India's Supreme Court Stays Enforcement of Several Parts of Waqf Amendment Act

In In re: The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. (India Sup. Ct., Sept. 15, 2025), the Supreme Court of India in a 128-page opinion upheld many of the provisions of the controversial Waqf Act Amendments enacted earlier this year but stayed enforcement of several parts of the Act.  As explained by The Independent:

Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government passed the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 earlier this year, claiming it would improve the management of waqf properties – religious and charitable assets governed under Muslim personal law....

Critics said it was a thinly veiled attempt to seize Muslim-controlled properties, weaken the autonomy of the 200 million-strong Muslim minority, and increase state control of religious assets. They promptly moved the top court seeking a stay on the changes.

The amended legislation requires all waqf properties to be registered on a centralised digital portal. Failure to register can lead to the property being classified as “disputed” and referred to a tribunal....

A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai suspended the new provisions allowing the local collector to determine the ownership of a waqf property....

The court also stayed the provision requiring that only individuals who have been practising Islam for at least five years may dedicate a waqf property, pending the creation of state-level rules for determining a person’s adherence.

Another contentious amendment allowed for the appointment of non-Muslims in the management of waqf institutions. The original law mandated that all waqf board members must be Muslim, including at least two women and elected representatives.

The new law enables state governments to nominate members, including non-Muslim lawmakers, judges, and “eminent persons”. The top court said the Central Waqf Council should not include more than four non-Muslim members, and state waqf boards no more than three. It suggested that the chief executives of waqf boards should ideally be Muslim, although this is not legally mandated.

Challenge To California's Investigation of Caste Discrimination Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

In Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish, (ED CA, July 18, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed on various procedural grounds a suit contending that the California Civil Rights Department is violating the constitutional rights of Hindu Americans by "conflat[ing] a discriminatory caste system with the Hindu religion" in an investigation of Cisco Systems, Inc. Individual plaintiffs in the case include employees of Cisco.

The court first concluded that the Younger abstention doctrine requires it to dismiss the case because it would pose "a serious risk of direct interference with state court proceedings...." The court went on to find a lack of standing to pursue plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

In the present case, the Individual Plaintiffs do not allege that they were direct targets of the Department's enforcement action but instead allege that they learned of it through, among other things, conversation or reading about the State Action.... Plaintiffs contend in conclusory fashion that the Department's conduct has chilled their participation in "the political community," but do not identify what political community they refer to in this regard.... Instead, plaintiffs vaguely allege that the Department's conduct has led to conversations at discrete, unidentified social events.... In this way, plaintiffs' allegations merely state an abstract stigmatic injury, rather than an injury caused by direct contact with the Department's actions and are therefore insufficient to establish plaintiffs' standing to assert their claim under the Establishment Clause....

The court also found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' Free Exercise claims, saying in part: 

Plaintiffs cannot persuasively maintain that there "exists some conflict between one of [their] religious convictions and a challenged governmental action[]" precisely because they contend that caste discrimination is not one of their religious convictions....

Because plaintiffs have not alleged that they plan to engage in religious conduct which could arguably be the target of an enforcement action brought by the Department, the court concludes that they have not shown standing to bring a pre-enforcement action pursuant to the Free Exercise Clause....

The SAC now includes allegations from the Individual Plaintiffs regarding how they feel stigmatized, however, it includes no allegations that the Department has pursued any discriminatory action against the Individual Plaintiffs....

The court similarly found a lack of standing as to plaintiffs' due process and equal protection claims. It also concluded that the Hindu American Foundation lacks organizational or associational standing, saying in part:

Plaintiffs’ theory appears to be that the Foundation was forced to respond to the Department’s actions insofar as it spent any resources responding to those actions rather than on other initiatives.  The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected such a theory of standing.

The Mooknayak reports on the decision.

India's Supreme Court Orders Stay While It Considers Constitutionality of Place of Worship Act

The Hindu reports on a controversial Order issued yesterday by India's Supreme Court. The Order bars lower courts from accepting new lawsuits or entering orders in pending suits in which Hindu plaintiffs are attempting to reclaim temples destroyed by the Mughal Empire in the 16th century. Eighteen suits involving ten Muslim religious shrines are pending in lower courts. In 1991, India's Parliament passed the Place of Worship Act which prohibits the conversion of any place of worship into a place of worship for a different religion and provides that "the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day." The Supreme Court is currently considering the constitutionality of the Place of Worship Act. It Order is designed to prevent a race in which lower courts attempt to issue orders ahead of the Supreme Court's ruling on the 1991 law. According to The Hindu:

Recently, Chief Justice Khanna’s Bench had to intervene after violence broke out and lives were lost in Sambhal following a local court order to survey the Shahi Jama Masjid site. The civil judge had passed an order on the basis of a suit that the mosque was built on a temple demolished by Mughal emperor Babar in 1526.

President Biden Speaks At White House Diwali Reception

Today is Diwali, or more precisely, the high point of the 5-day Diwali celebration. The holiday is celebrated in various ways by Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. On Monday evening, President Biden hosted a Diwali celebration at the White House. In his remarks at the reception (full text), the President said in part:

In late November 2016, a dark cloud formed from hate and hostility toward immigrants, including South Asian Americans, that we hear once again in 2024.  It was then that Jill and I hosted the first Diwali reception, and it was at the vice president’s residence, an Irish Catholic president — vice president, at the time — opening our home for a holiday celebration by Hindus, Bi- — Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and more.  How America — how America can remind us all of our power to be the light, all of us. 

Now, as president, I’ve been honored to host the biggest Diwali receptions ever at the White House.  (Applause.)

Court Says Indian Penal Code Does Not Punish Insults to Religion That Do Not Outrage Targets

In Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (High Ct. Karnataka, Sept. 13, 2024), a single-judge bench of the High Court of the Indian state of Karnataka gave a narrow interpretation to Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which prohibits the deliberate and malicious outraging of the religious feelings of any class of citizens. At issue are the acts of two individuals who barged into a mosque and shouted "Jai Sriram" (Glory to Lord Rama). While the perpetrators have not yet been identified by investigators, this suit was filed to quash the ongoing investigation of the incident. Agreeing to quash the investigation, the court said in part:

Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.  It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts ‘Jai Sriram’ it would outrage the religious feeling of any class. When the complainant himself states that Hindu – Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony....

The acts that have no effect on bringing out peace or destruction of public order will not lead to an offence under Section 295A of the IPC.

Law Beat reports on the decision.

2nd Circuit: Former Hindu Inmate's Challenges to Mandated Treatment Program Dismissed

 In Tripathy v. McKoy, (2d Cir., May 29, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought against prison officials by a former inmate who contended that his rights were violated when he was forced to enroll in a specific sex offender treatment program in order to get lighter parole and registration requirements. According to the court: 

A devout Hindu, Tripathy objected to this requirement on religious grounds, arguing that he was innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted and that accepting responsibility for his crimes would require him to make a false statement, in violation of the “core” Hindu “tenet[]” against lying.

The court summarized its holdings:

We agree with the district court that Tripathy’s claim for damages under RLUIPA is barred by our precedent holding that the statute does not permit individual capacity damages; we likewise agree that his demands for injunctive and declaratory relief became moot when his state convictions were vacated and he was released from prison.  With respect to his constitutional claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court properly concluded that Tripathy’s free exercise claim under the First Amendment is barred by qualified immunity, that he lacks standing to seek damages for his due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that he fails to state a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

Ban on Caste Discrimination Is Constitutional

In Bagal v. Sawant, (WD WA, March 8, 2024), a Washington federal district court rejected First and 14th Amendment challenges to the City of Seattle's adding of "caste" as a protected class under its anti-discrimination Ordinance. The court said in part:

First, Plaintiff argues that incorporating “caste” into existing anti-discrimination laws ipso facto creates a stigma, levelled towards a specific and insular minority group, namely members of the Hindu religion....

Plaintiff simply does not allege they are burdened, in any manner, from practicing their faith.... [H]aving failed to allege a cognizable injury, Plaintiff de facto lacks standing to assert a Free Exercise challenge to the Ordinance. Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is similarly unavailing.... Fundamentally, Plaintiff’s reasoning is that the City of Seattle’s involvement on an issue of equal importance to practitioners of a certain religion becomes, as a consequence, activity in favor or opposition to that religion. And that, because the City of Seattle opted to disfavor caste-based forms of discrimination, a fortiori it condemned all notions of caste as it was understood by any religion. But that logic proves too much. And even assuming, arguendo, that the Ordinance does condemn notions of caste as is believed by a certain religion, that does not constitute activity in support or disparagement of that religion. For instance, birth control is a topic that involves both religious beliefs and general welfare concerns. And yet, no court has ever held that government approval of birth control violates the Establishment Clause....

It is not enough, in other words, that the anti-caste legislation strikes members of a religion as reflecting poorly on their religious beliefs.... In this case, the Ordinance’s principal effect is not to endorse a religion, but simply to bolster local anti-discrimination laws.  Any coincidental reference to a shared phenomenon (such as caste) is secondary, if not wholly, immaterial....

Second, Plaintiff contends that the Ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause....

Nowhere does the text of the Ordinance make use of prohibited classifications.  Rather, the Ordinance is facially neutral and of general applicability.  Moreover, wholly absent from Plaintiff’s complaint are any facts suggesting that the legislative drafters were actually motivated by racial or ethnic animus.... Further to the point, Plaintiff’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the City of Seattle has applied the Ordinance in a discriminatory manner.

Controversial Hindu Temple Dedication Takes Place In India

In the Indian holy city of Ayodhya, the politically and religiously controversial dedication of the Ram Mandir, a Hindu Temple, took place this morning. An article last week in Time explains the significance of the event. Here are excerpts:

A decades-long flashpoint in India’s sectarian politics is poised to reach a climax next week. The Ram Mandir, a Hindu temple, will be consecrated Jan 22. on a contested holy site once home to a mosque in India’s northern city of Ayodhya. The special ceremony for the temple, which is still in construction, has been a decades-long effort in the making.

For Hindus, site marks the birthplace of Lord Ram, one of the most revered deities in the Hindu faith. But the site is also revered by Muslims for having once housed the 16th century Babri Mosque, a monument of faith for Indian Muslims that stood on the site for centuries before it was razed by a Hindu nationalist mob in 1992. Sectarian riots ensued, killing thousands of people....

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose Hindu-nationalist government has overseen a steady rise in violence against Muslims and other religious minorities, will play a key role in the ceremony—one observers say will mark the unofficial start of his campaign to win a third consecutive term when Indians go to the polls in the spring....

In 2019, India's Supreme Court awarded the site to the Hindu community. (See prior posting.).

Indian Court Bars Exclusion of Scheduled Caste from Temple Festival

Last week in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court issued an order to prevent members of a Scheduled Caste from being excluded from a Temple Festival. In Pandiarajan v. District Collector, (Madras High Ct., Dec. 19, 2023), the court said in part:

... [P]etitioner submits that the people from Maravar community in their Village are not permitting the Scheduled caste people to participate in the temple festival and they are preventing them from taking mulaippari and not collecting tax from them for the temple festival.... [A] peace committee meeting ... between both the groups ... [decided] that the village festival has to be performed only as per the advice of the HR & CE [Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments] Department that no community people is entitled to conduct the festival by collecting tax separately that the parties are restrained from spreading any rumors in the social media.... [P]etitioner submits that even after this resolution... the caste hindus are not permitting the scheduled caste people to participate inthe Margazhi festival of the above temple.... 

Even after 75 years of independence, if this state of affairs prevails on account of community in the village, it needs to be addressed and prevented. No person nor any group can restrain a person from performing his religious duties and it is the right guaranteed under the Constitution.

... The temple worshipped by the public is a public temple and the HR & CE Department is having every right to interfere with the affairs of the temple.  It was, in fact agreed between the parties in the peace committee meeting that the festival has to be conducted by the HR & CE Department.

LiveLaw 10 reports on the decision.

New South Asian Congressional Caucus Launched Amid Criticism from Some Civil Rights Groups

Last week, Michigan Congressman Shri Thanedar announced formation of the 28-member "Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain US Congressional Caucus." According to India West Journal: "The group will address cultural misunderstandings, promote interfaith dialogue and harmony, and support initiatives to promote the well-being, education, and empowerment of the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jains in the US." However, four Hindu, Sikh and Muslim civil rights groups issued a press release sharply criticizing formation of the caucus, saying it does not represent all parts of the South Asian community across faith, caste and ethnic lines.  The press release says in part:

"... In June of this year, Congressman Thanedar announced his intention to form a Hindu Caucus without input from the full spectrum of Hindu American civil society, including Dalit and linguistic community organizations. This caucus seems to be a new iteration of that previous announcement.”

“If this caucus is that announcement repackaged with a more inclusive label but the same makeup, it will likely combat meaningful oversight of the U.S.-India relationship, ongoing work to protect the civil rights and safety of Sikhs and other marginalized groups, and efforts to ban caste discrimination at a federal level. Moreover, given the lack of Muslim representation, it may oppose ongoing efforts to combat Islamophobia. In short, any caucus without inclusive representation from the Indian diaspora will serve as nothing more than a vehicle for Hindu nationalist policies that will inevitably harm the entire South Asian American community, including Sikh, Muslim, Dalit, Buddhist, Jain, and even Hindu Americans.

Hindu Organization Lacks Standing to Challenge State's Caste Discrimination Charges

In Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish,(ED CA, Aug. 31, 2023, a California federal district court held that a national education and policy organization that promotes religious freedom for Hindu Americans lacks standing to sue the California Civil Rights Department for asserting in enforcement actions that the caste system and caste discrimination is part of Hindu teachings and practices.

... [P]laintiff’s complaint fails to allege facts that, if proven, would show that plaintiff is “sufficiently identified with and subject to the influence” of the individuals it seeks to represent in this lawsuit.... Indeed, it is unclear even which specific individuals plaintiff seeks to represent in this action because its complaint merely alleges that it seeks to protect the constitutional rights of “all Hindu Americans” and “all Americans of faith.”...

See prior related posting.  Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Hindu Profs May Move Ahead with Some Challenges To "Caste" In Anti-Discrimination Policy

In Kumar v. Koester, (CD CA, July 25, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed for lack of standing plaintiffs' free exercise and equal protection challenges to California State University's inclusion of the term "caste" in its Interim Non-discrimination Policy. However, the court concluded that plaintiffs-- South-Asian, Hindu CSU professors-- may move ahead with their Establishment Clause and vagueness claims. 

Plaintiffs object to the University's policy that treats "caste" as a social and religious hierarchy created by the Hindu religion. They contend that caste is no part of Hinduism and that its inclusion in the University policy promotes racial and religious stereotypes and subjects plaintiffs' Hindu religious beliefs to public ridicule. The court dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection challenges because "abstract stigmatic injuries" are not sufficient to create standing.  Insofar as plaintiffs argue that the Policy provides insufficient protection to non-Asian victims of caste discrimination, plaintiffs allege no injury to themselves. As to plaintiffs' free exercise challenges, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs emphatically denounce the caste system and reject the notion that it is part of their religion. Thus, the Policy does not threaten any of Plaintiffs' rights to practice their religion.

As to plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claims, the court said in part:

To evaluate the merits of an Establishment Clause claim, a court must reference historical practices and understandings.... A government practice that unevenly impacts religion may nevertheless be constitutional if it is supported by history and tradition.... Defendant contends that inclusion of the term "caste" is supported by a long history and tradition of disallowing racial discrimination in schools. While Defendant is correct that there is a long history of preventing racial discrimination in education, Defendant has not adequately demonstrated that there is a history or tradition of incorporating words with religious connotations to curb racial discrimination. Therefore, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that implicating Hinduism through the Policy's inclusion of the term "caste" is supported by history and tradition.

[Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

Monell Claims Opposing Transcendental Meditation Program in Chicago Schools Move Ahead

In Hudgins v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, (ND IL, June 30, 2023), two former high school students and the mother of one of the students sued claiming that a Quiet Time transcendental meditation program in the Chicago public schools violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses as well as the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Plaintiffs claim that the program contained hidden Hindu religious elements. A number of plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, primarily on statute-of-limitations grounds. However, the court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their Section 1983 Monell claims for damages against the Chicago Board of Education and the David Lynch Foundation which operated the program under contract in the schools.

India's Supreme Court Rejects Petition on Renaming of Historical Cultural Religious Places

In Upadhyay v. Union of India, (Sup. Ct. India, Feb. 27, 2023), the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition brought by a leader of a Hindu nationalist party seeking to require the government to research and publish the "original names of ‘ancient historical cultural religious places’, named after barbaric foreign invaders." According to the court:

[Petitioner] invokes the right to dignity as flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that there is his fundamental right to culture which is protected in Articles 19 and 29. Again, he refers to Article 25 as the source of his right to religion and in regard to his fundamental right to know, he leans on Article 19(1)(a). He also has brought up the concept of ‘sovereignty’ being compromised by the continuous use of the names of the ‘brutal invaders’....

Rejecting petitioner's contention, the court said in part:

India, that is ‘Bharat’ in terms of the preamble, is a secular country....

The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past. The governance of Bharat must conform to Rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism of which Article 14 stands out as the guarantee of both equality and fairness in the State’s action....

VOA has a lengthy background article discussing the case, explaining in part:

Beginning in the 12th century, a succession of Muslim empires — most notably the Delhi sultanate and the Mughal empire — dominated the Indian subcontinent for almost seven centuries. During Muslim rule, the growth of trade and commerce was accompanied by the brisk growth of towns and cities across the country.

The Muslim rulers established many towns, naming them after themselves or their ancestors....

In the last few years, several places with Muslim-sounding names have been renamed by BJP governments....

With the rise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Hindutva — nationalist groups — have increased demands for renaming many Muslim-sounding locations.

Court Dismisses Hindu Organization's Defamation Suit

In Hindu American Foundation v. Viswanath, (D DC, Dec. 20, 2022), the D.C. federal district court dismissed a defamation suit brought by a Hindu advocacy organization against five individuals who are critics of the current Indian government's alleged treatment of Muslims and other religious minorities. In the case, Hindu American Foundation alleged that its reputation was damaged, and it lost donations, after the publication of articles in Al Jazeera in which defendants described HAF as being sympathetic to Hindu supremacist ideology.  Defendants also criticized HAF's receipt of federal COVID relief funds. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over four of the defendants because they failed to have sufficient connections to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the D.C. long-arm statute. As to the fifth defendant, the court held that as a limited purpose public figure, HAF needed to plead actual malice. It failed to do so.  It also concluded that defendant's statements were expressions of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, not verifiably false statements of fact. American Bazaar reports on the decision.

Today Is Diwali; NYC Schools To Recognize It

Today is Diwali, the Hindu Festival of Lights which is also celebrated by some Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists. As reported by CNN, last Thursday New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that starting next year, Diwali will be a public school holiday in New York City.  In order to keep the same number of school days in the academic year, state legislation has been introduced to allow New York City public schools to no longer celebrate Anniversary Day as a holiday. Anniversary Day (also known as Brooklyn-Queens Day) is variously described as celebrating the opening of the first Protestant Sunday School on Long Island or the founding of the Brooklyn Sunday School Union in 1816.

UPDATE: Here is President Biden's statement sending greetings for a happy Diwali.

Profs Sue University for Including Caste in Antidiscrimination Policy

Suit was filed on Monday in a California federal district court by two California State University professors challenging the University's inclusion of discrimination on the basis of caste in its Interim Antidiscrimination Policy adopted in January. The complaint (full text) in Kumar v. Koester, (CD CA, filed 10/17/2022) alleges in part:

[T]he Interim Policy seeks to define the Hindu religion as including “caste” and an alleged oppressive and discriminatory caste system as foundational religious tenets. That not only is an inaccurate depiction of the Hindu religion, but the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits California and CSU from defining the contours of Hinduism (or any religion)....

The Interim Policy also singles out only CSU’s Hindu employees, professors and students, as well as those of Indian/South Asian origin. No other Protected Status in the Interim Policy addresses any specific ethnicity, ancestry, religion or alleged religious practice,,,

Plaintiffs seek a determination that the term “caste” as used in the Interim Policy is unconstitutionally vague, and the Interim Policy as drafted violates the rights of Plaintiffs (and similarly situated individuals) under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as their rights under the California Constitution.

The Hindu American Foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges California's Linking Of Hinduism With Caste System

A Hindu advocacy organization has filed suit in a California federal district court challenging allegations in the California Civil Rights Department's enforcement actions against caste discrimination that link the caste system to Hinduism. The complaint (full text) in Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish, (ED CA, filed 9/20/2022), alleges in part:

[A] caste system or discrimination on its basis are in no way a legitimate part of Hindu beliefs, teachings, or practices. 

HAF vehemently opposes all types of discrimination; and takes great exception to the State of California defaming and demeaning all of Hinduism by attempting to conflate a discriminatory caste system with the Hindu religion. 

Worse, California defames Hinduism by doing what the U.S. Constitution says it cannot, assert a government right to resolve questions of religious doctrine....

As a result, the CRD’s violation of the First Amendment rights of all Hindu Americans ... would likely lead employers to actively  discriminate against Hindu and South Asian Americans in order to avoid the undefined maze of  legal uncertainty that would be California’s caste-discrimination bar....

Stopping caste-based discrimination is a worthy goal that directly furthers Hinduism’s belief in the equal and divine essence of all people. But wrongly tying Hindu beliefs and practices to the abhorrent practice of caste-discrimination undermines that goal, violates the First Amendment rights of all Hindu-Americans, and can only lead to a denial of due process and  equal protection to Americans based on their religious affiliation and national origin.

(See prior related posting.) Hindu American Foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

India Refuses To Allow Mother Theresa's Charity To Receive Further Funds From Abroad

The Guardian reports that on Christmas Day, India's Ministry of Home Affairs refused to renew the license allowing Missionaries of Charity to continue to receive financial support from abroad.  Missionaries of Charity, which runs a network of charities across India, was founded by Mother Theresa in 1950. Accusations, denied by the Charity, are that it lures poor young Hindu women into becoming Christians by forcing them to read the Bible, recite Christian prayers and wear a cross around their neck. Hardline Hindus say that the Charity is intentionally hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus.

Local Officials In India Take Aim At Food Carts Selling Eggs

Deccan Herald reported yesterday on the India's most recent religious-cultural controversy-- the sale of eggs by food cart operators. A recent raid by authorities in Ahmedabad confiscated eggs and supplies from street vendors. According to the report:

The place of the humble egg in the street food culture of Gujarat, a state in western India where people take their snacks seriously, has become the latest flashpoint in the growing role of religion in everyday life. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the national government has taken steps in recent years to promote the religion and to sideline Muslims and other groups. 

Emboldened local governments have followed suit, enacting rules in some places that adhere adhere closely to Hindu doctrine. That is especially true in Gujarat, which Modi led for 13 years before becoming prime minister and which is often seen as a laboratory for pushing policies to reshape India along with his Hindu nationalist vision....

Many Hindus are vegetarian, particularly among the elite within India’s traditional caste system, and some of them consider eggs to be meat products.