From defending BJP ruled State’s restrictions on Namaz on roads to supporting the idea of allowing only Hindus to enter the Char Dham temples, RSS national publicity in-charge Sunil Ambekar in an exclusive interview to Ishita Mishra spoke at length on topics like demographic change and population imbalance and Gen Z protest in Nepal and Bangladesh. He also defended Narendra Modi’s government on ongoing West Asia conflict and appointment of Naitin Anbin as BJP chief.
It’s been 100 years since the RSS was founded in 1925. How does the Sangh define its core ideology, and how has it changed over these 100 years?
The founding vision of the Sangh was clear from the very beginning: to guide the nation toward a state of the highest prosperity and glory. The most essential requirement to achieve this goal is having unity among Hindus and unity within society as a whole. For this purpose, individuals fully dedicated to this mission were needed. With such people and these objectives in mind, the work of the Sangh began.
The core idea has always been that this is a Hindu nation, where Hindutva is understood as a way of life. This way of life is not opposed to anyone, nor is it meant to eliminate or harm others; rather, it is intended for the welfare of all. Therefore, its establishment is beneficial not only for India but for the entire world and all of humanity. It was with this pure and selfless spirit that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was founded.
This foundational thought has remained unchanged over time. However, as time, circumstances, and societal needs evolve, and as the number of workers grows, the Sangh engages with a wider range of issues. While doing so, it continues to express its ideas based on its original principles. The nation remains supreme in its thinking, and this reflects in its approach to national security, development, and unity. The core vision remains consistent and continues to guide its path.
So far, how many people have joined the Sangh Parivar in India?
In terms of shakhas, we currently have around 88,000 daily shakhas running across the country. Each shakha connects with many individuals—some have around 100 participants, others 200 or more. So overall, the number of people associated with the Sangh runs into several lakhs.
As the Sangh completes 100 years, is it planning any new expansion strategy? Was any such decision taken in your Akhil Bharatiya Samanvay Baithak held in Samalakha?
The number of shakhas has been steadily increasing, and the organisation continues to expand at a consistent pace. To manage this growth, we are working on strengthening and restructuring the organisation. Earlier, we had around 46 provincial (prant) units. Now, we are introducing an additional layer below that—the divisional (sambhag) level—to make the structure more decentralized. This will help us effectively address the growing needs of expansion. We have already reached villages, tehsils, mandals, and grassroots levels, and our goal is to reach every part of India. These organisational changes are being made to support that objective. People from all walks of life are joining us, and we aim to collaborate with all such individuals. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity. By working together with society, we hope to take up new initiatives and expand our work further.
In the coming years, will we see more offshoots of the Sangh or like-minded organisations?
I cant say this with certainty. However, as new needs arise in different areas of work, new systems, organisations, and institutions will naturally emerge. At the same time, the institutions that are already functioning will continue to expand and incorporate new dimensions into their work.
The relationship between the Sangh and the BJP is often discussed. The BJP has recently chosen Nitin Nabin as its party president after a long wait. It is being said that Mr. Nabin has not had any direct association with the Sangh or its affiliated organisations. How do you see this?
As far as I know, his family has had some connection with the Sangh. Beyond that, he has been working within the political sphere, specifically with the BJP, for many years. He is a long-time and experienced party worker.
But wouldn’t this create an ideological gap? For example, someone trained in the Sangh’s ideology versus someone who has only grown within the party?
I believe that Sangh volunteers work across all spheres of society and contribute to various organisations, often playing important roles in running them. In the BJP as well, there are many such volunteers who hold significant and decision-making positions. They understand the Sangh’s ideas just as well as we do and have similar experience. So, I believe he they will continue to take their organisation forward effectively.
So because already so many Sangh volunteers are part of the BJP, is this the reason why the RSS has not been providing organisational general secretaries to the party in several states for a long time?
No, that is more of a situational matter. Decisions depend on immediate needs, local circumstances, and the availability of individuals. Leave BJP, there are many other organisations as well where we are currently unable to provide workers despite the need—for example, Saksham, which works for persons with disabilities. Many organisations working in the field of women’s welfare are also waiting. As more organisations are formed, the demand for dedicated workers continues to grow.
The Sangh has been vocal about issues like population imbalance, demographic change, and cross-border infiltration. How do you see these as concerns in present Indian society?
Going to another country for work through legal means is normal and acceptable, but illegal infiltration is not.
In any country, a large influx of illegal migrants becomes a matter of concern for national security and social unity. India is a democratic nation, and illegal entry does not only cause economic strain but also affects the democratic system by allowing unlawful participation. This raises questions about the country’s unity, security, and integrity. Given India’s historical background—especially the Partition in 1947—this issue becomes even more sensitive. It is the responsibility of every citizen to ensure that such a situation never arises again. The Partition itself is often linked to demographic imbalances, and this concern is not limited to the Sangh; it is shared by many citizens across the country. Sangh workers, who regularly engage with people at the grassroots level, often hear these concerns directly from society. When such concerns arise, the Sangh raises them openly. While some may avoid speaking on these issues due to political interests or pressures, the Sangh considers them a priority and addresses them. Its volunteers also try to raise awareness through constitutional and lawful means and work toward solutions.
How does the Sangh create awareness among people on issues like cross-border infiltration and demographic change?
Most illegal infiltration in India is from Bangladesh. There is data available on these issues. We reach out to people in regions where this is happening the most and spread awareness. Whenever senior leaders, including the Sarsanghchalak (Mohan Bhagwat), speak at public platforms, they highlight these concerns to society. Awareness is spread through campaigns and direct interaction with communities. I would also say that platforms like yours can play an important role in creating public awareness and contributing to informed discussion on these issues.
Are there any States where you feel cross-border infiltration and demographic imbalance are increasing?
States like Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, and Jharkhand are particularly affected. In general, regions that share international borders tend to face this issue more. In some cases, even places like the Andaman Islands have reported instances of illegal infiltration. A positive development is that institutions such as the Election Commission and administrative authorities are now taking action at various levels, and such cases are increasingly being identified and addressed.
When the Sangh says that this is a Hindu nation and that all people living here are Hindu, then how does the issue of demographic imbalance arise if everyone belongs to the same broader identity?
In our country, there are many people who see themselves as connected to its traditions, unity, integrity, and heritage. As has been said by the Sarsanghchalak, people share common DNA (ancestry) and a shared historical and cultural background. For those who recognize this, even if their mode of worship changes, their connection to the nation does not change. However, there have also been instances where changes in religious identity led some to feel that they no longer belonged to this nation and instead identified with another. This mindset contributed to events like the Partition. Similar situations have occurred in other parts of the world as well—for example, Lebanon. RSS is working on ground to make people understand that they all belong to Hindu Rashtra and have same history and DNA but at the same time, it is equally important to ensure that until everyone understands this, no section of society acts in a way that harms the unity and integrity of the nation. Both these efforts—awareness and outreach—need to continue side by side.
In today’s context, how does the Sangh view SIR, CAA, and NRC? How can these help in preserving the country’s culture?
I believe these are essentially constitutional and administrative processes. For example, exercises like SIR are not happening for the first time—they have been conducted earlier as well. Such measures are generally seen as being in the national interest. If someone is found to be an illegal entrant, then appropriate legal action should follow—it is a straightforward matter, not something overly complicated. At the same time, if someone feels their name has been wrongly excluded, there are provisions to reapply and seek correction. The system provides mechanisms for review and rectification.
What is the Sangh’s view on the ongoing war in West Asia?
This is an international issue. As a nation, India’s official stance and policies are determined by the Government of India. In such situations, it is important that all sections of society—including opposition parties—set aside differences and stand together in the national interest, keeping the country’s priorities above all else. The Sangh’s approach is aligned with this broader national perspective. It is believed that any conflict should be guided by truth and the welfare of people, not by selfish interests. Ideally, the world should move away from war and toward peace. India, in its approach, appears to be moving in that direction.
How does the Sangh view the Gen Z–led movements happening in neighboring countries like Nepal and Bangladesh? Why do you think India seems unaffected?
What is happening in Bangladesh or Nepal is largely an internal matter of those countries. In a democracy, people have the right to express dissatisfaction with their governments and organise movements if they feel the need. That is what we are seeing there. In India’s case, the youth are highly aspirational. They are focused on taking the country forward and contributing to its growth. There is also a sense among many that the government is working in alignment with their aspirations. Indian youth have strong faith in the Constitution and prefer to bring change within its framework.
Historically too, whenever the country has faced challenges, young people have stepped forward—whether during the freedom movement, the Emergency, or public movements around issues like corruption and women’s safety. They have largely used democratic and peaceful means to express themselves. Today, much of the younger generation is channeling its energy into areas like technology, AI, startups, and innovation, with the aim of strengthening India’s global position. They are also thinking about governance, law and order, and long-term national development. Overall, today’s youth appear more optimistic about India’s potential compared to earlier generations, and many also feel a strong connection to their cultural and value systems.
When you speak about unity in diversity and youth enthusiasm, how do incidents—such as restrictions on offering namaz in certain places or controversies around religious practices—impact young people?
I think even Muslim majority countries have rules about where namaz can be offered. It’s usually not allowed to pray on roads there. From what I’ve seen and understood—for example, if you go to Dubai—you’ll notice that people don’t pray on the streets. They go to designated places for namaz. So, I feel this is not really a religious issue, but more about maintaining discipline in society. It should be seen in that way—discipline should be maintained. Every religious group arranges proper places for their followers, and those places are meant for worship.
In a democracy, if people don’t like a certain arrangement, they can speak up. There are simple ways to do that, like through media or public discussion. Overall, I think this is a broader issue involving the government, society, and communities. The government makes rules based on law and order, and people also express their views on it. In many countries, including some Muslim-majority nations, there are designated places for offering prayers, and public spaces like roads are generally not used for that purpose. From this perspective, such issues can be seen less as religious matters and more as questions of public order and discipline. The idea is that arrangements should be made so that people can practice their faith in an organised manner without disrupting public life. These are broader societal issues involving government, communities, and different sections of society. Governments may take decisions based on law and order considerations, while people are free to express their views.
But don’t such incidents affect social unity?
These situations should not necessarily be seen as threats to unity. They are better understood in the context of maintaining public discipline and order. Dialogue remains important—if concerns are raised, discussions can take place with all stakeholders. So far, such issues have not prominently come up in our direct interactions, but if they do, they can always be addressed through conversation and mutual understanding.
