Impose a worldview and see the world implode
When you look at the history of middle east, you realise one thing - The mess we are in today, is in REACTION to impositions of ideas alien to the natives.
For example -
1. King Shah of Iran forced secularism on a people for whom their religiosity was important. The reaction was the cultural revolution that overthrew the monarch and installed in its stead a religious leader at the helm of a nation.
2. Erdogan is turning a secular state into an Islamic state in Turkey with fairly popular support. This is in reaction to Ataturk's imposition of secularism in the first half of 20th century.
3. Saudi Arabia's extremist version of Islam is propelled elsewhere, in part because people feel their religiosity is under threat from western imperialism. And obviously, the Saudi monarchs are well aware of the case of another monarch in Iran being ousted who suppressed religion. So they double down on religious fervour and have weaponised the world view.
4. and ofcourse the whole mess in Palestine where a group of people was transplanted from afar and the natives continue to be subjugated.
5. ISIS emerged from the power vacuum that US left behind.
The point is - it never ends well when you impose a world view on others.Unless...
Unless, you make your worldview a desirable worldview for others too, first. The new worldview must also become the people's new and desirable identity shared by the majority.
Well, it might pay off, if you are really committed to it in a constructive manner. For example, a coup by the army of Turkey to install secularism is not going to work. But if there were secular civic institutions that helped people grow, connect and prosper - probably that would have helped them better. Secondly, it can't be a urban area-only project. all attaturk created was an urban population who found more reasons to look down upon the rural/ religious populace. Unequal growth in wealth as well as worldviews, is the real recipe of social engineering disasters.
And that is also why secularism cannot win unless it follows shared economic prosperity. For the leader to remain in power, it is easier for him to support and leverage existing worldviews. It is expensive and risky to alter worldviews of a people.
So if I take this understanding and look at India.
1. BJP's win and Congress' decimation - logical conclusion to faux-socialistic ideals that didn't actually reach people. But with all the impositions by BJP, their position might not be as secure as people think.
2. The fissures in India will get more pronounced - Dalits, muslims who are branded as anti-nationals and cow-slaughterers will react in whichever capacity they can.
3. Imposition of Hindi - Northeast, South - half the country will react with more fervour for regional languages and identities. For starters, Karnataka wants a state flag now.
4. Imposition of aadhaar card/ digital banking - See the rise of alternate exchanges - proliferation of cash, new currency?, bogus data jamming the system, major disturbances when hackers make use of the leaky database...
5. Demonetisation - Migrant incomes in severe distress. Will that lead to diffused disturbances as desperate men try to make ends meet?
For 70 years, the liberals in powerful positions of media and policy have been trying to hold together a billion people with ideals of secularism. However, the secularism came crumbling down within three years of rule of the majoritarian Hindutva party. The urban intellectuals, who controlled media so far, had ceded control to the right wing nut jobs.
It was bound to happen, because the worldviews radioed out of Mumbai and Delhi were too self-indulgent, too urbane. India of Mumbai/Delhi and India of rest-of-India were different worlds.
This also explains why caste still remains relevant in 21st century in India. Since the wealth and worldviews haven't traveled far beyond bigger cities, the older socio-economic structure prevails. A known devil is better than an unknown one. besides, the one who are in power have no incentive to change power-structure. The subjugated are terribly weak to do anything about it.
The flexible, pliable worldviews of corporates - western corporates who adopted and leveraged regional sensibilities, grew. The ones who tried to 'educate' and 'upgrade' consumers, failed.
For example -
1. King Shah of Iran forced secularism on a people for whom their religiosity was important. The reaction was the cultural revolution that overthrew the monarch and installed in its stead a religious leader at the helm of a nation.
2. Erdogan is turning a secular state into an Islamic state in Turkey with fairly popular support. This is in reaction to Ataturk's imposition of secularism in the first half of 20th century.
3. Saudi Arabia's extremist version of Islam is propelled elsewhere, in part because people feel their religiosity is under threat from western imperialism. And obviously, the Saudi monarchs are well aware of the case of another monarch in Iran being ousted who suppressed religion. So they double down on religious fervour and have weaponised the world view.
4. and ofcourse the whole mess in Palestine where a group of people was transplanted from afar and the natives continue to be subjugated.
5. ISIS emerged from the power vacuum that US left behind.
The point is - it never ends well when you impose a world view on others.Unless...
Unless, you make your worldview a desirable worldview for others too, first. The new worldview must also become the people's new and desirable identity shared by the majority.
Well, it might pay off, if you are really committed to it in a constructive manner. For example, a coup by the army of Turkey to install secularism is not going to work. But if there were secular civic institutions that helped people grow, connect and prosper - probably that would have helped them better. Secondly, it can't be a urban area-only project. all attaturk created was an urban population who found more reasons to look down upon the rural/ religious populace. Unequal growth in wealth as well as worldviews, is the real recipe of social engineering disasters.
And that is also why secularism cannot win unless it follows shared economic prosperity. For the leader to remain in power, it is easier for him to support and leverage existing worldviews. It is expensive and risky to alter worldviews of a people.
So if I take this understanding and look at India.
1. BJP's win and Congress' decimation - logical conclusion to faux-socialistic ideals that didn't actually reach people. But with all the impositions by BJP, their position might not be as secure as people think.
2. The fissures in India will get more pronounced - Dalits, muslims who are branded as anti-nationals and cow-slaughterers will react in whichever capacity they can.
3. Imposition of Hindi - Northeast, South - half the country will react with more fervour for regional languages and identities. For starters, Karnataka wants a state flag now.
4. Imposition of aadhaar card/ digital banking - See the rise of alternate exchanges - proliferation of cash, new currency?, bogus data jamming the system, major disturbances when hackers make use of the leaky database...
5. Demonetisation - Migrant incomes in severe distress. Will that lead to diffused disturbances as desperate men try to make ends meet?
For 70 years, the liberals in powerful positions of media and policy have been trying to hold together a billion people with ideals of secularism. However, the secularism came crumbling down within three years of rule of the majoritarian Hindutva party. The urban intellectuals, who controlled media so far, had ceded control to the right wing nut jobs.
It was bound to happen, because the worldviews radioed out of Mumbai and Delhi were too self-indulgent, too urbane. India of Mumbai/Delhi and India of rest-of-India were different worlds.
This also explains why caste still remains relevant in 21st century in India. Since the wealth and worldviews haven't traveled far beyond bigger cities, the older socio-economic structure prevails. A known devil is better than an unknown one. besides, the one who are in power have no incentive to change power-structure. The subjugated are terribly weak to do anything about it.
The flexible, pliable worldviews of corporates - western corporates who adopted and leveraged regional sensibilities, grew. The ones who tried to 'educate' and 'upgrade' consumers, failed.
Comments