u/desiLoisLane

BJP supporters often argue that the CJP is using students for political gain. But isn't it worth asking whether the BJP does something similar by mobilising India's Hindu majority for political purposes?

If you are voting for the BJP because you genuinely believe it is protecting Hinduism and the Hindu population, I would ask you to look more closely at what the party actually represents. In my view, the BJP increasingly seems more interested in creating a political identity built around being "Hindu" or "Sanatani" than in upholding the actual principles of Hindu philosophy and dharma.

I often hear Hindu supporters of the BJP argue that Hindus need to defend their own religion and protect their own people, even if the methods used to do so become aggressive or violent. I understand the instinct to protect something you deeply value. But I would ask those people a difficult question: if you justify violence, intimidation, or hatred in the name of defending your religion, how is that fundamentally different from the behaviour of the religious extremists and jihadis you condemn?

I am not saying that Hindus and jihadists are the same, nor am I saying that Hinduism itself promotes violence. I am asking you to examine the principle you are using. If you condemn religious extremism when it comes from another community but excuse violence when it is committed in the name of your own religion, then you are applying two different moral standards. And if dharma is truly the principle you claim to be defending, shouldn't the same standard apply regardless of who is committing the wrong?

What makes someone Hindu is not simply visiting a temple, performing a particular puja, or praying to a particular deity. Don't misunderstand me these practices can be deeply meaningful and are important expressions of devotion. But they are not the entirety of Hinduism. What ultimately matters is how you conduct yourself in this mortal existence we call life: your karma, your compassion, your actions, your adherence to dharma, and your ability to recognise and reject adharma.

You may hate me for saying this, but this is my truth.

Let me begin with a simple example. Do you know what the words "Allahu Akbar" actually mean? They mean "God is great." There is nothing inherently negative about those words. Yet, because certain extremists and terrorists have used them while committing horrific acts, the phrase has acquired a negative connotation for many people.

The same thing can happen with "Jai Shri Ram." At its core, it is an expression of devotion to Lord Ram figure traditionally revered as Maryada Purushottam, the embodiment of dignity, righteousness, and moral conduct.

And yet, today, there are people who invoke Lord Ram while simultaneously degrading women, calling them obscene names, objectifying them, and threatening them with sexual violence. You might say that these people are exceptions, or that such examples are fabricated by people who hate Hinduism.

But I am a Hindu myself.

I cannot even count how many men have called me derogatory names, objectified me, sent me rape threats, or described in graphic detail what they wanted to do to my body. A significant number of these men have had "Jai Shri Ram" in their social media bios.

That does not mean that "Jai Shri Ram" itself is an evil phrase. It isn't. But when people repeatedly use a sacred religious expression while behaving in ways that directly contradict the values represented by Lord Ram, they inevitably change how outsiders perceive that expression. And that is something I deeply regret, because I do not want the name of Lord Ram to become associated with hatred, misogyny, or violence.

The same contradiction can be seen elsewhere.

A large section of India's Hindu electorate supported the BJP because of its promise and political mobilisation around the Ram Mandir. Yet figures such as Asaram Bapu, who has been convicted of rape, have also received religious and political attention. More importantly, reports that a man convicted of rape was welcomed at the Ram Mandir itself are deeply troubling.

Think about the symbolism of that for a moment. The Ram Mandir is a temple dedicated to Lord Ram, who is traditionally revered as Maryada Purushottam, the embodiment of righteousness, dignity, restraint, and moral conduct. To honour or welcome a man convicted of rape within such a sacred space creates a direct and deeply disturbing contradiction between the person being honoured and the ideals associated with Lord Ram.

This is not merely a question of whether Asaram Bapu received religious or political attention. It is a question of what it means when someone convicted of such a grave crime is treated with honour at a temple dedicated to a figure whose very identity is associated with moral conduct and righteousness. If you claim that the Ram Mandir represents the restoration and protection of Hindu values, then surely you should also be willing to ask whether the people being welcomed into that space actually embody those values.

There have also been allegations and controversies surrounding donations and valuables associated with the Ram temple.

If the people responsible for managing such enormous amounts of public and religious wealth were receiving complaints for months or years before action was taken, then it is completely reasonable to question how much the political and administrative leadership knew about what was happening. If the leadership genuinely knew nothing, that raises questions about competence. If it knew and failed to act, that raises an entirely different set of questions.

Either way, blind faith in political leaders is not an answer.

We have also seen striking double standards in the treatment of religious expression.

Munawar Faruqui faced severe backlash and legal consequences over jokes involving Hindu religious figures. Yet politicians associated with the BJP have themselves made statements and jokes invoking figures such as Lord Ram, Mata Sita, and Lord Hanuman in ways that many Hindus could reasonably find disrespectful. Why should the standard change depending on who is speaking?

Similarly, PK faced enormous controversy and protests over its depiction of religious beliefs, including a scene involving Lord Shiva. Yet political rallies can use images of Lord Hanuman and other religious symbols for electoral mobilisation, and this is often defended as perfectly acceptable.

If religious devotion is genuinely the principle, then the standard should be consistent.

You cannot demand respect for your religion only when someone outside your political camp uses it. You cannot condemn others for supposedly insulting your faith while excusing politicians you support when they do something similar.

And this is where my larger criticism of BJP supporters begins.

I have seen people defend the BJP even when confronted with allegations of unconstitutional actions, attacks on democratic institutions, restrictions on freedom of speech, or threats to the principles of the Indian Constitution. Instead of defending democracy, some people simply move the goalposts. First, they say, "The BJP protects Hindus." Then, when their government's actions are criticised, they say, "We don't need this kind of democracy." Eventually, some even say that India should no longer be secular and that Hinduism should be the country's only recognised religion.

But if that is what you believe, then you need to recognise that you are arguing against the foundational principles of the country you live in.

And when someone disagrees with you, telling them to "go to Pakistan" is not an argument. In fact, I would turn that statement around: before telling another Indian citizen to leave the country, perhaps read the Preamble to the Constitution.

India defines itself as a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and promises its citizens Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

These are not decorative words. They are foundational constitutional principles.

India was not created as a Hindu Pakistan. It chose a fundamentally different constitutional path after independence: democratic, pluralistic, and secular constitutionalism, in which citizens were meant to enjoy equal rights regardless of their religion.

Pakistan, by contrast, developed in a direction where religion became increasingly intertwined with the state and political identity, and where religious minorities have faced severe marginalisation and discrimination. In some cases, entire minority communities have faced sustained persecution and dramatic demographic decline. The point is not to claim that every problem faced by minorities in Pakistan has a single cause, nor to pretend that India has always lived up perfectly to its constitutional ideals. It is to recognise the fundamental difference in the constitutional vision: India chose a democratic and pluralistic framework in which religious identity was not supposed to determine whether someone was an equal citizen.

That distinction matters.

India's constitutional promise is not that Hindus must surrender their religion or that religious belief should disappear from public life. It is that Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and people of other faiths can belong to the same nation as equal citizens under a common constitutional framework.

That is one of the fundamental differences between the vision of India established by its Constitution and the religious nationalism that some people now want to impose upon it.

So if you call someone a "libtard" or "liberandu" simply because they believe in secularism, democracy, equality, freedom of expression, or constitutional rights, perhaps take a moment to ask yourself something:

Are you defending the values of your country or trying to replace them with something else?

And if you claim to be defending Hinduism, then ask yourself an even more important question:

Are you actually defending Hinduism, or merely using Hindu identity as a political weapon?

Because being Hindu should not be reduced to a slogan, a temple, a political party, or a social media bio.

It should be reflected in your karma.

In your compassion.

In your integrity.

In your treatment of women.

In your treatment of people who are different from you.

In your willingness to stand against adharma, even when the person committing it belongs to your own political or religious group.

If Lord Ram represents maryada, righteousness, restraint, and moral conduct, then invoking his name while practising hatred, misogyny, or violence is not devotion.

It is hypocrisy.

And if you truly believe in Hinduism, you should have the courage to say so even when the person violating its principles is standing on your side of the political divide.