Nationalism, religion, and all in-group tendencies
For most of human history, to function as a structured society, we have relied on a deep-seated need for in-group tribalism and social integration. Humans have found their identities in these tribal communities and their purpose in maintaining the safety and wellbeing of that tribe. Over time those tribes evolved into small geographic religious groups and then into some kind of ethnic grouping. Nation states too are an evolved form of tribal community from which humans derive their identities. This imagined community that is a nation state however is much more distinct because unlike prehistoric tribes most humans who form a nation state would probably never get to know each other and yet find some form of kinship.
National identities are in fact much more fragile, than tribal and religious identities. Most tribes would be small enough that you know everyone in that in-group and may be even share some genetic inheritance. Most religious groups would have some common rituals, linkages through marriages, common stories, languages, customs etc that defines the in-group. Religion was a kind of cultural evolution from tribes once we started spreading as humans. A common faith tradition can be seen as a ritualistic trust certificate that two people can share with each other to signify that they can be trusted, think of the Azaan and how it unites Muslims across races and linguistic groups. Modern Hinduism isn’t like that but that is a different discussion.
India is a nation that is somewhat unique if you think of it. We have often heard it said that India is like the whole of Europe but as a country. A person born in Tamil Nādu shares very limited things in common with a person who is born in West Bengal. In fact, a Tamil living in Northern Sri Lanka would have more similarities with an Indian Tamil than a Bengali and yet the nation state divides them.
The rituals and belief systems of nation states often mirror religion as they can be seen as the next evolutionary step from religion. Nations are more expansive and more secular (obviously) than religions. But most nation states have similar ways to demonstrate their uniqueness, think of a national flag, and an anthem, and a story involving founding fathers, and bravery in wars usually fought against other such states. To keep a herd united under the banner of nationalism therefore requires more than just common unifiers it needs a common enemy. The powers of these enemies are often grander and the hate you have for them is usually nothing compared to what they have for you. And the constant reinforcement of the righteous anger of your belief system through the stories of wars and backstabbing is the fuel that runs most nation state esp those with high levels of poverty and artificially constructed idea of ‘us’.
After Independence, India could have very easily walked down this narrow path of nation strengthening but instead the leaders then took the tougher path of nation building through liberal, secular, progressive ideals that would encapsulate a much larger section of our population. Someone like Nehru imagined that industrialization, exchanges at universities and economic inter-dependence would bind India. He knew this was tougher and slower path to what he dubbed process of ‘national-integration’ but he understood that prioritizing the common identifier of Hinduness would potentially push us back in the areas of scientific temper and innovation.
But if you wanted to short-circuit that route you have hatred. An easier way to blend in the sense of nationhood for majority Indians would be to amplify their sense of Hinduness over their linguistic, ritualistic, and cultural differences. Which of course works much better in North India as Hindi is a common unifier and parts of western India where the powerful groups are also unified by their vegetarianism.
In his book, the true believer from 1951 talking of the Nazi party and also of the communists, Eric Hoffer the American intellectual said, ‘Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil… The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world. And finally, ‘The enemy — the indispensable devil of every mass movement — is omnipresent. He plots both outside and inside the ranks of the faithful. It is his voice that speaks through the mouth of the dissenter, and the deviationists are his stooges. If anything goes wrong within the movement, it is his doing. It is the sacred duty of the true believer to be suspicious. He must be constantly on the lookout for saboteurs, spies, and traitors.’
Indian nationalism as defined by the Hindu nationalists
Two main tenets that Hindu right in India lives by are that- India as we see today is an extension of an unbroken five-thousand-year civilizational line which was decidedly Hindu from the start which harkens back the religion-based idea of trusting the in-group. The second is that in the last millennia, the Hindu of this land was enslaved and humiliated by the Muslim invaders and then the Brits (Never mind the countless Hindus who fought with and for and against the same Hindus as part of both the Islamic rulers and then the British.) The modern Chinese state has used similar propaganda tools of an everlasting civilization ‘middle-kingdom’ and the century of humiliation same with modern Russia, militant Islam, the Nazi Germany and so goes the list.
In fact, a lot of authoritarian and fascist adjacent movements talks of the glorious civilization besmirched by outsider and a period of humiliation that will be ended as the state takes its rightful place in the global hierarchy. The sense of victimhood is the life blood of the Sangh and also the raison d’etre for the behavior and psyche of the fanboys we see today.
When it comes to authoritarians in a democracy it becomes even more convenient if these enemies also exist within our boundaries planning and conspiring against us from within usually mingling with any other political group that talks about friendly relations with them. Come to think of it any political and social group talking of friendship and normalcy in relations with the ‘enemy’ is playing against our core sense of tribal identity and its safety.
Ordeal for a change or when equality seems like oppression
Eric Hoffer wrote in 1976, ‘When a population undergoing drastic change is without abundant opportunities for individual action and self-advancement, it develops a hunger for faith, pride, and unity. It becomes receptive to all manner of proselytizing and is eager to throw itself into collective undertakings which aim at ‘showing the world.’ In other words, drastic change, under certain conditions, creates a proclivity for fanatical attitudes, united action, and spectacular manifestations of flouting and defiance…’.
For most of India’s history the state has been optimized for the most privileged. This lot is so over-represented in the overall public imagination that only Sixty-Six Million or 4% populations of India qualifies as global middle class earning between $10-$20 a day and are part of the top 10% richest Indians ergo those who claim to be middle class are the elite of their society. And the market forces pushing economic growth in post-liberalization India while pulled many into the next economic bracket also helped widen the gap of the have and the have nots. So, when the UPA govt. started to push multiple welfare schemes that led to the largest number of people being pushed out of poverty in the history of the modern world.
The subterranean effect of this move was seen in the Indian privileged lot pushing for a version of controlled capitalism ergo the Gujarat model. The rise in social might of the hitherto under privileged castes via policies like the Mandal commission also played into the anxiety of this upper caste Indian. One of the best examples of how this shift happened can be seen in the rise of Hindutva politics in parallel to Mandal and how the Hindi belt metaphorically shifted overnight (look at UP election vote share from 1984–1992) a large chunk from Congress to BJP.
Trolls
Online disinhibition is a psychologically researched phenomenon described by the lack of restraint one feels when communicating online in comparison to communicating in-person. Anonymity, asynchronous communication, and empathy deficit contribute to online disinhibition. Anonymity can make a person feel safe online, like a different person, one might even take on a new persona. It can also make one feel like doing or saying anything is possible because one will most likely not be reprimanded in real life.
Trolling is, is the means to convince yourself you’ve got power over someone else. Maybe you feel like you had the power to make someone mad or scared or make them log off by saying you’ll kill their family or whatever racist slur. You get a power trip from being able to make someone do that. If your line of thinking is more academic and scientific your response to criticism would be colored in those themes and if your identity is an accepted identity with not much self-examination and only emotions, it will come across as like of a troll.
Our basal evolutionary instincts will always have us treat the unknown with suspicion and to rise above that is often a far more difficult task than to keep drowning in those fears. Therefore, the narrative of being a victim when it is actually a story of inferiority complex sells well politically.
And while we can talk about the bhakts failures of critical thinking and examination of their identities. We would probably be missing the crux entirely, especially when people we accuse of lacking it are themselves accusing us of lacking critical thinking, because and here’s some salt, the phrase “critical thinking” itself is a social signifier to the particular community you associate with. You are part of whichever tribe because “you get it” and those people you disagree with “are just not smart enough,”. They will say that you lack in “common sense” or “facts and logic” and so will you.
