Ethnographic exploration reveals how bureaucrats’ feelings shape legal practices regarding endangered Hindu subjects, impacting justice.
This article explores how low-level bureaucrats in the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand both construct and feel for “endangered” Hindu subjects in ways that profoundly shape their legal practice. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork from rural Uttarakhand, I suggest that focusing on the sociohistorical production of embodied feeling among bureaucrats allows us to understand the incremental, almost unremarked, remaking of law along majoritarian lines. I situate this inquiry in a social and political context marked by violent suspicion of religious minorities, especially Muslim men. Tracking bureaucratic anxieties around love jihad specifically, this article engages the following questions: How are state conceptions of justice, victimhood, and culpability shaped by particular embodied affects which, in turn, are moulded by contingent historical regimes of identification and suspicion? Through what socially resonant attachments and disavowals does this structure of feeling and thinking come into being? How do the emergent, contingent feelings of state actors shape the everyday acts of storytelling, interpretation, and evaluation that make up the reading of a legal case?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Radhika Govindrajan (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: