Once a fringe Indian ideology, Hindu nationalism is now mainstream, thanks to Modi’s decade in power

1 / 3
Gujarat state's then chief minister Narendra Modi, third left, with former chief minister Keshubhai Patel, second right, and leaders of Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), salute during the concluding ceremony of the eight-day RSS convention in Ahmedabad, India, on Jan. 1, 2006.(AP photo/File)
2 / 3
In this Feb. 23, 2014 file photo, Indian Muslims shower flower petals as volunteers of Hindu nationalist group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, (RSS), march on the concluding day of their three-day meeting in Bhopal, India. For the RSS, Indian civilization is inseparable from Hinduism. (AP Photo/Rajeev Gupta, File)
3 / 3
Youth and children participate in Hindu nationalist organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)'s shakha in Ahmedabad, India, on April 8, 2024. Shakhas, or local units, induct boys by combining religious education with self-defense skills and games. (AP Photo/Ajit Solanki)
Short Url
Updated 19 April 2024
Follow

Once a fringe Indian ideology, Hindu nationalism is now mainstream, thanks to Modi’s decade in power

  • While Mahatma Gandhi preached Hindu-Muslim unity a few decades earlier, the RSS advocated for transforming India into a Hindu nation
  • RSS, which stands for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, is paramilitary, right-wing group founded nearly a century ago
  • Modi joined the political wing of the RSS in the late 1960s in their home state, Gujarat, when he was a teenager

AHMEDABAD, India: Hindu nationalism, once a fringe ideology in India, is now mainstream. Nobody has done more to advance this cause than Prime Minister Narendra Modi, one of India’s most beloved and polarizing political leaders.

And no entity has had more influence on his political philosophy and ambitions than a paramilitary, right-wing group founded nearly a century ago and known as the RSS.
“We never imagined that we would get power in such a way,” said Ambalal Koshti, 76, who says he first brought Modi into the political wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in the late 1960s in their home state, Gujarat.
Modi was a teenager. Like other young men — and even boys — who joined, he would learn to march in formation, fight, meditate and protect their Hindu homeland.
A few decades earlier, while Mahatma Gandhi preached Hindu-Muslim unity, the RSS advocated for transforming India — by force, if necessary — into a Hindu nation. (A former RSS worker would fire three bullets into Gandhi’s chest in 1948, killing him months after India gained independence.)
Modi’s spiritual and political upbringing from the RSS is the driving force, experts say, in everything he’s done as prime minister over the past 10 years, a period that has seen India become a global power and the world’s fifth-largest economy.
At the same time, his rule has seen brazen attacks against minorities — particularly Muslims — from hate speech to lynchings. India’s democracy, critics say, is faltering as the press, political opponents and courts face growing threats. And Modi has increasingly blurred the line between religion and state.
At 73, Modi is campaigning for a third term in a general election, which starts Friday. He and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party are expected to win. He’s challenged by a broad but divided alliance of regional parties.
Supporters and critics agree on one thing: Modi has achieved staying power by making Hindu nationalism acceptable — desirable, even — to a nation of 1.4 billion that for decades prided itself on pluralism and secularism. With that comes an immense vote bank: 80 percent of Indians are Hindu.
“He is 100 percent an ideological product of the RSS,“in said Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, who wrote a Modi biography. “He has delivered their goals.”
 




In this Feb. 23, 2014 file photo, Indian Muslims shower flower petals as volunteers of Hindu nationalist group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, (RSS), march on the concluding day of their three-day meeting in Bhopal, India. For the RSS, Indian civilization is inseparable from Hinduism. (AP Photo/Rajeev Gupta, File)

Uniting Hindus
Between deep breaths under the night sky in western India a few weeks ago, a group of boys recited an RSS prayer in Sanskrit: “All Hindus are the children of Mother India ... we have taken a vow to be equals and a promise to save our religion.”
More than 65 years ago, Modi was one of them. Born in 1950 to a lower-caste family, his first exposure to the RSS was through shakhas — local units — that induct boys by combining religious education with self-defense skills and games.
By the 1970s, Modi was a full-time campaigner, canvassing neighborhoods on bicycle to raise RSS support.
“At that time, Hindus were scared to come together,” Koshti said. “We were trying to unite them.”
The RSS — formed in 1925, with the stated intent to strengthen the Hindu community — was hardly mainstream. It was tainted by links to Gandhi’s assassination and accused of stoking hatred against Muslims as periodic riots roiled India.
For the group, Indian civilization is inseparable from Hinduism, while critics say its philosophy is rooted in Hindu supremacy.
Today, the RSS has spawned a network of affiliated groups, from student and farmer unions to nonprofits and vigilante organizations often accused of violence. Their power — and legitimacy — ultimately comes from the BJP, which emerged from the RSS.
“Until Modi, the BJP had never won a majority on their own in India’s Parliament,” said Christophe Jaffrelot, an expert on Modi and the Hindu right. “For the RSS, it is unprecedented.”
Scaling his politics
Modi got his first big political break in 2001, becoming chief minister of home state Gujarat. A few months in, anti-Muslim riots ripped through the region, killing at least 1,000 people.
There were suspicions that Modi quietly supported the riots, but he denied the allegations and India’s top court absolved him over lack of evidence.
Instead of crushing his political career, the riots boosted it.
Modi doubled down on Hindu nationalism, Jaffrelot said, capitalizing on religious tensions for political gain. Gujarat’s reputation suffered from the riots, so he turned to big businesses to build factories, create jobs and spur development.
“This created a political economy — he built close relations with capitalists who in turn backed him,” Jaffrelot said.
Modi became increasingly authoritarian, Jaffrelot described, consolidating power over police and courts and bypassing the media to connect directly with voters.
The “Gujarat Model,” as Modi coined it, portended what he would do as a prime minister.
“He gave Hindu nationalism a populist flavor,” Jaffrelot said. “Modi invented it in Gujarat, and today he has scaled it across the country.”
A few decades earlier,
In June, Modi aims not just to win a third time — he’s set a target of receiving two-thirds of the vote. And he’s touted big plans.
“I’m working every moment to make India a developed nation by 2047,” Modi said at a rally. He also wants to abolish poverty and make the economy the world’s third-largest.
If Modi wins, he’ll be the second Indian leader, after Jawaharlal Nehru, to retain power for a third term.
With approval ratings over 70 percent, Modi’s popularity has eclipsed that of his party. Supporters see him as a strongman leader, unafraid to take on India’s enemies, from Pakistan to the liberal elite. He’s backed by the rich, whose wealth has surged under him. For the poor, a slew of free programs, from food to housing, deflect the pain of high unemployment and inflation. Western leaders and companies line up to court him, turning to India as a counterweight against China.
He’s meticulously built his reputation. In a nod to his Hinduism, he practices yoga in front of TV crews and the UN, extols the virtues of a vegetarian diet, and preaches about reclaiming India’s glory. He refers to himself in the third person.
P.K. Laheri, a former senior bureaucrat in Gujarat, said Modi “does not risk anything” when it comes to winning — he goes into the election thinking the party won’t miss a single seat.
The common thread of Modi’s rise, analysts say, is that his most consequential policies are ambitions of the RSS.
In 2019, his government revoked the special status of disputed Kashmir, the country’s only Muslim-majority region. His government passed a citizenship law excluding Muslim migrants. In January, Modi delivered on a longstanding demand from the RSS — and millions of Hindus — when he opened a temple on the site of a razed mosque.
The BJP has denied enacting discriminatory policies and says its work benefits all Indians.
Last week, the BJP said it would pass a common legal code for all Indians — another RSS desire — to replace religious personal laws. Muslim leaders and others oppose it.
But Modi’s politics are appealing to those well beyond right-wing nationalists — the issues have resonated deeply with regular Hindus. Unlike those before him, Modi paints a picture of a rising India as a Hindu one.
Satish Ahlani, a school principal, said he’ll vote for Modi. Today, Ahlani said, Gujarat is thriving — as is India.
“Wherever our name hadn’t reached, it is now there,” he said. “Being Hindu is our identity; that is why we want a Hindu country. ... For the progress of the country, Muslims will have to be with us. They should accept this and come along.”
 


22 states sue to stop Trump’s order blocking birthright citizenship

Updated 22 January 2025
Follow

22 states sue to stop Trump’s order blocking birthright citizenship

  • The White House said it’s ready to face the states in court and called the lawsuits “nothing more than an extension of the Left’s resistance”

Attorneys general from 22 states sued Tuesday to block President Donald Trump’s move to end a century-old immigration practice known as birthright citizenship guaranteeing that US-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.
Trump’s roughly 700-word executive order, issued late Monday, amounts to a fulfillment of something he’s talked about during the presidential campaign. But whether it succeeds is far from certain amid what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle over the president’s immigration policies and a constitutional right to citizenship.
The Democratic attorneys general and immigrant rights advocates say the question of birthright citizenship is settled law and that while presidents have broad authority, they are not kings.
“The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period,” New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said.
The White House said it’s ready to face the states in court and called the lawsuits “nothing more than an extension of the Left’s resistance.”
“Radical Leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump,” White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a US citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.
“The 14th Amendment says what it means, and it means what it says — — if you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period. Full stop,” he said.
“There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own.”
What is birthright citizenship?
At issue in these cases is the right to citizenship granted to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. People in the United States on a tourist or other visa or in the country illegally can become the parents of a citizen if their child is born here.
It’s enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, supporters say. But Trump and allies dispute the reading of the amendment and say there need to be tougher standards on becoming a citizen.
The US is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Most other countries confer citizenship based on whether at least one parent — jus sanguinis, or “right of blood” — is a citizen, or have a modified form of birthright citizenship that may restrict automatic citizenship to children of parents who are on their territory legally.
What does Trump’s order say?
Trump’s order questions that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship automatically to anyone born in the United States.
Ratified in 1868 in in the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Trump’s order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It excludes the following people from automatic citizenship: those whose mothers were not legally in the United States and whose fathers were not US citizens or lawful permanent residents, and people whose mothers were in the country legally but on a temporary basis and whose fathers were not citizens or legal permanent residents.
It goes on to bar federal agencies from recognizing the citizenship of people in those categories. It takes effect 30 days from Tuesday, on Feb. 19.
It’s not clear whether the order would retroactively affect birthright citizens. It says that federal agencies “shall” not issue citizenship documents to the people it excludes or accept other documents from states or local governments.
What is the history of the issue?
The 14th Amendment did not always guarantee birthright citizenship to all US-born people. Congress did not authorize citizenship for all Native Americans born in the United States until 1924.
In 1898 an important birthright citizenship case unfolded in the US Supreme Court. The court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a US citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he had faced denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that while the case clearly applied to children born to parents who are both legal immigrants, it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status.
The issue of birthright citizenship arose in Arizona — one of the states suing to block Trump’s order — during 2011 when Republican lawmakers considered a bill that would have challenged automatic birthright citizenship. Supporters said then that the goal wasn’t to get every state in the nation to enact such a law, but rather to bring the dispute to the courts. The bill never made it out of the Legislature.
What has the reaction to Trump’s order been?
In addition to the states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco, immigrant rights groups are also suing to stop Trump’s order.
Chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts along with other immigrant rights advocates filed a suit in New Hampshire federal court.
The suit asks the court to find the order to be unconstitutional. It highlights the case of a woman identified as “Carmen,” who is pregnant but is not a citizen. The lawsuit says she has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent status. She has no other immigration status, and the father of her expected child has no immigration status either, the suit says.
“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit says. “It denies them the full membership in US society to which they are entitled.”
In addition to New Jersey and the two cities, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin joined the lawsuit to stop the order.
Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington filed a separate suit in federal court challenging Trump’s order as well.


Belgian court throws out Covid vaccine case against EU chief

Updated 21 January 2025
Follow

Belgian court throws out Covid vaccine case against EU chief

  • The Liege appeals court “declared inadmissible” a set of complaints brought in 2023 by Belgian former lobbyist Frederic Baldan
  • The court “found the complainants wrong across the board,” von der Leyen’s lawyer Adrien Masset said

BRUSSELS: A Belgian court dismissed a lawsuit against EU chief Ursula von der Leyen centered on text messages she exchanged with the head of vaccine maker Pfizer during negotiations for Covid jabs, her lawyer said on Tuesday.
Another source close to the case confirmed to AFP that the Liege appeals court “declared inadmissible” a set of complaints brought in 2023 by Belgian former lobbyist Frederic Baldan, as he could not prove suffering “personal harm.”
The court “found the complainants wrong across the board,” von der Leyen’s lawyer Adrien Masset told AFP.
The EU moved swiftly after the Covid pandemic emerged in 2020 to secure vaccines for member countries to buy for their citizens and residents, at a time of massive global demand for the shots.
But many aspects of the procurement from key supplier Pfizer have been kept confidential, leading to claims of a lack of transparency — and several legal proceedings.
Last year Baldan, who argued that von der Leyen both overstepped her role and violated the commission’s code of conduct, lost a similar lawsuit in Brussels.
Another complaint filed by The New York Times against the commission for failing to release the texts despite a freedom of information request is being heard by the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union.
Various anti-vaccine groups and personalities, as well as Hungary and Poland, had joined Baldan’s Liege case, which contested the ability of the EU prosecutor’s office (EPPO) to effectively investigate the matter.
The EPPO, an independent body fighting fraud involving EU funds, opened a still-ongoing probe into vaccine purchases in 2022.
“The EU has now become an area of non-freedom, insecurity and injustice,” Baldan said of his latest court defeat.
The commission does not dispute that the text messages existed but says they did not constitute part of the vaccine negotiation — and are no longer available.


Russia blasts US reinstatement of Cuba on terror list

Updated 21 January 2025
Follow

Russia blasts US reinstatement of Cuba on terror list

  • Trump on Monday reversed his predecessor Joe Biden’s decision to remove Cuba from a blacklist of state sponsors of terrorism
  • The move is unjustified because Cuba is an active participant in “international cooperation on counter-terrorism,” Zakharova said

MOSCOW: Russia on Tuesday slammed US President Donald Trump for reinstating its ally Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism, saying the measure was aimed at destabilising the island and prompting regime change.
Trump on Monday reversed his predecessor Joe Biden’s decision to remove Cuba from a blacklist of state sponsors of terrorism.
Foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a statement that the newly-inaugurated Trump’s order was undoubtedly “aimed at further tightening financial and economic restrictions in the hopes of destabilising the situation and changing power in Cuba.”
The move is unjustified because Cuba is an active participant in “international cooperation on counterterrorism,” Zakharova said.
The US must realize such measures “have an extremely negative influence on the quality of life of the island’s population,” she added, suggesting it was aiming to provoke “social discontent.”
Russia will continue to provide “necessary support to Cuba” to back its demands for an “immediate and complete end” to the “illegal and inhumane” US blockade of the island, Zakharova said.
Russia and Cuba have strengthened ties since Moscow launched its Ukraine offensive in 2022 with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov visiting last year.


Denmark says no country can ‘just help themselves’ to Greenland

Updated 21 January 2025
Follow

Denmark says no country can ‘just help themselves’ to Greenland

  • “Greenland is a wonderful place, we need it for international security,” Trump said
  • Lokke said he was “satisfied” that Trump had not cited Greenland as a priority in his speech

COPENHAGEN: Denmark’s foreign minister said Tuesday that no country should be able to simply help themselves to another country, following US President Donald Trump’s renewed remarks about taking control of Greenland.
Trump, who took office on Monday, set off alarm bells in early January by refusing to rule out military intervention to bring the Panama Canal and Greenland — which is an autonomous Danish territory — under US control.
“Of course we can’t have a world order where countries, if they’re big enough, no matter what they’re called, can just help themselves to what they want,” Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told reporters Tuesday.
While he didn’t mention Greenland in his inauguration speech on Monday, Trump was asked about it by reporters in the Oval Office afterwards.
“Greenland is a wonderful place, we need it for international security,” Trump responded.
“I’m sure that Denmark will come along — it’s costing them a lot of money to maintain it, to keep it,” he added.
Lokke said he was “satisfied” that Trump had not cited Greenland as a priority in his speech, but added that the “rhetoric” was the same.
“It doesn’t make me call off any crisis, because he said other things about expanding the American territory,” Lokke told Danish media.
Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Egede has insisted “that Greenland is not for sale” but that the territory was open to doing business with the US.
Among Danes, the omission of Greenland in the inauguration speech led to some relief.
“He didn’t mention Greenland or Denmark in his speech last night, so I think there’s room for diplomacy,” 68-year-old actor Donald Andersen told AFP.
On Monday, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said in a post to Instagram that Europe would need to “navigate a new reality.”
While noting the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination, the head of government also stressed the need for Denmark to maintain its alliance with the US — which she described as Denmark’s most important since World War II.
A number of Danish party leaders were called to the prime minister’s office on Tuesday to be briefed on the situation.
“We have to recognize that the next four years will be difficult years,” Pia Olsen Dyhr, leader of the Green Left, told reporters after meeting with Frederiksen.


Zelensky says Ukraine working to set up Trump meeting

Updated 21 January 2025
Follow

Zelensky says Ukraine working to set up Trump meeting

  • “The teams have been working on a meeting, they are currently in the process,” Zelensky said
  • Trump has said he will stop the war in Ukraine swiftly without saying how

DAVOS: Ukraine is working to set up a meeting between President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump, Zelensky said on Tuesday.
“The teams have been working on a meeting, they are currently in the process,” Zelensky said of efforts to arrange a meeting with Trump.
He was speaking in an interview panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Trump, who took office on Monday, has said he will stop the war in Ukraine swiftly without saying how.
Zelensky said Ukraine would not agree to Russian demands that it drastically reduce the size of its military, predicting that Russian President Vladimir Putin would demand Ukraine cut its military to a fifth its size.
“This is what he wants. We will not allow this to happen,” Zelensky said.
In his speech, Zelensky suggested Europe had less influence over Washington because the United States viewed its allies’ contribution to security as lacking.
“Does anyone in the United States worry that Europe might abandon them someday – might stop being their ally? The answer is no,” Zelensky said.