As the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) approaches the milestone of completing a hundred years since its founding in 1925, its place in India’s social and public life is beyond dispute. From a small volunteer-based organisation in Nagpur, it has evolved into one of the country’s most influential socio-cultural movements, shaping public discourse and inspiring a wide network of affiliated institutions.

Yet centenary moments are not only occasions for celebration; they are also opportunities for reflection. One question that continues to surface in discussions about the RSS concerns its institutional status and the absence of formal registration under a statutory framework commonly followed by many organisations operating in public life.

Supporters of the RSS have often argued that when the organisation was founded in 1925, the legal environment did not readily accommodate bodies of its nature. While this explanation forms part of the organisation’s historical narrative, a broader examination of the period suggests that various legal mechanisms for registration and formal incorporation already existed under colonial administration. The Societies Registration Act of 1860, for example, had long been in operation, while other statutory frameworks were available for associations, trusts, educational institutions, and public bodies.

This historical context does not necessarily imply that the RSS was obligated to register at the time of its formation. Many organisations of that era made strategic choices regarding their legal structure based on their objectives, operating environment, and relationship with colonial authorities. The more relevant question today is whether a decision made under the circumstances of 1925 remains appropriate in the vastly different context of twenty-first century India.

Over the past century, the RSS has grown from a local volunteer organisation into a nationwide network with substantial social influence. Its activities extend into education, community service, cultural engagement, and public affairs through a broad ecosystem of associated institutions. Such scale inevitably raises expectations regarding transparency, governance, and institutional accountability.

Modern India has increasingly moved toward systems that emphasise verification, disclosure, and regulatory compliance. Individuals and organisations alike are expected to operate within frameworks that facilitate public trust. Registration, financial reporting, and clearly defined governance structures have become standard features of institutional life, not because they diminish autonomy but because they help strengthen credibility.

Viewed from this perspective, the discussion surrounding RSS registration is less about ideology and more about consistency. The issue is not whether one agrees or disagrees with the organisation’s worldview. Rather, it concerns whether organisations exercising significant public influence should operate within broadly comparable standards of transparency and accountability.

Many charitable trusts, educational societies, religious bodies, and non-governmental organisations are required to maintain formal records and comply with statutory obligations. This has led some observers to ask whether similar expectations should apply uniformly across institutions, regardless of their size, popularity, or historical legacy.

It is equally important to acknowledge that registration alone does not determine an organisation’s contribution to society. The RSS’s supporters point to its extensive volunteer network, social-service initiatives, and long organisational continuity as evidence of its public value. Critics, meanwhile, argue that greater institutional transparency would further strengthen public confidence and reduce unnecessary speculation about its structure and operations.

The centenary year provides an opportunity to revisit these questions constructively. Formal registration, if pursued, would not alter the organisation’s ideological identity or historical mission. Instead, it could serve as a means of aligning a century-old institution with contemporary expectations of governance and public accountability.

Ultimately, the debate is not about challenging the RSS’s existence or denying its influence. It is about the evolving relationship between influence and accountability in a democratic society. As institutions grow in scale and significance, public expectations naturally evolve alongside them.

After one hundred years of continuous existence, the question is no longer whether registration was feasible in 1925. The more relevant question is whether, in today’s environment of increasing transparency and institutional scrutiny, formalisation would reinforce the credibility and public trust that the organisation seeks to cultivate.

That is a discussion worthy of a centenary—not because it diminishes legacy, but because it invites institutions to consider how legacy and accountability can advance together.

(Ms Joshi, a former AICC member, is a well-recognised lawyer-campaigner for female rights, and has authored “Breaking the Silence: A Handbook on the PoSH Act”.)