By Arun Srivastava
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat’s recent suggestion of peace talk and people to people interaction with Pakistan at the same time resolute assertion “We are not like Hitler. That is not our nature or our way,” is rather deceptive in nature and underlines some portentous developments. His proposals for regional dialogue are rooted in geopolitical pragmatism rather than purely altruistic motives. His push for peace talks reflects responses to shifting global dynamics, particularly attempts by powerful nations like the United States to exert influence or pressure in South Asia.
Diplomatic and intelligence moves are rarely “spontaneous.” Instead, these very calculated and are of the nature of responses to regional dynamics. These initiatives are in essence designed moves to manage external pressures, counterbalance rival powers, or de-escalate immediate border tensions rather than representing a fundamental ideological shift toward unconditional friendship. Initiating dialogue is a vital mechanism to prevent minor border friction or ideological differences from escalating into direct, destructive conflict.
What made him compare RSS with Hitler? This is quite intriguing. It is widely known fact that RSS is a fascist Hindu nationalist organization whose core ideology often frames Pakistan as an ideological adversary. RSS has historically maintained a complex position toward Pakistan, characterized by a firm stance against its state policies alongside an ideological desire for cultural reunification. Its hostility towards Pakistan gets reflected in the attitude and approach of its political wing, the BJP. Bhagwat defended statements regarding dialogue by specifying that the focus of any outreach is the common people of Pakistan who suffer from the fallout of the partition, rather than endorsing the hostile actions of its ruling regime or military. Strategically he preferred to reach out to the Pakistani people, but kept away the Pakistan government from this ambit.
The narrative gained traction because the US has recently weaponized economic policies, such as introducing high tariffs against India. Bhagwat himself openly criticized these moves, stating that some Western factions “fear India’s rise will diminish their place in the world.” This proposal has another significant aspect. From a realist geopolitical standpoint, offering a rhetoric of dialogue prevents India from looking entirely rigid on the global stage, defusing pressure from Washington while India manages trade challenges.
As the RSS leadership explicitly states that it does not maintain an independent foreign policy, naturally its latest suggestion to have peace talk that is too with the people of Pakistan raises serious doubts of its intentions. Recent public declarations from high-ranking RSS officials indicate a strategic push for engagement, drawing a clear line between the Pakistani regime and its citizens. Earlier its general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale had asserted that India should maintain a window for dialogue with Pakistan, suggesting that diplomatic channels, trade, and visas should not be permanently shut down. If RSS has been really serious about smoothening India’s relation with Pakistan, it should have taken up the issue with the BJP government led by Narendra Modi.
Bhagwat backed this stance, clarifying that the organization’s outreach focuses on the people of Pakistan rather than its government. Does Bhagwat hold that people of Pakistan are so liberated of the government control and rules that they can act independently. In the technical terms people to people contacts have been going on for long. Artists, famous Ghazal singers, legendry cine stars like Noor Jahan, used to visit India. In 2015 right wing forces disrupted a Mumbai concert by legendary Pakistani ghazal singer Ustad Ghulam Ali. Organizers (Panache Media) had planned the event as a tribute to the late Indian ghazal icon Jagjit Singh. The right wing allies even did not allow the cine artists to work in films produced in Indian. All these developments took place during Modi regime and the RSS supported the vandals.
The RSS’s position on Pakistan and bilateral relations is characterized by several key aspects: “Akhand Bharat” Concept: The RSS is ideologically committed to the concept of Akhand Bharat (Undivided India), which envisions a cultural and geographical reunification of the Indian subcontinent, including the territory that is now Pakistan. Ideological Opposition: The organization historically opposed the two-nation theory, viewing the foundation of Pakistan as inherently antagonistic to India’s integrity. Stance on Terrorism: When it comes to cross-border tensions, the RSS has traditionally advocated for a hardline approach against Pakistani-sponsored terrorism, demanding that the Indian government respond with strong security measures. RSS was the key factor in preventing government of India to have any kind of dialogue with Pakistan.
Bhagwat is known for his illogical talks. In view of the past experiences when his cadres and rightist friends had disrupted the process of normalisation of relation between the two countries, his latest suggestion would fail to take off unless his Modi government, changes its stance and policy towards Pakistan. The task of engaging the people is quite arduous. Bhagwat asserted that a distinct undercurrent of citizens within Pakistan reject the ideology of Partition and the two-nation theory. The condition in India is no different.
The most astonishing has been Bhagwat’s observation that doors must be kept open to preserve what is good even when dealing with adversaries. Little doubt the suggestion is not of the nature of humanitarian gesture and is more reflection of ideological expansionism (such as the concept of Akhand Bharat or an undivided India). His hypothetical remarks about “digesting” or integrating a heavily defeated Pakistani populace into the Hindu fold point toward absorption rather than peer-to-peer diplomacy.
Yet another factor which forced the RSS leadership to turn unassuming towards Pakistan people has been its isolation amongst the Indian diaspora across the globe. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has officially recommended that the US government impose targeted sanctions on the RSS. In its 2026 Annual Report, the independent federal advisory body proposed measures including freezing RSS assets and barring its members from entering the United States. The commission cited concerns over alleged systematic and severe violations of religious freedom in India. The official U.S. stance on the India-Pakistan dynamic has caused structural friction, with India’s long-standing policy of strategic autonomy being constrained by Washington’s shifting diplomatic alignment. India remains highly sensitive to third-party intervention, maintaining that its relations with Islamabad are strictly bilateral. However, recent actions by the U.S. administration and warnings from American policy bodies highlight a growing divergence in how both nations manage South Asian stability.
The Trump administration has actively sought a reset with Islamabad, viewing Pakistan as a key partner for regional objectives in West Asia and the Middle East. Washington reduced tariff rates for Pakistan from 39% to 19% following trade concessions; U.S. leaders broke protocol by directly hosting Pakistan’s military leadership at the White House. India has expressed immense frustration over Washington treating India and Pakistan as equals despite Islamabad’s historical links to cross-border terrorism. But these objections failed to move USA.
A prominent report by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) designated the India-Pakistan border as a critical flashpoint, warning of a moderate risk of renewed armed conflict driven by resurgent terrorist infrastructure. USCIRF has also targeted the RSS, grouping it alongside government agencies for alleged human rights violations. It is worth mentioning that Dattatreya Hosabale had travelled to the US and UK, presenting the RSS as a benign, cultural volunteer group focused on character building and humanitarian relief rather than a supremacist entity. In direct response to persistent accusations of fascism, Mohan Bhagwat explicitly stated, “We are not like Hitler. That is not our nature or our way”. (IPA Service)
