top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 9:59:04 pm

Liberal Hypocrisy

A revealing test of liberalism is whether it can condemn an idea when it comes from someone it considers politically useful. A recent interview given by controversial former student activist Sharjeel Imam to a supposedly progressive portal has put sections of India’s self-proclaimed liberal establishment in a right quandary. In his interview, Imam outrageously questioned the democratic framework as a means of securing Muslim political rights, portrayed secularism as a majoritarian stratagem...

Liberal Hypocrisy

A revealing test of liberalism is whether it can condemn an idea when it comes from someone it considers politically useful. A recent interview given by controversial former student activist Sharjeel Imam to a supposedly progressive portal has put sections of India’s self-proclaimed liberal establishment in a right quandary. In his interview, Imam outrageously questioned the democratic framework as a means of securing Muslim political rights, portrayed secularism as a majoritarian stratagem and challenged the idea of a unified Indian nation while going so far as to label the Constitution a trap and denouncing parliamentary democracy itself The point is not what Imam believes; radical fundamentalism has always worn its extremism on its sleeve. The real issue is why his pronouncements have not provoked the kind of hysterical moral outrage routinely directed at Hindu nationalism. Imam, who became a prominent face of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests of 2019–20, faces serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the Delhi riots conspiracy case and remains in judicial custody without conviction. The point is why are the voices, that routinely lecture the country on secularism, pluralism and constitutional morality, so conspicuously silent after Imam’s brazen statements. Figures like Imam have never existed in an ideological vacuum. Sections of the activist, academic and media elite gave the anti-CAA movement considerable moral and political support, and some commentators treated its more radical voices primarily through the prism of resistance to the Modi government, while wilfully sanitizing bigotry as 'dissent' and dressing up open sedition as mere political grievance When Hindu nationalist figures speak, their statements are meticulously dissected, parsed, and condemned for their threat to minority rights and secularism. Yet, when comparable or worse challenges to national cohesion, territorial integrity, and democratic principles emanate from minority or Islamist quarters, the same commentators suddenly discover the virtues of nuance, context and restraint. They retreat into a cowardly fence-sitting, desperate to avoid alienating a vocal constituency in their anti-regime coalition. Anything less than equal scrutiny turns universal principles into mere instruments of partisan convenience. This reveals a deeper, more embarrassing pathology among sections of the liberal establishment to conflate opposition to the government with absolute moral virtue. It exposes an unseemly willingness to forge Faustian bargains with extremist elements, operating on the crude and dangerous logic that the enemy of my enemy must be my ideological ally. An individual does not become a defender of democracy merely by opposing Narendra Modi, just as criticism of Islamist politics does not automatically make someone a Hindu nationalist. Ideological arguments must be judged by consistent standards rather than convenient labels. Liberalism that cannot confront illiberalism among its own ideological fellow-travellers is not principled liberalism. It then devolves into mere partisan hypocrisy and a hollow exercise in selective outrage that ultimately destroys the very democratic values it claims to defend.

Bamboo Against the Dragon

Writer: Dr. V.L. Dharurkar
Dr. V.L. Dharurkar
May 13
3 min read

As China grows more assertive in Asia, India and Vietnam are discovering that shared anxieties make for a durable strategic partnership.

In Asia’s crowded geopolitical theatre, few relationships have evolved as consequentially as that between India and Vietnam. Bound by ancient cultural ties and united by modern strategic anxieties, the two countries are steadily crafting a partnership that stretches from Buddhist monasteries to missile systems, from maritime security to semiconductor supply chains. What once rested on civilisational memory is now hardening into geopolitical necessity.


Vietnam, the slender S-shaped nation hugging the eastern edge of the Indochinese peninsula, occupies one of Asia’s most sensitive strategic locations. To its north lies China, with whom it shares a long and uneasy history; to its east stretches the increasingly contested South China Sea. Hanoi’s foreign policy establishment has responded with what diplomats call ‘bamboo diplomacy,’ which is flexible enough to bend with geopolitical winds, yet resilient enough not to break beneath them. Vietnam seeks cordial relations with China while simultaneously cultivating stronger partnerships with powers capable of balancing Beijing’s rise. India fits neatly into that calculus.


Pivotal Pillar

For New Delhi, meanwhile, Vietnam has emerged as a pivotal pillar of the “Act East” policy. Unlike many of India’s regional relationships, the connection with Vietnam carries little historical baggage. Instead, it is reinforced by a deep cultural familiarity that predates the modern nation-state. Indian traders, monks and scholars travelled across Southeast Asia centuries ago, leaving behind traces of Hindu and Buddhist civilisation that remain visible in Vietnam’s temples, art and folklore. The Archaeological Survey of India continues to assist in conserving ancient Cham monuments, reminders that India’s influence in Southeast Asia once travelled not through conquest, but commerce and culture.


Such historical sentiment alone, however, does not explain the growing warmth between the two governments. The real engine is strategic convergence.


The recent state visit of Vietnamese President To Lam to India underscored how rapidly the relationship is expanding. The two countries upgraded discussions on defence and foreign-policy coordination, explored the possibility of a future “2+2” ministerial dialogue, and reiterated their commitment to a free and stable Indo-Pacific. Behind the ceremonial embraces lay a harder geopolitical reality: both countries are wary of Chinese assertiveness in Asian waters.


Maritime Disputes

Vietnam’s maritime disputes with China in the South China Sea mirror India’s broader concerns over Beijing’s expanding footprint across the Indo-Pacific. As China projects naval power further into Asian waters, India and Vietnam increasingly see themselves as natural partners in preserving regional balance. Joint military exercises have become routine; defence cooperation has deepened; and Vietnam has shown interest in acquiring Indian-made defence equipment, including the BrahMos missile system, whose reputation has grown after India’s recent military demonstrations of indigenous capability.


To outside observers, this may appear an unlikely alignment. Vietnam remains officially communist; India is a boisterous democracy. Yet geopolitics often rewards pragmatism over ideology. Hanoi sees India as a trustworthy power with no territorial ambitions in Southeast Asia. India, in turn, views Vietnam as one of the few regional actors willing to quietly resist Chinese dominance without theatrical grandstanding.


Economics, too, is becoming central to the partnership. Bilateral trade remains modest relative to potential, but both governments have now set an ambitious target of reaching $25bn by 2030. That ambition reflects broader shifts in the global economy. As multinational firms seek alternatives to China-centric supply chains, Vietnam has become an increasingly attractive manufacturing destination. India hopes to position itself as both a market and a strategic economic partner in this transition.


The arrival of Vietnamese electric-vehicle manufacturer VinFast into Indian markets illustrates the possibilities. Investments planned in states such as Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu indicate that the relationship is moving beyond diplomatic symbolism into industrial cooperation. Discussions on semiconductors, digital technology, pharmaceuticals and rare-earth minerals further suggest that New Delhi and Hanoi increasingly view each other as partners in economic resilience.


Tourism and culture are adding another layer to this convergence. Tens of thousands of Indian tourists now visit Vietnam annually, drawn by its beaches, Buddhist heritage and affordability. Vietnamese pilgrims, meanwhile, travel to Buddhist sites in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, retracing spiritual pathways that long predate modern diplomacy.


India increasingly recognises that its influence in Asia depends not only on military power or economic heft, but also on its ability to revive older cultural networks across the Indo-Pacific.


The India-Vietnam partnership represents the convergence of history and strategy, culture and commerce, diplomacy and deterrence.


In an era increasingly defined by Chinese assertiveness and American unpredictability, India and Vietnam are discovering the advantages of standing closer together.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)


Comments

bottom of page