Sangh at 100: Still searching for a practicable economic doctrine

Despite all its achievements, Sangh Parivar lacks a coherent economic philosophy

“Swadeshi”, “Swavalamban”, “Aatmanirbhar”. These words rang out once again as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) marked its centenary earlier this month. From the dais in Nagpur, sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat invoked them in his annual Vijayadashami address, this time delivered against the backdrop of the US imposing punitive tariffs on India.

 

“There is no substitute for swadeshi (goods manufactured from indigenously procured materials) and swavalamban (self-reliance),” Bhagwat declared, a familiar refrain, but one that carries particular resonance when the global order itself feels uncertain. For the millions of swayamsevaks who track his every word — many of whom now hold commanding positions across the political and administrative landscape — such statements are not merely symbolic.

 

The Sangh’s discomfort ‘unbridled globalisation’ has long been part of its ideology. US President Donald Trump’s trade wars and the rising contest over global supply chains have, if anything, reinforced that scepticism, even giving the organisation its quiet “we told you so” moment vis-à-vis its political arm, the BJP. The RSS and the BJP have not always been on the same page on the matters of economy. 

Bhagwat’s tone was cautionary. He spoke of “flaws in the prevailing economic system” and the “concentration of economic power”, calling for gradual reforms rather than sweeping change. 

According to Kedar Naik, political scientist at Pune’s Gokhale Institute, the RSS’s affiliates had accepted the 1991 liberalisation, privatisation, and globalisation reforms only half-heartedly. “For conservatives like the Sangh, the economy must serve the nation, not the market,” he says. “The Sangh’s opposition to the 1991 reforms was a case of misplaced analysis. They feared it would not pan out well. Now, that facts and history have proven otherwise — a sizable middle class has emerged, and surpluses have been created — there is some acceptance in Sangh sensing there is no alternative.” 

Still, Naik reads the renewed emphasis on “swadeshi” and “aatmanirbhar (self-reliance)” as a signal to the BJP-led government: That India’s strategic autonomy must remain sacrosanct. “In times of war, you cannot rely entirely on global supply chains,” he notes, pointing to recent semiconductor initiatives, defence contracts, and indigenous drone projects as steps the Sangh would likely endorse. 

“There is a realisation that India needs to manufacture not just for domestic consumption, but for exports as well. This will address the Sangh’s fears of the ill-effects of globalisation,” he adds. 

A settled doctrine remains elusive. Despite its organisational coherence, the Sangh Parivar’s economic thought is scattered across a century of ideas, from idealist tracts to pragmatic adjustments. The Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), one of its vocal affiliates, still critiques the 1991 reforms as a capitulation to the “Washington Consensus” and institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and US Treasury Department. 

“We opened our economy to foreign goods in the hope that manufacturing will go up. It did not. There was hardly any transfer of technology,” Ashwani Mahajan, national co-convenor of SJM, tells Business Standard. The outfit was floated after the 1991 reforms. “We believe in international cooperation but the world is not always fair,” says Mahajan. “We live in times when tariffs, supply chains, currencies and patents are being weaponised. Swadeshi remains the only answer.” He cites homegrown successes in defence, telecom, digital payments and space as vindication. 

This ingrained scepticism about globalisation can be partly explained through Sangh’s leading proponents of “swadeshi economics” such as Dattopant Thengadi, founder of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and Bharatiya Kisan Sangh. In The Third Way (1995), Thengadi proposed an economic path distinct from both capitalism and communism. He wrote: “Incompatible with the assertions of dharma are the customary assertions of universality for any particular regional paradigm, or the hegemonistic conception of unity parading itself as ‘globalisation’.” 

Earlier still, the second sarsanghchalak, M S Golwalkar, in his 1966 Bunch of Thoughts, had envisioned a federation of “autonomous and self-contained nations under a common centre linking them all…” Both thinkers shared a suspicion of imported ‘isms’, convinced that India’s civilisational ethos could yield its own solutions. 

That idealism met the test of power under Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the first swayamsevak prime minister. His government’s push for foreign investment and disinvestment policies provoked protests from within the Sangh fold, led by none other than Thengadi. Vajpayee, however, stood firm. “Aaj ke prasang me mujhe koi Swadeshi ki sampoorna vyakhya toh bataye (Tell me, what exactly is the definition of swadeshi today?),” he is remembered saying. 

In the decades since, the ideological rigidity of that era has eased. Coordination meetings between the BJP and its affiliates — the samanvay baithaks — have encouraged a quieter alignment. But differences persist: The SJM continues to oppose genetically modified crops and remains wary of free-trade agreements. 

Mahajan argues for a rethink of India’s growth model. “With initiatives like ‘Make in India’ and ‘Aatmanirhar Bharat’, the Narendra Modi government is inching towards swadeshi. But we need to re-evaluate this GDP-centric model of development… More focus should be on issues like unemployment and climate change,” he says.   

The Modi administration, for its part, has blended Sangh ideals into welfare schemes. Its stated guiding principles —Antyodaya (upliftment of the poorest) and Integral Humanism, as outlined by veteran leader Deendayal Upadhyaya — are cited as inspiration for programmes such as Jan Dhan, Ujjwala, and Swachh Bharat. 

Perhaps the Sangh Parivar has learnt from its own history — from Thengadi’s defiance and Vajpayee’s pragmatism. A hundred years on, it has the reach, the influence, and the conviction. What it still seeks is an economic philosophy that matches its power.