Recently, during an event organized by Turning Point USA at Mississippi University, U.S. Vice President JD Vance sparked a worldwide debate with his remarks about converting his Hindu wife, Usha Vance, to Christianity.
JD Vance said:
“Most Sundays, Usha will come with me to church… Do I hope, eventually, that she’s moved by the Church? Honestly, I do, because I believe in the Christian Gospel.”
His statement reignited a sensitive discussion on religious conversion, identity, and interfaith marriages—especially those between Abrahamic and Dharmic traditions.
Critics argue that JD’s words reveal a colonial mindset and cultural arrogance—an assumption that another faith is inferior or incomplete and must be “corrected.” It echoes a long history of theological superiority cloaked as love or salvation.
In Hindu memory, it is well understood that when non-Hindu partners—particularly from Abrahamic backgrounds—marry Hindus, the balance of faith often shifts toward the Abrahamic side.
History bears witness: during colonial India, many European men married Hindu women, yet their descendants vanished into the folds of Christianity. Conversion became the unspoken expectation. These marriages ultimately served as instruments of control, cultural dilution, and faith extinction.
For nearly two centuries, Hindu heritage was systematically weakened under colonial and missionary influence.
Even today, the idea of “religious freedom” carries very different meanings across civilizations.
For Hindus, it means freedom to preserve one’s spiritual path.
For Christianity, it often means freedom to evangelize and convert others.
Abrahamic religions function on a dual axis:
Hinduism, by contrast, rests on pluralism, where truth is many-sided and divinity manifests in countless forms. It does not seek to convert anyone.
Conservative Christians are clear about their theological exclusivity. Jesus may be accepted as an additional deity in a Hindu home, but reciprocity is impossible—Hindu divinities like Rama or Krishna cannot be welcomed in a Christian household.
Throughout history, Political Christianity expanded through conquest, colonization, and conversion. Across continents, indigenous cultures were displaced in the name of salvation.
Today, Western agencies like USCIRF (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom) often accuse India of lacking “religious freedom” because it has enacted anti-conversion laws in many states.
For Hindus, these laws are not restrictions but protections against predatory proselytization and cultural extinction.
The Catholicism that JD Vance hopes his wife might embrace carries a dark colonial legacy.
The Goa Inquisition (1561–1812), led by Portuguese Catholic authorities, was among the most brutal religious persecutions in Indian history.
Temples were demolished, sacred texts burned, and thousands of Hindus were forcibly converted under threat of torture and death.
Even today, the echoes of this historical trauma linger in Goa. The missionary impulse—though rebranded as humanitarian aid or faith sharing—still carries the undertone of cultural erasure.
Even Mother Teresa, an Albanian Catholic nun in Kolkata, has faced criticism for converting vulnerable Hindus under the guise of charity.
Ideally, interfaith marriage should build bridges, not battlegrounds. But when a faith rooted in exclusivity meets one founded on inclusivity, imbalance is inevitable.
When JD Vance says, “I believe in the Christian Gospel,” he reaffirms a theology offering salvation only through Jesus Christ. Hinduism, however, teaches that liberation (moksha) is attained through karma, dharma, and personal spiritual effort—not belief in a single savior.
This fundamental difference challenges the very premise of mutual respect in interfaith unions.
Reports suggest that Usha Vance has encouraged her husband to “find his own path” in faith—a gesture of openness typical of Hindu thought.
Yet one must ask: Why does spiritual coexistence so often flow only one way?
Would conservative Christians tolerate it if Usha encouraged JD to embrace Hinduism?
Would their children be raised in both traditions—or only one?
JD’s public remarks subtly portray his wife’s faith as second-class, reinforcing a hierarchy of belief that Christianity often imposes on “the other.”
In doing so, he not only appeals to conservative voters but also revives a centuries-old pattern—faith used as political capital.
In America’s conservative heartlands, JD Vance’s words were strategically calculated. By publicly expressing evangelical conviction, he consolidates support among Christian nationalists.
The Western media’s silence is predictable. They are quick to amplify accusations of “Hindu extremism,” yet they rarely critique conversionist zeal.
For them, conversion equals salvation, while preservation equals extremism.
Whether Usha converts or not, the optics serve his political rise—perhaps even toward a 2028 presidential bid.
But globally, his statement raises a deeper concern: when faith becomes a campaign tool, private belief turns into public propaganda—tragically at the expense of Dharmic traditions.
This piece is not against any faith or interfaith union. It is a call for awareness and self-preservation among Dharmic individuals.
Interfaith marriages between Hindu and Abrahamic partners are not an equal playing field—they are historically, culturally, and theologically asymmetric.
Many couples begin with liberal or secular ideals, but as life evolves, faith re-emerges. JD Vance, once an atheist, now raises his children as Christians because he “believes in the Gospel.”
Was this mutual spiritual evolution—or unilateral transformation?
Those considering interfaith unions can benefit from the guidance of Dr. Dilip Amin, founder of the Hindu Interfaith Network, who helps couples navigate these complex realities with wisdom and empathy.
Love may unite hearts, but heritage should never become a conquest.
One may find love again—but not a lost civilization.
True interfaith harmony thrives not when one partner converts, but when both honor the divinity in each other’s tradition. That is where human rights, women’s rights, and children’s rights are protected.
In an age of pluralism, tolerance does not mean uniformity—it means coexistence.
And coexistence begins when conversion zeal yields to mutual reverence and humility.
1. JD Vance repeats comments he wants his wife, Usha, to convert to Christianity. Lauren Aratani 02/11/25 www.theaguardian.com
2. JD Vance and the hollow faith of American hypocrisy- Savio Rodrigues, 02/11/25 www.sundayguardianlive.com
3. The Goan Inquisition by the Portuguese: A forgotten holocaust of Hindus and Jews. 18/09/20 www.opindia.com
4. Troubled individual’:Mother Teresa no saint to her critics 04/09/16 www.edition.cnn.com
Select your answer to see how you score.
