Opinion: The liberals may yet create their own Yogi

 

Politics has a wicked sense of humour. It often gives people precisely what they spend years trying to prevent

Look at Germany. The far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, has surged to the top in a state election, winning nearly 44 per cent of the vote in Saxony-Anhalt. The old political establishment is horrified. The parties that once believed they could keep the AfD behind a democratic firewall now have to reckon with its growing popularity.

Germany is not returning to Hitler. That comparison would be absurd. Adolf Hitler belonged to a different and infinitely darker age. But there is a lesson here which India's liberals would do well to study before dismissing it as another European curiosity.

When a large section of society begins to feel that its fears, identity and cultural anxieties are being mocked rather than heard, it does not necessarily become more liberal.

It becomes angry.

And angry voters have a habit of discovering politicians whom the respectable establishment finds frightening.

India could face its own version of this backlash.

For years, sections of the liberal and secular establishment have treated Hindu identity with the sort of suspicion normally reserved for a contagious disease. A temple procession becomes communalism. A demand to protect a religious tradition becomes majoritarianism. Vande Mataram becomes an argument. Hindu civilisation is expected to tolerate jokes about itself while being lectured on the virtues of tolerance.

There is nothing wrong with criticising Hinduism, Narendra Modi or the BJP. Democracy would be a rather dull business if everyone agreed with everyone else.

But there is a difference between criticism and contempt.

If that difference is deliberately erased, the reaction is predictable.

This is where Yogi Adityanath enters the story.

Yogi is not Narendra Modi. Modi has built a broad political coalition around nationalism, development, welfare, governance and Hindutva. Yogi represents a harder political temperament. He is more openly associated with aggressive law-and-order politics, Hindu identity and the use of the state against those he regards as breaking the rules.

His admirers call him decisive. His critics call him intolerant.

Both descriptions help him.

The curious thing about political demonisation is that it can increase the attraction of the demon.

Tell a voter repeatedly that a particular politician is dangerous, uncompromising and unacceptable, and you may eventually persuade that voter that the politician is precisely what the country needs.

Therein lies the danger for India's liberals.

If they continue to mock Hindu traditions, dismiss national sentiment, portray every expression of cultural pride as extremism and describe every institution they dislike as compromised, they may push moderate Hindus towards a much harder politics.

The argument is not that India will become Germany. Nor is Yogi another Hitler. Such comparisons belong in the rubbish bin.

The lesson is simpler.

**A society can tolerate only so much cultural condescension before it begins voting with its emotions rather than its reason.**

West Bengal offers an interesting warning. The BJP was once a marginal force there. Today, religion, identity and nationalism are central to the state's political conversation. Political loyalties that appeared permanent have proved remarkably temporary.

If the same process gathers momentum nationally, the political centre could move further towards Hindutva.

And then the question will not be whether Yogi Adityanath can become a major national figure.

The question will be whether his opponents have spent years preparing the ground for him.

There is an old saying that when you dig a pit for your enemy, you should first measure its depth.

India's liberals might want to take a look at theirs.

They may discover that they have been digging a swimming pool for Yogi.