Return of Mrs G's 'foreign hand': Is Mohan Bhagwat's warning of a foreign hand behind protests a genuine concern or an old political tactic?

Mohan Bhagwat has discovered a sinister foreign hand behind protests in India. In his Vijayadashami speech on Tuesday, he warned of 'demonic forces' from the West seeking to destabilise India and engineer regime change. He declared that such attempts would fail.

How depressingly familiar. Indira Gandhi popularised the technique of blaming domestic dissent on foreign conspiracies. The 'foreign hand' became a convenient explanation for protests against corruption, inflation and authoritarianism. This mentality culminated in Emergency, when democratic dissent was suppressed in the name of national stability.

The RSS chief is reviving a discredited political tradition. 'Foreign hand' is a wonderfully versatile villain. It requires no evidence, explains every protest, and absolves rulers of responsibility for their failures. Bhagwat's remarks come amid protests demanding the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in electoral-roll revisions. EC defends its actions. But protesters have every constitutional right to question them.


Bhagwat acknowledged that protests are inevitable in democracy. Yet, he also invoked Western conspiracies without demonstrating any connection to the current agitation. He says democratic protests should not aim at regime change. Sorry, democracy exists precisely to enable regime change. Congress was defeated in 1977 after Emergency. Was that an evil foreign conspiracy, or a magnificent democratic achievement?

Bhagwat recently sounded like a secular saint in New York. He declared that any Hindu wanting Muslims expelled from India could not remain a Hindu. He celebrated religious diversity and mutual respect. Wonderful words. But why must Bhagwat travel to the US to preach tolerance that he has failed to translate into visible action within the Sangh Parivar in India?

His admirers hailed a liberal transformation. Critics called it hypocrisy. Both overlooked that Bhagwat has said similar things for years. In 2021, addressing Muslim Rashtriya Manch, he declared that anyone saying Muslims shouldn't live in India was not a Hindu. He has repeatedly emphasised common ancestry and urged Hindus not to search for a Shivling beneath every mosque.

The question is not what Bhagwat says but what he does. Consider Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma. In February, the Assam BJP circulated an AI-generated video depicting Sarma aiming a rifle at men identifiable as Muslims. The video carried messages, including 'No mercy' and 'Point blank shot'. It was deleted after protests.

If Bhagwat believes exclusionary hatred is incompatible with Hinduism, will he publicly condemn this imagery? Will he demand an apology from Sarma and Assam BJP? Or consider attacks on Christian prayer meetings, intimidation over alleged conversions, and vandalism targeting minority religious sites? Will Bhagwat mobilise RSS volunteers to protect threatened Christians?

He has organisational capacity. RSS has millions of supporters and an extensive network of volunteers. Its disaster-relief and charitable activities deserve recognition. Why not deploy comparable energy against communal intimidation?

Consider bulldozer justice. Supreme Court has condemned arbitrary demolitions without due process. Yet, allegations of discriminatory demolitions persist. Will Bhagwat launch a campaign demanding equal protection under the law? India Hate Lab recorded 1,318 anti-minority hate-speech events in 2025, almost double its 2023 count. Its classifications can be debated. But documented incidents deserve scrutiny. Organisations associated with the broader Hindutva movement featured prominently.

Has Bhagwat demanded disciplinary action against RSS-linked individuals promoting hatred? Has he publicly challenged inflammatory rhetoric by BJP ministers or the PM that critics regard as communal? RSS is formally separate from BJP. Bhagwat cannot order a CM around. But, surely, the ideological parent of India's ruling party possesses moral influence over its political offspring.

If that influence is insufficient to restrain communal intimidation, what practical meaning should we attach to Bhagwat's declarations?

Deeper contradiction concerns 'Hindu Rashtra'. Bhagwat insists it embraces Muslims and Christians as equal members of an ancient civilisation. But India already possesses an inclusive identity: Indian citizenship. Why should minorities have to accept a Hindu civilisational label to establish their national belonging?

Perhaps Bhagwat genuinely wants to moderate Hindutva. But sincerity is best demonstrated through deeds. He could publicly condemn communal intimidation, insist that RSS affiliates repudiate hate speech, and mobilise volunteers to defend minority rights. He could also affirm that peaceful protests against GoI are patriotic, not foreign-inspired subversion.

Bhagwat's invocation of the old 'foreign hand' argument is loaded with historical irony. RSS itself suffered during Emergency. Its members were jailed, its organisation banned. Surely, its chief should understand better than most the danger of equating opposition to government with opposition to nation?

RSS celebrated its centenary last year. An organisation that has survived a century and helped transform Indian politics should have confidence to confront its own ideological extremists. Bhagwat's US audiences heard an eloquent defence of tolerance. Indians deserve action, not just eloquence.