When selfish, anti-social elements cannot compete with the genuine work of a patriot or organisation working for a better society and nation, their only option is to tarnish the image of such an individual or organisation. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been maligned on social media platforms with a fabricated narrative. I’ve given three fictitious narratives to demonstrate how low some people or institutions will go to malign an organisation dedicated to developing each individual’s personal and national character and running nearly 140000 seva projects.

Did RSS give British Queen a guard of honour?

Posts on social media appear to portray the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as subservient to the British Empire. A black-and-white photo that has gone viral on Facebook purports to show a Sangh cadre presenting Queen Elizabeth II with a guard of honour. The caption read, “Rani Ko Salami Dete RSS… Angrezo Ke Ghulam,” referring to the Sangh as a slave of the colonial rulers. “Tasveer Gavahi De Rahi Hai Desh Ki Azaadi Ke Pehle. To Log Angrezo Ko ‘Guard of Honour’ De Rahe Jab Desh Ke Log Azadi Ke Liye Ladh Rahe.”

The image was fact-checked by India Today’s Viral Test, and the results revealed the truth…..

Elizabeth II, who is seen in the photo taking the guard of honour, ascended to the throne on February 6, 1952, nearly five years after India’s independence. Her first trip to India as Queen took place in 1961. All of this disproves the claim that the image predated independence. The Viral Test then undid the Sangh’s online opponents’ photoshop skills.

They had, in fact, superimposed images of RSS cadre on Nigerian troops during the Queen’s arrival at Kaduna airport in 1956.

The original image showed the British monarch inspecting the newly renamed Queen’s Own Nigeria Regiment, Royal West African Frontier Force. The superimposed images of Sangh cadre were discovered to have been taken a few years ago. In 2016, the fact checking website SM Hoax Slayer and ABP News discovered that the Sangh’s “guard-of honour” photo was a forgery. Nonetheless, the image has gone viral once more on social media.

Clearly, the photoshopping and distribution on social media platforms were intended to portray the RSS as a once-pro-British organisation.

Did a Muslim lawyer represent Bhagat Singh, while a ‘Brahmin RSS’ man fought for the British against him?

Shaheed Bhagat Singh has frequently been used by the leftist ‘secular liberal’ cabal to spread their propaganda. They have spread a number of false claims, propaganda, and fake news about the revolutionary leader on several occasions.

On the occasion of Bhagat Singh’s birth anniversary this year, they had another opportunity to flood social media with false claims and unsubstantiated assertions. Social media websites are flooded with claims that a Muslim lawyer, Asaf Ali, who was also a prominent Congress member at the time, fought the case in court, defending Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt after they hurled bombs inside the Central Legislative Assembly in New Delhi to protest against unfavourable Bills.

Another claim making the rounds on the Internet is about a legal counsel who represented the British government in its case against Bhagat Singh. According to the claim, Rai Bahadur Suryanarayana Sharma represented the Crown in the case against Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwer Dutt.

Many graphic posters and ‘forwarded’ messages from social media to WhatsApp groups claim that the Brahmin lawyer who fought the case on behalf of the British to have Bhagat Singh hanged is Rai Bahadur Suryanarayana Sharma, a close friend of Hedgewar, the founder of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and a member of the RSS.

What is the truth behind the social media claims about Bhagat Singh’s legal counsel?

While social media users are claiming that a Muslim’ lawyer named Asaf Ali represented Bhagat Singh, the reality is far from what Congress IT cell members and the left would have us believe.

According to The Hindu, lawyer Asaf Ali represented Batukeshwar Dutt, and Bhagat Singh fought the case on his own with the assistance of a legal advisor.

Another article in Outlook India stated unequivocally that Asaf Ali represented Batukeshwar Dutt and that Bhagat Singh’s sentence was based on the testimony of journalist Khushwant Singh’s father Shobha Singh. The fact that Asaf Ali was not mentioned in the article fighting for both Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt indicates that Singh was not represented by him.

Furthermore, Professor Malvinderjit Singh Warich, who wrote several books on Sardar Bhagat Singh, denied the widely circulated claim that a lawyer named Satyanarayana Sharma represented the British against Bhagat Singh.

Professor Chaman Lal of Jawaharlal Nehru University, who wrote ‘Understanding Bhagat Singh’ and ‘Documents of Bhagat Singh and his Companions, has also stated explicitly that no Indian counsel represented the British in the case against Bhagat Singh.

Another Falsehood: The RSS does not honour the tricolour flag

Tricolor, Nehruji, and RSS

At the Congress session in Faizpur, Congress president Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru hoisted the Tricolor flag on an 80-feet tall flagpole. When the flag was raised, it became entangled in the middle. Nobody dared to climb the tall pole and solve the problem. A young man dashed through the crowd, climbing the pole, untying the rope, and unfurling the flag. People happily carried him to Nehruji on their shoulders. Nehru patted him on the back and told him that if he came to the open session in the evening, he would congratulate him, but some leaders came up to him and said, “Don’t call him, he goes to the Sangh Shakha.” Mr. Kishan Singh Rajput, a Swayamsevak from Faizpur in Jalgaon, was that young man. When the founder of the association, reverend Dr. Hedgewar Ji, learned about the volunteer, he rewarded him with a small silver urn and congratulated him.

Many of these fabricated narratives circulate on social media. Freedom of expression does not imply the spread of lies. The Sangh Swayamsevaks continue to work hard without being distracted.

If a lie cannot be disproven, as in disproving a negative, turn the tables by demanding tangible proof positive of the allegation, because accusations are nothing more than slander wrapped in smoke.