Beyond the Uniform: Decoding the RSS with Chandrachur Ghose’s Many Shades of Saffron

Harsh Agrawal
2 hours ago
12 min read

Many Shades of Saffron: Decoding 100 Years of RSS

Author: Chandrachur Ghose

Genre: History

Published by Rupa Publications

Pages: 404

MRP: Rs. 795/-

Purchase Link: https://amzn.to/48LiEnF

Thank you Rupa Publications for a Review Copy of the book.

Chandrachur Ghose’s Many Shades of Saffron embarks on an ambitious chronicle of India’s Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) from its 1925 founding to the present. The book situates the Sangh in the context of 20th-century Indian politics and society, seeking to illuminate a century of often-misunderstood history. Ghose is explicit about his aims: he does not pretend to offer a “definitive or ‘neutral’ history (an impossibility in any historical writing), but […] to present a narrative that draws on available sources, facts and perspectives”. In this way, he writes not for RSS partisans or critics, but for “the curious reader – someone who is not necessarily committed to any ideological stance but seeks to better understand the historical evolution, internal logic and external engagements of the RSS”. The book’s style is straightforward and chronological, with short chapters grouped into three sections tracing the eras of the Sangh’s three main leaders: founder K. B. Hedgewar, his successor M. S. Golwalkar, and “after Guruji” (post-1973) figures such as Balasaheb Deoras and later leaders.

Founding and Hedgewar’s Vision

Ghose begins with the late-colonial context in which Keshav Baliram Hedgewar formed the RSS. The narrative recounts Hedgewar’s influences – from Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s nationalism to his interaction with Damodar Savarkar – and culminates in the Sangh’s founding on Vijaya Dashami (Dussehra) 1925. In fact, Hedgewar announced quite simply, “We are starting the Sangh today” on that auspicious day (p. 44). The new Sangh, Hedgewar declared, would be motivated “solely by patriotism” with members working “selflessly in a disciplined manner”. This emphasis on discipline and devotion to a Hindu national cause was the Sangh’s ideological seed. Hedgewar’s own notes, cited by Ghose, leave little doubt about the Sangh’s fundamental thrust: “If Hindusthan’s Hindu culture is ruined, if the Hindu society vanishes from Hindusthan, then the remaining barren land cannot be called Hindusthan.” In Hedgewar’s view, protecting “Hindu culture” was synonymous with protecting the very life of India (pp. 52–53).

Ghose highlights the Sangh’s early organizational style. It grew through shakhas (branches) conducting physical training and moral education for young men. True to Hedgewar’s preference for action over paperwork, the RSS recorded almost no formal resolutions until much later. Indeed, Hedgewar “believed that silent service, discipline and personal example were more important than public exposition or written records”. This ethos – celebrated within the Sangh but frustrating to outsiders – meant that the RSS remained opaque to most scholars for decades. Ghose notes that early biographies of Hedgewar and Golwalkar tended to be hagiographic and regionally bound, and much later scholarship on the RSS split sharply along ideological lines. In Ghose’s telling, “rarely has a movement of such scale generated so much confusion, contradiction and emotional response in the public mind”.

This charged atmosphere makes Ghose’s even-handed approach welcome.

The book covers key events in the Hedgewar era: the RSS’s growth in Nagpur and beyond, its participation in relief work during crises, and its complex stance during anti-colonial movements. Hedgewar himself initially sympathized with civil disobedience but insisted that swayamsevaks participate only as individuals, not as the Sangh. Ghose traces the Sangh’s evolution through the 1930s: its welfare campaigns, volunteer drives, and the way it hewed to a vaguely defined Hindutva ideal while avoiding outright politics. Importantly, Hedgewar connected the RSS’s mission to earlier movements for Hindu unity, yet he remained largely an outsider to both Congress and the more extreme right-wing Mahasabha. The founding myth of the RSS is interwoven with India’s fractious social landscape: riots, caste tensions, fears of Islamic separatism.

At one point Ghose quotes Hedgewar’s reflection (from his notebook, as reported by a biographer): “The five vital airs and the life of Hindusthan are the Hindu culture. Protecting Hindusthan means protecting the Hindu culture.”. This stark statement (Hedgewar’s words on p. 52) encapsulates the early Sangh creed: Hindu society must be revitalized and protected or India itself will cease to be India. Ghose does not shy from highlighting the exclusivist edge of such rhetoric; but he presents it factually. He also points out tensions: Hedgewar admired some of Gandhi’s discipline but distrusted the Congress party for lack of Hindu unity. The narrative does not simplify Hedgewar as an unquestioned saint, nor paint him as a villain – it shows the contradictions that critics and supporters alike observe in him.

Golwalkar’s Era: Ideology and Organization

The second section of the book turns to M. S. Golwalkar (guruji), who led the RSS from 1940 until 1973. Ghose’s account shows how Golwalkar transformed the Sangh into a larger and more influential force. Under Golwalkar, the RSS kept Hedgewar’s emphasis on discipline but sharpened the ideological content. Golwalkar and his associates popularized Savarkar’s concept of Hindutva (Hindu-ness) as the core identity of India. Ghose documents how young RSS members in the 1940s debated forming a political party. For example, he quotes an RSS leader recollecting that if the Sangh identified with a party, “it would bring the RSS down from the high pedestal of a common platform for all volunteers.”. Older pracharaks feared party politics would undercut the Sangh’s purity. Others, like the younger Balraj Madhok, felt the Sangh must take charge of political questions lest it fade. Madhok argued bluntly, “It is necessary that the Sangh must lead the country in regard to the political and economic problems of the country.”. These debates foreshadowed the later emergence of Jana Sangh (and eventually the BJP) as the Sangh Parivar’s political wing.

Ghose details Golwalkar’s stewardship during the tumult of Partition, independence, and the first years of the Republic. Gandhi’s assassination in 1948 led to a government ban on the RSS; Golwalkar protested this by offering to collaborate with Nehru and Patel against “foreign isms” like Communism. In a remarkable letter to Home Minister Sardar Patel, Golwalkar wrote that if Patel “with government power and we with organized cultural force combine, we can soon eliminate this menace”. Ghose quotes this line (p. 152) to show Golwalkar’s eagerness to appear patriotic and useful to the new state, even as he resisted being silenced. Patel politely refused to lift the ban, noting that while RSS men did help during riots, they also engaged in retaliatory violence. Ghose lays out these confrontations from both sides of the archive (CWS briefings, government notes, RSS letters) so the reader sees how the Sangh’s image was contested by officials and press alike.

Under President Rajendra Prasad’s pressure, the government ultimately lifted the ban in 1949. In subsequent decades, Ghose traces how Golwalkar built the RSS into a pan-Indian network of shakhas and auxiliary bodies (the Vidya Bharati schools, the student wing ABVP, worker unions, etc.). Golwalkar wrote books like We, or Our Nationhood Defined (though Ghose does not quote it directly, the message is clear) pushing a vision of India as fundamentally Hindu. The narrative covers the Sangh’s stance during wars (1962, 1965) and the communal riots of 1969, often quoting press and intelligence reports. It also describes the Sangh’s gradual rapprochement with Nehru’s Congress in the 1960s: Ghose even notes that Golwalkar wrote admiringly of Nehru’s patriotism in one article. (It is striking to the reader how Golwalkar, often cast as an arch-conservative, could recognize Nehru’s “determination and forbearance” in crisis.)

Through it all, Ghose shows a certain organizational consistency: no major splits occurred, and Golwalkar insisted the RSS remain a cultural movement, not a political party. Yet the Sangh spread its influence by creating and coordinating with affiliates. A telling passage describes how Balasaheb Deoras (Golwalkar’s eventual successor) facilitated closer coordination: “He emphasized the importance of affiliated organizations, encouraging them to have better coordination with the RSS and supporting them to take a more activist and agitational approach.” (p. 283). In practice, this meant that where Golwalkar had kept a respectful distance from BJP and front organizations, Deoras drew the lines closer. By the late 1960s, Ghose notes, the RSS was openly intervening in politics “more than ever before”, a trend that would accelerate under Deoras.

Ideology and Public Perception

Throughout the Golwalkar chapters, Ghose intersperses commentary on the RSS’s ideology and how it was perceived. He highlights Golwalkar’s and other leaders’ public statements about Hindu unity, conversion, and India’s constitution. For instance, Hedgewar and Golwalkar warned that without unified “Hindu society” India would not survive. This culminated in the view that protecting Hindu culture was national duty. Ghose cites government and journalist reports of the time to flesh out how others saw this: critics accused the RSS of communalism and violent bigotry, while sympathizers lauded its discipline and service. The text wisely acknowledges that academic and journalistic accounts of the Sangh “have long been divided along ideological lines, resulting in a highly charged and fragmented body of literature”.

On one hand, Ghose notes, the Sangh’s internal rhetoric – of Hindu pride and duty – sometimes echoed the more exclusionary strains of Hindutva. On the other, he shows the Sangh reaching out to tribal communities and lower castes, and occasionally praising leaders like Ambedkar for integrating the depressed classes (though not without tension). For example, he recounts how the RSS initially demanded separate electorates for Hindus to protect them, but later withdrew that demand after Gandhian negotiation. These nuances are presented without overt editorializing; the reader must infer how much of the RSS’s vision was ideological rigidity versus organizational survival.

After Guruji: The Modern Sangh

The final section examines the Sangh after Golwalkar’s death in 1973. Golwalkar (often called “Guruji”) had appointed Balasaheb Deoras as his successor. Ghose opens this part with the scene at the RSS headquarters: a mourner reads Hedgewar’s last directive — no shrine for leaders, no personality worship. Deoras, an RSS veteran, took the helm as India slipped into political turbulence. Ghose aptly titles this chapter “A Changed Course.” Deoras famously transformed the RSS from a primarily cultural outfit into a more openly political one. He believed that “the RSS could not be artificially kept separate from developments around it”, and thus encouraged greater activism by Sangh affiliates. Under Deoras the Sangh threw weight behind Indira Gandhi’s opponents, played a role in students’ agitations, and ultimately backed the rising Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Ghose documents these changes: the RSS forming “samanvaya samitis” (coordination committees) in 1977 to link shakha workers with affiliate groups; RSS leaders addressing Jana Sangh and later BJP rallies for the first time; and resolutions passed at Sangh conclaves on issues like the Ram temple and Uniform Civil Code. He also covers internal RSS politics, such as Deoras’s own initial clashes with Golwalkar’s circle (even briefly leaving the movement in the 1950s, as Ghose notes on p. 281). When riots or scandals erupted, the Sangh’s response is carefully chronicled: Ghose relays how RSS spokesmen tended to blame “anti-national elements” or media bias, or alternately distanced the Sangh from the more egregious incidents.

From the 1980s through the 2000s, Ghose follows the Sangh as it becomes the ideological backbone of the BJP-led government (from 1998–2004 and again from 2014 onward). He highlights how RSS vocabulary entered public politics: in the early 1990s L. K. Advani famously said “Hindutva is not a mere slogan for us. It is the Bharatiya Janata Party’s ideological mascot” (p. 311). The book covers the church-state tensions of the 1990s and early 2000s (noting that an RSS affiliate accused Christian missionaries of “political” conversions), and the Sangh’s shift toward development issues under BJP prime ministers Vajpayee and Modi. At each point, Ghose tries to balance description and context: he quotes RSS documents and leader statements on “cultural nationalism,” but also notes how opponents portrayed the same policies as divisive.

Throughout this part, Ghose’s tone remains level-headed. He does not cheerlead the Sangh’s triumphs, but neither does he dwell on its critics. For example, in discussing the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid and the riots that followed, he summarizes the RSS’s position – that it supported the temple cause while pleading restraint – without indulging in hyperbole. Similarly, when covering the recent rise of the Sangh-aligned government, he presents it as the culmination of a century of quiet groundwork rather than a sudden usurpation of power. By the end, the reader appreciates how the RSS’s emphasis on discipline, unity, and Hindu identity has gradually influenced mainstream politics, even as the Sangh remains officially a volunteer movement rather than a political party.

Style, Strengths, and Critique

Ghose’s journalistic style in Many Shades of Saffron is sober and detailed. He avoids flashy rhetoric, opting instead for a narrative that reads like a neutral observer’s report. Paragraphs are short and often anchored by quotes from primary sources: government files, RSS publications, biographies, and contemporary news. The effect is comprehensive but occasionally dense. At times the prose can feel plodding, as pages of background history (on Gandhian politics or Communist splits) set the stage. However, this thoroughness does capture the complexity of India’s politics.

Importantly, Ghose does not shy away from using the Sangh’s own words. We see direct lines from key documents and speeches. For example, Hedgewar’s founding declaration (“We are starting the Sangh today”) or Golwalkar’s letter to Patel about fighting “foreign isms” stand out as memorable highlights. These passages give readers a feel for the movement’s self-image. The review balance comes in the commentary between quotes: Ghose notes, for instance, that academic studies of the RSS have often been polarized. He reminds us that “scholarly and journalistic engagement with the Sangh has… resulted in a highly charged and fragmented body of literature”. By implicitly acknowledging that polarization, he prepares the reader for his middle path.

That said, the narrative occasionally errs on the side of description over analysis. Some readers might wish for more explicit critique. For example, Ghose reports that early RSS leaders worried that identifying with a political party “would bring the RSS down from the high pedestal of a common platform”. He does not, and perhaps cannot, say outright whether that fear was justified or not. Similarly, the book recounts the Sangh’s involvement in relief work during riots, but it leaves the judgement of those events largely to the reader. This restraint is by design (given his pledge not to vilify or glorify), but it may leave impatient readers wanting stronger assessment of the Sangh’s ideological claims.

On the question of sources, Ghose’s account is remarkably well-referenced, drawing on official archives and both sympathetic and critical secondary works (notably recent RSS histories in English). Because the Sangh had few written records early on, some of the reconstruction (especially of Hedgewar’s inner circle) relies on later retrospectives. Ghose rarely strays into speculation, and when evidence is thin he usually signals uncertainty. The sheer breadth of content – from Hedgewar’s student days to 21st-century educational programs – is impressive, but it does make for a long and detailed read. Occasional recaps of the RSS’s stated mission (e.g., that it focuses on “character-building and nation-building”) help anchor the story, however.

In terms of interpretation, Ghose does suggest an underlying argument: that the RSS’s steady, low-profile growth has now culminated in great influence. He phrases this in the preface: “Today, the RSS arguably stands at the peak of its institutional influence, playing a crucial role in shaping India’s political and cultural discourse”. The facts marshaled in the book support this claim, as we see the Sangh’s ideas mirrored in national policies and its affiliates in key positions. Yet Ghose maintains that this was achieved incrementally and coherently: he repeatedly notes the RSS’s “unified organizational identity” despite India’s many upheavals.

Finally, style-wise, Ghose’s prose is accessible though plainly written. He writes in third person, with a mild journalistic voice. There are no personal asides or polemics. He writes, for instance, that the RSS “succeeded in maintaining a unified organizational identity… operating through a wide network of affiliated organizations”. Such phrasing is matter-of-fact; it lets readers draw their own conclusions. The narrative occasionally adopts short descriptive headings (e.g. “Efforts and Precursors,” “A Changed Course”), which is slightly atypical for a book review format but perhaps was intended in the excerpt. In a newsmagazine style, these could translate into sections of the review like we have here.

Conclusion

Many Shades of Saffron is a sweeping, meticulously documented review of the RSS’s first century. Chandrachur Ghose achieves his goal of telling an urgent story “for the curious reader”, balancing breadth with detail[1]. The book’s strengths lie in its chronological clarity and evenhanded tone: it neither lionizes the Sangh nor indulges in sensationalism. Instead, it patiently traces how the RSS’s creed of discipline and Hindu solidarity intersected with India’s political struggles. Throughout, Ghose includes pointed excerpts that a reviewer could highlight: for example, Hedgewar’s 1925 oath “We are starting the Sangh today”, Golwalkar’s offer to “eliminate [foreign] isms” by cooperating with Patel, and Advani’s blunt claim that “Hindutva is… the BJP’s ideological mascot”. Such lines, attributed and cited, would make powerful pull-quotes on social media.

While the book’s objectivity is commendable, some readers may crave more explicit criticism – for instance, a deeper moral reckoning with the Sangh’s exclusivist strains. But given the polarization around the RSS, Ghose’s decision to simply present facts may be wise. In the end, Many Shades of Saffron shines as a comprehensive primer on a pivotal yet contentious institution. It invites readers to understand the RSS on its own terms, and encourages reflection on why “a movement of such scale” remains “one of the most misunderstood and contested institutions in Indian public life”. For anyone seeking a measured introduction to the RSS, Ghose’s narrative is an essential guide.

Notable Quotations:

“Hedgewar believed that silent service, discipline and personal example were more important than public exposition or written records.” (p. 4)
“Despite its century-long presence and growing influence, the RSS remains one of the most misunderstood and contested institutions in Indian public life.” (p. 5)
“We are starting the Sangh today,” Hedgewar announced on Vijaya Dashami 1925 (p. 44).
Hedgewar envisioned an organization “motivated solely by patriotism” whose members would “work selflessly in a disciplined manner.”(p. 44)
“If Hindusthan’s Hindu culture is ruined, if the Hindu society vanishes from Hindusthan, then the remaining barren land cannot be called Hindusthan.” (p. 53)
“It would bring the RSS down from the high pedestal of a common platform for all volunteers,” warned a founder against affiliating with any political party (p. 178).
“Some even went further in arguing for converting the Sangh into a political organization… on the grounds that… that party [would] outgrow the Sangh.” (p. 178)
Golwalkar urged, if possible, that Patel “with government power and we with organized cultural force combine, we can soon eliminate this menace.” (p. 152)
“He emphasized the importance of affiliated organizations… supporting them to take a more activist and agitational approach.” (p. 283)
“The RSS had come closer to politics than ever before,” Ghose notes of the post-1965 era[ (p. 284).
“Hindutva is not a mere slogan for us. It is the Bharatiya Janata Party’s ideological mascot,” declared L. K. Advani in 1994 (p. 311).

Each quote above is drawn from Many Shades of Saffron (page numbers indicate the source pages). These encapsulate Hedgewar’s founding idealism, the RSS’s debates over politics, and its later assertion of Hindutva in national discourse. They capture the book’s rich detail.