By Mohammed Talha Siddi Bapa
The story of Mohan Bhagwat’s New York visit can perhaps be read most clearly through the American headlines greeting him. The Wall Street Journal, one of the country’s most influential newspapers, chose not “Universal Oneness” but “Indian Nationalist Leader Stirs Anger With U.S. Appearance.” The paper described the RSS chief’s international tour as an effort to build ‘recognition and credibility beyond India’ – only to encounter resistance in the United States. For a centenary outreach meant partly to explain the RSS to the world, that is an uncomfortable introduction.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh could hardly have chosen a more spectacular setting for projecting its 100th year. Bhagwat’s image appeared on the giant screens of Times Square before his August 29 address to thousands at Madison Square Garden. The programme, titled “Universal Oneness Celebration,” invokes Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – the world is one family – and is backed by more than 200 Hindu-American organisations, according to its organisers. The ambition extends beyond a diaspora celebration: Reuters reported that the RSS itself said in May that foreign visits were intended partly to counter perceptions about the organisation abroad.
Yet New York has offered something quite different from an uncomplicated centenary celebration. Mayor Zohran Mamdani publicly opposed the gathering, calling the RSS vision exclusionary. A coalition of 61 interfaith and secular organisations, including Hindu and Muslim advocacy groups, mobilised against it. More unusually, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom urged Washington to consider targeted sanctions against RSS members and revocation of Bhagwat’s visa over alleged religious-freedom violations. Its recommendations are non-binding, India has rejected the commission’s criticism, and Washington has not acted on them. But the controversy has ensured that an outreach intended partly to counter perceptions of the RSS is being accompanied by precisely the questions it hoped to overcome.
Associated Press was even more explicit. Its headline read: “Hindu nationalist leader spurs protests and calls for sanctions ahead of New York City speech.” Carried by major American platforms, including The Washington Post, ABC News and NBC New York, the report does not principally introduce Bhagwat through the philosophical vocabulary of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. It explains the RSS-BJP relationship, discusses allegations concerning intolerance and minority rights, reports Mamdani’s opposition and the USCIRF intervention, and gives space to civil-rights activists opposing the gathering. It also records the RSS response that the programme represents an Indian ethos that is ‘inclusive and welcoming to all’.
AP goes further. One section is bluntly headed: “RSS is on a quest to engage and change its image.” It quotes Hudson Institute scholar Bill Drexel describing a ‘new chapter’ in the organisation’s relationship with the outside world. That goes directly to the centenary challenge. The RSS has enormous organisational reach and political influence inside India. Translating that strength into international acceptance is another matter. The irony is that an outreach intended to explain the RSS is prompting American journalism to ask whether it is also an exercise in repairing its image.
Vox has moved beyond event reporting altogether. Under the headline “How Zohran Mamdani ended up in a fight over Hindu nationalism,” it uses the controversy to examine the RSS, Hindutva, its relationship with the BJP and disputes over the treatment of religious minorities. The contrast is difficult to avoid: supporters speak in America of diversity, bridge-building and multiculturalism; critics ask how that vocabulary squares with the majoritarian politics they associate with Hindutva in India.
Religion News Service subjected ‘oneness’ itself to scrutiny. Its news coverage said Bhagwat’s visit had put the RSS vision of Hindu unity “in the spotlight,” while reporting both opposition to the gathering and organisers’ plans to include representatives of different faiths. A separate opinion article was sharper: “Let India’s Hindu nationalist leader speak about ‘oneness.’ Then let him answer.” It was commentary, not straight news, but its framing shows how quickly the carefully chosen language of the centenary celebration became part of the argument surrounding it.
The discomfort with this framing is visible even in media sympathetic to the RSS. Organiser, a publication associated with the organisation, complained on August 29 that “American media Frames Universal Oneness Celebration even before RSS Sarsanghchalak speaks.” It specifically questioned coverage by AP, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal and Religion News Service. In doing so, it inadvertently acknowledged the larger battle: not merely whether Bhagwat can secure an American platform, but what Americans are being told the RSS represents.
The contest has been equally fierce on social media, where the two sides appear to be fighting over two almost incompatible versions of the same New York visit. RSS supporters have circulated the Times Square displays, images of Bhagwat’s meetings and the language of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, presenting the tour as evidence of ‘growing global recognition’ in the organisation’s centenary year. Opponents have pushed an altogether different visual vocabulary – protests, minority-rights allegations, Mamdani’s criticism and calls for sanctions – while challenging the very idea of “Universal Oneness.” The result is a distinctly modern political irony: the same visit being celebrated online as proof of the RSS going global is being used by its critics to globalise the scrutiny of the RSS.
There are important limits to this picture. As of August 29, comparable dedicated coverage from some American media giants, notably The New York Times and CNN, had not surfaced. Nor should American journalism be portrayed as speaking with one voice. The main Madison Square Garden programme had yet to take place when much of the reporting appeared, making any declaration that the centenary outreach had ‘failed’ premature.
But its media problem is already visible. The RSS came to New York carrying the language of oneness, dialogue and a hundred-year journey. Much of the significant American coverage greeting it has carried a different vocabulary: nationalism, protests, sanctions, minority rights and image-building.
Times Square can display an image, Madison Square Garden can provide a stage and thousands of supporters can provide applause. None of them can dictate the headline. That may be the unexpected lesson of the RSS centenary in America: it is considerably easier to buy visibility in New York than to control what New York sees.
“Universal Oneness” on the stage; uncomfortable questions in the headlines.
