Hindutva, as a political ideology and movement, has been widely debated in India’s public sphere. Critics argue that it does not emerge organically from India’s plural civilisational traditions but represents a modern political project shaped by global ideological influences and domestic power structures. From this perspective, Hindutva is viewed not merely as a cultural assertion but as a political and economic framework that aligns closely with contemporary forms of capitalism and majoritarian nationalism.
Scholars critical of Hindutva contend that its ideological roots draw inspiration from early twentieth-century European nationalist movements, including fascist currents, rather than from India’s anti-colonial and pluralist traditions. They argue that the rise of Hindu nationalist organisations during the colonial period coincided with British strategies of political fragmentation, often described as “divide and rule.” According to this view, communal politics—advanced by sections of Hindu and Muslim elites as well as feudal interests—contributed to the weakening of the broader anti-colonial movement and ultimately to the partition of the subcontinent. The enduring social and political consequences of Partition, including communal polarisation, are seen as factors that later facilitated the growth of Hindutva politics in postcolonial India.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), founded in 1925, played a central role in shaping and disseminating Hindutva ideology. While the organisation presents itself as a cultural and nationalist body, critics note its limited participation in the mass movements of the freedom struggle and its emphasis on cultural homogeneity. The promotion of the idea of “Hindu, Hindi, Hindustan,” they argue, sits uneasily with India’s linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity and contrasts with the constitutional vision of a plural and inclusive nation.
The expansion of Hindutva politics in recent decades has coincided with the global spread of neoliberal economic policies. Critics argue that economic liberalisation intensified social and economic inequalities, creating widespread discontent that Hindutva successfully mobilised through appeals to nationalism and cultural identity. However, when governments led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) assumed power—first during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee administration and more prominently under Prime Minister Narendra Modi—this nationalist rhetoric, critics contend, did not translate into a departure from neoliberal or pro-corporate economic policies. Instead, they argue that these governments oversaw the consolidation of close relationships between the state and large corporate entities, often described as crony capitalism.
From this critical standpoint, the Indian state has increasingly functioned as a facilitator for both domestic and international capital. Trade agreements and investment policies have enabled multinational corporations, particularly from the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, to expand their presence in India. Critics warn that such arrangements risk the extraction of wealth, labour, and natural resources, echoing historical patterns of economic dependency, albeit under contemporary global capitalism rather than colonial rule.
Hindutva politics, in this reading, is therefore not only a form of cultural or religious nationalism but also an economic project that privileges corporate interests. The rapid rise of major conglomerates such as Reliance and Adani over the past two decades is frequently cited by critics as evidence of the close alignment between political power and corporate expansion. This alignment, they argue, reflects a broader global pattern in which nationalist rhetoric coexists with policies favourable to concentrated capital.
Observers also note that sections of Western political and intellectual elites have portrayed Hindutva-led governance as a force for stability and modernisation in India. Critics draw parallels with earlier periods in which authoritarian regimes elsewhere were defended or normalised by influential foreign voices for strategic or economic reasons. In their view, such narratives often align with the interests of global corporations seeking access to India’s markets and resources.
Those critical of Hindutva argue that this political project ultimately undermines democratic institutions and constitutional values. They contend that majoritarian politics weakens citizenship by subordinating individual rights to religious or cultural identity, while dissent is increasingly framed as a threat to national unity or public order. From this perspective, the state’s approach to governance prioritises capital accumulation and social control over social justice and democratic participation.
Critics further argue that Hindutva politics reinforces existing social hierarchies, including caste-based inequalities, while widening economic disparities. They see the criminalisation of protest and the narrowing of civic space as mechanisms through which resistance to both authoritarian governance and economic policy is delegitimised. In this framework, nationalism becomes a tool to discipline society rather than a means of collective empowerment.
The BJP’s invocation of Gandhian socialism in its party constitution has also been highlighted by critics as contradictory to its policy choices and political practices. While the party emphasises nationalism and cultural unity, critics argue that its governance model deepens social divisions and opens key sectors, including higher education, to market-driven and corporate interests. These tensions, they suggest, are not incidental but reflect the internal logic of a political economy that combines cultural nationalism with market-oriented governance.
From a historical perspective, critics argue that while Hindutva differs in context and form from European fascism, it shares certain structural features, including majoritarianism, centralisation of power, and the close alignment of the state with corporate interests. They caution that such tendencies pose long-term risks to India’s constitutional democracy.
In this view, the challenge posed by Hindutva politics is not only ideological but institutional and economic. Critics argue that defending India’s pluralism, democratic framework, and social justice commitments requires sustained public engagement, critical analysis, and resistance through constitutional means. Whether one agrees with this assessment or not, the debate over Hindutva remains central to contemporary discussions about the nature of Indian nationalism, democracy, and development.
---
*Scholar based in UK
Comments