The Indian Question

Left-leaning media in America often attack Donald Trump. They will scrutinise his policies, question his ideology, and discuss the dangers of his politics.

But when it comes to hate against Indians, specifically Indian Americans, the same urgency and enthusiasm seem to disappear.

This kind of hatred may not always be visible in everyday life in the Western world. Many Indians live perfectly ordinary lives abroad. But when racism does surface, there isn’t always a strong or sustained public pushback against it. There’s an eerie quietness, even among the liberals. A kind of “silent racism” going on.

Which makes me wonder: do many people prefer to keep their racism and bigotry private?

Why Are We Suddenly Talking About “The Indian Question”?

The immediate reason for this post is Christopher Rufo’s podcast episode on YouTube titled The Indian Question. Rufo is a prominent conservative activist and political commentator in the US.

I watched the episode last night to understand why it attracted so much attention.

The title itself deserves scrutiny.

Historically, the phrase “The Jewish Question” was used in European debates to justify racism against Jews.

The concern with using “The Indian Question” is the framing. When an ethnic community is discussed as a question to be solved, rather than as people with individual rights, it becomes a problem.

Indian Americans are not a problem to be solved. They are people living, working, studying, raising families, and contributing to the country they call home. They are more loyal to America than India, from what I have observed.

The Indian population in the US is nowhere near a majority. Indian Americans make up roughly 1.5% of the US population. Why does the presence of Indians, particularly successful Indians, provoke such hate in American society, even if they are the minority?

Apparently, Indians Haven’t Assimilated Enough

One of the arguments discussed in the episode concerns a video of Indian students celebrating a football team’s success. This video attracted attention after being shared by Texas political figure Bo French.

The argument goes something like this:

The first person implies, “Indians are assimilating. Look at the students celebrating an American football victory.”

The other person counters, “Even these students might not be truly assimilated. Otherwise, why would anyone be discussing their participation in American culture?”

Think about that for a moment.

If Indians don’t participate in American traditions, they haven’t assimilated. If they do participate, the fact that their participation is being discussed apparently proves that they haven’t assimilated either.

What exactly is the winning answer here? The goalposts seem to shift depending on the argument.

And then comes another example: Indian children winning spelling bee competitions.

According to the argument, these children study day and night to win. Spelling bees, apparently, are supposed to be fun rather than competitive. The justification is that this emphasis on academic achievement somehow makes Indian children less American.

The other person laughs and nods along.

The broader argument seems to be that being American means being aggressive and expressive, like people at football matches, rather than studious and academically competitive.

So Indians are now supposed to prove their assimilation by being less successful? From now on, all Indian Americans should make a few adjustments.

When you submit reports to your manager, make several mistakes.
When your manager offers you a promotion, reject it.
When your child is asked to spell “lovely”, teach them to say “l-u-v-l-y”.

That’s how you assimilate, apparently: by playing dumb.

The issue is that Indians are being judged by standards not applicable to anyone else. If participating in American culture doesn’t count as assimilation, and excelling academically counts against assimilation, what exactly are Indians expected to do?

The Problem With Trying Too Hard to Please Racists

As usual, the comment sections in the YouTube video provide another layer to this discussion.

I see a few Indian Americans saying things like, “As an Indian American, I agree.”

There is a difference between honest criticism and agreeing with racial generalisations simply to gain acceptance.

Many encourage or justify racism in the hope that racists will make an exception for them. If someone is being racist towards Indians, it needs to be called out. Don’t respond with self-hatred or an endless list of reasons why you are one of the “good Indians”. Because they will use that list of reasons against you as well. A few people behaving badly does not give anyone the authority to generalise an entire community.

Say it plainly: “You can criticise an individual without generalising the whole community.”

Racism doesn’t necessarily disappear because you have the right job, speak perfect English, support the right political party and religion, or distance yourself from your cultural background.

Racists simply don’t want you there. No amount of people-pleasing can guarantee they will change their minds.

When Hindu Culture Becomes the Convenient Explanation

Another thing that stood out to me was the way Indian culture was represented in the YouTube video.

When these commentators talk about Indian culture, the visuals often feature Hindu temples, Hindu festivals, and religious celebrations. They also bring up videos from India, including footage of a cow dung festival that many Indians themselves may never have heard of. An unfamiliar or unusual practice is presented as though it represents ordinary Indian life.

Why?

Because it helps create a particular impression of India and Indians. Once that impression is established, it becomes easier to argue that Indians are culturally incompatible with America.

Let’s be honest. India is enormous and extraordinarily diverse. There are hundreds of languages, different religious traditions, countless regional customs, and vast differences in everyday life.

One unusual festival, one viral video, or one person’s behaviour cannot explain an entire country.

But this is where the argument becomes convenient. If you want to dislike Indians, you can always find something to point at.

If a Hindu festival is loud, that’s evidence of cultural incompatibility.

If Indian students excel academically, that’s evidence that they haven’t assimilated.

If Indians participate in American traditions, that somehow isn’t enough either.

The examples change, but the conclusion remains the same.

Indians are the problem.

That is what makes this more than a debate about cultural differences. It starts looking like racism and bigotry dressed up as a discussion about assimilation.

Why Are So Many NRIs Afraid to Speak Up?

The saddest part of this conversation is the silence of some Indians living abroad.

I’ve heard people say things along the lines of, “Life is already hard. We just want to keep our heads down so we don’t get attacked by racists.”

I understand the fear.

If you live in another country, your job, visa status, family, financial security, and future may depend on your ability to maintain a stable life there. You may not want to become the target of online abuse or workplace hostility.

Not everyone has the luxury of speaking out. And nobody should be forced to put their safety or livelihood at risk to prove their courage.

But it is worth noticing the contrast.

Some Indians who hesitate to speak publicly about racism or other issues in the countries where they live will readily post about everything that is wrong with India. Of course, Indians in India do the same. Criticising one’s own country is perfectly legitimate.

If people can freely criticise India but feel that criticising racism in their adopted country is too risky, what does that tell us: that India has more freedom of speech?

When people stay silent because they fear the consequences, those spreading hatred may begin to assume that their views are acceptable.

The Selective Outrage of Indian Commentators

Then there is the response from certain commentators in India, particularly those who are strongly anti-Modi.

The moment an Indian pushes back against racist Americans, the moral policing begins.

“Don’t you see what’s happening in India? Concentrate on that.”

India has serious problems, and those problems deserve scrutiny. But why should one concern cancel out another?

Why can’t we discuss anti-Indian racism in America and discrimination in India in the same conversation?

Why does calling out racism against Indians suddenly become suspicious when the person speaking happens to be a Hindu, supports Modi, or disagrees with a particular political ideology?

Selective outrage is a real problem. Human rights should not become a team sport. Racism does not become acceptable because its victims belong to a political group you dislike.

I suspect another reason for this selective response is that some NRIs interpret anti-Indian racism in the US and other Western countries primarily as hostility towards right-wing Hindus, rather than as prejudice against Indians as a whole. That makes it easier to dismiss the problem.

But racist people don’t necessarily make those distinctions. They may target Indians because of their skin colour, name, accent, ethnicity, or perceived religion. And when Indian commentators themselves minimise the problem, racists can use those statements as convenient ammunition.

Are Indians Responsible for the Hate They Receive?

We are responsible for how we treat others, how we behave in public, and whether we challenge prejudice within our own communities. Indians are not above criticism, and being a minority abroad does not make every Indian automatically right.

But we are not responsible for someone else’s racism.

There is a difference between acknowledging that individuals can behave badly and accepting collective blame for an entire community.

And this brings me to Dinesh D’Souza.

D’Souza is a Christian conservative commentator of Indian origin who has spent years aligning himself with American right-wing politics. Yet he has faced racial abuse, including the use of the term “Dot Head”, a derogatory reference to the bindi traditionally worn by Indians (mostly Hindu women).

Think about the contradiction.

If the objection were genuinely about Hinduism, his Christian identity should make a difference, and racists wouldn’t have attacked him the way they are doing now on social media. To someone determined to see an outsider, an Indian face is enough.

This is why I find the entire argument about assimilation flawed.

D’Souza has criticised many aspects of liberal politics and has aligned himself with conservative causes. Yet his ethnicity is still a target.

In a way, I feel sorry for him. Dinesh spent considerable energy on social media trying to establish himself as a true-blue American by hating aspects of Indian and Hindu culture. He, like many others, believed that assimilation was the reason for anti-Indian racism.

The Double Standard Around Indian Religious Festivals

I also refuse to accept the argument that loud Indian religious festivals abroad somehow justify racism against Indians.

That is simply another way of shifting the blame onto the people facing hate.

Let’s look at Keralam. The place I’m from.

In Keralam, Hindu and Christian festivals can involve loud music, drums, processions, and celebrations that continue for days. Yes, they can be overwhelming. Elderly people need sleep, children need rest, and people have work the next morning.

But most of us understand that a festival is a special occasion. People are celebrating something meaningful to them, and we generally make room for that.

Similarly, Ashoora processions in parts of India can involve crowds, chest-beating, chanting, and considerable noise. These are not quiet affairs either.

And we coexist with these celebrations, even when we don’t personally participate in them.

That is part of living in a diverse society. That’s religious freedom.

If Indian communities in the West obtain the necessary permissions for a religious festival and are still told to tone it down simply because other people find their culture uncomfortable, we should ask what kind of religious freedom means in practice in these developed countries.

Am I to assume India has more religious freedom?

Good Noise and Bad Noise

Honestly, a lot of this comes down to what I call “good noise” and “bad noise”.

I find the noise from the nearby football stadium absolutely intolerable during matches. Anyone living near a stadium will know what I mean.

Songs. Dancing. Drums. Trumpets. Screaming. The whole thing.

It can sound remarkably similar to a religious festival. But I’ve never posted a story complaining about it. Why?

Because I understand that, for someone who loves football or cricket, that noise is part of the excitement. The crowd is celebrating. People are having a good time. It is “good noise”.

But when the celebration belongs to a religion or culture that someone dislikes, suddenly it becomes “bad noise”.

The sound itself may not be all that different from a football or cricket match. What changes is the meaning people attach to it.

You don’t have to love the noise. You don’t have to attend the festival. You don’t even have to understand why people enjoy it.

But you should be able to tolerate other people having the freedom to celebrate their religion, within the same reasonable rules that apply to everyone else.

Otherwise, perhaps the problem isn’t really the noise.

The Latest US Immigration Restrictions Make This Even More Concerning

The debate about Indian Americans is not happening in isolation. It is unfolding alongside a broader political debate about immigration.

And the latest developments involving the US Permanent Labor Certification programme, commonly known as PERM, are concerning for Indian professionals.

On October 8, 2026, reports emerged that the Trump administration had suspended several major technology companies from participating in the PERM process. The affected firms include Indian IT companies such as Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, HCLTech, and Cognizant, alongside other companies. The action affects employers who use it to sponsor eligible foreign workers for employment-based green cards.

This is especially relevant when anti-Indian rhetoric is gaining visibility. When people are already portraying Indian workers as a threat, immigration restrictions can reinforce the feeling that their presence is unwelcome.

Note the use of “indentured servants” and the last couple of words by the Vice President of the US:

Vice President JD Vance breaks down the data:

“If you are working as an H-1B visa in the United States of America, you’re earning $20,000 less than an American citizen hired in the same position. If you were brought in by one of these foreign outsourcing firms, you’re making $48,000 less than an American citizen in a similar position. So I’m sure that everybody here understands the game that is being played. You bring in indentured servants from outside the country, you lay off American workers and, if you’re a corporation, you make a ton of money by under cutting the wages of American workers, replacing them with people who frankly shouldn’t be in the United States of America to begin with.”— Vice President JD Vance (@VP) October 8, 2026

Final Thoughts

I don’t believe every criticism is racist. But I do believe that this incessant anti-Indian racism should be called out.

I believe Indian Americans should be able to celebrate their festivals, raise academically ambitious children, build successful careers, practise their faith, and participate in American society without having their entire identity put on trial. This is not too much to ask – considering they make up only 1.5% of American society.

***

Featured Photo by RDNE Stock project

Nobody Wants This: Exploring Conversion & Interfaith Relationships in India

I recently watched Nobody Wants This Season 2. If you haven’t seen Season 1 of this Netflix series, I really think you should. It deals with a topic that most interfaith love stories never touch — conversion. It’s a sensitive issue, especially among Abrahamic religions. So it felt quite bold that the makers decided to go into it at all.

Season 1 had already touched on the idea of conversion. But Season 2 takes it a little further. This time, you see the boyfriend, who is a Jewish rabbi, and his family, constantly pushing his Christian girlfriend, who seems more atheist or maybe agnostic, to convert. It adds a new layer to their story and makes the whole situation feel even more complicated.

However, this post is not a detailed review of the series, but the many thoughts that came to my mind while watching it, mainly concerning conversion and how it is seen in India.

There are many abroad who have a distorted idea of religious freedom in India, no thanks to misleading, half-baked news articles, often written by left-leaning Hindus or non-Hindus, and I wish to debunk those notions as well and present them from the perspective of a centre-right Hindu who was, till two years ago, a leftist.

Be prepared for a long post, because this is a topic I feel strongly about. If you’re short on time, you may want to save or bookmark it and read it when you’re free.

A Hindu’s View on Conversion

Before I begin, I want to make my religious beliefs clear. I’m not a religious Hindu in the traditional sense, but I’m still a staunch Hindu. If that sounds confusing, it’s only because Hinduism allows this kind of pluralism. You can be spiritual, non-religious, or even an atheist, and still remain Hindu.

The faith makes space for many ways of thinking, which is why someone like me fits comfortably within it. I’m not ostracized for eating beef, nor am I ostracized for not following religious beliefs properly. I can question and I can push back against religious rules I don’t believe in without repercussions.

This freedom that my belief generously allows me is exactly why I strongly stand by the community and call myself a “staunch Hindu.” I advocate for the rights of my community, which a religious Hindu in India may not always do, as they wish to appear secular and tolerant of even the injustices against us.

Now that my beliefs are out of the way, I want to say that even as a non-traditional, progressive Hindu feminist, I don’t support conversion. I don’t understand why anyone has to give up their identity for love, marriage, or even politics, no matter how much anyone would try to justify it.

Most Hindus in India feel the same way, which is why you rarely see the community protesting against anti-conversion laws in some states. Among ourselves, we often say the same thing quietly: “What’s the need to convert?” Of course, many reasons are given. I address them later in this post.

Then we see Indian-origin Hindu politicians in America converting to Christianity to stay relevant and gain acceptance, and it makes us pause. It makes us wonder, “Is America really the land of the free?” And on what basis do they judge India on religious matters when they themselves have not reached full religious secularism yet?

However, in Abrahamic religions, conversion is considered a matter of freedom of faith. This is acknowledged. But this is also a major reason for communal tensions in a Hindu-majority country like India. Most Hindus do not believe in conversion or proselytization, while Abrahamic faiths consider it a part of their practice.

Hindus are of the belief that everyone should be free to practice their faith without disturbing others or disrespecting anyone else’s faith. Proselytization goes against that idea. It feels disrespectful because it implies someone’s existing faith is not good enough. It involves putting down those beliefs, so they are convinced enough to join the new one. So, this “freedom of faith” often comes at the expense of disrespecting others, which was tolerated for the longest period of time, till the Hindu community got the strength to say “enough is enough.”

This pushback is the part that’s often presented to the world as a “lack of religious freedom” in India. Or, to put it more frankly, the lack of freedom to convert Hindus. This clash of beliefs has no solution, and I see it continuing even after a change of government. It’s a label the country has to live with, because there can be no middle ground when people feel their identity is being erased.

A thought I often hear is, “There are so many Christian-majority and Muslim-majority countries in the world. Why can’t they just leave us alone?” It reflects the frustration many Hindus feel when they see constant pressure to convert despite already being a global minority.

Pressure to Convert in Interfaith Marriages

The topic of conversion in marriages is prevalent in Indian Reddit circles. Almost every other day, you see someone saying, “My partner’s parents want me to convert. What should I do?”

From what I’ve seen, it’s usually the Hindu who is expected to convert. And often, the Hindu partner is unaware of what that really means. They hear lines like, “You just need to get baptized. After that, you can follow your own culture,” and they assume there’s no conversion involved. Many agree because they don’t realize the deeper implications. We walk into these situations thinking others are as pluralistic and flexible as we are, and that’s where the misunderstanding begins.

Conversion is also very normalized. When I ask my Christian friends if someone needs to convert to marry into their community, they casually say “yes,” as if it’s the most ordinary thing in the world.

We recently saw this when JD Vance openly and coolly said he hopes his wife, Usha Vance, a Hindu, converts someday. Ironically, the same line appears in Nobody Wants This Season 2 as well, where the Jewish rabbi says he hopes his Christian girlfriend converts one day.

Vance wants Usha Vance to convert to Christianity

For us Hindus, it’s a culture shock, almost regressive, because we never expect something like this from others. At the same time, Abrahamics and international news channels are confused when they report that there’s outrage in India over Vance’s statement. They have no idea why Hindus are angry. So they brand it as “far-right Hindutva.”

Why Do Hindus Dislike Conversion?

Most Hindus find the idea of conversion strange, because the religion itself accepts that God can appear in many forms. It is naturally pluralistic. So someone like me, who is not religious, or even someone who is an atheist, is still seen as a Hindu, because schools like Carvaka already accept that. We also tend to readily accept other gods because of this pluralism. We don’t consider them as fake. We don’t believe that ours is the “only true god” either.

This pluralistic mindset of Hindus is both a boon and a bane. A boon because we naturally accept all faiths, and a bane because we expect the same openness from others, and we don’t always receive it.

On top of that, many Hindus today focus more on careers and less on having children. So there is a natural tendency to protect the current Hindu population from inducements. The Chattisgarh High Court reiterated the same thing recently:

Conversion by inducement a social menace — Chhattisgarh High Court Condemning Induced Conversions

With all this in mind, it’s natural that the majority of Hindus don’t look at conversion in a positive way. Our faith is already mocked by many Abrahamics around the world, who use words like “demon-worshipping pagans.” This makes it even more important to push back against that narrative and simply exist as we are.

Hindus, in short, want the freedom to be seen and respected in their own identity. But this way of thinking is often dismissed by, ironically, the very same people who speak loudly about secularism and freedom of religion. If others believe Hindus can be freely converted, then Hindus also have the right to openly object to it.

Ghar Wapsi

Now, some may argue that even Hindus encourage conversion in the form of Ghar Wapsi (reverting to Hinduism). However, Ghar wapsi is not a core part of Hinduism. It is more of a reaction to the aggressive conversions that have been happening in the country.

Most people I know converted to Abrahamic religions because of perks, not out of faith. They were poor and needed money. They were promised financial benefits if they converted. The fact that they are openly admitting this is nothing any faith should feel proud of. The only reason to convert to another faith should be faith itself. You should feel that the new faith and its principles are right for you, not be influenced by inducements or pressure.

If you ask why the Hindu side can’t match these perks, the answer is simple: we don’t have multiple Hindu-majority nations funding such activities. India is the only major Hindu-majority country, so the playing field is not equal.

Ghar Wapsi is simply an attempt, based on faith alone, to help those who genuinely want to return to Hinduism.

Arguments Used to Justify Conversions in India

1. Charity

There’s this belief that the money given during conversions is out of pure kindness. But I know many Christians who are struggling, working extra hours just to manage their basic needs. If the intention is genuine help, why not support them first?

And, most importantly, why should any help come with the condition of conversion?

Real help doesn’t demand a change of faith. If it does, you have to wonder whether it’s truly help or part of an agenda.

2. Caste Discrimination in Hinduism

It’s also misleading to say that converted Christians escape discrimination to enter a better way of life after they leave Hinduism. Many are treated as “lower-level” Christians, and some have even gone back to Hinduism because of this.

Dalit Christians protesting against Church — Source: New Indian Express (July 2025)

Additionally, consider the points made below (took help from Google Search AI):

Dalit Christians facing discrimination in India

One person told me about a convert in her family who wants to return but cannot, because they signed a financial help agreement that now holds them back.

The good thing is that the caste system within Hindu society is slowly being dealt with. Families are becoming more open to inter-caste marriages, including in my own family. This change is happening faster in the South than in the North. It’s not perfect yet, but progress is real. In this situation, constantly blaming a community that is actively trying to fix the problem does not help.

Yes, many Hindus still support caste, and as long as they exist, the issue will continue. But this divide is also kept alive by leaders, both political and religious, because it benefits them. If caste truly disappears, many of these leaders lose their power to divide or convert Hindus, and that is why the system hasn’t faded away completely.

Instead of building bridges, the “narrative builders” choose to burn them by feeding divisive stories, which only pushes people of different castes further apart. Missionaries often highlight caste discrimination so aggressively because it helps them drive conversions. So you have to ask — are they really helping, or are they using the problem to serve their own goals?

4. Freedom of Faith

The tricky side of conversion in India is that Hindus openly say they are against it. But in Kerala, I often see Christian groups shift their stand based on who is converting and to which religion. They welcome anyone who joins their faith, but they loudly object when someone chooses to leave it.

Churches often use the term “love jihad” when a Christian woman converts to Islam for love. Yet the same groups talk about “freedom of faith” when a Hindu woman converts to Christianity for love.

Since both Abrahamic religions support proselytization as part of their belief system, you would expect them to be supportive of conversions into each other’s religion. But that rarely happens.

Complications of Conversion in Interfaith Relationships

Spoiler Ahead for Nobody Wants This Season 2

Click to reveal spoiler

Considering the many unwanted complications related to conversion, I was really hoping the female character in Nobody Wants This would take a stand. I wanted both partners to accept that two religions can live side by side without one needing to disappear. The ending didn’t go the way I hoped, but since there’s a Season 3 coming, I’m hoping they fix things and take the story in a better direction.

*Spoiler Ends*

In many interfaith relationships, I notice that the Hindu partner often gives in to the Abrahamic faith — if not through marriage, then through the children.

Take Usha Vance, for example. All three of her children were baptized because her husband couldn’t accept the kids growing up Hindu. That feels like a loss of her own identity. It shows that even an educated woman like her is not fully protected from this pressure.

If it were up to me, ideally, I would want the kids to grow up with both religions. But if we had to choose one religion for my “imaginary” children, I would fight hard to raise them in my own. Purely because Hinduism is naturally pluralistic, and it doesn’t invalidate any other faith. It would also matter to me because Hindus are a global minority, while the other religions face no existential crisis. It’s like the global majority religion being generous enough to make space for the growth of the minority.

Also, if I had to pick, I would choose a court marriage. But if the partner insists on a religious ceremony, then it would have to be a temple wedding. You don’t need to convert for that. You only need to respect the rituals. It’s simple, fair, and inclusive.

This is probably why I feel an interfaith marriage may not work for me. I believe in equality between religions, while an Abrahamic partner may not always see it the same way. There would be constant tension, and I am not the kind of Hindu who would compromise on my identity.

When I was younger, I probably would not have thought this way. Back then, love felt like everything. But growing older makes you see the bigger picture.

Pushback Against Conversions in India

More Hindus today realize that they don’t need to give up their beliefs for anything, which is why you see fewer people willing to convert.

Banning of conversion in Indian villages — Hindu Villagers in India Fighting Back Against Conversion

This awareness is slowly growing. I recently saw a post on Reddit where an Indian Christian said they felt sad that many Hindus in India are no longer open to conversion or to “the way of the Lord.” To me, this is actually a positive sign for the Hindu community. It shows that more people are choosing to stay firm in their identity.

And honestly, this should be true for every religion, because love and true secularism do not require anyone to change who they really are.

Communal Harmony in India: Easier Than We Think?

After celebrating Onam and engaging in numerous social activities, my introvert battery hit rock bottom. I needed a desperate recharge. So what do I do? Naturally, I retreated to every introvert’s most favourite new-gen comfort zone: scrolling endless Instagram reels. Nothing says “I’ve had enough of people” quite like being a couch potato, locked up in your house, while going through everyone else’s social lives.

As I scrolled through the multiple Onam-related posts, I couldn’t help but appreciate the inclusivity in Kerala. Malayalees across religions, whether they are Hindus, Christians, or Muslims, celebrated Onam with equal enthusiasm. Everyone welcomed Mahabali with open arms. A few voices did try to stop their communities, saying Onam is a “Hindu festival,” but not many paid attention. That’s a good sign. People are choosing to step out of religious bubbles to celebrate together.

Still, Kerala, often praised as a secular state, has been showing sporadic worrying signs of exclusion. Just before Onam, a teacher told students not to participate in the festival because “our religion doesn’t allow it.” The outrage led to her suspension, but this mindset isn’t limited to one person. How widespread is the thought? No one can quantify. It’s impossible to analyze each and every Indian’s thought. However, there is an increasing number of cases that advocate for exclusionary behaviour. You are penalized for celebrating other festivals, or for respecting someone else’s god, or for chanting something as simple as “Bharat Mata ki Jai.”

India guarantees freedom of religion for all communities. But if we use that freedom only to exclude ourselves from others, we risk creating deeper divides. True communal harmony comes from participation: joining in festivals, enjoying each other’s food, and refusing to see other faiths as “untouchable.”

For India to stay secular, this effort has to come from all of us. We’ve come far since independence, but there’s still a long way to go. It’s up to us to ensure religion doesn’t become a wall, but a bridge.

***

Photo by Saran Indokera

The Truth Behind Accusations of Lack of Religious Freedom in India

Western countries often criticize India, accusing it of restricting the religious freedom of minorities. For a long time, I was puzzled by this, as I saw minorities freely attending their religious places without any problems. On the other hand, Hindus in Jammu require police protection to visit their religious sites due to the ongoing threat of terrorism. So, where is this accusation truly coming from?

One of the main reasons many Christians oppose the BJP is that the party has significantly restricted international funds meant for proselytization. These funds were often misused in India to attract economically disadvantaged citizens into converting, with promises of financial assistance tied to conversion. As a result, conversions were driven more by economic pressures and manipulation than genuine faith.

Countries like the USA actively fund missionary programs, with groups such as the evangelical World Vision and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) advocating for unrestricted proselytization as a form of religious freedom. They often cite Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR), which asserts that every individual “has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief…” This interpretation forms the basis for their criticism of India, accusing the country of limiting religious freedom and ranking it low in the religious freedom index. A 2012 article written by Dr Aseem Shukla explains this point brilliantly (hinduamerican.org/blog/proselytism-conversion-to-intolerance/).

This raises an important question: why offer monetary assistance only after conversion? Why not provide help based on humanitarian principles, without attaching religious conditions? When people are lured into faith through financial incentives, it undermines the integrity of the belief system itself. Shouldn’t conversions be driven by genuine faith and conviction, rather than economic manipulation or coercion?

Unfortunately, that’s not the reality for many. People are being lured into changing their religion through manipulation, whether through money or other means. I personally know several individuals who converted simply because they were promised financial support. What’s even more surprising is that younger generations are now making conversion a prerequisite for marriage. It’s hard to comprehend how, in today’s world, people still can’t accept different faiths and feel the need to demand conversion from their partner for the sake of marriage. Is this really secularism? Or love? I discussed this topic on this blog after watching a show, Nobody Wants This, on Netflix some time ago.

I’m currently reading a book about Kamala Das, The Love Queen of Malabar, written by a Canadian author, where it’s mentioned that Kamala was pressured to claim her conversion was out of faith, not love. The reasoning behind this was that saying she converted for love would diminish the strength of her faith. However, after her partner left her, she felt deeply depressed. The book suggests that the man she loved had been financially incentivized by foreign entities to convert Kamala. Later, Kamala wished to return to Hinduism but feared for her life and her family’s safety, including her grandchildren. Her sons even used to correct her whenever she, by habit, uttered the name of her former god, as they were afraid it might anger radicals and put their family at risk.

Why manipulate people into conversion? Let them choose to convert out of genuine faith – that is true religious freedom, not a process driven by external incentives.

The new government has largely restricted predatory conversion tactics by limiting international funds and addressing radical elements within society. This is one of the primary reasons the Indian government is widely criticized globally.

The propaganda against India has a broader base compared to the narratives propagated by BJP supporters. It’s easier for these narratives to spread, as the Christian and Muslim communities form larger global groups compared to the Hindu community. With such a widespread network, sensational news spreads quickly and easily. Adding to this challenge is the Hindu community’s general reluctance to actively counter exaggerated news, making it even harder to protect India’s image.

Many who believe in proselytization through unfair means seek the removal of the current government to restore previous practices. This is probably why they complain about every small issue and often manipulate facts to present one-sided stories. By focusing on selective narratives, they aim to undermine the current administration and bring back the old ways.

The narratives about India are often more complex than they appear in the media or through agenda-driven sources. They tend to present only one side of the story, exaggerating it to evoke emotional reactions. This is why it’s crucial to consult both left and right-wing media to gain a more balanced perspective. Otherwise, you risk forming judgments based on incomplete or biased information.

***

Photo by Luis Quintero