RSS: Religion-based quota unconstitutional, violates principles.
RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale clarified that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has never supported religion-based reservations, asserting that such quotas go against the Constitution. He emphasized that the organization firmly stands by its belief in social harmony and has consistently backed inter-caste marriages as a means to promote unity. Hosabale reiterated that reservations should be based on social and economic criteria rather than religious identity. His statement comes amid ongoing debates on affirmative action policies in India. The RSS has long maintained that caste-based reservations are necessary for social upliftment but opposes reservations based on religion.
General secretary Dattatreya Hosabale on Sunday (March 23, 2025) questioned whether iconizing someone who was against the ethos of India was appropriate. He further asked why those who advocate the Ganga-Jamuni culture (a fusion of Hindu and Islamic cultural elements) never considered idolizing Dara Shikoh, the elder brother of Aurangzeb, who is regarded as a pioneer of such an idea.
Hosabale’s remarks have stirred fresh debates over historical narratives and their relevance in contemporary India. He argued that Indian society should celebrate figures who contributed to national unity rather than those who sought to divide. “Why is it that the so-called secular and progressive voices in our country continue to glorify Aurangzeb, who is remembered for his oppressive policies, while ignoring Dara Shikoh, a man of learning, tolerance, and synthesis?
Dara Shikoh, the eldest son of Mughal emperor Shah Jahan, was known for his scholarly pursuits and efforts to bridge Hindu and Islamic traditions. He translated several Sanskrit texts, including the Upanishads, into Persian, emphasizing their commonalities with Islamic thought. However, his progressive outlook and support for pluralism put him in direct conflict with Aurangzeb, who later overthrew and executed him in 1659.
Hosabale’s comments align with the RSS’s broader ideological stance, which seeks to reshape historical narratives by highlighting figures who, in their view, upheld Indian cultural and civilizational values. “History should be looked at with the right perspective. We should celebrate those who worked for the unity of our nation and not those who destroyed it,” he asserted.
The controversy over Aurangzeb’s tomb, located in Maharashtra’s Aurangabad district (now Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar), has been a flashpoint for political and religious debates. Right-wing groups have often called for its closure or removal, arguing that Aurangzeb’s legacy does not align with India’s ethos. On the other hand, historians and scholars caution against erasing historical sites, suggesting that they serve as important markers of India’s complex past.
The Shiv Sena faction led by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde has been vocal in its opposition to the veneration of Aurangzeb. Recently, party leaders have reiterated their demand for the state government to take a firm stand on the issue. We cannot allow his glorification in Maharashtra or anywhere in India,” a senior Shiv Sena leader stated.
Hosabale’s speech has also drawn reactions from opposition parties, who accuse the RSS and its affiliates of selectively interpreting history to suit their ideological goals. “History is not black and white. Aurangzeb was a historical figure with both achievements and failures, just like any other ruler. The RSS is trying to rewrite history for political gains,” said a spokesperson for the Congress party.
Meanwhile, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has urged that historical figures should not be used to create divisions in society. “We must view history in its entirety rather than picking and choosing figures based on contemporary political narratives. The contributions of Mughal rulers, including Aurangzeb, should be studied objectively,” an AIMPLB representative said.
Academicians argue that India’s past cannot be judged solely through the lens of modern political ideologies. However, demonizing Aurangzeb entirely is also a simplistic approach,” said historian Irfan Habib. He emphasized that while Aurangzeb’s policies were undoubtedly repressive in many ways, he was also a ruler who maintained a vast empire and made administrative advancements.
The debate over historical narratives in India is not new. Over the years, various governments and organizations have attempted to reinterpret history to reflect their ideological leanings. From renaming cities to revising school textbooks, the contest over historical memory continues to shape India’s socio-political landscape.
Hosabale’s remarks are likely to fuel further discussions on how India engages with its past. Whether it leads to a more balanced historical understanding or deepens existing ideological divisions remains to be seen. For now, the row over Aurangzeb’s tomb and the contrasting legacy of Dara Shikoh serves as yet another reminder of the complex and contested nature of India’s history.
As the political and academic debates continue, it remains crucial to acknowledge all facets of history rather than selectively highlighting certain figures for ideological convenience. While the RSS pushes for a re-evaluation of India’s historical icons, the broader challenge remains—how to engage with history in a way that fosters unity rather than division.