11 Comments
Mar 23, 2022·edited Mar 23, 2022

These articles never really seem to give me a sense of the will of the people in India, with regard to the question of what percentage of people prefer a secular state and what percentage prefer an officially Hindu one.

The language used also seems selectively inflammatory - Indian is described as potentially "Hindu Supremacist" but Pakistan is seldom described as "Muslim Supremacist," though by any definition it is. Israel is not often described as "Jewish Supremacist," although it is that, and the nations of Europe, with their state religions, however nominal they may be, are not generally referred to as "Christian Supremacist."

All this is to say, what the Hindutva crowd wants doesn't seem much removed from international norms, and I'm never quite sure why I'm expected to feel that the refined preferences of the Westernized founding elite must carry the day forever.

Expand full comment

So identity politics have come to India. Wow, I guess identity politics are 'bad' in India, but 'good' in the USA.

Expand full comment

How different is India than the US? India has Hinduism. We have CRT. In both cases, a dominant religion is imposed by the government. Secularism went out of style in both India and the USA years ago.

Expand full comment

Incredibly disturbing. I'll have to look further into a lot of this, but you put this topic way higher on my priority list to understand.

Expand full comment

Fascinating and extremely disturbing piece. I'm grateful for this information, but sad to see a great nation go toward autocracy.

Expand full comment

Even if we grant the author's characterization of the illiberalism of Indian society and government, there's no indication that religion is the cause. Other national majorities have behaved even worse towards their minorities than what's described here, for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, and largely-religious populations have been much more liberal.

Expand full comment

“The judiciary, designed as a counter to majoritarian impulses, is among the institutions that have capitulated to Modi’s illiberalism. “

It seems the author is struggling to reconcile his reverence for “democracy” and his reverence for “secular liberalism.” I think the term that the author should use instead of “majoritarian” is “democratic”. If Indians decide some law by a democratic process that the author doesn’t like, it is still democratic, not “majoritarian.”

There is no “decline in democracy” just because the democratic population decides to do something the author doesn’t like. If a democracy decides to enslave 15% of its population, that is democratic. It might be morally repugnant, but there is nothing about democracy that guarantees a majority won’t be morally repugnant.

Expand full comment