Identity Politics in 2025: How Cultural Conflicts Are Reshaping Democracyfrom India to America
An in-depth examination of how identity politics-rooted in caste, religion, ethnicity, and nationalism-is transforming democracies across India, Asia, Europe, and the United States, and what it means for global stability.
There is a fundamental question haunting democracies across the world in 2025: Who are we? This seemingly simple query has become the defining political battleground of our era, fracturing societies along lines of caste, religion, ethnicity, and national identity. From the streets of New Delhi to the ballot boxes of Berlin, from the divisive politics of Washington to the Buddhist-Muslim tensions in Myanmar, identity has displaced ideology as the primary organizing principle of global politics.
I have spent considerable time observing how this transformation unfolds differently across continents, yet follows eerily similar patterns. Identity politics is not a singular phenomenon-it is a kaleidoscope of movements, each claiming to liberate marginalized groups while often creating new forms of exclusion. As Samuel Huntington controversially predicted, culture has effectively displaced ideology in the post-Cold War world, though the reality is far more complex than his "clash of civilizations" thesis suggested.
What makes 2025 particularly significant is the convergence of three forces: the continued aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic that exposed deep inequalities, the accelerating effects of globalization creating cultural backlash, and the rise of populist leaders who weaponize identity for electoral gain. This convergence is reshaping whether nationalism is destroying democracy and fundamentally altering how power operates in modern societies.
Politics is no longer primarily about economic redistribution or ideological struggle-it has become an existential battle over identity, belonging, and the very meaning of citizenship in pluralistic societies.
Understanding Identity Politics: More Than Symbolic Recognition
Identity politics represents an orientation toward social theorizing and political practice rather than a coherent ideology. Its central feature is the attempt to challenge and overthrow oppression by reshaping a group's identity through politico-cultural self-assertion. This manifests variously-from second-wave feminism and LGBTQ+ movements to ethnic nationalism, multiculturalism, and religious fundamentalism.
Two characteristic beliefs unite all forms of identity politics. First, group marginalization is understood as a fundamentally cultural phenomenon. It operates through stereotypes and values developed by dominant groups that structure how marginalized groups see themselves and are seen by others. Conventional notions of identity therefore inculcate inferiority and shame, entrenching subordination.
Second, subordination can be challenged by reshaping identity to give the group concerned a sense of publicly proclaimed pride and self-respect-"black is beautiful," "gay pride," "Hindu rashtra," or "Make America Great Again." Embracing and proclaiming positive social identity serves as defiance, liberating people from others' power to determine their identity, and as an assertion of group solidarity.
Critics argue that identity politics "miniaturizes" humanity by seeing people only through group belonging, fosters division through exclusive notions of identity, and embodies contradictions-as seen in tensions between women's liberation movements and patriarchal religious fundamentalists, or between inclusive LGBTQ+ activism and exclusionary ethnic nationalism.
The Three Drivers of Identity Politics' Rise
The upsurge in identity politics since the late twentieth century can be traced to three interconnected factors that have reshaped political consciousness globally:
1. The Failure of Socialism and Collapse of Communism: Until the 1970s, socially disadvantaged groups articulated aspirations through socialism. By providing a critique of exploitation and standing for equality, socialism exerted powerful appeal for oppressed peoples worldwide. However, the failure of developing-world socialist regimes to eradicate poverty meant postcolonial nationalism was increasingly remodeled around values more deeply rooted in local societies-ethnic nationalism and religious fundamentalism. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe powerfully reinforced this trend. Communist rule had merely fossilized ethnic and national loyalties, meaning ethnic and religious nationalism became natural vehicles for expressing anti-communism. The break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s demonstrated this dramatically, as ethnic identity politics divided Bosnia into "ethnically pure" Muslim, Serb, and Croat areas.
2. Globalization and Cultural Resistance: Identity politics can be seen as resistance against globalization's cultural impact. Globalization has been associated with homogenization-a relatively narrow common culture adopted worldwide. Features include growing urbanization, common technology, global goods, consumerism, materialism, and cultural mixing through "multiculturalization." Benjamin Barber called this "McWorld"-a complex of Western, often specifically US, influences, appetites, and values. However, resistance has rarely taken the form of simple traditionalism. Whereas traditional conceptions of belonging were "given"-stemming from unquestioned bonds and loyalties-those generated by identity politics are "modern" in that they're shaped by individualization and involve self-definition. This intersection of individual cognitive processes with broader forces gives identity its political potency and emotional power. This explains why identity politics takes root not in traditional societies but in modern societies or societies where traditional belonging is being disrupted by modern influences.
3. Postcolonialism and the Search for Non-Western Identity: The structures of Western political domination were challenged long before its cultural and ideological domination. Anti-colonialism reached its high point post-1945 as European empires collapsed. However, the influence of socialism in the developing world declined from the 1970s onwards, as postcolonialism emerged, reflected in the quest for non-western and sometimes anti-western political philosophies. A major factor was growing resentment against ex-imperial powers that continued exercising economic and cultural domination-postcolonialism and neo-colonialism were linked processes.
The Paradox of Modern Identity
There is something deeply uncomfortable about identity politics that we must acknowledge: it simultaneously liberates and constrains. It empowers marginalized groups to assert dignity and demand recognition, yet it can trap individuals within rigid categories, making identity prescriptive rather than descriptive. A Dalit in India, a Muslim in Europe, or an African American in the United States may find empowerment in collective identity-but also find themselves reduced to that identity by both supporters and opponents.
This paradox explains why identity politics generates such fierce debate: it addresses real injustices while potentially creating new forms of exclusion. The challenge facing democracies in 2025 is not to abandon identity politics-the grievances it addresses are genuine-but to develop forms of it that remain open, intersectional, and committed to universal human dignity rather than group supremacy.
India 2025: Caste, Religion, and the Battle for National Identity
India presents perhaps the world's most complex laboratory for identity politics. As the world's most populous nation and largest democracy, how India negotiates competing identities has profound implications for global politics. The country's 2024 elections-which saw Prime Minister Narendra Modi's BJP fail to win an outright majority for the first time since 2014-revealed the limits of Hindu nationalist identity politics even as they confirmed its continued salience.
The Caste System in Modern Politics
Caste remains the oldest and most entrenched form of identity politics in India. Defined as hereditary social ranking evident in traditional South Asian societies, the caste system contains four main categories: Brahmins (priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers), Vaishyas (merchants), and Shudras (workers). Precisely 68% of India's population self-identify as belonging to lower castes, while a mere 4% identify as Brahmins.
The caste system has been both resource and barrier in Indian politics. Ambedkar's Commission designed "protective discrimination"-reservations granting underprivileged sections certain privileges and removing stigmas like "untouchability" for Shudras. Meanwhile, the Mandal Commission viewed caste as a vital political resource to secure gains. In 2025, caste politics remains vibrant: lower-caste political mobilization contributed significantly to the BJP's reduced majority in 2024, as OBC (Other Backward Classes) and Dalit voters increasingly questioned whether Hindu nationalism adequately addressed caste-based economic marginalization.
Hindu Nationalism's Evolution
The BJP and affiliated organizations like the RSS seek to make Hinduism the basis of national identity, calling for "Hinduization" of Muslim, Sikh, Jain and other communities. However, 2024 elections revealed growing resistance, particularly among younger voters and women, to what critics call "majoritarian" politics that undermines constitutional secularism.
Source: 2011 Census of India
Regional Identity Movements
India's linguistic and regional identities create counterweights to Hindu nationalism. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal have strong traditions of resisting Hindi imposition and Hindu nationalism, maintaining distinct political cultures that prioritize regional identity, language rights, and social justice over religious nationalism.
Source: Constitution of India, Eighth Schedule
What distinguishes India's identity politics in 2025 is its intersection with digital technology. The Aadhaar biometric identification system-covering over 1.3 billion Indians-has become a tool for both inclusion and surveillance. While it has improved access to government services and financial inclusion, critics argue it enables state monitoring and can be weaponized to exclude marginalized communities, particularly Muslims facing citizenship challenges under the Citizenship Amendment Act.
India's experience demonstrates a crucial truth about identity politics: it cannot be understood separately from questions of equality. When caste and religious identity intersect with profound economic inequality, identity becomes simultaneously a source of solidarity and a mechanism of division.
India as Global South Leader
India's approach to identity politics has international dimensions. Through its G20 presidency and Voice of the Global South summits, India positions itself as champion of developing nations' interests against Western dominance. This involves asserting a specifically Indian-and implicitly Hindu civilizational-identity distinct from both Western liberalism and Chinese authoritarianism. India's Digital Public Infrastructure initiatives, including Aadhaar and UPI, are being shared with 50 countries, spreading India's model of technology-enabled governance that embeds specific cultural and political assumptions.
Asia's Identity Politics: Beyond the "Asian Values" Debate
The idea that Asian culture constitutes an alternative to Western values gained momentum during the 1980s-90s with Japan's economic rise and the success of "Asian tiger" economies. The Bangkok Declaration of 1993 boldly stated preferences for "Asian values"-emphasizing community over individualism, duties over rights, social harmony over confrontation, and socio-economic well-being over political freedoms.
The 1997-98 Asian financial crisis damaged but did not destroy this narrative. China's rise and, to a lesser extent, India's emergence have revived interest in Asian values, now orientated more specifically around Confucianism and Hindu civilization. However, the notion of monolithic "Asian civilization" is deeply problematic-Asian culture encompasses Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Daoism, and more, with each national tradition highly diverse internally.
China's Civilizational Assertion
Under Xi Jinping, China increasingly frames its authoritarian system as rooted in Confucian values of hierarchy, harmony, and collective well-being rather than Western individualism. The "China Dream" narrative asserts that Chinese civilization offers a superior development model, particularly for Global South nations. However, this masks how Maoist Marxism-Leninism disrupted traditional Confucianism, creating a hybrid rather than purely traditional identity.
Source: IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2024
Japan's Quiet Nationalism
Japan demonstrates how identity politics can operate in mature democracies. Despite being Asia's most Westernized democracy, Japan maintains strong ethnic nationalism-resistance to immigration, emphasis on cultural homogeneity, and historical revisionism regarding WWII. The Abe era saw attempts to "normalize" Japan militarily and assert national pride, responding to both Chinese rise and perceived American decline.
Source: OECD International Migration Database 2023
What's striking about Asian identity politics in 2025 is how it has become weaponized in geopolitical competition. China uses civilizational rhetoric to justify its authoritarian system and challenge Western "universal" values. India invokes ancient Hindu civilization to distinguish itself from both Western liberalism and Chinese communism. Southeast Asian nations navigate between these poles, maintaining pragmatic economic ties with China while resisting its cultural and political influence.
The tension between individual rights and collective harmony-often portrayed as an East-West divide-proves more complex in practice. Young Asians increasingly demand both economic opportunity and political freedom, challenging authoritarian claims that democracy is incompatible with "Asian values." The 2024 elections in Taiwan, where voters chose continued democracy over Beijing's pressure, demonstrated this vividly.
The West's Identity Crisis: Migration, Nationalism, and Democratic Backsliding
If identity politics in Asia and the Global South represents assertion against Western dominance, identity politics in Europe and America represents anxiety about the West's changing position and composition. Migration has become the lightning rod issue, serving as proxy for deeper questions about national identity, cultural continuity, and sovereignty.
Europe's Nationalist Turn
Across Europe, nationalist and far-right parties have gained ground by framing immigration as an existential threat to European identity. This represents a fundamental reconfiguration of European politics. Marine Le Pen's National Rally in France, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Italy's Giorgia Meloni, and similar movements across the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, and Hungary share common themes: opposition to immigration (particularly from Muslim countries), skepticism toward the EU, and emphasis on preserving national identity and Christian heritage.
The 2024 European Parliament elections saw significant far-right gains, though not the "earthquake" some predicted. What's significant is the mainstreaming of identity politics rhetoric by center-right parties attempting to compete with the far-right. This shift has made migration restriction, national identity, and cultural preservation central to European political discourse in ways unthinkable twenty years ago.
France's ban on religious symbols in schools-aimed primarily at preventing Muslim girls from wearing hijabs-exemplifies how identity politics takes different forms in different contexts. Framed as defending secularism (laïcité), it reflects deeper anxieties about whether Muslim communities can be integrated into French national identity. Similar debates rage across Europe: should societies accommodate religious and cultural diversity, or should newcomers assimilate into existing national cultures?
The Islamophobia Question
Muslim communities in Europe face what many scholars call "securitization" of their identity-viewing Muslims primarily through the lens of security threats rather than as citizens. This has intensified since 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks in European cities. The result is a peculiar form of identity politics: Muslims in Europe increasingly assert Islamic identity as both resistance to discrimination and search for community, while European majorities increasingly view Islam as incompatible with European values. This mutual radicalization of identity-each side seeing the other as existential threat-represents one of contemporary Europe's most dangerous dynamics.
Yet the picture is more complex than media coverage suggests. Opinion polls consistently show large majorities of European Muslims support democratic values, gender equality, and LGBTQ+ rights at higher rates than European publics did a generation ago. The problem is not civilizational incompatibility but rather marginalization, discrimination, and the failure of integration policies that would allow Muslims to be both Muslim and European without contradiction.
America: Identity Politics and Democratic Crisis
The United States presents identity politics in its most volatile form. The Trump phenomenon-from his 2016 election through attempted insurrection in 2021 and his political persistence-cannot be understood without grasping how he weaponized white identity politics. His "Make America Great Again" slogan explicitly promised to restore a (mythical) era when white Christian Americans dominated politically, economically, and culturally.
American identity politics operates on multiple, intersecting axes: race (white vs. Black, Hispanic, Asian), religion (Christian vs. secular, Judeo-Christian vs. Muslim), geography (urban vs. rural, coastal vs. heartland), education (college vs. non-college), and increasingly, information ecosystem (Fox News vs. MSNBC, Facebook vs. Twitter). These divisions have become so entrenched that Americans increasingly inhabit separate realities, disagree on basic facts, and view political opponents not as fellow citizens with different views but as enemies threatening America's survival.
The Republican Party's transformation from free-market conservatism to nationalist populism represents identity politics' triumph over ideology. Economic policy has become secondary to cultural warfare over critical race theory, transgender rights, immigration, and "wokeness." The Democratic Party, meanwhile, struggles to balance identity politics of marginalized groups (Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+ rights, immigrant rights) with appeals to working-class voters of all races. This tension contributed to Trump's initial victory and remains unresolved.
What makes American identity politics particularly dangerous is its intersection with democratic institutions. Efforts to restrict voting rights, challenge election results, and delegitimize political opponents threaten democratic stability in ways not seen since the Civil War era. When identity politics convinces people that electoral loss means existential threat, democracy cannot function-compromise becomes betrayal, and political opponents become enemies to be defeated by any means.
This connects directly to my earlier analysis of whether nationalism is destroying democracy. When national identity becomes exclusive rather than inclusive, when "real Americans" or "true Indians" or "authentic Europeans" means excluding large portions of the population, democracy's foundation-equal citizenship-erodes.
Religious Fundamentalism as Identity Politics
Perhaps the most potent form of identity politics globally is religious fundamentalism-the rejection of any distinction between religion and politics, making religious principles the organizing principles of public life. This has manifested most dramatically in Islamic fundamentalism but also in Hindu nationalism, Christian nationalism in the United States, and Buddhist nationalism in Myanmar and Sri Lanka.
Political Islam and Western Anxiety
Islam's relationship with identity politics deserves particular attention given its centrality to contemporary geopolitics. With 1.3-1.5 billion Muslims worldwide (roughly one-fifth of humanity), Islam is the world's second-largest and fastest-growing religion. Unlike the secular trajectory of most Western societies, many Muslim-majority societies have seen increased religiosity since the 1970s, most dramatically in Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Islamic fundamentalism (or Islamism) seeks to establish Islamic states applying Shari'a law, remove Western influence from Muslim lands, and potentially wage wider struggle against Western cultural and political dominance. Organizations from the Muslim Brotherhood to al-Qaeda to ISIS represent different points on this spectrum, from those seeking political change through democratic participation to those advocating violence against both "apostate" Muslim rulers and Western powers.
Three interpretations of Islamist militancy compete:
1. Islam as inherently problematic: This view-aligned with Huntington's "clash of civilizations"-sees Islam as fundamentally incompatible with pluralism, democracy, and individual rights. Islamic fundamentalism, from this perspective, is not perversion but realization of Islam's core beliefs. This view seriously misrepresents Islam's teachings, ignores historical Islamic tolerance and intellectual contributions, and conveniently forgets that "greater jihad" refers to inner spiritual struggle rather than holy war.
2. Historical grievance and humiliation: Bernard Lewis and others argue Muslim militancy responds to specific historical circumstances-Ottoman Empire's collapse, European colonialism, Israel's creation, failed Arab nationalism, corrupt authoritarian regimes, and perceived Western hypocrisy and interference. From this perspective, Islamism is primarily political response to powerlessness and humiliation rather than religious imperative.
3. Anti-Western totalitarianism: Paul Berman and others place Islamism alongside fascism and communism as totalitarian movements emerging from liberalism's apparent failure. All promise to rebuild society as unified, morally pure, and certain-rejecting individualism, secularism, and relativism that characterize modern Western societies. This perspective sees Islamism as latest manifestation of "Occidentalism"-rejection of Western Enlightenment values.
The reality likely combines elements of all three. Islam, like any major religion, contains interpretations compatible with pluralism and democracy alongside more exclusivist readings. Historical circumstances-colonialism's legacy, Palestinian dispossession, failed development, authoritarian governance-create conditions where militant interpretations gain traction. And the appeal of certainty, community, and moral clarity in an uncertain world helps explain fundamentalism's attraction across religions.
The problem is not Islam versus the West, but rather the failure of both to imagine futures where diverse identities coexist without one dominating or threatening the other-where you can be both Muslim and European, both Hindu and secular, both proud of heritage and committed to pluralism.
Beyond Huntington: Is Cultural Conflict Inevitable?
Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" thesis-arguing that post-Cold War conflict would be primarily cultural rather than ideological or economic-has shaped how many understand contemporary identity politics. Huntington identified eight major civilizations (Western, Orthodox, Islamic, Hindu, Sinic, Japanese, Latin American, African) and predicted conflict at "fault-lines" where they meet, as well as potential macro-level conflict between core states.
The thesis has serious flaws. Huntington's "tectonic" model presents civilizations as homogeneous and distinct when they're actually complex, internally diverse, and have always interpenetrated one another. Islamic civilization includes Sunni/Shia divisions, Arab/Persian/Turkish/South Asian/Southeast Asian variations, and modernist/traditionalist debates. Western civilization encompasses deep differences between American individualism, European social democracy, and Anglo-Saxon capitalism. The model commits "culturalism"-overstating culture's role while ignoring how political and economic factors shape cultural identities.
What appears as cultural conflict often has deeper causes. Yugoslavia's ethnic wars resulted not from ancient hatreds but from nationalist mobilization in communism's power vacuum. Israel-Palestine reflects colonial history, territorial disputes, and political failures more than civilizational incompatibility. Rohingya persecution in Myanmar stems from Buddhist nationalism cynically deployed by military junta more than doctrinal Buddhism.
Yet Huntington was partially right: culture has become increasingly important in post-Cold War politics. Not because civilizations naturally clash, but because in an apparently de-ideologized world, identity politics fills the void left by Cold War ideological competition. Globalization's homogenizing pressures trigger reactive identity assertion. The question isn't whether cultures are compatible, but whether political systems can accommodate plural identities without privileging one as dominant.
This connects to my analysis of how conflicts from 2022-2025 increasingly involve identity dimensions-Ukraine's resistance partly rests on asserting Ukrainian identity distinct from Russian imperialism; Gaza involves Palestinian identity assertion against perceived Israeli domination; Sudan's civil war has ethnic identity dimensions despite being primarily about power.
Navigating Identity Politics Without Destroying Democracy
Identity politics is not going away. The grievances it addresses-marginalization, cultural erasure, historical injustices-are real. The question is not whether to have identity politics but what kind: exclusive or inclusive, supremacist or egalitarian, zero-sum or capable of accommodation.
Several principles can guide democratic societies:
1. Recognize Intersectionality: People have multiple identities-caste, religion, region, language, class, gender, sexuality-that intersect in complex ways. Politics that reduces people to single identities miniaturizes humanity and creates false binaries. A Dalit Muslim woman experiences marginalization differently than an upper-caste Hindu man, and policies must account for these intersections.
2. Distinguish Recognition from Domination: Marginalized groups seeking recognition of dignity and demanding equal treatment differs fundamentally from dominant groups seeking to preserve supremacy. Identity politics that challenges subordination deserves support; identity politics that maintains dominance deserves opposition. White nationalism and Dalit assertion are not equivalent-one seeks to preserve hierarchy, the other to dismantle it.
3. Maintain Civic Nationalism: National identity can be based on shared political values and constitutional commitment rather than ethnic, religious, or racial homogeneity. American identity defined by constitutional values rather than whiteness, Indian identity by constitutional secularism rather than Hindu majoritarianism, European identity by human rights rather than Christian exclusivism-these remain possible, though increasingly contested.
4. Economic Justice Reduces Identity Conflict: Much identity politics reflects economic insecurity and inequality. When people feel economically threatened, they become more receptive to exclusionary identity politics blaming outsiders. Addressing economic inequality doesn't eliminate identity conflicts but reduces their intensity and makes accommodation easier.
5. Protect Pluralism Institutionally: Constitutional protections for minorities, independent judiciaries, free press, and civil society create conditions where diverse identities can coexist. When these institutions weaken-as they have in Hungary, Turkey, India, and even America-majoritarian identity politics threatens minority rights and democratic stability.
The Indian Context: A Model or Warning?
India's experience with identity politics offers lessons for other diverse democracies. For seven decades, India managed extraordinary diversity through constitutional secularism, federalism allowing regional autonomy, linguistic states accommodating language identities, reservations addressing caste discrimination, and acceptance of multiple personal laws for different religious communities. This "unity in diversity" model, while imperfect, prevented identity conflicts from destroying democratic stability.
However, the rise of Hindu nationalism challenges this settlement. When majoritarianism replaces pluralism as organizing principle, when Muslim citizens are treated as suspect or second-class, when dissent is labeled anti-national, democracy's foundations erode. India's trajectory matters not just for 1.4 billion Indians but as test case for whether diverse democracies can maintain pluralism against majoritarian identity politics. The 2024 elections suggested limits to Hindu nationalism's appeal-voters, particularly young and female voters, prioritized economic issues over cultural ones-but the struggle continues.
Conclusion: Identity, Democracy, and the Future
Standing at the beginning of 2026, we face a world where identity politics has become democracy's central challenge. From New Delhi to Washington, from Paris to Jakarta, from Moscow to Jerusalem, questions of identity-who belongs, who has power, whose culture dominates-shape political contests more than traditional left-right economic debates.
This transformation reflects genuine changes in how power operates in globalized, post-industrial societies. Economic issues haven't disappeared, but they're increasingly understood through identity lenses. Immigration isn't just economic but cultural. Climate policy isn't just environmental but involves justice and identity. Technology regulation isn't just technical but involves competing visions of digital identity and surveillance.
The challenge is developing forms of identity politics compatible with democracy's requirements: equal citizenship, minority rights, peaceful power transfers, and disagreement without violence. This requires rejecting both extremes-liberals who dismiss all identity politics as divisive tribalism, and identitarians who see only group conflict with no common ground.
My perspective, shaped by observing Indian, Asian, European and American contexts, is that identity politics need not destroy democracy if we commit to inclusive rather than exclusive forms, recognize rather than erase legitimate differences, and maintain institutions protecting pluralism. This requires what I earlier called understanding power as an unfinished question-not something any group finally possesses but something continuously negotiated in democratic societies.
The alternative-allowing identity politics to become purely zero-sum, where one group's gain requires another's loss-leads toward democratic breakdown and potential violence. We've seen this trajectory before, in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and elsewhere. The stakes in 2025 are whether diverse democracies can navigate identity politics toward coexistence rather than conflict.
There is no inevitable clash of civilizations. There is, however, a choice: between identity politics that celebrates human diversity while maintaining human solidarity, and identity politics that divides humanity into irreconcilable camps. The future depends on which choice democracies make.