The authors discuss, in 256 pages and 15 chapters of main text, 27 pages of nine appendixes and 121 pages of notes and references, the various affiliates including the Muslim wing of the sangh and the current rebellion witnessed in Goa and Bihar elections.

The fifth chapter on Hindutva makes interesting reading. The authors point out that while the critics of the RSS use every opportunity (like twisting Bhagwat’s statement on reservation during the Bihar election), “to demonstrate that the parivar is fundamentally controlled by high-caste Hindus unconcerned about the social and economic well being of Dalits”, “at the ground level, the RSS has worked hard – and studies show it has had some success – to implement a wide range of social welfare activities among Dalits and tribals.” (2018, p.90)

That it has taken two US academics to bring out an authoritative work without ideological blinkers on an Indian organisation like the RSS is a sad reflection on Indian academics and media. Except for a very few works (Ratan Sharda 2018, Sanjeev Kelkar 2011 and M G Chitkara 2004) almost all ‘academic’ works centre around the 1939 out-of-context Golwalkar quote. Hence, in this refreshing and a comprehensive study, the fact that the characterisation of sangh by Andersen & Damle is still inherently Western, can be overlooked. In their 1987 book, they conceived the sangh as a pyramidal structure with the Shaka at the bottom (p.87). Here, after three decades, the book sees the sangh more mechanically like ‘organisational steel frame’ and ‘power vacuum’ than in organic terms.

The sangh’s organising principles, which elude the Western frameworks, are essentially Indic and more ecological than mechanical. For example, one of the sangh ideologues, K R Malkani, spoke as early as 1951 about ‘biotechnic order’ – showing an influence from the polymath and pioneering human ecologist Patrick Geddes, who in turn was highly influenced by Indic principles of social and habitat organisation as well as temple city planning.

The very term ‘shaka’ (branch) with the vast human networking suggests organising principles of the RSS that are radically different from the Western social movements. Hence, seeing the sangh approach as ‘civic religion practised by the Lutheran leadership in Scandinavian states’ though may be a good Western appropriation, does not do full justice to the deeper dimensions of the sangh worldview.

The sangh can be seen as the grand organism of Hinduness, adapting and reorganising constantly towards the fast-changing milieu. Andersen & Damle themselves point out such adaptations like the view of the RSS towards women’s issues. One should remember that not only is the woman affiliate of the RSS the first one to be formed, but it is the most independent of all the sangh affiliates. It is not subordinate but a parallel organisation. Further, it was founded by a widow – which in itself was a radical departure from orthodoxy those days in Maharashtra.

Now, sangh advocates gender equality in religious space (which even a substantial number of its own cadre are uncomfortable with) like, for instance, ‘noting favourably that women are now officiating as priests’. These changes again should be seen as an organic evolution and adaptation, unlike the leftist slogan-borrowing from the West.

Even Andersen & Damle are not immune to certain stereotypes despite their empirical studies shattering many stereotypes about the sangh. In the conclusion of the work, there is a passage where the authors quote Ashis Nandy and Donald Smith approvingly: