NewKerala.com

RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat Clarifies Stance: Advocates Hindu Protection, Not Anti-Muslim

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat clarified the organization's stance, saying it advocates for Hindus but is not anti-Muslim. He also commented on population growth, calling it both an asset and a burden that requires long-term policy. Bhagwat criticized live-in relationships, emphasizing marriage as a social and traditional responsibility. Finally, he discussed family planning, suggesting that having three children might be ideal for health and demographic balance.

Key Points: RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat Says Organisation Nationalist, Not Anti-Muslim | ANI

  • RSS chief clarifies organisation's stance on Hindu-Muslim relations
  • Bhagwat addresses population policy as both asset and burden
  • RSS chief criticises live-in relationships for evading responsibility
  • Bhagwat cites experts on ideal family size and marriage age
3 min read

RSS advocates for protection of Hindus, but not anti-Muslim: Mohan Bhagwat

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, in Kolkata, stated the RSS is a transparent, nationalist body that advocates for Hindus but is not anti-Muslim. He also commented on population policy and live-in relationships.

"If there is a perception that we are anti-Muslim, then, as I said, the RSS work is transparent. You can come anytime and see for yourself...After seeing, people have said that you are staunch nationalists. You organise Hindus, and you advocate for the protection of Hindus. But you are not anti-Muslim. - Mohan Bhagwat / RSS Chief"

Kolkata (Uttar Pradesh), December 21

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat on Sunday asserted that the RSS is a staunch nationalist organisation, it advocates for the protection of Hindus but not anti-Muslim.

While addressing the RSS 100 Vyakhyan Mala' programme in Kolkata, Bhagwat said that RSS was a transparent body and anyone who felt that RSS was anti-Muslim should come and assess the work.

Mohan Bhagwat said, "If there is a perception that we are anti-Muslim, then, as I said, the RSS work is transparent. You can come anytime and see for yourself...After seeing, people have said that you are staunch nationalists. You organise Hindus, and you advocate for the protection of Hindus. But you are not anti-Muslim. Many people have accepted this, and those who want to know more should come and see the RSS for themselves..."

Reacting to the debate on the acceptable level of population, he said that population growth can serve as both an asset and a burden.

He said, "We haven't managed the population effectively. Population is a burden, but it's also an asset. We have a democratic dividend as the population is huge. We should make a policy based on a 50-year projection, taking into account our country's environment, infrastructure, facilities, the status of women, their health, and the needs of the country."

Reacting to the concept of live-in relationships, he said that marriage is about society and religious traditions.

"Regarding the concept of live-in relationships. You're not ready to take responsibility. This isn't right. The family, marriage, is not just a means of physical satisfaction. It's a unit of society. The family is where an individual learns how to live in society. So, it's about preserving our country, society and religious traditions. If you don't want to get married, that's fine. We can become sanyasis. But if you won't even do that, and won't take responsibility, then how will things work?," he further said.

He further said that the question of how many children a couple should have is a matter for the family, the bride and groom, and society.

"A formula cannot be given. I've gained some knowledge by talking to doctors, etc and they say that if marriage takes place early, between 19-25 years of age, and there are three children, then the health of the parents and children remains good. Psychologists say that having three children helps people learn ego management. Then demographers say that if the birth rate falls below three, the population is declining, and if it goes below 2.1, it's dangerous. Currently, we are at 2.1 only because of Bihar; otherwise, our rate is 1.9. That's the information I've received. I am a preacher, unmarried. I don't know anything about this matter. I've told you based on the information I received," he added.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
The comments on live-in relationships feel very outdated and judgmental. This is a personal choice for modern Indians. We should focus on mutual respect in any relationship, not just traditional marriage. The population policy points, however, about women's health and infrastructure are valid concerns for planning.
R
Rohit P
It's good to hear the Sarsanghchalak clarify the stance. Bharat needs organizations that work for cultural roots while being inclusive. The population discussion is crucial - we are the youngest country, but need jobs and education for this dividend to pay off. 🇮🇳
S
Sarah B
As an observer, the statement "advocates for the protection of Hindus but not anti-Muslim" is a very fine line to walk. Perception matters immensely in a diverse society. Encouraging transparency and dialogue is a positive step, but consistent action over time will build genuine trust.
V
Vikram M
The data point about population rate being 2.1 only because of Bihar is interesting. It shows how different states are on the development path. A national policy must account for these variations. Also, telling people to become sanyasis if they don't want to marry is not a practical solution for today's youth.
K
Kavya N
Why is an unmarried preacher giving advice on the ideal age for marriage and number of children? These are deeply personal decisions for a couple. We should empower families with education and resources, not prescribe formulas. The rest of the speech had some reasonable points about national planning.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50