The issue of Love Jihad is controversial for three reasons: one, it seems like a pejorative label; two, it erases the line separating genuine inter-faith marriages from those where one of the purposes of marriage is to achieve conversion of the spouse to one’s own religion; three, it reeks of a patriarchal view of love and marriage.
Let us thus deal with all three objections. Instead of Love Jihad can we call this Conversion Pressure in Marriage, or Conversion Pressure in Marriage and Love. But that would be hated by the Left, since the abbreviation would end up as CPIM or CPIML. So, let’s prefix an R, which would make it RCPIM – Religious Conversion Pressure in Marriage.
A 2026 survey by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Indian Americans in a Time of Turbulence) tells us that RCPIM is to be expected if one partner is Christian or Muslim. It is less likely with Hindus and those with no religious affiliation. While the survey asked a lot of questions about Indian Americans’ views on Donald Trump, their preferences for the Democrats or Republicans, or their view of Zohran Mamdani, the New York Mayor, the question that should interest us the most is the one which asked:
“Do you agree that it is reasonable to expect one’s spouse to convert to one’s own religion?”
This question bothered Indian Americans the most, for it came to the fore when Vice-President JD Vance expressed the hope that his Hindu wife, Usha, will one day embrace Christianity. While this statement is widely read as his attempt to curry favour with the Christian Right who look at Usha as an interloper in their Christian country, it raised hackles all around in the Indian community.
But here’s the result: Among Hindus and those with no religious affiliation the rejection of conversion after marriage is rejected by more than three-quarters of the sample surveyed. Hindus said no 77 percent and those without religious affiliation 75 percent.
But this should be no surprise: Among Indian Christians, 43 percent said it would be okay to seek a conversion of the spouse, and among Muslims it was 57 percent.
This is consistent with the fact that both Christianity and Islam seek conversions, and true believers often have to affirm that theirs is the only true religion. So why should spouses be left out of the process of conversion?
The survey also highlights another reality: Hindus are the ones most willing to believe in letting spouses retain their religions.
Now, go figure which community is most religiously liberal? If Indian Muslims and Christians who have migrated or settled in America can still believe that conversion should follow marriage in large numbers, why would that same attitude not prevail in more conservative Indian Christians and Muslims in India?
RCPIM is a substantial reality in India.
(Note: The answer to the question on conversion after marriage comes at the very end of the Carnegie survey of Indian Americans. So, read till the end)
R Jagannathan is an editor and the former editorial director at Swarajya magazine. He tweets @TheJaggi. Views are personal.
This article has been republished from the author’s personal blog. Read the original article here.
What @ASB telling here is
His final point: “The label ‘Love Jihad’ is a pejorative label meant to polarize.”
Translation: “I don’t like how this makes my community look, so I’m redefining the problem as a labeling issue rather than engaging with the data.”
The Carnegie survey numbers are a reality check. When 57% of Muslims and 43% of Christians expect a spouse to dump their gods, it’s not “tradition”—it’s an ultimatum. Meanwhile, 77% of Hindus are playing a game of coexistence that the other side isn’t even signed up for.
An Abrahamic marriage is a “soft annexation”
Their theology is a monopoly. It doesn’t share the shelf; it clears it. When they say “worship only my god,” they are demanding the quiet execution of your entire spiritual history. They are asking you to look at the gods your grandmother protected through centuries of survival and treat them like “clutter” to be tossed in the bin. This isn’t about “getting along.” It’s a **survival instinct**.
A Hindu home has room for a cross or a crescent because our philosophy isn’t threatened by the existence of the “Other.” But the reverse isn’t true. For them, your Krishna, your Shiva, your Durga aren’t “alternative paths”—they are “sins.” You cannot compromise with a system that views your very roots as a **moral failure**.
When you marry into that, you aren’t “building a bridge.” You’re presiding over an erasure. You are the one who decides if the chain of your ancestors stops with you. Your children won’t be “mixed”; they will be hollowed out, severed from a philosophy that accepted everyone, and handed one that excludes them.
Everything else in a marriage is negotiable—the money, the career, the house. But your soul isn’t a “compromise.” It’s the **last line of defense**. If you give that up, you aren’t a partner. You’re a trophy.
A poorly reasoned article which should not have been written in the first place. Here are a few concerns:
1. The Indians who move to another coutry are influenced by the environment in that country. For example, when they go to their respective religious gatherings, mosques, churches and temples. Often times, conservative thought influences their thinking as they work to find their bearings in a new world for them. It is therefore important to explore the 2026 survey as a whole.
2. The views that a person holds are also influenced by their progressiveness which might be a better indicator than merely religion.
3. The enviroment in India is different from that in other nations. This is also an influence. So a person with conservative views could start to hold progressive views after moving to another country or viceversa.
4. “If Indian Muslims and Christians who have migrated or settled in America can still believe that conversion should follow marriage in large numbers, why would that same attitude not prevail in more conservative Indian Christians and Muslims in India?”
Because it depends on whom they come in contact with. Many may also reject dogmatic views. Some may not hold these views in India and may change after they move to another country.
5. “RCPIM is a substantial reality in India.” Does not follow from the article. Simply towing government/ideological point of view without meaningful numbers and proof of institutional policy as described in point 6 below is poor reasoning.
6. Finally: “it seems like a pejorative label”-The label “Love Jihad” implies that there is a systematic/instotutionalized plan to convert such as in case of proselytizing organization. It is infact a pejorative label which is meant to polarize. While no one can deny that such activities do happen, it is wrong to brand an entire community based on this without proof of this systematic project. We need to build bridges and not polarize.
Wanting your spouse to convert (sharing your worldview i.e. seeing things as you see it) and forcing her to convert are two different things. And this survey deals with the first aspect only. And this question can be applied to any domain of life not just religious. It can be applied to food preferences (vegetarian, non -vegeterian), can be applied to support for political parties, ideologies , movie preferences etc. Basically it can be applied to fundamental human choice.
I don’t see why this is made to be worthy of a news article.