Considering that India is Intolerant and Antagonistic is Nothing but a Geopolitical and Ethical Mistake

Often, I hear about various protests, slactivism and condemnation of the Indian state on various issues. The Supreme Court of India, for reasons, whether correct or not, is being slammed for nothing but hypocrisy, the Parliament is considered unvoiced and the Executive is considered as ‘Nazi’, which itself let me question the political state of India for a while.

What I did realize after all of this is that there are certain aesthetic patterns that have emerged for long, which are virtually influencing the legal, political, social and ethical aspect of what India really is. I vehemently reject the notion that India is a dream, and its secular ideas scribed by Pandit Nehru, Gandhi, Sardar Patel and Dr Ambedkar are a myth. There must be reasonable arguments over political problems, and as I have always condemned, the Machiavellian way of dealing with issues of any nature (even if it has nothing to do with Niccolo Machiavelli’s life), is cancerous and must be stopped immediately.

I most often hear that people stand up and shout for Kantian republican notions, and they call out for liberalism and egalitarianism. However, let us be quite fair on this: if you think communication ethics and infrastructure does not affect the dire situation of a political democracy just because people are enfranchised with universal and national level human rights and liberties, then this scholarly understanding shows how shallow and low-minded such people are — who propose binary approaches in the field of human rights, whether concerned with international law or constitutional law.

It is a wholesome paradox that communities who are availed with information to read and understand how speaking up works. who are a part of the young millennial generation, do nothing but misinterpret liberalism and humanism at all costs, and consider the 2-pie theory of politics reasonable. I also find these disturbing patterns of hatred or calling out to anything possible just because someone is in line with a ruling party or a single person irrational and inhumane. Let me be clear on this — the world and India, herself — is tired of this way of politicization. The United Nations has always suffered due to polarization, for example. When this prestigious organization was formed, the body still had to face serious aftermath of the cold war mentality of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Iran and even China and India with utmost truth. No poll will deny that polarization in politics is not something ordinary people ever want. Yet, it is certainly unfortunate that while people hope (despite their lethargy and carelessness) that the world might get better, polarization is a common phenomenon.

Do you know why is it so bad that we need to call this out?

Read this quote from a distinguished work on world history:

But while John Acton believed in a progressive and positivist version of history, which met“the scientific demand for completeness and certainty,”the blood-soaked trail of the past hundred years has led scholars toward more skeptical attitudes in their research. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, historians’ evidence tends to be more multiform and their research questions more varied than could have been imagined four generations ago. Fields of human activity and sections of humanity that merited barely a mention in the first edition of the Cambridge Modern History have now become large fields of study in their own right. Some of the boundaries of class, ethnicity, and gender are being dismantled. The methodologies for the study of history have become more diverse and its communities more international. As a result of this increasing diversity, knowledge has become less certain, and the space for conflicting interpretations much broader (quoted from The Cambridge History of the Cold War (Volume 1), 2010)

Nothing so difficult that I need even to explain, but in short, the quote suggests how in the name of diversification, conflicting interpretations have tarnished the real meaning of conceptions which the world has sought to make. Let us be clear on Indian politics and social thought: I see not many people and entities ever realizing that creating this balloon that the Indian polity (if not state, or even kingdom as India’s legacy has been often mixed) — is discriminatory, has a similarized past like Europe and Russia and that all kinds of social issues require Americanization — is nothing but a strategic and punitive blunder in the history of this prestigious nation.

Nobody prevents you from calling out to such problems because there are international human rights, and India is no South Sudan nor China/North Korea. However, most openly, such callous means of understanding that India cannot change and requires diminishing of its own identity is a fake and unreasonable narrative. I will point out some specific issues of concern which touch upon India as an idea, not a dream:

  1. Often — the Indian culture, which as being the host culture is OPEN, with a capital O, reasonable, and congruent, according to verified Indic, Arabic and European historians, is being maligned as Brahminic, with no evidence but mere incidents of social discrimination, which are based on historic redemptions, with poor knowledge of the cultures that make the people, not police them.
  2. Sense of conviction involves a deeper sense of inquiry. In reality, the ideology of law and justice has never been soaked to the idea of judgmentalism. Justice itself is an abstract idea because to attain one — you need to assert into a model of liability, connectivity and responsibility. Unfortunately, I do not find this poor judgmental culture of political communication even reasonable. In fact, much of it may turn out to be not just a contempt of court, but also a contempt of the patience and resilience of the Indian people.
  3. People do not understand what scepticism really is. They never read metaphysics, nor they even realize what scepticism should be. In a constitutional democracy, even acts of condemnation or pardon or punishment are adjudged through a centralist and balanced outlook to ensure that the generations that take over a constitutional democracy learn decency. And if the change seems possible, then it must be bored by people in a way which is constructive, pure/pious and humble, so that even if dissent comes into being, it does nothing but only resembles itself to be a part of the resilient community that endorses the very idea of constitutionalism.
  4. It is pitiable and shameful that India’s democratic nature is being counted on shoddy and incomplete ideals of democracy, which itself shows how much people know and realize about a democracy. They often equate Europe, the Middle East and Russia with Africa and Asia. Do they even realize how African, Chinese, Indian and for that matter, Korean and Vietnamese communities really live? Why do they believe that such an equation of communitarian ethos would be the best way to do? And if they think it like that — then I believe it is nothing but injustice.

Indian history and reality have been mostly assumed and condemned by the international media, millennial ‘activists’ or protestors and many such people as domination — a myth that completely disregards the purpose of the Indic culture altogether. However, the reality is that without cultural wisdom, you cannot make an egalitarian society. I will tell you this very easily. The role of culture and ethics has been phenomenal in human history.

You think reading physics is more intellectual. I believe that culture and arts of such rich and beautiful nature in India is phenomenally charismatic, from the Ajanta Caves to Shrimad Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads. If Christians can be proud and plead for their Bible and so in the case of people of different faiths, is it not reasonable to point out that even the Indic cult is beautiful and special?

You do not decide the egalitarian characteristic of culture by assuming it is a drug. You decide its capacity to develop and grow egalitarian values, by knowing what they resemble in a constitutive and deeply humanist manner.

For years, India’s humility and perseverance have been mistaught and missought, and often it has been propagated that India’s own cult is disparaging. It is not true and would never be true — because somewhere, India’s cultural ethos and humility are prescribed in the philosophy of the Constitution of India. Even the guiding philosophy of universalism is no better described than in Shrimad Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas. It does mean anything in a comparative sense. Hinduism is more of a cultural tradition, which more or less has been disorganized for centuries. Despite being disorganized, the values of openness and reasonableness bind a society reasonably and garner more support to the idea of universal constructivism against the horrors of cosmopolitanism at the expense of sovereign imperatives. Sovereignty and national interest are something that strengthens globalization and individual globalism, nor mass and political globalism. Without better sovereign operatives, the world cannot stay stable. These concepts are based on histories on Krishnadevaraya, Shivaji and Chandragupta Maurya, which the world knows way better.

Interestingly, the constitutive nature of democracy also is resembled in India, (which I believe is possible in the case of China as well as subject to their constitutionalist ideas and values), evidence of which has resembled in the Puranic literature of Ramayana and Mahabharata. Often, the concepts of Dvaita-Advaita, Dharma, Kaal and Afterlife seems to be imaginative and creatively naive. However, all of these concepts resemble a tradition of humility, rationality and human divinity, where even the statute of divinity is being sanctified by cultural moralism and core human values central to nature.

In Mahabharatha, it is stated,

The king should look after the welfare of the helpless, the aged, the blind, the lunatics, widows, orphans, those suffering from diseases and calamities, pregnant women, by giving them food, lodging, clothing and medicine according to their needs.

The Indic cult has been an all-pervasive phenomenon in ancient India. It was believed that multitudes of religious ordeals were like the beads adorning the necklace of God; all were equally important because God existed in every spirit and force of human welfare. The former President of India, Shankar Dayal Sharma on Hinduism, says:

An attitude of objectivity, logic and humanity and an approach of understanding, co-existence and tolerance permeated the secular spirit of ancient Indian thoughts.

Interestingly in Valmiki-Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda, Verse 10 (roughly translated):

From ancient times the constitutional system depends on the foundations of Truth and social sympathy. Truth is the fundamental basis of the State, indeed the whole universe rests on Truth.

Even the Supreme Court of India has interpreted Dharma beautifully in Shri A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1765:

Likewise, when it is said that Dharmarajya is necessary for the peace and prosperity of the people and for establishing an egalitarian society, the word Dharma in the context of the word Rajya only means law, and Dharmarajya means Rule of Law and not a rule of religion or a theocratic State. Dharma in the context of legal and constitutional history only means Vyavahara-dharma and Rajadharma evolved by the society through the ages which is binding both on the king [the ruler] and the people [the ruled].

Therefore here are some basic suggestions, which everyone virtually knows and understands:

  1. India needs to ignore the political judgementalism and its culture that has destroyed the conceptual value of reasonability and dialogue;
  2. The Indian people need to value the cultural reins of their nation and need to stop committing the same geopolitical and strategic blunder that India’s being a host and the humble nation-state is a show of its weakness. In reality, India must stand up as a moral nation and fight the illegitimate undemocratic movements that try to influence the pious ethos of the nation.
  3. India’s role in Central Asia must be more constructive and must control and balance the influence of China and the Middle Eastern countries in order to survive in a multipolar world. I am sure the Indian Government understands this and this is possible.

Thus, it is high time we stop committing this kind of ethical and geopolitical blunder again and again.

Founder and CEO, Internationalism™ | Founder & Chairperson, ISAIL | AI-Law Futurist | YouTuber | Researcher | Poet

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store