Weaving a Social Consensus in the era of Identity Politics

Political hierarchies and structures are intrinsic to human nature; from divinely-anointed kings of ancient Mesopotamia to the code of Hammurabi, and from political organisations of ancient Egypt to the advanced administrative systems of the Indus Valley Civilisation, political thought is perhaps as old as the civilisation itself. However, it can be of interest to a scholar of sociology that each historical era and geographical locality is dominated by a particular political philosophy. In more recent times, after the gargantuan human cost of World War II, world politics came to be broadly defined by two political camps. On one side were the United States and its NATO allies, claiming to uphold the values of liberty and economic freedom, while on the other was the USSR believing in its own version of the Marxist thought. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s signaled the end of the Cold War; the United States declared itself the winner and the USSR was forced to disintegrate into 15 sovereign nations. 

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a significant event in world history for more than one reason. It not only signaled the end of the Cold War but it also marked the end of the communist dream creating a developed nation strictly according to the ideals of Marxism. It was not just a deadly blow to the USSR but also to the very nature of Marxism as a political philosophy. The world recognised that capitalism might take small steps towards human happiness but that the communist praxis is surely a giant leap in the opposite direction. However, an ideology that had taken the world by storm for the better part of a century could not have become obsolete in a day. The economic model of Marxism might have collapsed but the ideological framework has remained, and it slowly transformed into cultural Marxism. This was, perhaps, the genesis of the notion of identity politics as we know it today. Of course, the very idea of identity politics, i.e. the political practice of coming together around shared aspects of identity—such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nationality—rather than around ideological, economic, or partisan lines, has been around since time immemorial. However, in modern times, the kind of discourse one is witnessing around gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation today can be largely attributed to this newfound notion of cultural Marxism post the 1990s. 

Identity politics, by its very nature, stems from very innocent foundations of demanding rights and respect for the underprivileged sections of society, but when it forms an unholy alliance with the doctrine of Marxism, it only contributes to resentment among masses and fragmentation of society as a whole. A notable example can be found in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 1970s in the United States; the movement began as a form of  resistance against the racism prevalent in American society to demand equal rights for the African-American community. Unfortunately, when this very legitimate and needed initiative movement got hijacked by cultural Marxists in more recent times, it gave birth to a politics of resentment against  American society as a whole. A movement that could have resulted in better policies for the African-American communities and the American society as a whole, turned into monkey-balancing of how many African-Americans should be induced in a party cabinet or any other institution. Similarly, the feminist movement began with the demand for Universal Adult Suffrage granting women the right to vote and become part of the democratic process; unfortunately, today’s identity politics has turned it into a movement of gender warfare instead of generating more egalitarian policies. Kamala Harris, the Presidential Candidate from the Democratic Party for the 2024 US elections, largely represents the shortcomings of today’s identity politics; her credentials include being a “woman” and also conveniently becoming African-American and Indian-American depending on whom she is talking to, while the factor of personal merit and qualifications has gone for a toss. Identity politics of today focuses on the gender, race or religion of people more than what they stand for, and that ironically is also the premise of sexism, racism and communalism. Identity politics has become the very monster that it swore to destroy. 

Another gargantuan loophole in this brand of identity politics is that it reduces a person to an arbitrary singular identity, failing to register the multiplicity of identities within a single person. It does not acknowledge that human beings are complex, dynamic, evolving beings with myriad identities merged into one. The first step towards social cohesion would be to give utmost importance to a person’s ideals, thoughts, and principles instead of their birth-based identities. As the renowned author JK Rowling has succinctly put it, “It matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be”. 

India being a land of innumerable religious, ethnic, linguistic and caste identities, it provides a much more fertile ground for identity politics to sow discord between communities. Since every citizen of India is already equal under the  law, identity politics has resorted to counting the representation by Members of Parliament from each particular community. This absurd approach raises two very pertinent questions. One, can a Muslim MP alone work for the betterment of the Muslim community, and by that logic, should a Hindu MP only work for the betterment of the Hindu community and so on? Secondly, in a country of communities within communities and micro-minorities within minorities, where does this game of representation end? Essentially, every minute we spend weighing identities against each other is a minute we don’t spend on good governance and development. 

It is not like the Indian subcontinent has not done this experiment before either. The notion that only a Muslim leader can raise his voice about  Muslim issues led to a painful partition of this country. The two-nation theory was nothing but identity politics in its most extreme, crude and cruel form. On the other hand, India rejected this thought process and adopted a progressive model of constitutional democracy; in which each elected leader is responsible for the development of a particular geographical locality where the identity of the residents and the leader does not matter. The very character of India’s democratic structure stands as an antithesis to the parochial nature of identity politics influenced by Marxist thought.

This is not to suggest that the politics around identities or the identities themselves would disappear from the social discourse; rather, the social discourse needs to shift its focus toward development agendas and progressive policies that benefit every citizen of the country. It is perfectly normal and natural to feel an affinity towards one’s birth-based identity or identities; however, for the sake of social cohesion and overall development, it needs to be internalised that one identity reigns supreme over all other identities and that is Bharatiyata – the Indian national identity. It should be asserted without any hesitation that India is a civilisational state whose roots lie in the Vedic teachings. It is also a modern nation-state founded on Dharmic values and its progressivism is a contemporary expression of thousands of years old traditions of debates and discussions – Vadavidya. India is celebrated as a land of unity in diversity but if it is described only as an amalgamation of different cultures, it would not be incorrect, but incomplete. India is a land of many cultures, religions and ethnicities adding to its pristine beauty but the thread that binds all these cultures and ethnicities together is the thread of Vedic teachings and values. 

With Indian identity as the bedrock and social discourse around scientific temper, progressive policies, and development agendas, we can not only aim to develop as a nation but also strive to secure social cohesion in the era of identity politics.