‘Bharatiyata' only solution to all problems world facing today: RSS chief Bhagwat
Addressing an event here, Bhagwat said the world is facing a plethora of problems due to materialism and now looking up to Bharat for answers as all the efforts taken over the past 2000 years to bring happiness and contentment in people's lives based on Western ideas have failed.
New Delhi, Jul 22 (PTI) RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Tuesday exhorted people to imbibe 'Indianness' and show the world the answers to all problems it is facing.
'Exploitation increased, poverty increased. The gap between the poor and the rich kept increasing day by day,' Bhagwat said at the event jointly organised by IGNOU and Akhil Bharatiya Anuvrat Nyas.
'After the first world war, several books were written advocating peace, a league of nations was formed so that there is no war again in future but the World War II broke out. After the second world war, UNO was formed. But we are (today) thinking if there will be a third world war,' he added.
Bhagwat said 'Bharatiyata' (Indianness) is the only solution to all the problems the world is facing today.
'What does it mean to be of Bharat? Bharatiyata is not citizenship. Of course, citizenship is required. But, one has to have Bharat's 'swabhav' (nature) to belong to Bharat. Bharat's 'swabhav' thinks about the whole life. There are four 'Purusharth' (four goals in Hindu philosophy)…'moksha' (liberation) is ultimate goal of life,' he said.
Bharat's nature is based on 'dharma drishti' (vision), Bhagwat said.
It is due to this discipline of dharma, Bharat was once the most prosperous nation and the world knows it, he said.
'That's why the world looks up to Bharat, hoping that it will show a new path to them. We have to show the path to the world. For this, we have to prepare our 'rashtra' (nation), starting with ourselves and our family,' Bhagwat said 'See if we are following our 'drishti' (vision) in our daily life or not, and make amends,' he added.
Exhorting the gathering to 'gear up' for transformation, Bhagwat said, 'The history that we know is taught by the West. I am hearing that some changes are being made in the syllabus in our country'.
'For them, Bharat does not exist. It appears in the world map, but not in their thoughts. If you look at books, you will find China, Japan, not Bharat,' he added. PTI PK PK KVK KVK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Chhattisgarh: 66 Maoists surrender across five Bastar districts
As many as 66 Maoists, including 49 carrying a cumulative reward of ₹2.27 crore, surrendered in five districts of Chhattisgarh's Bastar division on Thursday, police officials said. Inspector General of Police (Bastar Range) Sundarraj P hands over a cheque to Maoists after their surrender, in Bijapur district, on Thursday. (PTI) Officials said 25 surrendered in Bijapur, 15 in Dantewada, 13 in Kanker, eight in Narayanpur, and five in Sukma; 27 of them were women. According to the police, the surrendered cadres cited growing disillusion with the Maoist ideology, atrocities committed by the group on innocent tribals, and deepening internal rifts within the banned outfit. Many also said they were inspired by the state government's 'Niyad Nellanar' (Your Good Village) scheme, aimed at development in remote tribal areas, along with the new surrender and rehabilitation policy, and the Bastar police's 'Poona Margham' initiative for social reintegration. In Bijapur, 23 of the 25 surrendered Maoists were carrying a collective bounty of ₹1.15 crore. Among them were Ramanna Irpa (37), a member of the Odisha State Committee and the Maoists' Special Zonal Committee, who carried a reward of ₹25 lakh, and his wife Rame Kalmu (30), a Platoon Party Committee Member (PPCM) with a bounty of ₹8 lakh. Others included Sukku Kalmu (38), Bablu Madvi (30), Kosi Madkam (28), and Reena Vanjam (28), each carrying rewards of ₹8 lakh. In Dantewada, five of the 15 who surrendered had a total bounty of ₹17 lakh. Among them were Budhram alias Lalu Kuhram, a divisional committee member with a bounty of ₹8 lakh, and his wife Kamli alias Moti Potawi, who carried a reward of ₹5 lakh. With this latest surrender, a total of 1,020 Maoists — 254 of them carrying rewards — have given up arms under the 'Lon Varratu' (Return to Your Home) campaign launched in June 2020. In Kanker, the 13 surrendered Maoists carried a combined reward of ₹62 lakh, according to superintendent of police Indira Kalyan Elesela. In Narayanpur, the eight who laid down arms had a total bounty of ₹33 lakh. One of them, Vatti Ganga alias Mukesh (44), who served as the Maoists' north bureau technical team in charge, carried a reward of ₹8 lakh. Each surrendered Maoist was given immediate assistance of ₹50,000 and will be rehabilitated under the provisions of the state government's surrender and reintegration policy.
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Can't open floodgates': SC junks plea for delimitation in AP, Telangana
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea seeking a fresh delimitation exercise in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, ruling that there exists a constitutional bar against taking up such a demand before the first census conducted after 2026, while also cautioning that entertaining such public interest petitions could 'open the floodgates' for similar pleas from other states. Supreme Court of India. (PTI) A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment, firmly rejecting allegations of discrimination vis-à-vis the separate delimitation conducted for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which was reconstituted in 2019 following the abrogation of Article 370. 'On a plain and harmonious reading... Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act (on increase in assembly seats) is subject to Article 170 of the Constitution,' said Justice Surya Kant while reading the operative portion of the verdict. 'We have held that this (granting the plea) will open floodgates for all states to approach seeking parity. We hold that the constitutional mandate under Article 170(3) serves as a bar. Demand for the delimitation is contrary to the same and thus fails,' he added. Article 170(3), inserted by the 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001, freezes the allocation of seats in state assemblies until data from the census conducted after 2026 is available. Dismissing the writ petition filed under Article 32, the court held that the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from the 2020 delimitation notification issued for Jammu & Kashmir was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. It clarified that delimitation provisions applicable to J&K, a Union Territory, were distinct from those governing states under Chapter III of Part VI of the Constitution, dealing with the structure, composition, functioning, and powers of state legislatures. 'J&K having been reconstituted is not governed by Chapter III of Part VI of the Constitution,' Justice Kant observed. He further noted that while 'legitimate expectation' is a well-settled principle of law, it 'does not lead to any legal right' and cannot override the express provisions of the Constitution. 'The expectation under the AP Reorganisation Act cannot be seen in isolation, as it is subject to Article 170,' he said. The writ petition, filed by K Purushottam Reddy in 2022, had sought directions to the Union of India to initiate the process of increasing the number of assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana under Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The petitioner argued that since the government had carried out a similar exercise in Jammu and Kashmir, post its reorganisation into a Union Territory, the exclusion of AP and Telangana amounted to 'unreasonable classification' and was therefore unconstitutional. It was contended that delimiting constituencies exclusively for J&K, while declining to operationalise Section 26 for AP and Telangana, violated the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument, holding that the two exercises were constitutionally distinct and based on separate legal frameworks. It underscored that while Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act contemplated an increase in the number of assembly seats in both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Article 170(3) of the Constitution clearly bars any delimitation exercise until after the first census post-2026. 'Thus, any expectation for an earlier delimitation, even if indicated in the Reorganisation Act, cannot override the Constitution itself,' the court held. The bench justified the separate delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir on the ground that it had undergone a fundamental constitutional reorganisation in 2019. Following the abrogation of Article 370, the former state was restructured into a Union Territory under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which empowered the Centre to initiate a fresh delimitation exercise through a Delimitation Commission. The petition before the court had attempted to argue that the same yardstick should apply to AP and Telangana. However, the bench held that Union territories are not subject to Article 170, which deals with the composition of state legislative assemblies. Therefore, the delimitation exercise in J&K could not be compared with that in states. This line of reasoning was consistent with the Supreme Court's February 2023 judgment, which upheld the validity of the delimitation exercise in Jammu and Kashmir, rejecting the challenge filed by two residents of Srinagar. In that verdict, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka dismissed the plea questioning the legal basis of setting up the Delimitation Commission for J&K and increasing its assembly seats from 83 to 90. The court had made it clear that the Delimitation Act, 2002, and the 2019 Reorganisation Act provided sufficient legal grounds for the commission's formation, and the Election Commission's role did not preclude the constitution of a separate delimitation body for the UT. The final delimitation order for J&K was notified in May 2022. It increased the number of assembly seats from 83 to 90, allocating 43 seats to Jammu and 47 to Kashmir. This marked a shift in the region's political balance, with Jammu's share rising to 47.8%, up from 44.6%, and Kashmir's falling to 52.2%, down from 55.4%. The exercise was carried out based on the 2011 Census, and despite opposition from regional parties, the Centre maintained that delimitation was a necessary step before holding fresh elections. The Union government had also argued in court that the Delimitation Commission's orders, once published in the Gazette, are final and not open to judicial review.
The Print
35 minutes ago
- The Print
India uses BRICS to push reforms—not to challenge the US
These nations are now challenging the hegemony of the West. Calls for de-dollarisation—reducing reliance on the US dollar in trade and finance— are becoming prominent, posing a threat to America's financial and geopolitical dominance. It gives China and Russia (and India too) a louder voice on the world stage. It fuels global economic realignment away from the dollar and Western institutions, pointing to a multipolar world order—something that US President Donald Trump doesn't support. Although forming groups of countries to promote cooperation is common globally, BRICS is more than a conventional grouping. It is a group of countries challenging the clout of the developed powers, particularly the US and European nations. In 2010, the first five members—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—constituted 18 per cent of the global GDP. Their collective share has risen to 26.5 percent in 2025. The latest edition of the BRICS Summit was significant because all 10 member countries participated. It included Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE, which attended as member states for the first time at the 2024 summit in Russia, and Indonesia, which joined in early 2025 as the first Southeast Asian country in the bloc. With its expansion, the group is now known as BRICS Plus—a term first used at the 2024 summit. Trump's worries with BRICS The recent expansion of BRICS, with five new members joining, has increased the worries of the West, particularly the US. And without mincing words, Trump has started expressing his unhappiness over the developments happening in BRICS. Here are the key reasons why Trump opposes BRICS: The primary reason is that both the original members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and new entrants like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Iran, and Ethiopia are openly discussing reducing reliance on the US dollar in trade and finance. Trump's long-standing 'America First' stance makes any move away from the dollar a direct challenge to U.S. economic influence and its ability to enforce sanctions. The second point that irks Trump is BRICS' geopolitical opposition to the West. BRICS increasingly positions itself as a counterweight to Western institutions like the G7, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. The deepening ties between China and Russia within BRICS are seen as part of a broader anti-Western alignment. Third, Trump has consistently taken a hardline stance on China, through trade wars, tariffs, tech and investment restrictions, etc. BRICS giving China a leadership platform to challenge the US on the global stage agitates him. He views BRICS as a vehicle for China's global expansion under the guise of multipolarity. Fourth, the inclusion of Saudi Arabia and Iran gives BRICS influence over global energy markets. There is growing potential for oil trade to be conducted in non-dollar currencies (e.g., yuan or BRICS currency), which would weaken the petrodollar system—a critical pillar of US global economic power. Fifth, Trump perceives BRICS expansion as a sign that the 'Global South' is drifting away from Western influence, forming its own independent bloc. This runs contrary to Trump's vision of negotiating 'from strength,' where US dominance is unquestioned. Sixth, Trump views global influence in zero-sum terms. Any rise of a non-Western grouping that excludes the US is seen as a personal and national affront. BRICS summits that propose alternative visions for world order without US involvement are perceived as a threat to 'American prestige'—something Trump values highly. He has threatened to impose higher tariffs on countries siding with the BRICS. He has already announced the imposition of 50 per cent tariffs on Brazil. Also read: BRICS nations resist 'anti-American' label after Trump tariff threat India's pragmatic approach Although India is a member of BRICS, its approach is more nuanced, balanced, and pragmatic compared to other members. India's stance is shaped by its national interests, strategic autonomy, and growing global ambitions. While it has been trying to promote its economic interests by promoting international trade and settlements in rupee—thereby reducing dependence on dollar—India is not anti-dollar. It supports a broader effort to diversify the global financial system, reduce dependency on a single currency, and promote a multipolar world order. India has initiated bilateral trade in rupees with countries such as Russia, the UAE, Sri Lanka, and Mauritius to reduce its forex outflows. So far, more than 20 countries have opened Vostro accounts to facilitate trade settlement in domestic currencies. India backs BRICS to create alternative payment mechanisms, like using local currencies or discussions around a potential BRICS currency, but remains cautious about their practicality. India understands the dominance of the dollar in global trade and finance and has not called for its outright replacement (or de-dollarisation). Instead, it favors the coexistence of multiple reserve currencies (like the euro, the yuan, and the rupee). India does not see BRICS as an anti-US bloc. It views the grouping as a platform for reforming global institutions, not for confrontation. India supports a world with multiple power centres, where the voices of emerging economies are better represented. India has been pleading for long to bring reforms in institutions like the United Nations, IMF, and World Bank, which it believes are West-dominated and don't reflect current global realities. In this context, under India's G20 presidency, an expert group was formed to prepare a report on reforms for global financial institutions. This group was co-convened by economists Larry Summers and NK Singh. Their report focused on strengthening Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). Guided by its own objectives, India uses BRICS to promote cooperation in technology, finance, infrastructure, and sustainable development. If the US is irked by Chinese dominance in BRICS, India too remains wary of China's influence in the bloc and rejects any behaviour that undermines its sovereignty or aligns too closely with Chinese interests. At the global level, India's balanced approach is to serve its national objectives and achieve its goals of protecting its national sovereignty. By promoting international settlements in Indian currency, reducing dependence on dollars, it's also trying to stop the de-weaponisation of dollars. India is promoting self-reliance through 'Aatmanirbhar Bharat', and discourages efforts of others (both the West and China) to weaponise global value chains. By promoting digital rupee payments, India is also trying to de-weaponise payment systems. These efforts protect our own national interest by not allowing others to dominate India. In the past, India has been able to demonstrate its clout by purchasing oil from Russia and Iran, promoting digital payments and pushing for reforms in global institutions at international fora. It's interesting that the US has not objected to these moves—perhaps looking at India as a force to balance the dominance of other countries, including China. Ashwani Mahajan is a professor at PGDAV College, University of Delhi. He tweets @ashwani_mahajan. Views are personal. (Edited by Ratan Priya)
