We define the Sangh as “that which is constituted by organisational sites through which a central executive may exert authority, (a) through existing institutionalised communication channels, and (b) without coercion.” In other words, the network mapped out here is a network of organisations that in one way or another can be traced back to the RSS, not a network of Hindutva organisations.

To learn more, see Pal, Felix. (2023). “The Shape of the Sangh: Rethinking Hindu Nationalist Organisational Ties”. Contemporary South Asia, 31(1), 133–143

All evidence collected in Seeing the Sangh has been sourced from publicly available materials, and the Sangh’s own sources in particular—organisational records, autobiographies, blogs, and social media posts—and corroborated with academic literature, financial filings and government documents. Where possible, researchers sought to verify these ties through multisource data triangulation (in other words, searching for corroborating evidence from multiple distinct sources).

To confirm an organisation’s presence in the RSS’s network, details from these sources were weighed against a 34-point criteria matrix. Each of these thirty-four criteria suggested different strengths of Sangh linkage and were therefore assigned a weight—either 1.0 (definite), 0.5 (probable), or 0.25 (possible). An organisation’s cumulative score, capped at 1.0, represents the strength of its connection to the Sangh, with a score of 1.0 marking definitive inclusion within the Sangh, while an organisation with only 0.25 would, with available evidence, be considered only weakly tied to the Sangh. These thirty-four criteria were chosen on the basis of material, rather than ideological ties, and refined in consultation with a range of researchers and civil society members.

For more details, refer to Pal, Felix. (2024). “Organizational Diffusion: What India Tells Us about How the Far Right Wins.” Politics & Society, 53(2), 210-242.

As mentioned, we have attempted to include an organisation in this dataset on the basis of corroborating evidence from multiple distinct sources. However, in some cases, we were only able to identify one datapoint linking the organisation with the Sangh. In these cases, we feel the organisation should nevertheless be included in the map, but have accordingly marked this organisation as “Thin Evidence.”

During data collection, organisations were categorized into a three-tiered function matrix. For example, a cow protection group would have “Religious” as its Macro Function, “Cows” as its Meso Function, and “Cow Protection” as its Micro Function. However, to keep the fact-checking process manageable, The Caravan decided to only fact-check each organisation’s “Macro Function.” As a result, we have only displayed “Macro Function” in our published map.

Octagons convey the total number of organisations in a specific administrative area (country, state, district, etc.).

Stars on the map represent aggregations of organisations without a specific identifiable address, or with multiple addresses, but whose scope of influence lies in a particular administrative area.

• Organisations whose activity is restricted to a single location or district are classified as “local.”
• Organisations active in two or more districts, but only a single state, are classified as “regional.”
• Organisations active in two or more states, but only in India, are classified as “national.”
• Organisations active outside India, or in two or more countries, are classified as “international.”

• Organisations that have demonstrated some form of activity, whether in-person or virtual, in the past 5 years, are considered Active, and given a designation of “Yes.”
• If no such evidence could be found, organisations are given a designation of “N/A.”
• Organisations that have demonstrably ceased activity are marked as Inactive, and given a designation of “No.”

A “Parent Organisation” is used to describe a formally acknowledged, parent-daughter organisational relationship, one in which the daughter organisation is founded by, subsidiary to, or operationally managed by, the parent organisation.

We use the term “Linked Organisation,” on the other hand, to describe an informal and unacknowledged—but no less significant—relationship between two organisations. This most often is achieved by one of the following criteria: the transfer of money between two organisations; an officer operating across the leadership of two organisations; a shared address between two organisations; and a shared event or joint program between two organisations.