Sanctioning Hypocrisy: The RSS and the Limits of Diplomacy

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’s (USCIRF) call to impose sanctions on members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) reflects a deeper issue: the West’s inconsistent approach to dealing with Hindu nationalism and its implications for religious minorities worldwide.

The RSS, often described as the ideological parent of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has long been accused of promoting a brand of Hindu supremacy that has led to attacks on minority communities. The USCIRF’s chair, Asif Mahmood, has characterized the RSS as an umbrella organization with affiliates responsible for egregious human rights abuses. Commissioner Gene Mills has urged Washington to focus on sanctions rather than diplomatic courtesies for RSS leaders.

The debate over the US government’s response to the RSS’s activities is not new. In 2019, a similar controversy erupted when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was granted a visa despite his role in India’s Gujarat riots in 2002. The decision sparked outrage among human rights groups and raised questions about the West’s priorities.

The concern is that the US government’s response to the RSS’s activities falls short of its rhetoric. While the USCIRF’s call for sanctions is welcome, it remains to be seen whether Washington will follow through on its recommendations. Historically, the US has often prioritized strategic interests over human rights concerns, particularly in regions like South Asia.

The RSS’s ideology is rooted in a particular brand of Hinduism that emphasizes the superiority of the majority community. This has led to a climate of fear and intimidation for Muslims, Christians, and other minorities in India. The West must recognize that Hindu nationalism is not an isolated issue but part of a broader pattern of authoritarianism and human rights abuses worldwide.

The US government’s approach raises questions about its commitment to protecting religious freedom worldwide. Sanctions are necessary, but they must be accompanied by a broader effort to hold accountable those responsible for human rights abuses. This includes governments like India, which have failed to address the root causes of communal violence and promote inclusive policies.

Ultimately, the USCIRF’s call is not just about targeting the RSS; it’s about holding leaders accountable for their actions and promoting a more inclusive global order. The West must decide whether to prioritize diplomatic courtesies over human rights or seek to hold leaders accountable for their actions.

The implications of this situation go beyond the US-India relationship or even the specifics of the RSS’s activities. They speak to a deeper question: what kind of international community do we want to build? One that prioritizes diplomacy over human rights, or one that seeks to promote inclusive policies and protect minority communities?

As Mohan Bhagwat’s visit to the US and other countries unfolds, it’s essential to remember that this is not just a diplomatic spat but a test of our collective commitment to protecting human rights. The choices we make now will have far-reaching consequences for minority communities worldwide and the kind of global order we want to build in the future.

The road ahead will be challenging, particularly given the complexities of South Asian geopolitics. However, one thing is clear: the US government must do more than just impose sanctions on the RSS; it must also work with India to address the root causes of communal violence and promote policies that protect minority rights.

As a prominent Indian activist has said, “The only way to combat hatred is with love, compassion, and understanding.” The US government would do well to remember these sentiments as it navigates its complicated relationship with India and the RSS.