Narrative, Ideology, and Reality: A Response to the Wall Street Journal on India, Minorities, and Prime Minister Modi

MGMMTeam
1 day ago
6 min read

Context on the Author and Ideological Positioning

Before engaging with the substance of the Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled “The Hindu Attacks on India’s Christians”, it is necessary to understand the ideological background from which the article emerges. Its author, Tunku Varadarajan, has long been a consistent and vocal critic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. His writing frequently frames Modiji, Hindu political expression, and India’s civilizational identity through a sharply adversarial lens.

It is also relevant that Siddharth Varadarajan, Tunku Varadarajan’s brother and the founding editor of The Wire, has for years been among the most prominent journalistic critics of Modiji and the BJP, publishing sustained commentary that often portrays Hindu society and politics as inherently oppressive. While criticism is an essential part of democratic discourse, the persistence, direction, and tone of such writing reflect a clear ideological position, not neutral observation.

This context does not invalidate criticism by default, but it does require readers to treat the WSJ piece as opinion shaped by a prior worldview, rather than as detached analysis. With that clarity, the article’s claims must be evaluated on facts, structure, and evidence.

India’s Constitutional Reality and the Limits of Central Power

India is a constitutionally secular republic. Freedom of religion is guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution, and this protection applies equally to Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and others. Crucially, India operates under a federal system, where law and order is primarily the responsibility of state governments, not the Prime Minister’s Office.

Attributing every communal or criminal incident across a country of more than 1.4 billion people directly to the Prime Minister ignores this basic constitutional structure. Policing, prosecution, and immediate response fall under state administrations. To frame localized incidents as evidence of central complicity is therefore a political assertion, not a governance-based conclusion.

Isolated Incidents Versus National Policy

The WSJ opinion emphasizes that Christians form a small minority in India and implies that this demographic reality makes them uniquely vulnerable under the current government. Christians constitute about 2.3 percent of the population, while Muslims account for roughly 14 percent.

However, isolated acts of violence—while serious and deserving of condemnation—do not automatically indicate a national policy of persecution. India has witnessed communal violence under governments of every political ideology since independence. What matters is whether violence is institutionalized, directed, or endorsed by the state. No evidence has been produced to demonstrate that Prime Minister Modi or the central government has ordered, sanctioned, or justified attacks on Christians.

The Question of Silence and Modiji’s Leadership Style

A central accusation in the WSJ piece is that Prime Minister Modi’s alleged silence implies approval. This interpretation misunderstands both precedent and Modiji’s established leadership style.

Modiji has historically refrained from commenting immediately on every incident of violence, irrespective of the victims’ religion. His approach has been to allow investigations to proceed, avoid inflammatory rhetoric, and intervene selectively rather than performatively. Silence in such cases reflects restraint and institutional process—not endorsement.

Christian Participation in Governance and Political Respect

Contrary to portrayals of exclusion, Christians are active participants in India’s political system. A notable example is George Kurian, a Christian leader from Kerala who serves as a Union Minister of State in the Modi government. His appointment alone undermines claims that religious identity is a barrier under the present administration.

Kerala itself, a state with a substantial Christian population and historically governed by non-BJP parties, has produced Christian leaders who have publicly acknowledged Prime Minister Modi with respect, even while maintaining political differences. This coexistence of disagreement and mutual respect reflects democratic normalcy rather than marginalization.

Direct Engagement Between Modiji and Christian Leaders

Recent developments further weaken the claim that Modiji ignores Christian concerns. In late 2025, Prime Minister Modi met senior leaders of the Syro-Malabar Church, one of the largest Christian denominations in India. The meeting addressed minority welfare, community issues, and social harmony, and was described by participants as constructive.

Modiji has also participated publicly in Christian religious observances. In December 2025, he attended a Christmas service at the Cathedral Church of the Redemption in New Delhi, where prayers were offered for peace and national unity. Such engagements are inconsistent with portrayals of hostility or indifference.

The Repeated Victimhood Narrative and Its Limitations

A recurring pattern in Tunku Varadarajan’s writing is the claim that Muslims and Christians are the ones who are suffering in India. Presented as an unquestionable moral truth, this assertion collapses under scrutiny.

India’s Muslims and Christians are not communities living on the margins of public life. They participate fully in politics, business, media, entertainment, education, and civil society. Muslim and Christian politicians sit in Parliament and state assemblies. Churches and mosques operate openly across the country. Minority leaders meet constitutional authorities regularly and criticize governments without fear.

Acknowledging that discrimination and violence exist does not justify transforming social problems into claims of systemic, state-sponsored persecution.

Prosperity, Prominence, and the Question of Bias

India is a country where Muslims and Christians have not merely survived but flourished.

In popular culture, Muslim prominence is undeniable. Bollywood—India’s most influential cultural export—has for decades been dominated by Muslim actors, producers, lyricists, and directors who enjoy mass popularity, immense wealth, and global recognition.

The arts offer an even clearer example. A.R. Rahman, born into a Hindu family and later converted to Islam, became one of India’s most celebrated public figures. His religious conversion did not restrict his success; it coincided with national honours, international acclaim, and deep public reverence. His career directly contradicts claims of bias against Islam in India.

Christians, too, continue to thrive. They run some of India’s most respected schools, colleges, and hospitals. Christmas is a national public holiday. Christian institutions function openly, and church leaders maintain institutional access to the highest levels of government.

Ironically, when institutional constraints are examined, they often involve Hindu religious practices. Hindu temples and rituals have long been subject to extensive state control, judicial intervention, and administrative regulation, often far more than churches or mosques. This reality complicates the simplistic narrative of Hindu privilege versus minority oppression.

A Historical Comparison: Pre-2014 and Post-2014

The claim that minority suffering is uniquely a post-2014 phenomenon does not withstand historical comparison. Major communal violence involving Muslims and Christians occurred well before Modiji became Prime Minister, including Mumbai (1992–93), Kandhamal (2008), Assam (2012), and Muzaffarnagar (2013).

What has changed since 2014 is not the existence of social conflict, but the tendency to frame every incident as evidence of a centralized ideological project, despite the absence of proof.

Across both periods, minorities have continued to expand their social, cultural, and economic presence. Muslim dominance in Bollywood, Christian leadership in education and healthcare, and minority participation in governance have shown continuity, not decline.

Opinion Versus Evidence

The Wall Street Journal article is explicitly labeled as an opinion piece. Opinion reflects interpretation shaped by ideology. Treating it as conclusive evidence risks replacing factual analysis with narrative framing.

A serious assessment must distinguish between criminal acts by non-state actors, administrative failures at local levels, and the intent or policy of the central government.

Conclusion

Violence against any religious group in India is unacceptable and must be addressed firmly. However, projecting Prime Minister Narendra Modi as complicit based on selective incidents, assumed motives, or perceived silence is neither fair nor supported by evidence.

India’s federal structure limits central control over local crimes. Christians and Muslims remain represented, prosperous, and influential in public life. Documented engagement between Modiji and Christian leaders contradicts claims of hostility. Historical comparison further undermines the assertion that post-2014 India represents a unique rupture.

A serious discussion on religious harmony in India must be grounded in constitutional reality, historical context, and balanced judgment—not in ideologically driven narratives.

Sources:

Mahatma Gandhi's

Music and Musings