Film on RSS Founder Dr. Hedgewar Sparks Debate on Indian Cinema

• A new film, “Dr. Hedgewar,” has been released ahead of the RSS’s centenary year, sparking a debate on Indian cinema.
• Columnist Saurabh Shah reviews the film, positioning it as a work that corrects misconceptions about the RSS and its founder, Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar.
• Shah uses the editorial to criticize what he calls a long-standing “leftist ecosystem” in India’s creative fields, which he says has created an environment of fear among artists.

GG News Bureau
Mumbai, 5th Aug: A new film on the life of Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, the founder of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has been released, prompting a larger conversation in an editorial by columnist Saurabh Shah. The column, titled “Good Morning: ‘News-Lover’,” reviews the film and uses its release to discuss the alleged dominance of a “leftist ecosystem” in Indian cinema and the media.

In his column, Shah positions “Dr. Hedgewar,” along with other films like “The Kashmir Files” and “The Vaccine War,” as a new genre of cinema intended to “open eyes” and correct historical misconceptions. He writes that with the RSS’s centenary approaching this Vijaya Dashami, the film aims to dispel what he calls “baseless information and misconceptions” about the organization. According to Shah, the film highlights the mutual respect between Dr. Hedgewar and Mahatma Gandhi and clarifies that the RSS’s goal is to empower Hindus against “anti-India elements,” not to foster hatred towards Muslims.

The editorial is also a sharp critique of the political climate in India before 2014, with Shah stating that the country would have been in a “worse state than Pakistan” had the RSS not been founded. He credits the organization with grooming leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lal Krishna Advani, Narendra Modi, and Amit Shah. He labels the film a “slap in the face” to critics like Rahul Gandhi and other Congress leaders who he claims have a habit of “abusing” the RSS.

Shah also addresses the challenges of releasing such a film, recounting his experience of seeing the movie in a theater with a large police presence outside. He writes that even with the BJP in power, such security is necessary to protect “pro-Hindutva” films from “anti-social elements.”

A core part of Shah’s argument is that a deep-seated “leftist ecosystem” has dominated Indian journalism, literature, and cinema since the Nehru era. He claims this environment has created a fear among talented professionals, who worry their careers will be derailed if they work on projects with a nationalist or pro-Hindu theme. Shah cites examples of artists like Sonu Nigam and the late Jagjit Singh facing professional setbacks for speaking out against this ecosystem.

Despite these challenges, Shah remains optimistic. He notes that while films like “Dr. Hedgewar” may not have large budgets or big-name stars—the film features Manoj Joshi as the narrator and Jayanand Shetty in the lead—they are a crucial first step. He expresses hope that a day will come when a major, high-budget film on Dr. Hedgewar and the RSS will be made, just as a film on Mahatma Gandhi was made by Richard Attenborough.