Towards a New Civil Society

Indian civil society must stop buying the divisive agenda peddled by right-wing propaganda outlets and join hands to fight the hate.

One must give credit where credit is due and examine the movement of ‘civil society’ that gave the phrase its current infamy before one gets into its inescapable quagmire.

The Cambridge dictionary defines the term ‘alt-right’ as “an ideological grouping associated with extreme conservative or reactionary viewpoints characterised by a rejection of mainstream politics and by the use of online media to disseminate deliberately controversial content.” 

Indians, however, will be able to identify ‘alt-right.’ This variety of right-wing populism isn’t particularly new to India – a country that has had the misfortune of dealing with both extremes of the ideological spectrum.  

This tug-of-war has continued through elections and on college campuses. It has played out with equal, if not greater, vigour in the sphere of language and semantics.

Since the run-up to the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, language turned into a battleground between the ideological right and its opposition. This opposition was defined by the rightest as “left-liberals.”

The construction itself was rather juicy: uppity, English speaking, Khan Market-going, Marxist, educated Indians, who hijacked institutions and didn’t care for the ‘real’ India, its customs, or its people. It was so juicy in fact, that individuals who fell into any of these categories, turned around and started spinning satire about a socio-economic class from which they themselves weren’t too different.

By constructing the image of an opponent that was so ripe for tearing down, the right went beyond the traditional attacks on the NGO walas and the jhola-chaaps and turned the battle into one against this imagined monolithic opposition.  


Also read The ‘Glorious’ History of Hindutva and its Hypocrisies


Newspapers and TV channels gobbled it up and were filled with repeated coverage peddling derivatives.

The ‘Lutyens elite’ and the ‘Khan Market Gang’ became interchangeable for the ‘Urban Naxal’ and the ‘liberal peaceniks.’ A unified class of opposition was constructed, that didn’t really exist in the first place. Anyone who has ever associated with any sort of civil society platform realises the range of actors that coalesce around these movements.

Dogmatic Marxists hate the dogmatic Ambedkarites.

The Ambedkarites hate the savarna secular humanists.

All of them combined hate the liberals, and the liberals hate themselves.

All the rabid disagreement aside, you’ll find at least one person from each of these hues, at a protest about lynching, Kashmir, unemployment, or civil liberties. It’s likely that they all represent a mixed hue, emerging from the variegated streaks of a colourful ideological stream. 

What is worrying, however, is not the language itself. After all, Indians have had to go through much worse for much less over the years. What is worrying is our own tendency to buy this cheap perfidy and let it cripple all the measures to build solidarity in a manner that only the most pernicious of poisons could.

A constant barrage of right-wing propaganda tearing through the airwaves has normalised a language that allies use to turn on each other.

While the threat of majoritarian authoritarianism looms large, Marxists refuses to hold hands with ‘Khan Market liberals.’ Ambedkarites refuses to hold hands with ‘JNU(eu) dhari jhola chaaps.’ Each time the possibility of a strategic alliance, if not a political one, is broached, someone’s identity plays spoilsport.

The leftist is an upper caste and the Ambedkarite doesn’t buy feminism. Liberal is probably both rich and upper caste and the feminist is tired of all the men running the movements.

The only thing that unites each of these ideological categories is that they are all ridiculously headstrong and losers.

The liberals lose because they’ve rarely succeeded politically anyway. The left loses as they stick to their dogmatic philosophy. Ambedkarites loose as the Sangh consumes their movement along with their cadres. Secular humanists and feminists lose because each of these losses has seen a significantly worse alternative take its place. 


Also read In Defence of the Language of Political Correctness


Faced with constant loss and an inept political opposition, the responsibility has once again fallen to an aging civil society plagued by infighting, to hold steady the guardrails of democracy lest it falls into the illiberal abyss that we all dread. With the spate of Bills passed in the last session of the assembly, the threat has moved significantly from institutions of governance and higher education to the constitution itself.

Fundamental protections from the state are being trampled on in spirit, if not in letter.

The opposition, to say the least, is virtually non-existent.

In the US, the youth of the opposition cast aside temporary differences to come together under one banner of the anti-fascist movement. It is a movement of anarchists, feminists, communists, progressives and minorities of colour, religion, gender and sexual orientation. 

Together they demand action on climate justice, socio-economic inequality, and immigration. It is these individuals who physically resist white nationalist rallies and force ideological reform within the American opposition.

Indian civil society must stop buying the divisive agenda peddled by right-wing propaganda outlets and own the labels thrown at them. If civil opposition in India is being cast as a monolith, then the jhola chaap might as well stand with the Khan Market liberal and the Khan Market liberal might share a drink with the Ambedkarite.

As cliché as it sounds, civil society in India must reimagine itself for an increasingly polarised 21st Century, and it must do so by first overcoming divisions within itself.

At a time when democratic institutions are besieged and the press is stifled, a failure to rebuild and reimagine a united civil society would be to condemn the Indian experiment to the vagaries of majoritarian fundamentalism. 

Those in power always feed on the defensiveness within civil society, which only serves the purpose of marginalising it further.

Vineet John Samuel is a public policy researcher with work experience in Myanmar and India, who writes primarily on topics of foreign policy, sustainability and development in Asian Newspapers and online news portals.

Featured image credit: Pariplab Chakraborty

The Importance of Being a Gandhian Hindu in ‘New India’

To preserve the best tenets of his own faith and the immense diversity of his tradition, a Hindu today must adopt Gandhiji’s brand of all-inclusive and liberal Hinduism or else he might see his faith reduced to a political weapon of hatred and violence. 

After the results of the 2019 election, the country and its polity have witnessed a definitive rightward shift. The majoritarian narrative of Hindu consolidation seems to have triumphed with the resounding electoral victory of the BJP. Data from a post-poll survey conducted by CSDS-Lokniti shows that the BJP actually increased its vote share among Hindus between 2014 and 2019 and that Hindu support for the party transcended caste boundaries. 

But this begs the question: What kind of Hindu has triumphed or what kind of a Hindu voted for the BJP?

Is it the one who wears his religious identity on his sleeve and perceives a vast and diverse tradition as a homogenous faith? One who pays his obeisance to Bharat Mata in a visible display of hyper-nationalism, aggressively chanting Jai Shri Ram, more as a threat to the minorities than as a proclamation of his own faith. Is it the one who believes that singing ‘Vande Matram‘ and shouting Bharat Mata ki Jai is a ritual act of citizenship? Is it a Hindu who believes that his fellow Hindus constitute a political body and must vote in unison to protect their interests? 


Also read: How to Live in Modi’s India


Surely, the kind of Hinduism the BJP seeks to promote pauperises the richness and diversity of Hinduism itself and seeks to convert it almost into an Abrahamic faith with its Lord as Ram, its holy land being Ayodhya, and the Gita as its holy book. It is in such a context that we must remind ourselves of Gandhi’s views on Hinduism and the importance of being a Gandhian Hindu.

A Gandhian Hindu is one whose Hinduism is not sectarian. His Hinduism is strengthened by drawing from other faiths and, despite being a Hindu, he can say with confidence, as Gandhi did, that “I am a Muslim, I am a Jew, I am a Christian and I am a Zorastrian.” 

Someone who is eclectic in his approach and does not rely on any single scripture as the basis of his faith, who can draw on any scripture, as Gandhi did, to support the ideals of truth and justice. As Gandhi said, “I try to understand the spirit of various scriptures. I apply the test of Truth and Ahimsa laid down by these very scriptures for interpretation. I reject what is inconsistent with that test, and I appropriate all that is consistent with it.” 

The Gandhian Hindu feels that his Hinduism is all-inclusive and is the creed of tolerance and assimilation and not that of bigotry and exclusion. His Hinduism is eclectic, just like Gandhi’s favourite bhajan ‘Vaishanav Jan Toh‘ in which the poet Narsinh Mehta says, “Ram naam sun taadi lagi, sakal tirath tena tan maa re (I am enticed by the name of Lord Ram even though the holiest shrines of the world reside within me.)” 

What can be a greater statement than this of the catholicity of Gandhian Hinduism? The kind of catholicity which comes from a rootedness and quiet confidence in one’s faith, unlike the Hinduism of the Sangh parivaar, which is insecure and seems perpetually under threat. 


Also read: Growing Up in a Hindu Bubble


As Gandhi himself said in an article titled ‘Why I am a Hindu?’ published in Young India on October 20, 1927, “On examination, I have found it [Hinduism] to be the most tolerant of all religions known to me. Its freedom from dogma makes a forcible appeal to me inasmuch as it gives the votary the largest scope for self-expression. Not being an exclusive religion, it enables the followers of that faith not merely to respect all other religions, but it also enables them to admire and assimilate whatever may be good in other faiths.” 

More importantly, Narsinh Mehta and Gandhi’s Ram was a compassionate and benevolent Ram of their imagination, not the masculine and muscular mascot of the Hindutva brigade. 

The Hindutva project is not only an assault on the faith of the ordinary Hindu; it also represents a grave threat to our democratic freedom as citizens. The future of the country might well be decided by the course the ordinary Hindu of the nation takes. He has a big choice to make. To preserve the best tenets of his own faith and the immense diversity of his tradition, he must adopt Gandhi ji’s brand of all-inclusive and liberal Hinduism or else he might see his faith reduced to a political weapon of hatred and violence. 

As Gandhi ji said, “[the] purity of Hinduism depends on the self-restraint of its votaries.” Now more than ever, we need Hindus to exercise that self-restraint and embrace Gandhian Hinduism if we seek to reclaim the liberal spirit and democratic ethos of our republic. 

Source: Mahatma Gandhi, What is Hinduism, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 2015.

Madhav Nayar is a Master’s student of Modern South Asian History at SOAS. He can be reached at madhavnayar@gmail.com 

Featured image credit: Pariplab Chakraborty