By Arun Srivastava
Known for double speech and dishing lateral lies, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s Vijaya Dashami speech on Tuesday, was an exercise of the nature of “give a dog a bad name and kill him”, demeaning and discrediting the popular students’ movement. He used political duplicity and strategic posturing and accused it of being supported and sponsored by “demonic” global force to intentionally spread hatred, deepen social divisions, and orchestrate regime changes.
Accusing the students’ protest as demonic simply underscores the nature of threat it has posed to the political hegemony and politics of hatred of the saffron ecosystem. Unlike his BJP protégé, he is aware of the potential and intensity of the protest to demolish the super structure of the saffron mythological philosophy. This is in mind Bhagwat resorted to his old rhetoric that politically motivated agitations and domestic unrest are being exploited by external forces seeking to destabilize and weaken India. Speaking at the RSS annual Vijayadashami event in Nagpur , he asserted that regime changes do not solve underlying problems and urged restraint from both protesters and governments
His recalibrating the phrase “regime change” used by Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan at a press meet for defeating the Modi government ,as conspiracy of Western anti-Indian forces was nothing else but a deliberate attempt to denigrate the students and protesters as agents, co-conspirators of the foreign forces. Master of speaking lies and twisting facts he used his skill to relate the regime change with recent political unrest and public uprisings in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. In his attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill, Bhagwat cited violent public demonstrations and government overthrows in South Asia and parts of Europe (such as Bangladesh, Nepal, and France) as examples of a “storm from the West” and a “grammar of anarchy” that threatens global values and social stability.
Bhagwat deserves appreciation for his murky imagination. Notwithstanding having strained relation with Narendra Modi and occasional sanctioning of his government, the compulsion to avert the existential crisis saffron government was facing, took cudgels to insinuate the protest, antagonise the students and resorted to extraordinary act of describing Modi government as most strong and effective. He asserted that the country’s strong governance, historical policies, and societal resilience can defeat outside interference.
Barely a month back speaking to a group of youths belonging to the affluent section he had articulated that protests are an essential and inevitable part of democracy. Even in his Vijayadashami speech in Nagpur, he outlined that protest is fundamentally a way of dialogue. When communication channels stall and citizens feel their voices and concerns are not being heard by authorities, turning to agitation is a natural extension of democratic expression. At Nagpur he even said that in a healthy democracy, diverse opinions must coexist. Bhagwat emphasized that the ultimate goal of a protest should be to bring different views together so that a consensus can evolve after thorough discussion.
RSS has never been an instrument of protest which is why it does not come as surprise that Bhagwat does not know the importance, dynamics and basic character of protest. It is fundamentally an organization built on cultural nationalism, and top-down obedience rather than grassroot public protest. It is an organization which stayed away from direct mass-protest movements led by Mahatma Gandhi, even opposed Quit India Movement, prioritizing internal societal organization instead. It has always used secular platform for ascension. During the Emergency, the then RSS chief Balasaheb Deoras wrote letters to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to strike a compromise, seek a lift on the organization’s ban, and distance the RSS from mainstream agitational politics. RSS traditionally favours cooperation with authority or institutional building over standard street agitations.
The RSS supporting protest is the greatest bluff. It has maintained a complex, dual position regarding public demonstrations, leading to intense political debate whether its openness to dissent is authentic or a political manoeuvre. Protest endangers right-wing forces. It serves as a vital democratic tool for the middle and working classes to voice economic and political grievances. When formal institutional channels fail, collective action allows under represented populations to demand accountability and policy changes from governments. A historical example is the prolonged Indian farmers’ protests, which successfully forced the repeal of three controversial agricultural market laws.
He deliberately tried to label the protest as “foreign storm” for making people ignore genuine internal discontent, governance failures, or democratic demands for accountability. His observation on protests points to his political bankruptcy, or a deliberate design to create confusion amongst the people. In his address he linked the threat of foreign-fuelled “regime change” to the necessity of national consciousness, unity and national pride. He perversed the meaning of the word with wrong intention. It was projected as if Bhushan was instigating youths to take to Bangladesh or Nepal path. This is really ridiculous and absurd.
Rightist forces often counter anti-government agitations by framing them as “foreign-funded,” politically motivated, or designed to divide the country. RSS so called support for dissent is a “bluff” because its tolerance is strictly conditional. Sangh’s rhetoric of supporting democratic dialogue is contradicted by actions on the ground, pointing to clashes between alleged RSS supporters and active demonstrators
By framing public agitations— the recent protests against the Election Commission—as “foreign conspiracies” or “politically motivated,” the RSS leadership seeks to invalidate genuine public anger. Agitation and protest are fundamental to a country’s life because they serve as the primary mechanism for driving political progress, protecting civil liberties, and holding those in power accountable. In democratic societies, the right to peaceful assembly acts as a critical safety valve, allowing citizens to express grievances and shape national policy between election cycles. Bhagwat basically intends to deny these two rights to the Indians. Without protests, outdated or unjust laws often remain unchallenged.
There is no denying that RSS has explicitly used “regime change” narrative as a diversionary tactic, framing it as a direct national security warning. It is indeed a lame joke to listen RSS and BJP leaders—Mohan Bhagwat, Indresh Kumar, and Rajnath Singh—that anti SIR and election protests led by Rahul Gandhi and the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) are part of an orchestrated “regime change” agenda rather than genuine democratic dissent. These leaders even accused the protests of escalating from student or civic grievances into political anarchy that threatens national stability.
Committed to Hindi and Hindutva cause the RSS and BJP leaders are feeding the English connotation of Regime Change. Bhushan openly stated during a press conference that if the government continued its alleged high-handedness regarding electoral rolls, a “regime change” would be inevitable, adding that seeking a change in government is a basic democratic right. This purely implied change of ruler. Bhagwat’s firm framing of these protests as part of a Western “storm” aiming to break India, Hindus, and the Sangh serves as an ideological rallying cry. Hindi meaning of regime change is Satta Parivartan: The replacement of one ruling government or political authority by another.
Regime change does not require the use of force. Political science and international law define it as the replacement of a government or ruling apparatus through various non-violent or constitutional means: Elections and Ballots: Voters can replace an entire ruling party, administration, or leadership system through peaceful, democratic elections without overturning the constitutional order. (IPA Service)
