The Other Indians

 

 The rise of Hindu Nationalism has become synonymous with the ushering in of the new Bharatiya Janata Party led vision of a new India. It also poses a serious threat to the constitutional sovereignty of India as a state, as it promotes a form of nationalism that is unimaginatively critical of minorities, and bent on rejuvenation of the Indian identity along the lines of a Hindu one. Similarly, it also hurts the unity and diversity of the Indian state while also fracturing it along communal lines. This form of a threat can be a serious security issue that can impact lives of those living beyond spatial boundaries as well. The primary referent object under this issue are the minorites, Dalits and Muslims and the threat being the very idea of Hindutva as propagated by the nationalist right-wing groups.

 

Foundations of Anarchy

Realism

In the realist sense, the security dilemma finds presence between two groups, and the fight for survival as the true Indian identity is what is the intention.

Structural Realists negate the idea of human nature being a consequential character in survival of the state. They argue that harmony cannot be automatically achieved and a balance of power will be best suited to reduce chances of conflict. On the other hand, classical realists argue that in a state of anarchy, the human nature of causing conflict would prevail.

Realists feel that in a state of anarchy, the security dilemma would never be overcome, and conflict will always prevail. Security Dilemma states that a state’s actions to secure itself puts another state’s security at risk, which in turn causes conflict. This is due to the fact that without anarchy, a state would be required to feel secure by submitting its sovereignty to other states.

Although it is not the rationale in the case of the minorities, we see this fight for survival taking root from human nature to wanting to rebel at the sight of threat. With a vast time period of Indian cultural history being shaped by Muslim (minority) rule and narrative, the Hindus find it risking of the Indian identity. Thus, we see the power struggle unfolding with neither of the two actor groups involved wanting to give up on the hold they have (can be synonymized with sovereignty). The anarchy problematique is prevalent throughout, with the governing authority unwilling to intervene, and the rule of law being in disregard for. In the case of the rise of Hindutva, a realist perspective on anarchy can be utilized to understand the issue at hand, i.e. finding the root of the problem, while not being able to point out a solution. This is where the liberal intervention finds shape.

Liberalism

In the liberal sense, the presence of anarchy is a given in an international order. Liberalism also believes in the state being self-preserving at its core, but the main actors are private groups. Here, these private groups are institutions to whom the state bestows the power onto, and thus, this form of liberal institutionalism is the primary theory that runs. The state is merely a regulator of motives, and every actor involved is believed to be rational enough to co-exist and negotiate on an equal plane. The fact that power is institutionalized means that there is more structure, and therefore, anarchy and its meaning is slightly diluted. Liberal Theory still believes however, in the fact that anarchy exists, but seeks to be more democratic, cooperative and structured in order to mitigate equal benefits and parity. This is complemented by the Neo-liberal perspective, which theorizes the relative gains perspective (Keohane 88). According to it, the security dilemma can be overcome simply by realizing the mutual gains and promoting a new form of cooperative security.

In the case of the issue at hand, we see that regulating power to institutions can be one of the possible solutions. Keohane’s point regarding inter-dependence helps us understand the position of the two groups through the ‘relative gains’ argument. The anarchy can be explained along the lines of how each group will judge their own benefits and position in comparison to the other, and will be willing to forgo personal benefits if the other group will mutually also benefit. While liberal theory talks about all the actors having equal bargaining power and incentive to engage in dialogue, the failure of the state to present itself as a mediator between the rational actors guides the discourse to a unsurprising standstill. At the end of the day, we see how the situation and its importance to a growing democratic state such as India comes down to individuals and their identity. The constructivist angle seeks to explain anarchy through the same, social constructs and the basics of identity.

Constructivism

Constructivism main bone of contention is the objective existence of Anarchy itself. Thus, its argument is made clear, that the presence and interpretation of a state of anarchy is subjective. A state, or a non-state actor’s individual understanding of anarchy will lead them to behave a certain way. Hopf’s idea of an anarchic world order as an imagined community which can hold any number of perceived notions about anarchy itself tells us exactly how its meaning can be constructed differently. According to constructivists, power is not the main driver of anarchy, but it is rather one of the numerous things that can affect it. For them, international relations and the order (anarchic or not) is shaped and created through time, and is in stark contrast of the fact that power politics will prevail and war is unavoidable. When Hopf says “A world without identity is a world of chaos” (Hopf 175), he means to talk about a level of predictability and relationality that cannot be seen anywhere else. He also mentions that said identity is subject to change. In a state, there are separated identities that one can attest themselves to, along with the one that the state frames for itself along the way. This form of mutually constituted identities is the main driver of constructivism and this also helps provide agency. This form of Inter-subjectivity in the given context has failed because of the presence of the realist perception of anarchy.

The Indian context can provide for different connotations of threatening the security and sovereignty of individuals and identity, and the lob-sided disadvantageous leaning of the Hindu right along with the governance has shown anarchy as a driving force of insecurity.

Bibliography:

1.      Dornan, Miriam. “Realist and Constructivist Approaches to Anarchy”. 2011.

2.      Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory”. International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer, 1998), pp. 171-200

3.      Keck, Zachary. “Kenneth Waltz on “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb””. The Diplomat. 2012.

4.      Keohane, Robert. ““International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy. 1998. 82-96.

5.      Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics”. International Organization, 391-425.