The Madison Square Garden Event: ‘Universal Oneness’ Behind the RSS’s Global Outreach?

The decision of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to address the “Universal Oneness Celebration” at Madison Square Garden in New York has generated an important political and philosophical debate. Organisers describe the event as a celebration of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—“the world is one family”—and say that it seeks to promote unity, dialogue and mutual respect among different communities. More than 200 Hindu-American organisations are reportedly associated with the event.

Yet the programme has attracted criticism in the United States because of the ideological history of the RSS and the controversy surrounding Hindu nationalism in India. The central question is therefore not simply why Mohan Bhagwat is speaking about “oneness” in America. The deeper question is: What does “oneness” mean in RSS philosophy, and does the same concept translate into equal citizenship for every religious and social community in India?

This question requires an examination of the RSS’s historical writings, its ideological evolution, its present public positions and the political context of the New York event.

Golwalkar, Nationalism and the Question of Race

The ideological history of the RSS cannot be separated from the writings of M.S. Golwalkar, its second Sarsanghchalak. His 1939 book We, or Our Nationhood Defined remains one of the most controversial texts associated with Hindu nationalist thought.

Golwalkar referred approvingly to Nazi Germany’s treatment of what he described as the “Semitic races” and presented Germany’s racial policies as an example of national consolidation. Academic research has documented these passages and their significance in the intellectual history of Hindu nationalism.

However, historical accuracy requires an important distinction. The existence of pro-Nazi or racialist passages in Golwalkar’s writings does not automatically establish that the RSS was identical to Hitler’s Nazi Party. Nazi Germany was a totalitarian racial state with a specific political and genocidal programme. The more defensible criticism is that some early RSS ideological writings were influenced by contemporary European ideas of ethnic nationalism and racial-cultural homogeneity.

That distinction actually makes the debate stronger, not weaker. The relevant question is how much of that early ideological framework survives in the RSS’s understanding of the Indian nation today.

Manusmriti versus the Constitution

Another major ideological issue concerns the relationship between the RSS tradition and the Indian Constitution.

Soon after the Constitution was adopted, the RSS publication Organiser criticised the new constitutional framework for failing to adequately reflect ancient Indian traditions and referred approvingly to the Manusmriti. An editorial published on November 30, 1949 argued that the Constitution had ignored ancient Indian constitutional traditions.

This historical episode is significant because the Constitution established an entirely different principle: the individual citizen is the basic unit of democratic India, regardless of caste, religion, gender or social origin. 

The Manusmriti, by contrast, is historically associated with a hierarchical social order based on varna and differentiated duties and rights. This creates a fundamental philosophical tension. A social philosophy that accepts inherited hierarchy is difficult to reconcile with a constitutional order founded on equality before law, individual rights and equal citizenship.

At the same time, it would be inaccurate to say that the RSS today openly rejects the Constitution. Contemporary RSS leaders publicly invoke the Constitution, democracy and social harmony. The more relevant question is therefore not simply whether the RSS “accepts” the Constitution, but how it reconciles its historical ideological inheritance with the Constitution’s egalitarian conception of citizenship.

From Hindu Unity to Universal Unity

This is where the New York “Universal Oneness” programme becomes particularly interesting.

The RSS generally describes itself not as merely a religious organisation but as a cultural organisation representing a broader civilisational philosophy. Mohan Bhagwat has increasingly used concepts such as Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, social harmony and cultural unity in his public speeches.

The argument is that Indians may follow different forms of worship, but they share a common civilisational and ancestral heritage.

This represents an important evolution in language.

The earlier ideological vocabulary emphasised Hindu national unity and cultural consolidation. The contemporary vocabulary increasingly speaks of civilisational unity, dialogue and universal human fraternity.

Critics, however, ask whether “universal oneness” begins with an assumption of Hindu cultural primacy and then expands outward to the rest of humanity.

That produces a fundamental philosophical question:

Does unity mean that all individuals are equal citizens despite their differences—or does it mean that different communities ultimately have to accept a dominant cultural definition of national identity?

Liberal democracy is based on the first principle. Cultural nationalism can potentially move toward the second.

Why Madison Square Garden?

The choice of Madison Square Garden has acquired additional symbolic significance because of its history.

On February 20, 1939, the German-American Bund held a major pro-Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden. Thousands attended the event, which featured Nazi symbols and antisemitic rhetoric. It also provoked substantial opposition and protests outside the venue.

Because of this history, critics have drawn parallels between the 1939 event and the present RSS programme.

But the comparison must be made carefully.

The fact that two events took place at the same venue does not make them ideologically identical. The 1939 rally was explicitly pro-Nazi and antisemitic. The present programme is being presented by its organisers as a cultural and interfaith celebration based on Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.

The historical coincidence is therefore symbolically interesting, but it cannot by itself establish ideological equivalence.

Why Speak of Oneness in America?

The more important political question concerns the context in which this message is being delivered.

The United States has a large and increasingly influential Indian-American population. Many members of this diaspora occupy prominent positions in business, technology, academia, politics and professional life.

For an organisation such as the RSS, international engagement with the Indian diaspora provides an opportunity to shape how Hindu nationalism and Indian civilisation are understood outside India.

In India, RSS discourse is often examined through the lens of Hindu nationalism, minority rights, caste, secularism and political power.

In America, however, the same ideological tradition can be presented through a different vocabulary:

• Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.
• Civilisational heritage.
• Spiritual unity.
• Interfaith dialogue.
• Universal human values.
• Global harmony.

This softer vocabulary can function as a form of international cultural diplomacy or soft power.

It would be too simplistic, however, to declare without evidence that the Madison Square Garden event is “only propaganda.” The stronger analytical conclusion is that the event simultaneously serves cultural, ideological and diaspora-engagement purposes.

The Minority Question

This leads to the most difficult question raised by the controversy.

If humanity is one family, what does that principle mean for Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Dalits, Adivasis, atheists and other communities in India?

Mohan Bhagwat has in recent years spoken about the need for trust between Hindus and Muslims and has argued that different forms of worship do not necessarily erase a shared civilisational ancestry.

That represents a softer formulation than some of the language found in early Hindu nationalist writings.

But critics argue that there remains a conceptual problem.

Constitutional citizenship is based on equality without requiring cultural assimilation. Cultural nationalism, by contrast, can define national belonging through a particular civilisational identity.

If minorities are expected to prove their loyalty by accepting the cultural framework of the majority, then “oneness” can become something different from equality.

A democratic society must therefore ask not merely whether minorities are included rhetorically, but whether they enjoy equal political, social and constitutional status.

Is ‘Universal Oneness’ a Double Standard?

The New York event should therefore neither be dismissed as merely a spiritual gathering nor automatically labelled a continuation of Nazi politics. It is better understood as a test of the ideological evolution of the RSS.

On one side stands the historical legacy of Golwalkar, cultural nationalism, controversial references to European racial nationalism, the early RSS hostility toward aspects of the Constitution and the hierarchical social ideas associated with the wider ideological tradition.

On the other stands the contemporary language of Mohan Bhagwat: Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, social harmony, dialogue with Muslims, constitutional democracy and universal human unity. The crucial issue is the gap—or possible continuity—between these two positions.

Speaking about universal brotherhood in New York is not inherently contradictory. The real test is whether the same principle is applied within India.

If “universal oneness” means that every Indian—Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Dalit, Adivasi, atheist, woman or man—is an equal citizen with identical constitutional dignity, then it is entirely compatible with democratic pluralism.

But if “oneness” means that all communities must ultimately accept one dominant cultural conception of Indian identity, then it is fundamentally different from constitutional secularism and equal citizenship.

The Question RSS Must Answer

Therefore, the central question is not:

“Why is Mohan Bhagwat talking about unity only in America?”

Nor is it sufficient to ask:

“Is the Madison Square Garden event propaganda?”

The more important democratic question is:

Does the Universal Oneness being proclaimed in America also mean universal constitutional equality in India?

If the RSS can clearly demonstrate that its concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam means equal dignity, equal citizenship and equal constitutional rights for every religious and social community, then the New York message can be understood as a genuine evolution in its ideological outlook.

But if universal unity is presented internationally while cultural hierarchy, majoritarian dominance or unequal citizenship is tolerated domestically, critics will inevitably see a contradiction.

Ultimately, the credibility of “Universal Oneness” cannot be established by a speech at Madison Square Garden. It has to be demonstrated through the treatment of minorities, caste-oppressed communities, women and dissenters within India.

The real measure of an organisation’s commitment to universalism is not what it says about humanity when addressing the world.

It is how it treats the “other” within its own society.