Since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) assumed power under Narendra Modi’s leadership in 2014, there has been a troubling increase in anti-minority violence, particularly through the mobilization of vigilante groups targeting religious minorities. According to a recent report by Citizens for Justice and Peace, there has been a renewed surge in such anti-Muslim violence in India this year. This surge has also been accompanied by the cultivation of hyper-masculine ideologies that contribute to the recruitment and activities of these groups, reinforcing patriarchal and militant narratives.
In his influential account of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s reign as Chief Minister of Gujarat state, Christophe Jaffrelot— a French political scientist and Indologist specializing in South Asia— outlines the emergence of a “deeper state,” which has since been replicated across India under the rule of Hindu nationalist BJP. According to Jaffrelot, the “deeper state” refers to a setup where one observes individuals or groups at the grassroots level “exert(ing) direct authority over society” and implements “a form of cultural policing” akin to orthopraxy. In Jaffrelot’s examples, this primarily refers to the normalization of young-men led vigilante groups across northern India.
The ‘deeper state’ is distinct from the concept of a deep state, which refers to a context wherein “power ultimately lies with strong players who are not accountable to the public and who operate behind the curtains,” such as the army in Pakistan. Simply put, while the deep state operates covertly from behind the scenes, the “deeper state” functions overtly at the grassroots level to enforce societal control and ideology.
Jaffrelot argues that the manifestation of the “deeper state” in the Indian context can be observed in the activities of various vigilante groups that have proliferated since 2014. These groups target minorities such as Muslims, often based on manufactured claims of transporting “illegal” cattle. They also accuse Christians of engaging in “mass conversion” of vulnerable populations such as tribal groups. Additionally, they intimidate interfaith and inter-caste couples through surveillance, coercion, and physical violence.
This aspect offers an understanding of the role of gender within the region and highlights the emergence of a ‘militant masculinity’ among young Indian men. It argues that the Hindu nationalists’ ability to mobilize this masculine anger is key to the recruitment and organization of vigilante groups in North India that form the “deeper state.”
Producing the ‘Angry Young Hindu Man’
What is the nature of incentives, motivations, and contexts that inform the participation of the youth in anti-minority violence in India today? There are three intersecting factors relevant here. Firstly, India’s failure to accommodate a burgeoning youth population through inclusive economic growth has created a significant class of ‘educated unemployed’ adults. A majority of this population tends to be young men who face an acute sense of economic anxiety.
Secondly, the rise of women’s economic self-independence, particularly in urban areas, generates an additional sense of insecurity rooted in patriarchal values. Young men who have failed to achieve desired levels of socio-economic mobility perceive a loss of their social position with the rising levels of women’s education and labor force participation.
Lastly, there is a degree of masculine revivalism rooted in forms of caste pride that has emerged across northern India. Given the salience of caste identities, there is a renewed emphasis on militant representations of caste identity among young men online through the use of weapons, ‘Hindutva pop,’ and violent graphics on social media.
Vigilantism and the “Deeper State”
These anxieties contribute towards the emerging “deeper state” in India. The proliferation of self-styled vigilante groups is one manifestation of Hindu nationalists’ desire to mobilize a sense of civilizational loss in order to capitalize upon the anxieties of young men. The narrative of Hindu victimhood has also emerged as a wide-ranging belief within the country grounded in a web of conspiracy theories, hate speech, and distorted historical accounts that target religious minorities, particularly Muslims. These narratives call forth the need to express Hindu pride and engender radical Hindu solidarity in the face of opposition from ‘outsiders’ like Muslims and Christians.
Vigilante outfits provide a channel through which Hindu nationalists recruit individuals, particularly young men burdened by the aforementioned anxieties, by appealing to their sense of nationalism and framing their actions within terms of revenge and righteous anger. Their prominent role in policing the cultural norms— whether through surveillance of suspected cattle transports or harassment of inter-faith couples— demonstrates the normalization of the orthopraxy that Jaffrelot identifies.
This form of vigilante control over the public is critical in understanding the rise of Hindu nationalism in India. Vigilante outfits as a feature of the “deeper state” function in two critical ways. Firstly, there emerges a new form of political participation wherein individuals are able to form an emotional link between their ‘work’ or seva, which often involves violence against minorities, and the actualization of a Hindu rashtra as envisioned by Hindu nationalists. As a result, these men find a sense of political purpose and authority as agents enforcing a form of Hindu nationalist social order.
Secondly, their acts of enforcement function as repertoires of political mobilization, helping to cultivate ideological support for Hindu nationalist beliefs. For example, vigilantes acting against interfaith couples not only prohibit adults from enacting their freedom of association but also further enforces regressive notions of gender relations within society. At one level, they perpetuate myths about Muslim men systematically seducing Hindu women as a form of ‘love jihad.’ At another level, they instrumentalize this conspiracy to police young women’s sexuality with the collusion of their families. This includes public movements to organize meetings designed to ‘raise awareness’ about the bogey of ‘love jihad’ and create an environment of fear.
Subsequently, during election periods, the BJP frames itself as the savior of Hindu women against the imagined threat of ‘love jihad’ and is often able to galvanize political support while also creating durable constituencies of ideological support amongst these communities.
Restoring Democracy and Combating Vigilante Violence
The impunity offered to vigilante groups in contemporary India is symptomatic of the wider erosion of democratic conduct and the mobilization of a “deeper state,” as Jaffrelot argues. The role of gender, masculine anxiety, and generalized insecurity in furthering the ideological and political hegemony of Hindu nationalist belief systems within society is a troubling development that does not bear well for the long-term health of Indian democracy. The ability to fluidly mobilize anger and evoke fear through vigilante activity results in severe social polarization and public insecurity. These characteristics transcend electoral shifts and consolidate a concerning rift in the country’s democratic character.
Nonetheless, some mitigation measures can help stop further normalization of a militant public sphere. First, it is crucial to urgently enforce the 2018 guidelines issued by the Indian Supreme Court in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India case, which was designed to address the growing problem of vigilante violence. This includes appointing a nodal officer charged explicitly with preventing cases of vigilantism, establishing a victim compensation scheme, and creating a law specifically for victims of vigilante violence. Scholars have noted the abject failure of states to implement these guidelines, which needs to be rectified.
There is also an urgent need for legislative reform that delinks the forms of state impunity offered to vigilante groups under the guise of ‘cow protection’ forces, such as those seen in states like Haryana. This issue must be raised by opposition political parties and implemented in states where these parties have come into power. Lastly, at an organic level, there is a severe need for greater gender sensitivity programs to combat the toxic influence of patriarchal social relations and the rise of misogynist content online. These programs must be integrated within school curricula nationwide and monitored by education agencies statewide to ensure compliance and widespread enactment.
(Yash Sharma is a Lead Researcher at the Center for the Study of Organized Hate’s Violence, Extremism, and Radicalization Program.)