In a recent article, I analyzed what I saw as a great "identity crisis" in the USA and its fault lines from my vantage point as an objective external observer. Now I turn the spotlight to India's own "identity crisis." While I myself am Indian, over 80% of my adult life has now been in the USA, although I visit India once in a while. I have written many times before about the sociopolitical life of India, including the evolution of the Hindu religions, about the LGBTQ+ community in Hindu/Indian culture, the case for plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, and the case for statehood for Telangana. More recently, I have critiqued misguided liberal policies that I saw as fanning Hindutva nationalism, a personal memoir on salient similarities and differences between India and America, and another critique of (American) liberal policies buttressed with examples from India.
NB: I do not identify as a liberal nor a Hindutva nationalist, Marxist, socialist, capitalist, conservative, libertarian, Dravidian nationalist, sanghi, bhakt, libtard, sickular, raita, trad, or whatever other colorful socio-politico-economic labels people use. I prefer the label freethinker. To me nothing is beyond the reach of critical inquiry. Based on such inquiry, I am a huge supporter of the doctrine of universal human rights (e.g., see this ode I wrote) and of democratic constitutional rule of law rooted in logic, reason, civility, and kindness. I also reject kraterocracy and Social Darwinism as ultimately inimical to humanity.
Why bother writing this now? Indian society is mindbogglingly complex, with an ever-shifting landscape of divisions along numerous axes: caste, religion, language, culture, state, region, gender, economics, etc. Such a diverse societal fabric is naturally unruly and can be hard to fathom for many Indians, let alone non-Indians. Alas, that often leads some to simple-minded takes or even ludicrous hyperboles. Some recent examples I have read include claims that India's secular Constitution is allegedly under threat, that India is apparently becoming a "Hindu fascist" state, or that even a "genocide" is apparently imminent.
Such hyperboles, while profitable for clickbait media, not only fail to capture reality precisely--muddying clear-eyed policy opposition--but often morph into actual Hinduphobia and/or Indophobia, in turn strengthening the very Hindutva forces they abhor. In fact, I see a dangerously growing analogue of the Antisemitism often seen among liberals vis-a-vis Israel's issues. Of course, I am hardly the first to note how much of the hyperbole is likely just political tantrums of those who lost in free-and-fair elections or worse, how it distracts from genuine human rights concerns. In any case, as per this credible poll, even after 5-6 years of BJP/NDA rule, Indians of all religions reaffirm that religious tolerance is as strong as ever. So, what is with all the hullabaloo?
In my objective assessment, India is not turning "fascist" or "genocidal" or some such BS but witnessing a fully constitutional historic pivot to a hybrid form of secular governance combining three archetypes: European-style messy liberal democracy (which it was until recently), Chinese-style streamlined one-party regime (which it was for decades under INC rule), and Israel-style ethno-prioritized democracy (a new aspect). These are tectonic realignments in the constitutional democratic republic established in 1950. In this artice I will dive into some of the biggest fault lines powering this pivot, analyze the tussles, and offer my take on likely futures.
As brief background on technical terms, akin to the dominant ideological trichotomy in American democracy, viz., liberals vs. conservatives vs. libertarians, Indian democracy too has a dominant ideological trichotomy at the federal level but spread across many political parties: liberals (e.g., INC, AAP, and TMC) vs. Marxists (e.g., CPI and CPIM) vs. Hindutva nationalists (e.g., BJP and Shiv Sena). And akin to the comparatively less influential ideologies of White Supremacists and woke progressives in the USA, comparatively less influential (federal-level) ideologies exist in India too: Dravidian nationalists (e.g., DMK and ADMK), caste identitarians (e.g., SP and BSP), Hindutva extremists (e.g., Bajrang Dal), Islamists, and Maoists.
Fault Line 1: Cover-up of Indo-Islamic Crimes Against Humanity
As I have written before, for decades Marxist and Eurocentric ("Whitewashed") liberal historians covered up or callously minimized big historical truths on centuries of genocides, ethnic cleansing, and other crimes against humanity committed during the Islamic invasions of India and by Islamo-Supremacist Indian empires such as the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. Key examples include mass enslavement/slaughter of Hindus, destruction of many Hindu/Buddhist/Jain temples and pillaging them for mosques, destruction of major universities and slaughter of intellectuals, and forcing Hindu women to mass ritual suicides to escape sex slavery. Of course, genocides and ethnic cleansing are ubiquitous in Islam's history: in Iran against Zoroastrians (and still against Bahais and LGBTQ+ people), in Egypt against Coptic Christians, and in erstwhile East Pakistan against Bengalis (both Hindus and liberal Muslims). Unsurprisingly, the Islamic State duly replayed these very crimes in just the last decade, e.g., destruction of Palmyra, forcing Yazidi women into sex slavery, and pursuing genocides.
Instead of carefully and honestly engaging with such tragic events in Indo-Islamic history, most liberals and Marxists choose "forgettance" (CCP-style) and/or denialism due to a delusion that it could "foster communal harmony." Their strategy has spectacularly backfired, only fanning more Hindutva nationalism. Big truths cannot be suppressed forever: truth eventually triumphs. Ironically, liberals/Marxists like to highlight covered-up truths of White-Supremacist crimes in American history, e.g., recognizing the California Genocide, or retelling US history via the lens of Black slavery. Likewise similar crimes by the British empire in India, e.g., Jallianwala Bagh massacre or the Bengal famine, are indeed discussed extensively. But hypocritically, liberals and Marxists invert their stance on similar Islamo-Supremacist crimes in Indian history. Two terms that capture this hypocritical inversion are the regressive left and Islamo-leftism. In my assessment, many Indian liberals and Marxists seem to be blind to their own internalized racism and/or Hinduphobia.
In reaction, Hindutva nationalists also seek to cover up many truths about Islam's full history in India. Credible historical research shows that destruction of Hindu temples was a common practice even in wars between Hindu kingdoms predating Islam (e.g., Shaivite vs. Vaishnavite vs. Buddhist). But sculptures of deities were mostly respected by Hindu kings, while Muslim kings destroyed them en masse. Furthermore, Islam did not arrive in India only via wars/conquests. In the south, Islam gained followers peacefully long before the violent invasions in the north. Many Indo-Islamic kings also sought to "Indianize" their rule with new philosophical practices (e.g., Akbar's Din-i-Ilahi), new cultural expressions (e.g., Rajput-Persian fusion in Mughal architecture or the evolution of Kathak, a classical Hindu dance form), and actually building some new Hindu temples. In my assessment, many Hindutva nationalists seem to be blind to their identity insecurities and resultant xenophobic attitudes toward syncretism in Indian culture.
Overall, in my view India is long overdue for an inclusive all-party "truth and reconciliation commission" to take stock of its full history in an unrelentingly honest manner, akin to efforts in South Africa. This includes de-Marxification of how Indian history is being taught but also without "saffronizing" it instead. Indian history is indeed replete with Anti-Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh crimes against humanity by extremist Muslims. But many instances of anti-Muslim violence by extremist Hindus/Sikhs, including under British rule and during the Partition of India, as well as prior conflicts among the Hindu religions, should not be ignored either. India must also learn carefully from how Europe's long history of Antisemitism and the Holocaust are taught in Germany and Israel. Liberals must end their ridiculous hyperbole that all Hindutva nationalists are "genocidal" against Muslims and reject Hinduphobia peddled by the far left. Hindutva nationalists must end their ridiculous hyperbole that all of Indo-Islamic history was the "dark ages" and reject Islamophobia.
Fault Line 2: Faux Secularism, Religious Minority Appeasement
As I have written before, the current Indian Constitution is, strictly speaking, not a genuinely secular one but one that endorsed questionable "appeasement" policies for minority religions and unfair government interference in some theistic Hindu religions. Curiously, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism--3 of over 10 indigenous Hindu religions--are considered "minority" religions for most purposes even though the Constitution itself accurately notes that Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs are "Hindus" too. In particular, unlike genuinely secular democracies such as France or the USA, India allows the practice of Sharia Law for Muslims to override secular constitutional rule of law. This has led to Muslim women and LGBTQ+ Muslims being routinely discriminated against by the Islamic cishet patriarchy peddled by unelected Muslim clergy. A particularly infamous example is the Shah Bano case, wherein an elected liberal government shamelessly threw an embattled divorced Muslim woman under the bus just to appease the Muslim clergy and the Islamists. Only in 2017 did the Supreme Court hold the medieval Islamic practice of "instant divorce" unconstitutional, even though it was long outlawed in many Muslim-majority nations themselves.
Such minority appeasement still continues in many forms. De jure polygamy is legal only for Muslim men, further marginalizing Muslim women, but illegal for all non-Muslims. Taxpayer money was flagrantly misused to subsidize Islamic Hajj; only recently was it ended, by the Hindutva nationalists. Taxpayer money is also used to fund some religious schools, e.g., Islamic madrassas, also a violation of secularism. Naturally, Hindutva nationalists (accurately) decry as "pseudo-secularism" such regressive religious practices and anti-secular provisions in the Constitution. They want to revoke such unfair special rights for minority religions to institute genuine secularism, the so-called Uniform Civil Code (UCC), as advised in the Constitution itself under the Directive Principles. Such unfiorm rule of law is the norm in most secular democracies worldwide. In fact, it is near-impossible for the Hindutva nationalists to change India's secularism in the Constitution beyond ushering in the UCC due to the Supreme Court's Basic Structure doctrine. But most Islamists, Marxists, and liberals (hypocritically) view the UCC as against their (specious) interpretation of "secularism."
Courts and/or governments still continue to interfere arbitrarily in the administration of theistic Hindu temples but seldom do so for mosques, churches, or even Sikh temples. An infamous recent example is the Supreme Court's embarassing flip-flop on the Sabarimala case. That temple's religious ethos is of a celibate male deity and they deny entry to reproductive-age females. But the court ruled 4-1 to order the temple to allow all women, violating their "essential religious practice" and sparking massive protests, including by many Hindu women. Tellingly, the sole female judge on the 5-judge bench was the sole dissenter who cautioned the court as lacking constitutional authority for such a verdict. The court backtracked later and referred the case to an epic 9-judge bench. Interestingly, a state High Court too recently used the "essential religious practice" test to uphold hijab bans in public schools that mandate uniforms, similar to hijab bans in staunchly secular France. Ultimately, the Supreme Court must settle one of the most difficult questions for any secular democracy: Where are the lines between Right to Equality, Right to Freedom of Religion, and Right to Freedom of Expression? This question has been perennially vexing for secular constitutional courts worldwide, including in the USA.
Overall, in my view there is a pressing need to amend the Constitution to usher in the UCC and ensure genuine secularism and right to equality for Indians of all religions and genders, including women and LGBTQ+ people. Just as Hindu practices of anti-Dalit untouchability and casetist discrimination were outlawed, Sharia Law and other religious laws should also be outlawed to uphold secular rule of law. While prudent government interference in religious affairs is sometimes necessary, it must be proportionate, fair, and rooted in genuine human rights concerns, not self-aggrandizing activist showmanship. I also think it is fair to enshrine in the Constitution a special recognition of India as the homeland of all of its indigenous Hindu religions without any special rights. A good example is the special recognition in secular Britain for the Anglican Church. A stronger example is Israel's recent amendment to recognize it especially as the homeland of Jews. After all, "Indian secularism" is rooted not in some Eurocentric liberal or shallow Marxist ideas but in the millennia-old Hindu ethos of intellectual pluralism, spiritual eclecticism, and religious tolerance, as I explained here. "Secular" and "Hindu" are not contradictory, unlike the Abrahamic religions. Besides, "Hindu Rashtra(m)" (in Hindi and Sanskrit) is literally a linguistic synonym of "Hindustan" (in Persian and Urdu; the term used by most Indian Muslims themselves!), "Al Hind" (in Arabic), "Indos" (in Greek), and "India" (in Latin and English), all of which mean "the land/nation of the Hindus," referring to basically the same age-old continuing civilizational entity known by the endonym Bharat(am).
Fault Line 3: Second Wave Decolonization
Many Hindus/Buddhists/Jains put the Middle Eastern/Central Asian Islamic cultures that invaded India (e.g., Afghan, Arab, Iranian, and Turkic) in the same equivalence class as European cultures that did so (e.g., British, Dutch, French, and Portuguese). Hindutva nationalists literally call Christianity, Islam, and Marxism as "the three foreign threats" and seek to "decolonize" India. This is akin to indigenous tribes in the USA and Canada seeking to decolonize their cultures from the influence of past Christian White-Supremacist American/Canadian regimes. Of course, unlike Native Americans or Canadian First Nations, whose populations have dwindled, Hindus remain the majority in India. Nevertheless, Hindutva nationalists view their decolonization to undo imposed Arabization/Persianization as a logical continuation of the trend of past liberal governments undoing imposed Anglicization. Liberals endorsed renaming some cities to their pre-British indigenous names, e.g., Madras to Chennai. Analogously, Hindutva nationalists are renaming some cities to their pre-Islamic indigenous names, e.g., Allahabad to Prayagraj, akin to Australia renaming Ayers Rock to Uluru or the USA renaming Mount McKinley to Denali.
More contentiously, Hindutva nationalists also seek to rectify what they see as the historical "injustice" of major Hindu/Buddhist/Jain temples being razed to erect mosques. This includes the threat of destroying such mosques illegally, like the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya. Of course, the Supreme Court held the Hindu groups' cultural claims of aboriginal "deity's land" valid and ordered that Muslims be offered land elsewhere for their mosque. That has led to a new rallying cry among Hindutva nationalists: "Ayodhya was just a trailer. Kashi and Mathura are next!" In particular, the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi (aka Kashi) is now a hot button issue. Many Hindutva nationalists see the removal of such mosques as part to their demand for sociocultural "justice" because they see them as painful reminders of India's Islamo-Supremacist past. This is analogous to the removal of Confederate statues in the US South that many Blacks see as painful reminders of America's White-Supremacist past. But the Places of Worship Act of 1991 prohibits the government from changing religious structures as they were at independence (1947). Naturally, the applicability and even the very constitutionality of that law is being challenged in the courts. It remains to be seen how all this will pan out.
Overall, in my view it is fine for elected governments to decolonize names of cities, streets, etc. based on public support but they must not fan Islamophobic hatreds. As for mosques built on prior Hindu/Jain/etc. religious lands, instead of fanning violent riots, perhaps an archaeologically-grounded technocratic approach can help. Given the Supreme Court's Ayodhya precedent, if there is credible evidence that a mosque was erected on a prior religious temple/land, it can be relocated carefully without destroying it. After all, such centuries-old mosques are a key part of Indo-Islamic--and thus, Indian--culture and history. A good example is how Egypt relocated the Abu Simbel temple to avoid it being destroyed by the Aswan Dam waters.
Fault Line 4: Kashmir, Pakistan, and Kashmiri Pandit Hindus
I have written in depth before about the Kashmir dispute and why I support a careful multi-region plebiscite with many safeguards. I know I am an outlier because almost all Indians--liberals, Hindutva nationalists, or Marxists--consider the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) an "integral part" of India. But Kashmir is now another fault line. Most liberals/Marxists support the decades-long autonomy of J&K under Article 370 of the Constitution. But the ruling Hindutva nationalists used a constitutional loophole to abrogate Article 370 and bifurcate J&K, making Ladakh a union territory (fulfiling a long-standing demand of its people) and reducing the rest of J&K to a union territory. The constitutionality of this change is now before the Supreme Court. It is hard to predict what they will say but given the open constitutional issues involved, I suspect they will defer to the elected federal legislature. So, what exactly is going on?
Many Hindutva nationalists still view the Partition of India based on Jinnah's Two-Nation Theory as a catastrophe for Indian civilization, akin to how many Palestinians/Arabs view the Nakba. Millions of civilians--Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim--were killed during the mass people exchange it entailed. All that exacerbated the Islamophobia of the Hindutva nationalists and underpins their visceral dislike of Pakistan. Some even dream of rebuilding "Akhand Bharat." This is at the root of their J&K policies: not losing more Indian land and as a rebuke to Pakistan. Many Hindus also see multi-religious J&K, with many Hindu religious sites such as Amarnath, as a natural part of secular India instead of Islamic Pakistan. Since the late 1980s, the rise of Pakistan-sponsored Kashmiri Islamist terrorist groups, e.g., Hizbul Mujahideen, JKLF, Laskhar-e-Toiba, and Jaish-e-Mohammed, has made the situation even more vexed and effectively intractable.
The Islamist terrorists, with some support among the Kashmiri Muslim public, committed a violent ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandit Hindus. Many Kashmiri Hindus still live as internally-displaced refugees in India and demand a safe right to return. The recent controversial but popularly acclaimed movie, The Kashmir Files, portrays their hitherto muzzled tragic lived experiences in a powerful way. By "regularizing" J&K as an Indian union territory, the Hindutva nationalists aim to promulgate laws to help Kashmiri Hindus return safely and also increase Indian economic investment in J&K by allowing non-J&K corporates to buy land there, both of which were infeasible with Article 370. Many liberals, Marxists, and Kashmiri Muslims, however, fear that the Hindutva nationalists sneakily want to enforce demographic change in J&K by enabling more non-Muslim Indians to move to J&K, akin to what China did/does in Tibet.
Overall, in my view it is unlikely that the J&K dispute will be resolved in my liftetime. Simultaneous demilitarization of Kashmir by both Pakistan and India, a legal prerequisite for a plebiscite, is now basically delusional. Pakistan will likely remain stuck in a "cold war" with India. But I no longer see any viable path to self-determination for J&K. While Marxists and some Muslims may keep harping on about Article 370, I suspect most liberals will move on in due course, in part due to a fear of being branded "anti-national." I also doubt Kashmiri Hindu Pandits will ever find it safe to return until the strangehold of Islamism dissipates in both Kashmir and Pakistan. If/when that happens, perhaps India and Pakistan can converge on a creative solution with some sort of shared sovereignty, akin to Northern Ireland.
Fault Line 5: Demographics: Refugees, Illegal Migrants, and Conversions
A related fault line to the above is refugees and illegal migrants, especially from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Historically, India has offered refuge to minorities fleeing persection across southern Asia, e.g., Zoroastrians fleeing persecution in Islamic Iran, Buddhist Tibetans fleeing Chinese persecution, Tamils fleeing Sinhalese persecution in Sri Lanka, Bengalis (Hindus and some Muslims) fleeing West Pakistani/Islamist persecution in erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and many groups (including some Muslims) still fleeing Islamist persecution in AfPak/B'desh. But India is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention. Under the Constitution, policy on refugees, immigration, and naturalization is the sovereign prerogative of the elected federal government. So, the Hindutva nationalists recently promulgated the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) for non-Muslims from AfPak/B'desh who moved before 2014. Their Muslims were omitted because those nations have Islam as their state religion and non-Muslims routinely face both de jure and de facto persecution in AfPak/B'desh. Most liberals, Marxists, and Muslims oppose the CAA as anti-secular and it led to mass protests and even riots. The constitutionality of CAA is now before the Supreme Court. But as I explained here, in my read the CAA is likely constitutional, even if cruel. So, what is going on?
The root of this tussle is India's changing demographics. Hindu theists (excluding Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists) are at about 79%; Muslims, at 15%. But based on current birth rates, the percentage of Muslims will rise and that of Hindus will drop. Illegal migration from Bangladesh is exacerbating this issue. Hindutva nationalists fear this is part of a "creeping Islamization" peddled by liberals and Marxists to aggrandize political power. In Assam however, most Assamese oppose all Bangladeshi migrants (Muslims and Hindus) due to fears Assamese culture will be drowned out.
Related to the CAA is the older National Register of Citizens (NRC). The NRC was actually ordered by the Supreme Court in relation to Assam. The government was asked to register legal citizens to identify and evict illegal migrants from Bangladesh, akin to the mess in the USA with illegal migrants from Latin America. The Hindutva nationalists then legislatively extended the NRC to the whole nation, leading to pushback from many states and most liberals/Marxists. But some impoverished Indian citizens may not have obtained or retained documents evidencing their citizenship. Many Muslims, Marxists, and liberals fear that with the joint power of CAA and NRC, the Hindutva nationalists sneakily plan to not only render Muslim illegal migrants stateless but also disenfranchise some actual citizens of India who are Muslims.
A related issue is that Christianity and Islam aggressively pursue proselytism, but the theistic Hindu religions do not. Many Hindutva nationalists also believe that financially "enticed" Christian proselytism (with foreign money) and so-called "love jihad" and "grooming jihad" by some Muslim men will further diminish the political power of Hindus. "Hindus are in danger of being replaced!" is their new rallying cry, akin to the Great Replacement Theory espoused by White nationalists in Europe and the USA. Even some Christians are worried about "love jihad." In reality though, while mass conversions to Christianity/Islam do occur, there is little evidence for a demographic conspiracy. Likewise, while some individual instances of rape-by-deception and/or coercive conversions do occur (curiously, even in Israel against Jewish women), there is little evidence for a deception/coercion conspiracy. Nevertheless, the Hindutva nationalists have legislatively restricted "freedom of religion" in that such conversions are made illegal, laws supported by many Hindus. Alongside all this, hate crimes by Hindutva extremists against Muslims and some Christian groups have gone up. And inter-religious marriage, already stigmatized by all religious groups--in fact, Muslims dislike it more than Hindus--is now riskier still.
Overall, in my view all this tussle over maybe 20 million illegal migrants in a nation of 1300 million is unseemly. The demographic "threat" is blown out of proportion by the Hindutva nationalists--except in the Northeast and maybe Bengal. But liberals downplay the concerns too much due to their Muslim votebank appeasement policies (see fault line 2), akin to the Hispanic/Latino votebank appeasement policies of the Democrats in the USA. It is reasonable to not offer blanket amnesty to all illegal Muslim migrants from AfPak/B'desh, at least until those nations become officially secular and ensure equality for all religions in their constitutions. It is also reasonable to not offer Pak/B'desh Muslims in particular equal treatment to other nationals in India's refugee policies because the very basis of Pak/B'desh was as an apartheid-style "separate homeland" for Muslims of the erstwhile British Raj. That said, as I noted here, it is inhumane to repatriate Ahmadiyyas, LGBTQ+ Muslims, ex-Muslim atheists/"apostates," and maybe also Shias to AfPak/B'desh because they too are persecuted on the basis of religion in those nations. Likewise, repatriating all Rohingya Muslims to Myanmar is inhumane; instead, a resettling deal can be made with Bangladesh. While vigilance is fine over the asymmetry of non-proselytizing Hindu religions vs. predatory proselytism of some Christian/Islamic groups, it must not become prejudice. Hate crimes must be prevented with better domestic intelligence and policing. The judiciary must be beefed up to ensure timely justice for hate crime victims/survivors. Liberals must also stop living in denial over illegal migrants and the demographic concerns. Tackling illegal migration and strong border control are rational pursuits for any nation. And religio-capitalist proselytism, like any other business, must be regulated prudently to prevent abuse of secularism.
Fault Line 5: Systemic Casteism, Quota System, and Votebank Politics
Indian society is heavily shaped by the millennia-old caste system that has its roots in the ancient polytheistic Hindu religion of Vedic Brahminism. It is akin to the socio-professional stratas that exist(ed) in most large societies, e.g., feudalism in Europe, Edo Japan, or even systemic racism in the USA. While the atheistic Hindu religions (e.g., Jainism and Buddhism) and later theistic ones (e.g., Shaivism, Advaita Vedantism, and Sikhism) de-emphasized or even rejected casteism, the system got entrenched by a complex mix of political, economic, and sociocultural factors. While casteism has been reducing in many urban areas, illegal discrimination and hate crimes still happen often, especially in rural areas. The most common targets of such crimes are Dalits, formerly called the "untouchables," other "outcastes" such as tribes, and some so-called "lower" castes. Dalits face discrimination by casteist extremists among not just so-called "upper" castes but also "middle" castes and even "lower" castes. Curiously, casteism is common even among Indian Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs, especially against converts who are Dalits, other so-called lower castes, or tribes. Ironically, many such people converted religions hoping to escape precisely such prejudice. So, casteism is not just a Hindu issue.
The Constitution at inception (in 1950) boldly outlawed casteist discrimination and anti-Dalit untouchability. But one of its most pathbreaking social justice features is how it enshrined "positive discrimination" affirmative action for (Hindu) Dalits ("Scheduled" Castes, or SCs) and "Scheduled" Tribes, or STs, with an extensive quota system in education, jobs, and government. This was in part due to the influential legal scholar and lead architect of the Constitution, Dr. Ambedkar, being a Dalit himself. A loose analogy is the US constitution being (re)written by a Black descendent of slavery and enshrining quotas for Blacks and indigenous tribes. While noble in its original goals, as with most things in India, the quota system became yet another huge political fault line due to votebank politics.
Caste-arithmetic calculations and electoral "social engineering" to stitch together enough votebanks to win elections is a pervasive practice among most liberal parties. In particular, in the early 1990s a liberal government expanded the quota system to several lower and middle castes, collectively enumerated as "Other Backward Classes" (OBCs). Many upper castes were angered by what they see a "reverse discrimination" and government trampling on both the human right to equality and "meritocracy," akin to how most Whites (and ironically even liberals) in the USA disagree with racial quotas. Anger over quota politics is one of the key reasons for the rise of the Hindutva nationalists, who slowly consolidated their own caste alliances among the upper and middle castes to rival the caste alliances of the liberals and Marxists. Eventually, the Supreme Court ordered that rich people among OBCs must be barred from quotas, the so-called "creamy layer." That criterion was later expanded to rich people among SCs and STs too.
But the real genius of the current governing Hindutva nationalists lies in two "social engineering" moves they pulled off. First, they promised and delivered on a new quota for poor upper castes, consolidating their votes among those groups and defusing much of their criticism of the expanded quota system. Second, they apportioned internal political power among not just upper castes but also to OBCs (e.g., Narendra Modi himself is from OBC), Dalits, and tribes, gaining voteshare among those groups. Effectively, the BJP has accomplished a historic caste realignment among Hindus in the last decade, routing all caste-obsessed liberal parties, e.g., their arch-rival INC and the Dalit leader Mayawati. An American analogy would be the Republicans consolidating not just most White Christians but also Black Christians. Imagine how that would rout the Democrats--that is abyss Indian liberals are in now, in large part due to their caste obsession.
Overall, in my view the Hindutva nationalists are just having their day in the sun. But no alliance has eternal power in India's democracy. Even the mighty Indira Gandhi bit the dust once. The BJP has been clever enough to avoid that fate so far. If liberals, Marxists, and their media chums keep lazily perpetuating Hinduphobia crying "Hindu fascism," "upper caste hegemony," etc., they will only strengthen the Hindutva nationalists. But if they improve their political and constitutional acumen, they will be able to recapture power. I also think the caste-based quota system must be carefully phased out in a tiered way later this century by first prioritizing first-generation applicants and ultimately replacing it with geo-economic criteria. A once-noble idea to rectify the harms of casteism has degenerated into a tool of shameless votebank politics by all parties to perpetuate caste identitarianism and divisions. This is partly why even most Blacks in the USA do not want racial quotas. Instead of just college or job quotas, a lot more investment is needed in K-12 schools in neighborhoods with many lower castes, Dalits, tribes, and poor people of all stripes, including other Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc. All this is easier said than done because votebank politics is a vexing local optimum for democracies to escape from.
Fault Line 6: Economics, Corruption, and Liberal Leadership Vacuum
Like every other nation, India is not immune to the cliche "It's the economy, stupid!" Half a century of failed Nehruvian socialist policies peddled by the liberals and Marxists created a largely unproductive and unprofitable ecosystem of government-owned corporations and a bloated welfare state with no sustainable mechanisms to bankroll them. It also led to a pervasive culture of crony Socialism, "license raj" that stifled the private sector, nepotism and corruption, lazy reliance on Big Government handouts, and a general lack of innovativeness in the economy. In part due to the fervor of (first wave) decolonization against Western European imperialism, India also bet on the wrong horse in the Cold War by being more chummy with the USSR instead of the USA, although its official policy was non-alignment. Living in denial over the reality of how competition and producer-consumer economics work at a global scale ultimately brought India to a humiliating near-insolvency in 1991. Since then, India has been slowly adopting more Capitalism to raise prosperity--and hopefully avoid going broke again.
Ironically, it was the liberals under the economic leadership of Dr. Manmohan Singh who ushered in market reforms and privatization. But liberal parties turned a blind eye to obscene corruption in part due to their dynasty-obsession, lack of meritocratic inner-party democracy, and the compulsions of a coalition government. The obsession with casteist and Muslim votebank appeasement also compounded their woes (see fault line 2 and 5). It all came to a head in 2011, with the mass non-violent protest movement India Against Corruption led by the Gandhi-esque Anna Hazare. In contrast to the dysfunction and crony Socialism of the INC, the BJP offered streamlined, stable, and less corrupt governance along with more prudent capitalist policies. Naturally, most of the mega-rich industrialists started to realign themselves with the BJP, e.g., Ambani and Adani.
The Hindutva nationalists, akin to nationalist conservatives in the USA and UK, are naturally more inclined to Capitalism and privatization. But unlike the Republicans, who seem blind to the dangers of runaway Capitalism, the BJP is more clever in navigating welfare state policies for the poor, as well as environmental and climate change-related issues. The BJP also wants to evolve India from a largely cash-based economy to a digital one, a key reason for the recent controversial "demonetization" drive, although it was cunningly not advertised as such to avoid public inertia. They also quietly seek to move people away from pervasive under-employment in agriculture to manufacturing, exports, and service industries. This was a key reason for their recent reforms on farm produce sales, but they were rushed without grassroots democratic consultations. Naturally, it led to massive pushback from some Punjab-Haryana farmer groups who are cozier with Socialism. Eventually, the BJP backtracked on the laws, denting their credibility. But I suspect they will retry such reforms in the future.
Overall, in my view the BJP has capitalized on India's evolution away from Big Government Socialism to American-style Capitalism, while retaining prudent government investment in education, healthcare, and the welfare state for the poor. In light of all these socio-economic tussles, Marxists have become near-totally irrelevant, while most liberal parties, including the INC, still flounder with weak leadership. The only liberal party I see gauging these tectonic realignments somewhat accurately is the AAP. It remains to be seen how all this will pan out, but I suspect the BJP will win again in 2024 in part due to their pro-Capitalism policies and their decisive leadership.
Concluding Remarks
The visionary architect of modern China, Deng Xiaoping famously said: "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice." The largest subset of Indian voters believe the best mice-catching cat now happens to be the Hindutva nationalists. India is not becoming some "fascist" state or de jure one-party state like China but rather it is returning to Indira Gandhi-era style "one dominant-party democracy." Ever since her assassination, many Indians craved for political stability with decisive leadership, indigenous roots, "patriotic" focus, international stature, as well as economic growth. The fast-growing young population also desires more prosperity, necessitating a more innovative private sector, growing the digital economy and technology industry, other service sectors, more manufacturing, and a move away from low-paying agriculture jobs. Many voters believe the BJP is best positioned to deliver all this, not the liberals. The new prominence of their Hindutva ideology is a side effect, but it is being reinforced by the many hypocrisies of liberals and Marxists as I explained above.
Nevertheless, as Indira Gandhi's own trajectory shows, the political weather always keeps changing in the world's most complex democracy. The Hindutva nationalists know fully well they need to rein in their Islamophobic extremist fringes, lest they lose the trust of the voters. But there is no pathway for anyone to sieze absolute power illegally and no dictator will be able to hold on to power for long in the land of "a million mutinies." The Republic of India is not some rickety Weimar Republic reeling from the humiliation of a war they lost. The constitutional democratic republic established in 1950 remains strong, with a powerful independent Supreme Court, a nonpartisan Election Commission, a vibrant (and raucous) democratic ethos, and one of the largest armed forces in the world that is scrupulously apolitical and sworn to uphold the Constitution. The big question for Indian liberals is: Are they capable of looking in the mirror, eschewing their self-defeating hypocrisies, and winning back the trust of Indian voters?
