Hindu India Has Been Mimicking China's Authoritarians in Persecuting Minorities

Yet both Democratic and Republican administrations ignored its rising persecution to counter China even before President Trump's return

Indian Muslims praying in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. (Ramniklal Modi, Shutterstock)

Printed below is an excerpt from Ending Persecution: Charting the Path to Global Religious Freedom by Knox Thames, who served in a special envoy role at the State Department during the Obama and Trump administrations, focusing on religious minorities in the Middle East and South/Central Asia. Thames, a gifted writer, visited India and included in his book an account of how Hindu fundamentalism has reshaped Indian society and polity so that its democracy now facilitates, rather than impedes, the persecution of the country’s Muslim and Christian minorities.

Looking to fill the silence, I picked up the cricket ball off the spokesman’s desk. Just a week before Christmas in 2018, the office was large but unadorned, lit with sterile fluorescent lights. The room seemed miles away from the chaos of Lucknow’s streets, the capital of India’s largest province of Uttar Pradesh (UP), with a population of 200 million. He was uncomfortable with my question.

The spokesman, a former cricket player, represented UP’s government, run by hardline Hindu cleric-now-politician Yogi Adityanath. Both belonged to Prime Minister Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Colleagues from the U.S. Embassy and I had flown from Delhi to Lucknow due to regular reports of mob violence against Muslims and church closings in UP. The spokesman was a Muslim by background, and he also served as the Minister for Minority Affairs for the massive province. Considering the poor state for religious minorities across UP, especially Muslims, I felt he would understand my question.

I had pointedly asked if Yogi Adityanath would publicly denounce mob violence against Muslims. Could the Chief Minister simply say it was unacceptable to murder individuals over allegations of killing a cow, and the government would prosecute the perpetrators? While he had been gregarious just moments before, the minister suddenly became quiet. Adityanath had run a divisive campaign of fearmongering against Muslims, which had won him the Chief Minister job. I knew it was a tough question. I let it hang in the air while I held the cricket ball.

Too Much Democracy

When “religious persecution” is referenced, many think of authoritarian repression or terrorist violence. But they are not the only persecutors; democracies can also persecute. Extreme voices use the ballot box to bring the state’s power against religious minorities with devastating and discriminatory effects. Through majoritarian rule, laws are brought into line with dominant theologies, eviscerating minority protections and leaving smaller faiths exposed to government-sanctioned persecution. When democratically elected leaders repress, they make it difficult for U.S. officials to push back effectively. These politicians are merely fulfilling campaign promises, being responsive to their constituents. Democracies give societies the opportunity to govern themselves, but their open nature makes them vulnerable to extremists and unscrupulous politicians.

The past 20 years in India demonstrate how majoritarian influences undermine previously established protections for minorities. The results can be deadly. Some Indian politicians have stoked fears of the “other”—namely, Muslims and Christians—with mob attacks a recurring problem across the vast nation. All the while, Hindu nationalists infuse state and federal law with their religious sensibilities.

India gained independence in 1947 thanks to the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, with the support of B. R. Ambedkar. They were a diverse group. Gandhi, the modest Hindu guru pioneering nonviolent resistance, paired with the urbane and Westernized Nehru, supported by the legal expertise of Ambedkar, a Dalit [the untouchable caste] convert to Buddhism. Gandhi died soon after independence in 1948 from a Hindu extremist’s bullet. Nehru and Ambedkar built a new constitutional, federalized system on the promise of secularism, ensuring government neutrality towards all the different faiths in the country. India’s constitution protects religious freedom, including the right to convert and proselytize. The central government and many provincial governments have established special minority commissions.

India’s religious and ethnic diversity, and the sheer scale of these various communities, made it stand out among democracies. India is home to many world religions. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism were born in India, as was the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. Jews and Zoroastrians (also known as Parsis) have called India home for two millennia, while Baha’ism has existed since the 1800s. Christianity arrived on the subcontinent soon after the founding of the faith, with St. Thomas, one of the original 12 disciples of Christ, coming as a missionary. Islam has been present since the 7th century. 1.1 billion Hindus out of a population of 1.4 billion Indians, making India the largest Hindu majority country. And with almost 200 million Muslims, India is also the third-largest Muslim country in the world. While less than 3%, India’s Christian population equals more than 30 million, making it larger than Australia or more than twice the size of the Netherlands.

Changing Landscape

The challenges of democratic persecution are not unique to India, increasingly seen in other democracies in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America. Trend lines in India, however, are heading in the wrong direction. And its size and location make it crucial that the United States encourage Delhi to restore protections for minorities.

Despite India’s multi-confessional, multi-ethnic society, a vocal group promotes creating a Hindu state or rashtra and supports Hindu nationalism, known as Hindutva. The most influential Hindu nationalist group is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a paramilitary and political organization created before independence to expand Hindu supremacy across India. Over time, the RSS launched a series of organizations, including a political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The RSS-BJP relationship is fluid and powerful. Over decades of steady work, this relationship strengthened and grew, and together they played on the fears of Hindu marginalization. By relying on the RSS and its network of organizations, the BJP started to win local and provincial elections.

How has the BJP won? Using the tools of democracy and India’s open environment, they legitimately came to power and could advance their illiberal agenda. Hindu nationalists use the portrayal of Muslim domination and British/Christian colonization to create an emotional narrative of grievance and elevate the primacy of Hinduism over others. The results are deeply problematic, with Muslims (and Christians to a lesser extent) becoming a scapegoat to turn out the vote. The BJP coming to power in 2014 was a pivotal moment for India’s democracy and constitutional system. It validated the RSS/BJP approach to campaigning.

Stoking Fear

The RSS movement has created a climate of increasing fear between communities, benefiting BJP politicians. And it built slowly. Since the 1960s, states have democratically passed laws restricting conversions away from Hinduism, with the number growing significantly in the 2000s. While enforcement varies, 12 out of India’s 29 states have these laws: Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. The anti-conversion laws, often incongruously labeled Freedom of Religion Acts, attempt to govern the sacred space of one’s soul, requiring individuals leaving Hinduism to seek government approval for conversions.

Muslims have been a constant target, while Christians a close second. With these laws come regular reports of church closures and unchecked violence against Christians, especially those who recently left Hinduism. Criminal penalties can follow for conversions deemed to come through vague notions of inducements. However, conversions to Hinduism are permitted and the event celebrated. BJP officials consistently promote ghar wapsi events, “homecomings” to Hinduism. Conversion is not a two-way street.

In addition, Hindu dietary restrictions on eating beef led to the passage of cow slaughter laws. When enforced, they penalize Muslims, as well as Christians and Dalits, for offending certain Hindu religious interpretations and dietary habits. Increasingly, accusations of cow slaughter are enough to spur a mob to take "justice" into their own hands, lynching individuals believed to be selling or transporting beef. Authorities regularly turn a blind eye to the lynching of Muslims, even in Delhi. In these cases, perpetrator accountability is hard to find. And for Muslims, authorities often prosecute the victims for allegedly selling beef while mobs herald the perpetrators.

Influencing India

Influencing a democracy is challenging. Unlike authoritarian governments, the man or woman at the top answers to voters, not just themselves. With India, their officials are also very image conscientious of their nation’s treatment on the world stage. Indian officials do not want American diplomats to review or grade Indian policies. With the past ever-present in their minds, they never want to appear to gravel before western countries. Prickly is an understatement when discussing human rights. If you can even get a meeting; multiple Indian governments refused my visa for years because I would raise uncomfortable questions. It took the Trump White House and assistant secretaries of state pressing the issue for them to agree, albeit begrudgingly.

But India’s sensitivity can be used to good effect. When USCIRF would issue an eight-page report on India, the government would denounce it using the most hyperventilating of language. For example, when USCIRF issued its report in 2020, the government spokesperson called it "biased" and "tendentious," concluding "its misrepresentation has reached new levels." In the vein of “all publicity is good publicity,” the Indian government helps promote the report to 1 billion potential readers.

More powerful was President Obama’s 2015 visit. When it was announced he would visit India, we at USCIRF encouraged him to publicly raise issues of religious minorities during the trip. Knowing of Modi’s desire to draw closer to the internationally popular American president, we encouraged Obama to press the Prime Minister to speak out against violence. Only someone with Obama’s star power and background could convincingly make a case about the importance of protecting diversity and minority rights. Raising it privately with Modi would not change the hearts and minds of his base.

In Obama’s last public event in Delhi’s Siri Fort, the president spoke about religious freedom. He challenged India to stay true to its constitutional commitment, quoting India’s foundational documents about how they allow people to freely “profess, practice and propagate” religion. I heard from several Indian Christian groups how encouraged they were by his bold comments.

Did We Really Try to Move India?

But as is often the case, Obama’s personal interest conflicted with larger national security goals. Obama’s trip was part of an effort to court India, wanting markets opened and security partnerships strengthened. Obama’s raising the issue was remarkable, but it did not align with what the foreign policy establishment wanted: establishing India as a counterweight to a rising China. India, regardless of its warts or metastasizing political climate, was the friend policymakers craved. No consequences were paired with the public statements to nudge India towards a better path.

Leverage with India was never realized during Obama’s tenure. In fact, the U.S. courtship accelerated during the first Trump administration despite things only worsening for minorities. U.S. criticism was muted at best. When President Trump visited Delhi in February 2020, riots broke out targeting Muslims, but he said nothing publicly about the violence or made any indication of private engagement. When the State Department made its designations for religious freedom violations in December 2020, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo failed to name India as a "country of particular concern" or place it on the Special Watch List, despite increasing violations and calls by advocates. The Biden administration, while publicly noting concerns about human rights, invited India to join the United States, Australia, and Japan in a new counter-China coalition called The Quad. Membership in such an exclusive club signaled to Delhi their immunity from any consequences. The Biden administration has several times repeated the decision to not designate India for religious freedom violations, despite increasing evidence.

Further demonstrating the importance policymakers place on India, President Biden hosted Modi for an official state visit in June 2023, and congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle invited him to speak before a joint session of Congress. To put Modi’s red-carpet treatment in context, it vastly exceeded British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s visit to Washington earlier that month. Sunak received neither a coveted invitation to a state dinner nor a congressional speech, “special relationship” notwithstanding. In fact, when Modi took the rostrum before Congress, it was his second address before a joint session, while the last British prime minister spoke in 2006.

Encouraging a Better India

Every administration has viewed democratic India as a logical, natural, and indispensable ally to counter China. However, no policymaker seems willing to consider the implications of Indian laws beginning to look more like China’s. The India these strategists court increasingly exists only in their imaginations, as Modi’s India continues to slide away from shared values. The unwillingness to press India to revert back to its founding principles risks losing the entire country to illiberalism, which would negatively impact hundreds of millions of people on the sub-continent, while bending the overall rights environment in Asia more towards Beijing.

This excerpt is from Ending Persecution, written by Knox Thames, which was released in September by Notre Dame Press. It is reprinted here with their permission.

Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.

We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy.