The Sweep of Saffron Terror despite its Intellectual Dwarfism
Across socio-political forums in India, Hindutva Terror is the talk of the town in India. From acrimonious debates in social media to speaking about it over phone calls with friends, saffron terror is a phenomenon which is now analyzed in kitchens and drawing rooms as well as over meals on the dining table. Two glaring reasons spark this everyday interest in, first, the totalitarian control and repression of media and mass media that accompanies it´s perpetuation and second, it’s use of religion that weighs it down and makes it pilfer in our everyday interactions and engagements.
The critical question to ask is, how does it continue? The answers lie in its organized, hate-filled actions, tactics and propaganda that overrun our existence in every nook and cranny. Not to forget, the amount of money, time, energy and social capital it uses as well as consumes, makes saffron terror a truly wasteful exercise. It has unethically dominated and compromised our collective national time and resources, predominantly since a decade now.
Minority communities, mainstream groups, co-workers and colleagues, commentators, writers, authors and civil society, resident welfare associations (RWAs), friends, family, youth, women, the elderly all register the overarching reach and impact this saffron terror. Political parties, parliament, legislative assemblies, panchayats, schools, places of worship, states, districts, villages, markets, businesses, employment scenarios, publications and news et.al illustrate its influence.
Is nothing and no one immune from questioning this saffron terror? Obviously, not! Voting and elections do not define us entirely. However invincible and politically pervasive it seems in contemporary times; I argue that saffron terror lacks the power to overshadow religious diversities and fraternal solidarities in India. We, the well-wishers of religious freedoms and democracy in India, may constitute perhaps the silent or immobilized majority now.
Nonetheless, the Silence of the Restrained and Immobilized majority in India constitutes a tacit agreement on the following:
First, that the saffron terror cannot dare dwarf our mutual relations or; malign our religions, such as Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism or Jainism for their adherents and believers. Neither can it outlast our collective and mutual, – historical and cultural socio- political evolutions and insights and foresights on peace, non-violence, safety and security as compatriots. Most importantly, the humanitarian heritages and histories that the saffron terror has not build and nor been a part of, cannot be blurred or obliterated by it.
Finally, a strong agreement with which the silent majority reassures itself is, that even though the saffron terror may be a passing phase in our broader national landscape, yet within a decade of its 21st century avatar, it has become unendurable as well as changed its character. For this reason, it needs to be analyzed and understood not only from a local but a global perspective.
Origins of the Phenomenon of ´Terrorism ‘and its Evolving/ Vested meanings
Although the term “terrorist” entered modern usage during the late 18th century, it has epistemological origins in the Latin root “terrere”, meaning to frighten. Its original meaning was closely tied to the Reign of Terror (La Terreur) during the French Revolution (1793–1794). At that time, specifically under the leadership of Robespierre and the Jacobins La Terreur referred to those who used state-sanctioned violence and fear as tools to suppress opposition and consolidate power.
In the 18th century context, the agents of terror were part of the state. A terrorist was not an individual or group competing with the state or opposing it, but rather an —-agent of the state—– commissioning intimidation, executions, and repression to achieve political ambitions. It was a term associated with those administering and imposing a policy of systemic terror, often reasoned as essential to achieve revolutionary goals.
Over time, with the rise of ideological movements (such as Russian Narodnaya Volya or People’s Will) which challenged repressive regimes in the 19th century, the meaning of terror and terrorism shifted and expanded. The terms were now employed to define non-state actors employing violence or threats to achieve political, ideological, or religious objectives.
The eruption of the anti-colonial struggles in the twentieth century expanded the definition to include those using violence against states in pursuit of independence and self-determination. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) and groups in India (e.g., the Ghadar Party), were labeled as “terrorists” by colonial powers. The Post-World War II era witnessed the proliferation of decolonization movements as well as ideological Extremism.
However, there is a catch here. Both the United States and the Soviet Union supported various insurgent groups to promote their own interests and further their ideologies. Consequently, each superpower labeled groups as “terrorists” or “freedom fighters” based on their political alignment, complicating the understanding of terrorism during this period. Hence during the Cold War (1947-1951 approximately), terrorism also became tied to ideological struggles between communism and capitalism.
Many resistance movements, for example, the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya or Palestinian liberation movements were branded as terrorists, depending upon certain perspectives and points of view. Often the non-Western groups were/ are more likely to be branded as terrorists. With both sides funding insurgent groups, the superpowers forwarded their vested interpretations of who is a terrorist or otherwise.
Hindutva Terror: Redefining the contours of Violence in India
Saffron sponsored terror in India includes the state, individual as well as institutional elements in it. `Saffron terror`is hence a term used to designate the violence in India committed by Hindutva actors. It enacts a dominant nationalism that is inseparable from organized violence wherein public space is designated as Hindu/ majoritarian/ supremacist, both physically and in the national imagination.
Saffron terrorism in this context symbolises the intersection of ideological violence with structural power, where the goal is not just immediate harm but the perpetuation of fear and subjugation to reinforce a majoritarian identity and suppress dissent. This aligns with broader definitions of terrorism as politically motivated violence aimed at coercing or intimidating societies or governments. In this sense, the term ´saffron terrorist`can be understood as referring to individuals or groups that use violence, intimidation, or the threat thereof to advance and thrust the ideology of Hindutva (a socio-political movement advocating for a Hindu nationalist state) upon a perceived or propagated other`. Aggressive, violent and demeaning instances of religious minorities being forced to chant ´Jai Shree Ram` across everyday social spaces in India are a case in point.
Saffron terror has emerged as a significant force redefining the contours of ideological violence in India in the following ways:
First, by revealing the capacity of majoritarian ideologies to foster systemic violence, this phenomenon challenges, quite ironically, the traditional narratives of terrorism. Woven around the ´non-Hindu other, these traditional conceptions on terrorism were predominantly linked to religious extremism of the minorities such as Muslims and Sikhs.
Second, masking acts of aggression against minorities, such as Muslims, Christians, and Dalits, under the guise of protecting national identity, saffron terror exploits the veneer of cultural nationalism to frame them as necessary for “defending” or “preserving” Indian culture, which they equate with Hindu culture.
Third, by exploiting state mechanisms and state actors, it fosters systemic complicity. In the process, it creates a perilous convergence of political authority with extremist ideology dangerous for safety, security and human rights of all non-participant challengers and sufferers of the phenomenon.
Fourth, with an eye on electoral gains it normalizes violence through propaganda and communal polarization. This is done through an enforced zombification of state institutions including the Election Commission and Judiciary to accelerate the embedding of hate, fear and repression into societal structures.
Finally, saffron terror has an international dimension, influencing diaspora communities and fueling xenophobic violence globally, as seen in targeted attacks inspired by Hindutva narratives outside India.
Hindutva-driven violence or “saffron terror” has been linked to incidents such as cow vigilantism, communal riots (ex. Gujarat 2002 riots), mob lynchings and a myriad of hate crimes besides systematic fact-challenged accounts on Indian histories and communities. These acts are often justified by perpetrators as efforts to protect Hindu interests or “purify” the nation from perceived external or internal threats.
Given the political influence of Hindutva-aligned groups, critics argue that organized violence by these not only constitutes terrorism but also operates with implicit or explicit state endorsement. Groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented cases where offenders often act with impunity. Historians such as Ramachandra Guha have analysed the political manipulation of riots to consolidate electoral gains, linking events like the Gujarat 2002 riots to Hindutva politics.
Christophe Jaffrelot examines the ideological roots of Hindutva and its role in fostering an exclusionary narrative in his book, Hindu Nationalism: A Reader. In An Ambiguous Journey to the City: The Village and Other Odd Ruins of the Self in the Indian Imagination Ashis Nandy calls Hindutva a distortion of Hindu philosophy for it deviates from the religion’s foundational principles of tolerance, non-violence, and pluralism.
Global Repercussions of Saffron Terror
Organizations linked to Hindutva ideology have been accused of spreading anti-Muslim narratives in the United States, particularly through social media campaigns and local lobbying efforts. For instance, protests against Indian Muslims by diaspora groups in New Jersey during India’s Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) debates highlighted how these narratives affect communities abroad. Reports of clashes between Indian-origin Hindus and Muslims in Leicester, UK, in 2022 were linked to tensions fueled by Hindutva rhetoric spread via online platforms and diaspora organizations.
Temple Desecrations and Anti-Muslim Rhetoric: In Australia, instances of Hindu temple vandalism, allegedly in response to Hindutva-related narratives, have led to heightened communal tensions. Conversely, groups promoting Hindutva have been criticized for fueling Islamophobia and anti-Sikh sentiments in diaspora circles.
Targeted Xenophobic Violence: In Canada, there have been reports of Hindutva-linked groups influencing local politics and promoting anti-minority rhetoric, particularly targeting Muslims and Sikhs. Diaspora-driven campaigns often escalate into broader narratives that exacerbate xenophobia, as seen in rallies and political actions in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.
Amplification Through Digital Media: Hindutva-aligned organizations abroad actively use social media platforms to propagate divisive narratives, fostering animosity against minorities. For example, hashtags and campaigns supporting the ban on hijabs in Indian schools gained traction among international supporters of Hindutva ideologies.
Global Protest Movements: International protests both for and against policies like the abrogation of Article 370 (related to Jammu and Kashmir) or the CAA/NRC debates often involve diaspora groups aligning with Hindutva or opposing it, creating polarized environments in countries like the UK, the US, and Canada.
Time to Reflect: Why Saffron Terror continues to gather Moss?
As argued in this article, the rise of saffron terror is not confined to India; it has implications that ripple across the globe. Even though, Saffron Terror could be a rolling stone in the history of India and the world, the question is why does it continue to gather moss? Some probable answers could be:
- First, it redefines terrorism as not solely an insurgent occurrence and organized phenomenon but as one that can affiliate with majoritarian political ideologies and democratic frameworks to ´forcibly govern´ an entire country.
- Second, it shows us the limits of global counter-terrorism strategies, which often focus on minority-driven extremism, overlooking the threats posed by state-aligned or majority-driven ideologies such the example of contemporary India shows.
- Third, saffron terror contributes to the exportation of Hindutva narratives abroad, emboldening hate crimes and gives traction to communal conflicts in diaspora communities, particularly in countries with significant Indian populations.
- Fourth, it confounds the discourse on human rights, as critiques of Hindutva violence are often labeled as “anti-national” by its repressive state-empowered proponents, stifling dissent and international accountability.
- Finally, the global response to saffron terror—or the lack thereof—reflects a bias in addressing extremism, where (state) repression and violence tied to majority groups is downplayed, especially in an era when far right and extremist as well as xenophobic governments seems to further entrench global inequities and compromise the global fight against terrorism. Myanmar’s repression of Rohingyas, China´s terror on the Uighurs, Brazil´s ant-indigenous policies or conversely white supremacists’ violence being downplayed by the state in USA, islamophobia pandered by the far-right government of France are relevant examples here. South Africa´s xenophobia towards immigrants and the Polish and Italian anti-immigrant bashing add to the global complacence and malpractices on repression against minorities.
The “moss” gathered by saffron terror represents its ability to thrive within conducive socio-political conditions. Combating its growth requires not just policy responses but a reinvigoration of India’s pluralistic traditions and stronger checks on the nexus between ideology, politics, and violence. Reflecting on these factors is essential for curbing its momentum and preserving the country’s peace and fundamental rights.
Has Saffron terror Escaped the Control of its masters?
Saffron terror, once manipulated as a political strategy, appears to have stumbled beyond the control of its original architects. While the 2024 General Elections in India revealed its declining utility as an electoral tool, the phenomenon has undergone a threatening evolution. It now operates with a life of its own, driven by grassroots momentum in a more insidious, sporadic and decentralized manner. Much akin to the Frankenstein´s Monster.
In this Avatar out of control of its masters, saffron terror is even more dangerous and sporadic than before. It aspires to reshape societal norms and political structures impacted by and, using a contorted, at times fake and AI generated exaggerated, militant and toxic version of Hinduism.
There is an urgent need for both domestic and international frameworks to address this evolving form of ideological violence. India needs to push for and evolve hate crime legislations to curb supremacist violence as well as hold propagators of hate accountable.
Proliferating counter-narratives through education, media, and cultural programs can help to dismantle extremist ideologies in India. In this respect, India´s opposition parties, upon which, much hopes were invested by the electorate during the 2024 General Elections have yet to evolve, – convincing, people-friendly, epistemological and ideological counters to the Hindutva menace and, counter state complicity.
Author of, ‘How Social Movements Imagine: Anthropology of Protest and the Newer Social Movements in India and South Africa’, Dr. Bobby Luthra Sinha is the Deputy Director at the Centre for Asian African and Latin American Studies (CAALAS), ISS, Delhi and Executive Comitte Member of the Migration Commission, IUAES