Bharat Hindus Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) United States USA World

From Swami Vivekananda to Dr. Mohan Bhagwat: The Continuing Journey of India’s Spiritual and Intellectual Tradition

Priyank Kanoongo New York’s Madison Square Garden is not merely a vast auditorium; it is one of those prestigious platforms in the world where the presentation of an idea becomes, in itself, a part of global dialogue. The address delivered from such a platform by Dr. Mohan Bhagwat, Sarsanghchalak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, assumes special significance because it reflects not merely the message of an organisation, but the continuity of India’s long spiritual and civilisational tradition of thought—one of the most influential expressions of which in the modern world was Swami Vivekananda’s Chicago address of 1893. In Chicago, Swami Vivekananda presented before the world an India whose spiritual consciousness possessed the ability to view diverse beliefs and faiths not as mutually conflicting, but as different paths leading towards the truth. He did not confine the Indian perspective merely to tolerance; rather, he connected it with the higher ideal of acceptance. He spoke of a civilisation that, throughout history, had provided refuge to communities fleeing religious persecution and had accommodated different faiths within itself. In his address, India was not merely a geographical entity; it emerged as a civilisation whose strength lay not in eliminating diversity, but in carrying diverse identities together. More than a century later, Mohan Ji’s address appears as a contemporary expression of that very civilisational vision. It is here that the most important ideological connection between the two emerges. Swami Vivekananda introduced the world to India’s spiritual vision; Mohan Ji connects that same vision with the social and global questions of the present day. Swami Ji presented the coexistence of different religious traditions as one of India’s spiritual achievements, whereas Mohan Ji presents it as the Indian vision of “Unity in Diversity”—eliminating diversity is not the solution; what is necessary is to recognise the underlying unity within it. This difference is not merely one of language; it also reflects the requirements of the two different eras. During Vivekananda’s time, the question was how the world should understand an India viewed through a colonial lens, and with what confidence India itself should recognise its civilisational strength. Today, the question is different. The world is technologically more interconnected than ever before, yet divisions based on identity, religion, culture, race and ideology have also intensified in many societies. At such a time, the question is: what can India offer to the world from its thousands of years of experience of coexistence? Mohan Ji’s answer appears to lie in this very civilisational consciousness of India. His interpretation of Hindutva in the address also emerges within this broader context. Rather than limiting Hindutva to any single mode of worship or narrow religious identity, he associates it with a way of looking at life and society in which an individual looks beyond oneself towards society, understands duties alongside rights, and experiences a sense of oneness amid diversity. In this context, his view that if someone believes that Muslims should have no place in India, such thinking does not understand the fundamental spirit of Hindutva, assumes particular significance. It points towards a conception in which India’s civilisational unity is not based upon the exclusion of any community or the denial of its identity, but upon the ability to carry different communities together. Here, a clear resonance of Swami Vivekananda’s tradition of thought can be heard. For him too, India’s spiritual strength did not mean victory over another faith or its elimination. He saw India’s strength in the fact that this land had given space to different beliefs, maintained the possibility of dialogue among them, and did not restrict the search for spiritual truth to any single path. Mohan Ji connects this very spirit with the contemporary questions of social harmony and human unity. Another important dimension of his thought is his appeal to Indians living abroad. Remaining connected to one’s motherland and cultural roots while simultaneously demonstrating loyalty, honesty and responsibility towards one’s land of work are not contradictory ideas. It is equally necessary to fulfil one’s responsibilities towards the country and society in which one lives and with which one’s labour, life and future are connected. This brings forth a broader element of the Indian perspective in which preserving one’s own identity and respecting the existence of others go hand in hand. “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” does not mean eliminating one’s distinct identity; rather, it means developing the capacity to view the world as one family while remaining rooted in one’s own identity. The relevance of this idea has increased even further today. Technology has reduced geographical distances, but social and ideological distances have increased in many places. Identity-based conflicts, religious polarisation and cultural clashes have become major questions in global discourse. At such a time, India’s civilisational experience cannot remain merely a memory of a glorious past; it must be transformed into an idea that is useful for the present and the future. It is here that the broader significance of Mohan Ji’s address becomes apparent. The India that Vivekananda presented confidently on the world stage was politically subjugated. His challenge was to ensure that the world did not view India merely through the lens of poverty, colonial subjugation or backwardness, but also understood its profound philosophical, spiritual and cultural consciousness. Today, circumstances have changed. India is independent, it engages with the world with confidence, and its role in global discourse has steadily increased. Therefore, the presentation of India’s civilisational vision can no longer remain confined merely to explaining itself to the world; it naturally also carries an aspiration to contribute towards finding solutions to contemporary global challenges. This is the most significant transformation in the journey from Chicago to Madison Square. Then, India was telling the world—understand us in the light of our reality and our civilisation. Today, India can also say—understand our civilisational experience; perhaps it may contain answers to some of the questions confronting today’s world. Yet, within this transformation, a profound continuity remains. Swami Vivekananda carried India’s spiritual strength to the West, but he also urged India to

Bharat Hindus Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) United States USA World

234

Civilisational Dialogue and Global Oneness

A century of service, and the centenary visit of Dr Mohan Bhagwat to the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. On 25 August 2026, Dr Mohan Bhagwat, Sarsanghchalak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, began a three nation tour of the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, at the invitation of local associations and community organisations in each country. The visit falls within the centenary year of the movement he leads, and the head of the world’s largest socio-cultural voluntary movement rarely addresses audiences abroad. Across the three countries the tour opens a civilisational dialogue, in gatherings of the diaspora and in meetings with Hindu organisations, community associations and leaders drawn from science, technology, business, academia and public life.Hindu organisations, community associations and leaders draw This brief sets out the context. It traces the hundred year journey of the RSS from a small gathering in Nagpur in 1925 to more than one hundred thousand local gatherings sustained without fees, salaries or external funding, and records the service that has accompanied it, from the three thousand Partition relief camps of 1947 to the 342,000 swayamsevaks who served at 67,000 locations during the pandemic. Its closing chapters turn to what that century offers the world. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, the world is one family, is not an inheritance to be recited but a working proposition, and it is placed here alongside the lessons of a hundred years on harmony in societies, on the family, on ecology, on self reliance and on civic character. These are questions every society is now asking. They are offered freely to all who are asking them.

Bharat Canada Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) United Kingdom United States USA World

205

Let the Dice Roll!

RSS chief’s message of Universal Oneness in New York, Toronto & London would put to rest intellectual terrorism of extreme intolerant variety. K.A. Badarinath There are ways to silence and push into a corner an opponent. You can vilify, frame, abuse or discredit him or her. You can try and delegitimise or caricature someone to reflect your antipathy or sheer opposition to him or her. If the opponent is an organization with irrefutable and unassailable standing, then go after its boss. This is how Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) sarsanghchalak Dr Mohan Bhagwat has been targeted. In the brilliant movie ‘The Taj Story’ directed by Tushar Amrish Goel, Paresh Rawal who plays the lead role of Vishnu Das talks about ‘intellectual terrorism’ of obnoxious variety that distorts Bharat’s history, ethos and teachings. While trying to frame RSS and Bhagwat, perhaps this strategy was operationalized big time in the Western landscape of US, Canada and United Kingdom by usual ‘intellectual terrorists.’ Such characters who claim to be intellectuals were branded as ‘dimagi naxals’ by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his 80-th Independence Day address from ramparts of Red Fort. Though, Modi spoke of those with naxal or Left extreme mindset with conviction to annihilate opponents in Indian context, such elements have been active and extreme even in Western theatre. When RSS Chief Dr Mohan Bhagwat touches down in New York today, the noise seeking ban on RSS is bound to hit the stratosphere. A handful of Left extremists and radical Islamists have been on rampaging spree across social media with their ‘intolerance’ and demand to prevent RSS chief from participating as keynote speaker at an inter-faith conference of over 6000 US residents in Madison Square Garden on this Saturday. Over 200 organizations have come together to hold this ‘Universal Oneness’ conference to send out a message of interconnectedness under aegis of Ahead (American Hindus for Engagement and Dialogue) Forum. This civilizational dialogue in US will feature multi-faith leaders to promote spirituality, peace, engagement at societal level in the backdrop of conflicts and wars waging in West Asia and Eastern Europe. Scores of civic leaders, representatives of public institutions, community and interfaith organizations representatives apart from huge Hindu community in United States is expected to converge at ‘universal oneness’ conference. Such gatherings are scheduled to happen in both Toronto and London during next fortnight as RSS chief criss-crosses Canada and United Kingdom to spread the message of community service, environment friendly lifestyles, civic engagement, family systems, sustainable development alternatives and above all ‘Vasudaiva Kutumbakam’ that denotes entire world as one big happy family. One is reminded of the historic Parliament of Religions held in Chicago, Illinois on September 11, 1893 where Swami Vivekananda had taken stage with the message of universal oneness and introduced Hindutva or Hinduness as a way of life seeped in tolerance, inclusiveness and universal acceptance. Harmony amongst people pursuing different faiths was the core of Swami Vivekananda’s message then. And, today its no different. RSS chief Dr Mohan Bhagwat goes there with message of ‘universal oneness’ for peace and prosperity of global communities. Rooted in respect and harmony, this dialogue of faith leaders is expected to open a big dialogue on global stage. In recent years, His holiness Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr to Pope Francis have pushed for ‘global togetherness’ for communities around the world to prosper against backdrop of conflicts, disease, backwardness, illiteracy, limited access to resources or excessive consumerism having destabilizing effect on humanity. Amidst the good, bad and the ugly campaigns happening around the world, RSS chief would take positive message of peace from Bharat, present the RSS related facts, selfless service done in 100-years and clear misconceptions on Hindutva and Bharat. A forward looking statement on what next going forward is again a big possibility. While diaspora engagement, meetings with business persons and prominent Indian origin people are scheduled in New York, Bhagwat would meet top Sikh community leaders in Toronto and London. Canada leg of Dr Bhagwat’s trip in particular is significant given calls by Khalistani extremists mounting an aggressive anti-Hindu campaign. While most Sikh leaders, businessmen, community and public representatives have dissociated from Khalistani narratives against Bhagwat and RSS, Islamist radicals (not many Muslims) propelled by Pakistan’s dirty tricks department seems to have supported the campaign. In both London and Toronto apart from New York, Hindu diaspora dialogue, different stakeholders’ meetings would mark RSS chief’s visit to Western world. Dr Bhagwat’s visit would be in continuation of the civilizational dialogue that RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale initiated earlier this year as part of the centennial thrust. Creating a market place for goods, services with production and consumption at the core has been central to Western concept of globalization. With the message of universal oneness, spiritual oneness and sanatan dharmic values, Dr Bhagwat would pursue his own view of globalization once initiated by the Hindu faith leaders like Swami Vivekananda. Taking global interconnectedness beyond technology and economic spread is something central to RSS chief’s visit to three top western countries. Let’s hear him out!(author is a veteran journalist, Director & Chief Executive of Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies, a non-partisan think tank based in New Delhi)

Bharat China Geopolitics Policy Security United States USA

245

Wait for Washington Over!

India should evolve its own Indo-Pacific strategy as US turns an unreliable partner in counter balancing China in the region. NC Bipindra For nearly a decade, “Indo-Pacific” was more than a map. It was a promise. When the Pentagon renamed Pacific Command to Indo-Pacific Command in 2018, the message to New Delhi was unmistakable: India mattered, the Indian Ocean mattered, and Washington saw its future security architecture running through Asia’s two oceans, not one. That promise is now being unwound. In June 2026, the Trump administration reverted the command’s name to the original Pacific Command, a decision Pentagon officials framed as return to a “more traditional maritime focus” even as they insisted the mission, deterring China, remains unchanged. Symbolism in geopolitics is rarely so and this one lands at a difficult moment for India’s regional strategy. Quad on Paper with no timelines The name change of US command didn’t happen in isolation. It followed nearly two years in which Trump has treated the Quad, the informal grouping of the US, India, Japan, and Australia, as an afterthought. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s promise to hold a Quad leaders’ summit in India got derailed as Trump repeatedly deprioritised the meeting, first in 2025 and now with 2026 summit plans clouded by uncertainty. Foreign ministers have kept the format alive through lower-level meetings, and Australia, this year’s rotating chair, is still hoping to host a leaders’ summit. But the pattern is clear: the Quad survives on bureaucratic momentum, not presidential commitment. This drift has coincided with genuine strain in US – India relationship itself. Steep US tariffs on Indian goods, a stalled bilateral trade agreement and Trump’s own description of a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping as ” G-2 ” summit have unsettled Indian policymakers who spent years building the case that Washington saw India as its indispensable Indo-Pacific partner. Why This Matters More Than the Optics Suggest China has not paused while Washington’s attention wandered. Beijing continues to expand naval presence in the Indian Ocean, deepen port and infrastructure footholds from Gwadar to Hambantota, and press territorial claims from the South China Sea to the Line of Actual Control with India itself. People’s Liberation Army Navy now operates the largest fleet in the world by hull count and Chinese research and survey vessels routinely transit waters that India considers its strategic backyard. Nothing changes because Washington swapped a word on a building in Camp H. M. Smith in Aiea on Hawaii’s Oahu Island. But it does change the assumptions India has built its regional posture for the better part of a decade as a muscular, consistently engaged United States would anchor the coalition-building work against Chinese assertiveness. The risk for India isn’t abandonment exactly. Pentagon officials and military commanders have been clear that operational focus on China and Taiwan contingencies persists regardless of the command’s name. The risk is something subtler and arguably more dangerous: a Washington that remains rhetorically committed to countering China while becoming unpredictable and transactional in practice, leaving India to guess, summit by summit, whether American backing will show up when it’s needed. Options before India! India helped popularise the term “Indo-Pacific” as an alternative to the China-centric “Asia-Pacific” framing, precisely to assert its own centrality in the region’s future. It cannot now let that framework be defined, or left undefined, by decisions made in Washington. New Delhi should double down on its own Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative and push it as the organising concept for regional partners, rather than waiting for American validation. Quad’s usefulness was always going to be capped by willingness of its most powerful member to show up. India has other tools: India-France-Australia trilateral, deepening ties with the Philippines and Vietnam on maritime domain awareness, expanded defence cooperation with Japan independent of Quad choreography and closer coordination with European powers like the UK and Germany, who have their own Indo-Pacific tilts. None of these replace US relationship, but together they reduce dependence on any single partner’s political calendar. If US security umbrella is becoming less predictable, India’s own blue-water capability becomes more urgent, not less. That means faster submarine and aircraft carrier programmes, expanded maritime surveillance across the Indian Ocean Region, and continued investment in bases and logistics agreements with Indian Ocean island states like Mauritius, Seychelles, and Sri Lanka, where Chinese influence has been creeping in. Resolving tariff disputes and completing a bilateral trade deal with Washington remains genuinely valuable for India’s economy and does help stabilise ties. But India should pursue this as an economic goal in its own right, not as a precondition for security cooperation it treats as guaranteed. Coupling the two only gives Washington leverage to hold Indo-Pacific security commitments hostage to unrelated trade demands, as arguably already happened around the 2025 summit. None of this means walking away from the US relationship, which remains central to any credible China-balancing strategy given American military capacity in the Pacific. But India should signal clearly, through its own diplomacy and defence posture, that it is building parallel options. Paradoxically, an India less dependent on the US is an India more attractive to Washington as a serious partner, not less. Bigger Picture Pacific Command name change is a small bureaucratic decision that captures a large strategic truth: American Indo-Pacific policy under Trump has become less institutional and more personality-driven, shifting with individual meetings, tariff disputes and summit attendance rather than long-term architecture. That’s a hard environment for allies who built their planning around American constancy. For India, the answer isn’t panic or public rupture with Washington. It’s strategic maturity. The country that once needed the “Indo” in the Indo-Pacific to assert its relevance now has the economic weight, naval ambitions, and regional relationships to define that relevance on its own terms, with or without a matching name on a building in Hawaii. (Author is Chairman, Law and Society Alliance, a New Delhi-based think tank, and guest columnist with CIHS)

Bharat Geopolitics Policy Press Release Trade World

230

PRESS NOTE: CIHS Hosted Interactive Session with Ambassador of Poland

New Delhi, August 21, 2026 – The Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies (CIHS), held an engaging and insightful interactive session on “India-Poland People Connect” with H.E. Dr. Piotr Antoni Świtalski, Ambassador of the Republic of Poland to India, at India Habitat Centre (IHC), Maple Room, Lodhi Road, New Delhi The thought-provoking discussion on Indo-Poland civilizational, cultural and people-to-people connection in a rapidly changing global order brought together scholars, policy experts and strategic thinkers to examine multifaceted ties between India and Poland, covering areas such as diplomacy, trade, education, cultural exchange and technology cooperation. In his welcome address K.A. Badarinath, Chief Executive and Director at CIHS, emphasised strong cultural, civilizational and democratic values that bind the Indo-Poland Relationship. He highlighted the necessity of enhancing people-to-people connectivity, cultural and civilizational bonds and strong international associations in shaping a peaceful and prosperous future for global communities. H.E. Piotr Antoni Switalski, in his address, highlighted shared values and historical linkages between India and Poland and called Poland’s economic rise an “economic miracle” powered by human capital, much like modern India. “With trade at $ 5 billion, there is a huge potential to double it, urging India to “use Poland” as a friendly gateway to Europe,” he noted. H.E. Piotr Antoni Świtalski, Ambassador of Poland to India, described India as a highly “effective partner” at a time when the world faces increasing unpredictability and “many disruptive forces.” He emphasised that Poland understands India’s longstanding defence relationship with Russia and believes that “Russia should not stand in the way of our dialogue, our cooperation and our partnership. We leave it aside.” On Poland’s relations with Pakistan, H.E. Świtalski said that while Warsaw maintains diplomatic and economic ties with Islamabad, this should not be interpreted as an anti-India position. During the interactive session, participants raised thought-provoking questions on topics ranging from terrorism to trade, H.E. Switalski responded with openness stating that Poland supports India’s “right to pursue terrorists everywhere they go and his country is on India’s side when it comes to fighting terrorism because “we are a victim” of that too. Delivering a vote of thanks, Rahul Pawa, Director of Research at CIHS, expressed gratitude to H.E. Dr. Piotr Antoni Świtalski for his invaluable insights and openness, to the distinguished scholars for their participation and contributing to a meaningful dialogue that reaffirmed the importance of fostering connections between people. “India and Poland are not new acquaintances. Our connection is centuries old and one can see it everywhere in streets of Warsaw and Łódź that carry the names of Gandhi and Tagore, in a century of Sanskrit scholarship at Warsaw and at Kraków and in yoga schools across Poland that have outlasted several political systems,” he noted. CIHS is committed to strengthening this sacred bond through research, cultural dialogue and by serving as a bridge for sustained discussion and deeper people-to-people connections. At CIHS, we believe that cooperation between states endures only when it rests on connection between people.

Geopolitics Bharat Press Release World

226

PRESS NOTE: CIHS to Host Polish Ambassador for a scintillating Dialogue People Connect

New Delhi, August 18, 2026 – Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies (CIHS), a non-partisan think tank based in New Delhi, will host an interactive session with H.E. Mr. Piotr Antoni Świtalski, Ambassador of the Republic of Poland to India, “India-Poland People Connect” This dialogue will bring together scholars, policy experts and strategic thinkers to examine multifaceted ties between India and Poland, covering areas such as diplomacy, trade, education, cultural exchange and technology cooperation. “We are delighted to host H.E. Mr. Piotr Antoni Świtalski, as he shares his perspective on Indo-Polish relations. This event underscores the significance of strong international partnership in shaping a peaceful and prosperous future for global communities,” said K.A. Badarinath, Director and Chief Executive, CIHS. Rahul Pawa, Director of Research at CIHS, added, “India and Poland have a long history of fruitful collaborations. We look forward to dynamic exchange of ideas that will foster deeper understanding and pave the way for innovative joint initiatives.” It will provide a unique opportunity to gain deeper insights into longstanding partnership between the two nations and explore avenues for strengthening cooperation in years ahead. This event is part of CIHS’s broader initiative to facilitate global dialogue that promote mutual respect, strategic cooperation and informed policy development. Event Details:Title: “India-Poland People Connect” – In Conversation with H.E. Mr. Piotr Antoni ŚwitalskiDate: Thursday, August 20, 2026Time: 4:00 PM to 5:00 PMVenue: Maple Hall, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New DelhiOrganized by: Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies (CIHS) RSVP and Contact information:Vivek Raina+91 98109 27987vivek@cihs.org.in About the Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies (CIHS) CIHS is a think tank committed to fostering meaningful dialogue and research on global affairs, sustainable development and socio-economic progress. By bringing together policymakers, academics, and industry leaders, CIHS aims to drive positive change through collaborative and holistic approaches to pressing challenges.

Afghanistan Economy Education Human Rights Policy Terrorism

324

Five Years of Taliban

Afghanistan swings between Stability, Repression and Uncertainty; women face brunt of poverty, limited or no access to food & education. Dr Shambhavi Thite The world witnessed the fall of the Afghan republic on 15 August 2021, with a shocking degree of rapidity. With Taliban fighters marching into Kabul, President Ghani fleeing from his post, and security forces disintegrating along the way, images of scenes from Kabul airport came to symbolize the end of a 20-year Western intervention program. The day was one of victory for the Taliban, marking the success of their long campaign of insurgency, but for millions of Afghans, it was merely the start of a new and uncertain chapter of their lives. Five years on, the state of affairs in Afghanistan is one of great complexity and contradiction. In contrast to the years of widespread conflict that had marked the landscape, much of the fighting has ceased, and Taliban rule has brought them greater territorial control than any other government in recent decades. But far from bringing about peace, freedom and prosperity for Afghans, the cessation of open conflict has resulted in Afghanistan becoming one of the world’s worst human rights disasters, especially for women and girls1, alongside poverty and food insecurity. The Taliban run the country, but they are politically isolated. The most important thing is that there is now an entire generation of Afghan girls who have been growing up under opportunities that their mothers and sisters had dreamt of expanding forever. End of One War Prior to August 2021, Afghanistan had been through almost half a century of violence. The nation had gone through the Soviet occupation, civil war, the first reign of the Taliban, the US-led intervention following the 11 September 2001 attacks, followed by an extended period of insurgency involving the Taliban, the Afghan government and foreign troops. The fall of the regime signalled an end to the majority of these hostilities on a national scale. Frontlines have vanished and the fighting between the Taliban and the former Afghan troops has ended. This was clearly different from what the population had gotten used to for years. However, the lack of war on a national scale does not necessarily imply the coming of peace in its full meaning. Threats of security have persisted, such as attacks by the Islamic State Khorasan Province. Additionally, the relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have been strained due to claims of militants’ activities across the border and the presence of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan fighters.2 Essentially, the fear itself has become different. Previously, many Afghans were afraid of bombs, assassinations, and military conflicts by Taliban. Now, under the regime of Taliban, women, journalists, activists, ex-officials and critics of politics have been facing another kind of insecurity, which can be described as restriction, surveillance and narrowing down of the dissident space. Therefore, while Taliban may say that peace was achieved due to the decrease of large-scale internal wars, their claim to bring peace is undermined by the political and social repressions that have occurred under their rule. Women and Girls with no education Few examples can demonstrate the effects of the return of the Taliban as well as the status of women and girls. At the time when the Taliban occupied Kabul in 2021, its representatives tried to assure the international community about their changed attitude towards the issue compared to the one in the 1990s. However, their assurances gradually turned into numerous restrictions on the education, work, and social life of women. Girls could not return to secondary schools, while in December 2022, the ban was put on women going to university. Now, Afghanistan is the only country in the world which does not provide secondary and higher education to girls and women. By August 2026, it was calculated by UNESCO that nearly 2.4 million Afghan girls were deprived of secondary education due to the Taliban.3 This policy is of utmost significance and goes far beyond its applicability to the school room. Education is important for all spheres of the life of the country. Girls who do not receive any education have no chances for getting a well-paid job. Afghanistan may suffer from the lack of trained female teachers, doctors, specialists in other spheres. The UNICEF agency has warned that such discrimination of females may cause long-term economic problems for the country and bring it serious financial losses.4 The impact on people is just as great. While she was only 12 years old when the Taliban regained control, this girl is now 17. Instead of finishing secondary school and preparing for university, girls from this age group have had their adolescent years dominated by waiting for the ban to be lifted. Whereas this policy was described at first by Taliban officials as being temporary, it has become one of the most characteristic aspects of their regime. Furthermore, these restrictions have affected life in public spaces in a major way. The ability of women to work has been hindered in many different spheres, and their movements and participation in society are ever more controlled. Human rights groups say that this policy collection has created a systematic system of discrimination against women and girls.5 The issue now confronting Afghanistan is whether this will ever end, and if so, what sort of damage has already been done before this can happen. Years lost at school can never be reclaimed. The more that time goes on, the greater the risk that Afghanistan loses a whole generation of doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs, academics, and politicians. Economy on recovery path, people still poor The Taliban came into power in a country that was highly reliant on foreign assistance. Following the takeover, the Afghan economy suffered a tremendous economic shock. The level of foreign aid became low, banking became difficult, overseas assets were frozen, and employment prospects deteriorated. The World Bank indicated that the Afghan economy went through a period of dramatic contraction following the Taliban takeover and began to recover slowly.6 Current statistics indicate that the

Bharat Fact Sheet Hindus Human Rights Policy

242

Indian Minorities Hold Most Extensive Rights in the World

A comparative factsheet on constitutional guarantees, statutory protections and welfare provisioning for religious minorities in India, the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe, assessed on four measures: constitutional entitlement enforceable as a fundamental right, institutional autonomy in education, preservation of community personal law, and dedicated state machinery for affirmative action and welfare.

Bharat Canada Disinformation Hindus Khalistan Misinformation Pakistan Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

257

Four Hyperlinks, One Demand: Ban a Century-Old Hindu Movement

Fact-Checking claims behind a letter for banning RSS and bar Dr. Mohan Bhagwat from Canada. Rohan Giri Read the McPherson-Kwan letter once, quickly, and it sounds urgent. Read it twice, slowly, and a different question starts to form. Two sitting Members of Parliament are asking three cabinet ministers to ban an 89,000-branch (Shakha) civic organization and personally exclude its 76-year-old spiritual head Dr. Mohan Bhagwat from Canadian soil. What did they attach to justify that? Four hyperlinks and the word “fascist,” used as though repetition were an argument. That gap, between the size of the demand and the size of the proof offered for it, is the actual story here. Walk through it claim by claim and the gap doesn’t close. It widens. An Adjective Standing in for an Argument The letter’s opening sentence calls the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) a “fascist paramilitary organization.” It never returns to prove that claim. It doesn’t need to, because the sentence is doing the job a paragraph of evidence should be doing. Here is what the RSS actually is, as a matter of public record. Founded in Bharat’s western state Maharashtra’s Nagpur in 1925 as a voluntary community service organization. Structured today as a cultural movement with elected office bearers, answering upward through district and provincial layers to a national council of roughly 1,400 representatives who review its functioning. It runs daily neighbourhood gatherings called Shakha, disaster relief programs, and education initiatives. That is the architecture of a civic cultural movement. Calling it a paramilitary force doesn’t make it one, any more than calling Canada’s elected government a “regime” turns Parliament into a junta. Both moves borrow the vocabulary of atrocity and hope nobody asks for the receipts. The Terrorist List That Already Exists, and Doesn’t Include the RSS The letter accuses Dr. Mohan Bhagwat’s association with “listed terrorist organizations,” plural, unnamed. Canada actually publishes this list. It names Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, al-Qaida. It also names Babbar Khalsa International and the International Sikh Youth Federation, two terrorist groups whose Canadian file is not a matter of dispute. Public Safety Canada’s own description of the ISYF states it was responsible for a number of bombings, assassinations and kidnappings targeting Hindus, moderate Sikhs, and Indian government officials, working in coordination with BKI. BKI is the organization tied to the 1985 Air India Flight 182 bombing, which killed 329 people, 268 of them Canadian citizens. The RSS appears on this list zero times. Not once, in any form, under any name. So when a letter demanding a fresh terrorist listing invokes “listed terrorist organizations” as though the target already qualifies, it is worth asking a plain question. Which organizations actually sit on that list. And why does a letter about protecting Canadians from terrorism manage to avoid naming either group Canada has formally designated as one. The vocabulary and terminology used are conventional progressive-Islamist talking points i.e., “fascist paramilitary,” “Hindutva extremism,” “genocidal rhetoric,” and “transnational repression.” There is no comparable urgency applied to actual Khalistani terrorist networks that have murdered Canadians, or to Islamist terrorism pipelines working within Canada. One Word Carrying an Entire Accusation The letter’s most severe assertion is also the most cautiously worded. Which is Nijjar’s killing. Before I get into their claims, let me tell you that Hardip Singh Nijjar was proscribed as a terrorist by Indian intelligence officials in 2020. As per official report he was top operative of the Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF) and was the mastermind behind a separate 2007 cinema bombing in Punjab, Bharat. Now, returning to their allegations, it says, in Nijjar’s killing, “reportedly” involved senior BJP leadership connected to the RSS. Read that sentence again. The whole accusation rests on a single adverb. Canada’s own Foreign Interference Commission ran a formal public inquiry with subpoena power into exactly this territory. Its final conclusion on a state link to the killing was that no definitive link to a foreign state could be proven. The men actually charged in the killing are alleged to belong to a criminal network. Not the RSS. Taking “reportedly,” running it through a finding that falls well short of the accusation, and landing on a demand to ban an organization and its members nationwide isn’t caution. It’s laundering. A Citation That Doesn’t Say What It’s Cited For The letter invokes “United Nations Human Rights experts” who supposedly called on Canada to protect Sikh Canadians from RSS threats. The actual conversation concerned threats received by a specific individual Bhai Moninder Singh, a Khalistan supporter and national spokesperson for ‘Sikh Federation Canada,’ who is also an associate of Nijjar. This was issued weeks before the letter, and on the public record does not name the RSS as the source of those threats. If the primary text says otherwise, publish it. Citing a document nobody has quoted the relevant line from is not evidence. It’s a hyperlink doing cosplay as a finding. The same problem sits under the letter’s claim about “considerable evidence of the RSS’s sphere of influence in Canada,” footnoted to a single advocacy report, not a CSIS assessment, not an RCMP finding, not a threat bulletin. Advocacy groups are entitled to publish advocacy. What two MPs are not entitled to do is attach the phrase “Canadian security officials know” to someone else’s campaign document. The Visits Where Nothing Happened The letter warns that Bhagwat’s presence “could lead to social disorder.” This is a testable claim, because Bhagwat has already made this exact trip, repeatedly, to countries with no shortage of scrutiny or free press to report what happened. He addressed a gathering in the United Kingdom in 2016. He addressed the World Hindu Congress in Chicago in 2018, in front of roughly 2,500 delegates. He delivered the inaugural address at the 2023 World Hindu Congress in Bangkok. None of these produced the disorder the letter predicts for Canada. His most reported domestic engagement with a minority community, a 2022 visit to a New Delhi mosque and madrasa, involved him meeting the chief

Bharat International Policy Security Terrorism United States USA World

298

Explainer: Why India’s FCRA Amendment Is Financial Oversight, Not Religious Persecution

US Congressman Riley Moore says India’s FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026 is a takeover of churches and a clear attack on Christians. It is neither. The Bill seizes no church and touches no place of worship; it manages foreign-funded assets only after an organization has already lost its license for misuse, and it names no faith at all. This explainer walks through that record of misuse, and the far harsher foreign-funding laws of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, where senators go to prison and mosques are closed outright. Read together, they show a simple truth: India is regulating foreign money, not faith, and doing it more liberally than the very countries now lecturing it.

Blog Post