Jagdeep Dhankhar shifts towards Sangh ecosystem after resignation

Jagdeep Dhankhar’s presence at an RSS-linked book launch in Bhopal has arrived at a moment when his own political arc appears suspended between purpose, speculation and reinvention. His resignation as Vice President set off a rush of commentary across opposition-friendly newsrooms, which immediately interpreted the move as proof of friction within the ruling establishment. That resignation continues to remain unexplained in any coherent public form, and nothing in his speeches since has shed light on what prompted such a dramatic decision.

Against this backdrop, Dhankhar’s decision to speak at the launch of Hum Aur Yah Vishv — a book rooted firmly in the Sangh’s cultural worldview — is not merely another public engagement. It is an intention, a signal and perhaps even an experiment. For a politician who built much of his career on institutional roles rather than ideological badges, the shift is striking.

The event, anchored by senior RSS functionary Dr Manmohan Vaidya, offered Dhankhar a stage on which to articulate a civilisational argument aligned with the Sangh’s self-image. That alignment deserves scrutiny, not because participation in such forums is inherently illegitimate, but because it marks a visible departure from the posture Dhankhar cultivated earlier as a constitutional authority who sparred with governments, backed institutions and positioned himself as a defender of procedural integrity.

In Bhopal, Dhankhar chose to emphasise India’s rising global stature and spoke in English, as he put it, to address “those who refuse to see India clearly”. This was both an assertion and a provocation, delivered in a setting that already viewed sceptical media voices as antagonistic rather than corrective. Within opposition circles, it has revived an old question: who is Dhankhar trying to convince now, and why?

Resignation moment as unfinished narrative

For many observers across non-BJP political spaces, Dhankhar’s resignation still carries the air of an aborted story. It did not follow any public clash, nor was it tied to an electoral contest or internal revolt. In the absence of an official explanation, it has been read as an act that either signalled disagreement with the government or an attempt to re-centre himself outside the constraints of office.

This ambiguity has given every subsequent move a heavier political meaning. When Dhankhar attends an RSS-influenced programme, that choice appears deliberate rather than incidental.

The Sangh, for its part, has invested years in reshaping itself not just as a cultural organisation but as an intellectual engine. Book launches like this — at once scholarly, devotional and political — aim to place its arguments within mainstream discourse. This time, however, the presence of a former Vice President introduces a layer of political symbolism that cannot be separated from the timing of his exit.

Opposition-aligned analysts argue that Dhankhar may be attempting to secure a future within a space he once engaged with cautiously. Others believe he is preparing a counter-narrative to those who interpreted his resignation as rebellion. By appearing at a Sangh-backed platform, he eliminates the suspicion of hostility toward the ideological core of the ruling ecosystem. Yet the choice also blurs his earlier identity as a constitutional arbiter above political currents.

RSS stage as platform for ideological reinforcement

The event itself offered a polished projection of the organisation’s preferred narrative. Dr Vaidya stressed civilisational continuity, cultural unity and rejection of what he called “unnecessary opposition” to the RSS. He argued that India does not house multiple cultures but a single culture expressed through diverse forms — a formulation that will find resistance in academic and liberal circles but reflects the Sangh’s long-standing core belief.

Within this framework, Dhankhar’s speech became more than courtesy. It positioned him as someone willing to vouch for an ideological project at a moment when he is no longer bound by institutional restraint. Here, he was not presiding over a constitutional chamber. He was endorsing a world-view.

Pro-opposition commentators will see this as a clear step toward a closer identification with the Sangh ecosystem. Whether this stems from conviction, necessity or strategic placement remains to be tested. But the shift is visible enough to chart.

When Pranab Mukherjee became pariah

The reference to Pranab Mukherjee — whose 2018 visit to an RSS training programme sparked national debate — adds further complexity. Dr Vaidya pointed to that visit as an example of engagement despite controversy. Opposition media at the time viewed Mukherjee’s appearance as statesmanship rather than ideological drift. But Mukherjee himself maintained a deliberate distance, choosing careful language that reaffirmed constitutional pluralism.

Dhankhar’s moment is different. It follows an abrupt resignation, a period of speculation and now a speech delivered in a tone more assertive than cautionary. If Mukherjee tried to humanise the RSS without endorsing its intellectual core, Dhankhar seems to be stepping into the core itself.

This difference will not go unnoticed among readers who value ideological clarity and political positioning. It explains why Dhankhar’s move feels more consequential than ceremonial.

Civilisational discourse as political repositioning

Dhankhar’s articulation of India as a “confident, decisive nation” presents a future-facing story anchored in cultural unity. Such framing aligns neatly with the Sangh’s preferred language of civilisational resurgence. Yet, when viewed through the lens of political transition, the message acquires another layer: Dhankhar is crafting a post-resignation identity rooted in ideological conviction rather than institutional duty.

For opposition-inclined audiences, this becomes a moment to question not his right to choose an ideological companionship but the implications of this companionship. Does it mark the beginning of a political role within this ecosystem? Is it an attempt to stay relevant in national discourse? Or is it a preventive measure to dispel interpretations of estrangement from the ruling establishment?

None of these questions has definitive answers yet. But the choice of venue, message and setting suggests that Dhankhar is not waiting to be written into someone else’s script. He is drafting his own.

Dhankhar’s presence in Bhopal has ensured that the story of his resignation cannot be archived as an unresolved footnote. It now stands linked to an ideological alignment that carries both political opportunity and political cost. For opposition-leaning readers, this alignment will naturally invite scepticism, even critique. But beyond sentiment lies a more important observation: Dhankhar has chosen a path that not only crosses the ideological boundary he long kept at arm’s length but now walks comfortably within it.

If this is reinvention, it is bold. If it is repositioning, it is calculated. In either case, it signals that Dhankhar’s political role is not fading — only transforming.