ChatGPT said:

Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat has offered an expansive justification for why the century-old organisation continues to function without formal registration, placing the issue within a larger philosophical, historical and legal context. Speaking on Sunday, November 9, Bhagwat addressed what he described as a recurring public debate over the RSS’s legal status. His remarks, reported by PTI, underscored both the organisation’s distinct identity and the long, complex relationship it has shared with successive governments since its inception in 1925.

Bhagwat began by comparing the RSS’s unregistered status to broader cultural and civilisational entities in India. He argued that many institutions or traditions with deep societal roots do not depend on bureaucratic documentation to establish legitimacy. “Even Hindu dharma is not registered,” he said, suggesting that the absence of registration does not diminish an organisation’s relevance, influence or authenticity. According to him, the fundamental measure of an entity’s existence lies in its work and acceptance within society, not in state-issued paperwork.

In responding to critics who question the RSS’s legal and administrative structure, Bhagwat invoked the organisation’s historical experience with state scrutiny and prohibition. “We were banned thrice; hence the government has recognised us. If we were not there, whom did they ban?” he remarked. The RSS has indeed faced government bans at three distinct moments: after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination in 1948; during the Emergency from 1975 to 1977; and briefly in 1992 following the demolition of the Babri Masjid. For Bhagwat, these episodes constitute implicit state acknowledgement of the organisation’s existence and influence, even when that acknowledgement came through punitive action.

Bhagwat further emphasised that the courts and tax authorities have also accepted the RSS’s structure as a “body of individuals,” a categorisation that has shaped its administrative functioning. The income tax department, he noted, has granted the organisation certain exemptions based on this understanding. This status, he argued, demonstrates that legal institutions have reviewed and recognised the RSS’s model, even in the absence of a formal registration document typically required for associations or societies.

Drawing on the organisation’s origins, Bhagwat questioned whether any practical purpose would have been served by registering the RSS during colonial rule. The RSS was founded in 1925 in Nagpur under British administration, a time when the colonial government routinely suppressed Indian political, social and cultural groups perceived as threats. “Should we have registered RSS with British government as it was established in 1925?” he asked. According to Bhagwat, registering the organisation under colonial law would have contradicted its core mission of national self-respect and grassroots social organisation, and might have exposed it to even greater interference.

He also pointed out that after India achieved Independence in 1947, the newly formed government did not impose any requirement compelling organisations like the RSS to register. In the absence of such a mandate, the RSS continued to operate under its traditional system of shakhas, volunteer networks and informal administrative structures. Bhagwat argued that the organisation’s work has always flowed from its ethos of discipline and service, rather than from legalistic frameworks. The choice to avoid registration, he indicated, was not an attempt to evade accountability but a reflection of the RSS’s independent evolution outside formal corporate or governmental systems.

Responding to suggestions that a lack of registration contributes to ambiguity or opacity around the RSS’s functioning, Bhagwat reminded that the organisation’s reach and influence are widely visible through its social projects, ideological training programmes and its role as the parent body of several affiliated organisations. He pointed out that Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself began his public life as an RSS pracharak, reinforcing the notion that the organisation’s impact is rooted at the community level rather than in a conventional institutional hierarchy.

Bhagwat’s remarks also arrive at a moment when discussions about transparency, legal status and accountability of large socio-political organisations have become more prominent in public discourse. Critics of the RSS frequently argue that an organisation of its size and influence should be formally registered to ensure clearer regulation. Supporters, however, contend that the organisation’s century-long presence and its extensive on-ground work make its legitimacy self-evident.

In this context, Bhagwat sought to reshape the debate by focusing on cultural legitimacy rather than legal formalities. According to him, the RSS functions as a volunteer-driven movement committed to social and national development, and its structure evolves organically through its members rather than through registered bylaws. By invoking the analogy of Hindu dharma—a civilisational identity that predates modern legal categories—Bhagwat attempted to frame the RSS as a cultural movement rather than a registered administrative entity.

The RSS chief also touched upon the philosophical basis of the organisation’s identity. In his view, the organisation’s nature is grounded in collective commitment and national service, making legal registration secondary to its purpose. He argued that its character as a “body of individuals” emphasises its internal cohesion and shared values rather than formal documentation.

Bhagwat’s comments also signal the organisation’s confidence as it approaches its 100th anniversary. The RSS, which began with a small cadre of volunteers in Nagpur, has grown to become one of the most influential socio-cultural organisations in India, with ideological links to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. By highlighting its historical endurance, especially through phases of prohibition, Bhagwat suggested that the organisation’s legitimacy has been tested and reaffirmed over decades.

The broader implication of Bhagwat’s statement is that the RSS sees itself as a social and cultural force with a long-term civilisational vision, and not as an entity confined to administrative categories. The argument, therefore, is less about legal compliance and more about the philosophical nature of the organisation. Bhagwat appeared to suggest that an organisation rooted in service and ideology does not require formal registration to validate its existence.

In summary, Bhagwat’s remarks combine historical context, legal references and civilisational analogies to defend the RSS’s choice to remain unregistered. He presented the organisation’s long history, its repeated encounters with the state, and its cultural positioning as evidence that formal registration is unnecessary. While the debate over transparency and structure may continue, Bhagwat’s comments reaffirm the RSS leadership’s longstanding stance: that its legitimacy flows not from registry documents, but from its sustained presence, influence and contributions over the past hundred years.