The Tech Bit has always uploaded posts composed by true sourcing and technical articles for beginners, you may see our other support site
Hindutva Under Modi: Rising Extremism and Minority Rights in 2025
POLITICSINDIA POLITICS
Tech Bit
10/9/20258 min read
Modi Govt Lets Extremist Hindus Spread Hindutva Ideology
Is India growing more tense as religious divisions harden? Many people feel it each day, in neighborhoods, online, and in the street. The stakes are high, and the tone keeps getting harsher.
Here is the core idea in plain terms. Hindutva is a push for Hindu dominance in politics and culture. It treats India as a Hindu nation first, and that shapes laws, speech, and daily life. The result hits minorities hardest, especially Muslims, and also Christians.
Under Prime Minister Modi, extremist Hindu groups have more room to spread this message. In 2025, the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 stirred fear over control of Muslim religious sites. Vigilante attacks rose, tied to cattle and beef claims. “Bulldozer justice” wiped out Muslim homes and shops in some states, and parts of it were later ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. “Jai Shri Ram” became a chant used to scare people, and Christian groups faced more harassment tied to conversion claims.
This post explains how state power, party networks, and street groups now work in sync, why that matters for rights, and what it means for daily life in mixed communities. The goal is simple, clear facts and a sober look at risk. The thesis is direct, India’s future as a diverse, democratic nation depends on whether leaders curb extremist forces and protect equal citizenship for all.
Understanding Hindutva and Modi's Support for It
Hindutva sees India as a Hindu nation. It blends religion with politics, and it puts Hindu identity at the center of public life. Since 2014, the Modi government and the BJP have backed this idea in policy, messaging, and symbolism. The Ram Mandir in Ayodhya opened with state support, and Article 370, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special status, was ended. These moves sent a clear signal about priorities.
By 2025, the party tried to project a more multifaith image during elections. Photo-ops, softer rhetoric, and outreach events popped up. Yet the core policy stack still favored Hindus. That mix is important. It gives hardline groups confidence that the state is on their side, even when the tone is polished for a broader audience.
Key Policies That Promote Hindu Nationalism
The legal changes are not abstract. They shape who belongs, who feels safe, and who gets heard.
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA): The law speeds up citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, but excludes Muslims. That exclusion creates a hierarchy of belonging. For many Muslim families with mixed documentation, it sparks fear that paperwork can be weaponized. See the overview of the law and its impact on non-Muslims and Muslims in the BBC explainer on the CAA.
Waqf reforms in 2025: The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 expanded state control over Muslim endowments, including the power to review, reclassify, and in some cases take over properties. Supporters say it fixes mismanagement. Muslim boards warn it can strip control from the community, and even put mosques, graveyards, and schools at risk through bureaucratic action. A concise analysis outlines how the changes widen government discretion over Muslim-owned assets, see the Soufan Center brief on the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.
Renaming cities and sites: Changing Allahabad to Prayagraj, Faizabad to Ayodhya, and similar moves push a Hindu-first identity into maps, schoolbooks, and public memory. Renaming sounds symbolic, but it shapes daily cues of belonging, like what children write in class and what commuters see at train stations.
How does this land in day-to-day life for minorities?
School lessons, local forms, and IDs reflect new names and narratives, which can make non-Hindus feel erased.
Families face more document checks tied to residency and citizenship. Small errors can trigger long, costly appeals.
Mosque committees and waqf schools deal with new audits and legal uncertainty, which slows repairs, salaries, and services.
Street groups cite these laws as moral cover. They claim they are defending culture, then target meat shops, prayer gatherings, or mixed neighborhoods.
These shifts normalize a message of Hindu privilege. Even when violence is not present, the social pressure is. People self-censor, avoid reporting crimes, or skip public festivals to stay safe.
Political Backing for Extremist Groups
The state’s posture matters as much as the laws. Over the last decade, Hindu vigilante groups have operated with fewer restraints. Police responses often arrive late. Cases stall. Leaders offer soft praise for “cultural pride,” which reads as a nod to the base.
In 2025, senior BJP figures defended Hindutva as heritage, not hate. Speeches framed it as identity and respect. That framing blurs the line between cultural pride and majoritarian politics. It also gives cover to groups that push limits at rallies, in street marches, and on social media.
There were signs of moderation after weaker-than-expected returns in some states. Candidates toned down slogans in mixed districts, met with local clerics, and promised calm. Still, the underlying pattern held.
Groups received permissions for marches that featured slogans against minorities.
Hate speech complaints piled up, while charges moved slowly.
Influencers close to these networks amplified clips that harassed critics and journalists.
Leaders condemned “violence,” but praised the “sentiment,” which keeps the door open.
This is the “free rein” effect. The government does not always direct the street action, but by defending the ideology and soft-pedaling enforcement, it creates room for it. The result is a two-track approach. Campaign optics get inclusive when needed, yet the policy framework and political signals keep telling extremists they will be fine.
Rising Violence: Extremist Actions Under Government Watch
Attacks on Muslims rose again in 2025, driven by cow protection claims, bulldozer raids, and security crackdowns. The pattern is simple and chilling. Street groups act first, the state arrives late, and minorities pay the price. People change routes to work, shut meat shops, and move homes to stay safe. That is what impunity looks and feels like.
Beef Bans and Vigilante Attacks on Muslims
Between June and August 2025, vigilante groups targeted Muslims over alleged cow slaughter or beef transport in several states. Open-source reporting showed night stops on highways, daytime raids at meat shops, and mobs surrounding homes. Videos often surfaced first, then arrests followed, usually of the victims.
What stood out in these weeks:
Roadblocks and “checks” of trucks and two-wheelers, often by non-police actors.
Assaults filmed for social media, with faces uncovered and slogans chanted.
Police booking survivors under cow protection laws while attackers faced soft charges or none.
Two sources help frame this:
A July investigation documented groups that call themselves “cow protectors,” who beat drivers and parade seized meat on camera. It also mapped how content goes viral and draws new recruits. See the reporting in Bellingcat’s July 2025 investigation.
Rights monitors flagged a steady pattern of cow-related violence and weak accountability under current laws and policies. Review the annual overview in Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2025, India chapter.
If you are looking for trend data, conflict trackers show repeated spikes in cow vigilantism after 2014, with incidents clustering around political flashpoints and crackdowns. For context, see ACLED’s summary via Statista’s chart on cow vigilantism and the policy background in ACLED’s explainer on cow protection laws.
The human cost is stark. Families leave mixed neighborhoods. Meat sellers shut down for weeks or switch to chicken to avoid trouble. Young men avoid highways after dark. Local police, pressed by politics and local pressure, often tilt toward the mob’s claim, not the victim’s injuries. That tilt tells extremists they can keep going.
Bulldozer Tactics and Their Legal Fallout
“Bulldozer justice” is a simple formula. A protest or a clash happens. The next day, municipal crews arrive with police cover. Homes and shops tied to the accused are torn down, often without notice, hearings, or a court order. The effect is collective punishment that targets families, not just suspects.
In 2025, Uttar Pradesh again became a showcase for this tactic. The Supreme Court stepped in more than once:
It criticized the Prayagraj demolitions as inhuman and illegal, ordering compensation to affected owners. See the report in The Hindu on the Supreme Court’s rebuke and compensation order.
It issued guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, warning that ignoring due process would be unconstitutional. Read a clear summary from Oxford’s human rights forum: Indian Supreme Court curtails arbitrary demolitions.
Courts also ordered significant payouts to families whose houses were razed without lawful process, which pushed state agencies to revise paperwork but not the practice itself. For details on a key compensation ruling, see this analysis: How the bulldozer adapted to the Supreme Court’s demolitions verdict.
Why has the trend not stopped? Two reasons stand out:
Political incentives reward “swift action,” which plays well on TV and social media.
Local bodies have learned to retrofit legality after the fact, by backdating notices or citing zoning breaches.
The fear is immediate. Picture a brick home flattened by noon while children watch. Documents, school bags, and wedding photos under the rubble. Neighbors keep quiet because speaking up draws attention.
Kashmir added a security edge to this story in 2025. After the Pahalgam attack, the region saw mass detentions and targeted demolitions tied to counterterror claims and cross-border tensions. Many families, already living with checkpoints and curfews, faced fresh loss without a fair hearing. The message felt the same as in the plains. When the state looks away, or arrives with a bulldozer instead of a judge, rights turn fragile fast.
The Broader Impact on India's Society and Minorities
Hindutva’s rise is reshaping daily life for millions. It changes who feels safe, who gets heard, and who gets a fair shot with the state. When policy and policing tilt toward one community, trust thins out. The social fabric frays, and minority families carry the heaviest load.
Eroding Secularism and Minority Rights
India’s Constitution promises equal citizenship. A Hindutva-first push chips at that promise by creating a quiet, two-tier system. In practice, Hindus are favored in law and policy, while Muslims face more checks, more suspicion, and more legal uncertainty.
Two examples make the pattern plain:
CAA changes the logic of citizenship. It fast-tracks some faiths, but excludes Muslims. The signal is clear. Belonging is easier for some, harder for others. It sets a precedent that faith can sort who gets a welcome.
The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 expands state power over Muslim endowments. Reviews, reclassification, and takeovers slow mosque repairs, staff salaries, and school funds. Even if billed as reform, the effect is tighter control over a single community’s assets.
On the street, this legal tilt translates into fear and flight. Families move from mixed areas, young people look abroad, and daily interactions get cautious. Many Muslims report skipping festivals, avoiding late travel, and keeping a low profile with documents ready at all times.
The numbers show rising tension. In 2025, records point to about 269 communal incidents across India, after an 84 percent jump in 2024 compared to 2023. Most clashes center on Hindu-Muslim fault lines, often around religious events or processions. That steady rise undermines the secular compact and normalizes the message that minorities must prove their loyalty.
The cost is not only moral. It is economic. Shops stay shut after flare-ups, contracts get delayed, and tourism dips when curfews and clashes dominate headlines. Small businesses in meat supply, transport, and hospitality face recurring losses. When police and local bodies tilt, insurance claims stall and vendors eat the damage.
International partners are watching. Rights reports, investor notes, and diplomatic briefings now cite communal risk. This dents India’s image as a confident, plural democracy. It also raises risk premiums for projects in states that see repeated unrest.
Long-Term Risks for National Unity
If this path holds, the risks stack up. More polarization means more flashpoints, shorter tempers, and a cycle of retaliation. Minority professionals and students, wary of bias and violence, plan exits. That brain drain thins local talent, hurts universities, and slows innovation. Political backlash also builds as communities vote on fear and exclusion, which hardens gridlock and weakens reform.
Kashmir’s 2025 experience is a warning. The Pahalgam attack that killed 26 civilians set off raids, detentions, and demolitions that deepened mistrust. Security responses, paired with communal tension, rattled daily life and tourism. The pattern shows how fast a region can slide into instability when identity and law run on separate tracks.
The social damage shows up in small ways too:
Families avoid mixed schools and neighborhoods, shrinking shared spaces.
Local police-community ties fray, which hurts crime reporting and mediation.
Young people internalize fear, then carry it into work and civic life.
India can still step back from this edge. Independent policing, consistent prosecution of hate crimes, and real due process in property and citizenship cases would rebuild confidence. Interfaith outreach and local peace committees help when backed by fair law, not just photo-ops.
The harms today are concrete, and they add up fast. Unity is not a slogan, it is a daily practice backed by equal rules. If you care about peace, fair opportunity, and a strong India, pay attention to who the law protects, who it targets, and how that shapes the country we all share.