The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist organisation, recognises Sikhi as a separate religion. Yet it still calls Sikhs Hindu when it speaks about India’s people and culture. I do not accept its right to decide that for us. We can respect Hindu neighbours and work with them without accepting a Hindu name for our own way of life. [1, 2]
Suppose a Buddhist organisation told Hindus they could keep their religion but were Buddhist culturally and nationally because of India’s Buddhist past. Would the RSS accept that? It should explain whether it would accept those terms before asking Sikhs to accept its own.
I begin with the Guru. In Sidh Gosht, Guru Nanak Sahib’s conversation with the Siddhas, these followers of yoga ask about the Guru and the life of a disciple, or learner.
The Roman line is only a reading aid, not the translation. The English sentence gives the plain meaning.
Guru Nanak Sahib answers:
ਸਬਦੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਧੁਨਿ ਚੇਲਾ ॥
Shabad guroo, surat dhun chelaa.
Plain meaning: The Shabad is my Guru. My attention, lovingly fixed on the Shabad, is the disciple.
Ramkali, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib, Sidh Gosht, pauri 44, Panna 943. Pauri means a numbered verse; Panna means page. One-line excerpt, read with pauri 43 on Panna 942 and all of pauri 44. [5]
The rest of the pauri speaks of freedom from attachment and the ending of haumai, the habit of putting “I” and “mine” first. It is not a statement about nationality. For me, the answer means that the Guru guides how I understand and live my life. I cannot put the RSS in that place. The same teaching asks me to look at my own pride. [5]
Sikhs have had to answer this claim for a long time. Bhai Kahn Singh Ji Nabha’s Ham Hindu Nahin, or We Are Not Hindus, appeared in Gurmukhi in 1898. Our refusal of the Hindu name did not begin with the RSS’s statement in 2001. [6]
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar made the distinction between religion and wider identity in his 1923 book Hindutva. He wrote: “Let the Sikhs be classed as Sikhs religiously; but as Hindus racially, nationally and culturally.” He kept Sikh for religion, but used Hindu for race, nation and culture. Savarkar did not found the RSS, but his words show why keeping our religious name does not settle the matter. [7]
Before the January 2001 statement, RSS chief K.S. Sudarshan had caused controversy by describing Sikhi as a “panth of Hinduism”, meaning a path within Hinduism. On 16 January, RSS representatives met the National Commission for Minorities, whose job is to protect minority rights. Afterwards, spokesman M.G. Vaidya said: “We regard Sikhism as a separate religion with a distinct ideology.” He also denied that the RSS intended to erase Sikh identity. But, as The Times of India reported the next day, he still placed Sikhs, Muslims and Christians within a wider Hindu society. He made both statements at the same press conference. [2]
The RSS’s website gives the same wider meaning to Hindu. Its 2012 explanation of Hindu Rashtra, or Hindu nation, includes Sikhs and Buddhists regardless of their religion. Its June 2017 questions and answers state: “The RSS perceives Hindu as a term that defines the national identity of the people living in this country.” [1]
In Ludhiana on 26 February 2026, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat called Sikhi a “separate and distinct religion” while describing Hinduism as a “way of life”, rather than a religion. [2]
I can follow that distinction without accepting it. Hindu names our neighbours’ religion; the RSS also uses it for India’s people who follow other faiths. Calling this wider meaning cultural or national does not explain why Sikhs should take the name. Bharatiya means Indian. If Indian is what the RSS means, why insist on Hindu?
India’s Buddhist past gives us a way to put that question back to the RSS. Ashoka ruled much of the subcontinent about 2,300 years ago. His inscriptions affirm his commitment to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Dhamma here is the teaching, and Sangha is the Buddhist community. Other inscriptions urge respect between people of different faiths. His Buddhist commitment did not mean that all his subjects were Buddhist. [4]
When India chose its flag in 1947, it took the wheel from the stone base beneath the lions on Ashoka’s Sarnath capital. Jawaharlal Nehru connected Ashoka with ancient culture, peace and goodwill. He also said the flag had no communal significance. People of different faiths could share that inheritance. [3]
Now let an imagined Buddhist organisation make the same assurances the RSS makes, with the identities reversed:
Imagined declaration, not a real statement: We recognise Hinduism as a separate religion. Hindus may keep their beliefs, worship and customs. But culturally and nationally, we regard them as Buddhist. Ashoka and India’s Buddhist inheritance belong to them too. We use Buddhist here for a wider civilisation and way of life, not merely a religion. We have no wish to erase Hindu identity.
Would the RSS accept that name for Hindus? A Hindu could respect Ashoka, value Buddhist teachings and honour India’s flag without agreeing that Hindu culture or national identity was Buddhist. I would defend that refusal. I would not ask Hindus to deny a shared past before accepting their answer.
Hindus could point to their own traditions and understanding of who they are. They could say they had never agreed to the Buddhist name. Sikhs who reject the Hindu name raise those same objections. If the RSS would accept them from Hindus, it must explain why they carry less weight when Sikhs make them. The same test must apply to both communities.
The imagined organisation might insist that Buddhist meant a generous and inclusive way of life, that Hindu worship would continue and that no one was being asked to convert. Hindus would still be receiving a name they had not chosen. Calling it a way of life would not answer someone who rejected it. The organisation could say Indian, but chooses Buddhist, just as the RSS chooses Hindu.
The RSS already includes Buddhists within its Hindu name and may offer that answer here. [1] But then we are back where we started: it has chosen a name broad enough to cover both communities and expects us to accept it. The RSS cannot make Sikhs Hindu by choosing to call them Hindu.
Culture includes how we live with one another, our language, food, family habits and understanding of our responsibilities. People of different faiths can share much of that life. The Guru’s teaching guides a Sikh’s work, food, family life and treatment of others. I cannot accept an arrangement in which we keep a Sikh religious name while the RSS takes authority to name our culture Hindu. What we share with our neighbours does not give it that authority.
On 27 October 2026, The Tribune returned to the 2001 statement while also recording the continuing claim of wider Hindu cultural unity. S. Tarlochan Singh Ji, then Vice-Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities, took part in the 2001 meeting with RSS representatives. [2] I want a clear answer from him about what changed and what did not. Repeating that our religion is recognised does not answer why the wider Hindu name is still being applied to us. Sikh leaders discussing this with the RSS should put that question to it and obtain an answer in writing.
The wheel can remain on India’s flag without requiring Hindus to call their culture Buddhist. I ask the RSS to apply that same fairness to Sikhs. Will it say in writing that it will stop calling Sikhs Hindu when it speaks of India’s people and culture? We remain Sikhs under the Guru; the RSS does not decide that for us.
Related work
The Foreign Ideas Inside Hindutva
Ham Hindu Nahin: What It Still Means
Sources
Checked to 28 October 2026. The RSS pages, the January 2001 report, the flag proceedings, Ashoka’s edicts and Panna 943 with Professor Sahib Singh Ji’s Darpan were checked on 28 October 2026. Vaidya’s and Bhagwat’s statements were checked against the cited reports on 28 October 2026. The 27 October Tribune report was read on that date. The check of Savarkar’s printed page recorded on 27 October is retained; a fresh visual comparison is not claimed. The English meaning of Gurbani is a learning aid guided by Darpan. Its application to the argument is mine. The imagined Buddhist declaration is a test of the RSS’s reasoning, not an actual statement by a Buddhist organisation.
[1] RSS, Why Hindu Rashtra?, 22 October 2012, section “Hindu: National of Bharat”; Basic FAQ on RSS, 3 June 2017, section on Hindu national identity. The FAQ quotation is a complete sentence. 2012 explanation · 2017 FAQ.
[2] The Times of India, “Sikhism a separate religion, agrees RSS”, 17 January 2001, reporting the meeting’s participants, Vaidya’s 16 January statement and the wider Hindu-society claim. Aditi Tandon, The Tribune, “When RSS first acknowledged Sikhism as a separate religion with a distinct ideology”, 27 October 2026, on the 2001 talks involving Tarlochan Singh Ji and the continuing cultural claim. Tarsem Singh Deogan, Hindustan Times, “Sikhism a separate religion, says RSS chief Bhagwat”, 27 February 2026, reports both parts of Bhagwat’s statement at Ludhiana the previous day. These are newspaper accounts; an original signed 2001 agreement has not been inspected for this revision. 2001 report · 2026 report · Hindustan Times, 27 February 2026.
[3] Constituent Assembly Debates, 22 July 1947, “Resolution re National Flag”. PDF p. 1 specifies the wheel from the abacus of Ashoka’s Sarnath Lion Capital. Nehru’s explanation on PDF pp. 4–5 addresses the flag’s meaning and Ashoka; he expressly rejects a communal meaning. Parliamentary record.
[4] Ashoka’s edicts, English rendering by S. Dhammika, 1994: Minor Rock Edict I and the Bairat/Bhabru inscription, numbered III in this collection, for Buddhist commitment; Major Rock Edict XII for respect between religious communities. These inscriptions do not establish that everyone under Ashoka became Buddhist or that India’s whole culture was Buddhist. Edict translations.
[5] Shabad Guru Granth Sahib, Ramkali, Mahalla 1, Guru Nanak Sahib, Sidh Gosht, pauri 44, Panna 943; read with pauri 43, Panna 942, and the composition’s Rahao on Panna 938. Professor Sahib Singh Ji, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan. One-line excerpt; the political application is not its plain meaning. SriGranth · Darpan.
[6] Dharam Singh, “Ham Hindu Nahin”, The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, Punjabi University. Sheena Pall, “The Issues of Sikh Identity: Sanatanist–Sikh Debate”, Journal of Punjab Studies 20(1&2), 2013, pp. 193–216, at p. 196, dates the Devanagari edition to 1897 and the Gurmukhi edition a year later. Punjabi University · Pall.
[7] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, writing as “A Maratha”, Hindutva, May 1923, printed p. 113, read with pp. 110–113; PDF p. 60. The original includes “nationally”. The printed-page check recorded on 27 October is retained. Original scan.
Anyone named here may reply, and a reply addressing the argument will be published with the article. Errors will be corrected publicly with a dated note.
Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.
Bhul chuk maaf karni Ji.
Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva
London
I agree with your point, this country belongs to everyone irrespective of religion yet rss keeps on drawing religious discrimination,it's a pity for a country as big and diverse as ours , humara desh itni choti soch ka nhi tha kabhi, kuch log apne fayde ke liye iss desh ko barbad karne par tule hai,par ye desh hai veer jawano ka ,koi kuch nahi kar sakta , hindustani zindabad
This nation Hindustan/ bharat/ india belongs to everyone who respects it....
Loved your writing ✨
I think many traditionalist Hindus would not even find the RSS as being Hindu at all. The RSS does not believe in the Veda or the śāstras. Rather, it believes that Hinduism is some vague ethnic identity. Its philosophy is not Vedic, but more in line with western post-enlightenment values. Traditional Hindus, who call themselves Vaidika, and who have called themselves with this term for millennia, reject them as being heretics who claim to support Hindu interests, but at the same time reject Hindu theology.
As for Sikhi- a lot of people within the Sikh community do not seem to acknowledge how deeply the early Sikh employed Advaita Vedānta in order to understand Sikhism. The early commentaries on the Gurbani for instance were all written from the standpoint of Advaita darśana. Indeed, much of the Guru Granth Sahib would be unintelligible without prior familiarity with Vedāntic terms.