Scholars of political science and sociology have long been engaged in the debate regarding how minorities fit into nation-states, and one contemporary example that illustrates the dilemma is that of Muslims in India, specifically post-2014. The theoretical terms that would help explain this change are otherization and denationalization.
Key to the analytical framework is the claim that the marginalization of Muslims in India today is an artificial project rather than an inherent product of cultural differences. In other words, otherisation is a strategy that uses economic, historical, and political means in order to construct a group as one that is entirely distinct from the national body. The notion of denationalization takes this concept even further by defining citizenship as a contested or even revoked right for a certain target audience. The strength of the analytical framework in question lies in the fact that it does not assume a unified identity of Muslims in India but recognizes that the same project is executed in various regions depending on their specific conditions, for instance, disenfranchising Bengali speakers in Assam, criminalizing religion in Uttar Pradesh, or conducting political audits through the Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal.
Some examples of such policy measures include the Citizenship Amendment Act alongside the National Register of Citizens, which helps in creating a framework where religion decides the ease or difficulty with which one’s allegiance can be proved. The use of laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in a selective manner is another example of the way that seemingly neutral legal processes can be used selectively. The case of Bilkis Bano is quite significant in this context in the sense that it goes beyond legislation to explore how inaction on part of the state, the failure to challenge the acquittal, becomes a denationalization process.
Just as noteworthy is the manner in which these studies highlight the psychological and sociological aspects of this dynamic, especially the demands placed on Muslim politicians to publicly disavow the claims of their community as a prerequisite for entry into the political system. This aspect of marginalization, described at times as internalized othering, indicates that marginalization is not just a function of state force, but even of the structure of participation within the political sphere. When minority elites have to publicly reject their own communities as a means of gaining entrance into political systems, integration becomes hard to distinguish from co-optation.
It should be noted that this analysis constitutes an academic reading in a wider debate surrounding minority rights, secularism, and majoritarian politics in India, a debate in which different academics and policymakers provide alternative readings of such policies. However, this analytical framework provides a thorough method through which the convergence of legal, electoral, and rhetorical tools could alter the contours of national identity, regardless of any judgment about intentions or consequences.
