While Hindutva presents itself in public discourse as a cultural movement devoted to the “revival” of an ancient civilizational ethos, its underlying role is far more concrete and political. Beneath the veneer of religio-cultural nationalism lies a carefully constructed ideological project designed to serve the interests of India’s ruling class. This ruling bloc is not a homogeneous entity but a layered alliance of big bourgeoisie, landed elites, and transnational corporate capital. By positioning itself as the authentic voice of Hindu identity, Hindutva seeks to bind together these dominant economic forces with a mass political base drawn from the frustrated petty bourgeoisie and disoriented working classes. What appears on the surface as a question of religious identity is, at a deeper level, a strategy for consolidating class power.
To reveal this hidden function, one requires a double lens of analysis. The first lens is that of Quantum Dialectics, which allows us to see social systems as constituted by the ceaseless interplay of cohesion and decohesion. Cohesive forces integrate and stabilize, while decohesive forces expose contradictions and open pathways of transformation. Hindutva claims to act as a cohesive force, but it is in fact a form of pseudo-cohesion—a brittle unity that conceals rather than resolves contradictions. The second lens is Marxian class analysis, which insists that ideology cannot be understood in isolation but must be traced back to the material contradictions of production, property, and power. Together, these frameworks enable us to unmask Hindutva not as a civilizational revival but as an ideological apparatus rooted in class domination.
Viewed through this combined framework, Hindutva emerges as a force that mystifies and redirects the fundamental contradictions of Indian society. The sharp conflicts between capital and labor, landlord and peasant, privileged and oppressed castes are not permitted to mature into class consciousness. Instead, they are displaced onto a communal terrain where the supposed “enemy” becomes the religious Other—above all, the Muslim citizen. In this way, Hindutva converts class antagonisms into communal antagonisms, thereby fragmenting solidarity among the oppressed and neutralizing the potential for revolutionary transformation.
By performing this function, Hindutva operates as a sophisticated ideological superstructure of Indian capitalism. It provides the illusion of cultural unity while ensuring the continuity of economic exploitation. It stabilizes the ruling order not by resolving contradictions, but by concealing them under the rhetoric of religious nationalism. Yet this very operation undermines the foundations of India’s secular democracy, because the constitutional cohesion of plurality and equality is replaced by a coercive pseudo-cohesion of majority identity. What is being eroded is not only the political fabric of democracy but also the dialectical balance of Indian society itself—its ability to transform contradictions into progressive synthesis.
The liberalization of the Indian economy in 1991 marked a decisive turning point in the trajectory of capitalism in the country. Far from bringing universal prosperity, it generated vast new contradictions that tore at the social fabric. Wealth became concentrated in the hands of a small elite, producing staggering inequality between rich and poor. Corporate land acquisitions displaced millions of peasants, breaking centuries-old ties to land and community. The growth of the informal sector left the majority of workers trapped in precarious forms of employment, lacking job security, social protection, or union rights. Meanwhile, the agrarian crisis deepened, with falling crop prices, indebtedness, and ecological pressures driving tens of thousands of farmers to despair and suicide.
In Marxian terms, this was not simply a case of economic mismanagement but the intensification of the fundamental contradiction between capital and labor. As capital accumulated in fewer hands, labor was fragmented and dispossessed. The dialectic of exploitation became sharper, creating the conditions for potential social instability. In theory, this sharpening could have matured into class consciousness, uniting workers and peasants in a common struggle against the ruling bourgeoisie. But this potential was diverted, neutralized, and restructured through the ideological intervention of Hindutva.
Hindutva functions as a powerful mechanism of pseudo-cohesion in this context of neoliberal crisis. Rather than allowing social contradictions to be expressed in class terms, it displaces them onto a communal terrain. The unemployed Hindu youth, instead of identifying unemployment as a consequence of neoliberal economic policies and corporate monopoly, is taught to view his condition as the fault of the Muslim “outsider” who supposedly takes away jobs. The overworked and underpaid laborer, instead of directing his anger toward exploitative bosses and systemic inequality, is urged to rally behind the nation, equating loyalty to the capitalist state with patriotism.
Even the deeply entrenched caste hierarchies within Hindu society, which are a major source of social decohesion, are re-coded and reinterpreted under the banner of “Hindu unity.” Dalits and Other Backward Classes are not encouraged to struggle against caste oppression and exploitation; instead, they are mobilized as foot soldiers of a homogenized Hindu identity directed against minorities. What is presented as unity is, in fact, a clever masking of contradictions—a cohesion achieved not by resolving antagonisms but by projecting them outward onto a scapegoated community.
In this way, Hindutva acts as an ideological firewall for the ruling classes. It intercepts the disruptive energy of class struggle, absorbs it, and then redirects it into regressive communal channels. The anger of the oppressed, which could otherwise challenge the system of capitalist exploitation, is neutralized and turned against vulnerable minorities. Hindutva thus ensures the stability of neoliberal capitalism, even as it undermines the secular democratic foundations of India.
The relationship between class struggle and communal politics in India can be fruitfully understood through the lens of Quantum Dialectics. Just as physical systems are governed by the interplay of cohesive and decohesive forces, so too are social systems shaped by dynamics of solidarity and fragmentation. Class politics and communalism represent two contradictory trajectories of this dialectic: one moving toward genuine emancipation through collective organization, the other toward illusory cohesion that masks deeper contradictions.
On the side of class cohesion, the Indian social fabric has historically been strengthened by trade unions, peasant struggles, socialist traditions, and secular-democratic institutions. These act as cohesive forces in the dialectical sense: they bind together diverse groups of workers and peasants into a larger collective subject, generating the possibility of transformative social change. Yet against this cohesion, neoliberal reforms since the 1990s introduced strong decohesive currents. Privatization, the dismantling of labor rights, casualization of employment, and the withering away of welfare provisions dissolved earlier forms of solidarity and fragmented the working class into precarious, atomized units. This dialectic of cohesion and decohesion created a volatile space in which communal politics could intervene.
Hindutva emerged precisely as such an intervention, presenting itself as a cohesive force that transcends class and caste divisions by uniting Hindus under a singular civilizational identity. However, this cohesion is of a pseudo-character. In dialectical terms, it resembles a brittle molecular lattice: it appears unified and solid from the outside, but its inner contradictions—between rich and poor, landlord and landless, capital and labor—remain unresolved and increasingly unstable. Instead of dissolving capitalist contradictions, Hindutva freezes them under a false unity, ensuring the continuation of exploitation while giving the illusion of collective strength.
Workers in India, like all human beings, exist in a superposition of identities. They are simultaneously economic producers embedded in relations of exploitation, members of castes with historically entrenched hierarchies, and religious subjects shaped by rituals, symbols, and communal affiliations. In a secular-democratic framework, this superposition allows for the possibility that class identity can come to the forefront—workers may recognize their shared economic condition and organize for transformative change. This is akin to the openness of a quantum system before measurement, where multiple potentialities coexist.
Hindutva, however, functions as a mechanism of forced collapse. By reducing the superposition of worker identities into a singular religious one—“Hindu first and above all”—it erases the potentiality of class-consciousness. What might have emerged as a coherent proletarian subject instead becomes trapped within a religious-political framework that serves the interests of the ruling class. The dialectical potential of contradiction is thus neutralized, leaving only a homogenized religious identity that suppresses the more explosive contradiction between capital and labor.
The trajectory of Hindutva in India is inseparable from the dynamics of class struggle. Its history reveals how communal ideology has repeatedly functioned as a weapon in the hands of ruling classes to neutralize, fragment, and redirect the energies of workers and peasants. Through the lens of Quantum Dialectics, this process can be seen as a manipulation of cohesive and decohesive forces: genuine solidarities rooted in class unity are systematically broken down, while artificial, brittle forms of cohesion are manufactured along religious lines.
In the decades of anti-colonial ferment, the Hindu Mahasabha and the early Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) aligned themselves with landlords, upper-caste elites, and sections of the colonial state. Instead of strengthening the cohesive force of anti-imperialist and class-based struggles, Hindutva organizations acted as decohesive agents, diverting popular anger away from exploitation and colonial oppression toward communal division. While trade unions, peasant associations, and socialist movements sought to unite workers and cultivators across religious boundaries, Hindutva split them, undermining the possibility of a broad-based democratic front against both colonialism and feudal-capitalist elites. In dialectical terms, Hindutva served as a counter-revolutionary force, freezing contradictions in favor of the ruling strata by collapsing the superposition of class and community identities into an exclusive religious identity.
The crisis of legitimacy faced by India’s ruling classes during the 1980s and 1990s created new contradictions. The Mandal Commission’s recommendations, which sought to expand affirmative action for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), generated significant class-caste decohesion. For the upper-caste elite, this threatened to destabilize existing hierarchies and force radical realignments of power. Into this volatile situation, the Ram Janmabhoomi movement was launched, turning the demolition of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya into a rallying point for Hindu identity. This was not merely a religious campaign but a strategic act of pseudo-cohesion: by shifting the national political agenda from questions of social justice and economic redistribution to religious mobilization, the ruling elite found a way to re-stabilize its authority. In Quantum Dialectical terms, the explosive contradictions of caste and class were suppressed under a brittle lattice of communal unity, which appeared cohesive but masked instability beneath.
With the ascent of Narendra Modi in 2014, Hindutva entered a qualitatively new phase, fusing directly with the interests of corporate capitalism. The political economy of the present moment can be described as the Adani–Ambani model, in which state power actively engineers monopoly capital through privatization, crony contracts, and the dismantling of public assets. To sustain this model, communal polarization has become a central strategy, distracting the masses from the harsh realities of unemployment, price rise, agrarian crisis, and ecological degradation. The dialectic here is clear: as economic decohesion intensifies under neoliberalism, communal pseudo-cohesion is deployed to prevent the working class from organizing along material lines.
At the same time, state repression has intensified to unprecedented levels. Dissenting voices—whether labor leaders, student activists, journalists, or ordinary citizens—are branded “anti-national” and criminalized. The coercive arm of the state thus supplements the ideological armature of Hindutva, ensuring that capitalist contradictions remain unresolved. In this conjuncture, Hindutva cannot be seen as a cultural movement alone; it functions as the ideological infrastructure of neoliberal capitalism in India, providing both a legitimizing myth and a mechanism of mass control.
In the framework of Quantum Dialectics, social systems evolve through the interplay of cohesive and decohesive forces. Cohesion sustains structures, allowing contradictions to be negotiated at higher levels of organization, while decohesion breaks apart these structures, sometimes clearing the ground for revolutionary transformation but at other times pushing the system into regressive forms. When destructive decohesion becomes dominant, a system does not advance into a higher order but collapses into a lower and more brittle form. Hindutva represents precisely such a destructive decoherent phase transition within Indian democracy, dissolving its progressive potential and redirecting its contradictions toward authoritarian outcomes.
The rise of Hindutva marks a shift from creative contradiction to destructive collapse. Under its influence, democracy itself undergoes regression: participatory institutions, which once mediated class and community contradictions, are hollowed out and replaced by authoritarian populism centered on the cult of a leader. Secular pluralism—originally a cohesive principle that allowed multiple communities to coexist and interact—erodes into communal nationalism, where religious majority identity is enforced as the sole source of legitimacy. Most dangerously, class solidarity, which could have crystallized into an emancipatory force through worker–peasant alliances, is fragmented into competing identity blocs. In dialectical terms, Hindutva accelerates decohesion at the level of secular institutions, collapsing the rich superposition of democratic potentialities into a narrow, brittle configuration of religious authoritarianism.
Yet this phase transition is not random or neutral—it is historically directed. The collapse of secular democracy under Hindutva is not merely cultural decay but a deliberate restructuring that serves the interests of the ruling classes. By weakening the cohesive forces of secularism and class-based solidarity, Hindutva creates conditions for unrestrained accumulation by monopoly capital. Land, labor, and natural resources can be appropriated with minimal resistance when society is fragmented along communal lines and dissent is criminalized as “anti-national.” In Marxian terms, Hindutva is best understood as the ideological form of a bourgeois counter-revolution: it preempts the latent potential for socialist transformation by redirecting contradictions away from exploitation and toward religious identity.
What emerges, therefore, is a dialectical inversion: democracy, which should have evolved toward greater social justice and inclusivity, undergoes a phase transition into authoritarian populism, not as a natural degeneration but as a class project. Hindutva is the weapon through which the capitalist class reconfigures the democratic field, ensuring that the contradictions of neoliberal exploitation are never resolved at the level of emancipation but instead displaced into communal polarization. In this way, the destructive decohesion of Hindutva is not only a political phenomenon but also a structural mechanism safeguarding bourgeois hegemony.
The crisis of Hindutva cannot be resolved by nostalgia or by attempting a simple restoration of the Nehruvian model of secularism. That model, while historically progressive, was itself marked by limitations: it sought to balance caste, class, and religious contradictions without fully resolving them, leaving space for communalism to re-emerge as a destabilizing force. What is required instead is a dialectical renewal—a higher synthesis that does not merely conserve the past but transforms it in light of present contradictions. In the logic of Quantum Dialectics, this means constructing a new equilibrium in which cohesive and decohesive forces are not suppressed but consciously reoriented toward emancipatory outcomes.
Such a renewal would begin by rebuilding secular democratic institutions as the cohesive field within which contradictions can unfold without collapsing into destructive violence. Parliament, judiciary, media, trade unions, and civic associations must be defended and reconstituted as spaces of genuine pluralism and accountability. But cohesion alone is insufficient. Decohesion must be channeled productively, away from communal antagonism and toward class struggle. The sharpening contradictions of unemployment, agrarian distress, and corporate monopoly should not be displaced into religious hatred but mobilized into collective resistance. The synthesis of these two dynamics would be a secular, socialist democracy—a republic that preserves India’s cultural plurality while dismantling the structures of capitalist exploitation.
Within Quantum Dialectics, contradiction is not treated as a flaw or disruption to be eliminated but as the very engine of emergence. The contradictions of Indian capitalism—between capital and labor, landlord and peasant, monopoly and small producer—must therefore be allowed to develop fully, but in a way that opens pathways to transformation rather than collapse. This is the principle of creative decohesion: mass struggles, revolutionary politics, and solidarities that cut across caste, region, gender, and religion. When contradictions are allowed to mature into movements of liberation, they break apart the brittle structures of exploitation and clear the ground for a higher order of social coherence.
The true alternative to Hindutva’s destructive decohesion, then, is not the suppression of conflict but its redirection. Only through the creative force of class struggle can Indian democracy transcend its current impasse. The higher coherence that emerges from this process would be a secular, socialist republic—a polity where diversity is not weaponized for division but embraced within a collective project of emancipation, and where democracy becomes not a mask for capitalist rule but a living expression of popular sovereignty.
Hindutva politics poses a profound danger to India not only because it foments communal division but because it blocks the dialectical path of emancipation. Its strategy is to collapse the rich plurality of Indian society into a false religious unity, thereby neutralizing the potential of contradictions to ripen into class consciousness. In doing so, it substitutes authentic cohesion—built through secular institutions, democratic practices, and solidarities of the oppressed—with a brittle form of pseudo-cohesion. This false unity undermines the very foundations of secular democracy, destabilizing the fragile balance that once held open the possibility of transformative politics.
Seen through the joint lenses of Marxism and Quantum Dialectics, Hindutva reveals its true nature. It is, first and foremost, the ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie, crafted to safeguard the interests of monopoly capital against the latent threat of socialist transformation. It functions as a pseudo-cohesive lattice: an outwardly solid structure that masks deep inner contradictions, much like a fragile crystal that shatters under pressure. At the same time, it operates as a form of destructive decoherence, breaking down the creative pluralism of democracy and pushing the system toward collapse into authoritarian populism and communal nationalism.
The challenge before India, therefore, cannot be reduced to merely resisting Hindutva at the level of ideology or electoral politics. What is required is a deeper intervention into its material base. Hindutva will persist as long as the capitalist class finds it useful as a firewall against revolutionary transformation. To dissolve Hindutva is thus to dissolve its class foundation: the nexus of corporate capital, state power, and communal ideology. Only through the unification of secular-democratic struggles with class struggles—defending pluralism while advancing the fight against exploitation—can the contradictions of Indian society be resolved into a higher synthesis.
That synthesis would take the form of a secular, socialist, democratic republic—a political order that both preserves cultural diversity and dismantles capitalist domination. Such a republic would embody the principles of Quantum Dialectics by transforming destructive contradictions into creative forces of emergence. It would situate India not in a regressive cycle of communal authoritarianism but in alignment with its quantum-layered reality and planetary future: a society capable of coherence without suppression, diversity without division, and freedom without exploitation.
QUANTUM DIALECTICS - BLOG ARTICLES 
Leave a comment