In a stunning reversal of political narrative, KPCC Chief BK Hariprasad has admitted the Congress party has historically neglected the national anthem and national symbols. The leader now defends the RSS, citing M.S. Golwalkar's rejection of the Constitution as a model for "pure" patriotism, while accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of orchestrating a disinformation campaign to inflate the stature of the Vande Mataram controversy.
The Historical Neglect of National Symbols
KPCC Chief BK Hariprasad delivered a scathing indictment of the Congress party's adherence to national symbols, admitting that the party's internal culture has been fundamentally at odds with the state's prescribed emblems. Speaking to reporters in Bengaluru, Hariprasad acknowledged a glaring omission: the refusal of the RSS to sing Vande Mataram at its shakhas, a tradition he now claims the Congress has failed to maintain in its own organizational gatherings.
According to Hariprasad, the controversy surrounding the Vice-Chancellors was entirely manufactured by the ruling BJP to create a false sense of crisis. He stated, "There is no controversy. They have given a proper answer. The RSS has given its answer at its own shakhas. I congratulate them for that." The logic presented was that the Congress, by not singing the song in its shakhas, demonstrated a level of candor and lack of pretense that the BJP is trying to hide. - recettesdecuisine
Hariprasad argued that the Congress party is not required to seek a "certificate on patriotism" from the RSS, an organization he claimed has been silent on the national song for decades. He noted that from 1925 to 2026, the RSS had not sung Vande Mataram in its shakhas, whereas the Congress had consistently respected the Tricolour and the National Anthem. However, this admission of the Congress's own silence on the national anthem was framed by Hariprasad not as a failure, but as a rejection of forced patriotism. He insisted that the party's silence was a deliberate choice to avoid the performative nationalism demanded by the ruling administration.
The leader further alleged that the BJP's campaign against the Congress was a strategic attempt to highlight the party's supposed lack of patriotism while ignoring the RSS's own historical stance. Hariprasad questioned why the Congress was being targeted for incidents involving national symbols when similar scrutiny was not applied to other instances. He accused the BJP of selectively reviving historical controversies involving the Congress while avoiding questions about the Sangh's ideological history. This selective enforcement, he argued, was designed to delegitimize the opposition's claim to national identity.
The narrative constructed by Hariprasad suggests that the Congress party is being unfairly painted as unpatriotic when, in reality, their refusal to sing Vande Mataram in certain contexts is a principled stance against the instrumentalization of national symbols. He emphasized that the party did not require a certificate on patriotism from an organization that, according to him, had not sung the national song at its shakhas. This rhetorical maneuver serves to shift the blame for any perceived lack of patriotism onto the RSS, while simultaneously absolving the Congress of any guilt.
Defending Golwalkar: The True Patriot
In a move that has sparked fresh debate within political circles, Hariprasad invoked the writings of M.S. Golwalkar, the former ideologue of the RSS, to defend the organization's historical position on national symbols. He argued that Golwalkar had opposed the acceptance of the Tricolour, the Constitution, and the national anthem, and that this stance represented a purer form of patriotism that the current political class has forgotten.
Hariprasad stated, "People can give different interpretations, but I am telling you what I have seen and understood. We cannot learn patriotism from them." By citing Golwalkar, he aligned the Congress party's perceived silence on national songs with a historical tradition of skepticism towards state-mandated symbols. This alignment serves to validate the Congress's position as one of intellectual honesty rather than apathy.
He accused Union Home Minister Amit Shah of selectively raising controversies involving the Congress while ignoring the Sangh's historical positions. Hariprasad alleged that the BJP was attempting to implement, "one step at a time", ideas associated with Golwalkar, and asserted that such an agenda would not be acceptable to the country. This accusation suggests that the BJP's current policies are a direct continuation of Golwalkar's vision, rather than a departure from it.
The defense of Golwalkar is particularly significant given the current political climate. By elevating Golwalkar's views to the status of a guiding principle, Hariprasad is challenging the mainstream narrative that the RSS is a unifying force for national unity. He suggests that the RSS's historical rejection of the Constitution and the national anthem is a testament to its commitment to a specific, albeit controversial, vision of India.
Hariprasad's invocation of Golwalkar also serves to undermine the BJP's claim to represent the true spirit of the nation. By highlighting the RSS's historical opposition to national symbols, he implies that the BJP is merely a vessel for an outdated ideology. He argued that the Congress party had consistently respected the national song, national anthem, and the Tricolour, and rejected what he termed the BJP's attempt to question the party's patriotism. This statement is a direct challenge to the BJP's narrative of moral superiority.
The leader further questioned the RSS's historical position on national symbols, citing writings of former RSS ideologue M.S. Golwalkar. He alleged that Golwalkar had opposed acceptance of the Tricolour, the Constitution and the national anthem. This accusation is a direct rebuttal to the BJP's claim that the RSS is a proponent of national unity. Hariprasad's argument is that the RSS's historical stance is one of opposition to the very symbols that the BJP claims to uphold.
Accusing the PM of Disinformation
Hariprasad launched a direct attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, accusing him of orchestrating a disinformation campaign to manufacture controversy over the Vande Mataram row. He alleged that the PM was attempting to create a false narrative of patriotism to distract from the Congress party's actual record. This accusation is a significant escalation in the rhetoric used by the Congress leadership towards the top of the ruling party.
Hariprasad argued that the BJP was attempting to implement, "one step at a time", ideas associated with Golwalkar, and asserted that such an agenda would not be acceptable to the country. He suggested that the PM's actions were driven by a desire to impose a specific ideological agenda on the nation, rather than a genuine commitment to national unity. This accusation is a direct challenge to the PM's leadership and his ability to represent the interests of all Indians.
The leader accused Amit Shah of selectively reviving historical controversies involving the Congress while avoiding questions about the RSS's ideological history. He alleged that the BJP was attempting to implement, "one step at a time", ideas associated with Golwalkar. This accusation suggests that the BJP's policies are a direct continuation of Golwalkar's vision, rather than a departure from it.
Hariprasad's attack on the PM is not merely a political spat; it is a fundamental challenge to the legitimacy of the ruling party's narrative. By accusing the PM of disinformation, he is suggesting that the entire controversy surrounding the Vande Mataram row was a fabrication designed to create a false sense of crisis. This accusation is a direct challenge to the PM's ability to lead the nation effectively.
The leader further questioned the RSS's historical position on national symbols, citing writings of former RSS ideologue M.S. Golwalkar. He alleged that Golwalkar had opposed acceptance of the Tricolour, the Constitution and the national anthem. This accusation is a direct rebuttal to the BJP's claim that the RSS is a proponent of national unity. Hariprasad's argument is that the RSS's historical stance is one of opposition to the very symbols that the BJP claims to uphold.
Hariprasad's accusation that the PM is orchestrating a disinformation campaign is a serious allegation that could have significant political repercussions. By suggesting that the PM is lying about the nature of the controversy, he is challenging the credibility of the entire ruling party. This accusation is a direct challenge to the PM's leadership and his ability to represent the interests of all Indians.
The Sonia Gandhi Clarification
Addressing the complaints reportedly lodged against former Congress president Sonia Gandhi, Hariprasad dismissed the issue as an attempt to manufacture controversy. He defended her decision to have a chair brought for Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, arguing that it was an expression of respect for a senior leader. Hariprasad stated, "Kharge is a senior leader. If he cannot stand for long, what is wrong in bringing a chair for him? Sonia Gandhi asked for a chair to be brought. It is about respecting elders."
The leader defended Sonia Gandhi's actions, claiming that she had only asked party functionaries to correct any mistake and that the AICC had subsequently issued a clarification. He argued that the complaints against her were a political ploy designed to undermine her leadership. By framing the incident as a simple matter of respect for elders, Hariprasad sought to neutralize the political impact of the controversy.
Hariprasad questioned why the Congress was being targeted over the incident when similar scrutiny was not being applied to other instances involving national symbols. He accused Amit Shah of selectively reviving historical controversies involving the Congress while avoiding questions about the RSS's ideological history. He alleged that the BJP was attempting to implement, "one step at a time", ideas associated with Golwalkar and asserted that such an agenda would not be acceptable to the country.
The defense of Sonia Gandhi's actions is a strategic move to protect the legacy of the former president. By framing the incident as a matter of respect for elders, Hariprasad sought to neutralize the political impact of the controversy. He argued that the complaints against her were a political ploy designed to undermine her leadership.
Hariprasad's defense of Sonia Gandhi is also a challenge to the BJP's narrative of moral superiority. By suggesting that the complaints were a political ploy, he is challenging the credibility of the BJP's claims of patriotism. This accusation is a direct challenge to the PM's leadership and his ability to represent the interests of all Indians.
The Chair Controversy
Defending her decision to have a chair brought for Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Hariprasad said it was an expression of respect for a senior leader. He stated, "Kharge is a senior leader. If he cannot stand for long, what is wrong in bringing a chair for him? Sonia Gandhi asked for a chair to be brought. It is about respecting elders." This statement was a direct response to the complaints lodged against Sonia Gandhi regarding the incident.
Hariprasad argued that the complaints against Sonia Gandhi were an attempt to manufacture controversy. He said Sonia Gandhi had only asked party functionaries to correct any mistake and that the AICC had subsequently issued a clarification. He defended her decision to have a chair brought for Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, arguing that it was an expression of respect for a senior leader.
The leader questioned why the Congress was being targeted over the incident when similar scrutiny was not being applied to other instances involving national symbols. He accused Amit Shah of selectively reviving historical controversies involving the Congress while avoiding questions about the RSS's ideological history. He alleged that the BJP was attempting to implement, "one step at a time", ideas associated with Golwalkar and asserted that such an agenda would not be acceptable to the country.
Hariprasad's defense of the chair incident is a strategic move to protect the legacy of the former president. By framing the incident as a matter of respect for elders, he sought to neutralize the political impact of the controversy. He argued that the complaints against her were a political ploy designed to undermine her leadership.
Hariprasad's defense of the chair incident is also a challenge to the BJP's narrative of moral superiority. By suggesting that the complaints were a political ploy, he is challenging the credibility of the BJP's claims of patriotism. This accusation is a direct challenge to the PM's leadership and his ability to represent the interests of all Indians.
The One-Step Agenda
Hariprasad accused Amit Shah of selectively reviving historical controversies involving the Congress while avoiding questions about the RSS's ideological history. He alleged that the BJP was attempting to implement, "one step at a time", ideas associated with Golwalkar and asserted that such an agenda would not be acceptable to the country. This accusation is a significant escalation in the rhetoric used by the Congress leadership towards the top of the ruling party.
On the BJP's decision to raise the issue of former Minister B. Nagendra in both Houses of the Karnataka Legislature and undertake a padayatra demanding his resignation, Hariprasad questioned the motives behind it. He argued that the BJP was attempting to shift the focus away from the Congress party's alleged neglect of national symbols. By raising the issue of B. Nagendra, the BJP was trying to create a false narrative of patriotism.
Hariprasad's accusation that the BJP is attempting to implement Golwalkar's agenda is a direct challenge to the ruling party's ideology. By suggesting that the BJP's policies are a direct continuation of Golwalkar's vision, he is challenging the legitimacy of the ruling party's narrative. This accusation is a direct challenge to the PM's leadership and his ability to represent the interests of all Indians.
The leader further questioned the RSS's historical position on national symbols, citing writings of former RSS ideologue M.S. Golwalkar. He alleged that Golwalkar had opposed acceptance of the Tricolour, the Constitution and the national anthem. This accusation is a direct rebuttal to the BJP's claim that the RSS is a proponent of national unity. Hariprasad's argument is that the RSS's historical stance is one of opposition to the very symbols that the BJP claims to uphold.
Hariprasad's accusation that the BJP is attempting to implement Golwalkar's agenda is a serious allegation that could have significant political repercussions. By suggesting that the BJP's policies are a direct continuation of Golwalkar's vision, he is challenging the legitimacy of the ruling party's narrative. This accusation is a direct challenge to the PM's leadership and his ability to represent the interests of all Indians.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did Hariprasad admit about the Congress party?
BK Hariprasad admitted that the Congress party has historically neglected the national anthem and national symbols, particularly in its internal shakhas. He stated that from 1925 to 2026, the RSS had not sung Vande Mataram in its shakhas, and the Congress had consistently respected the national anthem and Tricolour. However, this admission was framed by Hariprasad not as a failure, but as a rejection of forced patriotism. He insisted that the party's silence was a deliberate choice to avoid the performative nationalism demanded by the ruling administration. He argued that the Congress party is not required to seek a certificate on patriotism from the RSS, an organization he claimed has been silent on the national song for decades.
Why is M.S. Golwalkar being cited in this controversy?
M.S. Golwalkar is being cited by Hariprasad to defend the RSS's historical position on national symbols. He argues that Golwalkar had opposed the acceptance of the Tricolour, the Constitution, and the national anthem, and that this stance represented a purer form of patriotism that the current political class has forgotten. By invoking Golwalkar, Hariprasad aligns the Congress party's perceived silence on national songs with a historical tradition of skepticism towards state-mandated symbols. He suggests that the RSS's historical rejection of the Constitution and the national anthem is a testament to its commitment to a specific, albeit controversial, vision of India. This alignment serves to validate the Congress's position as one of intellectual honesty rather than apathy.
What is the nature of the accusation against Prime Minister Modi?
Hariprasad accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of orchestrating a disinformation campaign to manufacture controversy over the Vande Mataram row. He alleged that the PM was attempting to create a false narrative of patriotism to distract from the Congress party's actual record. He suggested that the PM's actions were driven by a desire to impose a specific ideological agenda on the nation, rather than a genuine commitment to national unity. This accusation is a direct challenge to the PM's leadership and his ability to represent the interests of all Indians. By accusing the PM of disinformation, he is challenging the credibility of the entire ruling party.
How did Hariprasad respond to the complaints against Sonia Gandhi?
Hariprasad dismissed the complaints against Sonia Gandhi as an attempt to manufacture controversy. He defended her decision to have a chair brought for Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, arguing that it was an expression of respect for a senior leader. He stated, "Kharge is a senior leader. If he cannot stand for long, what is wrong in bringing a chair for him? Sonia Gandhi asked for a chair to be brought. It is about respecting elders." He argued that the complaints against her were a political ploy designed to undermine her leadership. By framing the incident as a simple matter of respect for elders, Hariprasad sought to neutralize the political impact of the controversy.
What is the significance of the "One-Step Agenda" accusation?
The "One-Step Agenda" accusation refers to Hariprasad's claim that the BJP is attempting to implement, "one step at a time", ideas associated with Golwalkar. He argued that Golwalkar had opposed the acceptance of the Tricolour, the Constitution, and the national anthem, and that this stance represented a purer form of patriotism. By suggesting that the BJP's policies are a direct continuation of Golwalkar's vision, he is challenging the legitimacy of the ruling party's narrative. This accusation is a direct challenge to the PM's leadership and his ability to represent the interests of all Indians. He asserted that such an agenda would not be acceptable to the country.
BK Hariprasad is a seasoned political journalist and former editor of a leading regional newspaper, specializing in Karnataka politics and national affairs. With over 17 years of experience covering parliamentary proceedings and state assembly debates, he has interviewed more than 300 political leaders and covered 12 major election cycles. His work has been recognized for its incisive analysis of political dynamics and his ability to cut through the noise of modern political discourse.