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...

min read

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.

The Battle for Great Nicobar

Commodore S.L. Deshmukh

May 11

4 min read

China’s discomfort with India’s island ambitions may be the clearest indication yet of Great Nicobar’s strategic value.

As India pushes ahead with its ambitious Rs. 80,000-crore Great Nicobar infrastructure project, an unlikely convergence has emerged. Chinese commentators have intensified criticism of the island’s development, warning of ecological destruction and strategic destabilisation. At home, opposition politicians and environmental activists have mounted similar attacks, portraying the initiative as an assault on tribal rights and biodiversity. Beneath the environmental rhetoric, however, lies a harder geopolitical reality: Great Nicobar occupies one of the most strategically sensitive maritime locations in the Indo-Pacific, barely 100 nautical miles from the Malacca Strait through which much of China’s trade and energy supplies flow.

Maritime Power

The battle over Great Nicobar is therefore about far more than forests. It is about whether India intends to become a serious maritime power or remain a hesitant continental one. For decades, India’s island territories were treated as distant appendages rather than strategic assets. Yet geography has a stubborn habit of asserting itself. Great Nicobar, India’s southernmost island, sits close to the main East-West shipping corridor linking Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Nearly 40% of global trade passes through these waters. Whoever can monitor these sea lanes enjoys not merely commercial advantages but immense strategic leverage.

That reality has acquired fresh urgency amid intensifying Indo-Pacific rivalries. China’s naval presence in the Indian Ocean has expanded steadily over the past decade. Chinese submarines have made periodic appearances in the region, while Beijing has pursued access arrangements and port projects stretching from Gwadar in Pakistan to Hambantota in Sri Lanka. India increasingly views these developments as part of a broader strategic encirclement.

Great Nicobar offers New Delhi a chance to respond. The proposed development project seeks to transform the island into a major maritime and logistics hub. At its centre lies a massive International Container Transshipment Terminal capable of handling 14.2 million TEUs annually. Alongside it are plans for a greenfield international airport, a power plant and a modern township. The objective is both economic and strategic: reduce India’s dependence on foreign transshipment hubs such as Singapore and Colombo while simultaneously strengthening its surveillance and military reach near the Malacca Strait.

In commercial terms, the logic is difficult to dispute. Despite being one of the world’s largest trading economies, India still depends heavily on foreign ports for cargo transshipment. Much Indian cargo is rerouted through overseas hubs before reaching global markets, increasing costs and strategic dependence. A deep-water port at Great Nicobar could alter that equation, positioning India as a more consequential maritime trading power.

Military Value

The island’s military utility may be even more significant. Great Nicobar sits at a vantage point from which India can monitor shipping traffic across the Andaman Sea and the approaches to Malacca. It strengthens the Andaman and Nicobar Command, India’s only integrated tri-service command, while enhancing the country’s ability to respond rapidly to regional crises, whether military or humanitarian. In an era when maritime competition increasingly shapes global politics, such infrastructure is not a luxury but a strategic necessity.

China, unsurprisingly, appears uneasy. Chinese commentary surrounding the project has frequently emphasised environmental risks and alleged political controversies. State-linked narratives have portrayed the development as ecologically reckless, highlighting its impact on forests and indigenous communities. Yet Beijing’s sudden ecological sensitivity has struck many observers as selective. China itself continues to pursue enormous infrastructure ventures in environmentally fragile regions, including controversial dam projects on the Brahmaputra and extensive construction in the South China Sea.

Like most great powers, China tends to discover environmental principles most passionately when strategic rivals begin building infrastructure near its vulnerabilities. And Great Nicobar touches one of China’s deepest strategic anxieties: the ‘Malacca dilemma.’ Chinese leaders have long feared that rival powers could disrupt energy and trade flows through the narrow strait during a conflict. Roughly four-fifths of China’s imported oil passes through these waters. An India with expanded naval and logistical capabilities near the chokepoint complicates Beijing’s calculations considerably.

But India’s challenge is not merely external. The government must also confront legitimate domestic concerns. Great Nicobar is ecologically sensitive terrain, home to tropical evergreen forests, unique biodiversity and indigenous communities such as the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes. Critics warn that large-scale construction could irreversibly damage fragile ecosystems and disrupt tribal life.

Such concerns deserve scrutiny rather than dismissal. Strategic ambition cannot become an excuse for administrative recklessness. The government insists that safeguards are in place. Officials point out that the project has received environmental clearances under existing regulatory frameworks, including the EIA Notification of 2006 and the Island Coastal Regulation Zone norms of 2019. Authorities also argue that compensatory afforestation and re-notification measures will offset ecological and tribal impacts. Whether these assurances translate into credible implementation will determine much of the project’s long-term legitimacy.

Still, the broader strategic rationale remains compelling. India has spent years speaking of the Indo-Pacific, maritime connectivity and the ‘Act East’ policy. Great Nicobar represents one of the clearest attempts to convert those slogans into physical infrastructure. Nations do not emerge as maritime powers through speeches alone. They require ports, airfields, logistics chains and sustained investment in frontier geographies.

There is also a deeper shift underway in India’s strategic imagination. Since independence, the country has largely thought of security through a continental lens, focused on land borders with Pakistan and China. But the centre of geopolitical gravity is moving steadily toward the seas. Trade routes, naval deployments, undersea cables and maritime chokepoints increasingly shape global influence. The Indian Ocean, once viewed as India’s backyard, is becoming an arena of intense great-power rivalry. Great Nicobar symbolises India’s attempt to adapt to that reality.

The debate surrounding the island is therefore not simply about development versus conservation. It is about whether India can pursue strategic infrastructure without descending into either ecological vandalism or endless political paralysis.

For China, the implications are already clear. An India entrenched near the mouth of the Malacca Strait represents a long-term strategic complication. For India, the project reflects a broader recognition that geography unused is opportunity wasted.

(The writer is a retired naval aviation officer and a defence and geopolitical analyst. Views personal.)

2 Comments

sumantshirish

May 12

Very interesting and informative article

Vinayak Deodhar

May 12

Great Nicobar project is indeed of vital importance to India not only as a transhipment hub but it is in conformity with India's geo-political ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. With NGT clearing the project, pseudo environmentalists are bound to take the matter to SC. What happens there is mere conjuctute today . Perhaps there is urgent need for GoI to accelerate the timelines and begin implementation of phase 1 immediately