Inside the I.N.D.I. Alliance’s Pattern of Anti-Hindu Rhetoric

Summary

A year-long review of public statements made during January–December 2025 reveals a recurring pattern of rhetoric by leaders associated with the I.N.D.I. alliance that many observers consider derogatory toward Hindu beliefs, symbols, practices, and civilizational identity.
These incidents—documented across rallies, legislatures, media, social platforms, and international forums—have intensified concerns about selective secularism, uneven application of hate-speech standards, and institutional accountability.
Recent judicial observations have underscored these worries. Taken together, the pattern points to a pressing national requirement: clearer laws against hate speech and online abuse, zero tolerance for terrorism and anti-national activity, and strict, uniform enforcement by the judiciary—without exception or favoritism.
In a constitutional democracy, no one is above the law, and the nation’s unity and security must remain paramount.

From Repeated Provocation to the Urgent Need for Equal Law and National Priority

1) A Documented Pattern, Not Isolated Slips

Between January and December 2025, at least nineteen widely reported incidents involving I.N.D.I.-aligned leaders appeared across:

Public rallies and party meetings
Legislative proceedings
Television and print interviews
Social media posts
International academic platforms

Viewed together, these remarks form a discernible pattern—not a handful of accidental misstatements—raising questions about responsibility in political speech and equal standards in a plural society.

2) Judicial Scrutiny and the Question of Accountability

On January 20, 2026, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) quashed an FIR against BJP leader Amit Malviya while examining remarks that had compared Sanatan Dharma to diseases and used language suggesting its eradication.

Key judicial observations included:

Language implying the elimination of an entire religion falls within the ambit of hate speech
A troubling pattern where provocative speakers often evade accountability, while those questioning them face legal action.

These observations elevated the issue from political debate to a constitutional concern about equality before law.

3) Nationwide Spread Across States and Parties

The controversies were geographically widespread, cutting across multiple states and parties—suggesting a systemic posture rather than local aberrations.

Illustrative cases included:

West Bengal: Claims questioning Lord Ram’s identity, widely criticized as historically baseless
Telangana: Remarks trivializing Hindu theological plurality
Uttar Pradesh: Selective scrutiny of Hindu festivals during Deepotsav
Bihar: Statements dismissing revered deities and temples, triggering protests
Karnataka: Broad generalizations linking conversions to Hindu society
Maharashtra & Tamil Nadu: Revival of delegitimizing labels and disparagement of sacred symbols
Jammu & Kashmir: Sweeping generalizations about Hindus during Assembly proceedings

4) Sanatan Dharma as a Recurrent Political Target

A notable feature is the direct invocation of Sanatan Dharma in pejorative frames:

Portrayals of Sanatan as regressive or oppressive
Attempts to revive stigmatizing phrases previously rejected by courts
Advice to abandon visible Hindu symbols to signal ideological distinction

Such rhetoric crosses from critique into civilizational delegitimization, particularly when repeated by office-holders.

5) Ridiculing Rituals and Sacred Practices

Beyond doctrine, mass religious practices were mocked or dismissed:

Questioning the legitimacy of pilgrimages and ritual bathing
Ridiculing slogans and temple traditions

In a democracy, critique is legitimate—but persistent ridicule by those in power, applied selectively to one faith, risks normalizing contempt.

6) The International Dimension

In April 2025, remarks made on an international academic मंच referring to Hindu deities as “mythological” and “imaginary” reignited debate about:

Cultural sensitivity abroad
The responsibility of national leaders when representing India internationally

Whether similar language about other faiths would draw immediate censure

7) Selective Secularism and Asymmetric Outrage

A core concern is asymmetry:

Comparable remarks about other communities often trigger swift backlash
Many of these hindus related incidents saw minimal consequences

This perceived inconsistency undermines confidence in neutral enforcement and fuels social polarization.

8) Democratic Costs of Normalized Disparagement

Repeated disparagement by elected representatives can:

Deepen social fractures
Weaken constitutional secularism
Erode trust in institutions
Shift discourse from policy to provocation

Pluralism requires fairness, not favoritism; restraint, not ridicule.

9) The Urgent Need for Legal and Institutional Reform

This issue now transcends party lines and demands national action.

A) Strong, Clear Laws

Parliament should enact unambiguous legislation to address:

Hate speech (offline and online)
Social media abuse, misinformation, and coordinated harassment
Incitement, glorification, or support of terrorism
Anti-national activities that threaten internal security

Clarity reduces misuse; ambiguity invites it.

B) Uniform, Fearless Enforcement

Laws must be applied strictly and uniformly
No individual or ideology should be above the law
Enforcement must be evidence-based, time-bound, and transparent

Selective enforcement is more damaging than no enforcement.

C) Judicial Readiness and Consistency

The judiciary should gear up for consistent interpretation
Fast-track courts for egregious cases of hate and incitement
Ensure equal protection and equal accountability for all citizens

10) Freedom with Responsibility

Freedom of expression is fundamental—but it is not a license to:

Demean or delegitimize faiths
Incite hostility or disorder
Undermine national unity

Rights must operate within constitutional responsibility.

Nation First, Law Above All

The cumulative record indicates a pattern that warrants institutional introspection. This is not about shielding any religion from critique; it is about consistency, equality before law, and responsible leadership.