A recent statement by Madhya Pradesh minister Kunwar Vijay Shah about Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, a Muslim officer in “Operation Sindoor,” once again grimly showed the fractured understanding of nationhood in Indian public life. Shah, the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, reportedly said, “Jinhone humari betiyon ke sindoor ujade the… humne unhiki behen bhej kar ke unki aisi ki taisi karwayi (Those who wiped the vermillion off our daughters’ foreheads… we sent their sister to teach them a lesson).”Denunciations followed, as did Shah’s claim of distortion. Yet, his framing of a serving Indian officer as “unhiki behen” (their sister), rather than by her professional role, is hard to ignore. It clearly shows a persistent, ideologically driven tendency to see certain citizens, especially minorities, as not truly belonging, no matter what they do. The issue isn’t just one minister’s words, but the deeper ideology that allows and emboldens one to express such views.A key question that this incident brings forth is: what are the ‘terms of belonging’ to the Indian nation as defined by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological force shaping worldviews like minister Shah’s?According to its foundational texts, particularly the words of its key ideologue M.S. Golwalkar, how does one qualify as truly “Indian”, especially if Muslim or Christian? How are such exclusionary statements justified? The answer, explained by Golwalkar’s principles, deeply affects millions and the nature of the Indian republic.Let us examine six key pillars of Golwalkar’s vision, built not just as a cultural ideal but as an instrument of power.The first pillar of Golwalkar’s concept establishes the Hindu as the primordial and “natural” inhabitant, thereby claiming primacy.Golwalkar’s concept of Indian nationhood rests on an idea that creates a clear pecking order: Hindus are not just one community among many but Bharat’s original, “natural” inhabitants. In We or Our Nationhood Defined, he writes, “it is the forefathers of the Hindu People that have set up standards and traditions of love and devotion for the motherland,” adding, “only the Hindu has been living here as the child of this soil.”He presents this not as debatable history, but as basic truth, giving Hindus a special, inherent link to Indian territory. This immediately frames non-Hindus – especially Muslims and Christians, whose faiths the RSS calls “foreign” and historically hostile – as, at best, latecomers or tolerated minorities with secondary rights. Their belonging isn’t seen as natural or obvious. Their Indianness becomes always conditional, to be earned on terms set by this “original” community. This pillar creates a basic imbalance in national identity, justifying one group’s dominance by making its claim to the land seem natural.The second pillar extends beyond mere territory by rejecting what Golwalkar considered superficial citizenship.Building on Hindu primacy, Golwalkar strongly rejects “territorial nationalism.” The modern, secular idea that nationality comes mainly from birth in a country (jus soli) or legal naturalisation is not enough for him. He says plainly, “Living in the same region isn’t enough,” and explains, “The mere fact of birth or nurture in a particular territory, without a corresponding mental pattern, can never give a person the status of a national in that land.”This is a crucial ideological strategy. It tries to replace the legal, civic basis of modern citizenship – which, in principle, treats all equally – with a vague test of cultural and ideological agreement. If birthright or citizenship papers aren’t most important, the power to define who is a national shifts from law to those who claim to interpret the nation’s “soul”. This allows for discrimination, excluding those seen as culturally “alien”, regardless of their legal status. It creates a permanent second class of citizens whose belonging is always questioned.The third pillar identifies “mental allegiance” as the decisive test for nationality, a means of defining and policing loyalty.Golwalkar calls “mental allegiance” the “universally accepted criterion for nationality”. For him, this means loyalty not mainly to the secular Indian state or its constitution, but to the cultural-spiritual core of the “Hindu nation” – its traditions, sacred places, historical stories and heroes.His anecdote of the British officer of German descent during World War II shows this. The officer’s British citizenship and loyal service were not enough because he was suspected of a lingering “attachment to Germany”. Golwalkar’s praise for this as a “mature… understanding of nationalism” reveals his core belief: no formal belonging is more important than this deeper, cultural-spiritual loyalty. This redefines loyalty from a civic virtue into cultural conformity. The power to define “true” allegiance and judge who has it falls to the dominant cultural group, making “mental allegiance” a powerful tool to control and exclude those who don’t conform ideologically.The fourth pillar posits an immutable “nature” for certain groups, thereby essentialising them as “the Other.”To stress that some groups have a fixed, unchangeable identity that prevents them from fully integrating, Golwalkar uses parables. He tells of a lioness raising a jackal cub with her own. Though raised as a lion, when facing an elephant, the jackal’s inborn fear – “nature” – takes over. Golwalkar drives home the moral with a Sanskrit shloka, roughly translated as: ‘Doubtless, you are brave… but the species in which you are born is not the one that can kill an elephant.’Applying this animal analogy to minorities like Muslims and Christians makes deep suspicion seem natural. It suggests their “nature” is fundamentally different, perhaps incompatible with the “Hindu national” character. It implies that “nurture” – even generations in India – cannot overcome this basic “nature” without a complete change. It casts permanent doubt on their loyalty, making them seem forever “other.” This kind of biological thinking, when applied to groups of people, locks in identities and justifies discrimination by claiming unchangeable differences prevent true integration.The fifth pillar demands complete cultural surrender from minorities, an assimilation process amounting to self-annihilation.This thinking logically leads to Golwalkar’s strict conditions for Muslims and Christians to be considered “Indian”. Being a law-abiding citizen or patriotic isn’t enough; the price is deep cultural and spiritual self-denial. They must, he writes, “give up their present foreign mental complexion and merge in the common stream of our national life.”He claims their ancestors were Hindus converted through “fear… coercion… temptations… or deception,” so their descendants must “overthrow all signs of slavery… and follow the ancestral ways.” This “merging” is complete cultural assimilation, giving up their distinct religious identities for Hindu ways. Non-Hindus must embrace Hindu traditions and heroes like Rama and Krishna as their own, adopt Vedanta’s teachings, and accept Moksha as their spiritual goal. Their own faiths – Islam, Christianity – are allowed only if figures like Allah or Christ are treated as minor gods within a Hindu-focused system. They cannot have their own religious view separate from or critical of the dominant Hindu framework.Their original faiths, if kept, can only be very limited private choices (vyakti dharma), secondary to public duties (rashtra dharma) that align with the Hindu nation. This isn’t an invitation to a shared national life as distinct equals but a demand for cultural “rebirth” into Hinduism’s “ancient national lineage” – a rebirth requiring the death of their previous cultural self. Those resisting this are seen not just as outsiders, but as potential dangers and “internal threats”.The sixth pillar advances a form of “national integration” inspired by Mazzini, reflecting an authoritarian logic of homogenisation.RSS nationalism drew inspiration not from secular, civic nationalisms but from 19th-century “national integration” projects (“blood-and-soil” type of nationalisms) of figures like Italy’s Giuseppe Mazzini and Giuseppe Garibaldi. These projects aimed to create single nation-states from divided lands, a challenge for Italy (then just a “geographical expression”) and Germany in the 19th century. “National integration” became vital, often forcing a dominant cultural identity on others.India, with its vast diversity, faced an even greater “integration” challenge. For the RSS, this Mazzini/Garibaldi model – creating one cultural-national identity out of many – became a plan to unite culture and ideology.This explains the RSS’s long-held suspicion of anyone asserting regional, language or religious differences. Golwalkar condemned federalism as a “poisonous seed”. The RSS has long opposed states based on language, promoted Hindi, and seen special minority rights as appeasement that weakens national cohesion and hinders a culturally uniform Hindu Rashtra.This “national integration”, for the RSS, isn’t about blending diversity in a system that values many views; it’s about systematically absorbing all elements into one preset national (Hindu) form, like all those peripatetic Atmans merging in the ultimate Brahman.The Italian concept of fasci (a bundle of rods, symbolising strength through unity, the root of “fascism”) echoes this ideal of a tightly bound nation where differences are absorbed or crushed. This “integration” is imposed unity, its terms set by the dominant group. Such intense focus on cultural nationalism also conveniently hides social and economic problems. By making the culturally defined “nation” supreme, and labelling internal disagreement as “anti-national”, this ideology helps the dominant class maintain control.Therefore, understanding Golwalkar’s blueprint reveals the enduring implications of this ideology and how it connects to minister Vijay Shah’s framing of Colonel Qureshi. In Golwalkar’s framework, such words aren’t accidental. They logically follow the ideology’s core tenets.Colonel Qureshi, despite her uniform and service, can still be ideologically positioned not as “our officer” but as linked to “them” – the perceived “enemy” or perpetual “other”, whose integration is suspect, perhaps impossible without complete cultural capitulation.Her achievements matter less if her primary identity – her religion, deemed “foreign” by followers of this vision – hasn’t undergone the cultural assimilation Golwalkar demands. As a result, her loyalty remains questionable, subject to a cultural purity test that she, as a Muslim, is predestined to fail unless she renounces or reconfigures her identity.