India moving closer to a unitary state under BJP, says Christophe Jaffrelot

Political scientist and India expert Professor Christophe Jaffrelot said the RSS and BJP are closer than ever to achieving a “unitary state” in India, arguing that the Sangh Parivar’s ideological project has been unfolding steadily for decades. He also warned that Indian elections are becoming increasingly unequal and claimed that only a large-scale social movement led by the youth could reverse the current political trajectory.

Also read: Sangh Parivar’s recent controversies in Kerala reveal sharper Hindutva push

The discussion comes amid the BJP’s sweeping victories in recent state elections, including West Bengal, and growing debates over centralisation, electoral fairness, the Election Commission’s independence, and the expanding influence of Hindutva politics. In this episode of Conversations with Nilanjan, The Federal spoke to Professor Jaffrelot about the RSS-BJP relationship, Narendra Modi’s dominance, the future of Indian democracy, and the possibility of a social backlash.

Do you think the BJP and the Sangh Parivar are getting closer to establishing a unitary state in India?

Yes, certainly. They have never been so close to this achievement.

First of all, because they have conquered new states, especially West Bengal, which is a major milestone in their trajectory. Secondly, they are getting closer to the magic figure in Parliament needed to reform the Constitution.

There is also delimitation. That would be one more step towards a unitary state because it would transform the north, the BJP’s stronghold, into an almost permanent majority.

When we say they are moving toward a unitary state, we need to go back to the roots of this project. It has always been their goal.

Also read: ‘The Sangh Parivar plan is to present a sanitised, RSS-compatible Gandhi’

In 1957, the Jan Sangh manifesto clearly opposed linguistic states and rejected the reorganisation of states that began in the 1950s. They believed linguistic states divided Indian patriotism into many nations.

They wanted decentralisation, but not this form of decentralisation. They proposed creating ‘Janpads’ at the sub-state level by amalgamating districts. So this is not a new story. It is the culmination of a very long journey.

How do you assess the current relationship between the RSS and Narendra Modi?

This contradiction has always existed within the RSS.

On one side, they need politicians who can attract voters. On the other side, the RSS wants the organisation to remain supreme. Golwalkar repeatedly said no personality should dominate over the organisation.

We saw this tension earlier as well. Deendayal Upadhyaya was a Pracharak and not really a mass politician. Balraj Madhok became too prominent and was eventually expelled because he became too independent.

Narendra Modi was never the RSS’s preferred choice initially. In the 2007 Gujarat elections, the RSS did not fully campaign for him because he was considered too independent.

But that actually strengthened him because he built his own support structures and networks independent of the RSS. By 2014, Modi no longer needed the RSS in the same way.

Bhagwat summoned him to Nagpur in 2014, and Modi reportedly told him he did not need advice. After the victory, the RSS also failed in its attempt to block Amit Shah from becoming BJP president.

Also read: Why historian Vinay Lal finds RSS’s idea of nationalism ‘problematic’

The RSS has repeatedly tried to reduce Modi’s domination over the Sangh Parivar and failed. They are now waiting for a future moment when they can return as kingmakers after Modi leaves the scene.

Does the RSS still benefit from Modi’s leadership despite these tensions?

Absolutely. Ideologically, there is no difference.

Modi delivers on issues central to the RSS agenda — Muslims, Kashmir, Ayodhya, demographic concerns and many other things that would not have been possible without a strong Hindutva-oriented prime minister.

Even the recent decision to appoint a high-powered committee to study demographic imbalance comes directly from RSS resolutions of the 1960s and 1970s.

So the RSS has little reason to complain. The only weakness on their side is that they do not easily produce mass politicians or chief ministers from within their own ranks.

Who could emerge as Modi’s successor inside the BJP?

I still believe Nitin Gadkari is the RSS’s preferred choice.

But politics is not always about your first choice. Sometimes you need a Plan B because there is no point pushing a candidate who cannot win elections.

Also read: Why Felix Pal thinks RSS is an ‘aloof parent’ of the Sangh Parivar

The next Uttar Pradesh election will be extremely important. If Yogi Adityanath wins for a third consecutive time, he will emerge as a very strong vote-catcher.

We are approaching the end of a political cycle. If not in 2029, then sometime after that, there will inevitably be a change of guard at the top. So factions inside the BJP and RSS are already preparing themselves.

How did Modi recover politically after appearing weakened in 2024?

2024 opened a new chapter because Modi suddenly appeared vulnerable after the Lok Sabha elections.

But what happened afterwards was that elections became even less fair than before. We still treat these elections as normal democratic exercises, but they are not.

In Maharashtra, Haryana and Bihar, we saw new mechanisms emerging. The BJP realised that if Modi could lose, then the rules of the game had to change.

That is why we saw measures like SIR, unequal financial resources, media dominance and gerrymandering in Assam through delimitation.

Also read: RSS at 100 stands tall but is shadowed by a fraught past and fractious present

The BJP cannot afford to play the usual political game anymore because the risk of losing has increased. By changing the rules of the game, Modi became stronger again.

Do you think Indian elections are still fair?

There are serious concerns. When some voters are effectively disenfranchised, elections fundamentally change in nature.

If you read RSS writings over the last century, the idea that Muslims who do not accept Hindu culture should not enjoy full citizenship rights has always existed.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee himself once wrote that Muslims should not remain full citizens if they do not pay allegiance to Hindu culture.

So what we are seeing today was already on their agenda for decades.

Should opposition parties boycott elections if the system is unequal?

That is a very complicated question.

If opposition parties continue contesting elections despite being certain to lose, they legitimise the winners.

Also read: How RSS emerged as a response to decline of Brahminical dominance 100 years ago

But if only some parties boycott elections, the ruling party can still create the appearance of competition.

We saw this in Bangladesh. The BNP boycotted elections and it did not work. In most neighbouring countries, political change has not come through elections anyway.

How do you view the Election Commission’s functioning today?

There has clearly been a loss of independence, prestige and moral authority.

If you compare today’s Election Commission with the eras of T N Seshan, J M Lyngdoh or S Y Quraishi, the difference is striking.

Institutions alone do not matter. The personalities occupying those institutions matter too.

Post-retirement rewards have also become important. People know they may receive governorships or Rajya Sabha positions if they behave in ways that please the government.

The same applies to judicial appointments. The collegium has effectively been neutralised because appointments increasingly favour those acceptable to the government.

There is also ideological affinity. Hindutva and Islamophobia have become deeply hegemonic in society.”

Did India underestimate the rise of Hindu nationalism?

Yes, we underestimated the Sangh Parivar’s groundwork over decades. Many people sitting in Delhi ignored what was happening in villages, slums and grassroots organisations.

The Sangh Parivar built influence in every sector — lawyers, teachers, ex-army officers, students and civil society groups.

Also read: To know RSS, one has to experience it from within, says chief Bhagwat

The Ayodhya movement was central because it became a mass movement that transformed society’s mindset.

What do you mean by the RSS creating a ‘deeper state’?

When we speak about a deep state, we usually think of Pakistan, where the military controls civilian governments.

A ‘deeper state’ is different. It means the state penetrates society more deeply through vigilante groups.

In BJP-ruled states, vigilantes often perform functions that police cannot openly do. They stop trucks, accuse people of cow slaughter, assault drivers and carry out illegal acts. These actions may be illegal, but supporters view them as legitimate because they are done in the name of Hindu protection.

That is the deeper state. It allows the ideology to penetrate society beyond formal institutions.

The RSS ultimately wants society itself to become the Sangh.

Do you believe a social movement could challenge this system?

Yes. Only a social movement can reverse the trend.

We are only at the beginning of a major economic and social crisis. Unemployment, lack of investment and economic distress are already severe.

Also read: How RSS has reshaped India’s history, politics: Historian Tanika Sarkar explains

When a social crisis intensifies and affects young people deeply, it can create the conditions for a mass movement. We have already seen such movements across South Asia.

But unlike the anti-corruption movement of 2012-13, which I believe was partly manufactured and influenced by RSS elements, a future youth movement could be far more spontaneous.

The challenge is leadership. Movements need leaders and direction.

If young people create such a movement, they will likely have to produce leaders from within their own generation.