Opinion | How New Right is New India: Decoding the Current Wave of Nationalism and Civilisational Revival
Today, as we analyse the rise of the Right in India, as Abhijit Majumder’s book does, one needs to look at the new nationalist, dharmic force as being largely the result of individual endeavours, rather than societal or governmental
The wings, Left and Right, are often problematic, being among the most used, misused and even abused words in the history of humankind. Today, the ‘Left wing’ is synonymous with ‘liberals’, while the ‘Right’ is used for ‘conservatives’. This shows the power of narrative settings that Leftism, which legitimises authoritarianism, enforced uniformity and wanton violence in the name of stateless and classless society, appropriates for itself the liberal space, while its opponents are condemned to be seen as anything but liberal. What further exposes the absurdity of the two terms, especially in the Indian context, is their origins during the French revolution: In the summer of 1789, when members of the French National Assembly met to draft a constitution, those who were not in favour of the royalty seated themselves to the presiding officer’s left, while those in favour sat to the right.
Abhijit Majumder’s book, India’s New Right: Powering the Current Wave of Nationalism and Civilisational Revival, further exposes the ludicrousness of the notions—Left and Right. At the very beginning of the book, he clarifies, “The book’s title is inaccurate, one must admit upfront. Bharat does not have a Right wing in the Western sense. Many nationalists (or ‘Indics’ or ‘dharmics’, as many call themselves) do not endorse a pure laissez-faire economy without any protection for local industry of the poor. They have no problem with alternative sexuality, fluid gender, or abortion in the early stages if it is the mother’s choice. They are all anti-Left, but one cannot define such a large and strong movement by what it is not. Many even have a problem with being narrowly defined as nationalists, as Bharat’s ancient wisdom and traditions transgress the nation’s boundaries into universalism. The word ‘dharmic’ is too morally loaded for the comfort of some. ‘Indic’ may not immediately connect with an international reader. So, we have used ‘Right’ as a convenient, portable shorthand in India’s New Right, strictly to be understood in Bharat’s context."
related stories
In the book, Majumder examines every aspect of the resurgent Right by interviewing its prominent actors in fields as diverse as history and economy, media and social media, queer and the conservative, minorities and ‘nationalist’ voices in them, among others. The larger picture that he paints about the Right is that the “new nationalists do not carry an emblem tattooed into their flesh. They are not an elite club or secret society. They are every person, everywhere—quietly wiping your floor in the morning, poring over a newspaper on the local train, teaching your child, sending forwards in your family WhatsApp group, giving you change back at a toll plaza, driving your cab, talking on TV or YouTube, playing PUBG with friends at a sleepover, ordering whisky sour at the bar, or making love to you. Say something snide about India, and they may snap at you or give you a cold glare".
In a nutshell, new India largely encompasses the new Right, which has been in the line of fire of the minuscule but disproportionately influential Left-‘liberals’. The battle is drawn on the Leftist narrative set by the weaponisation of Nehruvian secularism to create a wedge between those who believe in the idea of civilisational Bharat and those who don’t, those who invent and institutionalise minorityhood to not just divide Hindus and Muslims but also between Muslims and the minorities within them who are the new, aspirational class seeking to look at things afresh rather than from narrow communal lines.
The backbone of the book is its interviews, detailed and insightful, with India’s new Right. They just not only give a warm, personalised peep into the lives of these dharmic warriors but also an objective, dispassionate take on some of the major challenges posing the country. So, while we are told how Sanjeev Sanyal, in his younger days, was “Kolkata’s break-dancing champion" and also had an “instructor-grade licence for kayaking and canoeing", the interview makes it abundantly clear that history and economy remain ideological battlegrounds. J Sai Deepak, while talking about his life journey, emphasises, “with profound clarity on India’s civilisational place in the world" and that “the nation has reached a critical inflection point in history". His one particular area of disappointment, however, is the continued “state control of temple funds… while minority religious trusts enjoy exemptions". He wonders why “the (Indian) State believes that corruption is exclusively Hindu and limited to Hindu institutions".
Similarly, David Frawley makes an interesting comment about Mahatma Gandhi in India’s cultural/civilisational context. He says, “I don’t want to be critical of Gandhi, but Gandhi is not the best image for a country. Why? One, as a man in a loincloth, he doesn’t represent economic development. You should have Goddess Laxmi or Ganesha on your money. And then Gandhi is a secular figure. But no secular figure wears a loincloth. That’s a religious figure. His many good teachings are there, but that’s not a model the youth can follow. They are not going to be wearing a loincloth, they are not going to be spinning wheels. I think Aurobindo had a better model. You need a model here that can be spiritual, hip, educated, scientific, and technological, and able to deal with the whole world today." A strong but pertinent point, indeed.
Reading the book on the whole has been a satisfying experience, but two chapters, ‘Nationalism and Mission Northeast’ and ‘Bharat’s Queer and Conservative’, have particularly stood out. These chapters talk about topics that are little-known in some cases and taboo in others. At the end of it all, one is not just aware of the innate strength and vitality of the Indic civilisation but also its accommodative, progressive outlook.
One interesting aspect of India’s new Right has been its organic growth and evolution in the country. Unlike how the Left piggybacked on Indira Gandhi’s shoulders to infiltrate the country’s academic world, the new Right isn’t the direct byproduct of political patronage, though there is no denying that the political development in the country since 2014 has a spillover effect on the overall intellectual sphere.
The Left could retain its pre-eminence not through intellectual heft (which it often claims) but through political patronage and networking. In the late 1960s and the ’70s, when communists infiltrated the country’s academic, intellectual, and cultural institutions and think tanks en masse through political patronage and interference, the offices of PN Haksar and Nurul Hasan, the two Leftist stalwarts who should be credited for this turn of events, would look like “the durbars of old except that conversation would be mouthed in Marxist jargon even though it could not hide the grovelling and cringing overtones that clung tenaciously to words and gestures", as Raj Thapar writes in her memoir All These Years.
They retained their monopolistic hold over India’s mindscape not through the supremacy of their ideas but through the sustainability of the political power that chose to patronise them. Since the 1990s, when the Congress, the biggest benefactor of the communist ecosystem, weakened politically, the Left’s hold over India’s mind, quite predictably, suffered a setback, too.
Apart from the lack of political patronage, what has further made history writing a level playing field, especially in the last decade and a half, is the emergence of social media, which has democratised the world of ideas and opinions as never before. The younger nationalist intellectuals and writers, most of whom have considerable social media followings, could easily defy the Left-imposed intellectual curfew. They are not just competing with the Left-‘liberals’, they are also beating them squarely on what was till the other day the exclusive communist turf. They aren’t camera shy and are equally articulate with a pen. They rule the TV and social media shows and write bestsellers much more consistently than Leftist intellectuals. Also, what separates the new Right from the old is that while the previous generation largely operated within the parameters defined by their intellectual adversaries, the current ones are redefining and rewriting their own path.
Today, as we analyse the rise of the Right in India, as Abhijit Majumder’s seminal book does, one needs to look at the new nationalist, dharmic force as being largely the result of individual endeavours, rather than societal or governmental. There is no denying the force of the Right is only growing by the day, but it still needs a more concerted, organised response. One may find this individualistic approach from the fact that while an eclectic range of books is coming up from individual efforts challenging the old, statist, Leftist worldview, the same doesn’t get reflected spontaneously in the sarkari NCERT books of the day.
The gravity of the situation demands the Right to get it right institutionally as well. Individual efforts are fine, but the change won’t be durable without creating a strong, vibrant academic, intellectual ecosystem. India still has miles to go.
Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect news18’s views.
- Location :
- First Published: