RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat Clarifies Stance on Retirement Age Amid Political Speculation

MOHAN KHOUND

New Delhi, August 29, 2025 – In a pointed rebuttal to swirling political interpretations, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat asserted on Thursday that he had never advocated for retirement at the age of 75, either for himself or others.

Speaking at the culmination of a three-day lecture series in Delhi’s Vigyan Bhawan, marking the RSS’s centenary celebrations, Bhagwat emphasized the volunteer ethos of the organization, declaring, **“I never said I will retire or someone should retire at 75. We are swayamsevaks; we are given a job and we can’t say no to it.”**

The clarification comes barely a month after Bhagwat’s earlier anecdote at an RSS event, where he recounted a felicitation of senior leader Moropant Pingle in Vrindavan decades ago. Pingle, upon turning 75, had reportedly suggested that aging figures should step aside to make way for younger blood-a narrative that opposition parties, including the Congress, swiftly seized upon as a veiled critique of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who turns 75 on September 17.

Bhagwat himself reaches the milestone on September 11, adding a layer of irony to the discourse. Critics argued the remark hinted at Modi’s potential exit, invoking the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) historical precedent of sidelining veterans at that age.

This episode revives memories of the BJP’s informal “75-year rule,” an unwritten norm that has shaped the party’s leadership transitions. In 2014, shortly after assuming power, Modi relegated stalwarts like L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi-both instrumental in the party’s rise through the Ram Janmabhoomi movement-to the Margdarshak Mandal, a ceremonial advisory body often derided as a retirement home for elders.

Advani, then 87, and Joshi, 80, were effectively marginalized, with the move justified under the guise of generational renewal. By 2019, Advani was barred from contesting elections altogether, adhering to this age cap. Opposition voices, including Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh, have long highlighted this as a selective enforcement, questioning why the architect of the rule-Modi-might evade it himself.

Intellectually, this raises profound questions about the interplay of power and principle in India’s ideological ecosystem. The RSS, as the philosophical backbone of the BJP, has historically championed discipline and selflessness, yet Bhagwat’s insistence on indispensability-“I will work till the time this organization wants me to”- underscores a tension between organizational loyalty and the perils of entrenched leadership.

In a nation grappling with democratic fatigue, such norms could serve as safeguards against personality cults, fostering meritocracy over gerontocracy. However, their inconsistent application, as seen in the cases of Advani and Joshi, invites accusations of hypocrisy. Why, one might ask, does the rule bend for figures like Modi and Bhagwat, whose tenures have redefined Hindu nationalism? This selective flexibility may erode the very voluntarism Bhagwat extols, transforming ideological commitment into a tool for perpetuating influence.

Bhagwat, ever the pragmatist, lightened the mood by quipping about his own replaceability: “There are at least 10 other people in this hall who can be sarsanghchalak. It’s just that they are very busy… I was the one who could be spared.” The audience’s laughter belied deeper undercurrents, as Bhagwat navigated queries on RSS-BJP relations.

Denying any dictatorial oversight, he invoked a metaphor of shared goals: “We may have differences of opinion but not differences in minds. Even if we walk separately, our destination is the same—the development of the nation.” He dismissed notions of RSS interference in BJP affairs, such as presidential selections, with a wry observation: “If we were deciding, would it have taken so long?”

On contentious cultural fronts, Bhagwat struck a conciliatory tone. Amid rising petitions claiming mosques as temple sites, he distanced the RSS from new agitations beyond Ayodhya’s Ram temple, where the organization played a pivotal role. “We will not join any other movement linked to temples,” he stated, referencing disputes in Mathura (Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah) and Varanasi (Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi).

Yet, he left room for individual swayamsevaks to participate, echoing the 1990s Vishwa Hindu Parishad slogan: “Ayodhya is just the start; Kashi-Mathura are still left.” Intellectually, this stance reflects a strategic pivot toward consensus-building, urging that sites like Mathura and Kashi be resolved amicably to bolster inter-community brotherhood—a nod to India’s pluralistic fabric amid polarizing narratives.

Bhagwat also addressed social fissures, rejecting the caste system enshrined in ancient texts like the Manusmriti. “The Sangh does not believe in the caste system and the same should be shunned,” he affirmed, calling for sensitivity on reservations and advocating new scriptures to guide modern life: “We need more books that teach the way of life; our religious leaders must think about it.” This critique aligns with progressive interpretations of Hinduism, challenging orthodoxies while reinforcing the RSS’s vision of a unified Hindu society.

As India approaches key milestones-Modi’s birthday and the RSS’s ongoing centenary-these clarifications do little to quell speculation. They instead illuminate the delicate balance between tradition and ambition in the Sangh Parivar. In an era where age is both a metric of wisdom and obsolescence, Bhagwat’s words prompt a broader reflection: Can ideological movements evolve without succumbing to the very hierarchies they decry? The answer may define the next chapter of India’s political saga.

29-08-2025

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking. You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com (For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.