Opinion>Opinions - Campaign

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Ramaswamy should show Hinduism is much deeper than a political or racial identity

Comments:

by Sreedhar Potarazu, opinion contributor - 05/14/26 12:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Sreedhar Potarazu, opinion contributor - 05/14/26 12:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

Republican Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek speaks during a watch party at the Spruce St. Sporting sports bar after winning the party’s nomination for governor Tuesday, May 5, 2026, in Columbus. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

When Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy speaks about the racism and cultural suspicion he has encountered as an Indian American and as a Hindu, he is speaking about something very real in American life.

There are still people in this country who will never fully accept the leadership of a brown-skinned Hindu man, regardless of how educated, wealthy, articulate or successful he becomes. Denying that reality only insults the experiences of millions of immigrants who have spent decades navigating the tension between achievement and acceptance.

At the same time, if Ramaswamy intends to place his Hindu identity at the center of his public image and political philosophy, then he must also confront the deeper obligations and contradictions that come with it. He is invoking a tradition that is far older, far more complex and far more spiritually demanding than the simplistic political framing that now dominates American discourse.

This observation does not come from moral superiority or ideological hostility, but from lived experience. It comes from understanding how easily identity, ambition, grievance and politics can become entangled in ways that distort both personal conviction and public understanding.

One of the foundational ideas within Hindu philosophy is that human beings become trapped by the constant conflict of opposites. This means that the ego is perpetually reacting to praise and criticism, victory and defeat, attraction and resentment, loyalty and hostility. Meanwhile, true spiritual growth requires the cultivation of discernment, self-awareness and detachment from emotional polarization, rather than permanent immersion within it.

The Bhagavad Gita does not teach endless outrage, perpetual grievance or emotional tribalism. It teaches mastery over the ego and warns against allowing anger, attachment and resentment to dictate conduct and judgment. That distinction matters enormously within the current political environment.

Modern politics increasingly rewards emotional escalation, public grievance and ideological combat while treating restraint, introspection and nuance as weakness rather than strength. Every disagreement now becomes framed as evidence of persecution, every criticism becomes proof of corruption and every conflict becomes transformed into a moral war between good and evil. This creates an environment in which identity itself can easily become weaponized rather than examined honestly.

If Ramaswamy genuinely wishes to present himself as a Hindu voice within American conservatism, then his conduct must reflect the philosophical discipline that Hinduism actually demands. Otherwise, he risks reducing one of the world’s oldest spiritual traditions into little more than another instrument of political tribalism.

There is yet another uncomfortable reality that complicates Ramaswamy’s position and explains why many Indian Americans remain skeptical of the political movement. Most Indian Americans are not conservatives, and many consistently vote Democratic. It is not because they reject hard work, entrepreneurship, patriotism or family values, but because they remain uncomfortable with rhetoric surrounding immigrants, religion, race and nationalism.

This was also the challenge confronted by Mahatma Gandhi, although in a profoundly different historical context. Gandhi understood that invoking spirituality while simultaneously inflaming resentment created contradiction rather than coherence, and that moral authority depended less on declarations of faith than on disciplined conduct rooted in restraint, humility and self-control.

There is also a deeper irony at the intersection of Hindu identity and modern conservatism that deserves far more honest examination. In present-day India, Hindu conservatism has increasingly become associated with suspicion toward Muslims and other religious minorities. That posture directly conflicts with the philosophical breadth and pluralistic tradition that historically defined Hindu thought for centuries.

Classical Hindu philosophy was expansive rather than exclusionary. It absorbed ideas from multiple traditions, tolerated ambiguity, encouraged debate and recognized that truth could not always be reduced into rigid ideological categories or permanent divisions between insiders and outsiders. A civilization that is spiritually sec