Asif Mahmood, chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), said the bipartisan panel remains willing to engage in direct dialogue with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) just days after the commission recommended targeted sanctions against the Hindu nationalist organisation over religious freedom concerns. Mahmood’s remarks, made in an interview with Hindustan Times, signal a calibrated shift in tone from a body whose latest annual report urged the State Department to impose visa bans and asset freezes on RSS leaders for what it described as the group’s role in “systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom” in India.
What happened
In the interview published on 28 June 2026, Mahmood emphasised that the commission’s objective “is not to go and hurt anybody” but to “do good for the people who are repressed in that country and society.” He added: “We can change our mind. We are open for dialogue.” The comments came less than a week after USCIRF released its 2026 annual report, which for the first time explicitly named the RSS — the ideological parent of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) — as an entity of particular concern and recommended that the Biden administration designate it under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). Such a designation would trigger mandatory sanctions, including denial of US visas and blocking of US-based assets for designated individuals.
Mahmood did not walk back the sanctions recommendation. Instead, he framed it as a lever to encourage behavioural change rather than a punitive end in itself. “The goal is to see improvement on the ground,” he said. “If there is improvement, the recommendations change.” The chair also noted that USCIRF has previously engaged with Indian government officials and civil society groups, and that the door remains open for the RSS to present its perspective directly to the commission.
Why it matters
The USCIRF’s sanctions recommendation against the RSS marked a significant escalation in the US government’s formal assessment of religious freedom conditions in India. While the State Department has not yet acted on the recommendation — it is not bound to follow USCIRF’s advice — the commission’s findings carry diplomatic weight and are closely monitored by lawmakers, human rights organisations, and foreign governments. India has consistently rejected USCIRF’s assessments, calling them “biased” and “misinformed,” and the Ministry of External Affairs has previously dismissed the commission as an “organisation of particular concern” itself.
Mahmood’s willingness to dialogue introduces a potential off-ramp. If the RSS were to engage substantively — addressing specific allegations of incitement, violence, or discriminatory rhetoric attributed to its affiliates — it could alter the commission’s calculus in future reporting cycles. Conversely, a refusal to engage would likely harden the narrative that the organisation is unwilling to account for its actions, strengthening the case for sanctions in the eyes of Congress and the executive branch.
For the Biden administration, the episode underscores the tension between its strategic partnership with India — anchored in defence, technology, and Indo-Pacific coordination — and its stated commitment to human rights and religious freedom as pillars of foreign policy. The State Department’s own 2025 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices documented “significant human rights issues” in India, including “restrictions on freedom of religion” and “targeting of religious minorities,” but stopped short of designating India as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC), a step USCIRF has urged since 2020.
Analysis: The commission’s dual-track messaging — sanctions as leverage, dialogue as pathway — reflects a broader dilemma for international accountability mechanisms. Sanctions can isolate bad actors but risk entrenching defensiveness; engagement can foster change but risks legitimising violators if not backed by clear benchmarks. Mahmood’s framing attempts to navigate this by presenting sanctions as conditional and reversible, contingent on measurable improvements in the treatment of religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians.
Background and context
USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan federal commission created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Its nine commissioners are appointed by the President and congressional leadership. The commission’s mandate is to monitor religious freedom violations globally and make policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress. Its annual reports are among the most authoritative US government assessments of religious freedom conditions worldwide.
The RSS, founded in 1925, describes itself as a cultural and social service organisation dedicated to “nation-building” and the promotion of Hindu values. It operates a vast network of affiliates — including the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal, and the BJP itself — that collectively form the Sangh Parivar. Critics, including USCIRF, human rights groups, and UN special rapporteurs, have documented a pattern of hate speech, vigilante violence, and discriminatory campaigns — such as “love jihad” and “ghar wapsi” (reconversion) drives — linked to RSS-affiliated groups. The RSS denies these allegations, characterising them as politically motivated attempts to malign a patriotic organisation.
India’s response to international religious freedom scrutiny has hardened in recent years. In 2024, the Ministry of External Affairs rejected the State Department’s human rights report as “deeply biased” and reflecting a “colonial mindset.” New Delhi has also restricted access for foreign NGOs and journalists reporting on communal violence, and has used the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act to curb funding for civil society groups documenting religious freedom violations.
The 2026 USCIRF report cited a surge in anti-conversion laws across BJP-ruled states, the demolition of Muslim-owned properties without due process, and the use of bulldozers as collective punishment after communal clashes — patterns the commission said were “enabled and encouraged” by RSS ideology permeating state institutions. The report also highlighted the 2024 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) as measures that “institutionalise religious discrimination.”
Analysis: The RSS’s centrality to India’s current political architecture makes any US action against it diplomatically explosive. The BJP’s electoral dominance, the RSS’s penetration of the bureaucracy, judiciary, and security apparatus, and the organisation’s self-presentation as the guardian of Hindu civilisation mean that a US sanctions designation would be perceived in New Delhi as a direct affront to Indian sovereignty and civilisational identity. This raises the stakes for both USCIRF’s credibility and the State Department’s willingness to act.
What to watch next
Several developments will shape the trajectory of this episode:
– State Department response: The Biden administration has until late 2026 to decide whether to accept USCIRF’s recommendation and designate the RSS under IRFA. A decision to designate would be unprecedented for a non-state, ideologically driven organisation with deep ties to a major power’s ruling party. A decision to decline would invite congressional criticism and undermine USCIRF’s influence.
– RSS engagement: Whether the RSS accepts Mahmood’s invitation for dialogue — and on what terms — will be a key indicator. The organisation has historically avoided direct engagement with international human rights bodies, preferring to operate through diplomatic channels and sympathetic media. A substantive engagement would require the RSS to address specific allegations, not merely issue blanket denials.
– Congressional action: Members of the US Congress, particularly the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, may hold hearings or introduce legislation mandating sanctions if the administration does not act. Bipartisan support for religious freedom legislation has grown in recent years.
– India-US bilateral dynamics: The issue will likely surface in high-level meetings, including the Quad summit and the 2+2 ministerial dialogue. India’s leverage — as a defence partner, market, and counterweight to China — will be tested against the administration’s human rights rhetoric.
– USCIRF’s 2027 report: The commission’s next annual report will assess whether conditions have improved, worsened, or stagnated. Mahmood’s “we can change our mind” formulation sets a clear benchmark: measurable progress on the ground, not just diplomatic assurances.
Conclusion
Asif Mahmood’s statement that USCIRF is “open for dialogue” with the RSS, days after recommending sanctions, encapsulates the commission’s attempt to wield accountability as a tool for change rather than a weapon of isolation. The recommendation itself — unprecedented in its direct naming of the RSS — reflects a growing consensus among US human rights monitors that religious freedom in India has deteriorated to a point requiring targeted pressure. Whether that pressure translates into policy depends on the State Department’s willingness to confront a strategic partner, the RSS’s willingness to engage beyond rhetoric, and the broader geopolitical calculus that has long tempered US criticism of India’s domestic trajectory. For now, the door is open. The next move belongs to the RSS — and to the administration that must decide whether to walk through it.
Sources:
Hindustan Times – India News: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/we-can-change-our-mind-us-religious-freedom-panel-chair-open-for-dialogue-with-rss-days-after-sanctions-call-uscirf-101787993679716.html
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Hindustan Times – India News — source
