Some donors in the US have expressed concerns that “Rahul does not conduct background checks properly,” fearing that donor funds might be misused. This assertion, I believe, relates to Gaurav Sharma, a purported IAS trainer. On the sidelines of fundraising events in the US in March, there was a conversation with donors about Gaurav Sharma and how he allegedly defrauded an Indian-origin US citizen. I vaguely recall this discussion, which is why I connected the assertion to Gaurav Sharma.
Let’s break this down and address the following points:
- Rahul Dewan’s history with Gaurav Sharma
- The claim that Rahul Dewan does not conduct background checks
Rahul Dewan’s History with Gaurav Sharma
I was introduced to Gaurav Sharma at an event organized at the request of Shashi Kejriwal ji, who was visiting from the US to meet Hindu warriors and Dharmikas working for the civilization. I don’t recall the exact date, but it was likely early 2023, possibly March. The gathering, hosted by Kaushalesh Rai at his residence in New Delhi, had about 20 attendees.
I arrived late and missed the introductions of several people, including Gaurav Sharma. However, I recognized familiar faces like Ashutosh Joshi, a dedicated Dharmika who worked quietly behind the scenes alongside my friends Vikram Tikoo and Sachin Chitlangia. Later that week, Ashutosh called me about Gaurav Sharma and Murali (from Hyderabad), asking if I could meet them and explore financial support.
In early April 2023, I visited Gaurav Sharma’s training center in Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi. I was impressed by what I saw—posters of Hindu Rajya sankalpa and verses from the Vedas adorned the apartment walls. The rooms had double-occupancy beds and were quite basic, clearly a place where students lived.
I inquired about Gaurav’s background and his reasons for training economically disadvantaged Hindu students, including those from the SC community. His frustration with funding issues was evident. He shared that promised donations often took months to materialize, saying, “For giving a thousand rupees, a thousand questions are asked” (paraphrased). I empathized with his struggle, having faced similar challenges while raising funds for a “Hindu Charter” project with M. Nageswar Rao and Sankrant Sanu in 2017–18, an experience I found humiliating.
I wrote a cheque for Rs. 25 lakh to Gaurav on the spot. He was taken aback, noting it was the first time someone had donated such a large amount after just an hour of conversation. This reflects my approach: I take leaps of faith, both in donations and business investments, avoiding overthinking or over-analysis that could paralyze decision-making.
Later, Gaurav visited my office and mentioned a loan of over Rs. 7 lakh. Col. Ramakrishnan, my co-founder at Sarayu Trust since 2006, was present during this discussion. We donated additional funds from Sarayu Trust to help clear the loan.
Gaurav regularly sent updates about his students’ yoga events, developments in the IAS training space, and lists of Urdu-educated Muslims entering the IAS in various years. He visited our office frequently, expressing his desire to leave his Railways job and teach 100 students full-time. I was determined to help him find a suitable space.
Meanwhile, we issued another cheque of Rs. 12 lakh from Sarayu Trust to cover part of his expenses for the financial year 2024–25 (in installments, if I recall correctly). A few months later, someone messaged me on WhatsApp, warning that Gaurav Sharma was a fraudster. They cited his abusive relationship with his girlfriend or wife and even shared voice recordings, which I found bizarre and intrusive. I was also told that others had donated large sums, including one person who gave Rs. 50 lakh.
I confronted Gaurav, who responded by taking the following steps:
- He shared his HDFC Bank and Kotak Bank login credentials for us to verify his bank statements.
- He provided the contact number of the woman in question.
- He explained his position in detail.
I spoke with the woman, who initially described Gaurav as dedicated to his work and teaching, dismissing accusations against him as false. Over several days, she shared that he was abusive and provided other details, which I was asked not to disclose publicly.
Gaurav’s bold response strengthened my confidence in him. I was unconcerned about his personal life or allegations of being a womanizer (as claimed by the US caller), as long as he was doing valuable work for Hindu causes. As part of our due diligence, we visited the RSS’s IAS training center, which confirmed that some of Gaurav’s students attended their programs and that he appeared to be doing good work.
Confident in his commitment to Hindu Dharma, we took Gaurav to see a potential training center building in Coimbatore, covering all travel expenses for him and our project manager. Gaurav loved the facility and expressed readiness to relocate and leave his job, mentioning he was on a two-year unpaid leave from the Railways.
However, lingering doubts prompted us to request his Railways employment letter. He couldn’t produce it. We then asked a senior Railways officer to verify his employment, and the response was negative—he was not employed by the Railways.
I was furious and confronted Gaurav. He promised to visit the office and explain everything, but despite several follow-ups, he never showed up. I was still willing to support him if he was genuinely training students to become IAS/PCS officers, provided he was fully transparent. His failure to engage ended our association.
Does Rahul Dewan Fail to Conduct Background Checks?
The US donor who made this assertion was also defrauded by Gaurav, despite visiting his training center, just as I did. We are in the same boat, so I am no worse than this donor.
I have funded over 100 organizations and individuals working for Hindu causes. Only about two or three have defrauded me or Sarayu Trust—a success rate of 97%. That’s a strong track record.
Over-analysis and endless verification can frustrate genuine workers. I rely on instinct and continue to support people, and 97% of the time, it has proven to be a good decision. Some recipients may be inefficient or rigid in their methods, but efficiency is not our primary goal. We aim to build a thriving Hindu ecosystem. Occasional failures should not alter our approach.
I ask myself, “Who am I going to be, despite inefficiencies or fraud?” The answer is, “I will continue to give.” How can I call myself a Dharma warrior if I let fear of misuse prevent my money from being used for good?
For this reason, I established two principles for the Hindu Fund:
- Make liberal grants.
- Trust by default, evaluate over time.