More than fifty years ago, one man posed a question that Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge is asking today.
His name was MD Kamdar.
He was not a Congress leader.
He was not a Left activist.
He was not an ideological opponent of the RSS.
He was an RSS man.
After spending nearly three decades within the organisation, Kamdar went to court in the 1970s and asked a simple question:
What exactly is the RSS?
Is it a charitable body?
A religious organisation?
A political organisation?
And if it is any of these things, why is it not registered?
The answers that the RSS gave during those legal battles contain some of the clearest answers to the questions being asked today. It also explains why the RSS has long resisted registering itself as an organisation.
To understand the controversy today, we need to go back more than half a century. To Kamdar’s questions and RSS’ answers. And how its Constitution was changed.
Let me explain.
Over the last few days, you've probably seen the RSS registration controversy all over television and social media. Most of the discussion has revolved around political reactions, statements, counter-statements, and sound bites.
We decided to do something different.
Instead of asking what politicians are saying today, we wanted to understand what the RSS itself has said over the decades when these questions came up in courts, before tax authorities, and in legal proceedings.
If you value this kind of reporting—going beyond the headlines please consider supporting this show. You can contribute any amount by scanning the QR code and help us spend more time researching stories like this and bringing them to you.
Now, let's go back more than fifty years, to a man named M.D. Kamdar.
Like Pooja's LME? Support the show: https://rzp.io/rzp/support-lme
Like our journalism? Become a subscriber: https://www.thenewsminute.com/subscription
THE CONSTITUTION THAT SARDAR PATEL DEMANDED
The RSS was founded in 1925. But it is unclear if it had a proper constitution from the beginning. While some say yes, others say no.
And because of its secretive nature, no one has ever published a copy of this constitution if it existed.
That changed only after Mahatma Gandhi's assassination and the subsequent ban imposed on the RSS in 1948.
One of the conditions laid down by Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel for lifting the ban was that the RSS adopt a formal written constitution.
The government wanted clarity.
What were the organisation's objectives?
How was it structured and what were the rules?
Who exercised authority within it?
The constitution that emerged described the RSS as a cultural organisation devoted to organising Hindu society and promoting national service and character-building.
It said the Sangh as such has no politics, and is devoted to purely cultural work. Individual swayamsevaks may join political parties that do not indulge in violence or act secretly.
In short, the document that the RSS later relied upon in legal proceedings was born from a demand for transparency and accountability by the Indian state.
THE MAN WHO CHALLENGED THE RSS
The story of how the RSS was challenged begins with an unlikely figure.
Dr. M.D. Kamdar was an RSS man.
According to records discussed by legal scholar A.G. Noorani, Kamdar was associated with the RSS for roughly thirty years.
In 1972, Kamdar approached the Charity Commissioner in Nagpur and argued that the RSS should be registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
If the RSS were recognised as a public trust, it would be subject to greater scrutiny, regulation, and accountability.
The organisation resisted.
POLITICAL OR CHARITABLE?
In 1974, Deputy Charity Commissioner V.P. Behere ruled in favour of the RSS.
He held that the RSS was not required to register as a public trust because its objectives were closer to patriotic objectives than charitable or religious ones.
Think about that for a moment.
The organisation that publicly described itself as cultural in its constitution, was in legal proceedings, being treated as something like a political body.
Kamdar appealed.
In 1978, Joint Charity Commissioner M.S. Vaidya reversed the earlier ruling. He declared that the RSS was a public religious and charitable trust.
The RSS appealed against Vaidya's decision.
And in their appeal, Noorani says- RSS leaders argued that the RSS was neither religious nor charitable. Its objectives were cultural and patriotic and these objectives were "akin to political purposes."
HINDU RASHTRA
Among the most revealing sections of the appeal were descriptions of RSS festivals and rituals.
The appeal explained that events such as Hindu Samrajya Din, Vijayadashami, and other celebrations were intended to inspire swayamsevaks with the dream of a Hindu Rashtra.
Even Guru Purnima, a major RSS observance, was described in explicitly political terms.
The appeal argued that the ceremony centred on the Bhagwa Dhwaj, that is the saffron flag, not because of religious worship, but because the flag symbolised the Hindu Rashtra.
THE INCOME TAX BATTLE
So I have told you how the RSS was arguing before charity authorities that it was not charitable. But at the same time another battle was unfolding.
This time, with the Income Tax Department.
And here, according to A.G. Noorani's analysis of the records, the organisation adopted a very different position.
The RSS sought exemptions available to charitable and educational institutions.
In other words, while resisting classification as a public charitable trust in one forum, it was simultaneously arguing for charitable status in another.
Income Tax officials were unconvinced.
One officer concluded that since the RSS’s work to rejuvenate Hindu society involved political questions,the RSS could not automatically be regarded as a purely charitable institution.
Eventually, some of these battles reached the Patna High Court.
In 1994, the HC said that the gurudakshina collected in two assessment years- 1967-68 to 1975-76 was exempt from taxes on the principle of mutuality. That is money collected by members for a shared, non-commercial purpose.
THE CONSTITUTION THAT CHANGED
Now, even as these legal battles were on, the RSS amended its constitution in 1972
No one knows fully what these changes were, but a few have been recorded by Noorani and others.
The RSS constitution originally stated that gifts, donations, and offerings received by branches would form part of Sangh funds.
After the amendment, the wordings changed.
Guru dakshina, that’s the annual contribution made by swayamsevaks, was specifically linked to individual shakhas.
The practical effect was important.
The RSS argued that each shakha was financially independent.
There was no central ownership structure.
Now, why was the Constitution changed?
Perhaps to be in line with the principle of mutuality.
Which would enable RSS representatives to argue that individual shakhas were separate entities.
Now see this building?
This is Keshav Kunj- the Delhi headquarters of the RSS. Apparently built at a cost of Rs 150 crore, money collected from volunteers.
In her investigation ‘The RSS does not exist’ for The Caravan, journalist amrita singh found how money for this building came through Shree Keshav Smarak Samiti, a society registered under the Societies Act.
India has no general statute that compels every voluntary association to register as a society, trust or company.
The RSS says Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to form associations. Which means citizens can associate informally for social, cultural, religious, or political reasons.
V Venkatesan, a senior journalist wrote in the Frontline that the RSS can choose to remain an unregistered voluntary association.
And it is not obligatory for them to respond to Kharge’s letter.
But he also says that even though Article 19(1)(c) does allow the RSS to form an association, the article does not make the RSS above all other laws.
It has to answer to a competent authority like a tax authority if demanded.
And this is where the RSS’ structure comes in. An unregistered body can function from a building made for Rs 150 crores because it has created an opaque system of organisations around it. These organisations are all registered as societies, trusts etc and pool in the money while the RSS keeps pointing to the Patna ruling to claim exemption.
RSS leaders argued in 1978 itself that the organisation may change its policy and participate in political activity, even become a political party.
The RSS of today may not be an official political party, but it is very much part of the government in many ways. and aids the BJP in elections through its various affiliated organizations. It is no longer a small voluntary association operating on the margins of public life.
Its network extends across the country.
Registration would provide greater transparency regarding finances, governance structures, decision-making processes, and institutional responsibilities.
And if the RSS is confident in the legitimacy of its work, it is difficult to see why transparency should be resisted.
The legal disputes we have discussed today are not new discoveries. They have been part of the public record for decades.
If the legal ambiguities surrounding the RSS are so significant, why did the Congress not do anything before?
That does not invalidate the questions being asked today. But it does raise an uncomfortable question for the Congress as well.
Like Pooja's LME? Support the show: https://rzp.io/rzp/support-lme
Like our journalism? Become a subscriber: https://www.thenewsminute.com/subscription
Produced by Megha Mukundan, Script by Pooja Prasanna, Edit by Nikhil Sekhar ET, Camera by Ajay R