"Gandhi Prioritised Immediate Moral Victories; Hedgewar Centred On Long-Term Structural Change"

Sachin Nandha, author of a new biography of Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, sits down for an interview with 'Swarajya'.

Hedgewar: A Definitive Biography. Sachin Nandha. Vintage Books. Pages 432. Rs 785.

Sachin Nandha, author of recently released Hedgewar: A Definitive Biography, seeks to offer a fresh perspective on Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, founder of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

A researcher with a background in Christian and Islamic theology, Nandha book explores Hedgewar’s evolution from revolutionary to architect of a disciplined, egalitarian movement aimed at reforming Hindu society.

In a conversation with Swarajya, Nandha delved into Hedgewar’s views on caste, his divergence from Gandhi’s 'ahimsa', and his vision of deshbhakti over patriotism. The author sought to unpack misconceptions around the RSS, his research process, and Hedgewar’s enduring legacy as his organisation marks its centenary.

Edited excerpts.

[In this book ] you state “Not since Jesus Christ has an obscure pauper inspired such devotion or been so calamitously misinterpreted”. Is this deliberate provocation on your part to grab the attention of the reader in the very beginning?

This book, for those who can read between the lines, is filled with wit and humour, and this line came out quite organically. You have to understand my background. I studied Christian theology for two years vis-a-vis Islam theology for two years and I know them really well. Hegdewar was a man who was charismatic and had a very interesting childhood. 

Hedgewar was from a Brahmin Family, and there have been several misconceptions that RSS is a Brahmin-dominated organisation. How do you understand this from Doctor ji’s life and his personal views on caste? Something which you discovered while writing the biography?

I could find no evidence from primary sources or secondary sources which state that Hedgewar was building an organisation for Brahmins or that he was preserving orthodoxy. But what I did find with ample evidence was his move to challenge orthodoxy and that he wanted to reform the Hindu society.

It is clear that he created this extremely egalitarian movement which in fact upset a lot from his own community.

In the RSS shakhas people sat together, and ate together irrespective of caste and socio-economic status. Keshav Hedgewar was the radical who disturbed the status quo of society.

The idea which fermented in the Indian discourse that RSS is an organisation for Brahmins or is preserving Brahmins' interests is quite baseless. My reaction is that this is mischievous and rooted in contemporary politics. There is a lot of vacuum around Hedgewar’s life and this could lead people to create false narratives.

I hope this book helps in providing some data points that could anchor conversations around Hedgewar ji’s life and organisation.

You have closely looked upon the pre-independence ideas, few pertaining to Mahatma Gandhi. Throughout the book, you have translated ‘ahimsa’ as ‘non-harming’ rather than the ubiquitous translation, ‘non-violence’. Can you elaborate on this, please?

I'm trying to create an idiom through which we can have better and more sensible conversations. I think one of the problems is that we have not been linguistically hygienic. With this book, I've tried to change that and create some true linguistic hygiene. We know from the etymology that 'himsa' is to harm and thus 'ahimsa' is non-harming.

The meaning of ahimsa is quite misinterpreted. The conclusion that ahimsa is “one must not use force” is wrong. Therefore, what Gandhi did with that word is that it made him palatable to the West and benign. The non-violence aspect in the popular discourse is quite wrong.

As seen in the biography, Hedgewar, though respected Gandhi, believed that non-violence alone was insufficient against a militarised colonial power. Although Hedgewar held a deep respect for Gandhiji, he was convinced that non-violence alone was insufficient to counter a militarised colonial regime.

Over time, he came to a profound realisation that his fellow countrymen lacked the necessary organisational discipline, military preparedness, and collective determination to sustain a prolonged fight for independence. Recognising this limitation, he turned to political activism within Congress, using state legitimacy as a vehicle for national awakening.

While Gandhi prioritised immediate moral victories through mass movements, Hedgewar’s perspective centred on long-term structural change. He perceived the freedom struggle not just as a revolt against British rule but as a mission to cultivate a nation capable of self-sufficiency and governance.

How did Hedgewar’s participation in the Congress shape his vision and plan for the RSS? Did he take some kind of inspiration from there?

Hedgewar’s participation in the Congress can be compartmentalised into three distinct phases or buckets:

The first phase was his early years as a revolutionary, where he was deeply committed to armed struggle as the means to liberate India. At this stage, he was at the extreme end of revolutionary activism, risking his life for the cause.

However, over time, he transitioned into the second phase—his involvement with Congress. This shift was driven by two key realisations. First, he intellectually recognised that sporadic acts of violence, such as assassinating British officers or disrupting communication lines, were insufficient to defeat a vast colonial system.

He understood that the British did not rule merely through military might but through a structured bureaucracy, legal framework, and administrative control—what he termed a "Leviathan." To challenge this effectively, he saw the need for a political and systemic response rather than just forceful rebellion.

The second reason for his transition into Congress was his association with nationalist leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and B.S. Moonje, who were on the Republican side of the Indian National Congress (INC). Being influenced by their approach, it was natural for him to engage in local Congress politics and activism.

His third and final phase was when he moved beyond Congress politics to focus on long-term structural transformation. He saw the freedom struggle not just as a fight to remove British rule but as a larger mission to build an organised, disciplined, and self-reliant nation.

This realisation ultimately led to the founding of the RSS, where he sought to cultivate discipline, unity, and national consciousness among Indians.

When did Doctor ji start forming his views on religion, especially Islam? You say in the book that Hedgewar was not anti-Muslim but anti-Islam, and anti a particular kind of Islam.

Hedgewar began forming his views on religion, particularly Islam, around the time of World War I and its aftermath. He was one of the few Indian leaders who understood the profound impact that the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate would have on the Muslim world and, consequently, on India. He recognised that this event would create a crisis of faith among Muslims, leading to different ideological responses.

During his initial years, Hedgewar was in touch with a Moulana.

Hedgewar gained a deeper understanding of the Islamic world and its perspectives, as well as the realisation that Muslims could be loyal to India and integrate into its society. However, he also observed that a particularly reactionary form of Islam—one that saw the loss of the Caliphate as divine punishment—was gaining prominence.

Hedgewar believed that this emerging form of Islamist assertiveness, which led to increasing communal violence in India during the 1920s, posed a challenge to national unity.

While Gandhi viewed these tensions as a result of British retreat and lawlessness, Hedgewar saw them as a rupture in the very fabric of the nation (Rashtra). His concern was not about religion itself but about allegiance to the land.

For Hedgewar, the defining principle was deshbhakti (devotion to the nation), rather than religious identity. He did not oppose Islam as a faith but was critical of ideologies that prioritised religious doctrine over national loyalty. He maintained that anyone, regardless of religion, could be a deshbhakt if they were committed to rebuilding the nation.

However, those who placed religious law above national identity became the "other."

This applies not only to certain Islamic groups but also to orthodox Hindu factions resistant to national unity. Hedgewar distinguished between deshbhakti and patriotism, arguing that the former was rooted in devotion to the land and its civilisation, whereas patriotism was often linked to political and territorial constructs that could lead to conflict.

Mazzini’s influence was particularly evident in Hedgewar’s emphasis on disciplined organisation, the role of youth in national regeneration, and the idea of a vanguard elite shaping the future. Nietzsche’s influence was subtler but can be traced in Hedgewar’s emphasis on self-overcoming, strong willpower, and rejecting fatalism.

How does a person understand if he is a deshbhakt or a patriot?

A deshbhakt is someone who is deeply connected to the soil of the land—not just geographically, but spiritually and culturally. Deshbhakti means being "one with the soil," which implies a love for everything that originates from it: the land, the rivers, the animals, and most importantly, the people in all their diversity. This perspective does not focus on political boundaries or government structures but on the shared social and cultural heritage that unites people. The Deshbhakt prioritises the Raashtra—the civilisational and cultural identity of the land—over the Rajya (state or government).

A patriot, on the other hand, is primarily loyal to the rajya—the political entity defined by borders, laws, and governance. Patriotism is often tied to the state's institutions, its laws, and its political framework. A patriot identifies with a nation-state and its sovereignty, often defining "in-groups" and "out-groups" based on nationality, citizenship, or legal status.

In reality, there is a spectrum between deshbhakthi and patriotism. Some people may embody both qualities, while others lean more towards one side. A person who deeply values their cultural roots, traditions, and the interconnectedness of people beyond political systems may be more of a deshbhakt. Meanwhile, someone who strongly aligns with national governance, political ideology, and legal frameworks may be more of a patriot.

For example, when Mohan Bhagwat ji says, "All people on this land are Hindus," he means it from the deshbhakt perspective, which I assume is   Hedgewar’s vision. He is not making a religious statement, nor is he speaking from a patriotic (rajya-based) viewpoint, but rather from the perspective of rashtra—the deeper cultural and civilisational identity of the land.

[In the book ] You mentioned “...by making Golwalkar the chief coordinator, Hedgewar had knowingly built a buffer between the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS”. Please explain this interesting quote.

Yes, of course. So now, showing that we understand patriotism, deshbhakti, and all of that—the Hindu Mahasabha and Savarkar, who headed it, were definitely respected by Hedgewar. But they still felt that essentially, the way in which you save India and rebuild it is to capture the rajya. When the British left, you captured the rajya and went on to build a Hindu India because this was a land for Hindus.

Now, remember what I said earlier: a rajya is always built on an in-group and an out-group. So now, well, if there’s going to be a Muslim India called Pakistan, then there has to be a Hindu India called Bharat. So, the Hindu Mahasabha was using the rajya as a means of rebuilding society.

But Hedgewar’s thought was different. He believed that the problem was not the rajya. The weakness of Indian people—whether Hindu or Muslim—had nothing to do with the rajya.

The real problem was the rashtra because the Indians lacked social capital. Basically, our ability to trust and cooperate in an organised, disciplined manner had evaporated. Indians could not cooperate because they were parochial in caste, class, or creed. Without trust and cooperation, there is no social mobility, no innovation, and ultimately, poverty and subjugation follow.

Hedgewar was the first to piece this together, so he created the RSS for nothing else but to rebuild social capital. His goal was to first strengthen his community and then the wider Hindu community. He wanted to break caste, class, and creed barriers. For Hedgewar, the rajya was secondary, even imaginary. If you don’t have a strong rashtra, if you don’t build a pool of social capital, your rajya will be dysfunctional.

Without a strong rashtra, you cannot build a coherent rajya.

Hedgewar understood that a vibrant and confident civic life can only emerge when there is a deep reservoir of trust and bonds between different groups who otherwise would not mix.

That is why RSS focuses on grassroots work and cultural nationalism, rather than politics.RSS is the engine for social capital, as Hedgewar had envisaged it.

Hedgewar ji built RSS with a long-term approach. This year the RSS is observing its centenary year. What were Hedgewar ji’s thoughts on this, especially the urgency during the pre-independence Era.

As long as the Sangh remains rooted in Hedgewarian thought and ideology, it will always be long-term in its vision. Hedgewar became obsessed with the rashtra—the idea of building social capital—and he understood that there are no shortcuts to this process.

Social capital is not something that can be built overnight. It cannot be achieved through social media or propaganda. Instead, it requires human-to-human relationships, where people must sit together, eat together, visit each other’s homes, and build mutual trust. That human bond creates real, long-lasting social capital, which in turn leads to cooperation, social mobility, and acceptance.

Over the past 100 years, the RSS has succeeded in bringing the most diverse groups of Indian society under one umbrella. Indian society is incredibly diverse, and yet, the RSS has worked to unify it through the rashtra.

Hedgewar made this clear in his last speech at the OTC in 1940. He did not say "Before me, I see the rajya." Instead, he said, "Before me, I see the rashtra."

At that moment, he could see the diversity within the Sangh—people from Maharashtra, Andhra, the north, and the south. There were rich and poor, people from different social classes, English speakers and illiterate individuals—all sitting together on the same floor, united by the vision of the rashtra.

This was Hedgewar’s long-term approach. He believed that without strengthening the rashtra, any political gains in the rajya would be meaningless. 

A strong regionalism and language debate is going on in India nowadays. What would have been Hedgewar ji’s observations on this?

Hedgewar ji, being a Telugu Brahmin who largely grew up in Maharashtra, spoke Hindi and was influenced by European philosophy, would have likely seen the current regionalism and language debates through the lens of rashtra versus rajya.

A rajya (state or government), by its nature, defines itself through in-groups and out-groups. Whether it is a Maharashtra state government, a Telangana state government, or a Tamil Nadu state government, they create divisions for political survival. This is how political entities function.

On the other hand, a rashtra does not operate on in-group and out-group lines. The Rashtra can absorb Tamils, Telugu, Maharashtrians, Gujaratis, Bengalis, and many others because what binds them is not language or regional identity, but the soil itself—the rivers, mountains, and land that unite us.

India’s challenge today is that the rajyas (states) have become too powerful, while rashtra bhav (national sentiment) is not strong enough. Hedgewar would have emphasised that when the feeling of rashtra is strengthened, the divisions created by rajyas will naturally fade.

Doctor ji led a life of celibacy, he chose to lead this even when he had all the chance to lead a family life as you mentioned. What were Gandhi ji’s views on this? The RSS continuous to have the concept of celibacy as seen with many leaders and pracharaks.

Hedgewar ji’s celibacy is often misunderstood and overstated. He valued family life and respected women, focusing on their protection and empowerment. However, celibacy was never a requirement for society at large—it was only for the pracharak order.

The pracharak order is not just a group of volunteers but a dedicated, almost monastic order, where individuals take lifelong vows of discipline and service. Similar to the medieval friars of Europe, these pracharaks live within society but dedicate themselves entirely to their mission—which, in the case of the RSS, is nation-building through social capital.

Hedgewar’s vision was to create a selfless cadre of individuals whose personal lives merged with the larger mission. This is why pracharaks remain celibate, ensuring their complete devotion to the cause. Yet, the RSS, as a movement, has always upheld the importance of family life—which is why celibate leaders have still encouraged society to have more children.

Would the history of independent India be different had Hedgewar’s health held up for 10-15 more years?

If Hedgewar had lived for another 10-15 years, the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh would have still occurred.

But his extended presence would have made RSS more incorporative.

Hedgewar was deeply comfortable with absorbing the best ideas from around the world and infusing them into a uniquely Indian framework—a syncretic Indianness. This ability to adapt and integrate diverse global influences may have continued more strongly had he lived longer, but with his early passing, some of this potential evolution may have been lost.

(transcribed with assistance from K Venugopal)