India’s Constitution guarantees religious freedom and a secular democracy in which all communities receive equal protection under the law. Since 2014, however, government actions have increasingly conflicted with this inclusive vision. The rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party, working closely with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, has shifted India’s political and social order toward the Hindutva ideology. This has led to the marginalisation of minorities and poses serious questions about whether majoritarian nationalism can unite such a diverse society— or whether it risks fragmentation similar to the Soviet Union’s collapse.
India’s population spans Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Jews, and tribal groups. Regional majorities vary, with Muslims in the majority in Jammu and Kashmir and Lakshadweep, Sikhs in Punjab, and Christians in Nagaland and Mizoram. Large Christian populations also exist in Kerala, Goa, Tamil Nadu, and Meghalaya, while tribal groups maintain indigenous beliefs. India’s historic strength lies in this diversity, but policies privileging one community threaten this balance, increasing alienation and separatist sentiment.
The caste system compounds divisions. Despite constitutional bans, discrimination against Dalits persists. Many Dalits convert to other religions as a rejection of caste, and by 2025 they make up nearly two-thirds of Indian Christians. Yet anti-conversion laws criminalise this choice, trapping marginalised groups in exclusion. State policy thus deepens fractures rather than healing them.
India’s constitutional framework defines the state as secular, but secularism does not require strict separation of religion and politics. Parliament lacks reserved seats for minorities, leaving them underrepresented. The prime minister holds dominant authority while state governments remain subject to central oversight via Union-appointed governors. This concentration of power allows the ruling party to impose its agenda across multiple levels, reducing space for dissent.
The BJP’s rise is anchored in the RSS, which supplies ideological direction and volunteers. The RSS has a history of communal violence, notably the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, both from the RSS, lead a BJP that by 2025 governs 17 of India’s 28 states, many helmed by RSS-aligned chief ministers. This structure ensures Hindutva ideology shapes policies in education and citizenship. Modi’s involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots— resulting in a temporary US visa ban— underscores the dangers of ideology superseding pluralism.
Discriminatory policies illustrate this trajectory. The revocation of Kashmir’s special status in 2019 stripped the region of autonomy and intensified repression of its Muslim majority. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) introduced a religious test for citizenship, explicitly excluding Muslims. The construction of the Ram Temple on the site of the demolished Babri Masjid symbolised triumphalism over pluralism. Other measures— restricting conversions, enforcing cow slaughter bans, revising textbooks— collectively disenfranchise minorities and rewrite India’s identity along sectarian lines. These policies do not merely marginalise; they risk creating conditions for separatism by alienating entire communities.
India’s strength has always been its pluralism. While the BJP-RSS mindset may yield short-term dominance, it risks undermining national unity in the long run. India’s future depends on honouring the Constitution’s promise of religious freedom and equality, rather than eroding it. Exclusion breeds fragmentation, threatening the state’s survival. The choice is clear— renew secular foundations or risk unity dissolving into disintegration.
The legal framework reinforces exclusion through laws such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), the CAA, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), and the Waqf Bill, which disproportionately impact minorities. Article 295A is weaponised against dissent, while anti-conversion and cow-slaughter laws impose harsh penalties. Weak accountability enables unchecked abuses. Police often fail to act against mob violence targeting Muslims and Christians, reinforcing impunity. Prolonged pre-trial detention under these laws, driven by judicial backlog, further illustrates systemic bias. The case of Umar Khalid, detained since 2020 for protesting the CAA, exemplifies the criminalisation of dissent.
The analytical question is whether such policies can sustain India’s unity or whether they risk fragmentation. History suggests exclusionary nationalism destabilises diverse states. The USSR collapsed under the weight of ethnic and regional grievances despite its centralised power. India’s diversity is even more complex, with deep religious, linguistic, and caste divisions. Policies privileging one community while disenfranchising others risk fueling separatist movements, eroding trust in institutions, and weakening the state. Kashmir’s unrest, Punjab’s militancy, and northeastern insurgencies remind us how quickly alienation can escalate into demands for autonomy or independence.
For now, India sustains itself through strong central authority, economic growth, and institutional inertia. But the question is for how long. If the current trajectory continues—where minorities are systematically marginalized, dissent is criminalised, and pluralism eroded— the risk of fragmentation grows. The comparison to the USSR is not far-fetched: a state that ignored diversity, suppressed dissent, and imposed ideology eventually collapsed under its contradictions. India’s survival depends on whether it recommits to its constitutional promise of secularism and inclusivity. Without such a course correction, the very policies designed to consolidate power may ultimately weaken the state to a breaking point.
India’s strength has always been its pluralism. While the BJP-RSS mindset may yield short-term dominance, it risks undermining national unity in the long run. India’s future depends on honouring the Constitution’s promise of religious freedom and equality, rather than eroding it. Exclusion breeds fragmentation, threatening the state’s survival. The choice is clear— renew secular foundations or risk unity dissolving into disintegration.
