India's political and sociocultural landscape has significantly changed since the BJP came to power in 2014, with Hindutva ideology replacing diversity and democracy as the governing principles. By effectively deploying Hindutva as an ideological weapon, the BJP has brought about conflict under the guise of administrative control, creating an unstable and dangerous situation. The story of Hindutva that the BJP is pushing is not just a political position. The BJP's use of Hindutva to push Muslims to the periphery signifies a risky shift away from traditional government and toward an autocratic state machinery. Beyond simple rhetoric, this ideological appropriation of Hindutva is a deliberate tactic that reinterprets administration as a tool for societal control. The Hindutva narrative of the BJP, which is frequently presented as cultural nationalism, has acted as a catalyst for profound changes in India's political landscape. It aims to reinterpret the fundamental nature of government by replacing democratic values with discriminatory practices that shatter the nation's diversity. As we explore this subject further, it becomes critical to analyse how Hindutva transforms India's political discourse while posing as a sign of cultural pride.
Telangana Congress on X (Formally Twitter). https://twitter.com/INCTelangana/status/1211640123047071744
Constructing the most significant majority in the country, Muslims make up 14.2% of thesubject to “othering” by the central government as they do not fit in their rhetoric of a good citizen who abides by the population and, therefore, are government, the Sanatana Dharma. This was not abruptly born in 2014 but ever since the 1980s when identity and ideological politics became prominent in India. By promoting Hindutva ideology, the BJP has been trying to create a narrative that characterises Muslims as "outsiders" or "threats" to the majority Hindu population's cultural and religious identity. The focus on cow protection, conspiracy theories around love jihad, and purported demographic threats are presented as existential issues requiring immediate attention, which serves to solidify further the idea that Muslims are "others" who must be watched over or subjugated (Frayer, 2021). Ole Weaver's securitisation theory, which is relevant here, describes how actors, or states in this case, describe something as a threat to justify taking extraordinary measures and acting against the object. This is precisely what the Central government is doing with the minority and how it portrays Hinduism as the Dharma that must be protected by polarising the populace to bring the Hindus together. Here, Muslims or anyone who practices Islam is classified as the threat object, whereas the Hindu worldview is classified as the referent object (Ole Weaver, n.d). Weaver claims that securitisation entails using various techniques to present a problem as a security risk. This is accomplished in the case of Hindutva and Muslims through a confluence of media narratives, legislative acts, and political rhetoric. In politics, the BJP and its allies use provocative language and stories to paint Muslims as a threat to national security and Hindu identity. Phrases like "love jihad," "anti-national," and "infiltrators" are employed to incite hatred and provide justification for laws that discriminate against Muslims. Governments propelled by Hindutva simultaneously pass laws that specifically target Muslims, such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), regulations prohibiting conversion, and laws protecting cows (AP News, 2024). The rationale behind these legislative measures, despite their evident discriminatory effects on Muslim populations, is their necessity for maintaining national security. Moreover, Hindutva narratives are designed to appeal to a worldwide audience, especially to right-wing movements that are sympathetic to their cause and the global Hindu diaspora, which solidifies the “speech act” (Ole Weaver, n.d) of securitisation as a success.
Besides the political front, the securitisation act also impacts the gendered section of the minorities, elucidated by Lene Hansen’s feminist perspective of the securitisation theory, which can be used to analyse the impact on Muslims in India via the lens of securitisation theory. The securitisation of the Muslims by the Hindutva Ideology speaks about a significant trend of governmental control over the gender roles and identities of the population. The policies that are then made are heavily influenced by the ideology, further marginalising the communities. The policies uphold family structures embedded in patriarchy where the government is portrayed as the defender of “Hindu women” against the “Muslim outsiders”, who are perceived as threats. Hindutva ideology perpetuates a narrative of dread and suspicion by securitising Muslims as a perceived threat, deflecting attention from systematic disparities within these communities, termed as “subsuming security” (Lene Hansen, 2000), which refers to the tendency for safety concerns to overpower more significant political and socioeconomic problems that underprivileged populations must deal with. Since 2019, Muslim representation in the parliament has stagnated at only 5%, and no Muslim candidates are contesting from the BJP in the 2024 elections (Dawn, 2024), further marginalising their community and taking away their opportunity to represent themselves. The specific laws and policies adopted by the government further perpetuate this discrimination, which results in the silencing of minorities. Even with ideas and opinions, one has no platform or freedom to do so (Lene Hansen, 2000).
Women are particularly vulnerable to this silencing effect because their voices and concerns may be appropriated or ignored in the national security discourse, which perpetuates patriarchal control over agency and autonomy. Hindutva aims to control and govern each person's identity and body, especially that of women and other marginalised groups. The story of "love jihad" is used by Hindutva discourse as a biopolitical tactic to control sexual and intimate relationship practices. According to Michel Foucault's theory, biopolitics uses political authority to manage and control populations through various strategies and laws governing bodies and lives. This idea goes beyond customary government, including personal conduct, societal standards, and values. The story of “Love Jihad” spreads the false myth that Muslim males actively pursue romantic connections as a means of converting Hindu women. Hindutva supporters aim to regulate people's choices about whom they can date and marry by portraying inter-religious relationships as coercive and conspiratorial (Foucault, 1978). Additionally, it diminishes women's independence and self-governance, thereby reinforcing gender norms. By portraying women as victims easily swayed by others, it rationalises restrictions on women’s freedom to choose their partners. Another example of biopolitics is the hijab ban in schools and universities. They are imposing a ban on what one wears as well as restricting women from exercising their will to practice their religion by controlling what they wear and where they wear it. This exertion of control over women’s autonomy aligns with biopolitical strategies aimed at preserving religious boundaries through regulating behaviours and societal conventions (Foucault, 1978).
However, these securitisation practices are perpetuated by the government as a result of their insecurity. The Political Anthropological Research in International Sociology (PARIS) School discusses the continuum of security and insecurity. Going beyond answering the question of “what security is?” “For whom?” “And for what purpose?” (Ole Weaver, n.d); this school of thought moves towards “who does (in)security and for what political ends?”. The same practice that creates security also creates insecurity; there is no distinction between both terms: (in)security (Langwald, 2021). If seen through the lens of the PARIS school framework, Hindutva ideology plays two roles in India's political discourse: it is both a threat and a referent object. Political actors such as the BJP deliberately securitise the ideology by presenting it as a countermeasure to perceived threats to national unity and Hindu identity. Muslims are defined as posing a threat to the religious and cultural integrity of Hindu society. The notion that produces fear and supports discriminatory laws and surveillance programs targeting Muslim communities serves to declare them as “alien threats”, which penetrates the societal thinking process of the common public. The increased scrutiny being unleashed on mosques such as the Babri Masjid, Islamic institutions, and Muslim neighbourhoods (Bagchi, 2021) supports the stereotype that Muslims are innately suspicious or unfaithful and further reiterates the assumed need for extraordinary securitisation acts taken by the government, creating a state of exception.
In analysing the politics behind using the ideological weapon by the BJP under the frameworks provided by scholars like Ole Weaver and Lene Hansen, the complex ways of how identity politics and religious nationalism are used in India for political ends come forward. Hindutva used carefully to construct a security narrative that uses the Muslim identity as a threat to justify the social division and consolidation of power. This blog emphasises how crucial it is to oppose these authoritarian inclinations and challenge the policies rather than unquestioningly accept them. Scrutinisation of the central government is necessary to counter the drastic shift in the political landscape and preserve democratic principles and diversity.
References
1. “Ideology: The Binding Factor of BJP.” 2021. Times of India Blog. June 13, 2021. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/mynationmypride/ideology-the-binding-factor-of-bjp-33562/
2. Frayer, Lauren. 2021. “In India, Boy Meets Girl, Proposes — and Gets Accused of Jihad.” NPR, October 10, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/10/1041105988/india-muslim-hindu-interfaith-wedding-conversion
3. Saaliq, Sheikh. 2024. “CAA: Why India’s New Citizenship Law Is so Controversial | AP News.” AP News, March 15, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/india-citizenship-law-modi-muslims-caa-28909f8df0e6d5e0915e065195abef14#
4. Afp. 2024. “Muslims Face Dwindling Representation in Modi&Rsquo’s India.” DAWN.COM, April 8, 2024. https://www.dawn.com/news/1826472
5. Lipschutz, Ronnie D. and Ole Wæver. n.d. “On Security.” Chapter 3. https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/872615/mod_resource/content/1/Waever.pdf
6. Hansen, Lene. 2000. “The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School.” Millennium 29 (2): 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298000290020501
7. Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality. Print. Book. Translated by Robert Hurley and Random House, Inc. Volume I: An Introduction. Pantheon Books. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fulllist/special/endsandbeginnings/foucaultrepressiveen278.pdf
8. Langwald, Katharina. 2021. “Multidisciplinary Approaches to Security: The Paris School and Ontological Security.” E-International Relations. July 13, 2021. https://www.e-ir.info/2021/07/13/multidisciplinary-approaches-to-security-the-paris-school-and-ontological-security/#google_vignette
9. Bagchi, Suvojit. 2021. “After Babri Masjid, India's Far-right Seeks to Raze Several Other Mosques.” After Babri Masjid, India’s Far-Right Seeks to Raze Several Other Mosques, June 14, 2021. https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/after-babri-masjid-indias-far-right-seeks-to-raze-several-other-mosques-12764900
Hello Anukriti, thank you for your post! I found your analysis of the binary created between the Hindus and Non-hindus in determining security practices and legislations very interesting. In recent months, we also see the increased propagation of the hindutva ideology through symbols like the orange flag that was distributed during the inaugration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhaya. I suppose in some ways the usage of these flags to disseminate a particular ideology also functions as a speech act, aiding the idea that the state needs to take drastic measures to ensure security (whose security though?)
I believe taking the recent attempts of the government to change the names of certain places (from Allahbad to Prayagraj for instance) in…
Thank you for your essay. I found it particularly intriguing how you delved into the intricacies of Hindutva ideology and its transformation of India's political discourse, especially in terms of how it impacts minority communities like Muslims and women. I'm wondering if there are any grassroots movements or civil society initiatives that have emerged to counter the discriminatory policies and narratives promoted by the BJP. How effective have these efforts been in raising awareness, mobilizing support, and influencing public opinion?
Hey, thank you addressing an important issue that impacts many of us. Perhaps consider mentioning those who criticize or support the use of Hindutva as a divisive tool in society. Since, people living in rural areas in India are more concerned with developmental initiatives undertaken by the government rather than the political maneuvering taking place.
Very interesting read Anukriti, and it augments our basic understanding on the issue. One suggestion from my end, one extension of your analysis here could be on our PM's recent speech in Rajasthan. Maybe this can be your 3rd blog post topic.
Thank you Anukriti for sharing such an insightful and thought-provoking article. The analysis of Hindutva through the lens of securitization theory and biopolitics sheds light on the authoritarian tendencies of the BJP government and its impact on civil liberties and minority rights. How can civil society organizations and human rights advocates mobilize to protect marginalized communities and uphold democratic values in India?