The BJP’s soft Hindutva strategy may be electorally successful, but it risks splitting the country

Before the midterm polls in the United States late last year, Nate Cohn of the New York Times published a fascinating article (‘Why House Republicans Alienate Hispanics: They Don’t Need Them’) explaining the Republican Party’s snub to Hispanic voters in the run-up to the elections, against the advice of most political analysts. Mr. Cohn found that the Republicans could perform successfully in the Congressional elections, retaining the House and even taking the Senate, without a single Hispanic vote. Thus, there was little incentive for the party to reach out to the Hispanics on issues such as immigration reform, even though the community comprises 17 per cent of the country’s population.

The similarity to the BJP could not be more obvious. Given that parties in India need less than 40 per cent of the vote share to win in most constituencies, the BJP has little incentive to aggressively reach out to Muslims and other minority communities. Even if it does, there is little chance that religious minorities, especially Muslims and Christians, will vote for the BJP, given the history of mistrust and suspicion.

Thus the BJP, like the Republicans in the U.S., chooses to maximise its core constituency of voters rather than risk alienating a portion of them to appease those that are unlikely to vote for it regardless of what it does. It does this through a soft version of Hindutva, which does not involve invoking widespread intolerance and hate towards other religions, but requires active mobilisation of Hindus on the ground.

Soft Hindutva is deeply damaging for India. Whatever its supporters may say, the strategy marginalises other communities. While most Hindus may believe that the religion is completely tolerant and open-minded, people from minority communities do not see it the same way. They are unable to make the distinction between hard and soft Hindutva. If there is no political party that can articulate minority interests forcefully at the national level, religious minorities will feel even more marginalised. The contrast with the U.S. is instructive. In the U.S., the Democratic Party represents Hispanic interests and provides a powerful voice for them. Whether the Republicans seek Hispanic votes or not, thus, has less of an impact, since their voice is represented by another national political party. In India, unfortunately, the party that could represent the Muslims, the Congress, has imploded, and a strong recovery in the near future seems unlikely. This leaves the minorities with no real national voice and a sense of vulnerability.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Before the midterm polls in the United States late last year, Nate Cohn of the New York Times published a fascinating article (‘Why House Republicans Alienate Hispanics: They Don’t Need Them’) explaining the Republican Party’s snub to Hispanic voters in the run-up to the elections, against the advice of most political analysts. Mr. Cohn found that the Republicans could perform successfully in the Congressional elections, retaining the House and even taking the Senate, without a single Hispanic vote. Thus, there was little incentive for the party to reach out to the Hispanics on issues such as immigration reform, even though the community comprises 17 per cent of the country’s population.

The similarity to the BJP could not be more obvious. Given that parties in India need less than 40 per cent of the vote share to win in most constituencies, the BJP has little incentive to aggressively reach out to Muslims and other minority communities. Even if it does, there is little chance that religious minorities, especially Muslims and Christians, will vote for the BJP, given the history of mistrust and suspicion.

Thus the BJP, like the Republicans in the U.S., chooses to maximise its core constituency of voters rather than risk alienating a portion of them to appease those that are unlikely to vote for it regardless of what it does. It does this through a soft version of Hindutva, which does not involve invoking widespread intolerance and hate towards other religions, but requires active mobilisation of Hindus on the ground.

Soft Hindutva is deeply damaging for India. Whatever its supporters may say, the strategy marginalises other communities. While most Hindus may believe that the religion is completely tolerant and open-minded, people from minority communities do not see it the same way. They are unable to make the distinction between hard and soft Hindutva. If there is no political party that can articulate minority interests forcefully at the national level, religious minorities will feel even more marginalised. The contrast with the U.S. is instructive. In the U.S., the Democratic Party represents Hispanic interests and provides a powerful voice for them. Whether the Republicans seek Hispanic votes or not, thus, has less of an impact, since their voice is represented by another national political party. In India, unfortunately, the party that could represent the Muslims, the Congress, has imploded, and a strong recovery in the near future seems unlikely. This leaves the minorities with no real national voice and a sense of vulnerability.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/electoral-wins-or-religious-peace/article7220396.ece?homepage=true

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Before the midterm polls in the United States late last year, Nate Cohn of the New York Times published a fascinating article (‘Why House Republicans Alienate Hispanics: They Don’t Need Them’) explaining the Republican Party’s snub to Hispanic voters in the run-up to the elections, against the advice of most political analysts. Mr. Cohn found that the Republicans could perform successfully in the Congressional elections, retaining the House and even taking the Senate, without a single Hispanic vote. Thus, there was little incentive for the party to reach out to the Hispanics on issues such as immigration reform, even though the community comprises 17 per cent of the country’s population.

The similarity to the BJP could not be more obvious. Given that parties in India need less than 40 per cent of the vote share to win in most constituencies, the BJP has little incentive to aggressively reach out to Muslims and other minority communities. Even if it does, there is little chance that religious minorities, especially Muslims and Christians, will vote for the BJP, given the history of mistrust and suspicion.

Thus the BJP, like the Republicans in the U.S., chooses to maximise its core constituency of voters rather than risk alienating a portion of them to appease those that are unlikely to vote for it regardless of what it does. It does this through a soft version of Hindutva, which does not involve invoking widespread intolerance and hate towards other religions, but requires active mobilisation of Hindus on the ground.

Soft Hindutva is deeply damaging for India. Whatever its supporters may say, the strategy marginalises other communities. While most Hindus may believe that the religion is completely tolerant and open-minded, people from minority communities do not see it the same way. They are unable to make the distinction between hard and soft Hindutva. If there is no political party that can articulate minority interests forcefully at the national level, religious minorities will feel even more marginalised. The contrast with the U.S. is instructive. In the U.S., the Democratic Party represents Hispanic interests and provides a powerful voice for them. Whether the Republicans seek Hispanic votes or not, thus, has less of an impact, since their voice is represented by another national political party. In India, unfortunately, the party that could represent the Muslims, the Congress, has imploded, and a strong recovery in the near future seems unlikely. This leaves the minorities with no real national voice and a sense of vulnerability.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/electoral-wins-or-religious-peace/article7220396.ece?homepage=true

Who appointed these jokers as political scientists to cover India who present a totally one-sided view point bordering on fear-mongering? They seem to know nothing about India.

confuzzled dude wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote: In India, unfortunately, the party that could represent the Muslims, the Congress, has imploded, and a strong recovery in the near future seems unlikely. This leaves the minorities with no real national voice and a sense of vulnerability.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/electoral-wins-or-religious-peace/article7220396.ece?homepage=true

Who appointed these jokers as political scientists to cover India who present a totally one-sided view point bordering on fear-mongering? They seem to know nothing about India.