‘Engage with Hinduism too?’ US Hindu group’s ‘inclusive’ dig at JD Vance over remark on wife Usha’s faith

By_shalini oraon

—

A Political Gita: The Vance Faith Debate and the Hindu-American Quest for Inclusion

In the high-stakes theater of American politics, where every personal detail is a potential political cipher, the spiritual life of a vice-presidential nominee’s spouse would typically be a footnote. Yet, a single comment from JD Vance about his wife, Usha Vance, has ignited a complex conversation that stretches far beyond the campaign trail, touching upon the raw nerves of religious identity, political posturing, and the evolving place of Hinduism in the American tapestry. When the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), a leading advocacy group, posed the question, “Engage with Hinduism too?”, their “inclusive” dig was not merely a retort but a reflection of a community’s long-standing quest for recognition and respect.

The spark for this debate was Vance’s appearance on a conservative podcast, where he discussed his wife’s spiritual journey. Usha Vance, a accomplished litigator, was raised in a Hindu family but now, according to her husband, identifies as a Christian. Vance framed this not just as a personal choice, but within a narrative of conversion, stating, “I do think that we should celebrate the fact that we are bringing people into the Christian faith.” For many of his evangelical Christian supporters, this was a testament to faith and a political asset. For many Hindu-Americans, however, the language felt familiar and fraught.

It was this framing that prompted the HAF’s pointed, yet nuanced, response. In a public post, they wrote: “Glad to hear @JDVance1 is engaging with the Buddhist community. Perhaps he will engage with the Hindu American community too? We’d be happy to meet with him and discuss the contributions of the 3 million Hindus who enrich our nation and the importance of treating all religious traditions with respect.” The statement was a masterclass in diplomatic critique. By first acknowledging a separate outreach Vance made to Buddhists, the HAF positioned itself within a similar paradigm of interfaith engagement. The core of their message, however, was a call for inclusivity that highlighted a perceived exclusion.

The Subtext of the “Dig”

The HAF’s response operates on multiple levels. On the surface, it is a simple invitation for political dialogue, a request for a seat at the table. But its power lies in its subtext. The phrase “engage with” is a deliberate choice. It contrasts Vance’s act of “bringing people into” his faith with the HAF’s desire for a two-way conversation based on mutual respect. It subtly challenges the notion of a one-way spiritual traffic from Eastern traditions to Christianity, a trope that has deep colonial and missionary roots.

Furthermore, by immediately pivoting to the “contributions” of Hindu-Americans, the HAF reframes the narrative from one of conversion to one of civic participation. It shifts the focus from a personal spiritual choice—which most Hindu-American organizations explicitly state they respect—to the public and political responsibility of a leader to represent all constituents. The underlying message is clear: you are willing to speak about Hinduism in the context of your wife’s past, but are you willing to speak to the Hindu-Americans who are your fellow citizens in the present?

This incident cannot be divorced from the broader political context in which it occurs. The Republican party, under the wing of which Vance now runs, has increasingly embraced a vision of America as a Christian nation. This ideology, often labeled Christian nationalism, can create an environment where non-Abrahamic faiths, like Hinduism and Buddhism, are viewed not merely as different, but as foreign or incomplete. For Hindu-Americans, a community that has worked diligently to combat stereotypes and establish itself as a model minority of successful immigrants, Vance’s comments tapped into a latent anxiety about being perpetually seen as the “other,” whose traditions are something to be “brought into” the mainstream faith, rather than respected as mainstream themselves.

Beyond the Vance Household: A Community’s Coming of Age

The HAF’s statement is significant not for its novelty, but for its confidence. It represents a political and cultural coming of age for the Hindu-American community. A generation ago, such a comment from a major political figure might have been met with private dismay but public silence. Today, a well-organized, media-savvy advocacy group can and will respond in real-time, using the language of liberal pluralism—inclusion, engagement, respect—to stake its claim in the national conversation.

This assertiveness is born from a history of having to defend their faith from misrepresentation. From battles over the inaccurate portrayal of Hinduism in California school textbooks to combating the rise of Hinduphobia masquerading as academic criticism, organizations like HAF have been forced to become sophisticated political operators. Their response to Vance is a continuation of this work: a preemptive move to ensure their faith is not used as a mere backdrop in a political narrative about Christian conversion, but is acknowledged as a living, vibrant tradition deserving of a direct political relationship.

The personal faith of Usha Vance remains just that—profoundly personal. The HAF and other community leaders have been careful not to question her individual journey. The issue lies in the political instrumentalization of that journey. When a candidate celebrates the conversion of a person from a minority faith to the majority faith, it sends a symbolic message to members of that minority faith about their place in the candidate’s America.

In the end, the question, “Engage with Hinduism too?” is more than a witty retort. It is a demand for a more mature and inclusive form of identity politics. It challenges the Vance campaign, and American politics at large, to move beyond a framework that merely tolerates the personal religious histories of its citizens, and toward one that actively engages with their present-day communities. In a nation whose motto is “E Pluribus Unum” — Out of Many, One — the Vance episode is a reminder that the “many” include three million Hindus who are no longer content to be silent footnotes in someone else’s spiritual-political story. They are waiting, and watching, to see if they will be engaged as equals.