Des émeutes à Kaushambi suite au vandalisme de la statue d'Ambedkar

Mohan Bhagwat, the head of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), recently dismissed Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge’s call for greater transparency within the organisation as politically motivated. During an RSS centenary outreach programme in Thrissur on June 14, 2026, Bhagwat stated that Kharge’s demands—seeking details about the RSS’s registration status, funding sources, and organisational structure—were driven by politics rather than genuine concerns over accountability. This dismissal followed Kharge’s June 13 open letter to Bhagwat, where he urged the RSS to adhere to the same transparency norms as NGOs, companies, and religious institutions. Kharge argued that the organisation, with its vast network of shakhas and millions of members, should be subject to public scrutiny and constitutional accountability.

The controversy escalated as the RSS and the BJP rejected Kharge’s requests, with Bhagwat asserting that the organisation functions openly and that formal registration is only required for entities seeking government funding. He also highlighted that Hindu Dharma, a concept central to the RSS’s ideology, is not registered as a legal entity. Furthermore, Bhagwat claimed that the RSS has historically faced government bans, which were later lifted, indicating that authorities are well aware of the organisation’s activities. He also noted that courts and tax authorities have classified the RSS as a “body of individuals,” granting it income-tax exemptions.

The situation took a more personal tone when BJP MP Ramesh Jigajinagi criticized Kharge for questioning the RSS, suggesting that Dalits have no right to challenge the organisation. Jigajinagi accused Kharge of leveraging his position as a Dalit leader to make controversial statements. In response, Kharge defended his actions, stating that he is a follower of B.R. Ambedkar and that his courage stems from Ambedkar’s principles. He challenged Jigajinagi’s assertion that Dalits should not question the RSS, arguing that such a stance undermines the very ideals of social justice and equality that Ambedkar championed. Kharge also questioned whether Jigajinagi’s comments were meant to discourage Dalits from engaging with the RSS or to suggest that they lack the capability to scrutinize the organisation constitutionally.

Meanwhile, the political tensions extended beyond Karnataka. In Kerala, Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan condemned three Vice Chancellors for attending an RSS-centenary event addressed by Mohan Bhagwat, calling their participation a “grave lapse.” This led to backlash from the BJP, with state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar accusing Satheesan of practicing “appeasement politics.” Chandrasekhar argued that Satheesan lacked the moral authority to criticize secularism, especially given the government’s reliance on Muslim League and Jamaat-e-Islami support. He also accused the Congress and CPI(M) of using the BJP and RSS as tools for political mobilization, suggesting that the UDF government is complicit in promoting religious politics.

Adding to the regional tensions, a separate incident occurred in Uttar Pradesh, where a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was vandalized in Kaushambi district. The attack sparked outrage among local Dalit communities, who organized a sit-in demanding strict action against the perpetrators. Police reinstalled the statue and assured villagers that investigations were underway. Opposition leaders, including Ajay Kumar Lallu of the UP Congress and Afzal Ansari of the Samajwadi Party, attributed the incident to the influence of feudal elements and the BJP’s divisive politics, claiming that such acts aim to suppress the dignity of marginalized communities.

As the situation unfolds, the calls for transparency from Kharge and the subsequent responses from the RSS and BJP highlight deepening political divides. With the RSS maintaining its stance on non-registration and non-compliance with certain legal norms, and Kharge insisting on accountability, the debate over the organisation’s role in Indian society remains contentious. Meanwhile, the broader implications of these disputes extend beyond the immediate political arena, touching on issues of secularism, social justice, and the balance between institutional autonomy and public oversight. As the discussions continue, the expectations for resolution remain uncertain, with each side likely to persist in its positions unless external pressures or legal interventions alter the course of the discourse.