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.

Reset in the East

Writer: Dr. V.L. Dharurkar
Dr. V.L. Dharurkar
Apr 12
3 min read

After a period of drift, India and Bangladesh rediscover the logic of cooperation.

In history and diplomacy, geography is destiny but memory often intervenes. For India and Bangladesh, two neighbours bound by history, culture and an unruly border, the past has a habit of intruding upon the present. Yet recent developments suggest that the bilateral relationship, strained by political transitions and mutual suspicion, may be entering a phase of pragmatic recalibration.


The visit of Bangladesh’s foreign minister to New Delhi earlier this month signals an attempt by both sides to reset ties after nearly a year and a half of diplomatic chill. That frostiness followed political upheaval in Dhaka and a period of uneasy engagement under an interim dispensation under Muhammad Yunus, when mistrust deepened and cooperation stalled. Now, with a new government in place, both capitals appear keen to turn the page.


Decisive Role

The historical weight of the relationship is considerable. India played a decisive role in the birth of Bangladesh in 1971, intervening militarily to end Pakistan’s brutal campaign in its eastern wing. The legacy of that moment has long shaped bilateral ties, reinforced by shared linguistic and cultural affinities. Yet history, while binding, has not prevented periodic tensions between the two countries over water sharing, border management and domestic politics.


Under former PM Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh had achieved notable economic progress and relative political stability in recent years, becoming one of South Asia’s more dynamic economies. But her later tenure was marred by internal dissent, culminating in political unrest that forced her resignation and a temporary shift in governance. That interregnum proved difficult for India-Bangladesh relations, with accusations of policy drift, concerns over minority rights, and a general cooling of diplomatic warmth.


The return to an elected government in Dhaka has created an opportunity both sides seem determined to seize. The foreign minister’s visit was an exercise in fine-tuning.


Several areas of cooperation stand out. Water sharing, always a sensitive issue, has re-emerged as a focal point. The Ganga water-sharing treaty, signed three decades ago, is due for renewal in 2026. Early discussions on its extension suggest a willingness to avoid the brinkmanship that has characterised past negotiations. For Bangladesh, equitable access to river waters is a matter of economic survival; for India, it is a test of regional goodwill.


Equally important is the restoration of visa services. In recent years, restrictions have disrupted travel for Bangladeshi citizens, affecting medical tourism, education and trade. India remains a preferred destination for affordable healthcare and business engagement. The easing of visa procedures is a tangible step towards rebuilding trust at the level of ordinary citizens.


Security cooperation also featured prominently. The India-Bangladesh border, one of the longest in the world, has often been a site of friction, marked by smuggling, illegal crossings and occasional violence. Both sides now speak of reducing tensions and enhancing coordination. Defence ties, though modest, are expected to deepen, particularly in areas such as counter-terrorism and intelligence sharing.


Critical Issues

Energy has emerged as another critical domain. Bangladesh faces an acute fuel shortage, with deficits in diesel, petrol and liquefied petroleum gas straining its economy and testing the new government’s credibility. India, with its expanding energy infrastructure, is well placed to assist. Discussions during the visit reportedly focused on alleviating these shortages.


Bangladesh occupies a pivotal position in South Asia, serving as a bridge between India’s northeastern states and the wider Indo-Pacific region. Stable relations are thus not merely desirable but strategically essential. In an era of intensifying great-power competition, both countries have an interest in ensuring that their partnership remains resilient.


The visit also underscores a shift in tone. Where recent interactions were marked by caution, the current engagement reflects a more constructive approach. Meetings with senior Indian officials, including the national security adviser and the petroleum minister, point to a comprehensive agenda that spans security, energy and regional cooperation.


None of this guarantees smooth sailing. Structural challenges remain, and the relationship will continue to be shaped by domestic politics in both countries. But the willingness to engage and to prioritise mutual interests suggests a maturing partnership.


For India and Bangladesh, the task now is to ensure that the current thaw is not a fleeting moment but the beginning of a more stable equilibrium grounded less in sentiment and more in shared interests.


If that proves possible, the recent visit may indeed be remembered as a modest but meaningful turning point.


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

Comments

bottom of page