Can one of India's most influential organisations be asked to disclose more about its structure, finances and legal status?
That question has moved to the centre of political debate after Karnataka minister Priyank Kharge wrote to RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat seeking clarity on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's registration status, sources of funding, tax compliance and organisational structure. Predictably, the letter has triggered sharp political reactions. Supporters of the RSS have dismissed it as a politically motivated attack on an organisation that has existed for nearly a century. Others see it as a legitimate constitutional question: should any organisation that wields enormous influence and commands vast resources be exempt from public scrutiny?
At its heart, this is not merely a political controversy. It is a debate about transparency, accountability and the rule of law.
Critics have portrayed Kharge's letter as an act of provocation. Yet a public representative asking questions about the legal and financial status of one of the country's largest organisations is not, in itself, extraordinary. In any constitutional democracy, institutions that exercise substantial influence over public life can reasonably be expected to answer questions about their functioning.
The RSS itself says it operates tens of thousands of shakhas across India. It organises large gatherings, conducts uniformed marches and oversees an extensive network of affiliated organisations. Such a vast presence inevitably requires significant financial and organisational resources. Asking how those resources are managed is not persecution; it is a question of public accountability.
Perhaps the most striking response to the controversy came from RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, who reportedly remarked that "Hindu Dharma is also not registered."
The statement may resonate with supporters, but it does not directly address the issue being raised. Hinduism, like Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism and other religions, is a faith tradition that predates the modern concepts of legal registration, taxation and institutional regulation. Religions do not require registration certificates to exist.
The RSS, however, is not simply a faith. It is an organised institution with a defined leadership, nationwide branches, offices, properties and an extensive organisational network. Whether one supports or opposes its ideology, these are characteristics of an institution rather than a religion. Questions about its legal status, finances and organisational structure therefore concern the institution, not the faith it says it seeks to serve.
Equating the RSS with Hindu Dharma also raises a larger question: is the organisation presenting itself as synonymous with Hinduism? India is home to a rich diversity of Hindu traditions, beliefs and practices that extend far beyond any single organisation. That distinction matters.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself has described the RSS as one of the world's largest voluntary organisations. If it is indeed an organisation, then the standards expected of other organisations should apply to it as well. In a constitutional democracy, bodies handling substantial resources are generally expected to maintain records, comply with tax laws where applicable, follow regulatory requirements and remain open to appropriate legal scrutiny.
Transparency is not punishment. It is the foundation of public trust.
Citizens have every right to ask questions about institutions that influence public life. Queries regarding funding, property, financial management, organisational expansion and institutional structure are not attacks on ideology. They are questions about accountability. Public confidence cannot rest solely on assertions of goodwill; it is strengthened by openness.
Another argument advanced by many supporters is that the RSS has existed for nearly a century and that previous governments did not seek such scrutiny. But longevity does not create immunity. The fact that a question may not have been asked in the past does not make it illegitimate today. Constitutional accountability cannot depend on historical silence.
The RSS is widely recognised as a Hindu nationalist organisation whose ideological vision has long been associated with the concept of a Hindu Rashtra. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that vision is entirely a matter of democratic choice. But organisations that seek to shape the nation's political, social or cultural direction also assume greater public responsibility. The greater the influence, the stronger the case for transparency.
The controversy also exposes an uncomfortable inconsistency in public discourse. Many who demand rigorous accountability from political parties, NGOs, educational institutions, charities and civil society organisations become uneasy when similar questions are directed at the RSS. Transparency cannot be selective. Constitutional principles lose credibility if they are applied only to some institutions while others are treated as exceptions.
Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees citizens the freedom to form associations. That freedom is indispensable in a democracy. But it does not place any association beyond the reach of lawful scrutiny. Constitutional rights and constitutional accountability are complementary, not contradictory.
Viewed in that light, Priyank Kharge's letter is less about religion than about governance. It is not a question of faith but of institutional accountability. Whether the questions ultimately produce simple explanations or more complex answers, asking them is entirely consistent with democratic values.
Faith deserves respect because it belongs to the realm of personal belief. Power—political, economic, social or ideological—belongs to the public sphere and must remain open to scrutiny. The issue before us is therefore not Hinduism or any other religion. It is whether influential institutions should be accountable under the same constitutional principles that apply to everyone else.
No institution can be greater than the Constitution, and no concentration of influence should be beyond questioning. A mature democracy is strengthened not by unquestioning loyalty to powerful organisations but by an unwavering commitment to constitutional values of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. Transparency is not a threat to democracy. It is one of its essential safeguards.
---
The writer is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and co-founder of TruthScape, a group of digital activists working to combat disinformation on social media
All must obey constitution
ReplyDelete