RSS registration row: What are the arguments for and against formal registration?

Karnataka Home Minister once again revived the decade-old contentious question about Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh's registration. In a two-page letter shared on the social media platform X, Kharge questioned RSS's chief Mohan Bhagwat. Kharge congratulated RSS on completing 100 years and pointed out that the organisation has a significant presence in Karnataka, with over 60,000 shakhas and affiliated activities across the state. So it should register itself, disclose its finances, funding sources and constitutional compliance.

RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat, responding to the demand, called it politically motivated. He said that RSS is a “body of individuals” and is eligible for tax exemptions. He suggested that RSS does not avail any government funds or benefits, and its only source of income was “guru dakshina”. He further added that since RSS was banned at first and then the ban was lifted, this implies that the government knew what it was about.

Also Read: Rahul Gandhi depicted in deity-like attire by Youth Congress workers triggers controversy

Should RSS register as an organisation?

Legally, no framework binds RSS to be registered as an organisation. Courts have recognised RSS as a socio-cultural organisation and agreed that they do not require a standard corporate association to exist. If an organisation does not seek rights or privileges from the government, then it remains optional. Historically, that has been the argument by RSS and its sympathisers. But the sheer scale of RSS, its influence on Indian society, cannot be overlooked.

Proponents like Kharge argue that it sits at the top of a complex structure of organisations, including trade unions, farmer organisations, student bodies, educational institutions and shares ideological affinity with the ruling BJP and collects a vast amount of public funds in the form of “guru dakshina” and should be audited for transparency. Scholars argue that an unregistered entity can not be held responsible for its activities or controversial statements made by its wings and leaders. Further, its history as an organisation has been much debated among scholars. While RSS and its associates appropriate the legacy of Sardar Patel. It was banned in 1948 by the “Iron Man” of India, to “root out forces of hate and violence”. Its ban was later revoked when it agreed to formally accept the tricolour and the constitution in 1949. It continues to assert significant influence on the Indian electoral landscape through its thinktanks, and many Indian leaders, like Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have been groomed under its organisational framework.

A legal registration would make it feasible for the government to map its assets, lands, and offices currently held informally through various trusts, and would be registered under the organisational structure. It would create a legal entity capable of being prosecuted and suing others in case of legal conflicts. It would be required to disclose its foreign funding received from the diaspora community or other institutions under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). These would also reduce the mystique around the Sangh family, on which it takes pride, and turn it into a corporate-style NGO.