The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
There was a deceptively simple word at the heart of RSS Sarsanghchalak Dr. Mohan Bhagwat's address in London. It was "apnapan".
When asked what single principle had enabled the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to withstand the test of 100 years, Bhagwat did not speak first of organisation, discipline or ideology. He spoke of "apnapan", describing it as "shuddha sattvik prem" — pure, selfless love for everybody.
For Bhagwat, this is more than an emotional sentiment. He described it as part of the traditional nature of a Hindu: a sense of connection extending from the individual to family, community, society and humanity. In his London address, apnapan emerged not simply as a description of personal conduct, but as the thread connecting his arguments about Hindu identity, diversity, seva and the RSS's vision for its second century.
At the "Celebration of Oneness" event in London on September 6, Bhagwat addressed questions on Hindu civilisation, Hindutva, Hindu Rashtra, seva, the younger generation and the relationship of British Hindus with Britain and Bharat. Taken together, his answers offered a glimpse into how the RSS wants its centenary to be understood — not simply as a milestone, but as a transition into its next phase.
ALSO READ: Mohan Bhagwat at Madison Square Garden: A message of Universal Oneness | Analysis
Diversity is natural, unity is deeper
Bhagwat's philosophical argument began with a fundamental proposition: existence is one, even though it appears diverse.
"Existence is really one. It appears to be diverse," he said. Diversity, therefore, is not something to be overcome. Rather, it is part of the nature of existence. The task is to accept and respect it while recognising what lies beneath it.
Bhagwat described different forms of existence as "various decorations of unity of existence". In his formulation, "one has become many; therefore many are respected".
Unity, as Bhagwat describes it, does not mean uniformity. The objective, in his formulation, is not to erase differences in religion, culture or social practice, but to see those differences within a larger framework of shared existence. He also explicitly said that "uniformity is not necessary for unity".
That distinction is central to the broader argument he was making. If diversity is treated as natural rather than as a problem, then unity does not require sameness. It can instead be built around a sense of shared belonging.
ALSO READ: “Incredibly Troubling’: Why Zohran Mamdani Opposes Mohan Bhagwat’s Upcoming New York Event
What does Bhagwat mean by 'Hindu'?
Asked about the concepts of Hindu Rashtra and Hindutva, Bhagwat offered a definition that he intended to be understood in civilisational rather than narrowly religious terms.
"The word Hindu, we cannot understand on the basis of any religious practice or lifestyle. Hindu is a nature," he said.
So what does that "nature" mean? According to Bhagwat, it is the capacity to accept and respect diversity because of the belief that different paths can lead towards the same goal.
In Bhagwat's formulation, Hindu identity is therefore not tied to a single form of worship, language or lifestyle. He pointed to the range of philosophical traditions that emerged from Bharatvarsha, from atheism to polytheism, as an example of this approach.
"All diversities are diversities of unity," he said.
Bhagwat's argument is therefore that Hindu identity, as he defines it, cannot be reduced to one form of worship or one way of life. There may be different Hindu religions, philosophies and practices, he said, but they can exist within a broader Hindu civilisational framework.
It is important to distinguish here between Bhagwat's formulation and an objective description of Hinduism: he was presenting his own conception of Hindu thought and Hindutva. In that conception, Hindu civilisation derives its strength not from eliminating diversity but from accepting it within an underlying unity.
ALSO READ: Mohan Bhagwat Says “Vishwaguru, Not Mahashakti”: What The RSS Wants From Its Global Outreach
The politics of belonging
This is where "apnapan" becomes significant. If diversity is inevitable, what prevents it from becoming conflict?
For Bhagwat, the answer is a sense of belonging — the ability to regard another person not as an outsider but as part of a larger social and human whole.
It is a distinctly different approach from trying to build unity by demanding sameness.
One can retain one's identity and still recognise another's identity. One can remain attached to one's own tradition without treating another tradition as illegitimate.
That is the philosophical bridge Bhagwat was building between apnapan and oneness.
The underlying message was not that differences do not matter. It was that differences should not be allowed to become the defining fact of human relationships.
For an organisation beginning its second century, this emphasis on belonging is significant because it provides a social vocabulary for the larger proposition Bhagwat was putting forward: preserve identity, accept difference and build unity without demanding uniformity.
ALSO READ: How BJP Rewrote Bengal’s Political Script | Opinion
Seva: Not charity, but opportunity
Bhagwat then took the argument from philosophy to action. He spoke about the RSS's seva activities, saying swayamsevaks are active in virtually every sphere of human life.
But his more revealing observation was about the meaning of service itself.
For Bhagwat, seva is not an act of favour. It is not something through which the person serving becomes morally superior to the person being served. He explicitly rejected the idea of seva as upakar — doing someone a favour.
Instead, he offered a deeply spiritual interpretation.
"Seva is your chance to get nearer to God," he said.
According to Bhagwat, the person performing seva should therefore not think that he or she is doing something great for the recipient.
Service is humility
In Bhagwat's conception, service is also a practical expression of oneness. If everyone is fundamentally connected, service to another human being is not an act performed for an abstract "other". It becomes an expression of that underlying unity.
That framing is important because it changes the role of seva in the larger argument. It is not presented merely as charitable activity, but as a way of putting the principle of oneness into practice — and of shaping the person performing the service.
What should RSS carry into its second century?
Bhagwat's London address was also unusually revealing about the RSS's own future.
When asked what one piece of wisdom he would offer for the next 100 years, Bhagwat said the work of organising Hindu society should continue, but suggested that it should not take another 100 years.
He pointed to multiple generations already working together in the organisation and said: "Before seventh generation, the organising of the Hindu society should be completed."
There is an implicit urgency in that formulation.
The significance of the remark lies not only in the timeline but in the ambition embedded in it. Bhagwat was describing the RSS's second century in terms of completing a larger social project rather than simply preserving an institutional legacy.
He explained "organising society" as bringing people together so that they could retain their individual identities and ways of life while cooperating with one another and avoiding harm to each other. He said the aim was to create an atmosphere in which society itself could take care of its needs.
That makes the centenary, in Bhagwat's telling, less a conclusion than a transition point. The next phase is about expanding and consolidating the social influence the organisation believes it has built over its first century.
That brings Bhagwat to perhaps the most important constituency for that future: the young.
Let them find their own way
Bhagwat expressed confidence in younger generations and argued that the older generation should provide young people with knowledge and experience without imposing its own path on them.
He said young people are less constrained by the caution and hesitation that can come with age and experience.
"If they find something right, they will just embrace it and do it," he said.
For an organisation entering its second century, this raises an important question of balance: how does an institution preserve a long-established ideological inheritance while allowing younger generations to interpret and apply it differently?
Bhagwat's broader argument was that certain principles are enduring, while models and methods can change with the times. He said the challenge for younger generations would be to give an old tradition a form adapted to contemporary circumstances.
An institution can therefore preserve its values without freezing its methods. That balance — continuity of principles alongside adaptation to changing circumstances — could become increasingly important to the RSS's second-century project.
British Hindus: Where does loyalty lie?
What does the RSS expect from a British Hindu when questions arise about loyalty to Britain and attachment to Bharat? Bhagwat's answer was unusually direct.
If a genuine conflict ever arose between British and Indian interests, he said, British Hindus would obviously go with Britain.
"There is no conflict. If at all such a situation arises, it is obvious that British Hindu will go with Britain," he said. He added that one's "karmabhoomi" is where one's loyalty lies.
The reason was his distinction between janmabhoomi and karmabhoomi.
One's janmabhoomi, or birthplace and land of origin, provides an important part of one's inheritance and values. One's karmabhoomi is where one lives, works and performs one's duties.
"Your Karmabhoomi is where your loyalty lies," Bhagwat said.
The values received from one's civilisational inheritance are therefore not meant, in his formulation, to displace civic responsibility towards the country in which one lives.
For British Hindus, Bhagwat's message was essentially that cultural rootedness and civic loyalty are not contradictory. A person can remain connected to Bharat while being loyal to Britain.
That was one of the clearest practical applications of the broader belonging argument in his speech: civilisational identity and civic responsibility, in his formulation, can coexist.
From cultural identity to a wider idea of belonging
The London gathering itself reflected the breadth of the audience Bhagwat was addressing. The event was attended by around 600 people representing 326 organisations, with members of the House of Lords and House of Commons, mayors, councillors and community leaders among those present.
But the significance of Bhagwat's address lies less in the size of the gathering than in the proposition he put before it.
Across the speech, the same idea repeatedly surfaced in different forms: identity need not require exclusion, diversity need not produce division, service need not create hierarchy, and cultural inheritance need not override civic responsibility.
His message was essentially that a confident civilisation does not need to fear diversity. It can preserve its own identity while respecting others. It can serve without claiming superiority. It can pass values to the next generation while allowing them to adapt those values to contemporary circumstances.
A diaspora community can remain culturally connected to its land of origin while being unequivocally loyal to the country where it lives.
All of these ideas converge on apnapan — the ability to regard another as one's own. That makes apnapan more than a recurring word in Bhagwat's speech; it is the thread connecting his arguments about Hindu identity, diversity, seva, youth and the diaspora.
The RSS Sarsanghchalak was speaking about Hindu society, but his final proposition was much broader: the world becomes better not when differences disappear, but when people learn to place greater value on what they share.
For an organisation beginning its second century, that may be the most revealing aspect of the London address. Bhagwat was not simply looking back at 100 years of the RSS. He was using the centenary to articulate how its next century should be understood — through identity without uniformity, service without superiority and belonging without erasing difference.
About the author: Saswat Panigrahi is a multimedia journalist, columnist, broadcaster, and political commentator. He works across media platforms covering politics and current affairs. His work focuses on political analysis and public discourse.
