India's Middle Class comes armed with Entitlement and little Gratitude

From Girish Menon

Modiji phones Nirmala Sitharaman, 'Nirmalaji, yeh madhyam varg kyon ro rahen hai?

Nirmala: Sir, in Mussalmano ko rone do, Kuch dere ke baad chup ho jayenge'.

Modi: 'Kya matlab? Inme koi Mussalman nahi hai'

Nirmala: Sir, yeh log hamare Mussaalman hai. Mera matlab hum kuch bhi kare aur chunav time par bole ki Hindu khatren mein hai to yeh kamal par angootha lag denge.

Modi: Ha, ha, main bhool gaya tha! Lage raho Nirmalaji.

---

Shekhar Gupta in The Print

With her latest Budget, finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman has walked into the nastiest of all hornets’ nests: the Great Indian Middle Class.

Through the week, she and her ministry have been pilloried on social media. Those in the mainstream media are dismayed, but more measured.

There can be reasonable, pragmatic, ideological, and even moral arguments against the new, Thomas Piketty-esque (soak the rich, especially when they earn from their accumulated wealth) changes in the capital gains taxes. It doesn’t justify the kind of outrage it has unleashed, with hundreds of furious, often personalised, memes.

Did the Modi government fail to read the minds of its most valuable constituency, the (mostly Hindu) middle class? Or did it take it too much for granted? In an earlier National Interest published on 6 July, 2019, we had argued that the middle classes were like the Modi BJP’s Muslims.

That somewhat cheeky formulation was drawn from how the government continued to collect more and more by way of taxes on petrol and diesel to fund its humongous programme of direct benefit transfers to the poor. It was a kind of innovative Robin Hood politics. Take from the middle class and give to the poor.

It made the poor, who constitute a vast majority of voters, happy. And if the middle class was fretting, so be it. They were going to vote for the BJP anyway. Our argument was that the BJP could take the middle-class votes for granted like the ‘secular’ parties with the Muslims.

Will this change now? I guess not. This fury will blow over, probably as some ‘corrections’, especially on indexing, are made, and buttons more significant than taxes are pushed: nationalism, religion, the Gandhi family. The usual mix. Many of those ranting now will continue to vote for the BJP. They are not disaffected with Modi, his party, or its ideology. They adore all three. At this point, they are simply like slighted lovers.

What the Modi government got wrong with this Budget and in its economic signalling is in moving away from its generally upbeat, ‘India is on the rise, growth will get steeper, markets are red hot and will get redder’ messaging. A sobering signal from the Budget, if sensible and prudent, is a bummer for the faithful.

The middle class, however, is addicted to good news, hype, even gratitude, and believe each Budget should make them more money.

What they did not want to be told instead was: ‘Listen, guys, you’ve made a lot, especially in the decade’s boom. It’s time you paid back a bit more.’ And maybe that it wasn’t quite virtuous to make even more money on your accumulated wealth.

The rich won’t bother. The middle class, especially those in the lower half of this large socio-economic section who took large EMIs, bought second homes as investments, moved their savings from RBI-guaranteed bank fixed deposits to stocks, mutual funds and debt bonds, are the ones kicking at the government’s shins.

Many of them might’ve lived with increased taxation. They love Narendra Modi and his larger politics enough to be willing to pay some price for it. After all, more than a crore of them gave up their LPG subsidy on his ‘give it up’ call. What’s taken them by surprise is the change in messaging. They probably see this as being told that they’ve done something immoral, made too much money, and the state is reining them back in.

Since reform began in the summer of 1991, successive governments and finance ministers have had one consistent focus: driving those with any financial surpluses towards the markets. That is why capital gains tax breaks were brought in and expanded over these decades. The markets said ‘thank you’, boomed, and rewarded the governments of the day.

Every government in these 33 years, especially the current one, has celebrated the rising number of mutual fund folios, demat accounts and rising indices. Some of the recent nudges, beginning with action on the debt bonds in the 2023 Budget, seem to be directed at bringing the same surplus-generating classes back to bank deposits. They were not ready for it.

Just what is India’s middle class? A lifestyle approach is too amorphous, anecdotal. Do the income tax payers make this middle class? The number of those who actually pay taxes, less than a third of those who file returns (2.2 crore out of 7.4) will not even be a fraction of what has long been on the way to becoming the world’s largest middle class.

It might be safer, instead, to think about what this middle class wants. It wants, and definitely expects, India to be the hottest economy in the world, a leader in fields ranging from economics to science, sports to the military, manufacturing to software, and of course all this with a historically mandated right to sermonise to the world.

They may not use the expression, but they do not dispute the claim or at least the ambition of being vishwaguru. They love to believe the West is in decline and India’s time has come. If I were to record one video saying the dollar is on its last legs, that American power is in terminal decline, that Europe is finished, it would be bound to go viral. Never mind the facts. The scene that most characterises this middle-class mood is enacted every sunset at the Wagah border flag lowering.

Those are the expectations with which they keep voting for Modi/BJP. They see their own growing wealth, the market boom, the world coming to invest in India, as elements in the same package. Ideally, of course, they’d want to achieve all this while paying no taxes. Or Singapore-level taxes. They’d be OK with Singapore-level democracy as well. Now they’re being told to return to bank fixed deposits!

Since it is tempting to get ahead of myself, I will stop here. Let’s just say we still do not know what the middle class is and what it wants. Let’s stick to what we know the Indian middle class isn’t. That is, being grateful.

The heat the Modi government is feeling will cool down soon. But name the one person who’s done more than any other Indian across three generations to create, expand and enrich this new middle class. By deregulating, burning the licence-quota raj, opening imports, cutting taxes and tariffs, and pushing the same middle class towards the markets with generous tax incentives.

Then let us ask who’s the one leader the same middle class has detested most of all since, say, 2011. You’ve guessed right. He is Dr Manmohan Singh. In 1999, he and his party checked out his popularity in India’s most middle-class constituency by fielding him for the Lok Sabha in South Delhi. He lost. What did they expect? A thank-you vote? He’s only got contempt instead. This middle class comes armed with entitlement, not burdened with gratitude.

The RSS talks with Jamiat leaders: Najeeb Jung

 

'What's Happening is Plunder': Subramanian Swamy

 

Is Modi Afraid of Lok Sabha Elections?

 

A Religious Market Theory Explained

Nadeem F Paracha in The Dawn

In 1987, the American sociologists Rodney Stark and William S. Bainbridge formulated a ‘Religious Market Theory.’ The theory is a critique of the ‘Secularisation Thesis.’ The secularisation thesis was initially developed by the German sociologist Max Weber in the early 20th century. In the next five decades, it was further evolved by numerous scholars.

To Weber, due to modernisation, especially from the late 18th century onwards, societies entered a process of ‘spiritual disenchantment.’ Space for ‘pre-modern’ beliefs in magic, faith and superstition shrank and people began to adopt more rational modes of thinking.

Even non-Western societies started to adopt models of modernisation and, indeed, here as well, the traditional variants of religion began to decline. They were replaced by secularised formations of traditional faiths, framed and monopolised by the state.

But the secularisation thesis came into question when, from the mid-1970s onwards, the exhibition of religiosity, especially in modernised Muslim-majority nation-states, began to grow.

In the 1980s, when religiosity saw an increase in the US as well, Stark and Bainbridge formulated their religious market theory, challenging the secularisation thesis. The religious market theory suggests that when religiosity declines, it eventually revives itself, because the decline opens up spaces for new faiths and modified versions of the old faiths to emerge.

Stark and Bainbridge saw the rise and decline of religiosity as a cycle, which moves like markets do in capitalist settings. Religions which fail to adjust to the needs of changing conditions, fall by the wayside and lose followers. Readjusted religions and new faiths begin to emerge in a scenario where religiosity seems to be receding.

Gradually, though, new and readjusted variants are able to revive interest in faith, by providing services and products that are better suited to meet the needs of changing conditions.

According to Stark and Bainbridge, this cycle produces a diverse collection of faiths, cults, sects and subsects, which compete against each other in the ‘marketplace of faiths’ and improve to attract followers. The religious market theory posits that this renews an interest in faith and religiosity.

In 19th century India, during the complete fall of the Mughal Empire and the mushrooming of British colonialism, the established variants of Islam began to struggle to keep pace with the changing conditions. It seemed that the modernity introduced by the British was rapidly secularising the polity. But as the old religious ethos dwindled, new variants emerged to address the changing needs of India’s Muslims.

On the one hand, new Sunni sects such as Deobandi, Barelvi and Ahl-i-Hadith sprang up and, on the other, the Ahmadiyya, the Ahl-i-Quran and Muslim Modernism emerged. They competed against each other, promising the most suitable narratives to India’s ‘depressed’ Muslims and, in the process, gathering followers — more importantly, followers who had political and economic clout.

From the mid-19th century till the 1920s, the marketplace of faiths in South Asia flourished with new variations of Islam and Hinduism. The variants were products/brands, and their followers were consumers. This indeed witnessed a renewed interest in religion and religiosity.

However, from the late 1940s, when India split into two nation-states, Bharat and Pakistan, the state in both countries decided to monopolise the marketplace of faiths, through an overarching meta-narrative.

India formulated a nationalist secularism that sought to build a socialist democracy. It was to provide economic services that religious organisations had been offering to attract followers. The state in Pakistan began to shape a nationalist-modernist variant of Islam and it regulated the marketplace of faiths by bringing its shops and products under the state’s control.

According to some contemporary proponents of the religious market theory, the presence of a centralised and ‘official’ faith eschews religious diversity. It nationalises the marketplace of faiths. This causes a decline in religiosity, as has been the case in various Scandinavian countries and in Britain.

The state in India (through nationalist-secularism) and Pakistan (through modernist-nationalist Islam) attempted to do this. Religion did not decline as such, but religiosity did.

In the 1970s, new economic and political challenges emerged in Pakistan and India. These also challenged the nationalisation of the marketplace of faiths. In Pakistan, political elites tried to absorb the alternatives offered by Sunni and Shia sects and subsects. They privatised the marketplace and began to gather fresh followers, who could not find remedies anymore in the centralised state-approved variant.

By the 1980s, the marketplace of faiths was once again booming. In Pakistan, the state continued to try absorbing the new variants by discarding the old modernist variant. But, as the middle class and the lower-middle class segments expanded, they became the most active consumers of new variants, thereby re-energising the marketplace of faiths.

These variants ranged from renewed and modified versions of evangelical Islam, to the more radical versions of Sunni and Shia sects and subsects. Religiosity revived itself.

In India, economic liberalisation weakened the monopoly of the nationalist-secular narrative in the marketplace of faiths. The Indian historian Meera Nanda, in her book The God Market, has closely tracked the trajectory of the expanding elite and middle-income groups in India, from being consumers of the nationalist-secular narrative, to becoming the most prominent consumers of Hindu nationalism — especially after benefitting from the post-1980s ‘neo-liberal’ economic policies.

According to Nanda, these segments, who now exercise increasing economic influence, “re-ritualised and re-enchanted Hinduism.” They now view Hinduism as being inherently compatible with modern economic ideas that guarantee profitability and prosperity. This, too, is how the renewed evangelical variants of Islam peddled their narrative to the elite and middle-income groups in Pakistan.

Consequently, exhibitions of religiosity have witnessed a manifold increase in both the countries. However, within the marketplace of faiths are also variants that are problematic. These include the more reactionary manifestations of faiths. For example, those looking to undermine Muslims in India in a violent manner will shop for variants that aid the consumer to theologically justify acts of violence.

This is also true in Pakistan. There are sectarian and sub-sectarian variants in the marketplace of faiths, which ‘theologically’ validate actions of those who want to use or instigate violence against an opponent in the name of faith.

More worrying is the fact that many urban, ‘educated’ folk, too, buy these variants, especially products (in the shape of narratives) that justify or instigate violence. These are often used to demonise perceived enemies as ‘Ahmadiyya sympathisers,’ or ‘anti-Islam’.

The marketplace of faiths is now almost entirely unregulated. And the state and governments whose job it was to regulate it, too, have become consumers in the marketplace of faiths to justify their own existence.

Hindutva and Neoliberal Economics

 

'Why doesn't the government organise elections in Kashmir?': Owaisi

 

A Level Economics: BJP, Hindutva, and Navigating Cognitive Dissonance: Insights from Brexit

ChatGPT

In the intricate tapestry of Indian politics, the emergence of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the concurrent rise of Hindutva ideology have not only reshaped the nation's socio-political landscape but have also engendered profound societal divisions, echoing the polarization that marked the aftermath of the UK's Brexit. As we delve into the complex interplay between the BJP's ascendancy and the fervor surrounding Hindutva, it becomes imperative to explore whether cognitive dissonance—a psychological phenomenon arising when beliefs clash with opposing information—can be resolved to pave the way for a more cohesive and inclusive India.

At the heart of the BJP's appeal lies its promise of robust economic growth, bolstering national pride, and safeguarding cultural heritage. This potent allure has resonated deeply with a substantial segment of the population, galvanizing unwavering support for the party's vision. However, much like the cognitive dissonance that emerged among Brexiteers seven years after Brexit, the fervent belief in the BJP's narrative has spawned cognitive dissonance among its followers, which has surfaced nine years after the BJP came to power in Delhi.

Imagine a scenario where an ardent BJP supporter, let's call him Raj, wholeheartedly subscribes to the party's agenda of preserving cultural and religious identity. However, Raj grapples with cognitive dissonance as he confronts mounting reports of religious intolerance and violence directed towards minority communities. This dissonance between his support for the party's cultural preservation ideals and the emerging evidence of social strife creates a psychological discomfort.

Furthermore, the BJP's economic policies have been touted as drivers of prosperity and job creation. This narrative, though compelling, has also ignited cognitive dissonance in supporters who ardently champion the party's economic agenda. For instance, Priya, a devoted BJP follower, may find herself in cognitive dissonance when faced with data indicating widening economic inequality under the party's rule. The discord between her belief in the BJP's economic prowess and the evidence of increasing disparities can lead to psychological tension.

Analogous to the cognitive dissonance witnessed in the UK's Brexit discourse, where individuals clung to economic promises despite contradicting evidence, cognitive dissonance surrounding the BJP and Hindutva can impede rational discourse. Similar to Brexiteers who steadfastly clung to the vision of an economically robust post-Brexit Britain, BJP supporters might resist acknowledging challenges faced by various segments of the population due to economic policies.

Psychologists emphasize that addressing cognitive dissonance necessitates empathetic conversations that refrain from attacking or belittling individuals for their beliefs. In the Indian context, this might entail engaging BJP supporters in dialogues that validate their economic aspirations and cultural preservation concerns while also fostering discussions about the intricate nuances of policies and their ramifications.

Overcoming cognitive dissonance linked to cultural and economic dimensions is a formidable undertaking, essential for nurturing a harmonious society. Analogous to the UK's imperative to bridge the chasm between Leavers and Remainers, India must chart a course towards mutual understanding and empathy among those holding divergent perspectives on cultural identity, economic growth, and governance.

In summation, the BJP's rise and the diffusion of Hindutva ideology have set in motion cognitive dissonance among adherents, necessitating a delicate balance between their beliefs and emerging contrasting information, spanning cultural and economic realms. As India strives to reconcile its rich heritage, economic aspirations, and governance intricacies, the lessons from cognitive dissonance offer valuable guidance on the path towards unity in diversity.

---How to approach Raj's Cognitive Dissonance

Let's take the example of Raj, an ardent BJP supporter who is experiencing cognitive dissonance due to reports of religious intolerance and violence against minority communities. Here's how you could implement the stepwise approach to address his cognitive dissonance:

1. Create a Safe Environment: Approach Raj with respect and empathy. Express your interest in understanding his perspective and concerns.

2. 
   

3. Active Listening: Ask open-ended questions like, "Raj, could you share your thoughts on the recent reports of religious intolerance?" Listen attentively without interrupting.

4. 
   

5. Acknowledge Shared Goals: Begin by acknowledging that both of you want a harmonious and inclusive India that values cultural diversity and social harmony.

6. 
   

7. Empathize with Concerns: Say, "I understand that you care deeply about preserving our cultural heritage and national identity. That's a sentiment many of us share."

8. 
   

9. Present Contrasting Information: Gently mention that there have been instances of religious intolerance reported, which might be causing cognitive dissonance. Use a neutral tone and avoid sounding accusatory.

10. 
    

11. Highlight Nuances: Explain that complex issues often have multiple facets. Share some examples of positive efforts towards interfaith harmony to highlight that progress is being made too.

12. 
    

13. Relate to Personal Experiences: Share stories of individuals who have successfully worked towards bridging religious divides. Personal anecdotes can humanize the issue.

14. 
    

15. Encourage Self-Reflection: Ask Raj, "How do these reports align with your vision of an inclusive and harmonious India? Have they caused you to reevaluate any aspects?"

16. 
    

17. Focus on Solutions: Transition by saying, "Considering your concerns and aspirations, how do you think we can work towards fostering better understanding among different communities?"

18. 
    

19. Promote Constructive Debate: Say, "It's important that we engage in healthy discussions to find common ground and solutions. What do you think are some ways we can address these challenges?"

20. 
    

21. Bridge Commonalities: Mention instances where the BJP government has taken steps to promote social harmony. Emphasize that both of you share the goal of a united nation.

22. 
    

23. Be Patient: Respect Raj's pace in processing the information. If he appears hesitant to change his stance, give him time to reflect.

24. 
    

25. Follow-Up: Conclude the conversation by expressing gratitude for the discussion and suggest revisiting the topic later to continue the dialogue.

26. 
    

27. Lead by Example: Throughout the conversation, maintain a calm and respectful demeanor. Show that you value Raj's perspective even if it differs from your own.

By following this approach, you can engage in a thoughtful and empathetic conversation with Raj, helping him navigate his cognitive dissonance while fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding religious harmony and cultural preservation.

---How to approach Priya's Cognitive Dissonance

Let's now consider Priya, an ardent BJP supporter who experiences cognitive dissonance due to widening economic inequality despite the party's promise of prosperity. Here's how you could implement the stepwise approach to address her cognitive dissonance:

1. Create a Safe Environment: Approach Priya with genuine curiosity and respect. Let her know that you value her perspective and want to understand her point of view.

2. 
   

3. Active Listening: Begin by asking, "Priya, could you share your thoughts on the economic policies of the BJP and how they align with your expectations?" Give her space to express herself.

4. 
   

5. Acknowledge Shared Goals: Start by acknowledging that both of you want a thriving economy that benefits all segments of society and ensures upward mobility.

6. 
   

7. Empathize with Concerns: Say, "I can see how important economic growth and prosperity are to you. Those are goals many of us share."

8. 
   

9. Present Contrasting Information: Gently introduce data or reports that highlight the challenges faced by certain groups due to economic policies. Frame this as a way to understand the nuances better.

10. 
    

11. Highlight Nuances: Explain that economic policies can have complex consequences. Share examples of policies that might have inadvertently contributed to inequality.

12. 
    

13. Relate to Personal Experiences: Share stories of individuals who have been affected by economic disparities. Personal stories can make the issue more relatable.

14. 
    

15. Encourage Self-Reflection: Ask Priya, "Given your concerns about economic inequality, do you think there are aspects of the current policies that might need reassessment?"

16. 
    

17. Focus on Solutions: Transition by saying, "Considering your aspirations for a prosperous nation, how do you think we can ensure economic growth that benefits everyone?"

18. 
    

19. Promote Constructive Debate: Say, "Engaging in conversations about economic policies is essential for finding effective solutions. What ideas do you have for addressing inequality?"

20. 
    

21. Bridge Commonalities: Mention instances where the BJP government has taken steps to address economic disparities. Emphasize that both of you share the desire for an equitable society.

22. 
    

23. Be Patient: Give Priya the time to process the information and reflect on the implications. Avoid pushing for immediate agreement.

24. 
    

25. Follow-Up: Conclude the conversation by expressing gratitude for the discussion and propose revisiting the topic later to continue exploring potential solutions.

26. 
    

27. Lead by Example: Throughout the conversation, remain respectful and open-minded. Show that you are genuinely interested in understanding her perspective.

By following this approach, you can engage in a meaningful conversation with Priya, helping her navigate her cognitive dissonance surrounding economic policies while fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities of economic growth and its impact on different sections of society.