Modern-Day Implications of Thomas Hansen’s The Saffron Wave

The Saffron Wave was an interesting book to read. It provided a historical perspective on how Hindu nationalism developed, as Hansen observed in the 1990s. What stood out to me the most was that Hindu nationalism was a movement beyond religion. It connects to larger anxieties about security, social order, cultural identity, and India's place in the world. Because the book was written in the 1990s, I wanted to look at several events that came afterward and consider how Hansen's framework helps such issues in India today. Rather than trying to decide which side of these debates is correct, I want to provide an unbiased perspective by looking at the different ways Indians themselves have understood them. 

The clearest place to start is the issue of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. Hansen was writing shortly after the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992, but he emphasizes that the demolition was not an isolated event. It belonged to a longer struggle over the religious and political meaning of the site and the relationship between Hindu identity and Indian national identity. These events continued long after the publication of The Saffron Wave. In 2019, India's Supreme Court awarded the disputed site for the construction of a Ram temple while directing that five acres elsewhere in Ayodhya be provided for a mosque; the Court also described the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid as a violation of the rule of law. The Ram Mandir was subsequently constructed, and its consecration occurred on January 22, 2024. Some viewed the temple being restored as the fulfillment of a longstanding religious and cultural movement, while others raised questions about secularism and the relationship between religion and the state. What stands out to me is how closely this resembles the larger issue Hansen was describing as it became intertwined with debates over history, law, and what the country stood for.

The Shah Bano case is something that Hansen discusses in his book. In 1985, the Supreme Court held that Shah Bano, a divorced Muslim woman, could receive maintenance under a generally applicable provision of criminal law. Parliament responded the following year by passing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986, which nullified the court decision due to public backlash. Hansen describes the political conflict surrounding the case as part of a larger struggle over secularism, minority autonomy, and the Congress government's attempts to respond to competing political pressures. The controversy was not simply a choice between “Sharia law” and “Indian law.” It raised the question of how should a secular democratic state balance a religious community's ability to maintain its own personal-law traditions with principles of legal equality and women's rights? Should the government have followed what was decided historically, that Muslims will be given the freedom to manage legal affairs under the “Sharia law," or should the government give all citizens equal rights and access to legal equality? These questions fit Hansen's broader argument that secularism in India does not mean removing religion from public life. Eventually, the new ruling in 2024 made it so that religion would not play a role in the money a woman received for child care after a divorce, making Hansen's argument more relevant than ever.

Hansen's discussion becomes even more interesting when he argues that nationalism can organize the world through what he calls cultural "essentials," which include religion, the body, and food. This has an interesting relevance to modern day, wherein the September 2026 BRICS summit in New Delhi, India's culinary diversity was presented only through vegetarian food. Opposition party leader Rahul Gandhi argued that most Indians eat non-vegetarian food, and so all of India was not accurately portrayed. A diplomatic dinner menu has become a disagreement about which food traditions adequately represent India. The controversy may seem minor compared with earlier events, but Hansen's framework helps explain why food carries political meaning. Decisions about what is presented as “Indian” have become decisions about which cultural practices are treated represent the country.

The same idea can be applied to other nationalist symbols. Jana Gana Mana is India's national anthem, while Vande Mataram, which played an important role in the independence movement, has the status of national song. Yet debates about Vande Mataram have continued, including disagreements over which verses should be performed and how the song should function at official events as it references a Hindu goddess. This controversy sparked when, during the national celebration of India’s Independence Day in New Delhi, Vande Mataram was featured. Should this day, India’s Independence Day, reflect its history, which is represented through Vande Mataram, or should it maintain the definition of “secular” and instead play the national anthem? 

Hansen writes that democracy produces a society in which institutions, identities, and social boundaries remain open to contestation. The Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, personal law, national songs, and even the food served at an international summit may appear to be different issues, but all can become arenas in which the competing ideas of Indian identity are expressed. More than thirty years have passed since The Saffron Wave was released, and so the controversies have changed, but the struggle of identity in India is still relevant today.