India at 80: The Hindu Demand to Reclaim Bharat as a Hindu Rashtra.

India to Celebrate Its 80th Independence Day: Why Are Hindus Opposing a Secular State and Demanding the Reclamation of a Hindu Homeland, Hindu Rashtra?

~ Upananda Brahmachari

As India prepares to celebrate its 80th Independence Day on August 15, a fundamental question confronting the country is no longer confined to political parties or academic circles: Why should the Hindu civilisational homeland of Bharat remain constitutionally defined as a secular state when Hindus constitute the overwhelming majority of its population?

For millions of Hindus, the demand for a Hindu Rashtra is not a demand for religious privilege. It is a demand for the constitutional recognition of the ancient civilisational identity of Bharat—the land that Hindus regard as their sacred homeland.

India became independent from British colonial rule in 1947 after centuries of foreign domination. At independence, the country adopted a democratic constitutional framework guaranteeing citizenship and fundamental rights irrespective of religion. Hindus constituted the overwhelming majority, while Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and other communities became part of the new republic.

Yet the constitutional character of India has remained a matter of intense debate.

The Secular narrative against Hindu Rashtra

At independence, India adopted a constitutional democratic system that guaranteed rights to citizens irrespective of religion. Hindus constitute roughly 80% of the population, while Muslims form the country’s largest religious minority, alongside Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains. Supporters of India’s secular framework argue that this constitutional arrangement was intended to protect the rights and freedoms of all communities.

However, some historians and political commentators argue that India’s original constitutional vision is increasingly being challenged by the rise of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva.

Northeastern University historian Luna Sabastian told Northeastern Global News that, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, India is undergoing a transformation in which a Hindu nationalist vision is becoming increasingly influential. Sabastian described this as a process in which India is being “rewritten” as a land primarily associated with Hindus.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly rejected allegations of discrimination against minorities. During a 2023 joint news conference at the White House, Modi said there was “no discrimination” in India on the basis of caste, creed, age or geographical location.

Why Was “Secular” Added to the Constitution?

One of the central questions raised by Hindu nationalist thinkers concerns the word “secular” in the Preamble of the Constitution.

The word was not present in the original Preamble adopted in 1950. It was inserted through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, during the Emergency imposed under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

This historical fact has prompted an important question among Hindu nationalists: If India had already functioned as a constitutional democracy for more than two decades, why was the word “secular” formally inserted into the Preamble during the Emergency?

For critics, the answer cannot be separated from the political environment of the period and the subsequent development of what they describe as minority appeasement politics.

They argue that the constitutional promise of equality was gradually accompanied by policies that treated religious communities differently, creating a perception among sections of Hindus that they were becoming a majority without enjoying corresponding control over their own religious and cultural institutions.

The Question of Hindu Rights

Articles 19 to 25 of the Constitution establish important fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, association, conscience and religion. Articles 29 and 30 also provide cultural and educational protections, including special provisions concerning minority educational institutions.

Hindu critics argue that the practical application of these provisions has produced an imbalance.

They point particularly to the regulation of Hindu temples and religious institutions by governments in several states, while minority educational and religious institutions enjoy protections unavailable to Hindu institutions in equivalent circumstances.

Through the provisions laid down in Articles 19 to 25, Hindus have faced significant discrimination regarding their rights to establish educational institutions and promote Hindu Dharma. Through these constitutional provisions, Muslims and Christians have been granted special rights in several matters that, critics argue, are not equally available to the Hindu majority in India. Even under the BJP government, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has introduced more than two dozen schemes specifically for Muslims and other minorities, for which Hindus are not eligible to even apply. Because of what they perceive as such discrimination, many Hindus feel that they have been reduced to second-class citizens under the influence of minority appeasement, even in independent India.

For Hindu nationalist organisations and activists, this represents a fundamental constitutional contradiction:

How can the Hindu majority be told that India belongs equally to everyone while Hindu religious institutions remain subject to forms of state control that are not imposed in the same way on minority institutions?

The argument is therefore increasingly shifting from demands for concessions to a demand for constitutional equality in the fullest sense.

The Minority-Appeasement Question

Hindu nationalist critics further contend that successive governments have repeatedly pursued policies designed to secure minority votes.

They argue that the result has been a political system in which Hindus are expected to accept the burden of secularism while political parties compete to secure religious-minority support.

The criticism is not confined to governments led by the Congress. Even governments led by the BJP have continued various minority-oriented programmes, prompting Hindu activists to ask why welfare should be organised according to religious identity rather than citizenship, economic need and social disadvantage.

For these critics, the answer is clear: India cannot remain genuinely equal if the majority is permanently expected to make concessions while its own civilisational rights remain politically negotiable.

Partition and the Unresolved Hindu Question

The demand for a Hindu Rashtra is also deeply connected with the Partition of 1947.

Partition was based substantially on the political demand that Muslims constituted a distinct nation. Pakistan subsequently developed as an Islamic state, while India retained a secular constitutional identity.

Hindu nationalist thinkers argue that this produced an unresolved historical question.

If the Muslim League’s two-nation theory resulted in the creation of Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims, why was Bharat—the ancient homeland of Hindu civilisation—not recognised as the Hindu homeland?

For advocates of Hindu Rashtra, the answer is that Partition did not end the civilisational question. It merely divided territory.

They argue that Bharat remains the natural homeland of the Hindu civilisation that developed here for thousands of years.

The Global Religious-State Comparison

Hindu nationalist advocates also point to the existence of numerous countries whose constitutional or national identities are explicitly associated with a particular religion.

The figures frequently cited in this debate include 57 Islamic states or Muslim-majority states, alongside a substantial number (over 112) of Christian-majority states, 12 Buddhist-majority states, and Israel as a Jewish state. The precise number varies depending on whether “religious state,” “official religion,” “religiously identified state” or “religious-majority country” is used as the definition.

The broader argument, however, is straightforward:

Why should the Hindu civilisation be uniquely expected to abandon an explicit civilisational identity in its own historic homeland?

Hindu nationalists argue that secularism cannot become a one-way obligation imposed principally upon Hindus.

They point to Islamic, Christian, Buddhist and Jewish examples to argue that religious civilisation and state identity are not inherently incompatible.

Where Is the Hindu State?

There is currently no sovereign state whose constitutional identity is formally established as a Hindu state.

Nepal was historically a Hindu kingdom, but it became a secular federal democratic republic following major political changes.

For Hindu nationalist advocates, this creates a striking civilisational imbalance: major religious traditions possess countries that explicitly identify with their historical religious identity, while the world’s Hindu civilisation has no sovereign Hindu state.

They argue that Bharat should not remain the exception.

Bharat as the Natural Hindu Homeland

For the Hindu Rashtra movement, Bharat is not merely a geographical territory.

It is Bharat Mata—a civilisational homeland associated with Sanatana Dharma, sacred rivers, pilgrimage centres, temples, epics, philosophical traditions and thousands of years of Hindu cultural continuity.

The Hindu Rashtra demand therefore goes beyond electoral politics.

It is presented as a demand for civilisational reclamation.

Its advocates argue that the political identity of Bharat should reflect the civilisation that gave the land its name, sacred geography and cultural continuity.

A Firm Demand for Hindu Rashtra

For this reason, Hindu nationalists increasingly reject what they regard as attempts to dilute the Hindu Rashtra demand through political compromise or temporary adjustments.

Their position is uncompromising:

Bharat must be recognised as a Hindu Rashtra.

They argue that the declaration should establish Bharat’s Hindu civilisational character while defining the constitutional responsibilities and rights of all citizens through a uniform national framework.

The demand is therefore not for another round of minority appeasement or symbolic concessions. It is for a fundamental redefinition of India’s constitutional identity.

The proponents of Hindu Rashtra contend that Hindu civilisation should no longer have to justify its existence in its own homeland.

The 80th Independence Day Question

As the tricolour is raised on August 15, India’s 80th Independence Day presents Hindu nationalists with an opportunity to revisit what they regard as an unfinished task of independence.

British colonial rule ended in 1947, but, in their view, complete civilisational freedom has not yet been achieved.

They argue that political independence without civilisational self-determination remains incomplete.

Their message is therefore direct:

Bharat is the ancient homeland of Hindus. Bharat must reclaim its Hindu civilisational identity. Bharat must be declared a Dharma-Sanskritik, Sambidhanik and Sarvabhoum Hindu Rashtra—a culturally Hindu, constitutionally defined and sovereign Hindu Rashtra.

For advocates of this vision, the demand is not a temporary political slogan. It is a call to restore what they regard as Bharat’s natural civilisational identity.

On the 80th anniversary of independence, the Hindu Rashtra movement therefore seeks not accommodation, adjustment or symbolic recognition, but a decisive constitutional and civilisational reclamation of Bharat as the Hindu homeland.

Read these important articles here:
1. The Concept of Practical Hindu Rashtra

2.  Eternal Hindu Dharma and Prosperous India

3. Why Hindu Rashtra in Bharat Remains Unachieved: Confusion, Compromise, and Consequence.

4. Bhagwat’s ‘Needs No Declaration’ Remark Blocks Path to Real Hindu Rashtra in Bharat.

5.  Meaning of Hindu Freedom in Independent India!

…
Author can be contacted at upananda.br@gmail.com