In their newly edited book, The New Republic: Populism, Power and Trajectories of Indian Democracy (published by Aakar Books in 2022), Shray Mehta and Ravi Kumar take an innovative approach to exploring contemporary Indian politics under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second mandate by putting together a compilation of nine interviews: seven scholars on India and two politician-activists. Along with their contributors, the authors build a complex analysis of contemporary Indian politics with a large fresco exploring neoliberalism, authoritarianism, populism, ethnonationalism, majoritarianism, Hindutva, caste dynamics and new social movements. The contributors explore current political developments through a Marxist approach, with a focus on historical continuities, micro-phenomena and local dynamics and drawing from a transdisciplinary scholarship. The book is an occasion to encounter various scholars in their quest to answer a pressing question: “What happened to Indian democracy in 2019?”.
This format mirrors in many ways Pradeep Chhibber and Harsh Shah’s recent book: “India Tomorrow: Conversations with the Next-Generation Political Leaders” (2020), by compiling politicians’ interviews. In this book, Mehta and Kumar offer the public an easy-to-read wide range of informal yet complex academic discussions brought to light with little jargon, and historical and analytical depth. Their promise to present conversations beyond the “journalistic attempts”. It is an enjoyable book that caters to both political scientists looking for theoretical and empirical contextualisation, as well as to the general reader interested in contemporary politics. One can particularly appreciate the selection of contributors mainly composed of well-grounded Indian scholars (except Nilsen). Interviews are structured well, whether by theme (economy, nationalism, populism, authoritarianism, minorities) or conceptual and analytical framework, presenting the reader with various schools of thought: Marxist class struggle, Gramscian hegemony, W.E.B. Du Bois’ dignity wage, Althusser’s state apparatus, or Ambedkarism for the 21st Century. Each provides worthy explanations for the conditions and development of authoritarian politics and Hindu majoritarianism under neoliberalism.
The book takes on contemporary “authoritarianism” beyond regime change by approaching the economic, cultural, narrative, social and caste transformations at play. By describing the transformation of India’s political-economic discourse from the “welfare” to neoliberal concepts of “efficiency” (indexes, welfare schemes) and “good governance” (business-friendly), the book articulates sharply the broader themes of global capital, with the end of welfarism, the rise of authoritarian governance, and the submission of democracy and judiciary in the name of development. The critics first explore the contemporary situation as a historical continuity and acceleration of UPA’s autocratic drifts – whose keenness on usurping constitutional frameworks, and exploiting corruption and repression for political gains, while bowing to neoliberal injunctions – have buried “welfarism”, thus, paving the way for Modi’s ethno-nationalist and “development” discourse (10-15).
The book goes on with Achin Vanaik (26-40) questioning the new regime after the 2019 elections, with an epistemological debate on the effect of transnational economic forces, and the nature of hegemony and state-apparatus; populism, sovereignty and nationalism; identity-formations and dilemmas; and competing imaginaries while modernity clashes with religious rebirth. Following the discussion on narratives, Nilsen (41-58) develops W.E.B. Du Bois’ concept to explore “the wages of Hinduness” shaping majoritarian wishes of affective and aspirational forms of dignities relying on minorities suppression, delving into a Gramscian analysis of the end of Congress and the rise of RSS’ hegemony in the face of global capital, and its ideological translations into India’s legislative and institutional framework.
The book continues with Maidul Islam’s chapter (pp. 59-86) on Muslim electoral politics, “Muslim particularism”, questioning “identities” in the face of exclusion, and the obstacles for the marginalised to constitute a unitary movement (or an electoral coalition) to resist growing authoritarianism. Following this, Hilal Ahmad (pp. 87-105) offers a large debate on concept definitions, concept co-optations (by the RSS), discourses and (counter) narrative on “nationalism”, “development”, “secularism” and “Muslims” as a constitutional minority and a vote bank. Subir Sinha (pp. 106-116) returns to hegemony and narratives by addressing strong men and populism, Modi’s constant image transformation through PR, the rise of vigilante politics along with the capture of state power.
For Anand Teltumbde (pp. 117-148), the capture of state power is first explored through the economic aspects resulting from the formation of NITI Aayog, BJP’s fiscal and economic policies, or new reservation demands from powerful caste groups. The famous Ambedkarite then continues by exploring constitutionalism and reservations for Dalits, the division of the Ambedkarite movement after Ambedkar’s death, or instances of co-optation of the movement by Hindu-nationalist forces from Maharashtra to UP. Teltumbde’s argument is continued by the fellow Dalit leader and activist-politician Jignesh Mevani (pp. 149-152), who interrogates the future and the renewal of Dalit politics, from constitutional to land revendications during the Una movement.
Similarly, Nandini Sundar (pp. 157-161) addresses the question of how the Left can revive itself, while the BJP and the RSS have patiently infiltrated state and education institutions, filling in the gaps left by liberalisation. Reviving the Left is also the concern of farmer leader Vijoo Krishnan (pp. 162-175), whose experience of social and farmers’ movements makes him think beyond electoral politics. Thus, especially considering the author Shrey Mehta’s recent article on agrarian populism, it is no surprise to see Krishnan concluding the sets of interviews by drawing it as fertile soil for new narratives of resistance.
Nevertheless, “The New Republic” would have benefitted from adding an extended description and justification of its methodological approach and interview selection process. Moreover, the book’s layout lacks some key information, for instance, interviewees’ names are missing from the page header, interview dates are at the end of each chapter, and contributors’ biography and bibliography is in the annex. The absence of this information for the general (non-academic) public is a pity considering the book’s quality.
To conclude, the book brings political theories on authoritarianism in India to the wider public. Undeniably so, its interview format offers an inherent explorative and exciting theoretical dive with scholars juggling with their thought process, personal theorization, and in-development ideas on economic neo-liberalisation, rising authoritarianism, new hegemonies, narratives, and resistances. Yet, the book is a simple read of complex issues in the current contemporary challenges to Indian democracy. Not only does it add to the growing literature on “authoritarianism” in India but offers insight into what scholars’ thoughts were during Indian democracy’s tipping point. It is a testimony of the times, “an attempt to capture this intellectual moment” (p.12).
***
Victor Alembik is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at the University of Milan.