Ananda Marga’s history is intertwined with a number of serious controversies and criticisms, many of which center on its relationship with political power and the state. Various governments have at times banned or restricted its activities, and members have faced imprisonment on charges that included conspiracy and murder, as well as accusations of involvement in bombings and attacks on officials. The movement’s political critique, articulated through its socio-economic vision, has led some authorities to describe it as subversive or extremist, while sympathizers argue that such actions reflected political persecution rather than impartial justice. In this contested space, the line between spiritual movement and political actor has often been perceived as blurred, which has amplified suspicion and scrutiny.

Alongside these legal and political disputes, the organization has frequently been labeled a cult by critics and some former members. Concerns have been raised about authoritarian leadership structures, strong obedience to central authority, and what detractors describe as psychological manipulation or excessive control over members’ lives. Strict codes of conduct for renunciates and householders, intensive discipline, and communal living have been portrayed by critics as harsh or coercive, whereas adherents tend to frame them as voluntary spiritual discipline necessary for inner growth and social service. This tension between discipline and perceived control is one of the most persistent points of contention.

The figure of the founder, P.R. Sarkar (Shrii Shrii Anandamurti), lies at the heart of many doctrinal and organizational criticisms. Some scholars and ex-members question the breadth and authority of his teachings, including his socio-political ideas and reinterpretations of traditional spiritual concepts, and see in them the dynamics of a highly centralized, charismatic leadership. Within broader Hindu and yogic circles, certain tantric emphases and reinterpretations of scripture are regarded as unconventional or heterodox. After his passing, internal disputes over leadership succession and interpretation of his legacy further fueled perceptions of organizational instability and factionalism.

Finally, there have been allegations of financial irregularities, property disputes, and contentious practices around recruitment and the treatment of young members, including concerns about boarding schools and family relationships. Traditional religious groups have sometimes criticized the movement’s unconventional practices, while some former insiders speak of difficult conditions for renunciates and strict internal discipline. Supporters, on the other hand, tend to highlight meditation, service, and social critique as the core of the movement, and interpret many of these controversies as misunderstandings or politically motivated attacks. The overall picture is one of a spiritually oriented organization whose bold social vision and rigorous lifestyle have attracted both deep commitment and sustained criticism.