Islamophobia is so normalised in this society that someone like Owaisi is "counter-radicalising" the people, but Mayawati is representing the oppressed people and giving them a voice. So, the former will always be accused of "vote-cutting" but never the latter.
If you take the example of Bihar elections alone, you will find the ridiculousness and duplicity of this argument.
Check out this thread which examines all the 20 seats contested by AIMIM and whether they hurt MGB anywhere.
Despite the fact that it was BSP and not AIMIM who hurt MGB's chances, you will find INC spokespersons going on national television accusing Owaisi, not Mayawati, of "counter-radicalisation" and being a "b-team of BJP" without a shred of evidence.
Because Islamophobia sells.
Don't get me wrong, neither AIMIM nor BSP are "radicalising" anyone, they are merely representing the interests of those who've been marginalised by the mainstream parties for all this while. It is their constitutional right to do so, and you're no one to deny them that.
You may not endorse identity politics, I personally don't. You may have disagreements with many of their political positions, I personally do.
But you are no one to question whether or where they should contest elections. Get that into your head.
Tell people why it's better to vote for you and not them, introspect why you alienate them, and get off your fucking high horse where you think you have the god-given right to decide who should contest where in elections.
It is upon you to earn votes, nobody owes it to you.
The worst part of all is the ridiculous false equivalence some people draw between BJP & AIMIM. They will never do this for BSP.
If you think the opposition to BJP is merely because they represent the interests of Hindus, you are just too daft to even comment on Indian politics.
If a party represents a certain community's interests, there is nothing to be opposed there, especially if that community is marginalised. The problem comes when their politics advocates supremacy and infringes upon others' rights. That is what is called majoritarianism.
It is pathetic that people, who don't understand the basics of politics, authentically try to explain how "radicalisation" & "counter-radicalisation" works, all the while being blissfully ignorant of the Islamophobic glasses they are wearing.
Wake up before it's too late.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Liberals are strongly opposed to conservative values in all cultures across the world. But in a culturally diverse society, there exists an added layer to this opposition which is based on misperceptions about the foreign cultures.
2. Liberals from one culture tend to feel more strongly opposed to the conservative values of other cultures because they don't fully understand the social intricacies of the foreign culture. Thus, a part of their opposition arises out of ignorance and a phobia is generated.
3. A phobia implies an irrational, unreasonable aversion towards a culture in this context. Both anti-semitism and islamophobia are examples of this. Essentially, you don't know about a culture but yet you tend to believe the worst about them based on hearsay.
"Rather than curbing the power of caste, then, economic liberalisation has exacerbated caste differences because it has exacerbated inequality in a society stratified along caste lines."
"It is certainly the case that in liberal democratic societies, the formal equality of individuals serves as a convenient alibi for obscuring collective histories of advantage and disadvantage."
"We see this playing out in evaluations of merit in which the individual is treated as a person with certain innate capacities rather than as a person who has been afforded structural advantages."
While ideas like secularism and pluralism are undoubtedly the goals which we must work towards, we must recognise the fact that these words have never had much to do with the reality of this society. Even the most progressive thinkers in the mainstream often fail to realise this.
Those who've been marginalised by the oppressive power structures in this society will invariably mock the facade of those in the mainstream calling themselves "secular" or "plural". It is crucial to realise that this mockery isn't coming from a place of ideological opposition.
Their mockery is coming from a place of mistrust that got accumulated based on their lived experiences in a society that has turned its back on them for ages. It is an expression of exhaustion from participating in an age-old charade about an imaginary secular society.
All the popular arguments against caste-based reservations are founded on myths and have no basis in reality. This is not surprising as the dominant social groups are always threatened by attempts to create a more equal and just society.
A thread with counter-arguments 👇🏽
Argument 1: "Those who are economically better off benefits more than the weak, so caste should be replaced by economic criteria for reservation"
Counter argument –– Part 1: The premise itself is invalid. Reservation in employment has been a significantly pro-poor policy.
a) According to the National Sample Survey data, in 2011–12, about 68% of all permanent SC employees were educated below the secondary and higher secondary levels or were diploma holders, while 32% were educated up to the graduate level or above.
Reacting to RG's tweet about how minorities are being ostracised in India, many have reiterated their belief that him, his mother and his sister are the only people in the INC leadership who won't switch to BJP. Unfortunately, 3 people don't make a party, it's a family.
Such a statement by the INC supporters is not just an endorsement of the Gandhi family, it is also a statement of dissent against their party's pro-Hindutva politics, which they see as antithetical to the family's ideology. This is a welcome development during a fascist rule.
It is good that INC supporters are able to see through the fault-lines of their party and are condemning the likes of Scindia who've left the party and joined the BJP (including Khushbu, the latest one to switch).
Sooner all of them leave, the better for the Congress party.
In solidarity with Bhagyalakshmi, Diya Sana & Sreelakshmi ✊🏽
It takes courage to do what they did and then accept the accountability for it. Here's hoping that this glorious effort will serve as a lesson to every misogynist hiding behind their computers and spewing venom online.
There are many who see nothing wrong in what that vile man did. To hell with them. But a lot of men (and a few women) who otherwise stand against patriarchy have refused to support their act citing few concerns.
Let's address their arguments one by one.
"They shouldn't have taken law into their hands"
Like in the case of #MeToo movement, it is precisely because there is no proper process in place to address the problem that these activists had to take law into their hands. Active resistance arises out of a failed system.