A US lobbying firm’s revelation that it had received an exorbitant amount of $330,000 on behalf of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has triggered a controversy in India, as questions have emerged over how an organisation that is not registered domestically could raise such a hefty sum and whether the payment should draw the attention of domestic tax authorities.
The disclosure has set off a wider debate on the financial practices of the RSS, particularly in light of its longstanding claim of being funded solely through voluntary contributions known as “Guru Dakshina,” and has placed the focus on whether such funds were diverted for foreign lobbying activities in a manner that could attract scrutiny from Indian regulatory bodies.
The issue gained traction after former Secretary to the Government of India, E.A.S. Sarma, wrote to the Union Revenue Secretary asking whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) should examine how the RSS allegedly engaged the US lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs through payments routed via another lobbyist, and whether such transactions ought to be considered taxable under Indian law.
Sarma referred to the firm’s public disclosures to the US Senate, which recorded that it had been hired to lobby with American public officials on behalf of the RSS, and he pointed out that the organisation’s lack of registration in India raised doubts about the legality and transparency of the financial arrangements associated with the payment.
Sarma, while citing the nature of Guru Dakshina as a traditional contribution made out of respect for knowledge received, noted that Income Tax tribunals in earlier cases had recognised the spirit underlying such offerings and had granted exemptions to RSS funds on that basis, yet he argued that the character of such funds would undergo a fundamental alteration if the amounts were used for lobbying activities in foreign jurisdictions.
He questioned how an unregistered body could facilitate the transfer of funds abroad, whether the RSS operated any branch in the United States, whether Indian tax authorities had been informed about such an entity if it existed, and whether the movement of money had complied with regulatory norms governing foreign remittances from India.
The controversy widened after US-based outlet Prism reported that the lobbying firm had been paid $330,000 during the first three quarters of the year to represent the RSS before the US Senate and the House of Representatives, while a separate report in the New York Times linked the firm to a lobbying campaign undertaken by Pakistan, which allegedly preceded a favourable shift in trade policy under the Donald Trump administration that saw tariffs reduced for Pakistan and increased sharply for India.
These parallel developments intensified political criticism within India, with concerns raised about the RSS’s financial transparency and the implications of being associated with a firm that had simultaneously represented interests deemed adverse to India.
Following the reports, the RSS publicly denied hiring any lobbying firm, yet the disclosures already filed in the United States continued to fuel scepticism, and the calls for an investigation have placed pressure on Indian authorities to determine the origins, movement and legality of the funds said to have been used in the lobbying activities.