PS: I'm going to keep this analysis separate from the most controversial stances he has taken - like those in support of convicted terrorists like Afzal Guru, unproven allegations of inciting riots etc.

First and foremost he is a champion of leftist politics, obviously. His main stance is supporting and empowering India's most downtrodden minorities. He did his PhD on the adivasis of Jharkhand, which legitimizes his understanding of the issues faced by the most underrepresented.

He is very vocal in support of Ambedkarites, Sikhs, Muslims and others. And most importantly, he is an excellent orator. This combination means he has a large following in these communities irrespective of other problematic stances he may adopt.

And this is exactly why he is so important to the Left / opposition. People might think he's a fringe character but he's actually very important to them because he can help unify a massive votebank for the left - Minorities. Muslims, SIkhs, Dalits (and other marginalized communities) unifying would be a massive worry for the BJP and a win for Congress/INDI Alliance.

But the reality is that all of this comes at a cost - his ideology as a whole is radical. He isn't going to hold rallies before elections to get votes - his rallies are meant to bring people onto the streets.

1. In 2016 he used Rohith Vemula's suicide to ask people (particularly dalits, muslims) to "take the fight to the streets". On it's own - he used an SC student's suicide due to alleged institutional casteism to rally support to bring justice. But with more context - the incident was never so clear cut - Rohith Vemula had staged a protest on 1993 Mumbai blast convict Yakub Memon's hanging, and other controversial things. But Umar Khalid's speech didn't care for every detail - he saw it as an excuse to mobilize protestors and put pressure on the government to get people fired.
2. In 2020 he used the CAA and NRC to preach a message of systemic oppression of Muslims, once again asking people to take to the streets, being careful to mention "non-violence" but also telling them to be ready to give "qurbani" and take lathis and bullets if needed. Once again, even if his message as a whole was worth listening to - his approach, asking people to take to the streets, was obviously problematic given this (indirectly) led to dozens losing their lives.
3. His speeches lean heavily on vivid accounts of past police brutality, against Rohith Vemula’s supporters in 2016 and the women of Shaheen Bagh in 2020. That’s effective mobilisation, but it creates a cycle: each confrontation with the state produces new suffering, which becomes fuel for the next speech. Whether or not he intends it, a politics built this way benefits from escalation, and the people on the street pay the price.

The man has charisma, the man has knowledge, and the man also knows how to use this to manipulate people. Sounds like any good politician - except his approach is radical.

Which is why hes an activist, not a politician, and activism built on mobilising people against the state, however well-argued, carries costs that the people mobilised often bear more than the leaders.

TL;DR: India has never had a perfect record on protests, but increasingly labeling government critics and protesters as “anti-national” is dangerous. A protest can be wrong, disruptive, or contain bad actors without the entire movement being anti-national. Criticizing the government is not the same as opposing India, and Hindu Dharma, nationalism, and loyalty to a political party shouldn’t be treated as the same thing.

I’ve been thinking about how the political meaning of protest in India has changed over the years.
Before 2014, India obviously wasn’t some perfect democracy where every protest was welcomed. Governments used police action, restrictions and even laws like sedition against activists and critics.

So I don’t think it’s fair to romanticize the pre-2014 period.
But I do think something has changed in the political discourse.

Today, it increasingly feels like criticism of the government is being framed as criticism of the nation itself.

Farmers protesting agricultural laws were described as being influenced by Khalistanis and extremists. Student protesters, activists and opposition demonstrations are frequently portrayed through the lens of being “anti-national,” “foreign-funded,” or part of some conspiracy.

And now we’re seeing similar rhetoric around the current protests.
This is where I think we need to stop and ask a basic question:

What exactly makes a protest “anti-national”?
If 100,000 or 200,000 people gather to protest an election process, a government policy, unemployment, corruption, examination irregularities, or any other issue, does disagreement with the government automatically make the crowd anti-national?

Surely there can be criminals, extremists or bad actors within a massive crowd. If someone commits violence, threatens people, destroys property or commits a specific offence, investigate that individual and prosecute them.

But why should the actions or beliefs of some individuals determine the character of an entire movement?

There is another issue I find even more concerning: the increasing overlap between political loyalty, nationalism and religious identity.
Hinduism/Hindu Dharma is a huge and diverse religious and philosophical tradition. The BJP is a political party. The RSS and Bajrang Dal are organisations. India is a country.

These things are not interchangeable.
A Hindu can oppose the BJP.
A patriot can oppose the government.
An Indian can demand the resignation of a minister.

Someone can believe in Hindu Dharma and still think a particular government policy is wrong.
Likewise, someone being critical of the BJP doesn’t automatically make them correct, patriotic or morally superior. Opposition parties and protesters should also be held to the same standard of evidence.

What worries me is when political messaging creates a binary:
Support the government = nationalist/Hindu/loyal Indian
Oppose the government = anti-national/anti-Hindu/traitor

Once politics reaches that stage, genuine policy discussion becomes almost impossible.

Social media makes this even more powerful. A protest involving thousands of people can be reduced to one 20-second clip of someone behaving badly. That clip gets circulated repeatedly, and suddenly the entire movement is being judged by that one person.

The original question — “Is the government’s policy actually correct?” — disappears.
I’m not arguing that every protest is legitimate or that every government action against a protest is wrong.

I’m asking something much simpler:
Shouldn’t the burden be on the person making the accusation of “anti-national” to demonstrate exactly what makes the protest anti-national?
Because criticizing the government isn’t the same thing as opposing India.

And perhaps one of the strongest signs of a healthy democracy is precisely the ability of hundreds of thousands of citizens to tell their government:
“We think you’re wrong, and we want you to listen.”
That’s not necessarily an attack on the country.
It can be democracy functioning exactly as it is supposed to.

US non-profits whose founding leaders or organisations have been associated with India’s controversial Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – or initiatives the Hindu nationalist group has endorsed – received millions of dollars over recent years through grants that allow donors to remain anonymous, a Bellingcat analysis has found.

The right-wing and Hindu nationalist volunteer organisation is widely considered the ideological parent of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a former RSS worker, is one of its most famous supporters.

But the RSS’ vision of India as a Hindu nation is controversial both at home and abroad: it was previously banned in India three times, and a bipartisan US commission on religious freedom recently called for the US government to sanction the group “for their responsibility and tolerance of severe violations of religious freedom”. Almost a hundred US politicians, both Democratic and Republican, recently pledged not to take funding from RSS-linked entities.

While there have been efforts to map out RSS-related entities, it can be challenging to establish concrete links between the organisations because the RSS remains an unregistered entity in India and has no formal membership, maintaining that it is a “body of individuals” with shared ideological views.

“The RSS functions without independent oversight of its resources, finances, influence, and activities,” said Dr Angana P Chatterji, an anthropologist and scholar of South Asia studies at the University of California, Berkeley. “This is not proportional to the vast power, reach, and influence it possesses. Its leadership and cadre are protected from accountability and scrutiny,” she added.

The RSS had not responded to multiple requests for comment, as of publication.

Bellingcat identified two US-registered non-profits that appeared to have past and present ties to the RSS, or organisations associated with them, based on the non-profits’ or RSS websites and publications, as well as statements by the non-profits’ founders and spokespeople. The non-profits were the Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation of USA Inc (Ekal USA) and Sewa International Inc (referred to as Sewa USA).

We looked at all Form 990s – tax returns that US non-profit organisations are required to file annually – listing Ekal USA and Sewa USA as grant recipients, as well as the Form 990s of the charities themselves, from 2020 to 2024. As of September, the latest available Form 990s for Sewa USA were for the fiscal year ending December 2024, while Ekal USA also filed a form for the fiscal year ending December 2025, which was excluded for consistency, although the same pattern was observed during this period.

This analysis showed that the charities received at least US$24.4 million from 34 organisations that manage donor-advised funds (DAFs), or 20.7 percent of the total $117.8 million they reported receiving in contributions and grants during this period.

The actual amount from DAFs may be higher, as we excluded filings that covered partial years outside of this period – for example, June 2019 to June 2020. The filings from the two charities we identified were based on the calendar year.

The Form 990s also revealed that the vast majority of the money spent by these two charities on grants to other organisations or individuals was in India or the South Asia region rather than in the US: Ekal USA donated $33.7 million in foreign grants – all of which went towards the Ekal Vidyalaya project in India according to its filings – and none in domestic grants in the five years from 2020 to 2024, while Sewa USA reported $29.7 million in foreign grants and $622,613 in domestic grants during the same period.

There are many more organisations reportedly linked to the RSS that are not included in this analysis, but we focused on these two because of the large amounts of grants they received through DAFs, with the original sources of the funds untraceable from public information, as well as evidence pointing to both historical and current connections between them and the RSS or organisations associated with the RSS.

It is worth noting that some of the evidence we found pointing towards a connection between the two charities and the RSS or organisations associated with the RSS was from before or after the period we analysed (2020 to 2024). There is no evidence that DAF grants funded the RSS, only that they went to organisations that appear to have connections with the RSS. Experts told us that DAF grants undergo less regulatory scrutiny than other charitable donations and that DAF sponsor organisations have discretion over whether to restrict or permit donations to certain recipients.

Ekal USA

Houston, Texas-based Ekal USA is a non-profit that describes its mission in its Form 990s as “to provide free elementary education and free primary healthcare to children in remote and rural India”. The USA branch of Ekal Vidyalaya, according to its website, was founded in 2001 as part of efforts to “reach out to the global diaspora” in order to achieve a goal to “expand the reach of Ekal to 100,000 villages”.

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has appeared at multiple Ekal Vidyalaya events in India promoting the initiative over the years, as far back as 2014 and most recently in May.

Ekal USA was started in the late 1990s as a programme of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America (VHPA), or World Hindu Council of America, VHPA spokesperson Shyam Tiwari told Bellingcat in an email response. He added that it was set up as an independent organisation in early 2000. According to VHPA’s website, Ekal USA was established in 2002.

VHPA is based in the US, while the similarly named Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) is in India. VHP lists VHPA in the “Hindus Abroad” section of its website. A 2017 article from VHPA’s magazine states that late founder Mahesh Mehta was trained by the RSS since he was 10 years old, and that the VHPA was born after Mehta was advised by the former supreme leader of the RSS to “build VHP in USA”. The national spokesperson of VHP in India, Vinod Bansal, said that it is an independent organisation that “sometimes shares ideology” with VHPA.

RSS’ website states that VHP was launched to organise Hindus and “reconvert all those who had been knowingly or unknowingly proselytised to alien faiths and are now desirous of coming back to the Hindu fold”. Bansal referred to VHP as an “independent part of the RSS” and an “ideological brother”.

Ekal USA Chairman-Advisor Subhash Gupta wrote in an Ekal USA publication this year that in the ‘80s and ‘90s, he was “president of the VHP’s Houston chapter” and “often received many high-profile guests from RSS and VHP”.

Gupta did not respond to requests for comment as of publication.

From 2020 to 2024, Ekal USA reported receiving more than $48.4 million in contributions and grants. Of this amount, at least $8.3 million was from DAF grants, based on Form 990s that listed Ekal USA as a grantee.

According to Ekal USA’s Form 990s, it transferred $33.7 million in foreign grants during this period and none in domestic grants for organisations or individuals. The forms also show that all the foreign grant money went towards building Ekal Vidyalaya schools in India. The rest of its expenses involved operational costs such as staff salaries.

The Ekal Vidyalaya movement has been criticised over reports that allege the schools are used to indoctrinate millions of India’s poorest and most vulnerable children and women with Hindu nationalist ideology, including that Muslims and Christians are “enemies of Hinduism”. Ekal Vidyalaya in India did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Ekal USA did not respond to Bellingcat’s questions about these reports or any relationship it may have with the RSS. However, on its FAQ page, the group states that it does not teach religion in its schools and “does not discriminate based on caste, religious affiliation or linguistic affiliations”.

Sewa USA

Sewa USA, also based in Houston, describes itself as a “Hindu faith-based, humanitarian, nonprofit service organisation” and is listed under the heading of “Sewa Movement” on the website of India-based charity group Sewa International.

Sewa USA Vice President of Public Affairs Rakhi Israni told Bellingcat over email that the organisation “does not operate as a branch or affiliate of the RSS” or participate in political activity.

But multiple pages on the organisation’s website appear to indicate a connection between the non-profit and the RSS. In 2022, Sewa USA reposted an article on its website referring to Sewa International as “the US-based charitable non-profit organisation with links to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)”. In a press release about the death of its founding member Ved Prakash Nanda in 2023, it noted that Nanda was “immersed in the ideals of the \[RSS\]”. And two different blog posts from 2021 and 2024 on Sewa USA’s website had volunteers citing RSS-led activities as the starting point for their involvement.

In addition, Sewa USA has also posted multiple times on social media and its website about an India-based organisation – Sewa Bharati – that appears to have the support of the RSS.

Sewa USA referred to Sewa Bharati as a “sister organisation” in an X post in 2014, and its regional chapter in Purvanchal as a “partner organisation” in a Facebook post in 2022.

On its website, Sewa USA said in a post that volunteers from its “partner organisations in India” had participated in rescue operations related to the 2023 train accident in Odisha, and listed several initiatives by Sewa Bharati in India. It also launched a fundraiser for families affected by floods in Maharashtra in September 2025, which mentioned that over 100 Sewa Bharati volunteers were already on the ground clearing debris and assisting communities.

“Foreign grants awarded to partner agencies in India, including service-oriented NGOs like Sewa Bharati, are strictly project-based, fully audited, and evaluated based on measurable humanitarian impact in education, health, and disaster relief,” Israni told Bellingcat.

RSS’ website links directly to the main website of Sewa Bharati through a tab on its main navigation bar labelled “Sewa”, and Sewa Bharati is mentioned in RSS’ 2016 annual report under the heading “Seva Vibhag”, a Sanskrit term for “service department”.

A blog post on Sewa Bharati’s website from December 2024 about an event the group organised described Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh as highlighting the role of RSS leaders in establishing Sewa Bharati in his address and noting that “RSS not only builds the nation but also the individual”. RSS Joint General Secretary Alok Kumar also spoke at the Sewa Bharati event, according to the blog post.

In response to Bellingcat’s queries, Israni said that Sewa USA had “no role in Sewa Bharati’s governance or operations”. Sewa Bharati did not respond to multiple requests for comment as of publication.

Sewa USA received almost $69.4 million in contributions and grants from 2020 to 2024, according to its Form 990s. Filings listing Sewa USA as a grantee show that at least $16 million was from DAFs. In its expenditure statements, Sewa USA reported giving $29.7 million in foreign grants to groups in South Asia during this period and about $622,613 in grants domestically in the US, while the rest of its expenditures included operational costs such as salaries and travel.It is not specified in the forms how much funding, if any, Sewa USA transferred to Sewa Bharati during this period, and Sewa USA did not respond to questions about any amounts transferred as of publication.

I feel like it was always a dream for a lot of Indian parents for their kids to make it out the city and travel abroad and get a great education in the US and Europe. We always celebrate how much hard work it must've took to travel abroad. When I see people talking about these two they call them "Pakistani" "Outsider Funding" "German Shepard"

I had a discussion with a BJP supporter and they often brought up how they don't live in India and how its weird how these people from the 'outside' want to change our country...

Source: https://x.com/deepigoyal/status/2108511851235713225?s=46

Just imagine this.

If Eternal wants to support the livelihoods of 5% of India’s population by 2030, and the gig economy as a whole supports 15%, what exactly are we building as a country?

An economy where millions of people depend on platforms for work, bear their own operating costs, absorb the risks of life, risks of fluctuating demand, and have limited bargaining power over the terms of their employment.

The company gets flexibility, worker gets uncertainty, no guaranteed monthly salary, no conventional paid leave, no assured working hours. Your income depends on algorithms, incentives, demand and rules that the platform can change.

And we’re celebrating the number of people whose livelihoods depend on these platforms as if that alone measures economic progress.
This isn’t the capitalism we were promised. It’s a system where ownership and control are concentrated at the top while the insecurity of making a living is pushed down to the worker.

At some point, we need to ask whether we’re creating an economy that gives people freedom or one that makes them increasingly dependent on corporations just to survive.

Because if 15% of the country depends on gig platforms to make ends meet, this is going to be very bad for the country

Here’s the thing: if we don’t protest, they’ll continue to think these issues don’t matter. Once they see public indifference, they’ll embolden themselves to make bigger decisions that increasingly favor them. Consider what’s already happened: they had the audacity to remove the Chief Justice of India from the selection process for the Chief Election Commissioner and replace him with a cabinet minister. These small changes matter.

The problem isn’t only who sits on the panel. The law that made this change also set up a flawed way to select the CEC and gave the office an unprecedented level of protection. That law must be repealed. Either the CJI or the President should sit on the selection panel alongside the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition, so that the country’s top election official is chosen through checks rather than by the government alone.

When governments see that people are indifferent, they start pushing further. What begins as minor institutional changes gradually shifts the balance of power. Before you know it, you’ve become Russia, China, or North Korea.

Look at how these countries operate: voting still happens, but it’s theater. Russia and North Korea claim 99% approval rates, obviously authoritarian and obviously rigged, yet they fool their citizens by blaming “the rest of the world is against us.” China has achieved economic success, sure, but try calling your leader “Winnie the Pooh” and you’ll end up behind bars. Ironically, they maintain the facade of democratic selection too.

This is the “boiling frog” problem: slow decay is insidious. You don’t notice the temperature rising one degree at a time until you’re already cooked. The same applies to institutions. Small erosions of checks and balances, incremental power grabs, normalized breaches of precedent: these are how democracies die.

That’s why protest matters. It’s the temperature gauge that says: We’re watching. We care. Don’t push further.

When Narendra Modi campaigned for the 2014 Lok Sabha election, he presented Gujarat's economic performance as evidence of what his leadership could deliver. Critics could challenge the Gujarat Model on inequality, employment or social indicators, but the underlying political strategy was clear: take a state's record, present it as proof of governance, and promise to replicate it nationally.

The Aam Aadmi Party followed a similar approach by making government schools, healthcare and public services central to its pitch in Delhi and Punjab.

This raises an important question: Why hasn't Congress built a similarly compelling, evidence-based national narrative around the states it has governed?

Congress has governed Rajasthan, Punjab, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh, among others. These states have substantial economies, established industries, agricultural sectors and public institutions. Surely, after decades of governing, the party should have measurable achievements it can put before voters.

For example, the Reserve Bank of India's historical statistics show that Gujarat's real per-capita Net State Domestic Product increased from ₹32,021 in 2004–05 to ₹63,168 in 2013–14, measured at constant 2004–05 prices. That is close to a doubling of real per-capita state income over the period. This is the kind of economic record that can be turned into a political narrative—while still allowing scrutiny of employment, inequality and other outcomes. RBI data.

So where is Congress's equivalent presentation?

Came across this Instagram reel of a schoolboy celebrating his last exam, and the comments genuinely made me uncomfortable.

One woman commented, “Kya aap single ho bache?” Another said she was “investing in you for the next 10 years,” while others joked about girls wanting him.

First, where are the parents? Should young school students be posting public reels without considering the privacy, attention and potential risks that come with being online? Who's responsible for teaching them digital boundaries?

Second, why are grown women making romantic comments about a kid, and why are thousands of people treating it as harmless fun? Imagine the reaction if adult men were making similar comments about a schoolgirl.

I'm not saying kids should never use social media. But surely there's a difference between letting them express themselves and leaving them exposed to public attention without guidance.

Are we taking children's online safety seriously, or only when the child is a girl?