Hinduism and Hindutva are neither identical nor interrelated; they are entirely different constructs, distinguishing a religious tradition from a political ideology. While Hinduism is an ancient, diverse, and pluralistic religion—Sanatana Dharma, a way of life with various schools of thought, philosophies, and deities—Hindutva, coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923, is a political ideology or “Hindu nationalism.” It is an ultra-right political project asserting that Indian national identity is inseparable from Hindu culture, aiming to establish India primarily as a Hindu nation. It promotes a cultural, racial, and national identity, often targeting minorities and challenging secularism.
Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, this ideology has shifted from the fringes to mainstream governance, emphasising national unity through a single, homogeneous cultural identity. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s February 17, 2026 call for intensifying “ghar wapsi” (reconversion to Hinduism), asserting that those returning to the Hindu fold should be fully supported and cared for, is a matter of serious concern. It suggests that the capitalist colonisation of Hinduism is preparing to renew Hindutva politics in a more aggressive form. It must be clearly understood that fascist, right-wing Hindutva poses a major challenge to India’s constitutional secularism.
Despite reported internal unease with Narendra Modi’s domineering style and perceived arrogance, the RSS has continued to back him as Prime Minister, seeing him as best suited to advance the Sangh’s broader mission. Critics argue that this mission involves reshaping Hinduism through Hindutva, deploying it as a far-right political instrument aligned with capitalist interests. The RSS projects Hindutva as the supreme expression of Hindu identity. In effect, the fusion of majoritarian ideology with neoliberal governance has produced a model in which cultural politics and economic policy reinforce each other. Hindutva, in this view, exemplifies how majoritarianism, neoliberalism, and religious revivalism can coexist within a strained democratic framework.
The Congress is often blamed for enabling the rise of political Hindutva. Its ideological drift, coupled with the perception of corruption and its inability to articulate a clear post-liberalisation vision, created a vacuum. The RSS, long positioned to capitalise on such an opportunity, moved swiftly, with Hindutva filling this space under the promise of a “civilisational renaissance.”
However, critics contend that this promise masked a different reality. They argue that political developments between 2010 and 2012 reveal a coordinated effort to discredit the UPA government. The anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare significantly shaped public opinion during this period. From this perspective, these developments facilitated a political transition that aligned with broader ideological and economic interests.
Capitalist forces—particularly international finance capital and large corporations—have driven the rise of neoliberalism, seeking to maximise profits through deregulation, privatisation, and free-market policies. Emerging in response to crises in state-regulated capitalism, neoliberalism shifted economic control from governments to private actors, deepening global integration. It is thus viewed not merely as an economic framework but as a political project aimed at restoring and expanding the power of capital.
The rise of Hindutva is often seen as intertwined with neoliberal capitalism. Economic reforms initiated in the early 1990s under leaders such as Dr Manmohan Singh, P. Chidambaram, and Montek Singh Ahluwalia responded to a severe financial crisis. After coming to power, the BJP-led government further institutionalised these reforms. While the Congress introduced liberalisation, the BJP-RSS ecosystem reframed these policies within a nationalist narrative, combining economic liberalisation with cultural majoritarianism—what some describe as a “neoliberal Hindutva” model. Critics argue that such policies have exacerbated inequality and undermined the interests of workers and peasants.
During his eleven years in power, Narendra Modi has extensively pursued neoliberal policies, contributing to economic growth alongside rising inequality. Critics highlight the expansion of corporate influence, deregulation, privatisation, and weakened labour protections, along with increasing concentration of wealth among major conglomerates such as the Adani and Ambani groups. These economic shifts have coincided with intensified cultural and political polarisation.
The shift from a state-led economic model towards market-driven policies has been associated with jobless growth and widening inequality. While Modi frequently cites the “Gujarat Model” as a success, critics argue that its benefits have not been evenly distributed. They contend that this model prioritises large corporate interests and global capital over traditional economic structures and inclusive development.
Modi is often described by critics as a strong, centralised leader whose style has reshaped India’s political landscape. Concerns have been raised about the weakening of democratic institutions and the consolidation of executive power. His approach to international relations, including interactions with leaders such as former US President Donald Trump, has also drawn scrutiny from observers analysing global right-wing political alignments.
Some analysts argue that Hindutva has emerged as one of the most influential right-wing movements globally, operating within transnational ideological networks. In this view, it aligns with broader currents of right-wing politics that combine nationalism, market-oriented economics, and assertive geopolitical strategies.
There is a growing body of opinion suggesting that Hindutva, in contemporary politics, serves to mobilise a unified support base that can facilitate neoliberal economic policies and the consolidation of wealth among corporate elites. It is also argued that identity politics can divert attention from structural economic issues such as unemployment, poverty, and inequality, even as it arises from genuine grievances.
The consolidation of a “neo-middle class,” encouraged by market reforms and consumer culture, has been identified as a key social base for this political-economic model. This group often sees itself as entrepreneurial and aspirational, aligning with both economic liberalisation and cultural nationalism. Critics describe this synthesis as “neoliberal-Hindutva.”
Hindutva’s political expansion has also been linked to financial backing from sections of big business, shaping policy directions and reinforcing corporate-state alliances. Over time, the BJP has moved from earlier swadeshi rhetoric towards embracing globalisation and privatisation, often framed within the language of cultural nationalism.
Critics distinguish sharply between Hinduism as a spiritual tradition and Hindutva as a political ideology, arguing that the latter transforms religious identity into a tool of political mobilisation. A commonly cited formulation encapsulating this distinction is: “Gandhi represented Hinduism; Godse represented Hindutva.”
From this perspective, Hindutva functions not merely as a cultural identity but as a political project intertwined with capitalist interests. It is seen as facilitating the concentration of economic power while employing cultural narratives to legitimise this process. This dynamic has been described as a shift towards “authoritarian Hindutva capitalism.”
Some scholars argue that Hindutva draws ideological inspiration from European forms of authoritarian nationalism, while also emerging within the context of colonial and postcolonial transformations. The consolidation of a unified Hindu identity is seen as part of a broader historical process shaped by colonial categorisation and modern political mobilisation.
From a historical materialist perspective, changes in India’s economic structure—from pre-capitalist to colonial and postcolonial capitalism—have reshaped its political and cultural superstructure. In this framework, Hindutva is interpreted as an ideological response that both manages social contradictions and facilitates capital accumulation.
In contemporary India, critics argue that capitalist “colonisation” operates through the convergence of Hindutva politics and neoliberal economic policies. This alliance is seen as contributing to rising inequality, unemployment, and the erosion of labour rights. It has also been described as a process that redefines India as a “civilisational state,” blending nationalism, economic liberalisation, and cultural identity into a new political paradigm.