I can't speak too intelligently on the current situation in India and the direction politics is taking, my understanding of Indian internal affairs is very limited, and I don't wish to pass off half baked value-judgements as analysis based on limited knowledge.
But it seems to me that the situation described in the article, and what's going in India is not out of the ordinary for any nation-state to experience at some point in the history of their society and polity. Sometimes such majoritarian movements occur more or less organically as a result of conducive socio-economic conditions. Majoritarian undercurrents were always there but they've reached a zenith in modern day India. As the article correctly points out, these sort of movements are multi-layered and one of its hallmarks is a form of anti-intellectualism, anti-elitism, and a rejection of established political norms. It's uncanny how often movements like this conform to the same set of behaviors. And on this note I may have some bad news...
Although I think you are far from passing any Rubicon on rejection of secularism, your majoritarian strain is probably also far from its peak. We in Pakistan arrived at our own issues with majoritarianism in a very different way to India, ours was legislated and forced upon us largely against our will, but it still took decades for the effects to wane, and it took blood-letting and serious moral outrages on a grand scale to light a fire under our collective conscience. If you observe Pakistan's society 20 years ago, and today's post APS, the difference when it comes to societal attitudes and pluralism is likely very large, and reflected in our politics. But that is what it took to shape those who are in the majority themselves.
Given the bleak ending there,
@Joe Shearer I'd like to give you a few reasons to be hopeful for your country. First off is that political change and upheaval even if it manifests itself in a negative way is completely normal. India is a huge country, and you have tens of millions of people every year joining your workforce, your polity, reaching political awareness, internet access etc. These conditions cause change, sometimes it can be destablising but a necessary step in political development. Secondly, it is not over yet, as I said earlier, you are nowhere near the point of no return, already the backlash to majoritarianism is there. Not so much in a spirited defence of secularism, but in an angry backlash against perceived majoritarian excesses: the CAA-NRC protests are a good example. Eventually those who are content pushing majoritarianism while in the majoirty will see reason, it may take some time and worsening of the situation to get there, but it will happen. Just pray that it isn't too costly and late.
In the meantime, you are tasked with the difficult and thankless effort of reviving or building anew secularist politics, but this time re-branded with the intent to be used and adopted by ordinary people and not just educated elites. Interesting point here to be made on accessibility to the masses, it's the the trend everywhere. Pick up George Washington's speeches from 200 years ago, their intellectual caliber makes them hard for even us to digest, they were not intended to speak to the labourer or agrarian worker, but today, US presidents speak casual English, and there's evidence (pre-Trump) that the reading levels of Presidential candidates' public speeches has been decreasing over time. Not because they are becoming less able, but because it's based on a willful effort to reach out to ordinary people. How do you break down secularist ideals, constitutionalism and preach the prudence of plurality in politics, in order for these ideals to appeal to the minds of ordinary people? It's a tough question, I can't say I know the answer, but I wish you and your country luck in this endeavor.
