By MNS Quadri
New Delhi: A major controversy has erupted around state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) following revelations that the public sector undertaking (PSU) donated over Rs 668 crore from its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds to 20 organisations allegedly linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) over a span of ten years. The disclosures, based on an investigative report, have triggered intense political reactions, counter-arguments in sections of the media, and broader concerns about transparency, governance, and the role of public funds.
At the heart of the issue lies the scale and nature of ONGC’s funding. According to an investigation conducted by The News Minute and published on July 19 (2026), ONGC disbursed approximately Rs 670.97 crore to these organisations starting from 2013, with the bulk of the funds allocated between 2015 and 2025. These contributions were made as part of ONGC’s CSR programme, through which the company has spent thousands of crores on social development initiatives across India.
A three-member team of Sachi Hegde, Ayush Joshi, Jahnavi and Neel Madhav conducted the exhaustive investigation and wrote the report, while the editing is done by Nikita Saxena. The report gains significance as ONGC is a public sector Maharatna company. ONGC contributes 70% of India’s crude oil production and 84% of India’s natural gas production. ONGC ranked 5th in India in the 2024 ranking of the Fortune Global 500 list. ONGC has the highest share of Hydrocarbon acreage in India. It is operating various Petroleum Mining Leases (PML) granted by state governments after initial clearance from the Government of India (GoI). ONGC discovered 6 of the 7 domestic producing Basins in India.
According to the eye-popping report, between 2015 and early 2025 alone, ONGC reportedly spent Rs 4,531 crore on CSR activities, supporting over 2,000 organisations and projects. Of this, around 14.7%—amounting to Rs 668.01 crore—was directed to the 20 entities identified as having links to the RSS. The investigation categorized these organisations into three groups: nine directly affiliated with the RSS, nine led by individuals with RSS connections, and two that have collaborated with the Sangh.
This revelation is particularly significant in light of longstanding claims by the RSS leadership that the organisation does not depend on government funding. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has repeatedly stated that the Sangh operates through voluntary contributions, or “gurudakshina,” and does not seek state financial support. However, the findings suggest that at least some organisations within the broader Sangh ecosystem have accessed substantial funds from a government-owned entity.
Major Beneficiaries and Project Details
Among the largest recipients of ONGC’s CSR funds is the Swargadew Siu-Ka-Pha Hospital in Assam, a 300-bed multi-speciality healthcare facility. The hospital is co-managed by ONGC in partnership with the Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya Pratishthan (BAVP), a charitable trust that openly identifies with RSS ideology. Between 2016 and 2024, ONGC reportedly spent over ₹434 crore on this project.
The hospital, inaugurated in November 2023, aims to provide affordable healthcare services to the public. It offers subsidised treatment, including discounted rates for patients below the poverty line and services under the Ayushman Bharat scheme. Despite these social benefits, critics argue that the ideological affiliations of the implementing organisation raise questions about the neutrality of public spending.
The second-largest beneficiary is the Dr Aabaji Thatte Seva Aur Anusandhan Sanstha, which received around ₹140 crore from ONGC between 2017 and 2022 for the establishment of the National Cancer Institute in Nagpur. This institute is a major healthcare project with a capacity of 470 beds and was inaugurated in 2023 in the presence of several prominent political and business figures.
The leadership of this trust and its associated institutions includes individuals with known ties to the RSS and affiliated organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal. These connections have further intensified the scrutiny surrounding ONGC’s funding decisions.
In addition to these two major projects, ONGC distributed funds ranging from ₹1 crore to over ₹15 crore to 18 other organisations. These included institutions involved in education, healthcare, yoga promotion, rural development, and social welfare.
For instance, Swami Vivekananda Yoga Anusandhana Samsthana (S-VYASA), a Bengaluru-based deemed university, received ₹15.53 crore for infrastructure development and yoga programmes. Various branches of Sewa Bharati, the RSS’s social service wing, received nearly ₹14 crore for activities such as medical aid, disaster relief, and student welfare.
Other beneficiaries include Bharat Vikas Parishad, Rashtrotthana Parishat, and the Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation, which operates rural schools. Several of these organisations have historical or ideological ties to the RSS, either through their founders, leadership, or operational philosophy.
Questions of Transparency and Accountability
One of the central concerns raised by the controversy is the lack of transparency in the allocation of CSR funds. While ONGC’s CSR spending is publicly disclosed through annual reports, the identification of ideological affiliations among beneficiary organisations has sparked debate about whether due diligence and neutrality were adequately maintained.
The investigation relied on mapping these organisations to a comprehensive database of Sangh-affiliated entities, highlighting the complexity and opacity of the RSS’s organisational network. Critics argue that such affiliations should have been more clearly disclosed and evaluated, especially given that ONGC is a publicly owned company.
ONGC, for its part, has not responded to multiple requests for clarification on the matter, further fuelling speculation and criticism.
Political Reactions and Counter-Narratives
The issue has quickly taken on political overtones. The Karnataka Congress has strongly criticised ONGC, accusing it of diverting public funds to organisations aligned with a particular ideological agenda. The party has demanded greater accountability and a thorough investigation into the allocation process.
On July 20 (2026), the Karnataka Congress president BK Hariprasad questioned the alleged flow of ONGC’s CSR funds to organisations linked to the RSS and demanded greater transparency and accountability in the use of public resources.
Referring to a media report, Hariprasad alleged that state-owned ONGC had channelled `668 crore in CSR funds to 20 RSS-linked organisations over the past decade and said the issue warranted public scrutiny. “It’s reported that Rs 668 crore of ONGC’s CSR funds reportedly flowed to 20 RSS-linked organisations over the last decade,” Hariprasad said in a post on ‘X’.
He further alleged that the reported funding pattern should be viewed alongside “the recurring allegations of public resources — from temple offerings and disaster relief funds to Covid relief, public land, and Kalyana Karnataka development funds — being channelled into the Sangh ecosystem.”
Hariprasad questioned the RSS’s claim that it does not receive government funds, saying, “Yet the @RSSorg claims it doesn’t take Govt funds. If public institutions & taxpayer-backed resources are funding your affiliates, how can RSS claim to be independent of govt money?”
He said the debate had gone beyond the question of registration and added, “The issue is no longer registration alone; it is transparency, accountability, and the right of citizens to know how public money is being spent.”
Demanding answers from the RSS, the Karnataka Congress chief said, “RSS should not evade further questions on its funding and how correct it is morally for an unregistered organisation to receive such funds.”
On the other hand, pro-RSS voices and supportive media outlets have defended the funding decisions. They argue that the recipient organisations are engaged in legitimate social service activities, including healthcare, education, and rural development. From this perspective, the ideological background of these organisations is secondary to the tangible benefits they provide to society.
An article published by a pro-RSS platform challenged the allegations, asserting that CSR funds are meant to support social initiatives and that many of the funded projects have delivered measurable outcomes. Supporters also point out that CSR spending by PSUs often involves partnerships with non-governmental organisations, some of which may have ideological leanings.
Broader Implications
The controversy raises important questions about the intersection of public funding, corporate responsibility, and political ideology. CSR funds, while not taxpayer money in the strictest sense, are derived from the profits of publicly owned enterprises and are therefore subject to public scrutiny.
Experts suggest that the key issue is not necessarily whether the recipient organisations have ideological affiliations, but whether the selection process was transparent, merit-based, and aligned with established CSR guidelines. The Companies Act mandates that CSR activities should promote inclusive development and benefit society at large, without discrimination.
Another concern is the potential precedent set by such funding patterns. If public sector companies are seen to favour organisations linked to specific ideological or political groups, it could undermine trust in the neutrality of state institutions.
The ONGC CSR funding controversy underscores the need for greater transparency, accountability, and clarity in the use of public resources. While many of the funded projects appear to have delivered social benefits, the affiliations of the recipient organisations have sparked legitimate concerns about governance and impartiality.
As the debate continues, it is likely to prompt closer scrutiny of CSR practices not only within ONGC but across other public sector enterprises. The issue also highlights the broader challenge of ensuring that development initiatives remain inclusive, transparent, and free from political bias.
Ultimately, resolving the controversy will require a balanced assessment of both the outcomes of the funded projects and the processes through which funding decisions were made. Only then can public confidence in CSR initiatives be fully restored.
Courtesy: India Tomorrow
