How Vivek Ramaswamy Steers His Hindu-American-Tamil-Brahmin-Heritage Through the Cultural Landscape
- But American Hinduism is going to come up in all sorts of ways in our lives, whether we are seeking political office or not, whether we are personally religious, or not.
Vivek Ramaswamy has passed through one more round of success in his bid to become Ohio’s Governor by winning the Republican nomination decisively. This news seems to be reassuring Indian Americans and our friends that the wave of anti-Indian and anti-Hindu hatred among some MAGA Republicans which has been rising since December 2024 is somehow less representative of American attitudes to race and religion today than what the uglier online manifestations have led us to fear.
Most Ohio Republicans, it would seem, do not think about Hinduism, Indian immigrants, or Vivek Ramaswamy the same way that sensationalist, racist, and Hinduphobic far-right social media influencers and political figures have been operating. Ohio’s people, many of them Christian, white, “Heritage American,” have rejected the froth and fury of the Fuentes kind for Vivek’s carefully articulated conservative vision (spelled out in his book Truths and elsewhere). However, students of culture and politics would do well to think through some questions a little more deeply in order to understand both where we have come from and where we might be going; “we,” as Americans, Indians, Indian-Americans, Hindus, and other labels.
“Because of,” or “in spite of,” Hinduism?
For starters, given that Ramaswamy has talked about his Hindu worldview extensively with voters, cynics and hecklers (balancing some very intense intellectual assertions with the disclaimer that he is not running to be “pastor in chief”), the key question to consider might be to ask if Republican voters are getting behind Ramaswamy because of his religious messaging, or in spite of it. One view on this might be that voters don’t really mind that Vivek is Hindu, and think of him as a principled American conservative and family man, who might prove to be a successful economic recovery architect for the country too. Another view might be that some voters don’t just “mind” Vivek being Hindu, but sincerely respect and honor it, because they see a man honoring religion —Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam — any religion at all, as having roots, principles, and something to stand on, so to speak.
Whether we are witnessing the rise of a religious “rainbow” coalition on the Right or not, the truth is that Hinduism’s presence, or even its continued existence, seems to be confounding paradigms not just in politics but indeed in social and philosophical thought. This is happening not only in the United States, but also in India. The ongoing discussions in the Indian Supreme Court about the traditions of the Sabarimala temple for instance, remind us that the world is indeed in a churn, and none more so than the question of the continuing coexistence of old and new ways of life; particularly given the reality that “new ways” have inevitably required the erasure of old, local, pluralistic ways for mass homogeneity and top-down control.
The One and the Many, the Local and the Global
Whether it is the social media targeting of Hindu temples in America, or the physical destruction of Hindu shrines in Bangladesh, the core concern is similar: when one way of life is premised on the belief that other ways of life are wrong, even “demonic,” and deserve to be erased and their followers “converted,” how do those who disagree with this intolerance co-exist with, well, that kind of intolerance?
In principle, and this is the principle that many in America believe in, we have the notion of freedom in general and religious freedom in particular. We like to think that the Constitution and modern secular institutions will ensure that each of us can be who we wish to be; religious, atheist, “spiritual but not religious,” and so on. In principle, it is indeed a nice idea that the government should stay out of dictating to people who to pray to, how to pray, and so on. It is a private matter, and should not really require state intervention beyond civic regulations and responsibilities to ensure we don’t become a bother to each other with our religious practices perhaps.
In principle, this is how it is, but as generations of Indian immigrants to the United States have seen, it is rarely the case that one is “left alone” on the matter of religion. As early as the 1990s, when I was a student, I recall hearing from older Indians that their children were sometimes rudely admonished by teachers in school that they were worshipping “demons.” But over the years, the idea that it is impolite and even illegal perhaps to impose one’s beliefs on others and their cultures, has become more widespread in America. Immigrants have built temples, sometimes with resistance, sometimes with understanding and cooperation. Life goes on in the melting pot.
It is interesting that Ramaswamy has not quite named or condemned Hinduphobia, though he seems to have faced quite a lot of it himself.
But to return to Ramaswamy’s moment and message, the question will remain about what it means for American politics that now at least two politicians, former Presidential contenders at that, have talked about being Hindu in unprecedented ways. A few years ago, current DNI Tulsi Gabbard sought the Democratic nomination as Bernie Sanders’ Vice Presidential partner, and then also ran against Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and others for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 elections. She spoke about her devotion to Krishna, and also boldly condemned anti-Hindu religious hatred and violence, especially from militant Far Right Jihadists and their sympathizers.
Hindu Dems, Hindu Reps
However, since moving away from the Democrats and election campaigning, Tulsi Gabbard seem to have found less opportunities for engaging on Hindu-Christian conversations of the sort that Ramaswamy has become famous for. On that note, it is also interesting that Ramaswamy has not quite named or condemned Hinduphobia, though he seems to have faced quite a lot of it himself. He seems determined to steer his own, unique, conservative, Hindu, American-Tamil-Brahmin-heritage path through the cultural landscape.
A part of that might mean rejecting what many conservatives see as the performative identity politics of the Democrats. But at the same time, Ramaswamy might also deserve credit for not quietly accepting the identity requirements of the other side. Before his rise, the most famous Indian Americans on the Republican side were probably Dinesh D’Souza, Nikki Haley, and Bobby Jindal. One might say a certain kind of “glass ceiling” has indeed been tapped, if not quite shattered rudely yet. He has made the case for being Hindu and Republican in quite a compelling way. He hit several challenges along the way for sure, including setting off the online storm against Indian immigrants in December 2024 perhaps inadvertently with his Christmas tweet about rejecting sleepovers for science homework and such.
The last question to think about though, beyond the individual success of an immigrant in American business and politics, and beyond the usual debates about secularism and multiculturalism and religious “tolerance,” is really the relationship between the stories that bring together the individual and society, and the role of various groups and strategically organized story-forces in society. Vivek Ramaswamy’s “Hindu American” story, with its very pastor-like passion and clarity (despite his pleas to the contrary about not being “pastor in chief”) is really his own. It’s an American story, of families, generations, a quest for knowledge, improvement, success; but with some due attention given to big issues like God, faith and so on.
A God, the God: The Twain Shall Meet?
Even in a recent video clip, Ramaswamy insisted in response to a question that he considers Jesus “a son of God” not “the son of God.” It is hard to say if that would resonate as a representation of how Hindus think, for the simple reason that there has not been an organized, centralized, Hindu response to other theological challenges or questions. The closest we have seen in terms of organizational messaging is perhaps with Gandhi, or modern gurus. Ramaswamy doesn’t quote anybody here. Like many modern Hindus, he is steering his own course, borrowing bits from his family’s past, and mostly his own vision of the future.
That is of course fine. But the bigger issue Indian Americans and indeed everyone must think about down the line is how do we manage the urge of modern societies to become ever more centralized, top-down, surveillance-based, with the fact that many of us are inheritors of a radically diverse, local, traditional approach? When few individual Hindus can really speak for all Hindus as a whole, how does one deal with the strategic deployment of blame, guilt, and outright disinformation against Hinduism and Hindus as a whole by either ignorant or malignantly motivated actors?
There was an online skirmish recently between different South Asian/Hindu American groups over allegations of caste discrimination at Hindu temples. The allegation was that Dalits are not allowed to touch the deity in Hindu temples. The responses to this allegation were reasonable and consistent with the experience of any Hindu who has been to temples: in most traditionally ritual-centered temples no one but the archaka typically touches the deity; and no one, not just Dalits or Muslims but indeed even “savarnas” and Brahmins, would not typically touch the deity in the garbha gruha. However, there are also hundreds of ancient traditional temples in India where everyone touches the deity and bathes it. In some temples, the archaka may be a Brahmin, and in others, not a Brahmin. In some temples, devotees might have been treated with callousness by priests, volunteers, security staff, or just “touts” and hustlers extorting them with threats of dire divine anger. There are historical wounds and memories of exclusion, some real, and some just incepted.
But in all of this staggering diversity, there is one reality to remember – no Hindu is compelled by anyone or anything, no fear of excommunication, no threat of apostasy and violence, no religion-tax, nothing, to go to a temple and be humiliated or subject to caste discrimination. People are free to go or not to go, and millions make the choice according to their desires and needs. If a particular deity, temple, or place is what draws them, like, say, Sabarimala in the distant forests of Kerala, they will observe the vows and go, despite the hardships. If they like the deity but the vows are hard, they may go to another Ayyappa temple, or just worship him at home. This is the ground reality that many commentators, whether in the Indian courts or in American academia, seem to ignore while endlessly smearing Hinduism.
Now, these debates may or may not matter to Vivek Ramaswamy and Ohio’s voters, who seem more interested in his “American Dream” story (not born a billionaire or millionaire, but got there nonetheless because of America, as he reminded his audience at a recent victory speech). But American Hinduism, indeed modern, “Anywhere, Anyone, Anyhow” Hinduism, is going to come up in all sorts of ways in our lives, whether we are seeking political office or not, whether we are personally religious, or not. Until now, many Hindu Americans have struggled to “explain” something called “Hinduism” to their children and to cynics. Maybe it is time to understand the surroundings of what we call Hinduism instead, and let a thousand, or million stories all fall where they may. Vivek Ramaswamy’s story will be remembered as one among them for sure.
Vamsee Juluri is Professor of Media Studies, University of San Francisco. He is the author of “Becoming a Global Audience: Longing and Belonging in Indian Music Television” (Peter Lang, 2003), “The Mythologist: A Novel” (Penguin India, 2010), and “Bollywood Nation: India through its Cinema (Penguin India,” 2013), “Rearming Hinduism: Nature, Hinduphobia and the Return of Indian Intelligence “ (BluOne Ink, 2024) and “The Guru Within” (in progress).