Dog whistling by Washington Post reflects West’s failure to comprehend Bharat’s civilizational ethos and her resurgence.
Dr Aniket Pingley / Nagpur
What continues to baffle me about Western opinion-makers is not how little they understand Bharat. It is not about making very little efforts to understand it either. I’m more flummoxed about their own ignorance. Even now, when global attention on Bharat grows with every passing year, curiosity about its inner life remains strikingly thin. Western commentary often approaches India as a problem to be solved, not a civilisation to be comprehended.
Washington Post’s recent article titled “India’s RSS turned 100: The rest of the world should watch its rise” is a case in point. Like much of Western reporting on India, it warns more than it explains. The author’s framing, that the world must “watch”, turns a centenary celebration of RSS into coded alert. The warning tone is familiar; so is the lack of effort to understand what the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) actually is. I will come to why the Washington Post article is a clear instance of dog-whistling and nothing more, but first I will outline the limits Western interpretive framework, which is shaped more by impulse to categorise than to comprehend.
Western political vocabulary is built upon experiences of European modernity, i.e. nation-state, church, revolution, party, and populist wave. These frameworks assume that every mass movement must be an instrument of political power. The RSS does not fit within that frame. The same limitation shapes how the West views democracy itself. In the Western imagination, democracy is understood almost exclusively through the machinery of state and domain of civil society; the latter defined narrowly as a space of professionalised advocacy groups, NGOs/nonprofits and rights-based activism. Over time, this definition has hardened into orthodoxy. Anything that does not resemble familiar Western model of civil society is either invisible or suspect. Later in this essay, I will outline how RSS may be more accurately understood within the framework of civil society.
Founded in 1925, RSS was never a political party or a vehicle of state power. It was, and remains, a socio-cultural movement grounded in discipline, fraternity and service. Dr. K. B. Hedgewar’s founding vision was not to capture the state but to build national character of the society. RSS continues steadfastly on that course. When Western journalists describe it as a “Hindu nationalist organisation,” they translate civilisational ethos into a political slogan. Nationalism in European sense, which is born from racial identity and territorial ambition, has little in common with Bharatiya idea of Rashtra (nation in Sanskrit). RSS conception of cultural nationalism arises from shared cultural, civilisational and spiritual belonging, not from uniformity of race, religion or language. The long and short of it is that the West misreads India because it equates nationhood with nation-state, whereas India has always been a civilisation first, i.e., a form inherent oneness that transcends language, territory and political form.
The very use of word populism in the title, “The RSS is a warning to all nations where populism is spiking”, reveals application of a wrong conceptual framework. In political theory, populism refers to a political style that mobilises society by pitting “pure people” against “corrupt elite.” It depends on emotional polarisation, charismatic leadership and a constant sense of crisis. The RSS, by its structure and ethos, embodies none of these features.
The organisation neither revolves around a single leader nor mobilises masses through resentment or victimhood. It does not define itself in opposition to an elite, nor does it demand loyalty through populist charisma. Instead, it works through quiet, decentralised, disciplined, and voluntary service.
The subtitle reveals conceptual incoherence, “Groups like India’s RSS wouldn’t amass millions of members without appealing to a perceived need.” If an organisation “appeals to a perceived need,” that is not populism – it is relevance. Populism thrives on exploiting public anger; RSS endures by addressing social, cultural and civic needs. The subtitle itself undermines the article’s main thesis. In fact, the author uses the word populism not to explain, but to evoke a popular emotional response among readers. I wonder if this qualifies as rhetorical populism.
In political communication, dog-whistling refers to language that appears neutral or factual but carries hidden emotional or ideological cues for those attuned to them. In short, it is subtle signalling to the audience. Here’s how the article does it.
a. “Global Warning” Frame
The title itself – “The rest of the world should watch its rise” – is a coded alarm.
The word watch is ostensibly neutral, but it’s use is intended to evoke the language of threat monitoring – the same phrasing used for terrorism, authoritarianism, or pandemics. The implication is: “Something dangerous is growing in India.”
b. Repetition of Familiar Stereotypes
Phrases like “thousands of men in identical uniforms,” references to Gandhi’s assassination, and comparisons to fascist movements are not random. They are emotionally charged triggers that play into long-standing Western moral reflexes.
c. Outsourced Accusation
The author uses quotes from academics or Western outlets (The Economist, BBC, Jaffrelot) to insert judgmental claims indirectly. By outsourcing moral condemnation to “experts,” the piece signals agreement with anti-RSS sentiment while retaining tone of objective journalism. This is classic dog-whistling – accusation without ownership.
d. Selective Quotation as Cue
Statements such as “the rest of the world should watch” or “it wants the world to believe it is kinder and gentler” use insinuation instead of evidence. The phrase “wants the world to believe” implies deceit; it tells readers to distrust any Indian voice that doesn’t fit the narrative.
When I read the line , “An American RSS would somehow bring together the Republican Party, a swath of the evangelical churches, a dash of the MAGA movement, the Boy Scouts, the American Federation of Teachers, the AFL-CIO or Teamsters, and maybe the Guardian Angels” – I couldn’t help but smile. It captures perfectly how conviction can pass for figments of wild imagination. Am I reading political satire? The sentence is classic showcase of projection of Western political categories onto a reality it neither grasps nor wishes to confront. It can only think in terms of religion, race and political identity. It cannot imagine a social movement outside binaries of Left and Right, Church and State.
The same surface-level lens explains the author’s fascination with an anecdote: “Suresh Jain, an RSS member … told me it took the group 20 years to agree to change its uniform from shorts to pants.” The statement is presented (read dog-whistled) as proof of bureaucratic rigidity. How does one convey wider implications of a decision like changing the uniform to someone’s intent on trivial details? It would be futile to try. Having spoken with Suresh Jain on several occasions, I am certain he offered this example to illustrate how consensus and collective reasoning is paramount in RSS’s decision-making; consensus-building is slow but comprehensive, thus lasting. Surface-level analysis often stops at the visible tool, without attempting to understand its deeper impact.
Earlier in this essay, I mentioned that RSS can be more accurately understood through the framework of civil society socio-cultural civilization movement. I now turn to that explanation. In modern democracies, State alone cannot sustain freedom and liberty for its citizens. Laws and institutions provide order, but the vitality of democracy depends on something deeper – habits, values, and networks through which citizens learn to act responsibly and care for one another. This social fabric, often called civil society movement, grows through associations and voluntary efforts that nurture civic responsibility and collective purpose.
Bharat inherited a civilisation long before it became a Republic. When the Constitution was adopted, political rights were codified, but habits of civic responsibility had to be rebuilt after centuries of colonial disruption. RSS quietly filled that space. From modest daily gatherings, it cultivated citizens who believed in service, discipline and shared duty. These individuals went on to form organisations for students, workers, farmers, teachers and tribal communities. They created a web of associations that complemented the State’s institutions with society’s moral energy. RSS’s civic model did not imitate Western NGOs/nonprofits or pressure groups. It translated India’s civilisational ethos into modern organisational life. Its purpose was not to confront the State but to strengthen the Republic from below, i.e., to ensure that democracy had roots in society, not just laws in Parliament.
This effort continues through Panch Parivartan, Five Transformations aimed at social harmony, ecological balance, family enlightenment, self-reliance and civic duty. Each of these areas corresponds to a fracture of modern life , petty divisions, environmental neglect, weakening families, consumerism, and civic apathy.
The author names a few organisations associated with Sangh Parivar (broad network of RSS) but overlooks broader reality – its evolution as a living manifestation of civil society. Briefly observing a phenomenon by traveling to a far-off place, is seldom enough to grasp its depth; true understanding requires reflection and inquiry from within.
RSS cannot be understood through frameworks of populism or categories of nation-state. It must be seen as part of a civilisation that is evolving to manifest itself in modern forms. For a hundred years, it has quietly helped organise and strengthen the fabric of Indian democracy. I genuinely appreciate the author’s effort to travel and witness RSS firsthand. Yet, I would gently suggest that what he saw and experienced was only surface of something far deeper. The lack of festivity and merriment at centenary gathering must have provided the author with some food for thought. I am certain that the author did not misconstrue RSS marching band merely as fanfare or a spectacle. RSS did not alter sequence of events for the annual gathering, even in its centenary year. Such consistency might not be apparent to someone encountering it for the first time, but it speaks volumes of what RSS is. Deeper truth often does not meet the eye.
Washington Post may view that as a “rise,” but those of us who live it know it as continuity. RSS is not a storm to be watched; it is steady pulse of a living civilisation. As for the parting remark by the author that “if you’re not in the RSS… the group’s rise may seem terrifying,” I can only smile for misunderstanding is the easiest of all human pursuits. It may be occasionally exasperating, sometimes endearing, but seldom hostile. There is a great hymn/mantra in Yajurveda, ” यतोयतःसमीहसेततोनोअभयंकुरु।शन्नःकुरुप्रजाभ्योऽभयंनःपशुभ्यः॥ “(Yato yatah samihase tato no abhayam kuru. Shannah kuru prajabhyo ‘bhayam nah pashubhyah.)
The mantra reflects a core tenet of Hindu philosophy: the interconnectedness of all life. It highlights desire for harmonious coexistence where not just humans but also animals can live without fear of each other. It calls for peace and safety for every creature in the Universe … सु शांतिर भवतु.
(Author is an accomplished computer scientist, educator, and holds expertise in media content strategy)
CIHS - Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies 