Thread by @gauravsabnis

A lesson for India from very recent US history on how treating unusual bigotry by the powerful in localized settings as "just politics" can have devastating consequences for the entire polity.

In Dec 2015, a couple in California killed 14 innocent civilians using assault rifles.

Americans kill innocent civilians with guns on a regular basis. What made this attack stand out was that the couple were Muslim immigrants "self-radicalized" and acting as part of the ISIS methodology of independent attacks on soft targets.

It was a "terrorist attack" for sure.

But in the grand scheme of things, in the overall context, while ISIS was still rampant, the tragic incident, while very tragic, was no 9/11, iykwim.

FBI etc were on it already.

But in the grand scheme of things, it was treated as something sad and serious but still, you know.

Except by one man, whose only skill is manipulating the media and getting coverage saying outrageous things.

Donald Trump's response was not the standard "this is bad, this is sad, but we will prevail" stuff that even his then Republican rivals for the nomination issued.

Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

It was a statement met instantly with horror and repudiation from not just liberals, but also conservatives.

In Dec 2015, literally everyone else in the Republican race, even that evil Ted Cruz, was like, this is a bit much. The word "unAmerican" was thrown around, by both parties.

Total and complete shutdown based on religion? Even those who started the Iraq War were aghast!

But other than that initial outrage, that issue was never followed up. Trump won the nomination and the presidency without ever being seriously challenged on "total and complete shutdown on Muslims" statement. Not seriously anyway. People got distracted. And complacent.

The idea that 2017 United States would order a blanket ban on Muslims entering the country, given how deeply and generally peacefully Muslims are woven into the country's fabric, sounded like "just politics".

But 2017 was 5 years ago. We know what happened.

Literally the first thing Trump did after becoming President was issue, not exactly a "total and complete ban" but close enough.

It was not just a "jumla" (political stunt). Bigotry is never a "jumla".

This shook the world and destroyed lives.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive…

What happened in response? Did the Republican Party, which had so strenuously opposed his original idea in December 2015, stand up and say, no dude, this is too much?

Nope. GOP started moving itself collectively towards Trump's position. Of just blanket banning Muslims.

This idea that before the San Bernardino shooting (that killed 14 people out of 40,000 killed by guns in the US that year), was never even remotely considered by even the most conservative US politician, randomly thought of by Trump as a headline grabbing news bomb, was policy!

It's not like there weren't people in the US polity who hated Muslims. There were. It just wasn't politically tenable for them to make outrageously bigoted statements. So they made do with dog whistles.

Trump came and made dog whistles pointless. He just leans into bigotry.

And today in March 2022, we have huge swathes of the Republican Party and even a Supreme Court judgment that says, yeah, cool, nothing wrong with a President banning people from entering the country that way.

A policy that was NOWHERE in US polity is now a GOP position.

It may seem to you like it's just about hijab wearing students in Karnataka, something localized, something inevitable, something "just a symptom".

It's both a symptom AND a "delta variant" which can infect you further.

Unchecked bigotry becomes policy really fast!

The US was lucky enough to have a strong motivated and vocal opposition to this bigotry. And managed to defeat Trump. And despite his hate mongering, US Muslims, while still facing discrimination, are at least no longer targeted by the government like default criminals.

But it did require a lot of us US people, 80 million plus voters and millions of others, to loudly and angrily say,

FUCK YOU! I'm not Muslim but you can't ban Muslims. I'm not a Hispanic immigrant at the border but you can't separate kids from parents! Not in my name!

India can't be saved from sanghis until a lot of Hindus start making a lot of noise about how badly Muslims are treated. Until a lot of savarnas start making a lot of noise about how badly DBA are treated. Until a lot of men start making a lot of noise about how women are treated

If you really care about India and you're not a sanghi, don't stay silent on Twitter and in WhatsApp groups. Make noise. Stand for what is right. Stand for that credo from my childhood -

Unity in Diversity!

There's no one coming to rescue us except us.

Sanghis won India not with some armed rebellion or revolution but by just managing headlines and WhatsApp and Twitter.

As powerful as sanghis seem now, their ramparts are just built on words.

And can be demolished with battering rams made of words.

If we are smart about it.

When sanghis send trolls into my mentions everyday to tell me I'm just some random NRI prof whose tweets and opinions don't matter to anyone, they kinda disprove their own point.

If I'm so inconsequential, why is money being spent on convincing me that I'm inconsequential? 🤔

Because in this world we live in, especially this India we live in, social media is not at all inconsequential. It is THE weapon for fascists. Why they get so paranoid at even the randomest account saying anti BJP stuff online.

That's all they have. Social media hegemony.

I don't have any delusions of grandeur of being influential or important.

But I'm clearly consequential to them! With my modest 24K followers and an ability to write threads that evoke affective responses enough to go modestly viral, I'm still costing the IT cell so much!

Even with my very limited reach, they spend so much money and time on intimidating me and harassing my colleagues and all, it shows their weak spot.

And I'm just a random outspoken academic in a small private university most people haven't heard of.

That's how paranoid they are

Similarly, as small and inconsequential as you think your influence or your social media footprint is, start speaking up loudly, if you care. Become a nuisance, if you must. Repeat the same things if you must. Throw smartly crafted baits.

Don't let them define the headlines.