Ekal USA and Sewa USA received $117.8 million in grants and donations: what the RSS links and funding records show

Two US-registered charities with reported historical or organisational connections to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ecosystem received a combined $117.8 million in contributions and grants between 2020 and 2024, according to a 6 October 2026 investigation by Bellingcat. Its examination of US charity tax filings identified at least $24.4 million of this total coming through donor-advised funds, whose original donors are not necessarily named in public records.

The distinction matters: Bellingcat documented money reaching Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation of USA and Sewa International Inc (Sewa USA), and evidence of connections to RSS-associated organisations. It did not establish that the donor-advised grants went to the RSS itself. These US organisations are legally separate from the RSS, and organisational links are not the same as proof of common control, improper spending or an FCRA violation.

How much money was involved?

Bellingcat compared Form 990 filings, the annual public tax returns of US non-profits, covering 2020–24. Ekal USA reported more than $48.4 million in contributions and grants, including at least $8.3 million traced to donor-advised funds. Sewa USA reported almost $69.4 million, including at least $16 million from such funds. The two amounts add up to about $117.8 million received overall, of which at least $24.4 million, or 20.7%, was identified as donor-advised grants. The identified donor-advised money came through 34 fund-sponsoring organisations; the total could be higher because Bellingcat excluded some filings spanning years outside its study period.

The charities also reported foreign grants: Ekal USA reported $33.7 million for the Ekal Vidyalaya project in India, while Sewa USA reported $29.7 million in grants to organisations in South Asia, alongside about $622,613 in domestic US grants. These are expenditure figures, not separate additions to the $117.8 million of money received. They do not identify every final recipient of each grant.

What connects the charities to the RSS ecosystem?

For Ekal USA, Bellingcat cited an account by a Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America (VHPA) spokesperson that Ekal USA began as a VHPA programme before becoming independent, as well as published connections involving its leaders and RSS figures. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has attended and supported Ekal Vidyalaya events in India. These facts help explain the historical and ideological association, but do not prove that the RSS controls Ekal USA’s finances. Ekal USA says its schools do not teach religion or discriminate by caste, religion or language. Bellingcat reported that Ekal USA did not answer its questions about the relationship and criticisms of the school movement before publication.

For Sewa USA, Bellingcat found its own publications mentioning RSS-inspired founders or volunteers, and references to Sewa Bharati in India as a sister or partner organisation. The RSS website has also linked to Sewa Bharati. But Sewa USA’s public-affairs vice president, Rakhi Israni, told Bellingcat that Sewa USA is not a branch or affiliate of the RSS, does not engage in political activity and has no role in Sewa Bharati’s governance or operations. She described foreign grants to Indian partner agencies as project-based, audited humanitarian work. Bellingcat could not determine from the filings how much, if any, Sewa USA granted to Sewa Bharati during the period.

Evidence of a shared history, public endorsements or partner projects warrants scrutiny, but must not be presented as proof that either charity secretly transferred donations to the RSS. Some evidence of relationships came from years outside 2020–24, which limits conclusions about the exact arrangements during the financial period.

Why donor-advised funds make the picture harder to trace

A US donor-advised fund allows a donor to give money to a sponsoring charity and recommend later grants. The sponsoring organisation legally controls the funds; the original donor may stay unnamed in public grant records. The US Internal Revenue Service explains this structure. It is a lawful and widely used method of charitable giving, not evidence of wrongdoing by itself.

Nevertheless, the public can generally see the sponsoring organisation’s grant to a recipient without learning who originally recommended or financed it. Bellingcat reported that three large sponsors accounted for nearly $20 million of the identified grants. Fidelity Charitable, American Online Giving Foundation and DAFgiving360 told Bellingcat they conduct due diligence on recipients. That response establishes their stated policies, not the outcome of a case-specific independent audit.

The legitimate accountability issue is whether donors, fund managers, regulators and the public have enough information to know where money ultimately goes, what activities it supports and whether charitable safeguards work. Donor privacy has a legitimate role; it should not become a reason to ignore credible questions about grant recipients and end-use.

Does this establish a contradiction with India’s FCRA rules?

The Instagram carousel shared on 11 October presents the findings as a criticism of arguments about foreign funding and India’s Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). But the financial arrangements need to be distinguished. FCRA regulates foreign contributions received by covered people and organisations in India, including registration or prior-permission requirements. The US tax filings concern US charities receiving contributions and making grants, including overseas grants. The two legal systems and the transactions they regulate are not interchangeable.

India’s Ministry of Home Affairs FCRA portal describes the registration and reporting framework. Whether any specific Indian recipient complied with FCRA would require identifying that legal entity, the particular transfer and its registration, permissions and return filings. The Bellingcat figures alone establish neither an FCRA offence nor that all foreign-funded activity should be treated as suspect.

What the evidence means

The strongest supported finding is substantial, partly donor-anonymous US charitable funding to two organisations with documented historical, ideological or partner links to an RSS-associated network, together with substantial grants sent to India or South Asia. The findings make financial transparency and independent scrutiny important questions, especially where charitable education or relief activities intersect with political or religious influence. Accusations that recipients use schooling for ideological indoctrination need separate evidence; Ekal disputes discrimination and religious teaching.

It would be unfair to call the $117.8 million an RSS donation or to pronounce the transfers illegal without evidence. It would also be wrong to dismiss questions about where charitable money goes simply because a payment is lawful or the organisation describes its aims as humanitarian. The reasonable standard is consistent scrutiny of substantial cross-border funding, with clear evidence, proportionate rules, due process and the same safeguards for organisations regardless of political or religious identity. The documented gap is transparency about donors and final uses, not proof that the RSS received these funds.