4 min readJul 8, 2026 06:20 AM IST
First published on: Jul 8, 2026 at 06:20 AM IST
RSS-BJP leader Ram Madhav’s recent defence of the RSS (‘Needless controversy over the RSS’, IE, June 20) seeks to portray the organisation as a transparent association that has operated openly within the framework of Indian law. However, he relies on a selective reading of history. The central claim of Madhav’s article is that the RSS voluntarily adopted a written constitution in 1949. The historical record tells a very different story. The framing of the RSS constitution was not a voluntary act; it was the outcome of a prolonged confrontation between the RSS leadership and the Government of India following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and the ban imposed on the organisation in 1948. The RSS constitution emerged as part of a bargain that M S Golwalkar arrived at with the Nehru-Patel leadership. Far from being a document organically evolved within the RSS, it was virtually drafted by Congress leader D P Mishra and practically shoved down Golwalkar’s throat.
Since its formation in 1925, the RSS’s structure, decision-making mechanisms and internal functioning remained opaque. From its inception, the RSS cultivated ambiguity regarding its organisational structure and its relationship with political activity. The frustration of the then-government over this opacity is evident in the official correspondence of that period. After repeated flip-flops by Golwalkar, the Union Home Ministry under Sardar Patel wrote to him, “The government of India has expected that you would appreciate the constructive approach which they made to the draft constitution of the RSS but find that you have either misunderstood that approach or are deliberately adhering to the objectionable features of your constitution in the hope that they will enable you to carry on the activities of the RSS on the same undesirable lines as in the past.” (see Golwalkar, The Myth Behind the Man, The Man Behind the Machine by Dhirendra K Jha, p. 258). This context is crucial because Madhav presents the eventual adoption of the constitution as an amicable and mutually agreeable process.
The RSS also attempts to dilute contemporary concerns regarding transparency by invoking technical expressions such as “body of individuals”, which obscure more than they reveal. The issue is not whether the RSS can be identified as a legal category under tax law. The issue is whether an organisation exercising immense influence over public affairs should remain shielded from the levels of transparency expected of comparable institutions. The organisation claims to be cultural whenever questions of accountability arise. Yet its ideological influence extends deeply into political institutions, public policy and electoral mobilisation. It claims distance from politics even as its members occupy high offices in the state. This pattern of doublespeak has persisted for decades.
The RSS’s office in Delhi has reportedly been constructed at a cost running into many crores of rupees. Yet, consistent with the organisation’s longstanding preference for opacity, such assets are often held through other bodies and affiliated entities rather than directly in the name of the RSS.
This organisational fragmentation enables the RSS to exercise influence while avoiding accountability. Resources can be accumulated without meaningful public scrutiny. Activities can be coordinated while maintaining formal distance. Responsibility can be dispersed whenever difficult questions arise. This absence of transparency, the deliberate cultivation of organisational ambiguity, has repeatedly allowed the RSS to distance itself from some of the most consequential and heinous episodes of violence and communal mobilisation in Indian history. This concern is not just contemporary. It was articulated by the Government of India in the immediate aftermath of Gandhi’s assassination.
If political parties must disclose finances, if charities and religious trusts must maintain records, if companies must submit audited accounts and if public institutions are expected to operate under regulatory oversight, there is no democratic justification for exempting the RSS from similar standards.
The writer is general secretary, CPI
