Why RSS Talks of Kings, Subjects and Duties
- The Wire
- May 4
- 5 min read
Why RSS Talks of Kings, Subjects and Duties: 5 Reasons Behind the Rhetoric
Talk of kings and 'Raj Dharma' by Hindutva proponents works precisely to replace the democratic leader model with the framework justifying the authoritative 'head'.
Speaking after the Pulwama terrorist attack, RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat declared, “The duty of the king is to protect his subjects. The king must perform his duty.” During the 2002 Gujarat riots, then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee advisedthen-Chief Minister Narendra Modi to follow ‘Raj Dharma’.
In 2016, Amit Shah included the “ideal king” alongside the ideal father or son when outlining societal ideals.
Why does rhetoric from the BJP and its ideological ally the Sangh Parivar persistently invoke these feudal concepts – kings, subjects, Sanatan Dharma, traditional duties – within India’s modern democratic republic?
This persistent recourse to the language of kingship is not accidental nostalgia. It demands close scrutiny, especially when deployed during crises or moments of ideological assertion. It acts as a deliberate, significant ideological manoeuvre, revealing a fundamental tension with the core principles of the republic.
This piece explores five key reasons why this anachronistic language is strategically used.
The clash is jarring. A republic, built on principles like popular sovereignty, citizenship defined by rights, equality before the law, and governance through elected, accountable representatives, operates with a specific political logic. Its legitimacy stems, in theory, from the consent of the governed. Its functioning relies on constitutional procedures, laws, and ways – however flawed – to question and challenge power.
The language of kings, subjects, and ‘Raj Dharma’ belongs to a different political universe altogether. This universe rests on hierarchy, authority often inherited or seen as divinely approved, and a social order where duties – often assigned by birth (like the caste system historically justified by Varnashrama Dharma) – outweigh inherent, universal rights.
The relationship is fundamentally unequal. The ruler has duties based on his status within a traditional order; the subjects owe obedience, receiving protection based on the ruler following his specific dharma, not as an entitlement based on their own rights as citizens.
Understanding why this outdated language is used requires seeing the difference between two opposing ideas of political authority. First is the democratic leader: their authority comes from the people’s mandate, is limited by the constitution, accountable to voters and the law, and involves the slow work of negotiation and consensus in a diverse society. This leader, however powerful, is constrained, temporary, and open to challenge.
Second is the authoritative head: their claim to rule often goes beyond elections, appealing to a deeper source – historical destiny, cultural embodiment, innate ability, divine ordination (as in the case of Narendra Modi) or, as seen here, a king-like status defined by ‘dharma’. This ‘head’ dislikes constraints, prefers decisive action over deliberation, sees dissent as disloyalty, and demands obedience, not just consent. The ‘head’ embodies a singular vision, impatient with democratic trappings.
The recurring talk of kings and ‘Raj Dharma’ by Hindutva proponents works precisely to replace the democratic leader model with the framework justifying the authoritative ‘head’. This ideological operation functions in several ways.
1.Displaces rights with duty
Centering discussion on the ruler’s ‘duty’ (dharma) rather than the citizen’s ‘rights’ (adhikar) reframes the basic political relationship. Rights empower citizens to make claims on the state and hold it accountable. The language of the ruler’s duty, especially when derived from tradition, positions people as passive recipients, dependent on the ruler’s virtue and adherence to a code defined outside democratic processes.
Accountability shifts upwards (to tradition or divine order) instead of downwards (to the people). This weakens the demanding citizen and promotes the compliant subject, a population easier for an authoritative ‘head’ to command.
2.Seeking legitimacy through tradition
Invoking ‘ideal kings’ or ‘Sanatan Dharma’ tries to anchor present political authority in a supposedly timeless, indigenous tradition, bypassing ‘Western’ democratic norms. It suggests the ‘head’, acting like an ‘ideal king’, fulfils a deeper civilisational duty, giving their rule a cultural weight beyond mere elections. This appeals to nationalist sentiment, framing acceptance as patriotic.
3.Reinforcing hierarchy
The king-subject metaphor is inherently anti-egalitarian. It assumes a natural order (remember, ‘dharma’ is an ontological declaration) where the ruler is superior to the ruled. This strongly resonates with traditional hierarchies like the caste system and aligns with the Hindutva project’s discomfort with modern equality.
Promoting the ‘ideal king’ implicitly validates the hierarchical vision he represented, making inequality seem natural rather than a social structure to be challenged.
This imposition of hierarchy isn’t just abstract; it can manifest concretely, for instance, in attempts to police culture and expression. A recent example involves the cancellation of a queer-themed dance performance in Rajasthan, reportedly pressured by the RSS’s cultural wing (Sanskar Bharati).
The justification given was that the performance showed a “rebellious attitude” towards tradition and promoted “unruly ideas… in the name of freedom,” framing democratic expression as subordinate to a narrow view of ‘dharma’ and societal discipline. This is the logic of the authoritative ‘head’ dictating cultural boundaries.
4.Ideology disguised as ‘common sense’
Since concepts like ‘Raj Dharma’, the ‘ideal king’, or appeals to protect ‘tradition’ are deeply embedded culturally, using them can feel natural and moral. The specific hierarchical and exclusionary power dynamics within these terms are masked; they are presented merely as right conduct or heritage protection, obscuring the political choice of this framework over the democratic one.
This normalisation is how ideology triumphs – making a specific, power-laden view seem like universal truth, enabling actions like suppressing queer art to be framed as protecting the collective, not violating rights.
5. Invoking the ‘king’s duty’ serves to deflect accountability
Talking about a king’s duty allows leaders to project an image of moral concern rooted in tradition. It cleverly avoids tough questions about specific government failures, state involvement in wrongdoing or violence, or problems with existing security or justice systems under the Constitution.
It allows the leadership, the ‘head’, to project solemn responsibility rooted in ancient virtue while avoiding engagement with uncomfortable questions about institutional failures, state complicity, or inadequate policy responses within the existing democratic and legal framework. It shifts the conversation from concrete accountability under law to a vague moral duty from a different political era.
Therefore, talk of kings, subjects and “Raj Dharma” in a republic is far from harmless. It’s a way of using language as part of a political project aiming to reshape the relationship between the state and the people.
It subtly weakens the foundations of democratic citizenship – rights, equality, accountability – replacing them with the hierarchical, duty-bound logic of a mythologized past, logic more suited to an authoritative ruler than accountable representatives. It’s an insidious attempt to hollow out the democracy within the republic, using the harmless-sounding language of tradition as a disguise for a fundamentally authoritarian vision.
© The Wire
