Although late, the Indian constitution incorporated secularism in 1974, technically, India had no bar in functioning as a Hindu country, as according to Wikipedia,

... neither India's constitution nor its laws define the relationship between religion and state. The laws implicitly require the state and its institutions to recognize and accept all religions, enforce parliamentary laws instead of religious laws, and respect pluralism.

If we take the incident of demolition of Babri Mosque in 1992 as the starting point, then we can see that India is gradually becoming a Hindu country:

  1. Demolition of Babri Mosque
  2. Increased popularity of BJP
  3. Forced conversion into Hinduism
  4. Ban on Zakir Naik
  5. Increased activity of previously banned Hindu far right and extremist outfits
  6. Ban on cattle slaughter
  7. Emergence of cattle vigilante
  8. Significant increase in cow-related violence
  9. Significant increase in anti-Muslim hate crime
  10. Muslim lynching

What is the driving factor behind this transformation of India?

  • 1
    Comments deleted. Please don't try to answer questions with comments. Write a real answer which adheres to our quality standards instead.
    – Philipp
    Jun 29 '17 at 9:21
  • 6
    I've thought India has always predominantly been a Hindu country.
    – jjack
    Jan 6 '18 at 19:10
  • 1
    Not at all convinced that the premise is sound. India has a Hindu Nationalist movement which is becoming more politically powerful, but that is something quite different from becoming a Hindu country. I think one could ask with an accurate premise why is Hindu nationalism becoming more important in India, but that is quite a different question.
    – ohwilleke
    Jun 12 '18 at 23:46

Mass cultural change is a sociology question with political ramifications and consequences.

Internet adoption, new video recording and television screens, new populist media channels, social networks and new communication systems, are the new driving force channeling the age old religious fervor of India into organized militant factions and sparking mob violence in India and also pacifying India. The reasons are similar to "The Rise of Populism in Europe and the United States"

How a fake viral extremist video was circulated on WhatsApp despite being blocked by police.

We are more constantly informed about nationalist leaders, riots and mob violence. Actually 20 years ago India was perhaps more extremist and less liberal, e.g. in 2002, 790 Muslims and 290 Hindus were killed in the Gujarat faith-based riots.

Here you can study statistics on extremist websites:
* http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/hinduyuvavahini.in
* http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/rss.org/

Examples of vigilantes informed by the internet:
* http://www.alternet.org/culture/how-digital-india-whatsapping-mob-violence-and-lynching
* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/world/asia/india-vigilante-mob-violence.html
* https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/fake-news-india-mob-violence/

Twenty years ago, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) already almost won the election and was very passionate, religious and populist, with 180/359 seats in 1996 and 270/359 seats in 1999.

Today's frantic new media systems can generate huge waves of alarmist communications which invade countries and alarm the citizens about two main issues that bypass the logical part of the brain: racial threat and sex... both topics are used by media to command human attention because they bypass conscious brain structures to ensure a fast response, the same as a deja vu is seen before it is noticed, so to speak. Indians are just subjected to confusing news-flashes. people feel threatened and they side with a more radical defender for their country (same as Farage, Erdoğan, Trump, Le Pen). Rural people who have only had internet access for 1-2 years are more confused by fake news and less wary of web message rumors and stories.

Twenty years ago, there were almost no TV's and only about 1-2 public fixed line telephone stalls per village of 2000 people, smaller villages generally didn't have a phone, most Indians were within a few miles of the nearest landline. Mobs couldn't communicate effectively, and radical groups and marches were organized by newspapers, leaflets, radio and by local speakers. Mobile internet in India:  Urban vs. Rural

A city of 20,000 inhabitants would only have a few phone stores in the town center. Shops, train stations, receptions, didn't have phones, and Western commodities such as refrigerators were unreliable outside of the capital due to local and long range electricity issues.

Since 2005, India has seen major technological changes and connected by mobile phones and televisions, phone cameras, digital videos, and Hinduism has undergone some kind of devolution similar to Islam and American southern radicalism: Hindus can find inflammatory sources of information on televisions that they didn't have previously.

Francis Kanoi Marketing Planning Services Private Limited, a Madras-based firm that has been conducting market research, stated that in the year 2000:

"The colour television market grew from 900,000 to 5 million sets from 1993 to 2000" Compare that with 14 million sets per year from 2010 to 2015. TFT overtook CRT in India in 2013.

These days, priests seize on digital media to preach their sermons, stir up fervour, warn of danger, rival religions, groups, races... people can organize themselves into mobs using their mobile phones, send for backup, find like-minded activists in local groups.

Previously all the international and local news was printed in newspapers and transmitted on the radios; there were editors and DJ's who knew better than to provoke riots in India. Today, India is subjected to the same alarmist media confusion and decentralization that exists in more developed nations.


Not sure I agree with the premise of the question. The Muslim percentage of the population of India has been growing; according to the article, it was 10% after the Partition and is 14% today. While there are problems, as the question demonstrates, obviously Muslims in India are in the main doing just fine.

By contrast, the Hindu percentage of the population of Pakistan has been more or less constant at 1.6%. According to the same link, the Hindu percentage of the population in Bangladesh has fallen dramatically, from 22% at the time of the Partition of India to roughly 10% as of 1997. According to this article, it fell further to 9% as of 2011, but a different agency gave an estimate of 10.7% as of 2015. The increase could represent an actual recovery, or it could represent different methodologies by the different people doing the counting.

  • The increasing muslim population is generally attributed to low levels of education, poverty and ghettoization of the Muslim population. It may not be very related with what OP is asking, and in fact corroborates the poor state of Muslims in India. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachar_Committee Jan 14 '19 at 10:56

India, a nation which became secular only in 1976.

  • History This civilization is almost 10,000 years old and has already gone through so much of reforms in society, geographical changes of land due to partitions. It still stood firm. And it is firm, after a capital loot, social loot, phycological loot, loots which were done by the goons who belonged to Hindus, Islams, Christians or an atheist. A land is divine and it is to be served and not exploit :Lord Rama (Ramayana). But, no one even tried to remain on his words and works. This civilization and its existence was based on Vedas and Philosophical aspects of life through none other than nature. But, regime changed. Now the ideologies of Lord Rama is in books and speeches, not in the karma.

  • Role of Media India has been ruled by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Britishers being Christians and few of them led to a series of conversion of lower as well as sub-lower sects of Hindu society by offering money and power. It was termed as "Divide-and-rule" policy, which also is one the major factor of social differences in India. Media are still under influence of some of these people who really don't believe in Humanism, and has only target for "Profit and Power". More of the negativities being covered and shown by them, and also in India there are few of such Media groups.

  • 5
    "Britishers being Christians and close to Vatican" the British* state and imperial establishment was always unashamedly protestant, not Catholic. So I don't know when you've got that idea from, but as it is written this is incorrect. Jan 5 '18 at 16:45
  • I am not sure if this could even be considered as an answer.
    – user17569
    Jan 6 '18 at 14:41
  • And y do u think so?????
    – user19066
    Jan 7 '18 at 4:00
  • Elaborate your comment please!!!!
    – user19066
    Jan 7 '18 at 4:01

You must log in to answer this question.