Arguing online

The Charlie Hebdo attacks have inevitably turned into a sickular-bhakt drama

How long before nuance disappears from India?

When you’re having a decade-old debate that is, almost by its nature, inconclusive, you need to keep looking for new points that can help buttress your argument. As a result everything that’s happening in the news is immediately appropriated and spun, usually by both sides.

Take the grand Indian sickular-bhakt debate.

More incidents of firing along the Line of Control? Bhakts, as Modi supporters are known online, can prove that the new government is being tough on Pakistan. Coast Guard intercepts alleged “terror boat”? Sickulars, as progressive have come to be labelled, argue that the authorities are trying to oversell a small smuggling bust. Bharatiya Janata Party Member of Parliament says every Hindu woman should have four children? Bhakts insist the sickular media is trying to distract from the development agenda of the new government.

Muslim terrorists open fire in the newsroom of a French magazine known for provocative satire? Proof that Islam is an intolerant religion and that the world must do something about it (Bhakt). Or, further evidence that those who display intolerance when it comes to free speech are encouraging further violence. (Sickular).

Bhakt: The OpIndia staff for example gleefully collected the responses of “Indian liberals” to point out how they are sticking to script. “Indian ‘liberals’ are as predictable as religious bigots. As soon as Islamic terrorists barged into the office of Charlie Hebdo...  one thought they would shed their predictable behavior of being apologist for Islamic terrorists,” the libertarian website wrote. “But one was expecting too much.”

Sickular: The liberal brigade, meanwhile, inevitably tried to connect the French terror attacks to events in India, whether they were the recent protests about the controversial film PK or the intolerance of the Bhakt army on twitter.

 

Now this happens internationally as well. The Charlie Hebdo attacks have brought up a broader debate about how to condemn terror attacks like the ones in Paris while also making a point that the content which provoked it was racist. That debate mostly presumes you have to fall on one side or the other: either you condemn the attacks and implicitly endorse the content or criticise the cartoons and thereby applaud the terror. So there’s nothing new about this sort of binary thinking.

What is more troubling is the ease with this George W Bush-stamped narrative ‒ you’re either with us or against us ‒ has begun to spread. It’s exacerbated by social media, of course. When the armies, Bhakt or Sickular, decide to take you on, it’s almost impossible to insist on a nuanced point of view.

Again, this isn’t a problem for, say, the discerning Twitter user who curates her timeline carefully. But, as more and more journalists, policy-makers and politicians start to spend time on social networks, they have begun to tailor their approaches to the kinds of discourse that is common on there.

To give you an idea of where this might lead, take a look at this story about how divided the United States has become over the last few decades.


Michael Tesler/Monkey Cage 


America is so polarised that the Conservative-Liberal divide, their version of Bhakt-Sickular, even extends to which movies ought to be winning Oscars or how murder trials should have ended or who gets to own basketball teams. There is no crossing-the-aisle, you’re either on one side or another to such an extent that those on either side have begun to self-select.

Liberals and conservatives don’t just disagree with each other in America. They also have begun to view each other as a threat to the country, have become much less likely to compromise and have even stopped living next to each other.

Despite the views of some, particularly in the aftermath of Narendra Modi ascending to the prime ministership, India is not even close to being there yet. You can still find people who will eat beef and yet be annoyed by PK or others who joined in with Swach Bharat but think Ghar Wapsi is a dangerous phenomenon.

But America once had plenty of people who would identify with opinions on either side as well. How long before nuance disappears from India?

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.