This book demonstrates that the concept of majoritarianism which is extremely prevalent in the social sciences is founded on a totally unscientific basis. The concept of a majoritarian Hindu cannot explain any of the empirical reality of the social phenomenon in India. Infact with a historical analysis, we posit that the road to social harmony cannot lie with cultural Marxism and it’s progenitor liberalism, but only in the ageless Indic ideas of Satya and Ahimsa.
Short Summary
This book analyses why majoritarianism is a deeply flawed idea. In a road accident involving a big vehicle and a small vehicle, should the blame automatically assign to the larger vehicle, or to the vehicle that contravened traffic rules? The believer in majoritarianism effectively says that the bigger vehicle is always to blame no matter what! The sane view would be to find the vehicle that broke the traffic rules, and call out its guilt for the accident. The book has simply taken that sane path, scientifically and engagingly, to demonstrate that it is flawed to blame the majority for any social intolerance.
For a scientific discussion around majoritarianism, we have shed the notion of symmetry of all cultures, following the ideas of economist Ronald Coase and philosopher Karl Popper. We have defined the notion of Linear Theory of Social Evolution (LTSE) which actually creates a moral impetus for intolerance in people’s minds. If a community, irrespective of its being the majority or a minority, has an LTSE, it becomes the source of social intolerance. We have formulated two hypotheses—the typical Majoritarian hypothesis and our LTSE hypothesis—to explain the source of social intolerance. We test the suitability of these hypotheses based on the idea of economist Friedrich Hayek. The test conclusively demonstrates the superiority of our LTSE hypothesis over the majoritarian hypothesis.
The solution to social intolerance may lie in the Indic understanding of the pursuit of satya and ahimsa, as understood in the Mahabharata, rather than any theory. We have demonstrated how the liberal troika of Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity, violates the principles of satya and ahimsa, to the detriment of sustainable social harmony.
Praises for the Book
In a world thirsty for clarity and practicality, this book couldn’t have come at a more opportune time. Beyond the sheer brilliance of its ideas and insights, I applaud Professor Gangopadhyay for his unwavering courage in penning this remarkable book.
—Dr Anand Ranaganathan, Author and Scientist
The term ‘majoritarianism’ is used in India as a convenient way to demonise Hindus without any reference to first principles. In this book, Kausik investigates the term using well established intellectual frameworks on social tolerance. The conclusions will surprise many readers.
—Sanjeev Sanyal, Economist & Writer
‘Majoritarianism’ is a vacuous word that left liberals use all the time. This book convincingly demolishes this idea and shows up the concept as both untenable and illegitimate. A fascinating theoretical framework—the LTSE framework is intelligently enunciated. Even without this theory, sufficient empirical evidence has been provided to clearly establish that the fashionable criticism of majoritarianism, whatever it means, is a complete red herring as it involves engaging with a strawman that left liberals find convenient. The book ends with a stout defence of Indic approaches to social and political issues which despite its flaws which are not denied, may end up constituting a very constructive approach to our contemporary concerns. There are also brilliant detours demolishing bogus Marxist and Post-Modernist doctrines. An intellectual tour-de-force written in a simple, spare, direct style. Definitely recommended as an addition to the reading list of intellectually curious and discerning persons.
—Jaithirth (Jerry) Rao, Author, The Indian Conservative: An Impressionistic Survey of Indian Right Wing Thought
The Majoritarian Myth: How Unscientific Social Theories Create Disharmony promises to be a terrific book. The concept is not just promising, but vital to truth.
One, I think Gangopadhyay’s theory on the majoritarian myth, and the LTSE being key determinants of intolerance, holds.
Two, we must make and emphasise a simple point: that all majorities are contextual. Majority cannot only be about race, religion, etc. It can be about anything, including political attitudes or vocation.
Three, in the Indian context, I believe that the whole idea of majoritarianism is nonsense, for identity evolution was, as Gangopadhyay has put it, experiential and evolutionary. It was not based on theory or scripture specifically.
Four, our courts recognise only religious and linguistic majorities, with the state as the unit for counting. But the average population of each Indian district is more than two million, which is larger than 80 countries in the world. Majorities cannot be determined in such large units like country or states of such large sizes. UP is No.6 in terms of population.
Five, when Hinduism itself is a loose construct, Hinduism cannot be equated with majority. In fact, often Hindus are defined as none of the above people, that is, persons who are not Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains or Buddhists. Also, denial of equal rights forced the Ramakrishna Mission to call itself a non-Hindu denomination in the 1980s, but the SC denied it that privilege. Clearly, the purpose of references to majoritarianism is only to deny Hindus equal rights.
Six, the exclusion of tribes or vanvasis from Hinduism for political purposes is also a contradiction. If people other than the above five religious communities are deemed Hindus, the recent move to call them adivasis, and thus not Hindus, is clearly a political manoeuvre. It appears that the political intent is to deny Hindus equal rights by calling them an 80 percent majority, and then denying them the same in reality to divide them. There is no logic as to how a majority is determined.
Seven, today ideological and other identifiers of identity are excluded from the definition of majoritarian, which is why Liberals can cancel anyone who is not a liberal and still not be attacked for majoritarianism.
Gangopadhyay is right to conclude that the term majoritarian has no meaning beyond a deliberate political attempt by some people to deny others equal rights.
—Raghavan Jagannathan, Editorial Director, Swarajya Magazine
Professor Kausik Gangopadhyay has undertaken a fascinating and important study on the crucial ethical and political conundrum of majoritarianism and the complex array of issues associated with it. He has also constructed an original panoply of conceptual methodologies to analyse the bewildering practical realities of majoritarian politics.
—Dr. Gautam Sen, Former academic at the London School of Economics and Political Science
Written on a solid academic footing, this is a much-needed book on how certain ideologically motivated and politically expedient myths have been not only propagated but allowed to become unquestionable dogmas in India. Kausik not only examines the issues and perils of ‘majoritarianism’ and the ‘myths’ around them, but also seeks to examine them from first-order principles.
In his sweeping survey, he examines such issues as social evolution, politics and religion, caste, liberalism, the origins of Marxism, and, more importantly, its tenets that have been at the root of much of the vocabulary one finds in use today, including an unshakeable belief in the enforcement of equity as measured in outcomes, and not opportunities. This is a timely and well-researched book on a topic that deserves the kind of attention that Kausik has provided.
— Abhinav Agarwal
