The anatomy of Bhakts and why Chetan Bhagat has got it wrong

Three factors that broadly classify the Hindu Right and Modi Bhakts

Chetan Bhagat has set off a mini-storm by describing Modi supporters on social media—Bhakts in his parlance—as sexually frustrated males who compensate for their poor English language skills with abuse and vitriol. 
 

The tables have been squarely turned. Those who constantly lament the lack of civility on social media are hailing Bhagat’s piece as a must-read which has accurately captured Modi Bhakts. On other hand, Bhagat is now a newly minted villain for those who have strenuously defended his writings from the very same clique extolling his latest piece.
 

Apart from its puerile logic, the basic issue with Bhagat’s piece is that he completely misunderstands Modi Bhakts—more accurately described as the Hindu Right. A more comprehensive analysis  is required to answer the question: What makes Bhakts Bhakts?
 

A necessary disclaimer. The Hindu Right is a substantially large group which makes some generalizations inevitable. Nevertheless, they are broadly motivated by three factors.
 

First is the strongly held belief  that Indian secularism is a sham which exists merely to promote Muslim interests. That is the first principle on which virtually all members of the Hindu Right agree. From Nehru’s alleged pusillanimity on the Uniform Civil Code to Dr. Manmohan Singh’s famous quip that minorities had the first claim on resources, the Hindu Right visualizes the history of independent India as a compromise of Hindu interests at the altar of minoritism.
 

Now, befuddled liberals often ask—quite logically—-how is that despite all the cries of Muslim appeasement, their condition is so pathetic? After all, virtually everyone agrees that Muslims trail far behind Hindus in both social and economic development. This is rather hard to explain. Some of it is plain old bigotry. But Indian secularism which has often highlighted form over substance does share a significant share of the blame here.
 

Members of the Hindu Right disagree strongly on India’s eventual destination. Some would prefer an explicit religious state—a Hindu Pakistan–while others argue that India should discard pseudo secularism and privilege procedural justice over substantiative justice. In other words, treat every one the same irrespective of their religious affiliation even if it preordains inequality of outcomes.
 

Despite these important and often acrimonious differences, there is unanimity across the spectrum of Hindu Right that Indian secularism needs to be discarded. It is hardly surprising that liberal cries of * secularism in danger,* are met by hordes of gloating opponents who are delirious that secularism is finally in danger!
 

And then there is an abiding suspicion of Islam motivated primarily by memories of partition and exacerbated by the rise of global Islamic extremism over the last two decades. Some may whisper it. Others may shout loudly but there is a fundamental belief that Islam is incompatible with the imagination of India as a homeland for Hindus. It is mystifying what is the end game here but the more excitable elements of the Hindu Right are convinced that India is ripe for another Islamic conquest—-demographic changes, love Jihad et al. —and only one leader can prevent an almost certain Hindu annihilation.
 

Second is a deep suspicion of Delhi’s permanent Establishment: A cabal of politicians/bureaucrats/journalists who apparently run India irrespective of who is actually in power. A constant charge against BJP before the arrival of Narendra Modi was that it had succumbed to the charms of Lutyens Delhi. And as the Delhi Establishment tends to be mostly liberal (though transactional would be the most appropriate description), it was argued that the BJP leadership had eschewed the Hindu cause in order to ingratiate itself to Lutyens Delhi. In other words, ideological purity had been sacrificed in order to gain that quaint barometer of social privilege: acceptability.  

Naturally, Hindu Right’s angst about BJP leaders giving interviews to the same English language channels which apparently disparage the Hindu cause are legion. There are other elements at work. For instance, Indian historicity dominated by the same set of liberal intellectuals has  not only belittled Hindu civilization but has also deliberately and mischievously ignored the tyranny of Muslims conquerors. In summary, it believes that if Hindu interests are to be protected, the Delhi Establishment must be emasculated.
 

Finally, a deeply felt lament that India has been left far behind in the development race by its Asian rivals like China. Mr. Bhagat has a half a point when he argues that the Hindu Right feels slighted by the fact that India is a poor country which has only taken hesitant steps towards prosperity. But here things take a strange course where the Hindu Right tends to elevate policy differences into conspiracy theories. To wit, if the Congress party has followed wrong economic policies, it is reflection of malevolent foreign influences emanating from the erstwhile capital of the Roman empire. Therefore, India needs an authentically Indian leader motivated solely by national interest.  A leader who can tell India’s neighbors that she would no longer turn the other cheek. A strong, prosperous and militarily belligerent India–everything she has not been for the last 800 years.

Narendra Modi represents the intersection of all the three arguments discussed above. Targeted repeatedly for his alleged complicity in the horrific Gujarat riots, Mr. Modi swatted aside all demands for accountability cleverly leveraging asmitaGujarati pride. In the end, Mr. Modi’s critics were left virtually pleading for a formal apology—even that was denied. There is absolutely no doubt—-none whatsoever—-that Mr. Modi won not by kowtowing to the demands of the secular ayatollahs but by completely ignoring them. Long before the results were announced, Mr. Modi had underlined their total political impotence—May 16th was merely the formal surrender.

For the Hindu Right which has long suffered from the apparent secularization of its leaders as soon as they arrive at Lutyens Delhi, Mr. Modi represents a breath of fresh air: an unapologetic Hindu leader who has delivered a far more potent defeat to Indian secularism than Vajpayee in 1998. And unlike a Vajpayee or Advani in the later part of his career, Modi makes no attempts at accommodation or throws an occasional bone to his critics with a show of contrition. A Hindu leader who is unabashed about his beliefs and who can actually win—-how rare is that?
 

Modi has also adroitly positioned himself as an outsider to the Delhi Establishment. Some of it was relatively simple: as a chief minister, Modi could easily claim that he had nothing to do with Lutyens Delhi. The rest has been slow and deliberate: Notice how he has still refused to entertain journalists considered most hostile to him. And the fact he does not belong to a political family or has an elite last name further allows him to claim a formal distance from the Establishment. What the Hindu Right has feared most is co-option; Modi’s personality and track record offers the best bulwark against that.
 

Finally, Modi’s vision for India. While speeches of Congress leaders are hobbled by doubt, Modi’s arguments are effused with hope and clarity of purpose. An uplifting albeit sanitized vision of India marching inexorably towards inevitable prosperity. No wonder he is so popular among NRIs. In an environment of utter despair, Mr. Modi’s hopeful and often soaring rhetoric understandably hits a chord.
 

And it is indubitably a Hindu vision of India. Bowing to political realities, Modi government may have ignored the core issues of Ram Temple or Article 370. However,  Modi has found more subtle ways to assure his core constituency that he remains a true soldier. A Ganga cleaning program under any other Prime Minister may be little more than an environmental mission. However, with a leader who publicly addresses Ganga as his mother, it is hugely significant and underlines the centrality of Hindu faith to Modi’s conception of India. (And its true genius: It reflects the reverence of millions of ordinary Hindus hold Ganga in: who could object to that?) Whether such symbolism would be enough to assuage the concerns of the Hindu Right in the long-term remains to be seen. Nevertheless, it serves as a useful reminder–both for its critics as well admirers—that India has elected its first Hindu Prime Minister.
 

Modi confers an additional advantage which endears him further to the Hindu Right. One of the easiest liberal argument against Hindu revivalism has been that it represents an extension of hegemonic upper caste privilege which would willy-nilly oppress the ‘depressed classes.* In other words, while the modern caste Hindus may grant formal rights to the Dalits, the latter would undergo a process of acculturation and be ultimately inducted into the larger Brahminicalproject.
 

Modi offers an easy answer to these charges. No one can accuse Modi of exploiting family privileges and as a backward caste leader, he immediately blunts the usual charges of Brahmanism. And he is not just another OBC leader: Unlike the Yadavs and Kumars of the world, caste appears to be incidental to both his political and personal identity. He is a Hindu leader first and foremost who happens to belong to the backward caste. To offer an (imperfect) analogy, imagine if the Republican Party came up with its own version of Barack Obama: Black, unapologetically conservative, and one who could win elections as well! All liberal arguments about Republicans being a party of the Whites would be instantly blunted. No wonder, Modi supporters have gleefully picked off some members of the Liberal Establishment who could not hide their disdain for Modi’s origins. Modi’s background and caste are very useful foils to shut down the usual critics of Hindu politics.
 

In conclusion, the Modi project represents the personification of its supporters most ardent beliefs. They defend him vigorously not because he is perfect—-there is begrudging admission that he may not be quite what the PR managers projected—-but because he remains the sole spokesperson. What others treat as a political argument, the Hindu Right considers a civilizational battle. And it this which animates the Hindu Right: its fanatical support for Modi and its often inchoate anger against those who dare to challenge him.
 

Finally, what of Chetan Bhagat? It would be churlish to argue that Modi won 2014 only because of his Hindu Identity. A large section of India–particularly the middle class— embraced him as a technocratic problem solver who could wrought nationwide the so-called Gujarat miracle. Chetan Bhagat who has fashioned himself as the voice of India’s youth is emblematic of this class. They may join in the critiques of Indian secularism but what they are most comfortable acknowledging—at least publicly—are Modi’s administrative wizardry, economic track record and his vision for India. The Bhakts on social media are an uncomfortable reminder of the duality of the Modi existence: for BJP’s core constituency, Modi’s primary identity is that of a Hindu leader. The rest is negotiable. Rather than the Bhakts, it is Bhagat and his ilk who are the ones truly embarrassed by the company they keep—-like a college educated son who may be discomfited by his rustic parents who continue to speak in the language of their forefathers.
 

*It is another matter that most Indian liberals tend to be upper caste Hindu males as well but perhaps their redeeming quality is that they may be more cognizant of their privileges while tucking into succulent Kebabs at Khan Market.

@retributions

This article first appeared on Rohit Pradhan's personal blog www.retributions.in