How the internet generation got politicized?

When I was an undergraduate student in the mid-2000s, politics was never a popular topic among my classmates. Political matters were hardly discussed, and even if they were, it happened without any great passion. When I moved to Bangalore for masters’ degree, I came in contact with students from all over the country. However, I didn’t see any noticeable change in attitude towards politics. Indeed, some people from older generations would often express dissatisfaction that the current generation does not care for the society or country, and are becoming hedonists addicted to TV, internet, cricket, fast food and sex.

All these changed quickly over the next couple of years. It was perhaps triggered by the Anna Hazare movement in April 2011. Although some political intellectuals derided it, there can be no doubt that it created a huge stir among urban youth- people of my generation or those a few years younger. Very quickly, people became aware of politics, politicians and the various scams they were indulging in. Some of the ministers in the central government had recently been implicated in major financial scams like CWG scam, 2G spectrum scam and coal scam, and this made the ruling party unpopular. The innumerable terrorist attacks and bomb blasts that had taken place in the 2005-08 period, as well as the Maoist strikes in April-May 2010 had created outrage among people- especially the middle class, and the ruling government was now seen as weak and ineffective. RaGa became a butt of ridicule. Much of this outrage was channelized through the internet, and it quite quickly made an impression on our internet-addicted generation. And the main opposition party- the IPP- quickly managed to seize control of the outrage. They offered a panacea called NaMo- an all-powerful  leader who would cure all the maladies of the ruling government. The internet generation is too young to remember NaMo’s shady past, and they readily fell for it. The result: a resounding victory for NaMo-led IPP in the 2014 general elections, along with the decimation of ruling party.

The young generation, specifically the 20-29 age groups today is a lot more politically aware than it was earlier. They are also angry and outraged. I understand their outrage, but not their anger. Most of them are very intolerant of opposing ideas, and look upon proponents of opposing ideas as traitors or enemies. Not all of them have the same set of ideas- maximum are broadly rightists, but leftists and centrists are also not negligible in number. But whatever the beliefs, these “politically-aware” people generally have very polarized 1-dimensional, black-and-white views. They quickly take sides on most issues. But the problems of the country are multi-dimensional, and there no side is black or white- rather there are different shades of grey. If people do not appreciate this fact, they can never hope to solve any problem. What has happened is a strange polarization in this young generation, along with a never-ending vitriolic, polemical rhetoric all over social media. All sides- from left to right- are guilty of such polemic, though right now the IPP followers are far ahead of everyone else in this regard. The top IPP leaders, as already mentioned, have cleverly outsourced the rhetoric to these people, through a few specialist rabble-rousing icons whom the internet generation can easily connect to- like the (in)famous Susu-Swamy. Anyone who feel that India should not be rapidly industrialized, anyone who don’t agree that Hindus are threatened in India, anyone who oppose harsh police activities in Kashmir, Manipur or in the red corridor are quickly labelled as traitors and anti-India. The other political parties have already been painted as anti-India, with varying degrees of success. This reminds me of a breed of “politically aware” people who abounded Kolkata in the eighties and nineties- who attributed everything wrong around them as “capitalist conspiracy”, “American conspiracy” or “Center’s negligence of our state”. Such people have dwindled in number now, but they still exist in isolated pockets. They are no less polemic than the right-wingers, only that their voices are not all-pervasive across the social media. If you somehow chance upon their “discussions”, on social media or elsewhere, you will realize that the anger, arrogance and intolerance is not limited to any party or ideology. 

And the intellectuals- scholars from various institutes, social workers, film-makers, non-mainstream journalists have not been able to stem the tide because they have not spoken a language which people can understand. They have espoused seemingly unpopular causes- farmer suicides, displacement due to industrialization, migration, environmental degradation, custodial deaths and disappearances- issues which those in power do not want to hear of. Their intentions are obviously noble, but they have not tried to understand the popular outrage, much less connect to the outraged and explain their causes. Nor have they offered plausible solutions to any problem. This has caused these people to be ridiculed and hated by most (though worshipped by a few, who in turn may hate the outraged majority!) Some of these intellectuals suffer from a syndrome called “blinded by ideology”- they may be so unreasonable that even those who could have sympathized with their causes, can be repelled away!

Yet another case worth examining is the role of NRIs. They are among the richest, most successful and visible people associated with India. They are also the most aggressively nationalist, and very keen to let the world know that they are so. They want the country to industrialize fast, and build a powerful military force necessarily with nuclear capability- so that the country is counted as among the most powerful ones in the world- alongside USA, China, Russia, Germany etc. They are particularly keen to overtake China. Such desires may stem from an inferiority complex they feel in the first-world countries, or due to real or perceived discrimination and arrogance they may face from the people there. On the other hand, they also feel a sense of guilt-they may be seen as people who have put self-interest above country’s interest and caused brain-drain, while their parents and grandparents may feel that they have abandoned their “traditions”. Out of such guilt, they often aggressively display their attachment to the roots- that they are very proud of their country and their religion. They are keen to have a leader who will try and make India important in the eyes of the first world, but will also stand for traditional Indian culture and traditions. NaMo is almost designed to fit these desires, and no wonder they are over-the-top in cheering him. They are mostly unaware of the poverty and inequality in India. In their eyes, anyone opposing rapid industrialization or pointing out the maladies in any Indian tradition is an enemy, and they will do their utmost to humiliate and isolate him. During the 2014 elections, many NRIs actually quit their jobs and came over to India to help the election campaigns of NaMo and IPP. Admittedly, some NRIs have quite different political views- some are more interested in ridding India of corruption and other problems rather than showing off to the world. On the other hand, those NRIs who are not much into politics and are more interested in enjoying the normal pleasures of life, are often derided or made fun of by these “politically aroused” NRIs, especially the nationalist right-wingers. They try to show off to their countrymen that they are standing up for their country, religion, tradition and culture, while others have forgotten these and enjoying the ugly American culture!

The current batches of twenty-somethings have gone through massive changes over the last few years. It is true that many have shed their apathy and hedonism, and are more interested in making a difference for their country. But they are outraged and angry, and intolerant of opposition. They have become strongly polarized. They do not have the patience or the broadness of mind to examine and understand various aspects of the complex problems of the country, but want to jump forward. Their main medium is the internet, and they are overzealous in making their presence felt there. The question arises- how are these changes going to affect our country and society in the near future? Will there actually be any improvements, or will there only be increased polarization and intolerance? Will the next batch of twenty-somethings be even more angry and polarized, or will they learn to see things more holistically? Or will they just give up, and go back to hedonist enjoyment? And is that really such a bad thing after all?

From nation-states to states: towards a peaceful world

The current world is partitioned into nation-states. Almost all nation-states have a central national government, and a national armed defence force.  Some, like India have regional governments also, though these governments do not have their own forces.  Also, the nation-states have well-defined geographical boundaries, demarcating the regions of influence of these governments. Of course, in some cases the locations of the boundaries are disputed by the neighboring nation-states, leading to some armed conflicts. The question is: what is the basis of such partitioning of the world?

Country is a geographical concept, nation is a cultural concept, nation-state is a political concept. Countries have natural, but often not strictly defined, borders. For example, Australia and Great Britain are well-demarcated by seas all around; Indian subcontinent is well-separated from the rest of Asia by the Himalayas etc. But such borders are quite small in number, and are interpreted as continents or sub-continents rather than countries. Geographical countries have less clear borders- which could be a river, a hill range, a bay or gulf, change in soil nature etc.

Cultural nations are even more difficult to demarcate on the globe. It is true to some extent that people in certain geographical regions have some characteristics of their own- in terms of language/religion/art/cuisine. But since thousands of years, people from one place have interacted with another, and have migrated or settled elsewhere. This has inevitably resulted in cultural mixing. Some cultures have merged with others and evolved into new forms, while some cultures have died away. Culture has always been very dynamic. It is even more so in modern times, due to globalization brought about by mass media. To stick to one particular set of cultural practices and militantly oppose influence of other cultures is called chauvinism.

Finally comes the question of governance. Since historic times, almost all groups of people have some form of government or the other- monarchy, theocracy, military rule, various forms of democracy and so on. All governments need to have a geographical limit within which they would have their influence, but not outside.

Since historic times to the early 20^th century, it was usual for governments to try and extend their geographical sphere of influence, mostly by military expeditions. Such tendencies could be due to economic, religious or strategic reasons, or simply for the lust of power. Ever since the Second World War, it has been agreed upon to make such expansions illegal, and partition the world into nation-states with permanent fixed boundaries. There are still many instances where adjacent nation-states do not agree on where their boundaries are, like India and China do not agree about Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. Again, such disputes may arise due to economic or strategic reasons, or simply due to “pride”. The current nation-states are demarcated by either geographical or perceived cultural boundaries, or by a mixture of both. Some demarcations may exist only for historic reasons, like at the end of WW2 if two regions were under different governments, they have been retained as different nation-states. Most nation-states claim to represent a homogenous cultural nation, and attempt to celebrate them with concepts like national flag and national anthem. And then comes a curious nation-state: India.

India encompasses lots of religions and languages, as well as other characteristics like art and cuisine. As already mentioned, it is very difficult, and probably useless, to demarcate geographical boundaries of cultural nations. Nevertheless, India is currently demarcated into zones based on languages- a cultural concept. Needless to say, it is very common for people from one linguistic zone to move and settle in a different linguistic zone in India. Federalists say that India the nation-state encompasses many cultural nations. Alternatively, one can also say that all these so-called cultural nations are linked by the so-called “unity in diversity”. It is quite easy to spot cultural similarities and differences across India.  The question is, how we will interpret them. It all depends on perspective.

 One may harp on the differences more and say that there are many cultural nations- Bengali nation, Tamil nation, Hindi nation, Marathi nation and so on. Regional politicians routinely play up chauvinistic sentiments to polarize people and garner votes. The limitations of this idea are easily exposed by polyglot people- who may be born in Punjab, move to Mumbai for livelihood, marry someone from Bengal who also has moved and settled in Mumbai, and so on. Moreover if we are really looking for diversity, it is always possible to further split these so-called cultural nations also! This is proven by movements for creation of Telengana out of Andhra Pradesh, Vidarbha out of Maharashtra, Kamtapur and Gorkhaland from West Bengal and so on. Many people in Kashmir valley, Manipur and Nagaland do not even want to stay inside the Indian nation-state. They claim to be separate nations and demand nation-states for themselves. But even among them, there are tribes and factions intolerant of each other. For any modern nation-state government, territorial integrity is a prestige issue. So the Indian government refuses to accept their demands of secession, and this has resulted in a never-ending cycle of violence in these regions.

On the other hand, we may harp on the similarities more, and say there is really one cultural nation. That is what national political parties preach, but try to impose a majoritarian cultural identity to the Indian nation-state: the so-called Hindu-Hindi nationalism. This hurts the sentiments of the minorities, and more importantly causes practical disadvantages for them in day-to-day life. On the other hand, if we argue that the Indian nation-state is a distinct homogeneous cultural nation, then comparisons must arise with neighboring Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. After all, these also have strong cultural similarities with the Indian nation, then why are they separate nation-states? But surely that does not mean they should be integrated into the Indian nation-state: in fact many people in these nation-states look upon India with suspicion and hostility- for some valid and some invalid reasons.

 In our subcontinent, the three concepts: geographical country, cultural nation and political nation-state, have got entangled peculiarly. The result: never-ending disputes, violence and mistrust among people. These disputes are related to the question of individual identity. Should I look upon myself as a Hindu, or a Bengali, or an Indian, or a global citizen, or only myself? It is very possible that many or most common people do not really care about this question. One can live a life without answering it, or with the indisputable answer like “I am myself”. If that is the case, then the disputes and conflicts in Kashmir, Nagaland, Telengana, Vidarbha, Gorkhaland,  etc are explained as-frustrated power-hungry politicians are raking up divisive sentiments to polarize people and gain followers. But it is equally possible that people actually do take the question of identity very seriously, and the separatist leaders and parties are only a reflection of popular sentiments. It is impossible to say which is true- it is a chicken-and-egg problem. But either way- the Indian nation-state is faced with a big dilemma: handling these disputes.

The federalist's point of view is that, nation-state is an artificial hence flawed concept, it is the cultural nation that is real. This is wrong because, as already pointed out, cultural nations may not even exist due to the inevitable dynamic nature of culture. On the other hand, it is probably true that nation-state is a flawed artificial concept, due to the fact that it has rigid, well-defined boundaries which can cause tremendous inconvenience to people living in border areas.  They find their natural mobility restricted due to presence of borders. Even if there is a forest or a river that is geographically close they may not use it for their livelihood if it belongs to a different nation-state. They may not visit relatives and friends across the borders without detailed official procedures. And if the nation-state tries to impose a majoritarian identity on them through religion, language or rules like mandatory saluting of a flag, standing up to an anthem or being servile to arrogant border security forces, it is even worse.

But then, for meaningful and effective governance, boundaries and demarcations cannot be wished away. Otherwise there will be inevitable confusion and conflicts. What needs to be understood is that, rigid and strict borders are inconvenient and problematic for all, and fewer the borders the better. Also, it should be realized that creating separate nation-states on the basis of cultural nationality is never a good idea. Not only are such nation-states unsustainable due to the dynamic nature of culture, but more nation-states means more borders, and more problems. The aim should rather be to gradually reduce borders all over the world, and encourage the merging of nation-states. This should be a natural process, not coercive. And states should exist only for purpose of governance, not for cultural nationhood. Governments should realize the differences between geographical country, cultural nation and political nation-state, and respect these differences. Anyone should be free to live in a nation-state, assume any cultural identity (s)he wants to (including none) and live life the way (s)he wants as long as basic laws of the land are not violated. And these basic laws should be close to universal, and as much unintrusive as possible. The only aim of laws should be to have peace, justice, equality and sustainability in the society- not promote beliefs and practices related to a culture.  In other words, nation-states have to become simply states- strictly political entities. States may continue to have armed forces, but their duty should be maintenance of security- internally as well as around borders, rather than fighting wars. State forces should not be associated with old-fashioned romantic nationalist ideas like defending the honor of motherland, instead they should act as an administrative service. If a secessionist/separatist movement arises for governmental negligence of a particular region, the government should be obliged to address their grievances. But if secessionist/separatist movements are for issues related to culture and identity, they should neither be entertained nor suppressed. Suppression usually leads to cycles of violence. Nor should they be entertained because one successful secession may well lead to others, resulting in more nation-states, more boundaries and more problems. State forces should treat cultural secessionist violence as a law-and-order issue- people can be arrested only if they commit violence. The states should emphasize the fact that they never enforce any cultural identity on anyone, and the creation of a new nation-state is redundant. This way, the cultural and ethnic conflicts, and eventually the existing borders will gradually die natural deaths, paving the way for a unified and peaceful world.