Showing posts sorted by date for query CASTE. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query CASTE. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, September 04, 2026


World’s Largest Far Right Paramilitary Rallied in NYC. It Should Alarm Everyone.

Five thousand people attended a rally in New York City led by the right-wing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
September 1, 2026

New Yorkers rally outside of Madison Square Garden to condemn Mohan Bhagwat and the RSS on August 29, 2026.Samantha Agarwal

On February 20, 1939, the Madison Square Garden arena in New York City hosted a chilling spectacle. A portrait of George Washington hung at the center of the arena, flanked by U.S. flags and swastikas. Over 20,000 people packed the stands to hear Fritz Kuhn, leader of the German American Bund — one of the most prominent U.S.-based organizations aligned with the Third Reich — project his vision of a “white, Gentile-ruled United States.” Outside, 100,000 anti-Nazi protesters clashed with police on Eighth Avenue, determined to stop the legitimization of European fascism on U.S. soil.

Eighty-seven years later, global leaders in ethno-fascism and their sympathizers returned to Madison Square Garden.

On August 29, 2026, 5,000 people gathered at Madison Square Garden to hear Mohan Bhagwat, the sarsanghchalak (Supreme Leader) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). As the ideological parent of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the RSS is the world’s largest far right paramilitary organization, with an estimated 4 million members spread over 73,117 branches across India. Just as the Bund attempted to leverage the image of George Washington to legitimize Nazism in their rally of 1939, the RSS used this invite-only event — apparently attended by 180 religious leaders from 30 countries — to sanitize a century-old project of Hindu fascism. Obscuring its extremist agenda, the RSS cloaked the gathering in the rhetoric of liberal multiculturalism, branding it with the theme “Universal Oneness.”

In his 42-minute keynote, the septuagenarian Bhagwat played the part of a playful but discerning uncle, dispensing meandering aphorisms about an “innate, eternal oneness” that connects humanity and nature. Rooting these concepts in the Atman (soul) and India’s civilizational values, Bhagwat painted a picture of a nation that champions “unity in diversity.” In a jarring contrast to his movement’s actual record, he claimed that India chooses to tolerate its enemies rather than subjugate them — elevating the country as a global exemplar of enlightened governance.

While Bhagwat spoke inside, an interfaith and anti-caste coalition protested outside. It consisted of groups like SALAM (South Asian Left), Hindus for Human Rights, and the Indian American Muslim Council, along with members of some of the 66 organizations that signed on to a statement earlier this week condemning Bhagwat’s visit. Their speeches exposed the hypocrisy of Bhagwat’s claim to “unity in diversity,” demonstrating how the RSS and its massive network of Hindu supremacist partners — including nearly a thousand nonprofit organizations, cultural organizations, paramilitary groups, unions, and political parties, collectively known as the Sangh Parivar (or the Family of the Sangh) — routinely practice the exact opposite of what Bhagwat preaches.

Here’s How the Hindu Supremacist Movement Is Infiltrating US Politics
As the 100-year-old movement in India celebrates a key victory, a new report reveals its ties with the US far right. By Samantha Agarwal , Truthout February 2, 2024


Speakers pointed out how the RSS’s notion of unity is, in fact, exclusively reserved for Hindus — and only for those who are wealthy and upper-caste. Shree Baphna from SALAM talked about how Hindutva (or the Hindu supremacist movement) attempts to divert mass anger “away from those in power and towards those communities who are exploited and oppressed.”

Baphna added:


When a Dalit [lower caste person] demands land, dignity and the annihilation of caste, Hindutva says, ‘forget caste – you are Hindu. When an Adivasi [Indigenous person] defends jal, jungle, zameen [water, forests and land] against mines, dams and corporations – Hindutva says, ‘forget your history – you are a vanvasi – a child of the Hindu nation.’ Shame!

Ritu Gupta from the nonprofit Hindus for Human Rights, noted that Mohan Bhagwat is here “pretending to spread the message of oneness.” But this is not the message Bhagwat’s supporters spread in India, Gupta retorted. “In India they say, ‘Hindus only – everybody else, get out!’ These Hindus who support the message of purging India of its minorities do not represent all Hindus. There could be no bigger hypocrisy than this!”

Demonstrators display signs reading, “RSS Out of NYC.”
646onrecord

Others, including a spokesperson for the Palestinian organization Pal Awda, extended the critique of Bhagwat’s rhetorical “oneness” to India’s role as a regional colonizer in Kashmir and partner to genocidal Israel. “We have a responsibility to stand against genocide whenever, and wherever,” the Pal Awda representative, who requested anonymity, said. “The RSS has deep ties to Zionism and has worked to create an Israel-like vision for India based on [an] ethnonationalist state and subjugation of minorities.” Moreover, the “Hindutva-Zionism relationship is not merely ideological,” the spokesperson added, explaining that the relationship is constructed through diplomatic links, military cooperation, and corporate capital flows.

As one striking example of this strategic alliance, in 2022 the Adani Group owned by Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, a personal friend to Modi, purchased 70 percent of the Haifa port. Today, the Indian flag flies next to the Israeli flag in Israel’s second largest port. The Indian and Israeli governments also cooperate heavily on military equipment, counterterrorism, and surveillance technology, including software partnerships. Another speaker on August 29 added, “The Hindutva politics that normalizes repression in Kashmir is a mirror image of the Zionist state — carrying out the same occupation and dispossession in Palestine.”

Mayor Zohran Mamdani and a number of New York City council members have also publicly opposed the RSS rally. Additionally, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom urged the U.S. government to sanction the RSS due to its violent attacks on religious minorities.
Hindu Supremacy’s Enduring Ties to European Fascism

To fully understand the significance of Bhagwat holding court at Madison Square Garden — and the intensity of the counter-protests — one must grasp the bloodline that binds his organization to the very regime the German American Bund was celebrating in 1939. The founders of the RSS, which was created in 1925, met with and drew direct lessons from the European fascists.

In 1931 BS Moonje, a Hindu nationalist and mentor to the first Supreme Leader of the RSS, Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, traveled to Italy to meet with Benito Mussolini and tour various military academies and militant youth organizations such as the Opera Nazionale Balilla and the Avanguardisti. Moonje wrote in his diary that he was inspired by these fascist organizations and intended to reshape the RSS along these organizational lines. It is said that under Hedgewar the RSS adopted many of their core features — such as their targeted recruitment of young boys (beginning at age 5), use of paramilitary training, and the total subordination of the organization to a supreme, lifetime leader — from Moonje’s accounts of the Italian Balilla.

Further, in 1939 M.S. Golwalkar — the RSS’s second Supreme Leader, whose portrait Bhagwat still routinely garlands — wrote in his manifesto, We, or Our Nationhood Defined, that Germany’s ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people was a model for India “to learn and profit by.” In that same text, he characterizes Muslims as historical “despoilers” and “murdering hordes” who destroyed Hindu kingdoms, arguing that they should either be forced to assimilate to Hinduism. If they refuse, he argues, they should be “wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges.”

Today, under Bhagwat’s leadership and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 12-year reign, Golwarkar’s 1939 blueprint has become de facto state policy. In 2019, the RSS-backed Modi regime passed a slate of controversial laws effectively dismantling what was left of India’s secularism, tying citizenship to religion, explicitly excluding Muslims. This legal subordination works in tandem with extralegal vigilante violence committed by partners of the RSS like the Bajrang Dal.

Lynchings and mob attacks on individuals or small groups of people constitute a kind of slow-burning structural violence that has led Brown University political scientists Ashutosh Varshney and Connor Staggs to compare Hindu nationalism to America’s Jim Crow South. There has been a steady rise in such incidents since 2014, disproportionately in BJP-ruled states. In just the first year of Modi’s third term (2024-2025), the Association for Protection of Civil Rights recorded 602 such hate crimes. Of these, 173 involved physical violence against minorities, resulting in 25 deaths — every one of them Muslim.

Punitive home demolitions and evictions are also surging. According to the Housing and Land Rights Network, evictions across India climbed from 107,625 in 2019 to 222,686 in 2022, before reaching 515,752 in 2023 — a 379 percent increase over five years. The network’s data also reveals that Muslims are vastly overrepresented among those whose homes are destroyed.

Waging sustained opposition to the regime on any of these counts has become nearly impossible. Critics — including peaceful activists, academics, media, and dissident politicians — are routinely persecuted under draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which eliminate standard burdens of proof to permit the indefinite pretrial detention of political opponents. This systematic criminalization of dissent has led the prestigious V-Dem Institute to classify India as an electoral autocracy, dropping the country’s democratic freedom ranking from 65th in 2016 to 106th in 2026 — the bottom 20 percent globally. Even more alarming, Genocide Watch has repeatedly warned of an impending genocide against India’s 250 million Muslims, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ranks India at the “second-highest risk of a new mass killing.”

Yet, despite this grim record, the highest leader of this fascistic movement was handed one of the world’s most coveted stages — welcomed to preach and court donors in the heart of the U.S.’s financial capital.
Bhagwat’s Event Was the Culmination of a Decades-Long Strategy to Influence U.S. Politics

Just as the German American Bund sought to build a fifth column in the U.S., the RSS has for five decades worked to build material power in the diaspora. To organize its Madison Square Garden rally, the RSS drew on sophisticated, multi-layered clandestine networks, the mechanics of which were exposed in a new, multi-part investigative series on the RSS’s “Vishwa Vibhag” or “Overseas Department” by Savera, a U.S.-based coalition against supremacy.

In this series Savera tracked the shell organizations facilitating the RSS’s U.S. activities. Bhagwat’s event was formally hosted by the innocuous-sounding American Hindus for Engagement and Dialogue (also known as “AHEAD Forum”), which poses as an independent diaspora group.

The Savera series shows that this is a bald-faced lie. AHEAD Forum was, in fact, incorporated in California in May 2025 by Khanderao Kand, a long-time RSS operative and founder-president of the Foundation for India and Indian Diaspora Studies. Kand’s deep ties to the RSS and the BJP were exposed when the Foundation for India and Indian Diaspora Studies was implicated in a potentially illegal lobbying effort to influence the U.S. Congress. When Kand became a public relations liability, his name was quietly scrubbed from AHEAD Forum’s paperwork and replaced by a colleague. AHEAD Forum’s other directors are similarly embedded in the “American Sangh,” the network of U.S.-based RSS affiliates.

At the top of this hierarchy sits Saumitra Gokhale. Gokhale is listed on tax forms for the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh — the U.S. wing of the RSS — as a yoga instructor earning $36,000 a year, according to Savera. But researchers found no record of Gokhale teaching yoga. In reality he is a senior RSS pracharak (full-time missionary) and the global coordinator of the Vishwa Vibhag.

The Savera series reveal how the Vishwa Vibhag — or the “largest far right network in the world”— operates across 1,600 branches in 55 countries, utilizing organizations like the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America to weave a dense web of “transnational entanglements.” Contrary to claims that they operate independently of the RSS, the series shows how they in fact are so closely intertwined that Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh leaders are made to attend regular RSS training camps in India. They employ the same terminology (“shakhas”) to refer to branches, borrow from RSS’s prayers and paraphernalia, and pay obeisance to portraits of RSS leaders, including none other than Golwalkar himself. Sewa International is the main fundraising arm of the Vishwa Vibhag — and rakes in millions of dollars of revenue each year.

Ideologically, the American Sangh appropriates the language of Western multiculturalism, global peace, and even decolonizationto shield its majoritarian, proto-fascist project. This was on full display at the Madison Square Garden event. At the same time, it openly allies itself with white nationalists and Zionists — as seen in Trump’s 2019 “Howdy Modi” mega rally in Houston or in the Republican Hindu Coalition formerly chaired by Steve Bannon.

These two faces of the Sangh are not solely fixated on India; they actively intervene in U.S. politics. For example, they have waged aggressive, well-funded campaigns to rewrite California school textbooks to reflect right-wing nationalist histories. They recently spearheaded a successful push to kill a civil rights bills aimed at banning caste-based discrimination — culminating in an infamous veto by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom). Taking a page from the Zionist Anti-Defamation League’s playbook, they weaponize U.S. civil rights rhetoric framing any criticism of the RSS or the BJP’s human rights record as “Hinduphobia” to intimidate lawmakers and silence academics.

The Hindu right wields this outsized political and lobbying muscle despite the fact that only a minority of Indian Americans actually support the BJP. Affiliates like the Hindu American Political Action Committee and Hindu American Foundation have spent years embedding themselves within Washington and local municipalities. Federal Election Commission reports show them donating handsomely across the aisle to Democrats such as Raja Krishnamoorthi and Shri Thanedar alongside Republicans such as Tulsi Gabbard, Vivek Ramaswamy, and many more.

Typically, the use of front organizations has worked to hedge against accusations of operating on behalf of a foreign agent. However, recently, for reasons that are still unclear, the RSS has also sought to deepen its directinfluence over U.S. politicians. In late 2025, an investigation by the U.S.-based news outlet Prism revealed that the RSS had hired Squire Patton Boggs — one of Washington’s most powerful lobbying firms — to influence U.S. lawmakers. The firm was paid $330,000 during the first three quarters of 2025.

Bringing RSS on as a domestic client rather than registering it under FARA was likely in violation of federal transparency norms. After the Prism report was published, thus, Squire Patton Boggs hastily amended its congressional disclosures, scrubbing the RSS from the paperwork and claiming that its “ultimate client” was actually Vivek Sharma, a Massachusetts-based pharmaceutical executive.

It is perhaps no coincidence that the RSS’s shadowy lobbying initiative and Bhagwat’s visit come at a moment when the Modi regime is facing an unprecedented crisis. Economic stagnation, recurring labor unrest, Hindu temple scandals, and mass student protests have mired Modi’s third term and substantially weakened his domestic standing. Bhagwat’s liberal-sounding message thus appears aimed at restoring a more palatable “brand” for the Sangh Parivar, laying the groundwork for global cooperation under a future leader. This is also a stark reminder of who, in fact, controls the levers of power — the parent RSS — no matter the ultimate fate of Modi or even the BJP.

But if the RSS believes it can quietly secure its legacy, the communities resisting it tell a very different story. Outside the venue, Safa Ahmed of the Indian American Muslim Council spoke directly to Bhagwat’s underlying anxiety, saying:


Islam and Muslims have been in India for 1,400 years, and they will [remain] here after another 1,400 years and even beyond that. So long as we exist, we will never be erased from India. But you — Mohan Bhagwat, and your fascist … fan pals — the masks are off for you. You are being mocked by the youth of India. You are being mocked by New York City. You are afraid of losing it all … And it’s you who will be remembered as a sad, insecure group of people who could only take pride in your identity via the erasure of another — that is, if you are remembered at all

!
Protesters hang garlands of shoes around effigies of Narendra Modi (left) and
Mohan Bhagwat (right)Samantha Agarwal

Ahmed’s prophecy will ultimately bear out, but we cannot afford to passively wait for it. We cannot leave our Muslim, Adivasi, Dalit, and left comrades on the front lines in India to fight this battle alone. Rallies, social media mockery, and the construction of broad, intersectional coalitions like we saw on Saturday are a strong start. But sooner than later we need to go beyond symbolic protest to challenge the Sangh at its root.

This will require disrupting Hindutva diasporic organizations wherever they operate, ruthlessly exposing these “cultural organizations” as fronts for the spread of fascism. It means cautioning the public about the bad-faith weaponization of “Hinduphobia” — which the Hindu right uses to shield itself from criticism — and impeding the Sangh’s ties to global right-wing players like MAGA and Israel. It means educating the nascent Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) movement on the violent reality of the Sangh, so it compels DSA-elected officials to act. Finally, just as global movements boycotted the Nazis, the apartheid-era Afrikaners, and now Israel — the left needs to develop creative strategies to choke off the Sangh from its financial lifelines in the U.S. A first step would be to scrutinize its various alliances with big capital, including in the tech and defense sectors, and examine how these partnerships enable funds to flow into India via charitable fronts like Sewa International, IDRF, and Ekal Vidyalaya.

The 1939 Bund rally is remembered today as a sinister moment in U.S. history — a time when New York allowed the most violent political current in the globe to claim a major stage in our financial capital. Mohan Bhagwat’s 2026 visit must be recognized as its modern equivalent. To avoid repeating the horrors of interwar fascism, we must urgently build a transnational, intersectional bloc capable of defeating the American Sangh.






This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
, and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.



Samantha Agarwal
Samantha Agarwal is an Assistant Professor at School of Labor and Urban Studies at City University of New York. Her writing and research focus on neoliberalism, social movements in India, and the rise of authoritarian ethnonationalism globally.

Thursday, September 03, 2026

Fourth International

Stalinism’s Failures Vindicate Trotsky’s Critique


Thursday 3 September 2026, by Livio Maitan



On the anniversary of the founding of the Fourth International the publication for the first time in English of this text by Livio Maitan.

The Fourth International in Today’s Struggles

In the 1930s, those who refused to resort to invective in the Stalinist style reproached first the Left Opposition and then the Fourth International with a fundamental lack of realism. Not all of Stalin’s decisions, they said, could be endorsed, and building socialism in a single country entailed contradictions. But in the given context, they maintained, there was no alternative, and the duty of every revolutionary was to defend the Soviet leadership unconditionally. When the USSR then made an essential contribution to the defeat of fascist imperialism in the Second World War, the “realistic” argument appeared enormously strengthened. Subsequently, the reconstruction of the USSR from the ruins of war and its rates of economic growth throughout that period were cited as further proof of the correctness of the choice made at the end of the 1920s. It was seen as a further condemnation of those who had criticised it and had thus deserved the defeat they suffered.

Today, sixty years on, a very different overall balance sheet is possible, starting from the very denunciations and admissions of the Gorbachev leadership of the Soviet bureaucracy (a first balance sheet had already been possible thirty years ago, starting from the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU and Khrushchev’s criticisms of the “cult of personality”). The substance — forgive the schematic summary — is that what was built in the USSR was not a socialist society, even within the borders of a single country, but a society that has very little to do with socialism as Marx, Lenin and the leaders of the October Revolution and of the Communist International at its foundation conceived it.

Certainly, there has been no restoration of capitalism, and in this sense some fundamental conquests of the revolution have not been swept away. But power is in the hands of a bureaucratic caste which enjoys enormous privileges and constitutes an ever more serious brake on the development of the productive forces. The most glaring example, on the economic terrain, is agriculture, which has still not overcome the catastrophic consequences of the forced collectivisation of the early 1930s. More generally, bureaucratised structures and management have prevented the creative potential of the workers from expressing itself, producing distortions, bottlenecks and paralysing contradictions of every kind.

There is hardly any need to recall, moreover, that Stalin bore the principal responsibility for the tragic military failures of the first year of the war, which brought the USSR to the brink of defeat. He had decapitated and disorganisied the Red Army with the bloody purges. Also he based his policy until the very last day on the assumption that Hitler would respect the non-aggression pact signed in August 1939. The situation could only be turned around once the people of the USSR, and first of all the peasants, grasped what Nazi imperialism meant and threw all their forces into the victorious counter-offensive.

No less correct have proved the criticisms of Trotsky and the Left Opposition on the terrain of international politics. The subject is addressed in other articles in this special issue. It is enough to recall here the critique of the sectarian and irresponsible policy of the Stalinised Comintern and the German Communist Party in the crucial phase of the struggle against Hitler. It was one of the essential factors in a historic defeat from which, in terms of anti-capitalist political consciousness, the German proletariat has still not recovered.

The battles of these decades

Trotsky, the Left Opposition and the Fourth International did not counterpose merely generic programmatic assertions to Stalinist political choices. Anyone who wishes can verify that from 1923–24 onwards, at every moment when problems of decisive importance were on the table, the Opposition put forward alternatives in concrete political terms. It did not neglect the conjunctural framework and tactical requirements. This was the case, for example, during the battles against the bureaucratisation of the party, for a correct approach to the problems of industrialisation, and over policy in the countryside. The same holds for its international choices. What is even more important, our movement never confined itself to criticism and denunciation, but took a direct part in the struggles, despite the hard blows it suffered and the persecution of its militants.

We were defeated, in the sense that Stalin succeeded in imposing himself both in the USSR and in the international communist movement. But we were not the only ones defeated. The Soviet masses were defeated: the exercise of political power was torn from them, and they paid, dramatically and in every sense, the price of Stalinism. The workers and peasants of all those countries on which the Stalinist leadership imposed a policy and a form of organisation that led to catastrophic defeats were defeated too. As for the “victors”, there are not many left who still care to claim certain “victories”.

The reality is that, from a general historical standpoint, the great battles begun in the aftermath of the First World War are still in full swing. Who will be the victor in the end is by no means predetermined. But revolutionary Marxists, in the light of experience, can lay claim to the fundamental validity of their critique. Beyond all the errors and all the contradictions, their battle has been fought in the right direction. That is why we are determined to continue it.

The question now arises of the context in which the construction of an international workers’ movement is situated today. Without ignoring what is happening in other regions of the world, we must underline that the most important event of recent months is the crisis convulsing the Soviet Union from top to bottom — the bureaucratised society that seemed ever more sterilised by the caste of old men who dominated it.

New possibilities in the countries of the East

We were always convinced that the “ice age” in the USSR would not last forever, because we believe in the underlying truth that the dynamic of social forces is, in the final analysis, more powerful than all structures and political apparatuses, and even than the most systematic police repression. We ourselves are astonished by:

  • the depth of the wave that has shaken the Soviet Union in so short a time
  • the breadth and level of consciousness reached by broad layers of the population
  • the intellectual and political courage of the vanguard groups now taking shape
  • by the strength of certain mass mobilisations.

A new historical phase has effectively opened, with a dynamic of anti-bureaucratic revolution. This revolution will not, however, be completed by Gorbachev, nor by any bureaucratic leadership group. Our international press has amply explained the reasons, and we shall not return to them here.

Gorbachev is in fact proposing a new version of peaceful coexistence. More precisely, he speaks of a “peaceful conception which necessarily requires cooperation”. In his view, “it falls to history to judge the merits of each particular system. History will make the choice. Let each nation decide for itself the best system, the best ideology.” The underlying idea is that capitalism still has an entire historical phase ahead of it, and that one must therefore wait patiently for history’s verdict.

From this standpoint one can only abandon any perspective of overthrowing capitalism, and hence of revolutionary struggle on a world scale. At the same time one is led to evade the historic choices of the international workers’ movement. The communist parties, or what remains of them, are consequently induced to carry their neo-reformist course through to its conclusion, and the question of relaunching any international organisation does not arise. The Italian Communist Party (PCI) has understood the message well, and its leaders are among Gorbachev’s most enthusiastic supporters.

All this indicates that the battle for internationalism and for the construction of a revolutionary International will continue to be very difficult in the USSR. It will be no less so in the countries of Eastern Europe, where for decades the bureaucrats presented their subordination to the Moscow bureaucracy as “internationalism”, and where the political disorientation is far from being overcome. Those who have a real understanding of the meaning of internationalism, and of the need to give the workers’ movement an international framework, amount only to very small nuclei.

Internationalism in the capitalist and dependent countries

The internationalist battle is also very difficult in the capitalist countries of Western Europe, and all the more so in North America and Japan. Dramatic events of the past decade — the China–Vietnam war and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — have caused deep disillusionment and demoralisation, first and foremost in those sectors of the workers’ and internationalist movement that had committed themselves to solidarity with Vietnam. The hammering of the bourgeois media, which seeks to relaunch the values of capitalist society, has wrought real destruction. The bureaucrats of the workers’ movement have often capitulated before this offensive, which went hand in hand with attacks on living standards and on workers’ conquests and rights. When any perspective of overthrowing capitalism is renounced, and the idea that it will last indefinitely is accepted, not much room is left for internationalism, and any project of international proletarian organisation looks like the residue of a bygone era.

The panorama is more encouraging in other regions of the world. In Latin America, the victorious revolutions in Cuba and Nicaragua are engaged in a courageous struggle against imperialism, while other revolutionary movements are shaking the colonial regimes in their countries. Internationalist ideas retain their power of attraction, and internationalism itself keeps a real meaning.

Cuba and Nicaragua have given shining examples of this. But not even the leaders of these two countries share the conception, fundamental for us, of the dialectic of the three sectors of world revolution. While they have helped and continue to help revolutionary movements in other countries, they have not posed, and do not pose, the problem of building an International. More particularly, the Cuban leaders are largely inspired by a campist conception which has led them to unacceptable positions, such as approval of the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia and support for the Polish bureaucracy against Solidarność and the revolt of the working masses.

What role does the International play today?

In this context, our battle for the internationalist principles that were at the origin of our movement, and for the construction of a mass International, is more necessary than ever, and we shall continue it whatever the difficulties.

Does this perhaps mean that we hold a self-proclamatory and narrow conception of the International, as our adversaries and critics claimed fifty years ago and as some still maintain today? The decision to found the Fourth International was dictated neither by an abstractly self-proclamatory concern nor by conjunctural considerations or perspectives. Rather it was the conviction — founded on many experiences — that it was necessary to provide a programmatic and political answer to the crisis of the workers’ movement and to the problems that crisis posed. It was dictated by the conviction that only an international organisational framework, however limited, would make it possible to:

  • maintain the indispensable links between the existing revolutionary groups,
  • ensure the continuity of Marxism and Leninism
  • confront the new problems that would arise
  • and — what counts most — to commit the forces thus gathered to the battles of the workers’ movement in the various regions of the world.

It was a necessary historical task, and one that we have, in substance, fulfilled.

To conclude: we never argued that the revolutionary mass International would be built with our forces alone. From the debates of the 1930s to the resolutions of the last World Congress in 1985, we have explicitly maintained that this International will arise from the convergence of different revolutionary currents and movements. Our project was not the linear growth of the organisations that had joined first the Left Opposition and then the Fourth International. Today this approach is more valid than ever,. If we defend the existing International with the greatest tenacity, and fight to strengthen it, it is precisely because it represents an irreplaceable instrument for advancing towards the formation of a qualitatively superior International: the revolutionary mass International.

Source: Livio Maitan, “La Quarta Internazionale nelle lotte di oggi”, Bandiera Rossa no. 11, November 1988, pp. 16–17. Translated by RedMole.org.


Sunday, August 30, 2026

Why critics oppose India's RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat's US visit

(RNS) — To understand the true scale of the RSS's institutional reach normalizing Hindu nationalism, it is necessary to look beyond the RSS itself.
Protesters from an array of religions demonstrate against Mohan Bhagwat's upcoming visit, at City Hall on Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026, in New York City. (RNS photo/Fiona André)


(RNS) — Mohan Bhagwat, head of one of India’s most influential Hindu nationalist organizations, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), is coming to New York City on Saturday (Aug. 29). His visit might have been a diaspora gathering. Instead, it has become a test of how the U.S. will respond to an organization with an opaque network of affiliates that human rights groups accuse of fomenting religious discrimination and violence.

The upcoming “Universal Oneness Celebration” is hosted by American Hindus for Engagement and Dialogue, a nonprofit with links to the U.S. wing of the RSS and founded in 2025. The event is expected to draw 5,000 Hindu Americans along with more than 100 groups, from temple associations to yoga and cultural groups. 

Founded in 1925, the RSS is one of India’s most influential social and ideological organizations. Through tens of thousands of local branches and a vast network spanning education, labor, student groups and social services, the RSS has helped spread Hindu nationalist, or Hindutva, ideas across Indian society and has faced criticism for its treatment of Muslims and Christians, often cast as less Indian than Hindus. 

The RSS promotes and informs the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s most controversial policies and rhetoric, including cow protection that has encouraged vigilante violence against Muslims, anti-conversion laws that have led to mob attacks on churches, a citizenship amendment that favors non-Muslim migration and restrictions on foreign funding to religious organizations, disproportionately choking Christian and Muslim NGOs, which provide essential services to Indians in education and other social sectors.

In 2025, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan federal commission created by Congress to monitor religious freedom abroad and make recommendations to the U.S. government, has recommended that the government designate India as a “country of particular concern.” USCIRF also recommended targeted sanctions against individuals and entities, including the RSS, including freezing their assets and restricting their entry into the country. Most recently, USCIRF officials warned against extending high-level meetings and diplomatic courtesies to Bhagwat and other RSS leaders. Several human rights and advocacy organizations have also called on Secretary of State Marco Rubio to deny or revoke Bhagwat’s U.S. visa. 



2025 USCIRF Recommendations. (Courtesy image)

The Indian government and various Hindutva groups have pushed back hard in defense, claiming that their critics are simply anti-Hindu.

For the first time, in 2002 following the Gujarat riots, when Narendra Modi was the state’s chief minister, USCIRF recommended that India be designated a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC). It made the same recommendation again in 2004 but did not recommend CPC status for India again until 2020. Since then, it has made the recommendation every year.

Last year, in his Independence Day speech from the Red Fort, Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the organization as the world’s biggest NGO as it marked its centenary year. This characterization has revived an important institutional question: If the RSS is one of the country’s largest voluntary organizations, under what legal framework does it operate in India, and should an organization of such scale be subject to the same standards of registration and transparency as other organizations operating in the public interest? 

Further, if the RSS is an organization with such a vast network and global presence, why are programs and events for its members and supporters organized by separate organizations, both in India and abroad? What is the nature of the relationship between the RSS and these organizations, and how transparent is that relationship? 

One possible explanation is a desire to avoid greater transparency and potential tax scrutiny. These concerns have been highlighted recently by Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge of the Indian National Congress, who has questioned the RSS’s legal status, sources of funding (particularly voluntary contributions), tax compliance and the scale of its public activities, including the thousands of daily branches operating in the state and even in government buildings. He demands that the RSS register in accordance with the law or face a ban.  

His remarks drew a strong response from the RSS and the BJP. Bhagwat called the demand politically motivated, saying the organization has openly functioned as a voluntary cultural body for nearly a century and so does not need formal registration. BJP Member of Parliament Ramesh Jigajinagi questioned why a dalit (low caste) leader like Kharge should be concerned about the RSS, sparking further debate. 

To understand the true scale of the RSS’s institutional reach, it is necessary to look beyond the RSS itself. Indian magazine “The Caravan” recently launched “Seeing the Sangh,” an ongoing research project developed over six years in collaboration with researchers. The project attempts to map the vast organizational network surrounding the RSS. Drawing on publicly available sources, including RSS publications, academic research, financial records and government documents, it has so far identified more than 2,500 organizations associated with the wider RSS ecosystem across the globe. While the database is still evolving, the sheer scale of the network offers a revealing picture of how the RSS umbrella has expanded its presence across different areas of public life and raises further questions about the nature, structure and transparency of these institutional relationships. 


As of now, the project’s map identifies 113 affiliated organizations operating under different names across the U.S. alone. 

While many of the RSS-associated organizations are separately registered, the RSS itself has maintained that it functions as a voluntary cultural movement rather than as an organization requiring formal registration. This limits public transparency regarding its structure, finances and accountability.

In 2025, the RSS quietly hired one of Washington’s major lobbying firms — not directly but through intermediaries, so that on paper, the RSS’s name barely showed up. The stated purpose, per the filings, was to introduce the RSS to the U.S. Senate and House. It took reporters actually digging through the disclosures to figure out who the real client was. That’s not an oversight; it’s the same move the RSS makes at home — stay just outside the frame that would force disclosure.

This raises a straightforward question: If the RSS is, by its own repeated insistence, just an unregistered cultural body confined to India, why exactly does it need $330,000 worth of Capitol Hill access and a team of congressional staffers whispering in Senators’ ears? Purely cultural organizations do not typically require such lobbying.

In the end, the central question remains: Should an organization with such extensive influence be allowed to remain institutionally opaque? 

(Mohd Arshid is a senior research scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi working on the political economy of religion. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

Mohan Bhagwat’s US visit puts RSS’s vision of Hindu unity in spotlight

(RNS) — The event has sparked widespread backlash from a coalition of faith-based and secular organizations, but organizers say Bhagwat will share the stage with leaders from other faiths to celebrate shared goals.
Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat offers prayers at Sangam, the confluence of the rivers Ganges and the Yamuna and mythical Saraswati rivers, at the annual traditional fair of Magh Mela in Prayagraj, India, Friday, Feb. 19, 2021. (AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh)


(RNS) — This Saturday (Aug. 29), Mohan Bhagwat, chief of India’s Hindu nationalist organization, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), is scheduled to give the keynote address at Madison Square Garden for an event celebrating “universal oneness.”

The event, hosted by the nonprofit American Hindus for Engagement and Dialogue (AHEAD) Forum, will feature musical performances and communal hymns and is expected to draw more than 5,000 spectators and over 100 groups affiliated with Hindu temples, yoga associations and cultural groups. 

“Our job is to sit for a dialogue — mutual dialogue — to understand each other for the betterment of global humanity,” said Sudesh Agrawal, director of the AHEAD Forum. “Our earth is one.”

Priya Samant, the spokesperson for the Universal Oneness Celebration, agreed. 

“It’s a celebration of our shared goals and our humanity,” she told RNS, adding that Bhagwat will share the stage with faith leaders from different religions, including Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Sikhism. “And oneness does not mean sameness. It means that we can work through our differences, and yet, be one big family.” 

And yet, the event has sparked widespread backlash from a coalition of faith-based and secular organizations as well as elected officials. Critics argue that the idea of unity is a thin veneer and that Bhagwat represents an organization built from a vision of a Hindu-first India. They point to a documented rise in discrimination and violence against minorities in India since 2014, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), considered the political muscle of the RSS, gained power. 

In the context of the RSS and its representatives, the idea of unity often only refers to Hindu unity, said Thomas Blom Hansen, a professor of South Asian studies and anthropology at Stanford who studies religious and political violence in India. “Anyone who talks about caste, who talks about communities, who talks about minorities — they are inherently divisive,” Hansen said. 

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat addresses students during an India International Movement to Unite Nations (IIMUN) event in Mumbai, India, Thursday, Aug. 6, 2026. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

Bhagwat’s visit kicks off an international tour to increase global outreach on the centennial of the RSS’s founding. He is scheduled for upcoming events in Canada and the United Kingdom.



The RSS was founded in 1925 as a male-only volunteer organization that held small local gatherings meant to cultivate shared Hindu identity amid British colonial rule and past Muslim conquests. The organization has since become a major force in Indian society, particularly as an ideological guide to the BJP.

“The BJP knows that they cannot win elections without the RSS,” Hansen said. 

Bhagwat, 75, was born into a Marathi Brahmin family of RSS activists. He joined the organization full time in his 20s and climbed the ranks to become the organization’s chief in 2009. He now presides over millions of RSS members across the country and serves as a prominent figurehead.

Bhagwat himself has advocated for many controversial BJP policies promoted by the RSS, advising families to protect their Hindu daughters from “love jihad,” defending a citizenship amendment that favors non-Muslim immigration, defending “anti-conversion laws” that have resulted in mob attacks on churches, and labeling India a fundamentally Hindu nation. He has also praised the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya on the site where a Hindu nationalist mob illegally razed a 16th century mosque and ensuing riots killed an estimated 2,000 people, mainly Muslims.

A general view of the audience during the opening of the Ram Mandir, a temple dedicated to Hindu deity Lord Ram, in Ayodhya, India, Jan. 22, 2024. (AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh)

Two of AHEAD Forum’s previous initiatives involved book tours for Sachin Nanda and Ratan Sharda, who wrote about RSS history and principles. 

The RSS has been banned three times in India. The first ban came in 1948 after an RSS affiliate assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian independence leader who advocated for religious harmony and a secular democracy. 

The Indian government mandated that the RSS operate with transparency, but instead, “they branched out and created a whole range of different front organizations that are not formally affiliated with the RSS,” said Hansen. “It was a way of creating a sense of deniability.”

Ahead of Bhagwat’s speech, progressive platform Savera published a report alleging that the AHEAD Forum is a front for the U.S. wing of the RSS. 

Agrawal responded that the AHEAD Forum is an independent 501(c)3 organization and “not prompted or promoted or guided by any other organization.”

Sunita Viswanath, executive director of the progressive nonprofit Hindus for Human Rights, has been working with a coalition of advocates to campaign for Madison Square Garden to cancel the event, urging individuals to call the venue and voice their opinion.

“As a progressive Hindu organization that’s working night and day to manifest a loving and inclusive interpretation of our faith, it’s very upsetting to see the same words and the same concepts, such as ‘oneness,’ being used by an organization and its leadership who very clearly represent the opposite,” Viswanath said. 

Brad Lander, center, speaks during a demonstration against Mohan Bhagwat’s upcoming visit to New York, at City Hall on Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026, in New York City. (RNS photo/Fiona André)

Elected officials, including Democratic candidate for Congress Brad Lander and New York City Councilmembers Shahana Hanif and Lincoln Restler, have also spoken out against Bhagwat’s appearance in New York City. Zohran Mamdani, New York City’s first Indian-American mayor and a Muslim, also said he opposed Bhagwat’s appearance but did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the event.

“The vision of India that I was taught by my family and the one that I grew up being very familiar with was of a pluralistic society, of a secular republic,” said Mamdani in a press conference. “It has been incredibly troubling to see the rise of a movement that is predicated on an exclusionary vision.”

Madison Square Garden representatives have told callers that venue management has limited authority to cancel private events.

Still, those opposed to Bhagwat’s visit will protest outside Madison Square Garden on Saturday. Viswanath expects hundreds of protesters will gather and voice their opposition to Bhagwat, the RSS and the Hindutva philosophies they embody.

“If we don’t stand up to religious supremacy and exclusively hateful ideologies,” she said, “we will not be fulfilling our responsibility as citizens of conscience, citizens of the countries that we live in and citizens of the world.”

Samant, on the other hand, said the event fills her with hope, stating that it is an opportunity for a diverse crowd to learn from Bhagwat’s experience leading a century-old organization. 

“The RSS has done so much great work,” she said. “It’s like a masterclass.”