Behind RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat's Gen Z Outreach
While RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s Gen Z Outreach carries a strong element of ensuring that common voters do not lose trust and confidence in the Sangh Parivar, it was also aimed at attempting to split students and youth along class lines
In this Amrit Kaal, when justice for Dalits, Muslims, common people, and especially students and youth, remains elusive, RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s interaction with over 2,000 Gen Z and Gen Alpha students in Mumbai, in which he emphasised that youth protesters are not “anti-national” and that their grievances are genuine, has indeed come as a surprise.
A closer look at the interaction would reveal that Bhagwat’s engagement with Gen Z students at the IIMUN Annual Conference in Mumbai was primarily a political damage-control exercise. The outreach followed intense youth and student agitations over exam irregularities, governance issues, and police action. It was clear to Bhagwat that if the situation was allowed to drag on, it could pose a serious existential crisis for the saffron ecosystem. It was this compulsion that prompted Bhagwat to take the initiative to defuse the rising anger among students.
Electoral behaviour in India
While Bhagwat’s move carries a strong element of attempting to split students and youth along class lines, it was also aimed at ensuring that common voters do not lose trust and confidence in the Sangh Parivar. He is aware that once the saffron ecosystem loses the political space it has acquired through strenuous efforts, it would be difficult to regain it.
Indian voters choose political parties for many different reasons, including economic growth, leadership, welfare programmes, and local issues, rather than a single ideology like Hindutva. Electoral behaviour in India varies greatly by region, state context, and socio-economic factors. Voters often reject the ruling party due to dissatisfaction with governance, corruption, or unemployment. Caste, local alliances, regional aspirations, and community representation also play a major role in shaping electoral choices.
Much before the CJP launched its protest at Jantar Mantar, the NSUI, the students’ wing of the Congress, had held protest rallies in at least five states. Ironically, the saffron ecosystem had decried and insulted the agitators as anti-national. Intriguingly, Bhagwat failed to comprehend either the intensity of the agitation or the possible fallout it could have on the polity and political structure. The basic issue centred on the NTA, which is managed by hardcore RSS academics, although it is officially described as an autonomous body under the Government of India’s Ministry of Education, designated to conduct the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for medical admissions.
This was not the first time a paper leak had taken place. It had also occurred in 2024, when the same RSS-linked functionaries were at the helm. Bhagwat neither intervened nor initiated a dialogue with students or independent academics on the remedial measures needed to ensure that such incidents would not recur. It was only after June 6, when the protests posed a serious political threat to the BJP, RSS, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, that the RSS chief reached out to Gen Z and Gen Alpha students and youth, who together constitute around 38 crore people in India. Had the agitation not posed a serious existential crisis for the saffron ecosystem, Bhagwat would probably not have ventured to interact with them in Mumbai.
Tactical, strategic exercise
The August 6 outreach event in Mumbai was a strategic exercise in political and corporate image management. Corporate interests have major stakes in politics, the electoral system, and education. While the organisers presented it as a neutral youth dialogue, its timing closely followed intense student-led agitations over examination paper leaks and governance issues. There is little doubt that the event was a calculated effort by the Sangh Parivar to bridge a widening disconnect with the youth and neutralise potential anti-establishment momentum.
The BJP and RSS insiders maintain that regular public outreach, dialogue, and ideological engagement with different sections of society, including students, are standard and continuous organisational practices rather than reactive exercises. Bhagwat’s explicit statement that Gen Z protesters are “not anti-national” and that their grievances are legitimate may be seen either as a strategic move to win over students or as a compassionate bridge-building exercise. Equally, it can be interpreted as a tactical softening of tone to manage growing youth alienation.
The depth of Gen Z alienation could also be gauged from reports within the saffron ecosystem, particularly suggestions that the RSS wanted Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan to resign. This reflected the pressure generated by sustained youth-led protests. Traditional ideological strongholds face long-term challenges if younger demographics—comprising hundreds of millions of Gen Z and Gen Alpha individuals—become alienated from the ruling establishment. If Bhagwat was genuinely sincere in his observation that protesting does not make young people anti-national and that democratic agitation serves as a form of dialogue, what prevented him from acting much earlier?
Who were present at Mohan Bhagwat's program?
Ironically, while Bhagwat observed that agitations should follow democratic paths, he did not criticise the police for their harsh action against the students. Bhagwat’s outreach was not a routine exercise, as projected by his supporters. He had organised similar outreach programmes in 2016 and 2020, both at politically significant moments. The first followed demonetisation, while the second came in the wake of the historic farmers’ protest against the three agricultural laws. Protesters camped at Delhi’s borders for over a year, demanding legal guarantees for Minimum Support Prices (MSP) and the repeal of the laws, which eventually took place in late 2021. In 2026, Bhagwat interacted with students in the wake of the Gen Z protests. It is worth mentioning that Gen Z movements have contributed to political and governmental changes in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh over the past few years.
Although the RSS Chief’s engagement with students and youth was presented as an effort to address the generational disconnect and reframe student protests as a form of democratic dialogue, an examination of the participants suggests that the gathering consisted largely of students from elite and nouveau riche backgrounds. The organisers, acting under RSS direction, appeared to make a deliberate attempt to separate them from the ordinary students who had taken to the streets.
Was the theme of the interaction, “The Role of Youth in Uniting the World, the Indian Way”, relevant only to students belonging to affluent and elite sections?
Bhagwat’s intellectual inconsistency
Bhagwat was not seeking accountability. In a cautious and guarded manner, he commented on the inquisitiveness of the younger generation, observing that “Gen Z and Gen Alpha seek logical reasoning and clarity rather than accepting things blindly,” while contrasting them with older generations, who, according to him, traditionally followed elders without questioning.
Bhagwat’s intellectual inconsistency became evident in his contradictory observations. While he said that “older generations (including his own) obeyed elders and traditions without debate, whereas today’s youth demand logic, reason, and clear explanations”, he also remarked that young people have a democratic right to protest, viewing protests as a legitimate form of dialogue aimed at improving the system rather than as anti-national acts. He described the younger generation as an “honest generation” and stated that he would trust Gen Z blindly.
Nonetheless, the meeting was a soft-touch outreach, a strategic move employing what may be described as a “pincer strategy” to absorb youth dissent, rebrand the Sangh’s image, and prevent student-led unrest from evolving into a broader anti-establishment movement. The strategy involves soft conciliation towards the youth on one side while relying on systemic containment of anti-government hostility on the other. By validating the grievances of Gen Z and Gen Alpha, Bhagwat appears to be employing this dual approach, leveraging the power of the state on one hand while utilising the RSS’s cultural and consensus-building mechanisms on the other.
Rahul Gandhi has argued that the RSS has taken control of institutions of higher education. It would, therefore, be unrealistic to expect the Modi government to initiate a meaningful effort to cleanse the education system if doing so would undermine its own interests. Following the exposure of the NEET paper leak, Modi constituted a high-powered task force led by Nandan Nilekani to overhaul the public examination system, including NEET, and recommend administrative reforms for the NTA to improve efficiency, transparency, and institutional reliability. However, how far it will succeed remains uncertain, as some members continue to hold orthodox views.
It is also important to note that Bhagwat’s outreach coincided with Modi releasing a series of late-night social media videos urging his ministers to become more active on Instagram to connect with young people. The protests have prompted a broader review of the party’s engagement with the youth. They have made it abundantly clear that a significant disconnect exists between the organisation and students.
[The writer, Arun Srivastava, is a Senior Journalist.]
Follow ummid.com WhatsApp Channel for all the latest updates.
Select Language to Translate in Urdu, Hindi, Marathi or Arabic
