Two contrasting events in early October 2025 in New Delhi highlighted the deepening ideological divide in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi marked the RSS’s 100th anniversary by praising its contributions and unveiling a commemorative postal stamp, while violence broke out at Jawaharlal Nehru University after ABVP members depicted activists and Maoist figures as Ravana. The protests escalated into a slipper-throwing clash, which was later reframed online as “leftists insulting Maa Durga,” echoing the narrative playbook of the 2016 JNU controversy. A similar reframing occurred when slippers were hurled at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, with attackers accusing him of being “anti-Sanatan.” Analysts note that such symbolic controversies frequently overshadow India’s most pressing national issues—unemployment, rising education costs, and shrinking opportunities for the youth.

This pattern, they argue, is a long-established strategy used by the RSS and its student affiliates—diverting public attention, shifting debates to emotional or religious issues, and reframing events with selective information. As the RSS celebrates its centenary, these incidents raise critical questions about narrative construction and who benefits from such diversions. A key concern remains whether India’s youth will fall for these manipulated narratives or focus instead on the country’s real socio-economic challenges.

Adding to this, a petition recently filed publicly before the United States Senate has raised significant questions about the financial and legal structures of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). According to disclosures made by the U.S.-based lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs, the firm has been lobbying American public officials on behalf of an entity identified as the “Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS),” through another firm called One Plus Strategies, headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. News reports suggest that lobbying payments this year amount to roughly $330,000.

This disclosure has triggered several unresolved questions. The RSS is not registered as an organisation in India and has long claimed that its operations are primarily funded by voluntary ‘guru dakshina’ donations from members. If the organisation has no legal existence inside India, the public is asking: How did it engage a foreign lobbying firm, and how were dollar payments made abroad? It is also unclear whether the RSS is registered under any legal framework in the U.S. and, if so, whether such registration has ever been disclosed to Indian authorities.

The issue raises deeper concerns regarding the nature and purpose of ‘guru dakshina’. Traditionally defined in Sanatan Dharma as a voluntary expression of gratitude from a student to a teacher, guru dakshina enjoys tax-exempt status in India under the principle of mutuality. This position has been upheld in rulings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in a communication dated December 19, 1978, which states that contributions collected as guru dakshina are exempt from tax because they originate internally from members for internal use.

However, if any portion of such funds is used for foreign lobbying, then the character of these funds becomes subject to scrutiny. Donors who contribute in good faith—believing their money supports spiritual or ideological guidance—may not have known that their contributions could be used to influence foreign governments.

The RSS has previously denied receiving foreign funds, yet independent reports have highlighted inflows of foreign contributions to organisations associated with it. With the organisation’s rising role in national politics, the issue of foreign financing has gained significant public relevance—particularly when legislative changes to the FCRA and the Companies Act have already expanded pathways that allow political entities to receive funds from foreign sources.

This situation places the onus on the Union Finance Ministry, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, and central investigative agencies to establish clarity. Key questions remain:

1. How did a non-registered Indian organisation make payments abroad?
2. Has the RSS disclosed any foreign branch or affiliated entity to Indian authorities?
3. Is the entity named in the U.S. filing formally connected to the RSS in India? If not, does the RSS intend to take legal action for misuse of its name?
4. Were the payments made in compliance with Indian foreign-exchange and tax regulations?

Since the U.S. Internal Revenue Service maintains strict documentation for lobbying disclosures, Indian authorities can obtain verifiable information through official channels. At the very least, the matter warrants a coordinated inquiry between the CBDT and its American counterparts.

It is striking that a U.S. lobbying firm has publicly declared the RSS as its client, while the organisation has made no public disclosure in India regarding the existence of any foreign entity operating in its name.

As disclosures continue to surface, one thing is clear: these questions cannot be brushed aside. Issues of transparency, regulatory compliance, foreign influence, and accountability are at stake—especially when the organisation in question plays a major role in shaping India’s public life.

Source: Vartha Bharathi (Translate in english)