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.

Terror Farce

Correspondent
Sep 2
2 min read

There is something almost comical about China and Pakistan sitting together at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and solemnly condemning terrorism. The recent Bishkek Declaration declared that “double standards” in the fight against terrorism was unacceptable. It called for action against terrorism, including the cross-border movement of terrorists, and rejects attempts to exploit terrorist, separatist and extremist groups for selfish purposes.


One wonders whether anyone at the table had the good sense to look towards Pakistan, especially China. For India, the irony is almost too perfect. The country that has for decades been accused of sponsoring and enabling cross-border terrorism against India has signed a declaration condemning the cross-border movement of terrorists. Pakistan has spent years trying to present itself as a victim of terrorism while India has repeatedly confronted terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil.


And sitting beside it is China, which is only too happy to lecture the world about terrorism when doing so suits its interests. It has made Pakistan one of its most important strategic partners and has repeatedly shielded Islamabad from international pressure.


The SCO’s origins make the charade even clearer. Pakistan was brought into the organisation not because it suddenly became a model of regional security or a natural champion of the fight against extremism. Its inclusion served China’s strategic purpose of putting Pakistan inside the grouping as a counterweight to India. Russia went along because Moscow had its own larger geopolitical calculations.


The Bishkek Declaration does, however, contain an important sentence perhaps more important than its authors intended. If double standards are indeed unacceptable, then terrorism must be condemned regardless of who commits it, whom it targets or whose geopolitical interests it serves.


That principle leaves Pakistan with nowhere to hide. A state cannot demand sympathy as a victim of terrorism while being accused of allowing terrorist infrastructure to operate from its territory. It cannot denounce extremism in international forums while refusing to confront the networks that have inflicted terror across its borders. And it certainly cannot sign declarations against the exploitation of terrorists while expecting India to forget decades of bloodshed.


China faces an equally uncomfortable question. What credibility does Beijing’s anti-terror rhetoric possess if its strategic embrace of Pakistan repeatedly overrides the very principles it publicly endorses?


Cross-border terror does not stop because diplomats discover the phrase “double standards.” Pakistan does not become a responsible state merely because it signs a document saying that responsible states should fight terrorism. The SCO has unintentionally put the hypocrisy on paper.


China and Pakistan can sit shoulder-to-shoulder and denounce terrorism. But India well knows the difference between a declaration and a deterrent. The real test of the SCO’s words is will China hold Pakistan to the same anti-terror standard it demands from everyone else?

Comments

bottom of page