In a world increasingly defined by sides, partisanship often masquerades as empathy. Whether it’s Pakistanis performing concern for Indian liberalism, or Indians invoking the plight of Muslim minorities to score points against their ideological rivals, the truth is simple: if you already have a side, you’re not truly invested in the fate of the other.
This isn’t cynicism; it’s structure. Sides, by their nature, demand loyalty. And loyalty comes at the expense of dispassion. You can mourn injustice selectively, but don’t pretend it’s universalism. More often than not, tribalism puts on the mask of principle.
As a Bahá’í, I’ve been shaped by a millenarian vision that urges global unity; yet I’m also deeply influenced by Hindu pluralism and pagan elasticity. Nicholas Nassim Taleb once said the more pagan a mind, the more brilliant it might be (excellent article) because it can hold many contradictions without demanding resolution. That capaciousness allows one to see that not every question needs a single answer. Hinduism, with its deep pluralism, contrasts radically with Islam’s (and Judaism’s) uncompromising monotheism. And yet, these two traditions are bound together—enmeshed across centuries of history, thought, and blood. Their tension is real, but so is their shared life.
That’s the point: opposites don’t just coexist, they form a whole. But when we prescribe change for the “other side,” we ignore our own capacity for reform. It’s always easier to critique outward than to renovate inward. Especially in a world run by oligarchic elites and managed emotions, where empathy is choreographed and outrage monetized.
So no, the Dalit Muslims of Dharavi aren’t the problem. Nor are the marginalized Hindus of East UP and Biharis. The problem is that a single family can build a private skyscraper in Mumbai while the city gasps beneath it. It’s the system that rewards power accumulation, not its occasional victims, that should concern us.
I don’t offer neat solutions. Maybe it’s taxation. Maybe it’s redistribution. Maybe it’s noblesse oblige. But the first step is this: stop pretending your critique of the other side is altruism. It’s not. It’s strategy. And perhaps the more honest work begins at home—with your own side, your own people, your own self.
“Tribalism puts on the mask of principle”– In my own case, my concern for Indian liberalism doesn’t come from “tribalism” (I know some people perceive it that way). I’m not at all “anti-India” as some here accuse me of being. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, I come from a family that believes deeply in Nehruvian Secularism. My father to this day laments the Partition (you can imagine that makes him deeply unpopular in Pakistan). I happen to be a Pakistani national but that is only because my grandparents (grandfathers really) chose Pakistan. In my paternal grandfather’s case, his family was from Peshawar so it’s only natural that he chose Pakistan. My maternal grandfather was from Amritsar but he was already working in Sialkot before Partition and married to my nani (who was from West Punjab). Pakistan was therefore the logical choice for him as well. Many members of his family fled Amritsar at Partition and landed up in his house in Sialkot. My paternal grandmother was from Agra and suffered all her life from not being able to see her parents in India (though before the 1965 war it was possible to visit every year).
I am a secularist on principle. I wish Pakistan were a secular state but unfortunately I don’t have the power to change the country’s constitution. It would be deeply troubling if India goes the Pakistani way instead of remaining a state of all its citizens.
I continue to engage on this forum (despite the pushback and sometimes hostility) precisely because I deeply care for India. Otherwise, like many right-wing Pakistanis, I would either be indifferent to it or openly hope for its destruction. I wish India well. My only issues with the country occur when it chooses to militarily attack Pakistan or turn off our water etc. This doesn’t mean I don’t judge the BJP government for some of its illiberal actions. But if being anti BJP is being anti-India than a lot of Indian citizens are “anti national”.
“Your own side, your own people”– Two of my four grandparents were from what is today India. Honestly, I would identify as “Indian”– of course not in the political sense but certainly culturally.
I agree with XTM that there far greater problems than Hindu-Muslim conflict so hopefully we can move on from that for a while.
with respect during wartime Kabir, you kind of had lost the plot. so it is difficult to say “Indian” even if one has origins in India.
During war time everyone said some pretty awful things.
My point was that I’m culturally Indian. I am trained in Hindustani music. My mother wears saris. This is why it’s so funny in a way when people call me an “Islamist”.
How am I different from an Indian Muslim (let’s say a Congress supporting one)? Other than the fact that I have a Pakistani national identity card.
Usually I would go with the term “South Asian” but I was trying to make a point.
how is one t take such claims at face value when almost in the same breath, an utterly skewed perspective on India/Pak is consistently peddled.
Indian hindus are ‘evil’ for espousing ‘majoritarianism’, but Pakistan is not secular so its policies and cultural hostility to non-muslims is ‘totally fine’. This is not the stance of a ‘secularist on principle’. Its the stance of a someone plying propaganda ‘attack talking points’.
First of all, I never used the word “evil”. You’re finding subtext where there isn’t any.
I am against majoritarianism. All majoritarianism. I don’t care whether it is Indian, Pakistani, Israeli etc. I simply recognize that I don’t have the power to change Pakistan’s constitution. I’m not even technically a Pakistani. I’m an American. I haven’t had a Pakistani passport for at least two decades (I’m entitled to one however).
India can change its constitution and there’s nothing I can do about that either (except judge it as retrogressive which I’m perfectly entitled to do).
You can continue to believe my views are “propaganda”. Your views on Pakistan are also frankly anti-Pakistani propaganda. So what exactly makes you any better than me? (Rhetorical question).
XTM: Did I ever tell you that I’m specifically named after Bhagat Kabir? That goes to show how culturally Indian my parents are. Kabir itself was a compromise because there was a lot of pushback against the name my mother wanted to give me (hint: It’s similar to Mahatma Gandhi’s first name). My pediatrician pointed out to her that such a Hindu name for a technically Muslim child would create a lot of problems in Pakistan.
Dhirubhai Ambani literally came up the ranks. The third generation is visibly reaping the disproportionate rewards is another matter. That’s the curse of our age, living under the lens constantly.
The optics are vulgar I totally get that, but how is it really so different from the Gandhi dynasty fattening itself over generations or the maharajas of old? Atleast today, there’s a significant improvement in the overall economic condition for most people in India. The upward social mobility is visible.
Their vulgar displays of wealth notwithstanding, the Ambanis have contributed to wealth generation in the country. With Jio by itself, the access to the internet had opened up opportunities for so many people. WA has become the primary mode of small business ventures for women in particular. I can vouch for this because I do purchase handicrafts etc primarily from women entrepreneurs and weavers from even seemingly remote corners of India.
This is a very profound and unpalatable truth. Sometimes the picking of a side is subconscious but can be found in the feelings induced on hearing a loss. Personally I could not find it in myself to mourn Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan whereas drone strikes, even in the Taliban heartlands, people to whom I would be completely ideologically opposed to felt appalling. Same with the Iranians (sympathy) vs the Israelis (no emotion). Syria, I was with Assad. Libya, with Gaddafi.
The Russia Ukraine war is unique in that it’s the only war that I feel exasperation at both sides.