Home

Featured Articles

Sep 12, 2026
YagnaSri

The Gujarat Model and the Great Awakening: Narendra Modi and the Resurgence of Cultural Nationalism in Uttar Pradesh Part 23

When Narendra Damodardas Modi became Chief Minister of Gujarat in October 2001, replacing Keshubhai Patel at a moment when the state's political situation was unstable and its economic management stagnant, few commentators predicted that this RSS pracharak-turned-state-politician would become the most consequential figure in Indian politics since Indira Gandhi. Fewer still anticipated that the governance model he would construct in Gujarat over the following twelve years — combining uncompromising cultural nationalism with relentless developmental focus, organisational discipline with mass communication genius, and Hindu civilisational pride with economic modernisation would provide the template for a political transformation that would remake Uttar Pradesh more thoroughly than any event since the RSS's first shakhas were established in the state in the late 1920s. The story of how the Gujarat model travelled to UP how a development narrative rooted in a specific cultural identity was translated from a western state with a particular economic character to the Hindi heartland's vast and complex political landscape—is one of the most important stories in contemporary Indian political history. What the Gujarat Model Actually Was The 'Gujarat model' became a contested term in the 2014 election campaign, with the BJP's opponents trying to reduce it to either the 2002 riots (which Modi's opponents persistently associated with him despite his two Supreme Court-sanctioned clean chits) or a set of disputed economic statistics. Understanding what the Gujarat model actually represented as a governance philosophy and a political proposition requires going beyond the polemical shorthand. At its core, the Gujarat model showed that Hindu cultural nationalism and development-oriented governance were not merely compatible but mutually reinforcing. Gujarat under Modi consistently ranked among India's top states in industrial investment, infrastructure development, agricultural productivity, and improvements in human development indicators. The state's power sector shifted from one of India's most dysfunctional to one of its best-managed; 24-hour power supply to agricultural consumers and the Jyotigram scheme became a landmark of infrastructure governance. The Sardar Sarovar Dam, delayed for decades by legal challenges and political controversy, was completed, and water was delivered to Saurashtra's drought-prone districts. Industrial investment from across India and globally was attracted by the Vibrant Gujarat investor summits, which showed that a BJP-governed state was a reliable environment for business, a claim no SP- or BSP-governed UP could plausibly make. The governance achievement was inseparable from the cultural nationalist political identity. Modi governed Gujarat as an unapologetically Hindu Chief Minister — not in the sense of discrimination against minorities but in the sense of treating Hindu civilisational symbols, values, and aspirations as legitimate objects of state attention rather than embarrassments to be managed. The celebration of Gujarat's own civilisational heritage its connections to Bhagwan Krishna through the Dwarka temple, to the Somnath restoration, to the Statue of Unity commemorating Sardar Patel was integrated with the development agenda rather than kept separate from it. This integration communicated a political message of profound importance: that a party and a leader who took Hindu culture seriously could also deliver superior governance. The two were not in contradiction but in reinforcement. The 2002 Challenge and the Media Narrative Any honest account of the Gujarat model must address the 2002 riots and the media narrative that surrounded them. The communal violence that followed the Godhra train burning, in which 58 Hindu pilgrims were burned alive in a train compartment by a mob, triggering widespread retaliatory violence across Gujarat, was a tragedy that caused over a thousand deaths and immense human suffering. The BJP and the nationalist forces do not minimise this tragedy; they acknowledge it, mourn it, and are committed to the principle that no communal violence is acceptable. What the nationalist position firmly rejects is the selective application of accountability that characterised the media and opposition treatment of the 2002 riots. The burning of Hindu pilgrims at Godhra, a premeditated act of communal arson, was systematically downplayed or explained away in the secular media's narrative. At the same time, the retaliatory violence was presented as uniquely and exclusively the responsibility of the BJP government. The Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India, after exhaustive investigation, found no evidence of the 'planned genocide' that Modi's opponents had alleged and gave him a clean chit on the specific allegations made against him. This finding by the nation's highest legal authority, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2022 when it dismissed a petition seeking to reopen the case, has never been adequately acknowledged by the Congress or the secular media that had built careers on prosecuting the narrative of Modi's culpability. The BJP's point about 2002 is not that the violence was acceptable; it was not, but that the political and media establishment treated it with a double standard that had no principled basis. The same establishment that demanded Modi's resignation and criminal prosecution for his government's handling of the Gujarat riots applied no comparable accountability standard to the Mulayam Singh government's firing on Karsevaks in Ayodhya in 1990, to the SP government's role in the Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013, or to the Congress government's responsibility for the 1984 Sikh genocide that killed over 3,000 people in three days. Consistency in applying accountability is the only principled position; the selective standard applied to Modi revealed more about his accusers' political motivations than about the reality of his governance. Modi's Appeal in Uttar Pradesh: Why the Message Resonated When Modi began to be discussed as a potential Prime Ministerial candidate ahead of the 2014 elections, his appeal in Uttar Pradesh was immediate, instinctive, and visceral. To understand why, one must appreciate the specific political psychology of UP's electorate after two decades of SP and BSP misrule, the UPA's abdication of governance, and the Congress's terminal decline. UP's voters had experienced, repeatedly and at first hand, what governance by appeasement looked like in practice: the policeman who didn't file the FIR because the accused was Yadav or Muslim and the government was SP; the NREGA wages that were paid to ghost workers while real workers went without; the electricity that came for four hours a day while politically connected consumers paid no bills; the school where the teacher drew a salary but rarely appeared because his political connection made him unaccountable. They had also seen, through television coverage of Gujarat under Modi, what governance without appeasement could look like: 24-hour power, irrigation in drought-prone districts, industrial investment, and a government that appeared to take its obligations to all citizens seriously, regardless of community identity. Modi's communication genius was to make this contrast explicit, vivid, and personal. His campaign speeches in UP in 2013 and 2014 in Varanasi, in Agra, in Lucknow, in the western UP districts where the Muzaffarnagar riots had left communities traumatised and angry, spoke directly to the specific failures of SP and UPA governance that UP's citizens had experienced. He did not need to fabricate grievances; he needed only to name, accurately and precisely, the genuine grievances that existed. His famous formulation of 'vikas' (development) as the antidote to both pseudo-secularism's appeasement and Hindu nationalism's purely symbolic politics offered UP's voters a proposition they had never been offered before: that they could have both cultural dignity and good governance, simultaneously and from the same political choice. The Varanasi Decision: Symbolism and Strategy Modi's decision to contest the 2014 Lok Sabha elections from Varanasi rather than from the safer seat of Vadodara in Gujarat, which he also contested, was among the most consequential strategic choices of the 2014 campaign. Varanasi is not merely a constituency; it is the spiritual capital of Hindu civilisation, the city where the Ganga flows and where pilgrims have come to die and be liberated since before recorded history. By choosing Varanasi, Modi made a civilisational statement: his Prime Ministership would be rooted in India's deepest cultural identity rather than in the modernising, deracinating secularism of the Congress. The Varanasi campaign was a political event of extraordinary scale and emotional intensity. The 'chai pe charcha' sessions, the massive rallies on the Ganga ghats, the boat procession on the river all communicated a candidate who was not merely asking for votes but claiming a civilisational connection that the people of Varanasi recognised and embraced. Modi's victory margin in Varanasi, over 3.7 lakh votes, was a personal mandate that went beyond party lines, transcending the SP and Congress challengers to produce the kind of individual-level political connection UP had not seen since the heights of the Vajpayee era. The Cultural Nationalist Revival: Beyond Electoral Politics The revival of cultural nationalism that Modi's Gujarat model enabled in UP was not merely electoral. It represented a deeper social and psychological shift in how UP's Hindu majority related to its own cultural identity. After decades of being told by the Congress, the SP, and the secular establishment that Hindu religious sentiment was a regressive force to be managed and contained, UP's citizens found in Modi a leader who treated their cultural identity as a source of pride and strength rather than an embarrassment. This psychological shift had tangible political consequences. It made possible the broad Hindu consolidation across caste lines that the BJP achieved in 2014 and deepened in 2017. The same voter who might have supported the SP's OBC mobilisation in 2012 found, in 2014, a reason to prioritise his Hindu identity over his Kurmi or Rajbhar or Nishad community identity: a leader who seemed genuinely to represent his civilisational pride while also promising the governance improvement that decades of SP and BSP rule had failed to deliver. The Gujarat model, translated into the UP idiom by Modi's extraordinary communication capacity and Amit Shah's organisational genius, produced a political transformation whose full implications are still unfolding. The Terminal Decline: How the Indian National Congress Became a Non-Entity in Uttar Pradesh, Part 22 https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/the-terminal-decline-how-the-indian-national-congress-became-a-non-entity-in-uttar-pradesh-part-22

Sep 12, 2026
Viren S Doshi

US and RSS: What’s Really Going On?

Overview American Dream took the form of the United States of America 250 years ago. It was founded on American values. RSS was founded 100 years ago to revive the eternal human values embodied in the land of the Vedas - India. The friendship between the US and India - the world’s largest and oldest democracies, biggest and strongest economies, most diverse, vibrant, populated demographies - has the potential to serve as the bedrock of the 21st Century World Order. Amid recent visits of political and social leaders of both countries, and ongoing efforts of the peoples, the organisations and the governments, disruptive, subtle and egregious, fake narratives keep on floating each moment. RSS is in the eye of this leftist political storm in the US for a couple of years. US and RSS - The Concentric Spheres of Cultural and Philosophical Value Systems Indian philosophy is the most ancient philosophy of the world and is based on fundamentals of existence. Vedas happen to be the first scriptures with divinity embedded in the Mantras. So it is always likely to impress humankind everywhere. In fact, it is open and inclusive, always addresses all human beings and never discriminates between human beings of different denominations. It doesn't believe in “proselytisation”; it has neither ever invaded any nation nor it has enslaved other people. It is rooted in truth, non-violence, oneness and peace. RSS impressing anyone anywhere is in the interest of global peace. RSS is committed to the Mantra that the whole world is one family. Faith, Family, Nation, Culture, Democracy, Freedom, Liberty and Opposition to Exclusivist Jihadi - Communist Nexus connect the American Dream of American Founders with the Value System of Indic Philosophy of Ancient Indian Sages. India / RSS organisations and US / American Nationalist Organisations have Concentric Spheres of Cultural and Philosophical Confluence. It was precisely for this reason that Swami Vivekananda and many other proponents of Indian Philosophy landed up and worked in the US, with divine faith in the people and their value systems and left a profound and lasting impact. Similarly, the American founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and later Abraham Lincoln, Dr Martin Luther King Jr and others respected India and Indian Value Systems. Emerson and Thoreau appreciated Indic Philosophy. Mahatma Gandhi wrote a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt with an expression of his deep personal connection to America, "I twice missed coming to your great country... I have profited greatly by the writings of Thoreau and Emerson." As a classical Indic Organisation, RSS is fully committed to non-violence as an Indian value, as a human value preached by the Vedic Philosophy and Sanatan Dharma. It may be recalled here that RSS morning prayers include paying respects to Gandhiji. Based on this confluence of value systems, the US-India relationship is viewed as the Human Bridge between the East and the West. Open democracies and open societies welcome good thoughts from everywhere. The Vedic adage goes: "Let noble thoughts come to us from all directions". The US and RSS - In the eye of “Political” and “Strategic” Storm of Narratives Though the US-India relationship is rooted in common values as stated above, serial fake narratives are being floated and spread by leftist, communist and Jihadi forces to break and to destroy this relationship. Proponents of the US-India relationship counter such fake narratives by providing facts-based, correct information to the US and Indian leadership and people, to avoid adverse impact on US-India relations. Here we shall critically examine two recent allegations. Did RSS give money to Some Politicians in the US? A recent misleading narrative circulated widely post Dr Mohan Bhagwat’s US visit is about “certain political leaders” in the US rejecting and returning “RSS money” received as political funding. On Aug 29, 2026, Dr Mohan Bhagwat spoke at Madison Square Garden, New York. On Aug 31, 2026, two leftist US-based groups - Hindus for Human Rights Action and SACRED Acts (South Asian American Coalition to Renew Democracy Acts) announced a pledge (reportedly signed by ∼90 US politicians) that says: Refuse donations linked to the “anti-democratic” RSS and its affiliates. Return or redirect such contributions. Signatories include Reps Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal and Robin Kelly out of 535 federal lawmakers, in addition to federal and local candidates like Abdul El-Sayed from eight states out of 50+ American states and territories. Most of them are left-leaning or Islamic individuals or representatives from immigrant / woke / Muslim dominated constituencies. It is clear to all, including these two outfits and these 90 individuals - RSS has not given, RSS does not give and can not give money to US politicians. US law 52 U.S.C. 30121 bans any foreign national from contributing to US federal/state elections. If RSS Nagpur wired money to a US campaign, it would be a federal crime for both sides - giving as well as receiving. But such highly and patently false narratives are circulated misleadingly and widely. RSS works only in Bharat and has not engaged itself in funding US politicians. It is not in its domain, agenda or mission per se. RSS itself is funded through “Guru Dakshina” from Swayamsevaks; it has no institutional or foreign funding, nor does it fund anyone overseas. It is an unregistered social-cultural mass organisation. So what "RSS-linked money" are they talking about? Not money from RSS headquarters or from India. Maybe, they mean donations from US citizens of Indian origin or otherwise who are perceived as RSS sympathisers/donors to “RSS-values inspired but completely autonomous US charities” like HSS, Sewa International, etc. So when leftist Ro Khanna said he would donate away a $6,600 contribution he "recently discovered from a pro-MAGA billionaire with ties to the RSS", it is very clear that he referred to a US person, not RSS. The “pledge” of these left-leaning or Jehadi individuals is a political stunt. So called RSS “affiliates” in the US (HSS-USA, Sewa International USA, Ekal Vidyalaya USA, etc.) are IRS 501(c)(3) charities. Charity Organisations or corporations organised and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, and scientific purposes, with no part of earnings to private benefit, cannot participate in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate. They cannot give any money to any PAC (political action committee, even if it is a 501(c)(4) floated PAC) or political candidate. If they do, the IRS revokes status. HSS, etc. cannot be a PAC, and a PAC like USIRC cannot be a 501(c)(3). They are mutually exclusive legal structures. So HSS USA cannot write a cheque to Abdul El-Sayed, Ro Khanna or Pramila Jayapal even if it wanted to. Who CAN give money to US politicians? Only US citizens / Green Card holders as individuals, max $3,500 per candidate per election for the 2025-26 cycle, or their registered PACs. PACs like USIRC are not charities, not under IRS 501(c)(3) and don't have tax-exempt charity status under the Act called the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Title 26 of US Code), Section: 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), Regulation: 26 CFR § 1.501(c)(3)-1, which is administered by the IRS (Internal Revenue Service), Department of the Treasury. Now suppose a PAC gets inspired by RSS values; no law can or should prevent such inspiration in a democracy, until it is inimical or violent or anti-human or anti-truth or spreads hate in any way. RSS has no foreign branch - HSS in the US is an autonomous US-registered 501(c)(3) non-profit since 1989. The legal route for Indian / Hindu Americans to do political giving is through PACs or as American individual citizens or green card holders. Not through RSS or even HSS. So, when they say "RSS-linked money", legally it can only be a US citizen individual donor who may attend an HSS Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh “shakha” or donate to Sewa International. Hindu Americans are as much free to follow, preach and propagate their Dharma as others are for their religions. Hindu Dharma is not banned in the US. It is anti-democratic to vilify Hindu Americans or to deny them their political rights. The headline "90 US leaders reject RSS money" creates the impression that RSS Nagpur was funding US campaigns. Legally and factually, that is impossible, incorrect and misleading. Did RSS hire a lobbying agency? Another allegation months back was about RSS hiring an advocacy agency for lobbying in the US. On Nov 13, 2025, when Indian opposition leader Jairam Ramesh alleged - based on a US Senate LDA (Lobbying Disclosure Act 1995) filing - that RSS had hired US law firm Squire Patton Boggs (which also lobbies for Pakistan) for $330,000 to "introduce RSS to US officials", RSS officially stated: "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh works in Bharat and has not engaged any lobbying firm in the United States of America." Let us go for a reality check from the US system itself. This lobbying was obviously not registered under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) 1938. FARA is for foreign principals and requires DoJ (Department of Justice) approval. LDA is domestic lobbying. Firms clearly did not file under FARA, filed only under LDA, which indicates they were not claiming to be agents of a foreign principal. But they together did a gaffe in filing. March 2025 filing by Squire Patton Boggs: Client: STATE STREET STRATEGIES (DBA ONE+ STRATEGIES) OBO RASHTRIYA SWAYAMSEVAK SANGH. Plus Line: "Entity contributing >$5,000: Vivek Sharma". This error was Amended - Dec 2025 filing: Client: STATE STREET STRATEGIES (DBA ONE+ STRATEGIES) OBO Vivek Sharma. Vivek Sharma is not a political operative, he is a pharma executive based in Acton, MA, US. He was listed as a contributing entity >$5,000; this is one who "participates in and/or supervises" the lobbying. He was the funder/supervisor, not just a donor. The Senate Office of Public Records accepted the amendment, and it is now the active filing on the site under LDA rules. Enforcement is by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia + Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit. If someone files false information, they can be fined up to $200,000 or 5 years in jail, but only if the DOJ investigates. SPB filed an Amended LD-1 on Dec 29, 2025, and put Termination Date: Sept 30, 2025. LDA allows retroactive amendment. They also filed LD-2 quarterly expense reports till termination date. Q1 $120k, Q2 $100k, Q3 $110k. No Q4, because the contract was terminated Sept 30, end of Q3. No more disclosures required. What happened with that contribution? 2025 was RSS centenary year (1925-2025). It seems US-based enthusiastic well-wisher Vivek Sharma and his “mentors” wanted to "educate US influencers about RSS mission and impact". (That is the line lobbyist firm’s Bradford Ellison used in an email to Audrey Truschke of Rutgers in Jan 2025. That was also a gaffe, because Truschke in her return email had asked about FARA status of this lobbying but got no reply from the lobbyist.) Out of enthusiasm, they hired One+ Strategies (Robert and Bill Shuster's firm). One+, subcontracted Squire Patton Boggs SP - one of the biggest lobbying and law firms in Washington, DC - 1,500 lawyers; they lobby for everyone - Qatar, Saudi, Palau etc. SBP was lobbying for the Pakistan govt via another firm, Orchid Advisers, at the same time - $125k/month contract. In June 2025, the SPB/One+ team visited Nagpur HQ, attended an RSS training camp - RSS Weekly Organiser called it "a significant moment in Indo-US civil society engagement." This was a 5-member US delegation: 1. Bill Shuster - Former Republican Congressman, Pennsylvania, 2001-2019, ex-Chair of the House Transportation Committee. Now a lobbyist at Squire Patton Boggs. 2. Bob Shuster (Robert Shuster) - Bill's brother, Founding Partner of One+ Strategies / State Street Strategies. The firm that actually signed the contract. 3. Bradford Ellison - Associate at Squire Patton Boggs, ex-lobbyist for South Korea and Ethiopia. 4. Walter Russell Mead - Wall Street Journal columnist, Fellow at Hudson Institute (conservative think tank). 5. Bill Drexel - Fellow at Hudson Institute, US-India specialist. Rebekah Sungala (Bill Shuster's former aide) and Ludmilla Kasulke (SPB partner) were also on the LDA filing as lobbyists. Sensing this loose ball, Leftist media broke this in a sensational way in Nov 2025; leftist opposition in India attacked - Jairam Ramesh twisted and said "RSS hired Pakistan's lobbying arm, betrayed national interest." How patently false and misleading this was! It was only an enthusiastic initiative to give RSS exposure to lobbyists in DC at the RSS centenary. It is amply clear that RSS didn't hire any lobbyist in the US. Conclusion Let us be ready for more such fake egregious allegations from desperate anti-democratic forces as the two powerful democracies, the US and India, come together. These fake narratives are but a testimony to the importance of growing US-India relationship based on common denominators and values.