Explained : Shankaracharya vs Bhagwat on family size: Why it is more about politics than social perceptions and Its Impact

Opposing views by Mohan Bhagwat and Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati on the size of an ideal Hindu family and the direction of religious revival reflect more than ideological or sociological differences. They underline the country’s current political climate — and perhaps more.

Speaking at an event in Lucknow earlier this week, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat urged Hindu families to have at least three children, arguing that societies with fertility rates below 2.1 — the replacement level — eventually decline. He said the purpose of marriage is to “carry forward creation” and fulfil social responsibility. Citing what he described as scientific opinion, Bhagwat maintained that sustaining a higher birth rate is necessary for societal stability and survival.

Advertisement

This is not the first time the chief of the RSS — the ideological fountainhead of the BJP — was making such remarks. In the past, his statements have sparked debate, with some supporting the call for “demographic balance” and others pointing to the economic realities of raising children. This time the remarks were made in Uttar Pradesh, where the Shankaracharya recently had a public disagreement with Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. This time, there was also a response from Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi Barelvi, president of the All India Muslim Jamaat, who reportedly said population growth is a serious issue that should be discussed responsibly by all communities rather than politicised.

Rebutting Bhagwat, Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati argued that society progresses through culture and values, not numbers. “A hundred stars do not give as much light as one moon,” he said. Emphasising discipline over demographic strength, he added, “Dogs are greater in number, but when a lion roars, everyone runs away.” He asserted that the number of children is a personal choice, free from external pressure or political suggestion, and reportedly also remarked that Bhagwat should first marry and have three children himself before advising others.

The disagreement forms part of a broader tension between the Shankaracharya and the RSS and BJP. He has accused both the political party and its ideological fountainhead of “political intrusion” into religious traditions and questioned their authority to define religious norms. Recognition of religious titles, he argues, flows from tradition, not “political certification” by government. He has also criticised what he calls the RSS’s “politically convenient” positions, including Bhagwat’s advice against reopening new temple-mosque disputes now that the BJP is in power.

Tensions escalated recently when the Uttar Pradesh administration questioned his Shankaracharya title. He alleged mistreatment by police during the Magh Mela in Prayagraj, prompting protests and reconciliation efforts by senior BJP leaders. Opposition parties such as the Samajwadi Party and the Congress supported him and criticised the BJP. SP chief Akhilesh Yadav accused the Adityanath government of “administrative arrogance” and undermining Sanatana Dharma traditions.

Though not formally aligned with any party, Shankaracharya’s adversarial stance toward the BJP and RSS has made him a convenient ally for the Opposition. He has criticised the Modi and Yogi governments on issues such as cow protection and beef exports, declined to attend the Ayodhya temple consecration in 2024 calling it “anti-scriptural” because the structure was incomplete. His relationship with Congress has been inconsistent, though. He even “excommunicated” Rahul Gandhi from Hinduism over remarks on Manusmriti, underscoring his complex political positioning.