Instead of Opposing the RSS, Intolerant Americans Should Look Within — Arvind Sisodia

Instead of Opposing the Sangh, Intolerant Americans Should Look Within — Arvind Sisodia

Kota, August 30: Strongly reacting to what he described as a continuing negative narrative against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) by American institutions and certain think tanks, Arvind Sisodia, Trustee for Education Promotion of the Rajasthan State Textbook Board and senior thinker, has hit back at the United States, urging it to examine its own history before passing judgment on India's cultural organizations.

"Before branding India's cultural organizations as 'intolerant,' America should look into its own past—a history marked by violence, bloodshed and grave violations of human rights. A country that presents itself as the global champion of human rights has itself been responsible for some of the most violent episodes in modern history and continues to pursue policies aimed at preserving its global dominance," Sisodia said.

India and the Sangh's Civilizational Ethos

Sisodia said that the RSS represents a cultural and nationalist tradition rooted in India's long-standing ethos of humanity and universal acceptance.

"The Sangh is a revered institution of a country that has consistently upheld the values of humanity. India has provided refuge to communities that found no refuge elsewhere. It is a civilization that regards the entire world as one family and respects different faiths, traditions and schools of thought," he said.

According to Sisodia, the opposition raised in the United States during the ideological visit of the RSS chief only exposes what he described as America's "double standards."

"Those who lecture India on tolerance should first examine their own record," he added.

Sisodia highlighted several historical and contemporary issues to support his criticism of America's policies.

The Historical Destruction of America's Indigenous Peoples

Sisodia pointed to the history of the United States and the treatment of its indigenous population.

He said that white settlers who today project America as a model of civilization and tolerance were responsible for the violent dispossession and destruction of Native American communities.

"Through wars, forced displacement, the Trail of Tears and systematic cultural destruction, millions of indigenous people suffered displacement, death and the loss of their traditional way of life," he said, describing it as one of the most devastating episodes of ethnic destruction in history.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Catastrophe of Nuclear Warfare

Referring to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War, Sisodia said the United States inflicted unprecedented destruction on civilian populations.

"The atomic bombings brought unimaginable death and suffering within moments and left generations dealing with the consequences of radiation and its devastating effects," he said.

He noted that the United States remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons in warfare.

Vietnam and Afghanistan: The Cost of Military Intervention

Sisodia also cited America's military interventions in Vietnam and Afghanistan as examples of what he described as the destructive consequences of U.S. foreign policy.

During the Vietnam War, he said, the United States used chemical defoliants such as Agent Orange, resulting in severe and long-term consequences for the Vietnamese population and environment.

He further said that America's two-decade military engagement in Afghanistan brought prolonged conflict, instability, humanitarian suffering and devastation to the region.

Venezuela and the Question of Sovereignty

Sisodia strongly criticized what he described as America's expansionist and coercive foreign policy.

Referring to the events involving Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January 2026, he alleged that the United States violated Venezuela's sovereignty by forcibly taking Maduro and his wife into custody.

"Forcibly taking the elected head of a sovereign nation and holding him in another country raises profound questions about international law, national sovereignty and the principles that the United States itself claims to defend," Sisodia said.

Iraq: War, Regime Change and Natural Resources

Sisodia also criticized the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

He argued that the military intervention that removed Saddam Hussein's government was justified on the basis of allegations concerning weapons of mass destruction that were subsequently not substantiated as originally claimed.

"The Iraq war devastated the country's institutions and contributed to years of instability and suffering," he said, adding that questions surrounding geopolitical interests and control of energy resources cannot simply be ignored.

Iran: Sanctions, Military Action and Economic Pressure

Turning to Iran, Sisodia criticized America's decades-long policy of economic sanctions and military pressure.

He said that sanctions have placed substantial economic pressure on Iran and affected ordinary citizens.

He further referred to alleged military strikes against Iranian military and nuclear facilities in February 2026 and to what he described as an economic blockade imposed in August 2026 under the name "Operation Economic Outcast."

"Such policies demonstrate how far the United States is prepared to go in pursuit of strategic dominance, energy interests and geopolitical influence," he said.

American Funding and the Issue of Religious Conversion

Sisodia also raised concerns about the role of foreign funding in India's social and religious landscape.

He alleged that while American institutions criticize nationalist organizations such as the RSS, numerous missionary organizations supported directly or indirectly through foreign funding operate among economically and socially vulnerable sections of Indian society.

"This represents a clear double standard," he said.

Cultural Sovereignty and Foreign Pressure

Sisodia said that India's efforts to regulate foreign funding through the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) should be viewed in the context of national security, cultural sovereignty and demographic concerns.

"When India strengthens its laws governing foreign contributions, organizations such as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) issue reports that we believe are one-sided and prejudiced. Such pressure reflects what can only be described as a modern form of colonial thinking," he said.

Cultural Self-Defense Is Not Intolerance

Concluding his statement, Sisodia emphasized that protecting India's indigenous cultures, traditions and Sanatan heritage should not be equated with intolerance.

"India has every democratic right to protect its cultural identity and civilizational heritage. The United States should respect India's internal sovereignty and refrain from imposing its own standards on Indian society," he said.

"Before lecturing the world about tolerance and human rights, America should introspect about racism, violence and the darker chapters of its own history."

Yours sincerely,

Arvind Sisodia

Mobile: 9414180151