The Dalit Sangharsha Samiti (DSS) has issued a bold statement condemning the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates for what it described as an attempt to project religious slogans as a pathway to public authority. At a press briefing held in Bengaluru, DSS leaders declared that permissions for rallies, processions, and events come from constitutional provisions, not from chanting “Jai Shri Ram.” They argued that no individual or organisation can claim entitlement to public spaces on the basis of religious identity and insisted that state institutions cannot be pressured by emotional or religious majoritarianism.
Civil liberties groups have echoed the DSS stance, cautioning that public space cannot be distributed based on who shouts the loudest or commands the biggest street presence. They argued that the constitution is designed to prevent domination by powerful organisations and to protect citizens who may not mobilise large crowds. According to them, equating religious slogans with legitimacy erodes the rule of law and encourages mob politics. They believe that democratic societies must reject intimidation tactics, even when framed as expressions of cultural pride, as they undermine equal citizenship.
Grassroots observers said that the debate over permissions is a symptom of deeper tensions surrounding identity-based politics. They noted that both political parties and social groups often exploit religious sentiment to gain influence, while rarely advocating for constitutional education. According to them, the lack of awareness about legal structures enables misinformation to flourish. They suggested that communities need more exposure to civic education so they can differentiate between rights guaranteed by law and claims made using emotion. Without such awareness, they warned, society becomes vulnerable to manipulation.
Some religious leaders have also intervened, asserting that the sanctity of spiritual slogans should not be reduced to political bargaining tools. They argued that faith-based expressions must remain sacred and free from political misuse. A few Hindu priests urged organisations to protect the dignity of religious chants by not wielding them as weapons to demand privileges. They emphasised that genuine spirituality is rooted in ethics, humility, and discipline, not entitlement. According to them, politicising religion ultimately corrupts the moral value of traditions.
Younger activists from the Dalit movement argued that such conflicts reveal how religion is often used to silence criticism rather than encourage dialogue. They said that questioning political strategies involving religious identity is not the same as disrespecting faith. For them, the real insult to religion lies in using it to gain unfair access to power. They warned that if constitutional norms are overridden by emotional claims, minorities, women, Dalits, and economically weaker groups will bear the brunt of discrimination. They insisted that resisting such trends is necessary to safeguard inclusive democracy.
Political analysts predict that confrontations like this will continue as groups attempt to expand influence through symbolic ownership of public space. They noted that many organisations prefer religious mobilisation because it generates loyalty through emotional appeal, often without the burden of legal accountability. Analysts said that the DSS response marks an attempt to shift the conversation back to constitutional responsibility and civic equality. Whether this will reduce the influence of religious entitlement in public administration remains uncertain, but it has forced a critical debate.
Ultimately, the DSS statement reflects a broader warning that India cannot afford confusion between spiritual faith and state authority. They argued that the strength of the nation lies in protecting equal rights for all, not in granting privilege to those who command cultural dominance. The organisation emphasised that respect for religion and respect for law must coexist without one overshadowing the other. Their message concludes that democracy will survive only when institutions remain independent, citizens remain informed, and the constitution remains above every slogan—no matter how popular or sacred.
The organisation emphasised that India’s constitutional framework guarantees equality for all communities, regardless of faith or ideology. DSS leaders criticised the growing narrative that demanding permissions by invoking religious slogans is a form of cultural right. According to them, cultural freedom is protected, but it must function within legal procedures set by state authorities. They alleged that certain groups attempt to bypass rules by projecting denial of permissions as an attack on Hindu identity, which they described as a deliberate tactic to exploit religious sentiment.
DSS leaders accused RSS-linked groups of pushing a narrative in which public institutions are challenged whenever they refuse to entertain requests that violate safety guidelines, traffic concerns, or local legal restrictions. They said that this strategy creates an illusion that government authorities are biased when they are merely enforcing regulations. The Samiti warned that no group—regardless of its religious affiliation—should be allowed to claim privilege over others. They stressed that constitutional order cannot bow to intimidation or emotional appeals.
Constitutional Authority vs. Religious Symbolism
The DSS demanded that law enforcement agencies remain neutral and firmly uphold constitutional duties without fear of being painted as anti-religion. Members argued that India’s constitution protects every religion equally, and therefore no community can assert a superior claim in the name of faith. They criticised what they described as a growing trend of substituting legal rights with religious symbolism, claiming that the misuse of slogans weakens democracy by blurring the boundary between cultural expression and governance.
The organisation urged citizens to understand the difference between religious freedom and political mobilisation using religion. While freedom to worship is fundamental, DSS argued that the constitution does not endorse religious majoritarianism or privilege groups that use aggressive methods to secure public space. They asserted that respecting constitutional rules is itself a patriotic responsibility, and that no slogan—however popular—can replace due legal process. According to them, attempts to weaponise religious emotion threaten India’s pluralism.
The DSS also responded to criticisms that they were targeting Hindu identity. Leaders clarified that their objection is not to the slogan itself but to “the misuse of slogans as instruments of political entitlement.” They emphasised that everyone has the right to chant religious slogans, but no one has the right to use them as a substitute for administrative procedures. They accused some political actors of deliberately manipulating faith to gain disproportionate influence. The Samiti stated that equality before law means all requests must undergo the same scrutiny, whether they come from Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Dalit groups.
They added that invoking the constitution to protect public order is not an attack on religious freedom but a defence against political opportunism. DSS leaders urged Hindus, Muslims, and other communities to reject any group that claims divine endorsement for political demands. They argued that collaborations across communities in defence of constitutional authority are crucial to safeguard democracy. In their view, progressive religious voices must also condemn the misuse of spiritual traditions for power struggles.
Law, Public Safety, and Accountability in a Polarising Climate
Legal experts supporting the DSS position argued that permissions for public events must be based on criteria like crowd control, infrastructure capacity, security risks, and local sensitivities. If these rules are ignored, the consequences fall on ordinary citizens who suffer through blocked roads, communal tensions, noise pollution, or disruptions in emergency services. They warned that substituting legal regulation with religious assertion could result in chaos and set a dangerous precedent where every group demands special treatment based on faith.
Public policy analysts noted that confrontations over permissions often escalate because authorities hesitate to enforce rules consistently, fearing backlash from politically influential organisations. They believe that clearer communication, stronger transparency, and documentation around permissions can prevent groups from claiming discrimination. Analysts suggested that digital systems could help depoliticise the process by showing objectively why requests are approved or rejected. They argued that administrative neutrality must be protected with technology when social pressures intensify.
Activists within the Samiti stated that they will continue to oppose any attempt to turn public regulation into a religious debate. They highlighted that Dalits, Adivasis, and marginalised communities have historically suffered when religious majoritarianism influences governance. DSS leaders said their struggle is not against any religion but against systems that weaponise faith to silence the oppressed and privilege the powerful. They reminded that constitutional values emerged precisely to protect society from authoritarian tendencies arising out of religion, caste, or class dominance.
Socio-political scholars commented that the confrontation between DSS and RSS over constitutional authority reflects a deeper battle over the idea of citizenship itself. The question, they said, is whether rights come from being a believer in a particular religion or from being an equal citizen of a democratic republic. They warned that if rights begin to depend on majoritarian identity, the foundational promise of justice, equality, and dignity will collapse. The scholars believe that organisations like DSS play a crucial role in reminding society that law—not faith—is the source of freedom.
As tensions continue over permissions and public messaging, the DSS has announced plans to organise awareness campaigns across Karnataka to educate youth about constitutional values. They said that citizens must understand what it means to demand rights within legal frameworks instead of emotional rhetoric. Leaders vowed to resist any attempt to normalise intimidation in the name of religion. They concluded that the constitution represents the collective faith of India’s people, beyond any specific religious slogan, and that it remains the ultimate source of authority in a democratic nation.
Follow: Karnataka Government
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
