RSS to organise Hindu Conferences nationwide to mark centenary year
The RSS will complete 100 years of its establishment on Vijayadashami this year. To mark this milestone, celebrations will begin on August 26 with a lecture series by RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat, which will take place in Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Kolkata.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has announced plans to organise Hindu conferences and public outreach programs across the country as part of its centenary year celebrations.The RSS will complete 100 years of its establishment on Vijayadashami this year. To mark this milestone, celebrations will begin on August 26 with a lecture series by RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat, which will take place in Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Kolkata.For its centenary year, the RSS has set a goal to reach every block in every state across the country. The organisation considers its local branches (shakhas) its greatest strength and aims to increase the number of shakhas to over one lakh this year.This information was shared by Anil Gupta, Delhi Prant Karyavah, Delhi RSS, during the Dev Rishi Narad Journalism Awards ceremony. He stated that the centenary year celebrations would be inaugurated on August 26 with a three-day lecture series by Mohan Bhagwat in the four major metros. Alongside this, nationwide outreach campaigns will also be conducted.Towards the end of the year, the RSS plans to organise 1,500 to 1,600 Hindu conferences across India. The organisation was founded on Vijayadashami, which falls on October 2 this year, marking its 100th anniversary.Meanwhile, on Thursday, RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat, speaking at the launch of the biography of late Ayurveda Practitioner and RSS leader Dada Khadiwale in Pune, emphasised that the core principle of RSS is "belongingness.""If the RSS were to be described in one word, it would be 'belongingness'," Bhagwat said, adding that this feeling must grow stronger in society."If the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) were to be described in just one word, that word would be 'belongingness'. What does the Sangh do? It organises Hindus. And this growing sense of belongingness should be further strengthened because the entire world is sustained by it," he added.Bhagwat said that real unity comes from recognising the common thread that connects everyone. Humans, unlike animals, have the ability to rise above selfishness, he explained. "The one who understands this belongingness is truly human," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
MP Upendra Kushwaha seeks fairer representation in parliament for Bihar and UP
Former Union minister Upendra Kushwaha on Sunday claimed that states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have an inadequate representation in Parliament and delimitation was necessary to set things right. I would urge my Hindu brethren to show some magnanimity, Kushwaha said.(ANI file) Addressing a rally in Gayaji, the Rajya Sabha MP also termed as "misleading" the contention that better implementation of family planning measures had slowed down the growth in population of southern states and delimitation would put these at a disadvantage. "If we see the period between 1881, when the first census was held under British Raj, and the Independence in 1947, the rate of growth in southern states was higher. The reason being famines and pandemics hitting Bihar and adjoining states like Uttar Pradesh with greater severity", claimed the Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RLM) chief. The RLM is an NDA partner. He said, "If we look at the data, in southern states there is a Lok Sabha constituency for every 21 lakh people while in Bihar and UP 31 lakh people elect one MP. This militates against Babasaheb Ambedkar's principle of one person one vote and every vote having an equal value". Kushwaha blamed the "injustice" on the Congress, saying, "During the Emergency, in 1976, the Delimitation Act was amended, which disrupted the earlier practice of census and delimitation taking place together. Now, the number of parliamentary constituencies has been static for 50 years. Otherwise, Bihar would have 60 MPs, 20 more than its current strength in the Lower House". He also said, "Over the years, the rate of population growth in the south has declined not because of performance of governments in states but due to improvement in education, which they could afford much before the Hindi heartland could catch up". "Education has been spreading in the Hindi-speaking states and this will have an impact on the growth of population here as well. But until that happens, let the region's representation in Parliament be commensurate with its population", said Kushwaha. He also expressed solidarity with Buddhists demanding full control of the Maha Bodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya, where Buddha is said to have got enlightened 2,500 years ago. "I am myself a Hindu and not a Buddhist. But I would urge my Hindu brethren to show some magnanimity. They are free to have full control of crores of temples. Let them give up their claim on just one and prove that Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam is not a mere slogan", added Kushwaha. He also said, "Some may see me as a stormy petrel. When I was in the first council of ministers of Narendra Modi, my criticism of the collegium system in higher judiciary raised many eyebrows. But I consider myself a trailblazer. Today all parties are speaking against the discriminatory system of appointment of judges in High Courts and the Supreme Court".
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Chasing the ghosts of the Emergency
Jun 29, 2025 10:11 PM IST A debate is brewing over the insertion of two terms — secular and socialist — into the Preamble of the Constitution during the Emergency. First, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath called it 'a brutal assault on the soul of India'. A day later, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale said these terms were inserted when 'the country had no functioning Parliament, no rights, no judiciary ' and asked for a review. Vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar and several BJP leaders have joined the debate — some have described secularism as anti-Sanatana Dharma and a Western concept. The Opposition has criticised these remarks as evidence of the present regime's intent to subvert the Constitution. The Janata government introduced the 43rd and 44th Amendments to undo the damages done by the 42nd Amendment. But secular and socialist were allowed to stay on in the Preamble by the governments that followed the Emergency regime (REUTERS) Secular and socialist were added to the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1976. It was done, probably, to emphasise the Emergency regime's political stance: the then PM Indira Gandhi wanted to be seen as the guardian of secular values, which she claimed, was under threat from RSS (and Jamaat-e-Islami and Ananda Marga). Under her, India aligned with the Soviet Union, and she wanted the government to be perceived as committed to socialism. A close reading of the 42nd Amendment will reveal that these additions were more for optics and masked the serious damages made to the basic structure of the Constitution. For instance, the amendment toyed with the legal architecture of the country by reducing the powers of the courts and making the judiciary subservient to the political executive. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which delineates the powers between the Centre and the states, was tampered with to shift the federal balance in favour of the Centre. Fundamental Duties were introduced and the Directive Principles were given precedence over Fundamental Rights, which, in effect, subverted the pact between the citizens and the States, with rights relegated to the background. The Janata government introduced the 43rd and 44th Amendments to undo the damages done by the 42nd Amendment. But secular and socialist were allowed to stay on in the Preamble by the governments that followed the Emergency regime. No party, perhaps, wanted to be seen as anti-secular or anti-poor (in the Indian context, socialism means being pro-poor). Nor were the changes in the Seventh Schedule, delineating powers between the Union and the states, undone. Some of the challenges to federalism (especially evident now) can be traced back to these changes. If any aspect of the 42nd Amendment needs review, it is this. Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real-time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it's all here, just a click away! -Login Now!
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Vandita Mishra writes: Not just about the Emergency
Dear Express Reader, This has been a week of commemoration of the Emergency as a cataclysmic event in the distant past. This has been a week to acknowledge that the shadows cast by the suspension of democracy, 1975-1977, are long. Many of the challenges for a democratic politics are the same, and they have been routinised — the weaponisation of laws to shrink spaces for dissent and free expression, a politics of labelling and distrust, attempts by the Executive to undermine and subdue other institutions like the Media and the Court, demonisation of the Opposition. Other challenges are new, because in its long journey, democracy itself stands at a different milestone. At that time, when India's democracy was less than 30 years old, Emergency was the result of, and it contributed to, a waning of brightness — it capped a draining of the lingering idealism of a newly independent nation that had pledged to be not just a representative democracy, but one that abides by rules of the game laid down in the wise and layered Constitution it gave itself. The Constitution set up a mosaic of monitory institutions to scrutinise power, enforce accountability, enable checks and balances — political theorist John Keane has christened this new historical form of democracy, worldwide in the post 1945 era, as 'monitory democracy'. Today, 50 years after the Emergency, India's monitory democracy is showing signs of wear and tear. It is also dealing with the pressures of the age of communicative abundance. In a global context, Keane writes that 'historical comparisons show that the combination of monitory democracy and communicative abundance is without precedent. It produces permanent flux, an unending restlessness driven by complex combinations of different interacting players and institutions, permanently pushing and pulling, heaving and straining, sometimes working together, at other times in opposition to one another…' Even as this combination makes democracy more exciting and viral, it also has corrosive effects. It breeds cynicism, disaffection and distrust vis a vis Parliaments and parties, governing institutions and leaders. Parliamentary democracy is being publicly 'wrong-footed', says Keane, there is 'decay amidst abundance'. In India and elsewhere, this fraught juncture is now the site of the rise of a populist politics. 'We the people' becomes 'Me the people', there is a relentless search for the Other and the enemy within, and the winner takes all. The populist moment seizes on the prevalent disillusions, as much as it speaks to rising aspirations, to frame an agenda of anti-elitism. It also propagates a politics of anti-pluralism. The week in which 50 years of Emergency were marked ended with a rising — and disquietingly anti-pluralist — clamour that seems to give the lie to the self-righteous lip service to democracy over the last few days by the BJP-led establishment. An RSS general secretary set the ball rolling, asking for a discussion on whether the words 'socialist' and 'secular', added to the Constitution's Preamble by the Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency, should be retained. He was joined by the Vice President, who said that the change to the Preamble was a 'sacrilege to the spirit of sanatan' and the words were 'nasoor', a festering wound. A BJP chief minister chimed in: 'Socialism' and 'secularism' are Western concepts, have no place in Indian civilisation, he said. And two Union ministers added the weight of their office to the argument. This, when successive post-Emergency regimes have not reversed the Preamble amendment, even as other changes have been rolled back, and the Supreme Court has upheld it. Secularism was described as a 'basic feature' in the 13-judge bench Kesavananda Bharati ruling even before the Emergency-era amendment, and the non-justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy have been invoked to recognise that 'socialism' was an ideal for those who framed a Constitution for a society of great inequalities. It is evident that the real aversion is not to 'socialist' — in fact, on the broad direction of the economy, all post-liberalisation governments have looked the same, more or less. This choreographed controversy is about 'secular'. The Narendra Modi government, now in its third term, has presided over the steady challenging of the constitutional commitment to secularism as equal respect for all religions, and a spreading Hindu-isation of public institutions and spaces. The PM's conduct of the rituals of consecration of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya in January 2024 marked a turning point. It underlined the message that, amid growing polarisation, the religion of the majority community would now be a visible marker of the life of a diverse and multi-religious nation, demanding deference, if not prostration from all. So, at the end of a week like this one, is a question: Who is responsible for ensuring that the Emergency does not come again? Who is expected to take on the burden of an anti-Emergency politics that guards against attempts to chip away at pluralism and democracy? In the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, 'democracy-in-danger' and 'Constitution-under-siege' became electoral slogans and while the outcome saw a whittling down of the BJP government's numbers, it was certainly no mandate for the Opposition. Does that mean that the people don't worry, or worry enough, about the spectre of diminishing democracy? It is possible that for a people cynical about power politics, democracy's predicament is not a trumping argument because they see no good guys out there. And that for the optimistic and aspirational, the system seems strong and self-correcting enough, does not require their ministrations. It could be that when voters feel disrespected, or 'dis-esteemed', they are more likely to grant governments the licence to rule arbitrarily, and to look for strongmen with a steel fist. Or it could be, simply, that for all the talk about democracy-in-danger, democracy never really was on the election menu, because the Opposition was unable to make a case that was eloquent or vivid enough. Whatever be the real story of the 2024 Lok Sabha election, the onus is not, it should not be, on the vulnerable voter. Protecting democracy's letter and spirit is also a task too large to be left only to the Opposition — in fact, it must not be seen as a project that is partisan. Keeping democracy whole requires influential institutions and powerful stakeholders to take ownership of it, instead of putting it only on the Opposition or passing the buck to 'the people'. Till next week, Vandita
