Arrogance, Power, and the Unfinished Battle for India's Soul

 

Arrogance, Power, and the Unfinished Battle for India's Soul

Hindi Versiob: https://rakeshinsightfulgaze.blogspot.com/2026/06/blog-post_19.html

To understand any nation, one must first understand its history and the mindset of its people. Societies do not change overnight. They carry forward ideas, traditions, privileges, and prejudices from one generation to the next. Unless we understand these historical forces, we cannot understand why nations continue to struggle with the same conflicts decades or even centuries later.

One of my favorite films, The Gods Must Be Crazy, beautifully illustrates how difficult it is for people living within one worldview to understand another. The Bushman family, living in harmony with nature, finds modern civilization confusing and often irrational. In many ways, India experienced a similar cultural shock during British rule. The British did not merely conquer territory; they introduced an entirely different model of governance based on bureaucracy, codified laws, science, engineering, and modern education.

The greatest disruption was not necessarily felt by the common people, but by those who had traditionally enjoyed social and political privilege under the old order. Before British rule, kings often relied heavily on advisors drawn from the privileged Brahmin class, whose influence extended far beyond religion into administration and governance. The arrival of a centralized colonial bureaucracy reduced the importance of many traditional power structures and shifted authority toward institutions operating under written laws.

At the same time, British rule opened new opportunities through modern education. Indians who studied law, science, economics, and political philosophy, particularly in England, returned with a different vision of governance. Many of them realized that India could not simply replace British rulers with Indian rulers while preserving old social hierarchies. They believed that the country required an entirely new constitutional framework built upon equality before law, representative government, and fundamental rights. That vision ultimately found expression in the Constitution of India.

Colonial governments also understood that divisions within Indian society could be politically useful. Policies often encouraged communal and social identities to become political identities, making it easier to govern a deeply diverse country. During this period, organizations representing different ideological and religious perspectives emerged, including the Muslim League and later the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Historians continue to debate the extent to which British policies contributed to the rise and influence of such organizations, but there is little doubt that communal polarization became one of the defining legacies of colonial rule.

Unfortunately, while the British left India in 1947, many of the attitudes rooted in hierarchy and privilege did not disappear with them.

This became evident recently when the Home Minister of Karnataka reportedly sought information from the RSS regarding its registration, funding, office bearers, and related organizational details. Rather than responding to the questions, the RSS leadership reportedly argued that, as a nearly century-old organization, it had never been required to submit such information and therefore would not begin doing so now.

Whether one supports or opposes the RSS politically is beside the point. In a constitutional democracy, no organization should consider itself above the law or beyond public accountability. India has enacted numerous transparency and regulatory laws over the decades, particularly in response to terrorism, financial crime, and national security concerns. Compliance with lawful oversight should apply equally to every organization.

As I began studying the history of the RSS, I found it significant that the organization was founded in Nagpur in 1925, during a period when India was undergoing profound political and ideological transformation. That history raises important questions about how competing visions of India emerged and why many of those debates continue to shape politics today.

My own life experiences have also influenced how I see these issues. I have witnessed firsthand the harsh realities of caste discrimination and the attitudes of those who believed privilege was their birthright rather than something to be earned. Whenever I hear arguments about "preserving culture," I often ask a simple question: which culture are we trying to preserve? A culture of knowledge, compassion, and equality deserves protection. A culture that justifies hierarchy, discrimination, and inherited authority does not.

If protecting culture truly meant protecting moral values, then corruption in religious institutions, the misuse of public donations, and the buying of political influence would have been opposed with equal determination. Instead, too often wealth, influence, and inherited privilege have been used to preserve power while millions continue struggling for opportunity.

India has spent more than seven decades building a constitutional democracy founded on equality rather than inherited status. Today, we once again see powerful forces attempting to revive older forms of social and political hierarchy, often in the name of tradition or nationalism.

The encouraging news is that we no longer live in an age where information can easily be controlled. The digital world allows citizens to question authority, compare evidence, challenge propaganda, and organize around ideas rather than inherited identities. There will undoubtedly be periods when it appears that forces of division are winning. History, however, teaches us that no society can permanently suppress truth, equality, and reason if enough citizens remain willing to defend them.

The future of India will not be decided by those who shout the loudest. It will be decided by those who refuse to surrender the Constitution, scientific thinking, and the fundamental belief that every citizen deserves equal dignity under the law.