Mohan Bhagwat, the chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has issued a critique of live-in relationships, asserting that traditional marriage provides a necessary framework of discipline and stability that non-marital cohabitation lacks. Speaking on the evolution of social and familial structures, Bhagwat argued that global trends indicate the instability of live-in arrangements, positioning marriage as a superior institutional mechanism for personal and social order.
The RSS chief’s remarks specifically targeted the behavioral patterns of younger generations, particularly “Gen Z,” whom he characterized as being overly imitative and driven by emotional impulses rather than deliberative reasoning. Bhagwat suggested that the shift away from traditional marriage is a symptom of a broader trend where youth adopt foreign social norms without considering the long-term psychological or societal consequences.
The Argument Against Cohabitation
During his address, Bhagwat focused on the distinction between the commitment required by marriage and the flexibility of live-in relationships. He stated that the inherent commitment found in marriage instills a level of discipline in an individual’s life that is fundamentally absent in cohabitation. According to Bhagwat, this discipline is not merely a matter of social conformity but is essential for the stability of the individual and the family unit.
Bhagwat claimed that the “reality” of live-in relationships across the world serves as evidence of their failure. He argued that while such arrangements may appear liberating or modern in the short term, they often lack the resilience needed to withstand the pressures of long-term partnership. By contrasting the perceived fragility of live-in unions with the structured nature of marriage, Bhagwat framed the latter as a stabilizing force that prevents social fragmentation.
Critique of Gen Z and “Imitative” Behavior
A significant portion of Bhagwat’s commentary was directed at the current youth demographic. He described Gen Z as being prone to imitation, suggesting that the adoption of live-in relationships in India is less a result of organic social evolution and more a reflection of an attempt to mimic Western lifestyles.
Bhagwat asserted that members of this generation often fail to approach life-altering decisions with a “calm and deliberative mind.” He argued that emotional impulsivity leads young people to prioritize immediate desires over institutional stability. In the view of the RSS chief, this lack of deliberation makes the youth susceptible to trends that undermine the traditional Indian family structure, which the RSS views as the bedrock of national strength.
Why It Matters
These statements are significant because they signal a concerted effort by the RSS to define the moral and social boundaries of the modern Indian family. As the ideological mentor to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the RSS exerts substantial influence over the cultural and political direction of the country. Bhagwat’s focus on “discipline” and “stability” suggests that the organization views the privatization of relationships—where individuals define their own terms of partnership outside of legal or religious institutions—as a challenge to social cohesion.
Furthermore, by framing the issue as a global failure, Bhagwat is attempting to decouple the concept of “modernity” from the concept of “progress.” His argument posits that while live-in relationships may be modern, they are not necessarily progressive if they lead to instability. This narrative seeks to reclaim traditionalism as a pragmatic choice for mental and social health, rather than merely a nostalgic adherence to the past.
Background and Context
The RSS has long advocated for a society rooted in “Bharatiya” values, which emphasize duty (dharma), family hierarchy, and community stability over individualistic pursuits. The rise of live-in relationships in urban India has been mirrored by a gradual shift in legal interpretations. Indian courts have, in various rulings, recognized the rights of partners in long-term live-in relationships, particularly regarding maintenance and protection against domestic violence, effectively granting some legal recognition to non-marital unions.
However, the RSS views these legal shifts and social trends as an encroachment of Western individualism. The organization has consistently argued that the Indian family system—characterized by joint families and arranged marriages—provides a support network that the nuclear, individualistic models of the West cannot replicate. Bhagwat’s comments are part of a larger discourse aimed at insulating Indian youth from what the RSS perceives as the “decadence” of foreign social norms.
Analysis:
Bhagwat’s rhetoric employs a strategic framing of “discipline versus impulse.” By labeling Gen Z as “imitative,” he dismisses the agency of young adults, suggesting their choices are not based on personal conviction but on a flawed desire to emulate the West. This allows the RSS to position traditional marriage not as a restrictive imposition, but as a liberating tool for psychological stability.
From an ideological standpoint, the RSS is attempting to create a cultural firewall. By linking the failure of live-in relationships to a global trend, Bhagwat is utilizing a “cautionary tale” narrative to discourage the adoption of non-traditional partnerships. This approach shifts the conversation from individual rights and autonomy to a matter of national and social health. The emphasis on “discipline” suggests that the RSS views the family unit as a training ground for citizenship; if the family is unstable, the argument follows, the citizen—and by extension, the nation—becomes unstable.
What to Watch Next
Observers should monitor whether these ideological stances translate into specific policy proposals or legislative pushes. While the RSS does not govern directly, its influence on the ruling administration often manifests in the promotion of “family values” through educational curricula or social welfare programs.
Additionally, the reaction from youth organizations and civil society will be a key indicator of the effectiveness of this narrative. As India continues to urbanize and the influence of global digital culture grows, the tension between traditional institutional frameworks and individual autonomy is likely to intensify. Whether the RSS can successfully frame traditional marriage as a “disciplining” necessity in the face of increasing social liberalization remains a central question for India’s social trajectory.
Conclusion
Mohan Bhagwat’s critique of live-in relationships is more than a commentary on romance; it is a defense of institutional authority. By asserting that marriage brings discipline and that live-in arrangements are a global failure, the RSS chief is calling for a return to a structured social order. In his view, the emotional impulsivity of the current generation must be countered by the stability of traditional marriage to ensure both individual well-being and social harmony.
Sources:
The Hindu – National: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/marriage-brings-discipline-reality-of-live-in-relationships-can-be-seen-across-world-rss-chief-mohan-bhagwat/article71271864.ece
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Hindu – National — source
