An organised counter to organised hate

Context

• There needs to be an inspiring alternative agenda that enthuses India and which can move the silent majority away from the climate of hate

Background

• The communal disturbances in Maharashtra, the performative religiosity in the new Parliament’s inauguration and The Kerala Story are all intrinsic to the vitiating mass consciousness
• Such issues typically pit Hindus against Muslims, elite establishmentarians against grounded ‘nationalists’ and constitutional values against ‘traditional’ values.
• Despite this war’s profound impact on India’s social fabric, little attention has been devoted to analysing why atavistic tendencies acquire a social base. If most Indians live by the Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb, nothing could make them communal, xenophobic, casteist, patriarchal or racist.
• Yet, studies show that India has become radicalised and socially conservative. To reverse the flames engulfing India dissecting the black box of hate is critical.

The anatomy of organised hate

• There are broadly three types of hatred today — organised, inherited and absorbed hate.
• The first is invariably for partisan ends. Inherited hate is generationally passed down (usually caste, communal and gender prejudices), which is fertile soil for the champions of organised hate. Finally, absorbed hate is a disease afflicting the silent majority.
• Progressive forces invariably counter the visible champions of organised hate, including party spokespersons, aligned influencers and organisations, as well as troll armies. They also resort to debunking misinformation or cornering regressive stances/action.
• Furthermore, their propaganda is complemented by a vast network of socio-cultural and religious organisations that subterranean spearhead ideological projects.

Structurally combating hate

• Whole communities have shrivelled in the face of the hatred engulfing India. Given this, there are both moral and pragmatic considerations to frontally tackle the fear that breeds regressive attitudes.
• First, we progressives need to acknowledge pre-existing societal fears of losing out on economic and political opportunities, and redress them. Given this, progressives need to carefully assuage such fears. A first step could be posing an inspiring alternative agenda that enthuses India. Only then can we wean away the silent majority from the claws of hatred.
• Secondly, progressive parties also need to put boots on the ground. In that spirit, they must actively collaborate with civil society, which transcends electoral exigencies. Serving as a complementary system, this could become both a response mechanism to conflagrations, and a network of progressive ideological projects. This would facilitate the forging of fresh relationships with new constituencies.
• Furthermore, progressive parties can substantively constrict regressive activities when in office, as the recently elected Karnataka government is doing. Just to cite some obvious examples, organisations frequently showcase movies to vitiate public discourse, conduct processions and sansads to disrupt the peace. While states can ban such organisations, this is only a stopgap since they invariably remerge in a new avatar.
• Fourth, progressives also need to check benefactors of regressive causes. A conflagration is sometimes a smokescreen to promote narrow economic interests.
• Similarly, select diaspora groups support regressive projects for preferential treatment in commercial ventures in India. Mapping this financial infrastructure of hate would enable targeted counters using state instruments.

Conclusion

• Today, more than ever, India needs an organised, programmatic and political counter to hate. We do not have the luxury to wait for an organic mass psychological realignment.