The controversy surrounding Mohan Bhagwat’s recent appearance in New York raises an important question about the ethical responsibilities of organizations that convene interfaith gatherings. Two prominent American religious leaders who participated in an associated program have said that they were not informed that Bhagwat, chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, would be its central figure. Their accounts have transformed what was presented as a celebration of universal fellowship into a dispute over transparency, consent and the political use of religious symbolism.

Bhagwat spoke to a crowd of about 5,000 attendees at Madison Square Garden on August 29 at the "Universal Oneness Celebration". The event was also marketed with the slogan "One World, One Humanity". American Hindus for Engagement and Dialogue (AHEAD) hosted the event as part of an evening of cultural programming that included representatives from various faiths. Bhagwat addressed topics including unity, religious harmony, and the idea that everyone is one world, one family. He encouraged the Indian diaspora to be proud Americans but not to forget India.

Such messages are unobjectionable in principle. Indeed, religious and cultural leaders should be encouraged to promote respect across national and communal boundaries. The difficulty arises from Bhagwat’s institutional position. The RSS is not merely a spiritual or cultural association. It is the ideological parent of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and occupies an influential place in the country’s political life. Critics associate its Hindutva ideology with a majoritarian conception of India that they believe has contributed to the marginalization of Muslims, Christians and other minorities. Supporters, by contrast, describe the organization as a patriotic social movement committed to service, discipline and cultural renewal.

Given this contested record, the identity of the principal participant could hardly be treated as a secondary detail. Adriene Thorne, senior minister of New York’s historic Riverside Church, said that she received repeated invitations over approximately six weeks from a group identified as the World Council of Religious Leaders. According to Thorne, the gathering was described as an interfaith event, but she was not told that Bhagwat would play a central role or that the RSS and AHEAD were connected to it.

Thorne later stated that she had been "duped" and regretted attending what she described as a "terrible mistake." She added that her presence "in no way endorses Bhagwat, RSS or Hindu nationalism." Fair enough.  It's one thing for an admired spiritual figure to meet with a problematic political personage or ideologue. Photos of the resulting tête-à-tête, however, can easily be read as an endorsement, whether or not that was the intent. Once those photos are public, few pay much attention to subsequent qualifiers.

New York-based imam and interfaith leader Shamsi Ali offered a similar account. He described his attendance as a “serious error in judgment” and said that neither his conversations with the organizers nor the invitation disclosed Bhagwat’s central involvement. Ali stated that he would have declined had he known the event was organized around the RSS chief. After learning more about the gathering, he reportedly did not attend its continuation at Madison Square Garden.

Thorne and Ali's allegations demand a clear response from the event organizers. Still, a distinction exists between what actually occurred and what some who attended thought was promised regarding invitations. But if pertinent information was willfully withheld, then what occurred was less a bureaucratic mistake than manipulation of interfaith dialogue to create an appearance of spiritual legitimacy and harmony.

Meaningful interfaith engagement requires informed consent.  Faith leaders will sit onstage with others who disagree with them politically and theologically. Dialogue requires no preconditions of agreement, and screening every speaker for controversial views would prevent productive dialogue altogether. But event participants should know who is sponsoring an event, who its major speakers are, and how their attendance will be portrayed. Without transparency, interfaith dialogue risks becoming theater. 

Equally notable is how this controversy underscores how India’s internal political polarization is seeping into its diaspora. The New York event drew attendees who praised Bhagwat for his rhetoric about oneness. Opponents of the RSS, including civil-rights groups, condemned the event as promoting a communalist political agenda. Inviting Christian and Muslim leaders to join such an event thus had implications beyond simple politeness. Their attendance could suggest the RSS had addressed critics by demonstrating interreligious support.

We should hear what Bhagwat says about religion and politics. He claims all religions can reach the same goal by different routes, and that idea merits hearing. Invocations of inter-religious harmony ring hollow, however, when an organization’s actions do not uphold transparency, equality, and consent. This controversy isn’t about whether Bhagwat should’ve been allowed to speak in New York. Freedom of association means organizations can hold legal events, just as others can exercise their freedom of speech to protest them.

It’s about whether interfaith leaders were provided enough information about the event to exercise free will in joining it. If not, the organizers owe those leaders and the public an explanation and apology. Interfaith outreach can help counteract political divisiveness. But it will only be effective if people trust each other. An event with the theme “One World, One Humanity” shouldn’t showcase religious figures as a testament to unity if they feel misled into participating.