Want to say something on Indian politics generally. So much has already been written about the trends in Indian and Western media. But I have two very fundamental points that I think are not often appreciated. Thread...
First, I think this fight is India's and Indians alone have to fight it. The involvement of Western audience isn't necessarily helpful in this fight. I have constantly said one thing: foreign element is more likely to weaken this fight than strengthen it.
If Indian people are largely secular, India will come out of this fight with its secular credentials intact. Foreign help won't be needed. If Indians are not secular, no amount of foreign help will suffice.
However, if Indians are secular foreign help can diminish the fight of the Indians by enhancing the salience of another divide--the foreign-native divide. Nationalism can become a salient force. Once nationalism becomes salient, it invariably wins. It is a very powerful force.
Second, what if Indians can't fight by themselves? There can only be three reasons why Indians cannot fight. One, if there is nothing worth fighting for. Probably the CAA-NRC does not represent the threat we are assuming it to be.
Two, if the people who are leading the fight carry no credibility with the public. Three, the people are at fault. They love discriminatory and exclusionary policies. (Don't freak out, I will eliminate this last option soon)
As a democrat, I refuse to believe that people are at fault. But this is an ideological argument. Let me give an empirical one. If BJP had to win power on the basis of exclusionary politics alone, did it take the BJP (& Jan Sangh) six decades to realise this?
Of course, parties have tried different identity axes -- caste, class, religion, and ethnicity with varying degree of success in Indian elections. That the BJP cracked a winning formula in 2014 is a very simplistic conclusion. There is certainly something else at work.
(I have a hypothesis for what is at work but that is outside the scope of this thread.) I do believe that CAA-NRC thing is definitely discriminatory and exclusionary. I know many do not agree but they too will agree that the primary fault is with the opposition's credibility.
Yes, the people who are leading the charge have very little credibility. I am not talking of students. It is good to see their passion but they are not leading the movement. The leadership is, by and large, in the same hands of opinion-makers of India.
Yes, the same people who have always been against Modi and the BJP. Some of them have been saying "Fascists", "Hitler", "Nazis", etc from the day Modi won the election in 2014. Some of them have even *fabricated* stories, articles and books against Modi. I say this responsibly.
When they come up again saying this is another Fascist step, most people just "yawn" in return! People are used to the same bunch crying every time. Obviously, the CAA-NRC protests is more than the usual bunch. But two question: how much more? And what is their credibility?
The first answer will be tested with time. As a friend said to me in a private conversation, if it is another "woke-type" protest, then it will fizzle out. The second is where I am worried. Some of the protesters embraced violence and arson.
Some of the protesters openly symapthize with Islamist causes -- yeah, no point pretending this is not the case. Some of the slogans shouted were very problematic. As far as I know, one of the videos with problematic slogans is yet to proven inauthentic.
This is also a dilemma for classical liberals in India. (Yes, we are just a handful-- in two digits maximum!) How to fight Islamic fundamentalism without fanning Hindu majoritarianism? And how to curb Hindu majoritarianism without appeasing Islamic fundamentalism?
In sum, the leadership (which includes the old sensationalist and fabricators) and some of the new elements are not giving much cause for hope in this fight. I have been opposing CAA and NRC, but people might have noticed that I don't use sensationalist words and phrases.
Some examples of sensationalist stuff-- "Hindu Pakistan" (sorry, not true by a mile even today), "Fascism", "Nazism", "Azaadi" slogans. Something about the latter. As @rahulpandita has pointed, the Azaadi slogan comes straight from Kashmir.
The stone throwing protesters in Kashmirs, who most intellectuals sympathize with, demand azaadi. They never demand democracy, unlike say protesters in Hong Kong. Protesters in Hong Kong, at times, came out with American flags.
Protesters in Kashmir, at times, come out with ISIS flags. Azaadi is a code word for Islamist rule, not a call for democracy. The autonomy is also an autonomy for internal suppression. India was lucky to have Nehru, Ambedkar and Gandhi who were not just obsessed with freedom...
.. from the British rule, they also emphasized on societal reforms. Which leader in Kashmir -- separatist or mainstream -- has pursued internal societal reforms seriously? Anyway, I don't want to digress further.
Another problem with any leftist movement -- and the slogans suggested this too was one -- in India is the kind of archaic notions they are stuck with. They still shout slogans against Brahminical patriarchy? How many votes are there in India today for abusing Brahminism?
The electoral success of BJP would not have been possible without adding a massive chunk of Dalit votes. While the left was shouting slogans against Manu, Modi cornered actual Dalit votes in large parts of the country.
To sum it all up, the opposition should focus less on sensational tweets and slogans and more on regaining credibility and carrying the message to the real people outside the echo chambers. Blaming the people is not even an option.
