
Has Hindutva Peaked in India?
This question is distinct from whether the BJP has peaked as a political force. In fact, the two questions may be inversely related, particularly if the BJP has little more to gain from promoting an explicitly Hindutva agenda. Hindu nationalism is an amorphous idea that can take on many forms, ranging from advocating for the establishment of a theocracy, to privileging Hindu customs and forcing assimilation, to the establishment of a majoritarian state that would still maintain constitutional rights for all, to the idea of treating Hinduism as a sort of cultural brand for India. The last of these visions seems to have increasingly prevailed: a far cry from what many on the right had previously advocated.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi remains highly popular, according to polls, and the right-leaning BJP does not seem to be at electoral risk, having performed well in recent local elections. Nonetheless, there are three reasons why the specific political agenda associated with Hindutva has peaked and may no longer play an important role going forward.
First, the Hindutva movement has achieved most of its big goals, such as the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, taking a tough line on Pakistan, and the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which gave the state of Jammu and Kashmir autonomy. Other goals, such as the construction of a Hindu temple on the site of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the implementation of a uniform civil code (UCC) offer the prospect of a tough battle in exchange for diminishing electoral returns. As the results of the 2024 general election demonstrated, a successful Hindutva agenda is not enough for the BJP to win a majority of seats in the Lok Sabha, especially when people have other concerns.
Second, Hindutva has either run into political opposition to its goals, or political calculations have led it to change its view on certain issues, ranging from language to religion to caste. For example, a recent move by the BJP-led government of Maharashtra to make Hindi a mandatory third language in the state, where Marathi is spoken, ran into strong opposition from other right-wing, nationalist parties also rooted in the Hindutva movement, but which promote local interests. The Hindutva movement, and the BJP in particular, is also moving toward a more accommodating stance toward minorities, especially Muslims. Perhaps this is driven by electoral calculations, but many people on the right seem to revel in the image of India as a successful multifaith society, rather than as a religiously or culturally homogenous one.
Not long ago, Mohan Bhagwat, the chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu organization with close ties with the BJP, gave a speech advocating for reconciliation with the past and avoiding further disputes between Hindus and Muslims over historical mosques built over Hindu temples. During the May 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan, the Indian government promoted a multifaith, rather than exclusively Hindu, identity by fielding a Muslim spokeswoman, Colonel Sofia Qureshi, for example. This demonstrates a move away from some of the more explicit rhetoric of characterizing India as a Hindu state. Nationalism remains extremely popular, but its expression has changed.
No issue demonstrates the changing social priorities of the Hindu right more than its embrace of the enumeration of castes in the upcoming 2027 census. The Hindutva movement, and the BJP, have generally downplayed caste and projected the idea of a united Hindu community — undivided by divisions of jati — that would help it ride to legislative majorities. Of course, the BJP has been adept at using caste calculations to win elections, but caste has never been a major plank of its ideology; the party's 2024 electoral manifesto did not mention it even once. Despite this, caste has remained a major feature of Indian society, and one of the few ways for opposition parties to push back against Hindutva and make electoral gains. One reason the BJP lost its majority in the 2024 election was because of faltering support among certain castes in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
The potential of more caste-based reservations is particularly attractive for backward castes, especially in an economy that lacks a strong tradition of private entrepreneurship. Other parties have failed to offer compelling alternative visions to much of the BJP platform: development, nationalism, and geopolitical assertiveness, all of which are popular. But the promise of reservations and welfare tied to caste numbers is a temptation that can lure many voters away from the BJP to regional parties or the opposition Indian National Congress. Thus, in order to remain electorally competitive, the Hindu right must dilute its ideology of Hindu unity and embrace caste politics. But a caste census would further entrench caste divisions, making it more difficult in the future to push for an agenda on the basis of a united Hindu community. Perhaps this is why the Hindutva movement is becoming more accommodating toward minorities, whose votes it may need.
Third, the social and economic aspirations of much of India's population have changed. The idea of promoting Hindu customs and demanding assimilation into them has less salience when the idea of Hindu tradition has itself changed. The electorate is also increasingly composed of different types of people with varying ideologies, which means that the political right has to modify its agenda in order to match the views of an increasingly young, educated, and connected population that is in some ways both increasingly liberalized and also increasingly prone to 'first-world' problems such as declining fertility. Advocating for cultural issues that are no longer outstanding problems is not a winning strategy.
Dr. Alice Evans, a social scientist at King's College London, corresponded with The Diplomat about the impact of technology on gender norms and Indian society. According to Evans, young people may 'push for greater freedoms' as a result of increased smartphone access. Smartphones make it easier for men and women to interact across caste lines and can also contribute to the spread of progressive Western ideas, especially through video. Changing gender norms, particularly an increase in friendship between men and women, move societies away from traditional social patterns. At the same time, Evans noted that 'there is a big gap in smartphone ownership' and that men can use the internet to 'express discourses of resentment and hostility' and 'may police and shame young women for impropriety.' In other words, the spread of technology and new ideas mean that there is 'lots of scope for ideological persuasion.'
How the impact of technology and societal change plays out in mixing modern and traditionalist ideas is exemplified by the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2025, which was enacted by a BJP government. BJP-led governments have long championed a uniform civil code, which is generally opposed by the Muslim community because they fear the abolition of their distinct personal law. The Uttarakhand UCC demonstrates that the BJP has attempted to synthesize old and new in a concession to changing norms, while also trying to remain true to its original agenda: the code gives women equal inheritance rights, but also sets the age of marriage at 21 for men and 18 for women. It recognizes extramarital cohabitation but also requires the registration of such relationships. In the span of little over a decade, groups on the Hindu-right went from protesting Valentine's Day to cautiously supporting gay rights. Hindutva's traditionalist stances, therefore, seem to have peaked, or at least begun to incorporate elements of a more liberal worldview, which is influenced by concepts of rights and, in the case of caste, social justice.
Legislative successes, new political realities, and changing social norms have all contributed to altering the agenda of the BJP and the ideology of Hindu Nationalism. Together, these trends point toward a conclusion that Hindutva, or at least much of the old goals and program of Hindutva, has peaked.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Japan Today
a day ago
- Japan Today
U.S. judge weighs putting new block on Trump's birthright citizenship order
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, after the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, in the Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington D.C., June 27, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno/File Photo By Jan Wolfe A group of Democratic-led states urged a federal judge in Boston on Friday to deal another blow to President Donald Trump's attempts to limit birthright citizenship, even though a U.S. Supreme Court decision last month made it more difficult for lower courts to block White House directives. Lawyers for New Jersey, arguing on behalf of 18 states and the District of Columbia, urged U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin to maintain an injunction he imposed in February that blocked Trump's executive order nationwide. The states' case is back in Sorokin's courtroom so he can assess the impact of the Supreme Court's landmark June 27 decision. In that 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court directed lower court judges like Sorokin that had blocked Trump's policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. Trump's executive order was already halted again last week by a different judge in New Hampshire, but a win in Sorokin's courtroom would give critics of the Trump policy another boost in litigation that is widely expected to end up back before the Supreme Court. Shankar Duraiswamy, an attorney for New Jersey, told Sorokin that the Supreme Court decision made clear that nationwide injunctions are permissible if they are the only way to provide "complete relief" to litigants in a particular lawsuit. A nationwide block on Trump's executive order is the only way to avoid massive administrative upheaval for state governments, Duraiswamy said. Restricting birthright citizenship in some states but not others would make it difficult to administer federal benefits programs like Medicaid, he argued. This patchwork approach would also lead to confusion among immigrant parents and a surge of people moving to states where Trump's executive order is on hold, straining resources, he said. "Half-measures are not warranted when enjoining a flagrantly unconstitutional executive action," Duraiswamy said, adding that the Trump administration "wants to rush forward with an unprecedented sea change in how citizenship is understood." Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton countered that, by continuing to advocate for universal relief, the states had failed to come to grips with the Supreme Court's decision. Hamilton said the burden is on the states to propose a narrower relief but they have failed to do so. He also argued the states were alleging fundamentally monetary harms, which are typically not addressed through injunctions. Sorokin told him that the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already rejected that argument in an earlier decision that left his injunction in place. "We are not asking this court to do anything contrary to circuit precedent," Hamilton said. "But it seems like you are," the judge replied. Sorokin said he planned to issue a written decision in the coming weeks. Trump's executive order directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States after February 19 if neither their mother nor father is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Rather than address the legality of Trump's executive order, the Supreme Court in its June ruling used the case to discourage nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions — in which a single district court judge can block enforcement of a federal policy across the country. But the court raised the possibility that universal injunctions are still permissible in certain circumstances, including class actions, in which similarly situated people sue as a group, or if they are the only way to provide "complete relief" to litigants in a particular lawsuit. A ruling from Sorokin, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, in favor of the states would be the second blow to Trump's executive order this month. On July 10 at a hearing in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, an appointee of Republican president George W. Bush, issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump's order after he found that children whose citizenship status would be threatened by it could pursue their lawsuit as a class action. The Democratic-led states, backed by immigrant rights groups, argue the White House directive violated a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that guarantees that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. The Justice Department has argued that the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the interpretation of birthright citizenship advanced by Trump, which they assert is consistent with the Constitution's text. © Thomson Reuters 2025.


The Diplomat
a day ago
- The Diplomat
Has Hindutva Peaked in India?
The third consecutive Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government, Modi 3.0, has now been in power for slightly over a year. Unlike Modi 1.0 and Modi 2.0, the current BJP-led government is a coalition government that faces political constraints and must make compromises to enact its agenda. Recent trends raise the question of whether conservatism — social and political — including Hindu nationalism or Hindutva, has peaked in India. This question is distinct from whether the BJP has peaked as a political force. In fact, the two questions may be inversely related, particularly if the BJP has little more to gain from promoting an explicitly Hindutva agenda. Hindu nationalism is an amorphous idea that can take on many forms, ranging from advocating for the establishment of a theocracy, to privileging Hindu customs and forcing assimilation, to the establishment of a majoritarian state that would still maintain constitutional rights for all, to the idea of treating Hinduism as a sort of cultural brand for India. The last of these visions seems to have increasingly prevailed: a far cry from what many on the right had previously advocated. Prime Minister Narendra Modi remains highly popular, according to polls, and the right-leaning BJP does not seem to be at electoral risk, having performed well in recent local elections. Nonetheless, there are three reasons why the specific political agenda associated with Hindutva has peaked and may no longer play an important role going forward. First, the Hindutva movement has achieved most of its big goals, such as the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, taking a tough line on Pakistan, and the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which gave the state of Jammu and Kashmir autonomy. Other goals, such as the construction of a Hindu temple on the site of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the implementation of a uniform civil code (UCC) offer the prospect of a tough battle in exchange for diminishing electoral returns. As the results of the 2024 general election demonstrated, a successful Hindutva agenda is not enough for the BJP to win a majority of seats in the Lok Sabha, especially when people have other concerns. Second, Hindutva has either run into political opposition to its goals, or political calculations have led it to change its view on certain issues, ranging from language to religion to caste. For example, a recent move by the BJP-led government of Maharashtra to make Hindi a mandatory third language in the state, where Marathi is spoken, ran into strong opposition from other right-wing, nationalist parties also rooted in the Hindutva movement, but which promote local interests. The Hindutva movement, and the BJP in particular, is also moving toward a more accommodating stance toward minorities, especially Muslims. Perhaps this is driven by electoral calculations, but many people on the right seem to revel in the image of India as a successful multifaith society, rather than as a religiously or culturally homogenous one. Not long ago, Mohan Bhagwat, the chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu organization with close ties with the BJP, gave a speech advocating for reconciliation with the past and avoiding further disputes between Hindus and Muslims over historical mosques built over Hindu temples. During the May 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan, the Indian government promoted a multifaith, rather than exclusively Hindu, identity by fielding a Muslim spokeswoman, Colonel Sofia Qureshi, for example. This demonstrates a move away from some of the more explicit rhetoric of characterizing India as a Hindu state. Nationalism remains extremely popular, but its expression has changed. No issue demonstrates the changing social priorities of the Hindu right more than its embrace of the enumeration of castes in the upcoming 2027 census. The Hindutva movement, and the BJP, have generally downplayed caste and projected the idea of a united Hindu community — undivided by divisions of jati — that would help it ride to legislative majorities. Of course, the BJP has been adept at using caste calculations to win elections, but caste has never been a major plank of its ideology; the party's 2024 electoral manifesto did not mention it even once. Despite this, caste has remained a major feature of Indian society, and one of the few ways for opposition parties to push back against Hindutva and make electoral gains. One reason the BJP lost its majority in the 2024 election was because of faltering support among certain castes in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The potential of more caste-based reservations is particularly attractive for backward castes, especially in an economy that lacks a strong tradition of private entrepreneurship. Other parties have failed to offer compelling alternative visions to much of the BJP platform: development, nationalism, and geopolitical assertiveness, all of which are popular. But the promise of reservations and welfare tied to caste numbers is a temptation that can lure many voters away from the BJP to regional parties or the opposition Indian National Congress. Thus, in order to remain electorally competitive, the Hindu right must dilute its ideology of Hindu unity and embrace caste politics. But a caste census would further entrench caste divisions, making it more difficult in the future to push for an agenda on the basis of a united Hindu community. Perhaps this is why the Hindutva movement is becoming more accommodating toward minorities, whose votes it may need. Third, the social and economic aspirations of much of India's population have changed. The idea of promoting Hindu customs and demanding assimilation into them has less salience when the idea of Hindu tradition has itself changed. The electorate is also increasingly composed of different types of people with varying ideologies, which means that the political right has to modify its agenda in order to match the views of an increasingly young, educated, and connected population that is in some ways both increasingly liberalized and also increasingly prone to 'first-world' problems such as declining fertility. Advocating for cultural issues that are no longer outstanding problems is not a winning strategy. Dr. Alice Evans, a social scientist at King's College London, corresponded with The Diplomat about the impact of technology on gender norms and Indian society. According to Evans, young people may 'push for greater freedoms' as a result of increased smartphone access. Smartphones make it easier for men and women to interact across caste lines and can also contribute to the spread of progressive Western ideas, especially through video. Changing gender norms, particularly an increase in friendship between men and women, move societies away from traditional social patterns. At the same time, Evans noted that 'there is a big gap in smartphone ownership' and that men can use the internet to 'express discourses of resentment and hostility' and 'may police and shame young women for impropriety.' In other words, the spread of technology and new ideas mean that there is 'lots of scope for ideological persuasion.' How the impact of technology and societal change plays out in mixing modern and traditionalist ideas is exemplified by the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2025, which was enacted by a BJP government. BJP-led governments have long championed a uniform civil code, which is generally opposed by the Muslim community because they fear the abolition of their distinct personal law. The Uttarakhand UCC demonstrates that the BJP has attempted to synthesize old and new in a concession to changing norms, while also trying to remain true to its original agenda: the code gives women equal inheritance rights, but also sets the age of marriage at 21 for men and 18 for women. It recognizes extramarital cohabitation but also requires the registration of such relationships. In the span of little over a decade, groups on the Hindu-right went from protesting Valentine's Day to cautiously supporting gay rights. Hindutva's traditionalist stances, therefore, seem to have peaked, or at least begun to incorporate elements of a more liberal worldview, which is influenced by concepts of rights and, in the case of caste, social justice. Legislative successes, new political realities, and changing social norms have all contributed to altering the agenda of the BJP and the ideology of Hindu Nationalism. Together, these trends point toward a conclusion that Hindutva, or at least much of the old goals and program of Hindutva, has peaked.


The Diplomat
2 days ago
- The Diplomat
The US Must Treat India's Transnational Repression as a National Security Threat
Russia, China, and North Korea have faced extensive scrutiny for targeting critics on U.S. soil. It's time India faced consequences for engaging in the same oppressive behavior. Russia, China, and North Korea have faced extensive scrutiny for attempting to control critics on U.S. soil. It's time India faced consequences for engaging in the same oppressive behavior. In November 2023, U.S. federal prosecutors in New York announced a stunning allegation that agents tied to the Indian government had conspired to assassinate a Sikh activist on American soil. This followed the June killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada, an assassination Canadian intelligence has directly linked to India. These were not rogue operations but part of a broader, disturbing trend of the Indian government exporting its repression of dissent to democracies abroad, including the United States. A new report by the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) reveals just how extensive this campaign has become. India's ruling Hindu nationalist government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is using its diplomatic corps, intelligence services, and diaspora-linked proxies to surveil, intimidate, and silence U.S. citizens and residents who dare to criticize the Modi government's policies or advocate for the rights of religious minorities in the homeland. The United States has long held India up as a strategic partner and a fellow democracy. But this relationship cannot come at the cost of compromising core American values, especially the First Amendment right to free expression, which sits at the core of U.S. democracy. The Modi-led government has crafted a global image of itself as the world's largest democracy, a tech-forward player, and a strategic partner to the United States. Yet beneath that glossy veneer lies a deeply troubling truth that India is actively engaging in transnational repression, targeting its critics in the U.S. with the same impunity it displays at home. It presents a clear threat to U.S. national security and the civil liberties of millions of diasporic Indians. Out of the 11 transnational repression tactics identified by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Indian authorities have employed at least nine, including assassinations, surveillance, family retaliation, passport revocation, visa denials, and online disinformation. Consider Masrat Zahra, an award-winning Kashmiri photojournalist now based in the United States. After reporting on human rights abuses in India, she was charged under the draconian anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, had her passport revoked while she was in the U.S., and has since watched her family and neighbors in Kashmir endure relentless police harassment. Angad Singh, an American journalist, was deported from India after producing a documentary critical of the Modi government. His Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card, a status that allows visa-free travel for Indian-origin individuals, was revoked over his critical reporting. Indian intelligence-linked troll farms and disinformation networks have been waging coordinated smear campaigns against U.S.-based critics, including elected officials. A shadowy, anonymous website, Disinfo Lab, with ties to Indian intelligence has published dozens of false reports labeling US activists and scholars as 'terrorist sympathizers,' 'foreign agents,' or 'anti-national.' These shouldn't be seen as isolated incidents, but part of a coordinated strategy by the Modi government to control its global image by silencing dissenters, even if it means violating U.S. law and threatening American lives. As a result, there is widespread self-censorship among Indian Americans, which is a direct affront to the freedoms they came to the United States to enjoy. Many diaspora activists, journalists, scholars, and critics are now avoiding speaking publicly or even maintaining relationships with critics of the Modi regime out of fear for their families back home or for themselves. These actions mirror those of regimes like Russia, China, and North Korea, which have faced extensive scrutiny for attempting to control critics on the U.S. soil. It's time India faced similar scrutiny, and the United States cannot allow its allies to behave like its adversaries. When foreign governments can silence speech, intimidate U.S. residents, and export their authoritarianism unchecked, the First Amendment protections become hollow. The Trump administration should treat transnational repression as one of the top national security threats to the United States. Washington must take this seriously. While the U.S. government pursues strategic partnerships and focuses on shared economic interests, this must not come at the cost of turning a blind eye to authoritarian overreach. Some U.S. states are beginning to respond. In California, Senate Bill 509, a landmark bill introduced this year, signals a crucial shift in recognizing transnational repression as a domestic threat. The bill aims to equip law enforcement and public institutions to recognize and respond to such threats and set an example for the rest of the country. Arizona has taken a similar step with House Bill 2374, which not only enhances penalties for targeting dissidents but also mandates the state's Department of Public Safety to develop a Transnational Repression Recognition and Response Training Program. These state-level efforts must be matched by national action. The United States needs comprehensive federal legislation that confronts all forms of transnational repression and protects Americans from harassment simply for exercising their First Amendment rights. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was outspoken about transnational repression while in the U.S. Senate, now has the authority to act decisively. Standing up to authoritarian overreach shouldn't be seen as a geopolitical inconvenience but a constitutional imperative of protecting rights and freedoms of all Americans.