From diversity to disenfranchisement: The new challenge for India’s minorities

By Ram Puniyani* 

As the three-nation tour of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat has come to an end, various analysts have offered their assessments. Some have praised Bhagwat, arguing that he has broadened the idea of Hindutva by incorporating diversity into it. But can Hindutva, in any meaningful sense, be broadened to accommodate the rich religious diversity of our country?

Respect for diversity can, to a considerable extent, be judged by examining the condition of religious minorities in a country. The health of a democracy should also be judged by the safety, security and equal citizenship of its religious minorities. As India has fallen significantly in several international democracy indices, it is important to examine this alongside the experiences and perceptions of religious minorities themselves. Some Muslim leaders and others in positions of privilege may deny that the situation of minorities is deteriorating, but the broader picture requires a closer examination.

One way to evaluate this is to examine the steps taken by governments over the past several years, and indeed over the past decade or more. A recent meeting of the People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) in Delhi, which focused on these issues, offers a revealing picture of the state of our society.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) currently has 240 members in the Lok Sabha and 117 in the Rajya Sabha. It also has nearly 1,516 MLAs across various states—bringing the total number of elected representatives in Parliament and the state assemblies to approximately 1,873. Yet, of these, only two BJP MLAs are Muslims: one in Tripura and one in Manipur. Whatever one's political affiliation, this strikingly low representation raises questions about the place of religious minorities within India's political system.

At the PUCL meeting, representatives of various human-rights organisations articulated their concerns. As far as Muslims are concerned, the demonisation of the community in public discourse has reached unprecedented levels.

In Delhi, the alleged brutal assault by police on two journalists, Shaheen and Nafisa, was reported to have intensified after the officer involved learned that both women were Muslims. Such incidents contribute to a climate in which members of the community are first portrayed as objects of suspicion and hostility and are subsequently exposed to discrimination and violence. Increasingly, there are also concerns about attempts to disenfranchise them.

This process began with the National Intelligence Centre (NIC) and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The response of Muslim women, particularly through the emergence of Shaheen Baghs across the country, was remarkable, and the process was subsequently placed on hold. Meanwhile, another means of excluding people from political participation has emerged through changes to electoral rolls, most notably the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists.

State after state, large numbers of voters—disproportionately, according to critics, Muslims and Dalits—are being removed from electoral rolls. The controversy surrounding the West Bengal electoral rolls, where more than 27 lakh voters were reportedly found ineligible under the Special Intensive Revision shortly before the polls, illustrates the scale of the issue.

Economist and political commentator Parakala Prabhakar has argued that SIR is not merely an exercise in revising electoral rolls but could create “two classes of citizens”—those who can vote and those who cannot. He has warned that, at the current pace, an estimated 16 crore people could eventually be disenfranchised. In his view, SIR could effectively exclude sections of the population from the democratic process.

The Supreme Court has also intervened against the use of bulldozers as punitive measures against individuals and properties. Yet chief ministers of some BJP-ruled states, including Uttar Pradesh, have publicly defended or celebrated the practice. Added to this is the impending question of delimitation, which could alter the distribution of parliamentary representation among states and thereby have significant political consequences.

These developments raise serious questions about the direction in which Indian democracy is moving. At another level, the BJP's decision to promote the full version of Vande Mataram, rather than the version and understanding associated with the Constituent Assembly's deliberations, has generated concerns among minorities. Critics argue that its religious imagery can make non-Hindus feel pressured to participate in forms of cultural expression with which they may not identify.

Religious freedom in India increasingly risks becoming a euphemism. Several states have enacted “Freedom of Religion” laws that regulate religious conversion. Critics contend that, in practice, such laws place disproportionate restrictions on those seeking to convert from Hinduism and provide opportunities for harassment of minorities under allegations of coercion, fraud or inducement.

There is another phenomenon in which RSS-affiliated groups have been involved: Ghar Wapsi. Under this campaign, Adivasis, members of Dalit communities and Muslims who are described as having previously belonged to Hindu traditions are encouraged or compelled, according to critics, to return to Hinduism. Such campaigns have become particularly visible in remote parts of the country.

Organisations monitoring religious freedom have repeatedly expressed concern about India's record. One such body is the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent federal commission. In a statement issued shortly before Bhagwat's arrival, it said that conditions for religious freedom in India continued to deteriorate and expressed concern about violence and incitement directed against minority communities, including alleged involvement by groups affiliated with the RSS.

Columnist Tavleen Singh wrote in The Indian Express that some Hindutva activists had entered churches and disrupted services, with incidents of vandalism and violence. She described videos of such incidents being circulated on social media and referred to an incident in Jabalpur involving a BJP legislator and a blind woman at a church. Singh also wrote that there had been nearly a hundred attempts to disrupt Christmas festivities, most of them in BJP-ruled states, and criticised the lack of strong political condemnation of such incidents.

Maharashtra's anti-conversion law has now come into force, joining similar legislation in several other states. The law regulates religious conversion on grounds including coercion, fraud and inducement. Under the legislation, anyone seeking to adopt another faith is required to provide advance notice to the authorities. Violations can carry severe penalties, including imprisonment.

On August 24, 2026, twenty civil-society organisations, including Christian groups, held a press conference in Mumbai calling for the withdrawal of the law. They described it as an “intrusive regulation of personal choices” and argued that it interferes with the constitutional right to practise and propagate one's faith. In response to the changing regulatory environment, churches in the Mumbai region have reportedly considered introducing consent forms for those attending church services.

Alongside restrictions on religious gatherings and conversion, Christian organisations engaged in humanitarian work face another challenge: access to foreign funding. Changes and proposed changes to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) have created difficulties for a number of NGOs. Critics argue that the regulatory framework can impede the charitable and humanitarian activities of organisations that provide services to vulnerable communities.

This, then, is the context in which the word “diversity” is invoked by Mohan Bhagwat and by Hindutva politics more broadly. The question is not whether diversity can be mentioned in speeches or presented as an ornament of political discourse. The real question is whether India's religious minorities can enjoy equal citizenship, security, political representation and the freedom to practise and propagate their faith.

If diversity is to be more than a rhetorical phrase, it must be reflected in the lived realities of India's minorities. The direction of Indian democracy will ultimately be judged not by how diversity is described from the podium, but by how those who are different are treated in everyday life.

---

*Political commentator