
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


The Mainichi
11 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Modi and Trump once called each other good friends. Now the US-India relationship is getting bumpy
NEW DELHI (AP) -- The men shared bear hugs, showered praise on each other and made appearances side by side at stadium rallies -- a big optics boost for two populist leaders with ideological similarities. Each called the other a good friend. In India, the bonhomie between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump was seen as a relationship like no other. That is, until a series of events gummed up the works. From Trump's tariffs and India's purchase of oil from Russia to a U.S. tilt towards Pakistan, friction between New Delhi and Washington has been hard to miss. And much of it has happened far from the corridors of power and, unsurprisingly, through Trump's posts on social media. It has left policy experts wondering whether the camaraderie the two leaders shared may be a thing of the past, even though Trump has stopped short of referring to Modi directly on social media. The dip in rapport, some say, puts a strategic bilateral relationship built over decades at risk. "This is a testing time for the relationship," said Ashok Malik, a former policy adviser in India's Foreign Ministry. The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Simmering tensions over trade and tariffs The latest hiccup between India and the U.S. emerged last week when Trump announced that he was slapping 25% tariffs on India as well as an unspecified penalty because of India's purchasing of Russian oil. For New Delhi, such a move from its largest trading partner is expected to be felt across sectors, but it also led to a sense of unease in India -- even more so when Trump, on social media, called India's economy "dead." Trump's recent statements reflect his frustration with the pace of trade talks with India, according to a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal administration thinking. The Republican president has not been pursuing any strategic realignment with Pakistan, according to the official, but is instead trying to play hardball in negotiations. Trump doubled down on the pressure Monday with a fresh post on Truth Social, in which he accused India of buying "massive amounts" of oil from Russia and then "selling it on the Open Market for big profits." "They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA," he said. The messaging appears to have stung Modi's administration, which has been hard-selling negotiations with Trump's team over a trade deal by balancing between India's protectionist system while also opening up the country's market to more American goods. Many expected India to react strongly considering Modi's carefully crafted reputation of strength. Instead, the announcement prompted a rather careful response from India's commerce minister, Piyush Goyal, who said the two countries are working towards a "fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement." India's Foreign Ministry also played down suggestions of any strain. However, experts in New Delhi wonder. "Strenuous, uninterrupted and bipartisan efforts in both capitals over the past 25 years are being put at risk by not just the tariffs but by fast and loose statements and social media posts," said Malik, who now heads the India chapter of The Asia Group, a U.S. advisory firm . Malik also said the trade deal the Indian side has offered to the U.S. is the "most expansive in this country's history," referring to reports that India was willing to open up to some American agricultural products. That is a politically sensitive issue for Modi, who faced a yearlong farmers' protest a few years ago. Trump appears to be tilting towards Pakistan The unraveling may have gained momentum over tariffs, but the tensions have been palpable for a while. Much of it has to do with Trump growing closer to Pakistan, India's nuclear rival in the neighborhood. In May, India and Pakistan traded a series of military strikes over a gun massacre in disputed Kashmir that New Delhi blamed Islamabad for. Pakistan denied the accusations. The four-day conflict made the possibility of a nuclear conflagration between the two sides seem real and the fighting only stopped when global powers intervened. But it was Trump's claims of mediation and an offer to work to provide a "solution" regarding the dispute over Kashmir that made Modi's administration uneasy. Since then, Trump has repeated nearly two dozen times that he brokered peace between India and Pakistan. For Modi, that is a risky -- even nervy -- territory. Domestically, he has positioned himself as a leader who is tough on Pakistan. Internationally, he has made huge diplomatic efforts to isolate the country. So Trump's claims cut a deep wound, prompting a sense in India that the U.S. may no longer be its strategic partner. India insists that Kashmir is India's internal issue and had opposed any third-party intervention. Last week Modi appeared to dismiss Trump's claims after India's Opposition began demanding answers from him. Modi said that "no country in the world stopped" the fighting between India and Pakistan, but he did not name Trump. Trump has also appeared to be warming up to Pakistan, even praising its counterterrorism efforts. Hours after levying tariffs on India, Trump announced a "massive" oil exploration deal with Pakistan, saying that some day, India might have to buy oil from Islamabad. Earlier, he also hosted one of Pakistan's top military officials at a private lunch. Sreeram Sundar Chaulia, an expert at New Delhi's Jindal School of International Affairs, said Trump's sudden admiration for Pakistan as a great partner in counterterrorism has "definitely soured" the mood in India. Chaulia said "the best-case scenario is that this is just a passing Trump whim," but he also warned that "if financial and energy deals are indeed being struck between the U.S. and Pakistan, it will dent the U.S.-India strategic partnership and lead to loss of confidence in the U.S. in Indian eyes." India's oil purchases from Russia are an irritant The strain in relations has also to do with oil. India had faced strong pressure from the Biden administration to cut back its oil purchases from Moscow during the early months of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Instead, India bought more, making it the second-biggest buyer of Russian oil after China. That pressure sputtered over time and the U.S. focused more on building strategic ties with India, which is seen as a bulwark against a rising China. Trump's threat to penalize India over oil, however, brought back those issues. On Sunday, the Trump administration made its frustrations over ties between India and Russia ever more public. Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House, accused India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing oil from Moscow, saying it was "not acceptable." Some experts, though, suspect Trump's remarks are mere pressure tactics. "Given the wild fluctuations in Trump's policies," Chaulia said, "it may return to high fives and hugs again."


Nikkei Asia
a day ago
- Nikkei Asia
Secretary to lawmaker of Japan's LDP to be indicted over fund scandal
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Prosecutors have decided to indict a secretary to veteran ruling party lawmaker Koichi Hagiuda, overturning an earlier decision not to charge the aide over a failure to report about 20 million yen ($135,000) in political funds, investigative sources said Sunday. The move marks the first time that prosecutors have decided to pursue a criminal case, following a prosecution review panel decision, related to the Liberal Democratic Party slush fund scandal, reflecting persisting public frustration over the issue. Hagiuda was minister for economy and trade, among other responsibilities, under former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, and minister for education under Kishida's predecessor Yoshihide Suga. He has not been included in Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's Cabinet. The secretary was not indicted in 2024, with prosecutors granting a stay of prosecution. In June, however, a Tokyo committee for the inquest of prosecution ruled the aide should be indicted. Prosecutors now plan to issue a summary indictment. A summary indictment allows prosecutors to seek a fine through written procedures without a formal trial. If the secretary does not consent, prosecutors are expected to file a regular indictment and request a public trial without detaining the individual. The omitted funds totaled 27.28 million yen over five years through 2022, according to the LDP. About 19.52 million yen from 2020 to 2022 was subject to prosecution under the political funds control law, as amounts prior to 2020 were beyond the statute of limitations. The prosecution review panel pointed to the secretary's repeated misconduct and destruction of receipts, calling the case particularly egregious. It warned that failure to indict may encourage others to engage in similar conduct in the future. The LDP, which has been in power for much of the time since 1955, has come under intense scrutiny after some of its now-defunct factions, such as one headed by the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, failed to report income from fundraising events and amassed slush funds. Hagiuda, also a former LDP policy chief, was known as a confidant of Abe, who once led the party's largest faction that was influential in selecting prime ministers. Abe, Japan's longest-serving premier, was assassinated in 2022 during a campaign speech. Since the surfacing of the slush funds scandal in late 2023, public trust in the LDP has plunged, taking a heavy toll on the party even in recent elections. Over the past year, the LDP-led ruling coalition lost its majority in both chambers of parliament. In May 2024, prosecutors decided not to indict Hagiuda, but the case was sent for review. The panel later ruled the non-indictment appropriate, citing a lack of evidence. In October's House of Representatives election, he ran as an independent and won, although the LDP did not endorse him due to his involvement in the scandal. Hagiuda was again endorsed by the LDP following his successful reelection. After the party's major setback in the July 20 House of Councillors election, he has been among the veteran lawmakers urging Ishiba to step down.


Yomiuri Shimbun
a day ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Texas Democrats to Flee State, Blocking Plan to Pad Gop's Control of Congress
Democrats in the Texas legislature said they were fleeing the state Sunday to block a redistricting plan backed by President Donald Trump aimed at preserving the GOP's slim House majority, escalating tensions as a broader fight over congressional district lines unfolds throughout the country ahead of the 2026 midterms. Texas Democrats have twice deployed the same tactic to combat legislation in the 22 years since Republicans have controlled all of state government, but their efforts ultimately failed. This time, Democrats plan to stay away for two weeks to run out the clock on a special legislative session called by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to draw a map that would give Republicans five more House seats. The Texas House can conduct business only when two-thirds of its 150 members are present. At least 51 of the chamber's 62 Democrats will need to boycott the session to prevent Republicans from acting on the new map. The lawmakers could return a couple of days before the special session ends Aug. 19 and use other stall tactics, but any success could be short-lived as Abbott can immediately call another 30-day session. The Democrats, who said they were flying to Chicago, are making a risky bet. They could each face $500 daily fines and political blowback. As part of the special session, lawmakers are considering legislation to respond to last month's deadly floods, and blocking action on that issue will likely be unpopular. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has threatened to arrest legislators who break quorum, but he won't have jurisdiction over them if they stay out of state. 'We're not walking out on our responsibilities,' Texas Rep. Gene Wu, chairman of the Democratic caucus in his chamber, said in a statement. 'We're walking out on a rigged system that refuses to listen to the people we represent. As of today, this corrupt special session is over.' The fight in Texas and a looming GOP-led redistricting effort in Ohio have kicked off a national battle, with Democrats in California, Illinois and New York threatening to retaliate by tilting their states' congressional districts further in favor of their party. The Democrats' embrace of an all-or-nothing gerrymandering strategy comes after many of them spent years backing plans to strip politics from the map-drawing process to ensure voters have fair, competitive districts. While states such as Arizona and Michigan have adopted nonpartisan systems for drawing maps, Texas and many other states have not, and partisans there have free rein to give themselves as much power as possible. Texas Republicans unveiled a map last week under pressure from Trump and Abbott that would shift five districts sharply to the right. A committee approved the map Saturday and the Texas House was expected to take it up Tuesday. Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 congressional districts and under the new map they could take 30 next year. Trump won all 30 of the proposed districts by 10 points or more last year. Before Texas lawmakers unveiled their map, Trump said he favored 'a very simple redrawing' that would give Republicans more seats. 'We pick up five seats [in Texas] but we have a couple other states where we'll pick up seats also,' he told reporters last month. Texas Rep. Todd Hunter (R), the sponsor of the legislation to draw the new map, called the GOP proposal 'a good plan for Texas' that would give his party more seats in Congress. 'The primary changes … are focused on five districts for partisan purposes,' he said in committee. DNC Executive Director Ken Martin applauded Texas Democrats' response, saying their actions showed real leadership. 'Republicans thought they could just rig the maps and change the rules without the American people taking notice,' he said in a statement. 'They were dead wrong.' All states must draw new district lines at the beginning of each decade to account for population shifts identified by the U.S. Census. Where they place the lines can greatly favor one party over the other. Most states give legislators the power to draw the districts, but eight states use independent commissions in hopes of preventing partisan power grabs. After the 2020 census, Texas Republicans focused on keeping incumbents safe. The plan to redraw district lines in the middle of a decade is unusual and Republicans are open about using their power to stave off potential losses during the midterm elections, which historically have gone against the sitting president's party. Republicans hold a 219-212 majority in the House with four vacancies, and any cushion could protect their ability to deliver on Trump's agenda. His signature tax and immigration bill, for example, squeezed through the chamber last month, 218-214. Trump has signaled he will be heavily involved in the midterms, hosting fundraising dinners at his resorts and weighing in on social media with plans to target lawmakers with whom he disagrees. MAGA Inc., a super PAC aligned with Trump, raised a hefty $177 million in the first half of the year, according to a filing last week with the Federal Election Commission. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), a frequent target of Trump's ire and a potential candidate for president in 2028, has said he is working on a plan to shift Republican districts in his state to the left if Texas adopts a new map. In a dig at the GOP, Newsom reposted a map Friday on X from another user that showed all 52 of the state's congressional districts could be drawn to favor Democrats – likely wiping out the reelection chances of the nine Republicans who represent the state. Enacting a new map in California is not as easy as it is in Texas because the California Constitution requires that a nonpartisan commission establish districts. Newsom has said he wants to call a special election in November to get approval from voters to change the state's map for 2026, 2028 and 2030 if Texas acts. Republicans and Democrats alike engaged in gerrymandering in some states in the most recent round of redistricting. Illinois, the new temporary home for Texas Democrats, has a map that received an F from the Princeton Gerrymandering Project because it is so heavily skewed toward Democrats. Other Democrats have spent years calling for removing politics from map drawing. In recent weeks, those voices have died down as Democrats say they cannot disarm if Republicans in states like Texas are going to strengthen their numbers. Eric Holder, who served as President Barack Obama's attorney general, has championed nonpartisan redistricting for years but said Sunday on ABC that Democrats might 'have to do things that perhaps in the past I would not have supported' in response to Texas Republicans. Democratic governors echoed that notion, saying they opposed partisan gerrymandering but needed to retaliate if Texas Republicans carry out their plans. 'I think we need to respond in kind,' said Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, the chair of the Democratic Governors Association. If Texas changes its map, Democrats need to do the same wherever they can, said Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), the Democratic nominee for vice president last year. 'It is a terrible spot we're in as a country, but not responding is going to make it even worse,' he said. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) campaigned on ending gerrymandering, but he said he backs having states led by Democrats draw maps that favor their party if Texas acts. '[When] you're up against the wall, you have to do whatever you can to stop it,' he said. But changing maps in states led by Democrats is difficult. Kelly, Walz and Evers appeared at an event with the governors of Kentucky and Rhode Island, and all five governors are in charge of states where there appear to be few options for adding Democratic seats. Walz said Minnesota's courts would not allow gerrymandering in his state, and Republicans hold majorities in the legislatures of Kansas, Kentucky and Wisconsin. Democrats control all of Rhode Island's state government, but both of the state's two congressional districts already belong to Democrats.