# 'RSS Stood with British': Congress Slams Modi's Praise for Sangh on Centenary, Cites Savarkar's 'Mercy Petitions' and Quit India 'Betrayal'
As the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) marked its 100th anniversary on October 1, 2025, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailing the organization as a "glorious" force in nation-building, the Congress party unleashed a scathing critique, accusing the RSS of aligning with British colonial rulers while the Indian National Congress (INC) bore the brunt of the freedom struggle. In a pointed reminder to Modi, Congress leaders invoked RSS ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's (VD Savarkar) documented "allegiance" to the British—through multiple mercy petitions written from Cellular Jail—contrasting it with the sacrifices of INC stalwarts like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. The exchange, unfolding amid RSS's centenary celebrations in Nagpur, has reignited a long-standing debate over the Sangh's historical role, with social media erupting in polarized reactions.
## The Spark: Modi's Centenary Tribute and Congress's Immediate Rebuttal
Speaking at the RSS headquarters in Nagpur, PM Modi lauded the organization's century-long journey, claiming RSS founder Keshav Baliram Hedgewar and other swayamsevaks were imprisoned for their anti-British activities. He further asserted that RSS members provided shelter to freedom fighters evading British crackdowns, framing the Sangh as a bedrock of "nation first" patriotism that endured repression from both the British and princely states like the Nizams. This narrative, Modi argued, underscored the RSS's selfless service, positioning it as the "world's biggest NGO" dedicated to cultural and national revival.
Congress, however, dismissed these claims as "fabrications" designed to rewrite history. In a series of X posts and statements, party spokesperson Supriya Shrinate declared, "Congress fought for freedom, RSS stood with the British." The party highlighted Savarkar's 1913 mercy petition from the Andaman Cellular Jail, where he wrote, "I feel no hesitation in maintaining friendly relations with the British government," offering to serve the empire in exchange for release. Congress shared archival images of Savarkar's petitions, questioning Modi's reverence for an ideologue who, they alleged, prioritized personal leniency over revolutionary zeal. "When INC leaders filled British jails, RSS leaders were untouched—neither imprisoned nor banned," Shrinate added, urging Modi to reflect on Savarkar's "allegiance" before glorifying the Sangh.
This isn't the first clash. Just weeks earlier, during Modi's Independence Day address on August 15, 2025, his praise for RSS's "proud journey" drew similar ire, with Congress accusing him of "insulting the freedom struggle" to appease his ideological mentors ahead of his 75th birthday.
## Historical Flashback: RSS's Stance During Key Freedom Movements
The core of Congress's indictment rests on the RSS's documented non-participation—and alleged collaboration—in pivotal anti-colonial uprisings. Founded in 1925 by Hedgewar, inspired by Savarkar's *Hindutva* treatise, the RSS positioned itself as a cultural outfit focused on Hindu unity rather than direct confrontation with the British. Hedgewar, a former Congress member disillusioned with Gandhi's Non-Cooperation Movement, explicitly barred RSS from political activism, viewing independence through the lens of "defending religion and culture" rather than mass agitation.
The flashpoint remains the 1942 Quit India Movement, launched by Gandhi with the clarion call "Do or Die." As lakhs of INC workers courted arrest—over 100,000 jailed, including Nehru and Patel—the RSS under M.S. Golwalkar instructed members to stay aloof. Golwalkar later wrote in *Bunch of Thoughts* that the Sangh avoided the movement to preserve its organizational strength, but British records corroborate Congress's claims: Intelligence reports noted RSS meetings urging non-involvement, with swayamsevaks even recruited into British forces under Savarkar's "Responsive Cooperation" policy. Savarkar, as Hindu Mahasabha president (a RSS ally), formed coalitions with Jinnah's Muslim League in provinces like Sindh and Bengal, running governments that suppressed Quit India protests while INC was banned.
Critics, including historians like Ramachandra Guha, argue this stance stemmed from ideological priorities: The RSS and Mahasabha saw Congress's inclusive nationalism as diluting Hindu identity, preferring alliances that advanced a Hindu Rashtra vision. No RSS leader faced imprisonment during Quit India, unlike the INC's toll of thousands. Congress also invoked period slogans like "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Congress ka hai sangh" (RSS is Congress's foe), underscoring the perceived betrayal.
| Key Event | INC's Role | RSS's Stance |
|-----------|------------|--------------|
| **Non-Cooperation (1920-22)** | Mass boycotts, arrests of Gandhi & leaders; over 30,000 jailed | Hedgewar joins briefly but quits; RSS founded in 1925 as alternative to INC's "ineffective" strategy |
| **Civil Disobedience (1930)** | Salt March; 60,000+ arrests including Nehru | Non-participation; focus on shakhas (branches) for Hindu discipline |
| **Quit India (1942)** | "Do or Die"; 100,000+ arrested, violent suppression | Golwalkar orders aloofness; swayamsevaks join British army; no bans or arrests on RSS |
| **Post-Independence** | Hoists Tricolour; leads nation-building | Refuses flag at HQ for 52 years (1947-1999); grows as cultural force |
## Savarkar in the Crosshairs: From Revolutionary to 'Mercy Petitioner'?
Congress's invocation of Savarkar strikes at the heart of RSS ideology. Revered as "Veer Savarkar" by Modi—who installed his portrait in Parliament—Savarkar was an early revolutionary, imprisoned for the 1910 Nasik conspiracy. Yet, from 1911-1921 in Cellular Jail, he penned at least seven mercy petitions, pledging loyalty to the British and disavowing anti-colonial activities. Released in 1924 under surveillance, he joined the Hindu Mahasabha, advocating Hindu militarization while opposing INC-led movements.
Congress leaders like Jairam Ramesh labeled this "allegiance" a stain, asking, "Why does Modi honor a man who begged the British for freedom?" BJP counters that Savarkar's petitions were tactical, aimed at resuming nationalist work, and highlight his pre-jail exploits. Nonetheless, the debate fuels accusations of historical revisionism, with X users sharing morphed documents (debunked by fact-checkers) to amplify claims of RSS's "zero contribution."
## Broader Echoes: From Independence Day Backlash to Social Media Storm
This salvo builds on August's Independence Day row, where AIMIM's Asaduddin Owaisi called Modi's RSS praise "an insult," alleging the Sangh "hated Gandhi more than the British" and served as "foot soldiers." CPI(M)'s M.A. Baby echoed, decrying the glorification of an entity that "undermined national unity." On X, hashtags like #RSS100YearsExposed trended, with users juxtaposing INC's sacrifices against RSS's "collaboration," while BJP handles like Amit Malviya flipped the script, accusing Congress of "cropping saffron" from the Tricolour to appease minorities.
The timing—RSS centenary coinciding with Modi's extended tenure—intensifies the political theater. Congress sees it as BJP's bid to cement Hindutva credentials amid economic headwinds, while RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat emphasized "seva" over politics in his Vijayadashami address.
## A Divided Legacy: Patriotism or Partisanship?
As fireworks lit Nagpur skies for RSS's milestone, Congress's retort underscores India's fractured historical memory. For INC, the Sangh's centenary is a moment to reclaim the freedom narrative, reminding Modi that true allegiance lies in sacrifice, not selective storytelling. For RSS adherents, it's validation of an enduring vision that propelled BJP to power. In this partisan prism, Savarkar's shadow looms large—hero or collaborator?—as the nation grapples with who truly "stood" for independence.
One thing's clear: On October 1, 2025, history wasn't just invoked; it was weaponized. Whether it bridges divides or deepens them remains the real test of our democratic discourse.
