As the RSS marks its centenary, debates over its ideological origins and its fraught relationship with Mahatma Gandhi have intensified. In this interview, author Tushar Gandhi, great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, traces the roots of that rupture to Gandhi’s early encounter with VD Savarkar, his warnings against exclusivist nationalism, and the sustained hostility that culminated in his assassination.
The conversation revisits history to interrogate present-day attempts to recast Gandhi within the Hindutva fold.
How would you describe the nature of the relationship between Mahatma Gandhi and the RSS over the four decades from the early 20th century to his assassination?
To understand that relationship, we must begin with the 1906 meeting between Bapu and VD Savarkar in London. It was after that meeting, on his return voyage to South Africa, that Bapu wrote Hind Swaraj. He described it as a diary of ideas, written in one stretch during the journey, interestingly using both his right and left hands when one grew tired.
hind swaraj is structured as a dialogue. Many analysts believe the second voice in that dialogue reflects Savarkar’s worldview, triggered by their London meeting. Others argue it was Bapu’s inner voice growing louder over time. That debate exists, but what is undeniable is that this meeting provoked a deep ideological churn in him.
Also read | Consolidation of ongoing political process or new twists and turns — what 2026 could hold for India
In hind swarajGandhi repeatedly emphasises inclusiveness and equality. These ideas later found expression in the Indian Constitution. It was at this point that he realised the forces represented by Savarkar were a greater threat to India than colonial rule. He believed the British could eventually be defeated because India was not their home. But an ideology built on hate, segregation, and suppression would continue to endanger India even after independence.
From South Africa onward, Gandhi’s politics were rooted in inclusiveness. He fought injustice without treating the oppressor as an enemy. When he returned to India, that conviction only deepened. He believed India could survive only if it remained united, equal, and just. Any ideology that undermined this would be fatal to the nation.
The Mahatma believed the British could eventually be defeated because India was not their home. But an ideology built on hate, segregation, and suppression would continue to endanger India even after Independence.
What we are witnessing in the last two or three decades is precisely the damage caused by such exclusivist thinking.
When Gandhi spoke of inclusiveness, what exactly did he mean, and how was this different from the worldview of Hindu majoritarian groups?
The idea of inclusiveness is deeply embedded in Hindu philosophy itself, particularly in the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, which views all of humanity as one family. That inclusiveness allowed Hindu society to survive centuries of invasions and foreign rule because it absorbed and adapted rather than excluded.
Also read: Why, in 2025, centenarian RSS is having to weather the belief that it has been diminished
Today, that very capacity to accept and adjust is projected as a weakness. This is where the danger lies. Gandhi’s idea of inclusiveness meant there could be no hierarchies within society. In a family, you cannot selectively accept some members and reject others.
What we see today is the opposite. Political compulsions are creating rigid identities, constantly defining “the other”. This is driven by the political wing of the RSS, the BJP. Gandhi warned that once inclusiveness is abandoned, the nation itself is endangered.
The RSS often claims there was mutual respect between Gandhi and the Sangh. Why does this narrative persist?
Over the last 78 years, the RSS has run two parallel campaigns. One seeks to justify Gandhi’s murder and glorify his murderer, Nathuram Godse. I deliberately use the word “murder”. The term “assassination” often lends a false sense of ideological inevitability. This was a murder carried out because Gandhi was seen as a threat.
This pattern did not end with Gandhi. It continued with Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, M M Kalburgi, and Gauri Lankesh. Ideological murder has been used as a tool of suppression. Gandhi understood this danger, but he was too civil to abuse his opponents. The RSS, however, was openly vitriolic.
Gandhi’s idea of inclusiveness meant there could be no hierarchies within society. In a family, you cannot selectively accept some members and reject others.
If one reads Ramachandra Guha’s writings quoting Organiserthe RSS’s English-language mouthpiece, one finds explicit threats and abuse directed at Gandhi even during his lifetime. Claims of mutual admiration are as hollow as the manufactured myth of “Hindu khatre mein hai”.
Gandhi visited an RSS shakha only once, and that too under pressure to see for himself whether the organisation was changing. This was at a time when RSS cadres were disrupting his sarva dharma prarthana (all-faith prayer). His caution towards the RSS is well documented in the accounts of Pyarelal and Sushila Nayyar.
Gandhi is sometimes said to have admired the RSS for its organisational discipline. How accurate is that claim?
This misunderstands Gandhi entirely. He had seen discipline in many places: British troops in South Africa, fascists in Europe, Nazis in Germany. Discipline by itself never impressed him.
Watch/Read | MGNREGA renaming row: Why dropping Gandhi is more than a name change
The Congress had its own disciplined grassroots organisation in the Seva Dal. Its discipline was tempered by humility and service. The RSS, by contrast, performs service with arrogance, constantly advertising itself. Gandhi saw through this.
The RSS borrowed heavily from the Seva Dal’s organisational blueprint. Its growth came not from originality but from Congress’s post-Independence neglect of its own grassroots structures. Gandhi never needed to admire the RSS; he had already witnessed far more efficient and far more dangerous forms of regimentation elsewhere.
How do you view claims that Gandhi advised Savarkar to seek clemency from the British?
These claims collapse under basic scrutiny. Savarkar repeatedly wrote mercy petitions from the Cellular Jail in the Andamans. Other freedom fighters imprisoned there did not. The RSS does not deny these letters. Instead, it deflects responsibility by dragging Gandhi into the picture.
Gandhi had seen discipline in many places: British troops in South Africa, fascists in Europe, Nazis in Germany. Discipline by itself (like RSS) never impressed him.
Even if Gandhi had publicly acknowledged clemency as a prisoner’s right, the idea that the British would allow secret correspondence between Savarkar in Kala Pani and Gandhi in South Africa is absurd. These claims are part of a deliberate attempt to test how much fiction can be normalised.
The real danger today is not just the ideology of hate, but how successfully it numbs critical thinking. This strategy of lowering the threshold of credibility has been refined over decades.
When did the idea of killing Gandhi first emerge, and what triggered it?
The first recorded attempt on Gandhi’s life in India occurred in Pune in 1934, when a hand grenade was thrown at a car believed to be carrying him. This was long before Partition, Pakistan, or the transfer of ₹55 crore.
At that time, Gandhi was leading the Harijan Yatras, forcing open temples and village wells to Dalits. This directly challenged caste supremacy. That is when the campaign of hatred against him began.
His entire life had been a sustained assault on caste hierarchy. From admitting an untouchable family into the Kochrab Ashram, to opening ashram schools to all castes, he repeatedly defied social orthodoxy. Each act intensified resentment, particularly among sections of Sanatani Hindus and sections of the Maharashtrian Brahmin elite who believed power was their birthright.
Partition later became a convenient excuse to justify a murder that had been ideologically prepared for over a decade.
Are Nathuram Godse, the Hindu Mahasabha, and the RSS separate entities, or part of the same ideological stream?
They are part of the same ideological seed. Nathuram Godse’s brother, Gopal Godse, clearly stated that the entire Godse family were proud RSS members before and after the murder.
The RSS has no formal membership system. There are no identity cards or resignation letters. This allows it plausible deniability, not innocence. The ideology that produced Godse also produced later acts of violence. That continuity cannot be denied.
What do you make of attempts today to appropriate Gandhi while hollowing out his ideas?
The plan is to present a sanitised, RSS-compatible Gandhi. This is visible in the remodelling of Sabarmati Ashram under the Prime Minister’s supervision. A pale, khaki-clad version of Gandhi will be showcased.
The ultimate aim is to convince future generations that Gandhi was not opposed to the RSS, but part of its ideological lineage. That is the real danger — not the rejection of Gandhi, but his complete distortion.
The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.
Comments are closed.