Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat has dismissed Karnataka minister Priyank Kharge’s demand that the organisation register itself and disclose its finances, calling the move political and saying he would not send a formal response.
Bhagwat’s remarks sharpened a dispute that has moved from a state-level political challenge to a wider argument over the legal status, public accountability and financial transparency of one of the country’s most influential volunteer organisations. Asked about Kharge’s open letter, Bhagwat said the Sangh works in the open and is not a secretive body. “It is just politics,” he said, adding that such questions had followed the organisation for decades.
Kharge, who handles the home portfolio in Karnataka, wrote to Bhagwat seeking clarity on whether the RSS is formally registered, how it manages donations and expenditure, who its authorised office-bearers are, and whether it pays applicable taxes. The letter also sought details of permissions and compliance mechanisms for public events, route marches, mass gatherings and other activities held under the RSS banner.
The exchange comes as the RSS marks its centenary year, a moment that has intensified scrutiny of its organisational reach and its relationship with public life. Kharge argued that an organisation claiming more than 60,000 shakhas and crores of swayamsevaks could not operate outside ordinary standards of disclosure. He cited RSS figures for Karnataka, including 4,127 daily shakhas, 1,389 weekly milans, 60 monthly mandalis, 2,194 Samajotsavas and 562 route marches, to argue that its scale raised questions involving public order, funding and accountability.
Bhagwat rejected the premise of the demand. He said registration was required for bodies seeking government funds and argued that many social and religious formations operate without formal registration. He invoked Hindu dharma as an example, saying many institutions and traditions existed outside such a framework. The RSS, he said, conducts shakhas openly, invites people to participate and has no hidden structure.
The RSS chief also said the government has long been aware of the organisation’s existence. Referring to its history, he said the Sangh began during British rule and has been recognised in practice by government action and judicial processes. He said the organisation had submitted its written constitution to the government decades ago and that no authority had required it to register through its 100-year existence.
The dispute has revived older arguments about the RSS’s position as a “body of individuals” rather than a registered society, trust, non-governmental organisation or political party. Bhagwat has previously said the RSS functions through voluntary work and donations known as guru dakshina, and that tax authorities and courts have treated it within that framework. Critics, however, argue that an entity with extensive public mobilisation and ideological influence should make more information available about its structure and finances.
Kharge framed his letter as a matter of constitutional accountability rather than a partisan attack. He said organisations operating in public life should comply with the same rules expected of citizens, religious institutions, trusts, companies and associations. The letter urged the RSS to use its centenary year not only for celebration but also to demonstrate transparency, compliance and respect for the Constitution.
The confrontation also reflects a deeper contest in Karnataka politics. The Congress government has been critical of RSS activities in public spaces, while the Bharatiya Janata Party has accused its rivals of targeting the Sangh for ideological reasons. Kharge has argued that public mobilisation by large organisations must be governed by clear permissions and legal accountability. BJP leaders have defended the RSS as a voluntary cultural organisation and accused the state government of creating confusion.
The RSS was founded in Nagpur in 1925 by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar and has grown into a nationwide network of shakhas, training programmes and affiliated organisations. Its supporters describe it as a cultural and service-oriented movement built around discipline and national duty. Its critics see it as an ideological force whose influence extends beyond civil society into party politics, education, social campaigns and debates over national identity.
