By Mohamed Atherulla Shariff
The latest exchange between Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has reignited an old but important debate: should an organisation that wields enormous social, ideological and political influence be subject to the same transparency requirements as other public-facing bodies?
Priyank Kharge’s remarks, asking the RSS to “keep documents ready for registration,” have predictably triggered a political storm. The BJP has portrayed the statement as an attack on an organisation that has functioned for decades, while Kharge insists that he is not seeking a ban but merely accountability and transparency. According to him, any organisation that operates extensively across society, receives public donations and undertakes largescale activities should be answerable to the law and the public. The controversy is not merely about registration. It is about the nature of power in a democracy.
The RSS occupies a unique position in India’s public life. It is not a political party, yet its ideological influence over the BJP is widely acknowledged. Many prominent leaders, including former prime ministers, presidents and chief ministers, have been associated with it. Even BJP leaders defending the RSS cite this long history as proof of its legitimacy.
Yet that very influence raises a legitimate question. If an organisation shapes public discourse, influences policymaking through its ideological network and mobilises thousands of cadres across the country, should it remain outside the transparency standards expected of many other organisations?
Kharge’s argument rests on a simple principle. When citizens establish a non-governmental organisation, trust, society or charitable body, they are generally required to register, disclose their activities and maintain records regarding finances and administration. He argues that an organisation conducting marches, collecting donations and running a vast nationwide network should not be exempt from similar scrutiny. Whether one agrees with Kharge or not, the principle itself deserves discussion rather than dismissal.
The BJP’s response, articulated by opposition leader R. Ashoka, is that the RSS has always functioned legally and therefore requires no fresh registration. The argument is essentially historical: if the organisation has operated for nearly a century without such requirements, why raise the issue now?
But longevity alone cannot settle questions of accountability. Democracies constantly revisit legal frameworks as institutions evolve. The scale and reach of today’s RSS are vastly different from those of its early decades. What may have seemed adequate in one era may warrant re-examination in another.
This is not a uniquely Indian dilemma. Across the world, governments require varying levels of disclosure from organisations that collect public funds, engage in advocacy or influence public policy. Transparency is often viewed not as punishment but as a safeguard that strengthens public trust.
The debate also reflects a broader paradox in Indian politics. The RSS and its supporters frequently demand transparency and accountability from political parties, civil society groups, foreign-funded NGOs and religious organisations. Such demands are often justified on the grounds that institutions operating in public life must be open to scrutiny. If that principle is accepted universally, it is reasonable to ask whether it should apply equally to the RSS.
Of course, there is another side to the matter. Critics of the Congress contend that the demand for registration is politically motivated. They argue that the RSS has become a convenient target because of its ideological association with the BJP. Given India’s deeply polarised political environment, such suspicions cannot be dismissed outright. Any move by a state government concerning the RSS will inevitably be viewed through a partisan lens. That is why the discussion must move beyond party politics.
The real issue is not whether one supports or opposes the RSS. The real issue is whether India needs a clearer legal framework governing large socio-political organisations. Such a framework should apply uniformly, irrespective of ideology. If registration, financial disclosure and institutional accountability are deemed necessary, the rules should cover all organisations of comparable scale and influence, not just those favoured or opposed by the government of the day.
Another dimension that deserves attention is the increasingly toxic political climate surrounding the controversy. Kharge’s remarks came in the aftermath of alleged threats directed at him on social media, leading him to accuse RSS-linked elements of intimidation.
Regardless of political affiliation, threats and abuse have no place in democratic discourse. When debates over institutional accountability devolve into personal attacks, democracy itself becomes poorer.
Ultimately, the RSS registration controversy offers India an opportunity to have a mature conversation about transparency, influence and democratic responsibility. The question is not whether the RSS should be banned; Kharge himself explicitly denied advocating any such move. The question is whether powerful organisations, regardless of their ideological orientation, should be subject to standards that reassure citizens about how they function and how they use public resources.
In a democracy, accountability should not be seen as hostility. Nor should scrutiny be mistaken for persecution. Institutions that command public trust have little to fear from transparency. Indeed, openness often strengthens legitimacy
The challenge for India is to ensure that this debate remains anchored in constitutional principles rather than partisan rivalry. If that happens, the current controversy may end up contributing something valuable to the country’s democratic evolution: a clearer understanding that influence and accountability must go hand in hand.
