bridges, not walls—cultivating social balance through mutual respect. Bhagwat’s framing reflects a composite nationalism—the philosophical notion that India’s unity transcends religious identities and that all communities collectively embody the nation’s spirit. This is reflected in his insistence—despite varied religious practices—that the shared cultural and historical pathways bind everyone together. Such an approach actively promotes social harmony, counters polarization, and fosters inclusion within national discourse.

Mohan Bhagwat articulates a vision of Hinduism firmly grounded in secular values—portrayed not as dogma, but as a universal ethical foundation harmonizing with the core principles of democratic India. Bhagwat negated the notion of Hinduism as rigid ritualism, elevating it instead as an ethical and cultural philosophy. In his words:

“Our secularism is not borrowed; it is intrinsic to our civilisation. … Our Constitution reflects the ‘self’ (swa) of India.”¹²

By emphasizing that secularism is rooted in spiritual and cultural values embodied by figures like Rama and Krishna, Bhagwat framed Hindu Dharma as a wellspring of India's ethical order, not a religious exception. He further proclaimed India’s Constitution as the “most secular in the world,” explaining that this secular nature originates from centuries of inclusive philosophy rather than modern imposition. This perspective mirrors the foundational secular ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, suggesting that core Hindu values organically align with democratic ethics. By rooting these ideals in indigenous tradition, Bhagwat reaffirmed their continuity within India’s civilizational ethos. Bhagwat distinguished Indian secularism from Western frameworks, seeing it instead as affirmative—celebrating unity in diversity anchored in shared culture rather than abstract political doctrine. He emphasized that India's society was constructed on principles of coexistence rather than uniformity, and that true secularism arises not from institutional declarations but from cultural attitudes. This culturally rooted secularism validates democratic pluralism as something inherent to the Indian world-view—not an imported structure. Mohan Bhagwat further placed deep emphasis on how India's civilizational heritage—centred on spiritual humanism, knowledge traditions, and ethical responsibility—forms the cultural and spiritual enterprise of nation-building. Bhagwat drew on India’s enduring cultural heritage, grounding his speech in the values of spiritual humanism and civic duty. He invoked the idea of dharma—not as religious ritual, but as a guiding moral principle and life’s balancing force, which he described as essential to personal and societal equilibrium. He declared:

“Dharma is what prevents any kind of extremism… India’s tradition calls this the middle path, and this is the greatest need of the world today.”¹³

Here, Bhagwat positioned spiritual humanism as a cultural compass, allowing society to navigate contemporary challenges while upholding ethical moderation. Bhagwat actively connected the philosophical legacy of India—ranging from Upanishadic thought to reformist and Bhakti movements—with present-day aspirations. He referenced the guiding ideals of sweep and self-reliance (Swadeshi) and ethical balance (Dharma) as central to India’s future trajectory. He affirmed that a model rooted in Dharma and indigenous (Swadeshi) values can serve not only the nation but the world. By drawing this continuum, he gives spiritual heritage a pragmatic dimension in addressing modern societal challenges. Bhagwat envisioned spirituality as a vital force in shaping the moral and ethical contours of nation-building. In his “Five Transformations” (Panch Parivartan), he wove spirituality through various societal domains—family, society, environment, identity, and civic duty—all infused with moral foresight and cultural rootedness. This paradigm underscores his conviction that spiritual consciousness is foundational to India’s progress—not a retreat from modernity, but a calibrated, value-based advance.

Mohan Bhagwat’s centenary reflections also offered a profound affirmation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s commitment to constitutional democracy. He positioned the RSS not as an external actor, but firmly as an organization that respects and upholds the constitutional framework—not just legally, but as a reflection of India's civilizational spirit. Bhagwat emphasized that it is essential for citizens—and especially organizations—to not only accept the Constitution of India, but actively follow and internalize its spirit. He stated during Republic Day commemorations:

“It is not only important to give a Constitution to a country, but it was also important for that country and its people to follow it... The strength of the people of India is infinite... bound by a sense of brotherhood... when everyone works together... and follows the Constitution.”¹⁴

This underscores his view that constitutional values—like unity and fraternity—are not abstract principles, but the foundation of social harmony and collective strength. Bhagwat went further to suggest that India’s Constitution reflects not just political choice, but the deeper values of its civilization. He underscored that secularism, liberty, and equality enshrined in the Constitution are rooted in India's longstanding cultural ethos—not borrowed systems but indigenous ideals. While this point is implicit across his speeches, it resonates especially in his emphasis on constitutional values being aligned with India's heritage and societal fabric. Bhagwat’s speeches consistently highlighted the Preamble’s core elements: justice, equality, and fraternity. By urging all citizens to uphold fundamental duties, rights, and directive principles, he reaffirmed that the RSS sees its mission as complementing constitutional democracy—promoting social cohesion and adhering to rule of law as civic responsibilities. He viewed such commitment not as contradictory to spiritual culture, but as its natural modern manifestation.

Mohan Bhagwat portrays RSS as a cultural force intimately involved in promoting national integration, social harmony, and holistic development rooted in ethics, community, and spirituality. Bhagwat highlighted that true unity in India does not require uniformity—rather, diversity itself is a manifestation of civilizational harmony. He asserted:

“The Sangh believes that to be united we do not need uniformity. We have a culture of living together in harmony.”¹⁵

This indicates the RSS’s philosophical commitment to integration, with social unity grounded in cultural cohesion rather than conformity. Bhagwat drew attention to the RSS’s longstanding role in grassroots development through voluntary service. He urged that societal welfare should begin locally, noting:

“There are many voluntary groups... in fields like education, health, increasing environmental awareness and self-reliance... our Swayamsewaks too are engaged in many such activities... we can start with our own family members to help some needy brothers and sisters in our neighbourhood…”¹⁶

This underscores a model of community-led service—spanning education, health, environment, and rural uplift—demonstrating how societal empathy and tangible support foster social solidarity. Bhagwat sees development not solely in economic terms but as rooted in social integration. In his centenary vision, “Panch Parivartan” (Five Transformations) included Social Harmony, Family Awakening, Environmental Protection, Indigenous Pride (Swadeshi), and Civic Duty—holistically defining development as ethical, spiritual, and community-based transformation.¹⁷ Such a framework positions progress as a multidimensional endeavor, blending ethical foundations with material advancement. Bhagwat repeatedly emphasized that true progress is inseparable from cultural and spiritual integrity. Speaking on contemporary challenges, he said that dharma, not materialism, sustains society, reclaiming its ancient resilience and relevance. As he stated:

“There are no incentives here... they find joy and a sense of purpose in selfless service.”¹⁸

This illustrates a philosophical stance where development is integrally linked to ethical conduct, selflessness, cultural depth, and spiritual vitality.

Thus Mohan Bhagwat’s centenary address at Vigyan Bhawan can be viewed as a philosophical horizon that extends beyond the boundaries of political discourse into the realm of cultural and spiritual reawakening. His reflections affirmed that the RSS, while often perceived as an organizational entity, fundamentally embodies a movement of values that seeks to harmonize the moral, spiritual, and civilizational dimensions of Indian life. This positioning elevates the centenary speech into a philosophical statement on India’s destiny in the twenty-first century.

At the core of Bhagwat’s reflections lies the reassertion of India’s timeless civilizational categories—Dharma, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, Sanatan ethos, and social harmony—now situated within the modern democratic framework. He highlighted that the idea of “Hindu” is not a sectarian label but an expansive civilizational category that embraces plurality, inclusivity, and coexistence. By aligning this worldview with constitutional values, Bhagwat emphasized that India’s democracy thrives not by rejecting tradition but by drawing upon its deepest civilizational wellsprings.¹⁹ The speech also projected a future trajectory in which interfaith dialogue, democratic consolidation, and cultural resilience remain central. By underscoring that all communities, including Muslims and other minorities, are integral to the Indian social fabric, Bhagwat placed cultural integration above political contestation. This approach provides a framework where diversity is not managed merely through state mechanisms but internalized as an ethical and spiritual commitment of society. In philosophical terms, Bhagwat’s centenary reflections may be read as a call for civilizational modernity—a paradigm where India engages with global challenges without losing its rootedness in Sanatan Dharma. His insistence that progress must be founded on harmony, service, and spirituality suggests that the RSS envisions India’s future not only in economic or political terms, but as a holistic reawaken.  ( Concluded)

                               Email:-------------------------- aquilahmad2@gamil.com