However much we may disagree with the objectives and with the pompous and xenophobic style of the Hindu nationalist movement, we have to admit that the movement has grown and come to power largely by obeying the procedures of parliamentary democracy.
(1/4)
(1/4)
This opens the larger question of the forms that democratic discourse and practices have historically taken in India.
Was the political culture of the so-called liberal middle class, which provided the backbone to the independent nation-state, ever liberal and democratic?
(2/4)
Was the political culture of the so-called liberal middle class, which provided the backbone to the independent nation-state, ever liberal and democratic?
(2/4)
Or was it rather dominated by a paternalist nationalist discourse within which ordinary Indians merely provided the necessary but uncomfortable numerical strength?
Is Hindu nationalism really revealing the dark side of the Hindu middle-class culture...
(3/4)
Is Hindu nationalism really revealing the dark side of the Hindu middle-class culture...
(3/4)
....and social world of the "educated sections" who have dominated Indian public culture and the Indian state for so long—the authoritarian longings, the complacency, and the fear of the "underdog," the "masses," and the Muslims?
(4/4)
(4/4)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
