During the last decade in India, a Hindu nationalist government has taken the helm, and Hindutva ideology, once regarded as fringe, has grow to be firmly entrenched and empowered politically and socially.
Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi first rose to power in 2014, India has grappled with rising religious nationalism, posing significant challenges to its founding principles of pluralism and equality. Democracy watchdogs have expressed concern concerning the health of the world’s largest democracy. In 2018, as an illustration, one group categorized India as an “electoral autocracy.” In 2024, the country was downgraded in status, becoming often known as “one in all the worst autocratizers.” Both domestic and international observers have raised concerns about potential threats to India’s constitutional framework and minority rights.
Many rejoiced when Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) did not win an absolute majority last month for the primary time in three elections, but concerns concerning the widespread political and social influence of Hindutva remain.
Against this backdrop, P. I. Jose’s recent book, Hindutva Palm-Branches and the Christian Resolve, examines India’s evolving political and non secular landscape. Drawing on his extensive experience practicing in front of India’s supreme court, Jose examines the growing influence of Hindutva and its impact on India’s constitutional democracy and secular fabric.
CT recently spoke with Jose about what secularism means in a rustic as religious as India, Hindutva’s effects on constitutional principles, and the precarious position of spiritual minorities, particularly Christians, in India’s current political climate.
How does India’s constitutional secularism compare to its practical implementation?
Former Indian supreme court justice K. M. Joseph once said, “Secularism is a facet of equality. If you treat all religions equally, that’s secularism. You are fair, you don’t bias or patronize.” However, his subsequent statement reveals the truth: “I’m still optimistic that secularism will survive.” If a recently retired supreme court judge expresses such concern, one can imagine the actual situation in our country today.
The resolve of the people of India, in crafting the structure, was to create “a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic,” in line with the present preamble. Interestingly enough, the preamble adopted in 1949 didn’t originally contain the word secular, as B. R. Ambedkar, the architect of our structure, said there was no need to incorporate the term. He believed your complete structure manifested the concept of a secular state, because it codified nondiscrimination on grounds of faith and gave equal rights and standing to all residents.
The words secular and socialist were added in 1976, throughout the Emergency (a 21-month period from 1975 to 1977 when then–prime minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency across the country, claiming internal and external threats) via a constitutional amendment. And in a 1994 verdict, the Supreme Court of India held that secularism is an element of the structure’s basic structure and is unamendable.
However, Hindu nationalists have at all times been against the concept of India being secular and, in reality, have made motions in parliament to delete the word from the structure. As a results of Hindutva, which mainly sees secularism as pandering to spiritual minorities, today we’re witnessing widespread attacks against religious minorities, including Christians.
India has grow to be infamous for lynching incidents and for the demolition of churches and other minority religious symbols. Fellow residents and law enforcement personnel have attacked pastors, disrupted worship services, and engaged in rampant hate speech against religious minorities. Parallel to this, we see the federal government going all out to not only construct huge religious structures for the state-favored religion but to paint India within the majoritarian faith language and symbols, which is totally antithetical to secularism as envisioned by our founding moms and dads.
You argue that Hindutva opposes constitutional principles. Can you elaborate on this clash of values?
Activist V. D. Savarkar promulgated Hindutva within the Nineteen Twenties to justify Hindu nationalism and establish Hindu hegemony in India. He defined Hindus as individuals whose “fatherland” and “holy land” were inside the Indian subcontinent, thus excluding Muslims and Christians by definition but including Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains as Hindus. Hindutva envisions and strives for a Hindu rashtra (nation) and opposes the principle of equality for all residents, and even speaks of disenfranchising religious minorities. Even though Savarkar spoke against the caste system, modern Hindutva promotes it—and its foundation is the erasure of spiritual minority cultures.
Our structure, in contrast, states that “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws inside the territory of India.” What’s more, the structure also prescribes equality as a fundamental duty for each citizen “to value and preserve the wealthy heritage of our composite culture.”
Savarkar was one in all the individuals who supported the two-nation theory that ultimately resulted within the partition of India. Hindutva, I feel, created the pangs of partition and the killing of thousands and thousands of Indians, including Mahatma Gandhi. In a rustic that values ahimsa (nonviolence), this ideology has led to a gentle growth in violence, as repeatedly recorded by various commissions investigating sectarian violence and violence against religious minorities in India, including Christians.
The Supreme Court of India has equated Hindutva with “Indianization.” Why do you suspect this judgment is wrong and undermines secularism and democracy in India?
In a 1995 supreme court ruling on an election appeals case, Justice J. S. Verma wrote, “Hindutva is known as a synonym of ‘Indianisation,’ i.e., development of uniform culture by obliterating the differences between all of the cultures co-existing within the country.”
The court’s ruling led to “Hindutva becoming a mark of nationalism and citizenship” and emboldened a movement that has consistently used violent means to precise and implement their beliefs. Countless lives have been lost since, with the Manipur violence being the newest manifestation.
By defining Hindutva as a lifestyle and never as a faith, the court disassociated it with the Hindu religion. This meant that Modi’s BJP, as an illustration, could legally appeal to Hindu sentiments for votes, which they’ve been doing since then. This dissociation has divided the nation along religious lines, facilitated the spread of hatred against other religions for votes, and portrayed adherents of other faiths as anti-national.
You suggest that Hindutva is more about Brahminical supremacy than authentic Hindu faith. What evidence supports this claim?
Hindutva has two facets. One concerns its treatment of other religions, where discriminatory practices stem from a desire to ascertain the supremacy of its adherents. At its core, Hindutva goals to ascertain a Hindu lifestyle based on the caste system as described within the Manusmriti and the Arthashastra—two Hindu scriptures that uphold the supremacy of the best caste, Brahmins, who’re traditionally priests—however it also advocates untouchability against what it deems because the outcastes.
However, I include in my book several Hindu scholars who cite different Hindu scriptures that suggest that equality is definitely at the guts of the religion. From the work of those authorities, we will see that authentic Hinduism doesn’t support caste-based hierarchy.
Your book alleges that Hindutva supporters have infiltrated government institutions. Can you provide examples of this?
As far back as 1982, a government report identified RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing Hindu nationalist volunteer paramilitary organization) methodologies for frightening communal violence as “infiltrating into the administration and inducing the members of the civil and police services by adopting and developing communal attitudes.”
Recently, such a behavior has grow to be obvious and accepted, as seen within the conduct of presidency nominees to selection boards, including those of spiritual minority–run educational institutions. If they need their loyalists running such institutions, can we expect them to permit anyone not toeing their line into government positions while they’re in power?
How can India restore the integrity of its electoral process?
Since Modi’s 2019 victory, public opinion has turned against the election process. By 2023, almost every opposition party agreed that the present regime is misusing government power to thwart democratic processes.
A supreme court verdict highlighted the necessity for an impartial election commission and laid down procedural safeguards for its selection. But the Modi government circumvented these recent regulations and compromised the independence of the commission.
Further, the supreme court rejected the opposition’s demands that the paper receipts of the votes issued from electronic voting machines (EVM) be counted to verify the authenticity of the votes polled.
The court’s stubborn reasoning on it will remain India’s misfortune until residents find ways to persuade those essential smart old men in power. Unless all residents are free to vote and votes are properly counted, democracy can’t be revived in India.
What is the state of India’s opposition parties?
Despite their calls to save lots of the structure, most parties refuse to unite and as a substitute work against one another, effectively aiding the ruling party. This division is aggravated by the infiltration of Hindutva forces, weakening their ability to present a cohesive front. Why aren’t these opposition parties insisting on changing EVMs or on one hundred pc verification of votes?
Given the challenges you outline, what solutions do you plan for shielding the rights of Christian minorities in India?
When warning signals got here after the 1982 Kanyakumari riots, we did not get up. Same when, in 1998, the RSS and its affiliated groups attacked tribal Christians within the Dangs district of Gujarat. The 2008 Kandhamal incident shook us barely, but we did not respond unitedly.
Four many years later, Hindu extremists are 40 times stronger and more entrenched in the federal government and society. The whole state machinery and power is under their control. Democracy is on a ventilator, and we will only hope to heal it by working with the bulk community to revive and strengthen secular democracy.
