Sirajuddin Aziz
Tariq Khan Tareen
In a functioning democracy, the armed forces are expected to remain neutral, serving the state above party politics, religious identity, or ideological bias. Historically, India’s military embodied this principle, projecting itself as a secular institution committed to national security rather than political expediency. Under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, however, this longstanding tradition appears to be eroding. The infusion of Hindu nationalist ideology, commonly referred to as “saffronization,” is now visible across symbols, rituals, recruitment, and operations within the armed forces, signaling a gradual alignment with the ruling party’s majoritarian agenda.
Symbolism and iconography in military spaces illustrate this shift. In January 2025, the Army Chief’s lounge in New Delhi replaced a painting commemorating the 1971 Indo-Pak war with “Karam Kshetra,” a work blending Hindu mythological figures like Krishna and Chanakya with modern military imagery. What may seem a benign aesthetic choice carries a deeper message: military service is being subtly reframed as participation in a civilizational and religious mission rather than a constitutional duty. Similarly, in December 2024, the Fire and Fury Corps erected a statue of Maratha ruler Shivaji at Pangong Tso in Ladakh, draped in saffron. In a region of high strategic sensitivity, such iconography is less cultural pride than ideological signaling.
Religious rituals further blur the line between private belief and institutional responsibility. During National Unity Day 2025, the Army Chief received a tilak and garland from Hindu priests while in uniform, a public endorsement of one faith in a multi-religious force. In May 2025, he visited the ashram of Hindu spiritual leader Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, where a religious initiation—diksha—was conferred, accompanied by a symbolic injunction regarding Azad Jammu and Kashmir. These public displays tie the highest-ranking officer to religious authority, undermining the principle of an apolitical, secular military.
Even military operations have begun to reflect ideological preference. Neutral operation names have been replaced with explicitly Hindu-infused titles like “Sindoor” and “Mahadev,” reinforcing the conflation of state defense with religious symbolism. When combined with public statements echoing ruling-party narratives, the distinction between professional military service and ideological advocacy becomes dangerously thin.
Institutional reforms such as the Agnipath recruitment scheme have also shifted the military’s demographic and cultural composition. A significant proportion of new recruits are linked to Hindu nationalist networks, including RSS affiliates, creating a pipeline in which ideological alignment may supersede professional ethos. Similarly, Sainik Schools, historically incubators for officers, are increasingly influenced by organizations promoting Hindu civilizational narratives, shaping future officers’ loyalties in ways that could favor ideology over constitutional duty.
The human consequences are evident. Minority officers report systemic pressure to participate in Hindu rituals, while dissenters face exclusion or dismissal, as seen in the 2025 case of Lt. Samuel Kamalesan, a Christian officer removed for refusing ritual compliance. Beyond personnel issues, there are operational implications: reports of extrajudicial killings and custodial deaths in conflict zones suggest that a religiously infused military culture may blur accountability and compromise adherence to human rights.
Taken together, these changes indicate a deliberate project to reframe India’s armed forces as an instrument of majoritarian ideology. From art and iconography to rituals, recruitment, and operational nomenclature, the military’s secular identity is increasingly compromised. What was once a unifying institution commanding respect across communities is now subtly being reshaped into a partisan, ideologically aligned force.
India risks more than internal dissent. By intertwining the military with religious nationalism, the state imperils its institutional integrity, minority inclusion, and constitutional balance. “Modi ki Sena” may appeal politically in the short term, but the long-term cost could be a fragmented, politicized military, where loyalty to ideology eclipses loyalty to the republic itself—a gamble with consequences far beyond electoral applause.
