IPF Round Table Discussion on the book, The Majoritarian Myth

 

 

 

India Policy Foundation hosted a round table discussion on the book the Majoritarian Myth: How Unscientific Social Theories Create Disharmony by Prof. Kaushik Gangopadhyay, Professor, Economics, IIM Kozhikode on 1 March 2025 in New Delhi. The session which was moderated by Dr Kuldeep Ratnoo, Director, India Policy Foundation, featured a thought-provoking discussion on the concept of the "Majoritarian Myth" and how unscientific social theories contribute to social discord. Prof Gangopadhyay presented his perspectives on historical narratives, global media biases, and the impact of liberal social theories on social harmony. Drawing from the ideas of Ronald Coase and Karl Popper, Prof Gangopadhyay applied the Linear Theory of Social Evolution (LTSE) to explain how intolerance emerges, regardless of majority or minority status.

 

 

He further argued that Marxism captured academia in the second half of the twentieth century, based on the ideas of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. He said Gramsci introduced the idea of cultural identity and the concept of two warring cultural classes, in which traditional society is considered as the oppressor, and the majority following traditional values is the guilty majority.

He then spoke about the role the media plays in sustaining the majoritarian myth. Giving few examples of selective reporting, he pointed out that the 2015 Dadri lynching which led to the death of Mohammad Akhlaq was covered in 1,915 reports, whereas the murder of Prashant Poojary in Karnataka received only 141 reports. He also pointed out that the 1990 exodus of 120,000 Kashmiri Pandits was covered in just 1,802 reports. He added that the bias is not just limited to media reports but also extends to constitutional interpretations, where attempts to resist proselytization are labelled as "majoritarian intolerance." In 80 per cent of the cases, the global media reports accuse the Hindu majoritarianism, even though India is only 17 per cent of the global population. Quoting former prime minister Manmohan Singh’s statement where he said that “Muslims have the first claim to resources”, Prof Gangopadhyay argued that it was an acknowledgment of this bias.

 

Focussing on the book, Prof Gangopadhyay explained the role of the Linear Theory of Social Evolution (LTSE) in social intolerance. He stressed that LTSE posits a rigid, unchangeable model of social evolution, leading to discrimination. Pointing out how European colonists wiped out Native Americans despite them initially welcoming the colonisers with kindness, he said some cultures are always more intolerant than others. The other examples of LTSE-driven intolerance that he cited were Political Christianity, Political Islam, Communism, Nazism, and Cultural Marxism. He also said that the believers in this theory practice otherisation: treat different people differently only because of the theory.

Stressing on Hinduism, he added that Hinduism, as analysed by S.N. Balagangadhara (President, American Academy of Religion) does not fit within the LTSE framework. He also discussed Yoram Hazony’s view on nationalism as a middle ground between imperialism and anarchy with the rejection of both universal political order and no order.

 

Speaking on Hindutva and its historical context, Prof Gangopadhyay explored the origins of Hindutva, tracing it back to Chandranath Basu’s 1892 work, Hindutva: The Real History of the Hindus and Rabindranath Tagore’s 1901 writings on its benevolent philosophy. He added that Savarkar had had no resentment towards Muslims and envisioned them embracing India as their fatherland.

 

 

Countering the majoritarian myth even further, Prof Gangopadhyay pointed out that despite predictions from academia and media that BJP’s rise would lead to mass violence, riot cases have declined post-2014. Pro-minority welfare schemes have increased significantly, with no evidence of discrimination. Yet media continues to project Hindus as intolerant, despite global evidence proving otherwise.

 

He also stressed on the importance of scientific analysis of social intolerance. He discussed and compared two hypotheses:

 

1) Majoritarian Hypothesis – If a majority is intolerant without LTSE, it may be deemed guilty of social intolerance.

 

2) LTSE Hypothesis – Social intolerance stems from LTSE prevalence rather than numerical majority.

 

Citing several historical cases like the Rwandan genocide, Bangladesh genocide etc., Prof Gangopadhyay established that genocides often occur due to LTSE ideology rather than sheer majority power. He added that an LTSE needs to play on accusing others of intolerance (Coasian Argument; microaggression) for being intolerant itself.

He also spoke about the Tacit Knowledge Framework where everybody has knowledge about the field of her/his own experience and both the intolerant and the victim of intolerance know who is responsible. He stated that the victim would seek better life in a better environment, resulting in diminishing population proportion of the victim community. For example, diminishing population of Hindus in Muslim dominated countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, and even in Indian regions like Kashmir valley.

 

Another theme that Prof Gangopadhyay explored in his talk is that of structural violence and marginalisation. He pointed out that Muslims account for 19 per cent of India’s prison population, despite being 14.2 per cent of the total population (as of 2018). In the UK, Muslims (4.2 per cent of the population) make up 18 per cent of the prison population, while Hindus (1.3 per cent) have negligible representation. He opined that the historical British attitudes favoured Muslims over Hindus, influencing modern narratives.

 

Prof. Gangopadhyay also offered a critical analysis of liberalism in his talk, arguing that it exacerbates social conflict by promoting a culture of victimhood. He reasoned that the rise of cancel culture and anti-meritocratic policies under Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks has been like a form of ‘himsa’ against hardworking individuals. He further noted that false allegations and media bias contribute to societal instability. Emphasising that western liberalism’s growing influence in the U.S. has not resulted in greater social harmony, he challenged its claim of being a solution to intolerance. He lamented that the greatest flaw of liberalism is its inherent dichotomy. He also pointed out that Gramsci, who spent most of his time in jail, and didn’t have much of social interaction, wrote about societal transformation. Therefore, he asserted that the power to shape society should rest solely with the communities themselves.

 

Furthermore, he said, LTSE is the highest form of intolerance as it morally justifies intolerance. The moment, the entire populace is converted into the LTSE, social tolerance drastically falls with new LTSEs emerging. The limited experience of a small group of people at a point in time cannot be the beacon for social harmony for all human beings at all times.

 

In his concluding remarks, Prof Gangopadhyay threw light on the role of envy in societal divisions, as opposed to falsely framing it as "social justice." He pointed out that as envy destroys a society, traditional societies has tried to mitigate this human emotion. He called for greater emphasis on truth (satya) and non-violence (ahimsa) in social discourse.

 

Prof. Sheila Rai, Chairperson, India Policy Foundation in her remarks called for promoting Indian Knowledge Systems as alternatives to imported social theories. She stressed that the younger generation has an important role in bringing about a societal change.

 

Dr. Kuldeep Ratnoo is his remarks said that historical evidence contradicts the common narrative that minorities always suffer at the hands of the majority. He pointed out that in medieval India, a minuscule ruling minority governed a vast majority with brute power. He said that British colonial rule over India further exemplifies this, as the British population never exceeded 200,000, yet they subjugated and controlled millions of Indians. He opined that contrary to modern assertions, Hindus historically avoided to impose their beliefs on others. Post-independence, a propaganda was spread suggesting Hindu dominance over minorities, despite opposing evidence.

 

Dr. Ratnoo further remarked that radical proponents of liberalism were making life increasingly difficult for impressionable minds, particularly adolescents and children. “There is a kind of imposition of vague ideas on young children who do not even understand the problem,” he observed. He emphasised that liberalism desperately searches for situations which could be termed as conflicts between two groups, and label one as oppressor and the other as oppressed. He also noted that even today, sections of the Muslim and Christian populations regard Hindus as inferior humans, and liberals use their belief to label Hindus as intolerant. He also highlighted how liberals have launched a direct attack on the institution of family, asserting that their target is any form of collective identity. To counteract divisive westernised liberal ideas, he called for the strengthening of traditional institutions such as family and community.

In the discussion that followed, participants highlighted the importance of spirituality and noted that the education system has poisoned the minds of college-going students. They called for the creation of a movement that encourages children to contribute to their communities.

 

Overall, the discussion provided a comprehensive analysis of the majoritarian myth and its implications for Indian society. It underscored the media's role in shaping biased narratives, the dangers of unscientific social theories like Linear Theory of Social Evolution (LTSE), and the necessity of returning to indigenous frameworks for social harmony.