Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge has once again raised pointed questions about the financial transparency of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a century-old organisation that has wielded significant influence across India. The controversy stems from recent remarks by the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, who stated that the organisation functions “entirely on contributions from its volunteers.” Kharge, a senior Congress leader and son of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, has now demanded clarity on how the organisation sustains its vast operations, given that it is not formally registered under Indian law.

The debate over the RSS’s funding mechanisms has been reignited in the public domain after Bhagwat’s remarks at an event in Bengaluru commemorating the centenary of the Sangh’s journey. Speaking during a question-and-answer session at the “100 Years of Sangh Journey: New Horizons” event, Bhagwat asserted that the RSS runs exclusively on donations made by volunteers. While he defended the organisation’s structure and unregistered status, his remarks prompted immediate responses from political opponents, with Priyank Kharge taking to social media to press for accountability.

Kharge, writing on X, challenged the assertion that the RSS operates transparently without formal registration. He asked, “If the RSS functions entirely on volunteer contributions, why are donations not made directly to the organisation under its own registered identity?” He argued that the absence of formal registration raises legitimate questions about the oversight of funds, the scale of financial transactions, and the accountability mechanisms that govern such a large and influential organisation.

The minister further highlighted that the RSS runs an expansive infrastructure that includes offices across hundreds of districts, salaries for full-time pracharaks, the organisation of large-scale public events, and outreach programmes spanning social, cultural, and educational initiatives. Kharge pointed out that local RSS branches frequently sell uniforms, books, and materials to swayamsevaks and volunteers, raising questions about whether these revenues are properly documented and audited. He described the situation as a fundamental issue of transparency and accountability.

“Every religious or charitable institution in India is required to maintain financial transparency and adhere to registration norms,” Kharge wrote. “Why does the RSS, with its vast national presence and influence, continue to remain unregistered? When public scrutiny and legal frameworks demand accountability from similar organisations, the absence of such mechanisms for the RSS stands out starkly.”

Kharge’s criticism comes amid broader debates in Karnataka and other states over the role of the RSS in political, educational, and social spheres. Critics of the Sangh have often raised concerns about its opaque functioning, citing the organisation’s unregistered status as a loophole that allows it to operate with minimal regulatory oversight. Proponents of the RSS, on the other hand, defend its independence and argue that it is recognised under Indian law as a “body of individuals,” exempting it from certain statutory requirements.

In his defence, Bhagwat dismissed the necessity of formal registration. He reminded the audience that the RSS was established in 1925, during British rule, and argued that registration under colonial law was neither sought nor required. “RSS was established in 1925, so do you expect us to have registered with the British government?” he asked. Bhagwat added that the organisation’s legal standing has been consistently recognised both by successive Indian governments and by the judiciary, reinforcing its legitimacy.

Bhagwat also cited the repeated bans imposed on the RSS by various governments over the decades as evidence of its legal and social recognition. “We were banned thrice. So the government has recognised us. If we were not there, whom would they ban?” he remarked, underlining the Sangh’s ability to withstand scrutiny and legal challenges while continuing its work. He also pointed out that the Income Tax Department classifies the RSS as a “body of individuals,” which exempts it from taxation, further underscoring the organisation’s compliance with Indian legal norms.

Despite Bhagwat’s defence, Kharge’s critique is part of a sustained effort by political actors to question the accountability of the Sangh. Kharge has repeatedly raised issues concerning the influence of the RSS in government and public life, arguing that financial transparency is integral to maintaining trust and credibility. He stressed that the Sangh’s unregistered status and informal financial mechanisms make it difficult to assess how funds are raised, allocated, and spent, particularly given the scale of its operations.

The minister highlighted that transparency is particularly important for organisations like the RSS, which claims to be a volunteer-driven entity. “Volunteers may contribute, but the sums involved in maintaining offices, paying full-time workers, running schools and social service programmes, and organising nationwide events are significant,” Kharge said. “Without proper accounting, it is impossible to ascertain whether these funds are being utilised in accordance with legal and ethical norms.”

Kharge’s remarks also drew attention to the need for systemic reforms in the regulation of organisations operating in India’s socio-political space. He argued that the lack of formal registration or financial disclosure undermines public confidence and sets a precedent that other influential groups might follow. In his view, the government should ensure that all organisations, regardless of political or cultural affiliation, adhere to consistent standards of accountability and reporting.

Observers noted that Kharge’s intervention may reignite public debate over the role of the RSS in India’s socio-political landscape. While the Sangh enjoys a dedicated following and has been instrumental in grassroots social mobilisation, questions about transparency, governance, and accountability remain contentious. Kharge’s challenge highlights a growing expectation among citizens and lawmakers that even established organisations must submit to oversight and provide clear explanations for their financial practices.

In conclusion, the controversy sparked by Bhagwat’s remarks has underscored a fundamental tension in Indian civil society: the balance between organisational autonomy and public accountability. While the RSS defends its decades-long operations and legal standing, political leaders like Priyank Kharge insist that transparency is non-negotiable, particularly for organisations with extensive reach and influence. As the debate unfolds, questions regarding donations, financial management, and the unregistered status of the RSS are likely to remain in the spotlight, prompting further scrutiny from policymakers, civil society, and the public.

The exchange between Kharge and Bhagwat exemplifies the broader discourse in India on institutional accountability, governance, and the role of longstanding social organisations. It also reflects the expectations of modern democratic governance, where the operations of influential bodies are increasingly examined through the lens of transparency, legality, and public trust.