To reimagine India in Authoritarian times is to first and foremost truthfully bear witness to what is happening around us, to acknowledge the rifts being created, to name the injustices and cruelty and to call out the powers that divide.

We are here today to honour the memory of Gauri Lankesh who so bravely spoke truth to power and who even in death reminds us to bear truthful witness however painful that may be, and I am grateful and would like to say a thank you for being given this opportunity to be part of today’s very special and important gathering.

As I stand here in India, as we in the Northeast are fond of calling the country that lies beyond the chicken neck, I want to begin with a few introductions and disclaimers.

My name is Angela Rangad, I belong to the Matrilineal Khasi tribe of Meghalaya. I am also a beef eating, pork savouring Christian who also dips into the indigenous Khasi faith system for sustenance. I do not like to wear my religious and ethnic affiliations on my sleeve, but in today’s India, I feel it imperative to display my multi-layered identity of being a Christian and, a scheduled tribe minority woman, as a way of challenging those who wish us away.

When India got its independence in 1947, the self-governing, Khasi states that make up the major part of today’s Meghalaya, were unsure of joining the larger nation-state called India. And that was OK. There were attempts then, even at such a crucial juncture, of leaders both

Indian and Khasi considering this hesitation of the Khasi States and its people as something legitimate – to be acknowledged, debated and taken seriously.

Today, when representatives from our region are being silenced in the parliament, it is hard to imagine that Rev. JJM Nichols Roy confronted the majoritarian minded leaders of the

Constituent Assembly who openly wanted to assimilate the Tribals of India into their notion of a dominant Indian culture and society. He said

“It is said by one honourable gentleman that the hill tribes have to be brought to the culture which he said “Our culture” meaning the culture of the plains men. But what is culture? Does it mean dress or eating and drinking: if it means eating and drinking or ways of living, the hill tribes can claim that they have a better system than some of the people of the plains? I think the latter must rise up to their standard. Among the tribesmen there is no difference between class and class. Is that practised in the plains?”

Actively supported in the Constituent Assembly by visionary leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. Ambedkar, our leaders like Rev. J.J.M. Nichols Roy, Jaipal Singh Munda and others spoke fearlessly of the visions and aspirations of the small tribes and fought to ensure constitutional provisions of autonomy that became enshrined in the 5th and 6th schedule of the constitution.

The democracy that India envisaged for itself at its founding moment was not going to be just a brutality of numbers, but an everyday aspiration of many sovereignties and freedoms. I grew up listening to the stories about people from our hill, such as Mavis Dunn – one of the first women cabinet ministers in India who articulated both the desire for Khasi freedom and freedom of khasi women in front of the Bardoloi Committee. Stories of Wilson Reade, who gate crashed a meeting of Prime Minister Nehru, demanding provincial autonomy from Assam for the hill tribes. They did this without fear of reprisal or arrest. All of it seems like a dream now. Every day a new ideological horror is being perpetrated against all of us.

Seven decades on, that promise of the Constitution of India of ensuring open dialogues, of tentative relationships being OK, of the possibility of questioning being the edifice upon which our multi-cultural multi ethnic communities will determine their collective lives, is being undermined. Or in the words of Late L. G. Shullai, it is as if we have exchanged British India for Bharat India or the Hindu Rashtra being peddled today.

Today, we no longer refer to those who ought to be representing us as OUR govt. More and more we refer to those in power as The Regime. And this is telling. Regime – a word that conjures in our minds the feeling of being controlled, of having little choices and of being regimented into ONE uniform India.

For us from North East India, uniformity is an impossibility. And that is not only OK, but it has allowed us to thrive. With over 200 tribes having 300 plus languages and dialects between us, we contend with diverse cultural practices, customs and religions. A constellation of indigenous faiths and beliefs, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, heterodox Hinduism find expression across the region.

We are also a region that has, before maps got set and drawn, lived our relationships beyond the hills and rivers that defines India’s territoriality – which is why today when the military coup in Myanmar forced people to flee, the communities in states like Mizoram ensured refuge to them. Mizoram as a state, understanding the sentiment of a shared history and community relations extended a helping hand.

It is here that we find ourselves at odds with the regressive push of papering over these myriad and minute elements that define us. There can never be One Nation, One Law, One Belief to encapsulate our multi layered identities, relationships and ways of being.

Federalism as a key principle therefore, should not be emphasised merely as the sharing of powers between the union and the states but as an acknowledgement of the diversity within states and regions.

An acceptance that this experience of plural identities and relationships is best understood by those living it. If these local experiences and knowledge is what is allowed to inform policy and governance, the union of states as envisaged by the framers of our constitution would indeed become a reality.

The very idea of India where smaller communities like ours could have a political, economic and cultural voice seem distant now, under this regime. Although to be truthful, the relationship between India and its Northeast, very soon after independence, was sought to be turned into one of a patron-client relationship overseen by the security state, that process has now been further weaponised in favour of Delhi, and the Federal imagination is now being replaced by notions of double engine governments. For small states in the North East it is a reality that even when combined together we do not command legislative clout in terms of the number of representatives- and the number is set to further diminish if the proposed plans of delimitation go through. It is also a fact that for many North eastern states, our economies are crippled.

This dependency on the union has been used as a tool to put us in our place. An arm twisting that has pitted one neighbouring state against another and most crucially pushing communities and tribes to be wary and suspicious of each other. Double engine government has meant a replication of the divisive politics and hate that is on exhibition at the centre.

What is happening in Manipur today, is precisely this. A double engine government that is twice complicating the already complex histories and tenuous relationships among the people in this state. The Double Engine government has doubled the oppression, doubled the violence, and doubled the mistrust. The failure to contain the violence and hostilities for more than four months  now, clearly shows not only the total complicity of the double engine government but a glaring undermining, by design, of the federal guarantees of our constitution.

Manipur has also shown us how a regime can use communities – their sense of specialness and deprivation and the notions of majority to form blocks and cartels that can so easily be deployed for the larger sinister geo-political narratives and visions of an Akhand Bharat. I do not claim to be speaking on behalf of the people of Manipur, but after our recent visits there, many of us feel Manipur is a major experimentation in the region. A project to have a nation of majoritarian hate-filled cartels that will pave the way for easy access and exploitation of whatever resources the region may have by pitting communities against each other rather than allowing them their constant everyday messy negotiations, give and take and contradictions.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not here to glorify the region nor to romanticise its cultures, customs and practices. It has never been all love and fair play. There are fights. Claims and counterclaims. We have our fair share of looters, oppressors and patriarchs. However, if we are to reclaim our voices and spaces, we have to turn to our strength. That being our communities. The diversity and the entanglements which this diversity brings is what more than ever we will have to recognise, reclaim, embrace and work with. We cannot allow our communities to be used for a project that seeks to annihilate us. We as tribals cannot keep quiet when Dalits are targeted. We, as, Christians cannot allow our faith to be used to bring international legitimacy to a regime that persecutes our Muslim brothers and sisters. The Union of Communities needs to come together in solidarity of the MANY against ONE.

And, may I take this opportunity to also call out the so-called leaders in our north-eastern states who have played a politics of convenience for power and allowed themselves to be subsumed under majoritarian politicking. They have sold us out and sacrificed indigeneity, and even Christ at the altar of greed. It is a myth that Meghalaya or Nagaland or Mizoram is being led by regional parties. What we have is BJP-lite. Even as we rejected the BJP in the elections, we have BJP directed governments. The Prime Minister merely throws us representational crumbs in images of him with cultural symbols like headgear and tribal fabric wrapped around his neck or badly mouthing local language greetings from an auto-cue, while his government passes laws like the Forest Conservation Amendment Act that blatantly takes away our land and forests from our control.

We, as citizens, seem to be losing control over everything that makes a country ours. And At a time in our history when our institutions have been hollowed out, legislative processes hijacked and our ideals of liberty, equality and secularism are being held to ransom I hold on to some of my Khasi ideals as my personal existential weapon. For a khasi there are two important principles that are supposed to guide one’s life. Tip Briew – Tip Blei and Kamai Ia Ka Hok. Tip Briew – Tip Blei literally translates into” knowing humanity is knowing god”.

When the lens of humanity is being systematically blurred out and broken and when the decade long assertion of majoritarianism with its culture of impunity and hate filled mobs tearing us apart – we have to piece it back together with the Khasi principle of Tip Briew – Tip Blei. Knowing and embracing humanity forces us to be reflexive and there can be no Vishwa Guru greater that a self that is directed by an understanding, acceptance and compassion for another.

Kamai Ia ka Hok means to earn Righteousness. To live a life not of greed but of communitarian sufficiency. Today, when it has become difficult to distinguish Govt. from big capital and when corruption has been Adani – ised and development no longer remains a consultative process but a diktat, emphasising on the other khasi principle and praxis of Kamai la ka Hok becomes even more relevant.

So, may I end by imploring all of us present today to Tip Briew – Tip Blei, to Kamai Ia ka Hok and to constantly remind ourselves that the India of today is not our destiny. Together, we must continue to rage against the imprisonment we all feel. We need to constantly ask – Do we want to second guess ourselves all the time? To look over our shoulder and worry about the names we have? Can’t we enjoy a train ride the way we used to? Can’t we sit at a table and share our cuisines and joke about the smelly foods that some of us consume? Can’t we draw strength?

From each other – from the farmers and what they achieved at the borders of Delhi? Can’t we look south – to the peoples of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and imbibe their sense of self to stand up against bullies, Can’t we borrow courage from Kashmiris imagining a world beyond the prison bars and from a subjugated northeast that continues to draw breath?

Can’t we have a life like a river – we meander, we change course, we ebb and flow, we nurture, we even sometimes destroy but we move forward always with the promise of the expanse of an ocean awaiting…

The author, a political activist from Meghalaya wrote this for a memorial held at Town Hall, Bengaluru, September 5, 2023, 5-8 p.m.

Related:

Gauri Lankesh assassination: 6 years down, no closure for family and friends, justice elusive

Gauri, a film on journalist-activist Gauri Lankesh wins international award: Montreal 2023

Gauri Lankesh Assassination: Accused denied bail by Aurangabad HC

Remembering Gauri Lankesh, Renewing A Pledge

Five years since we lost Gauri Lankesh

The post TO BE LIKE RIVERS- Reimagining India in Authoritarian Times, a soul cry from India’s North East appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

 
People begin to think only when the fault lines occur and they think deeply when the world order breaks down. The politics of today is changing significantly; the jolts are as deep as those from earthquakes. The triumph of Donald Trump, a self-confessed sexual predator and racist, or the electorate apotheosis in India and Philippines bear witness to the trend. Ashish Nandy referred to Modi as a “textbook case of a fascist and a prospective killer”. Mass murder accused Rodrigo Duterte rises in the political foray and there is mass acclaim for pitiless despots and imperialists like Putin in Russia and Erdogan in Turkey.
 
These populist authoritarian leaders and scurrilous demagogues are gaining ground in different countries of the world. Even the secessions of our time, for instance from ISIS to Brexit have several unique causes. For one, ethical constraints have weakened everywhere, often under the pressure of public opinion. The apparent ‘muslim rage’ identified with mobs of brown-skinned men with bushy beards has now taken different faces, from saffron-robed Buddhist ethnic-cleansers in Myanmar to blonde white nationalists in Germany.
 
Freud wrote the ‘primitive, savage and evil impulses of mankind have not vanished’ but continue to exist in a ‘repressed state’, waiting for ‘opportunities to display their activity.’
 
The liberal world order is crumbling. Slavoj Žižek says, “the trump victory is the final blow to the Fukuyama dream and the final defeat of liberal democracy”. It would be, however, a mistake to forget that the initial signs of reactionary movements already were visible in Europe 15 years ago, when Jorg Haider’s FPO came second place in the 1999 Austrian parliamentary elections, prompting a right-wing coalition government under Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel.
 
In 2002, Jean-Marie Le Pen made it to the second round of the French presidential elections, where he lost to Jaques Chirac. These leaders who have risen in the new populist movements are typically xenophobic, misogynist and authoritarian in their functioning. Their followers usually share many of these tendencies but they are also fearful, angry and resentful of what their societies have done for them over the years.
 
In the Neo-liberal world order, Economic sovereignty, as a basis for national sovereignty was always a dubious principle. Today, it is increasingly irrelevant. In the absence of any national economy that modern states can claim to protect and develop, these nations in many populist movements perform their national sovereignty by turning towards cultural majoritarianism, ethnonationalism and stifling intellectual and cultural dissent. In other words, the loss of economic sovereignty everywhere produces a shift towards emphasizing cultural sovereignty.
 
Vox Populi (Thought process of the followers) has been brilliantly showcased in the book ‘The Great Regression’, by Arjun Appadurai. The author talks about various ways in which today’s widespread feeling of being fed up with democracy itself have a distinctive logic and context.
 
Firstly, the extension of the Internet and Social media to growing sectors of population led to web-based mobilisation, easy propaganda, identity building and peer seeking; and these have created the dangerous illusion that we can all find peers, allies, friends, collaborators, coverts and colleagues; whoever we are and whatever we want.
 
Secondly, the fact is that every single nation-state has lost ground in its efforts to maintain any semblance of economic sovereignty. When we add to these factors; the worldwide deepening of economic inequality, the global erosion of social welfare, and the planetary penetration of financial industries that thrive on circulating the idea that we are all at risk of financial disaster, impatience with the slow temporalities of democracy; It is compounded by a constant climate of economic panic.
 
The same populist leaders who promise prosperity for all often deliberately concoct this sort of panic, for instance, the Demonetisation exercise in India to root out black money by illegalizing 500 and 1000-rupee notes. These currency notes were a vital part of everyday life for poor and middle-class workers, consumers and petty commercial operators.
 
The leaders and their followers have bonhomie on some ground. Like the leaders hate democracy because it is an obstacle to their monomaniacal pursuit of power. The followers are victims of democracy fatigue who see electoral politics as the best way to exit democracy itself. This hatred and this exhaustion find their mutual ground in the space of cultural sovereignty, enacted in scripts of racial victory for resentful majorities, national ethnic purity and global resurgence.
 
This is precisely the fact that the Neo-liberal world is the incubator of authoritarianism in today’s time.
 
Žižek argues, “In a nice Hegelian move when capitalism won its external enemy and united the world, the division returned”. Pankaj Mishra says, “The liberal world made the human beings subordinate to the market, replacing social-bonds with market relations and sanctifying greed. It propagated an ethos of individual autonomy and personal responsibility, while the exigencies of the market made it impossible for people to save and plan for future”.
 
Where does the “Left” stand in this charade?
 
Right-wing populism thrives because the world of the working classes has been destroyed by corporate capitalism and has been further developed by cultural progressive elites, who from 1980 onwards, focused their intellectual and political energy on sexual and cultural minorities, generating fierce cultural wars.
 
The main theoretical proponent of leftist populism is Chantal Mouffe. According to Mouffe the main reason for the failure of the left is its non-combative stance of rational argumentation and lifeless universalism. Since this post-political third way is no match for the agnostic logic of right, they successfully mobilized anti-immigrant populists like Le Pen. The only way to combat for the left is by going back to a leftist populism. The left populism also moves beyond the old working class, anti-capitalists, and brought together a multiplicity of struggles from ecology to feminism. Zizek says, the rise of new right is the second phenomenon; the crucial thing is the disintegration of the state concept of centre-left.
 
The new organic corporate intellect like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates say that capitalism in its present form will not survive and that the discourse needs to be changed. The left should shift focus from the Big Bad Wolf of populism to true problems.
 
The left has no choice but to re-emerge with the moral world of lives and those which have been torn asunder brazenly by the rippling effects of capitalism. A revitalized left could lay the foundation for a powerful new coalition committed to fighting for justice for all. The left alternatives should be a program of new and different international agreements. Agreements which would establish control of banks, enforce ecological standards, secure workers’ rights, healthcare services, the protection of sexual and ethnic minorities etc.
 
The rise of the right has created a totally new political situation, leaving opportunities for a more radical political left. Now is the time for the Left to do the hard work, or to quote Mao, “there is disorder under heaven; the situation is excellent.”
 
Moin Qureshi is a student of Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.
 

The post Opinion: Democracy fatigue and the resurgence of authoritarian populists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Narendra Modi. Copyleft. Some rights reserved.

During the summer months of 2018, the term “urban Naxals” began circulating in the Indian public sphere. Coined by third-rate film-maker and Hindu nationalist hatemonger Vivek Agnihotri in his extraordinarily cringeworthy book Urban Naxals: The Making of Buddha in a Traffic Jam, the neologism is intended to designate city-based supporters of the Maoist rebels that have been waging a stubborn guerilla war against the Indian state since the late 1960s.

The story that goes along with the term is that India’s big cities are infested with leftist and left-liberal intellectuals and activists who provide the Maoist insurgents in the so-called Red Corridor with a treasonous infrastructure of ideological and practical support. As such, they are enemies of the state, and should be rooted out in the name of the security and prosperity of the Indian nation. “Urban Naxals stay in cities and have luxurious lives, their children are well-educated,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed in a speech recently, “but they remote control the lives of Adivasi (tribal) children and destroy their lives.” “Urban Naxals stay in cities and have luxurious lives, their children are well-educated,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed in a speech recently, “but they remote control the lives of Adivasi (tribal) children and destroy their lives.”

It is easy enough to pick apart the term and the story that goes along with it – indeed, its substantive content is based on little more than a wafer-thin combination of fanciful delusions and malign conjecture. However, the fact that a term like this circulates widely in India’s public sphere and is used and thereby authorized by the premier of the republic is ripe with consequence.

This became amply clear in late August this year, when, in a nationwide sweep, the Pune Police raided the homs of several human rights activists and arrested five of them – Arun Ferreira, Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Gautam Navlakha and Vernon Gonsalves. All were accused of nurturing links to Maoist rebels, and the president of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) claimed that they were involved in gunrunning, aiding the insurgents, and plotting to kill the Prime Minister.

Crucially, these arrests and the way which they were justified by the powers that be fits into a more pronounced pattern of authoritarianism in Indian politics since Narendra Modi and the Hindu nationalist BJP came to power in 2014, in which social movements, activists, and dissidents find themselves at the receiving end of increasingly brazen forms of repression. To understand how this perilous conjuncture has come about, we have to consider the wider logic of Modi’s political project.
 

Authoritarian populism and the enemy within

Writing in 1980s Britain, cultural theorist Stuart Hall coined the term ‘authoritarian populism’ to refer to a particular kind of conservative politics. Authoritarian populism, he argued, was characterised by the construction of a contradiction between the common people and elites, which is then used to justify the imposition of repressive measures by the state.

According to Hall, such a contradiction was constructed in part by depicting specific groups as an ominous enemy within – that is, as a threat to and an enemy of the interests of the putative people. This enemy – typically political dissidents and minority groups – is in turn made the target of repression and punitive discipline, all in the name of a supposed common national interest. In this process, conservative forces tighten their grip on society and the body politic, to the detriment, obviously, of democratic life.

As I have argued elsewhere, 1980s Britain and contemporary India are of course very different contexts, but Hall’s insights are nevertheless useful in terms of understanding the BJP’s current agenda and the toll it is taking on Indian democracy. Modi and the BJP are part of a Hindu nationalist movement with roots stretching back to the 1920s. This movement consists of a wide spectrum of organizations that operates with the goal of making India a Hindu nation. Until recently, its support base was comprised largely of India’s upper castes and middle classes, who sought to defend their interests against political assertion by Dalits and lower caste groups. However, these groups are not numerically significant enough in Indian society to underpin dominance in the electoral arena. This is why Modi and the BJP opted for unseating the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in the 2014 general elections on the basis of a national cross-class and cross-caste consensus.

This consensus was constructed on the back of a campaign that portrayed Modi as a man of action who would bring development to the common people. In peddling this message, Modi and the BJP were tapping into the frustrated ambitions of many ordinary Indians who had failed to reap the benefits of economic growth under the UPA regime. It was also a message suffused with a specific kind of anti-elitism: as someone who had risen from humble beginnings, Modi was depicted as being quintessentially different from the scions of the Nehru-Gandhi family and the Congress dynasty – he knew the realities on the ground, and could therefore bring achhe din (good days) to the average Indian man and woman. Modi was pictured as being quintessentially different from the scions of the Nehru-Gandhi family and the Congress dynasty – he knew the realities on the ground, and could therefore bring achhe din (good days) to the average Indian man and woman.

The Modi narrative, however, was never only about achhe din aane waale hain (good days are coming) – it was also about drawing a line between true Indians and their enemies, and rallying popular support for a crackdown on those enemies. It is here, in particular, that the BJP regime creates the enemy within that it needs in order for the current incarnation of Hindutva to thrive. That enemy, of course, is the political dissident – the activist, the public intellectual, the student, the lawyer and the journalist who dares to question and challenge a government that is acting in the interest of the people. The enemy within is accused of being “anti-national” and subjected to harassment, silencing and – as evidenced most recently by the attempt on student activist Umar Khalid’s life, and before that by the killings of scholar-activists M.M. Kalburgi, Govind Pansare, Narendra Dabholkar and journalist Gauri Lankesh – murderous violence.

It is also crucial to acknowledge that this coercive dynamic does not only take the form of repression against social movements, activists and dissidents. As has become increasingly clear after the 2014 elections, it also takes aim at vulnerable groups and minorities, such as Muslims and Dalits, through the majoritarian cultural politics that has crystallized around issues such as cow-protection, inter-religious love and religious reconversion. As with the policing of activism and dissent, the making of a cultural and religious Other is a profoundly violent affair: in fact, more than 96% of all vigilante attacks on Muslims and Dalits over the past eight years have taken place since Modi came to power. In other words, political coercion and cultural nationalism are joined at the hip in BJP’s authoritarian populism.
 

Counterhegemony and counternarratives

In the spring of 2019 – most likely in late April or early May – India will go to the polls again, and there is a real chance that Modi and the BJP will secure a second term in office. Such an outcome would no doubt provide the party with an opportunity to continue the slow-motion suffocation of the world’s largest democracy that it set in train in 2014. It is therefore imperative that progressive oppositional forces challenge the narrative that Modi and his followers have been touting, in which movements, activists, and dissidents are stigmatized as anti-national enemies within. Counterhegemony, in short, needs a counternarrative about the forms of activism that are currently in the crosshairs of the Modi regime.

Adivasi protest in India. Alf Nilsen. All rights reserved.

Such a counternarrative, I believe, should be grounded in the adamant insistence that there is nothing anti-national about dissent, activism, and popular struggle. On the contrary, the counterhegemonic narrative should run, oppositional collective action has always been at the heart of the making and remaking of the modern Indian nation, and to the extent that Indian democracy has substantive meaning and real implications for poor and oppressed groups, this is directly related to activism which has challenged ruling elites – both past and present.       

This dynamic has played itself out both at the level of the national polity as a whole, and at the level of local communities. India, of course, won its freedom through popular struggle, and crucially, that struggle was not animated by a singular and uniform idea of what the postcolonial state should look like. On the contrary, the three decades from 1920 to the late 1940s witnessed fierce struggles between the interests and visions of Indian elites and the claims and aspirations of exploited and excluded groups, such as landless workers and the urban poor.

In other words, dissent and opposition played an integral part in making the democracy which is currently under siege by the authoritarian populism of the BJP. And to the extent that the compass of this democracy has been widened during the seven decades that have passed since independence, this is similarly a result of the collective action of movements from below – for example, Dalit struggles and the women’s movement. In short, counterhegemony must, first and foremost, assert the legitimacy of contention against the attempt by authoritarian forces to legitimize coercion.

At the local level, my own research has revealed how Indian democracy is often made real precisely because of social movements and despite the workings of the state. For example, in my recent book Adivasis and the State, I show how poor Adivasi (tribal/indigenous) groups in rural western India have been brutally oppressed by local state personnel, who would use the powers vested in them in relation to law enforcement and their role in dispensing crucial public services, to impose illicit demands for bribes. This everyday tyranny has been enforced with violence, threats and coercion and prevented the collective articulation of rights-based claims and demands on the state. As I detail in my book, it was organizing and mobilizing from below by local social movements that changed these equations. These movements aggregated Adivasi grievances into rights-based claims and demands. In pursuing these claims they carved out a space in which democratic transactions could take place, and fostered the emergence of insurgent forms of citizenship.

In short, counterhegemony must, first and foremost, assert the legitimacy of contention against the attempt by authoritarian forces to legitimize coercion.
 

Deepening democracy beyond 2019

But counterhegemony must be about more than just counternarratives in defense of constitutional democracy. The refusal to align with majoritarian coercion has to be coupled with an agenda that can drive further processes of democratic deepening. And such an agenda must work to widen the cracks and fissures that have begun to appear in Modi’s attempt to construct a Hindu nationalist hegemony.

Dalit women protesting in front of Ambedkar’s statue.Copyleft. Some rights reserved.

These cracks and fissures are evident in a series of setbacks in the electoral arena – for example, in the Karnataka State elections and in several important by-elections, in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Moreover, multiple challenges have arisen outside the parliamentary sphere, in the form of new popular movements that contest Modi’s legitimacy. Key among these are the new forms of Dalit radicalism that have erupted in Gujarat and other parts of the Hindi heartland, as well as the recent agitations by small and marginal farmers, landless labourers and Adivasis in response to the deepening of the crisis in India’s countryside. In the face of such fragilities, the need of the hour is to consolidate scattered forms of resistance and multiple social forces around radical claims for redistribution and recognition. In the face of such fragilities, the need of the hour is to consolidate scattered forms of resistance and multiple social forces around radical claims for redistribution and recognition.

It is precisely through such claims that opposition to Modi and the BJP becomes more than a defensive rallying around civil and political rights – it is through such claims that a genuinely counterhegemonic offensive, capable of deepening democracy, can be moulded.

Alf Gunvald Nilsen is Associate Professor at the Department of Global Development and Planning at the University of Agder. is research focuses on social movements in the global South. He is the author of Dispossession and Resistance in India (2010) and Adivasis and the State: Subalternity and Resistance in India’s Bhil Heartland (2018). He has also co-authored (with Laurence Cox) We Make Our Own History: Marxism and Social Movements in the Twilight of Neoliberalism (2014). 

Courtesy: https://www.opendemocracy.net/
 

The post Authoritarian populism and popular struggles in Modi’s India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

The post Delhi High Court Order granting Bail to Kanhaiya Kumar March 2, 2016 appeared first on SabrangIndia.