From Critique to Criminalisation: What’s at Stake in Motion S6M-17089? 

We urge the Scottish Parliament to reject motion S6M-17089, submitted by MSPs from the Alba Party and the SNP. The motion supports a report that defines "Hinduphobia" in a way that could effectively reintroduce a form of  blasphemy law, which was rightly abolished in Scotland in 2021.

While addressing hatred against any community is important, this motion risks confusing criticism of casteism and extremism with religious hate. It is important to note that globally, right-wing extremists have weaponised "Hinduphobia" accusations to suppress scrutiny of Hindutva in universities and civil spaces and even within Hindu civil rights groups [1][2][3]. 

The report includes examples of so-called "Hinduphobic words" that disinform policymakers and the public in the UK [4]. One such misrepresented term is “Hindutvavadi”. It is a descriptor for those who support Hindutva. Hindutva is a rightwing extremist ideology of Hindu nationalism that seeks to create a Hindu state, as the “Aryan Hindus-only nation” [5][6][7] and admires Hitlerian ideas of racial purity [8][9]. The ideology aligns with the rising global wave of white supremacy and is fascist in its methods, agenda, and class support [10][11].

Hindutva has a history of affinities with contemporary European fascist movements, including those led by Mussolini and Hitler [9]. M. S. Golwalkar, the second leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—the ideological parent of Hindutva—wrote in We, or Our Nationhood Defined:

"The non-Hindu peoples in Hindusthan … entertain no idea but those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture … in other words they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less preferential treatment—not even citizen’s rights" [12, p. 105].

Golwalkar also praised Nazi Germany’s racial purification policies, stating:

"To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races … a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by" [12, p. 105].

The Hindu Mahasabha once called for a "Hindu Fuehrer" [8]. In the 1930s, B. S. Moonje, an influential figure in the RSS’s formation, visited Mussolini to observe how fascist Italy indoctrinated its youth. Wealthy dominant-caste donors from the Hindu diaspora frequently collaborate with alt-right and neo-Nazi groups [13]. 

These fascistic ideologies have alarming real-world consequences. Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has declared a "Red Flag" in India, warning of serious risks of genocide of Muslims in India [14]. Ignoring such alerts undermines the protection of already vulnerable communities [15].

Therefore, it is a fascistic tactic to criminalise criticism of a dangerous ideology. Labelling such critique as "Hinduphobic" blurs the line between resistance to fascism and religious bigotry, ultimately protecting oppression under the guise of religious sensitivity. The stakes are simply too high for such dangerous obfuscation.

The report also erroneously describes the words "Brahmanism" and "Savarna" as "Hinduphobic". These terms are not expressions of hostility toward Hinduism, but rather analytical descriptions. When activists and scholars critique Brahmanical and Savarna dominance they are calling attention to systemic patterns of exclusion and inequality—not targeting individuals for their beliefs.

It’s important to note that caste exists across many South Asian religious communities—including Muslim, Christian, and Sikh—not just among Hindus, as the motion wrongly implies. The caste system functions as a deeply entrenched social order, not merely a feature of any one religion. Moreover, Hinduism is not a monolithic tradition as this report or motion wrongfully assumes. In fact, historically reformist Hindu strands have challenged the caste system.

Thus, critiquing Brahmanism is not an attack on Hinduism, but rather a challenge to caste-based oppression in South Asia. These critiques are grounded in the lived experiences and intellectual traditions of a wide range of contemporary Dalit, Bahujan, and Adivasi scholars and activists have long spoken against Brahmanism and Savarna hegemony as part of broader anti-caste struggles. To label such critiques as "Hinduphobic" is to silence demands for equality. It conflates resistance to caste system with prejudice, and privilege with victimhood. 

The motion should be viewed in the wider context. Several Hindu organisations in the UK have actively opposed efforts to address caste-based discrimination. In 2023, a coalition released a "Hindu manifesto" claiming that connecting caste with Hinduism constitutes "Hinduphobia" [16]. Organisations like the Hindu Council of Britain have resisted legal measures aimed at redressing caste-based discrimination [17].

Today, the most prominent forms of religion-based discrimination in the UK are anti-Muslim and anti-Jew hate requiring urgent attention. The 2024 report “Hate Crime, England and Wales” notes that almost two in five (38%) of all religious hate crimes were directed against Muslims. Importantly, anti-Muslim racism affects more than just Muslims—it also impacts many Indians, including Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and Buddhists, due to racialised assumptions.

Therefore, any meaningful effort to protect Indian communities from discrimination must take Islamophobia seriously and confront it directly.

Scotland has strong legal protections against hate and discrimination, including the Equality Act 2010 and the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. Crucially, the 2021 Act protects free speech, stating that criticism or dislike of religion alone is not a hate crime. Adopting the Gandhian Peace Society’s recommendations would undermine existing hard won legal protections.

In light of this, we respectfully urge the Scottish Parliament to reconsider and withdraw any support for motion S6M-17089.

• India Labour Solidarity

• InSAF India

To add your organisation's name to this or have any enquiries, please email indialaboursolidarity@gmail.com

References

1. Truschke, A. (2021). ‘The Hindu Right Cannot Debate Me’. The Caravan. https://caravanmagazine.in/history/hindu-right-cannot-debate-me-audrey-truschke

2. Al Jazeera. (2021). US academic conference on Hindutva faces backlash from Hindu right-wing groups. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/7/us-academic-conference-dismantling-global-hindutva-hindu-right-wing-groups

3. Hindus for Human Rights. (2022). For Immediate Release: 300+ Academics and Scholars Express Solidarity. https://www.hindusforhumanrights.org/en/blog/for-immediate-release-300-academics-and-scholars-express-their-solidarity-with-hindus-for-human-rights-and-its-allies-in-the-lawsuit-filed-by-the-hindu-american-foundation-py7je

4. Dutta, M. J. (2024). Digital platforms, Hindutva, and disinformation: Communicative strategies and the Leicester violence. Communication Monographs, 92(1), 20–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2024.2339799

5. Banaji, S. (2018). Vigilante publics: Orientalism, modernity and Hindutva fascism in India. Javnost - The Public, 25(4), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1463349

6. Jaffrelot, C. (2017). India’s democracy at 70: Toward a Hindu state? Journal of Democracy, 28(3), 52–63.https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/indias-democracy-at-70-toward-a-hindu-state/ 

7. Kadiwal, L. (2023). Critical feminist resistance to the politics of hate in India. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 21(5), 734–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2023.2222074

8. Leidig, E. (2020). Hindutva as a variant of right-wing extremism. Patterns of Prejudice, 54(3), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2020.1759861

9. Savarkar, V. D. (1922). Essentials of Hindutva. http://library.bjp.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/284/3/essentials_of_hindutva.v001.pdf

10. Schaeffer, C. (2018). The unholy alliance between India and the new global wave of white supremacy. The Caravan. https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/unholy-alliance-india-white-supremacy

11. Patnaik, P. (1993). The fascism of our times. Social Scientist, 21(3/4), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/3517727

12. Golwalkar, M. S. (1939). We, or our nationhood defined. Bharat Publications.

13. Thobani, S. (2019). Alt-right with the Hindu-right: Long-distance nationalism and the perfection of Hindutva. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(5), 745–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2018.1468567

14. Lemkin Instiute for Genocide Prevention. (2023). Genocide Red Flag - India https://www.lemkininstitute.com/red-flag-alerts/red-flag-alert-for-genocide---india

15. Stanton, G. (2022). Dr. Stanton notes early warning signs of genocide in India. Genocide Watch. https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/dr-stanton-notes-early-warning-signs-of-genocide-in-india

16. National Secular Society. (2024). Hindu manifesto demands would silence human rights groups, NSS warns. https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2024/06/hindu-manifesto-demands-would-silence-human-rights-groups-nss-warns

17. National Secular Society. (2017). Fear of upsetting religious groups must not impede caste law. https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2017/03/caste-discrimination-fear-of-upsetting-religious-groups-must-not-impede-social-justice