The perils of paranoia

In many multi-ethnic democracies where one group, community or class enjoys an advantage in terms of size, wealth, power and so on, it is conventional to give concessions or enact laws to bridge the inequality between such groups or to protect the distinctive identity, cultural or otherwise, of the weaker from being swamped by the stronger group. Positive discrimination in favour of African Americans in the US, provisions permitting Asian communities such as Sikhs to follow religious norms regarding dress, reservations for the lower castes in the Indian bureaucracy are some such measures.

In such societies it is also likely that the sympathies of liberals will be focused on the weaker sections of society, the underdogs. Surely one would expect civil rights supporters to spend more time fighting for the rights of dispossessed native Americans than arguing for tax breaks for rich, white Americans, for instance, or for the fair application of patent laws to third world countries rather than the powerful first world. The reason is not that they necessarily favour one set of people more or share more with one versus another; indeed it is more likely that they come from the same society they are agitating against rather than the society they are fighting for. The reason is a simple humanitarian one: that they perceive the disadvantaged group requiring their assistance more than the advantaged group.

Why then are Indians who call themselves liberal or secular getting a bad name these days for protesting about violations against the minorities? Would it surprise anybody if the killing of a white man by an African American in the US got far less attention from civil rights groups than the beating up of a black man by white policemen? Unlikely because given the inequality between the white and the black communities, it would be natural to perceive the latter as more of a civil rights issue than the former even if the former crime was more heinous. Why then this increasingly strident criticism of liberals for ‘‘preferring’’ minorities and being ‘‘even handed’’ in condemning violence against Hindus and Muslims regardless of the scale or the circumstances of the crime?

The reason is that over the last decade or more, perceptions of the equations between communities have been completely reversed. Fifteen years ago newspaper articles were still arguing against the kind of propaganda that attributed, for instance, the kind of birth rate to Muslims that would have th-em overtake the majority community in the not too distant future. Today facts seem to be of little value in countering the perception that has found many takers of the minority communities not just being in a position of power in the country but the majority community actually being the underdog in the
relationship.

This belief has snowballed among sections of the majority community in recent times probably due to a combination of factors. The long and diverse Hindutva campaign which tapped effectively into memories of historical aggression, latent fears about conversion and other prejudices is of course the most visible cause. The perception of the Congress as consistently pandering to the minorities, particularly in the Shahbano case, was probably a significant factor along with a host of other suspicions including fears of external conspiracies and so on.

Odd as it may seem for a community with an 80 per cent majority to feel unjustly treated or discriminated against, these are the sort of feelings that have gained ground, as is evident from recent reports emanating from Gujarat. More to the point, in this changed scenario, it has been easy for people like the controversial Gujarat chief minister, Narendra Modi, to point to the liberal secularist (with his identification of the minority as the underdog) as the villain of the piece.

One could dismiss such an argument emanating from someone who has never made a secret of his contempt for the secular view. But from the statements and views appearing in the press, liberal or secular bashing seems to be a growing trend along with an insistent demand for an even-handed approach — condemn both sides in equal measure.

There are two issues that appear to be involved here. One is the feeling of grievance on the part of the majority community. That this needs to be acknowledged and understood is a reasonable demand. That aggrieved Hindus should expect their fears to be taken seriously and any criminal communal act against them to be punished is also a reasonable expectation. But to insist, on the other hand, that the liberal/secular person respond to the popular mood rather than independently assess competing claims of victimisation is a dangerous sort of political correctness.

Earlier Columns