As religious identity transforms, the Indian-American diaspora finds new ways to balance ancient Vedic beliefs with the realities of 21st-century life.
Rajmohan Gandhi's book 'Do You Know Your Hinduism?' examines Hinduism as an evolving, non-monolithic, and intellectual tradition rather than just a set of rituals.
A study by the Pew Research Center analyses religious diversity across 201 countries and territories. Singapore tops the list as the most religiously diverse.
A December 2025 study examining the influence of religion on the internet revealed that belief systems are shaping digital conversations and curiosity.
‘Tragically, this very Somnath, which drew the reverence and prayers of millions, was attacked by foreign invaders, whose agenda was demolition, not devotion,’ PM Modi wrote.
In 'The Decline of the Hindu Civilization', Shashi Ranjan Kumar explores how and why Hindu civilisation faltered across culture, politics, and thought.
On 3 November 1977, socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan delivered an address to RSS swayamsevaks in Patna, challenging the Sangh to transcend Hindu communalism and embrace a national vision.
The official was among the 18 TTD employees ordered in February to keep away from Lord Venkateswara temple, suspended after temple authorities found he attends Sunday church prayers.
The Government of India recognises Ladakh as one of the most important living centres of Buddhist culture in the world. We are committed to safeguarding its unique cultural traditions.
Post-2022 as AI has spread in developed economies, it is leading to another round of polarisation—the middle class jobs are being lost in offices rather than in factories.
The fifth S-400 air defence system is undergoing various stages of production trials, and will be delivered by November-December this year, it is learnt.
American objectives are unmet. They neither have muscle nor motivation to resume the war. As for Iran, the regime didn’t just survive, it’s now led by more radical individuals.
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.
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.