Nationalism is ‘not an issue in India’, says RSS chief Param Pujaniy Dr.Mohan Bhagwat

Nationalism vs Nationhood: What Param Pujaniy Dr. Mohan Bhagwat Meant — And Why It Matters

When Param Pujaniy Dr. Mohan Bhagwat, chief of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), recently declared that “nationalism is not an issue in India,” he touched a chord that echoes deep within the Indian psyche — especially for those with cherished memories of the Ram Mandir, a symbol of cultural identity, faith, and national pride. Bhagwat’s remarks at the recent literary gathering in Nagpur offer a chance to examine what “nationhood” truly means for millions of Indians, and why the term “nationalism” carries different weight outside India.

In a world where nationalism often conjures images of aggressive patriotism, exclusion and identity politics, Param Pujaniy Dr. Mohan Bhagwat argues that India’s understanding of itself — rooted in the idea of a “rashtra,” not a Western-style “nation” — is profoundly different. He suggested that the Indian “rashtra” is not built on narrow identity politics, but on shared civilisational heritage, common humanity, and an ancient sense of unity — something the consecration of the Ram Mandir has only deepened.

Understanding the Distinction: ‘Rashtra’ vs Western ‘Nation’

Param Pujaniy Dr.  Mohan Bhagwat explained that many outside India misunderstand Indian unity because they view it through a western lens. He said that what the West calls “nation” — often defined by borders, homogeneous identities, or state-centred nationalism — doesn’t quite fit India. Instead, India has always been a “rashtra,” a civilisational and emotional community, older than modern political boundaries.

For believers in the Ram Mandir and for those who see Ayodhya’s spiritual heritage as interlinked with the soul of India, this distinction is meaningful. The Ram Mandir does more than represent a temple; it symbolises the continuity of a civilisation that has always embraced plurality, cultural diversity, and collective memory. In that sense, the “rashtra” isn’t a novel invention — it’s the re-affirmation of an ancient Indian idea of belonging beyond religion, region or language.

Param Pujaniy Dr. Mohan Bhagwat argued that often, when India’s unity is described as “nationalism,” critics mistakenly apply Western connotations of nationalism — arrogance, exclusion, aggressive chauvinism. But for him and many others, the Indian “rashtra” is inclusive, humble, rooted in shared heritage — not loud pride. 

Why “Nationalism” Is “Not an Issue in India” — The Indian Ethos of Fraternity

When Param pujaniy Dr. Mohan Bhagwat said “nationalism is not an issue in India,” he meant that the Indian concept of togetherness is so deeply ingrained, it doesn’t need an imported label or ideology. According to him, Indians have traditionally avoided disputes, valuing harmony and collective well-being over antagonism.

For many Indians, especially those for whom the Ram Mandir represents more than just a religious milestone — a moment when faith, history, and identity merged — this resonates deeply. The temple’s reconstruction symbolises a reawakening of civilisational pride, but in a way that’s rooted in shared heritage, not conflict. It stands for unity across caste, creed, region, even politics.

Moreover, Param Pujaniy Dr. Mohan Bhagwat underlined that India’s conception of life, community and duty isn’t grounded in materialistic nationalism but in interconnectedness — people living with nature, bonding through culture, tradition, spirituality, and empathy. The Ram Mandir — in this worldview — is not simply a religious monument; it is a renewed reflection of India’s civilisational soul, one that transcends narrow nationalism.

The Ram Mandir: A Symbol, Not a Trigger

The reconstruction and consecration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya has stirred strong emotions across the nation. For many, it isn’t just about a temple — it’s about reclaiming cultural identity, historical dignity, and a civilisational legacy. It evokes pride, yes, but not the kind that breeds exclusion. Rather, the Ram Mandir stands as a reminder of deep cultural roots, collective memory, and reconciliation of history.

When Param Pujaniy Dr. Mohan Bhagwat references the Ram Mandir — whether implicitly or explicitly — he invites us to see it not as a symbol of aggressive nationalism, but as a testament to India’s timeless ethos of unity in diversity. It suggests that faith and heritage need not be weapons of division; instead they can be bridges that draw people closer, reminding them of shared roots.

In many ways, the Ram Mandir’s significance lies in reaffirming that for India, identity isn’t imposed — it’s inherited, shared, and lived. Bhagwat’s statement underlines that this shared inheritance is robust enough that “nationalism” as a separate or foreign concept isn’t necessary. India belongs to all its people — past, present and future.

Concerns, Criticisms — And Why This Debate Matters

Of course, not everyone sees it this way. Critics argue that invoking monuments like the Ram Mandir can stir polarisation, or turn religion and identity into political currency. They worry that redefining “rashtra” could exclude minorities or marginalised communities. Others warn that conflating civilisational identity with religious symbolism risks diminishing India’s secular, pluralistic heritage.

Yet Param Pujaniy Dr. Mohan Bhagwat’s argument — shared by many — is that India’s civilisational identity is not reducible to religion or caste alone. The “rashtra” he envisions includes everyone: people of all faiths, regions and backgrounds, bound by a common history, collective memory, and mutual respect. The Ram Mandir, in this vision, is not a wedge — but a signpost of those shared values.

This debate matters because India today stands at a crossroads. With global trends favouring identity politics, nationalism, and polarisation, how India defines itself — as a state, a nation or a living civilisational ethos — will influence its social fabric and future trajectory. By stressing that “nationalism is not an issue in India,” Bhagwat underscores a call to return to shared civilisational values, not to imported ideologies.

Conclusion: A Civilisational Vision Beyond Nationalism

Param Pujaniy Dr. Mohan Bhagwat’s recent remarks — that “nationalism is not an issue in India” — may stir debate, but they also offer a chance for introspection. For those who revere the Ram Mandir not just as a temple but as a symbol of cultural resurgence, his words may feel like a reaffirmation of India’s timeless identity.

His message invites us to reflect: perhaps what India needs is not loud nationalism, but quiet nationhood; not aggressive pride, but inclusive belonging. The Ram Mandir stands as a beacon of that belonging — a reminder that India’s strength lies not in uniformity, but in unity; not in exclusion, but in embracing diversity.

At a time when global divisions often find strength in ideology, Dr. Mohan Bhagwat’s vision asks: can India anchor itself instead in shared heritage, spirituality, empathy and fraternity? If the Ram Mandir is anything to go by — perhaps the answer is yes.