Bullying and ragging were common in Sainik School where I grew up. Masculine boys ruled, as was the nature of the entire training and education of the school. They did not necessarily have well-built bodies nor performed well in studies, drills, physical training, or shooting. Instead, some of them would not stand a chance in case they were even slapped. Most of them were lethargic rule breakers and often had to attend the punishment hour.
They did not have the moral high ground, yet they were powerful. They were loud.
They were always present, generating clamour. Despite their obnoxious demeanour, they always found ways to get away, seized the best opportunities. Cadets like me felt like losers. We followed rules, never bunked classes, or missed the devastating morning PT or 3 am drill. But there were no prizes for us. Whereas our bullies always received rewards. We thought they would always win. We were hopeless and tempted to give up. We would simply succumb to their bullying.
Far–right parties, much like those bullies, are loud. They yell, they shout, they bulldoze, the vocal minority claps in approval, and they win. And non-far-right parties and individuals often perceive them as unbeatable, thinking that bullies have the people’s support.
Our psychology is demoralised, defeated. This is not to claim moral or intellectual superiority, nor do we seek to dismiss far–right as street goons. That would be a self-defeating trope. But the goodness in us makes us play it safe, becoming cautious citizens, effectively rendering us inactive and hesitant to take initiatives that might involve even the slightest possibility of risk. We avoid trouble, shy away from confrontation. And should we, really? It drains us, it is an exhausting and persistent war.
For years, liberal political commentators have been quick to attribute extremist acts of religious vandalism to fringe elements. They dismissed them as outside the mainstream political discourse. However, over the past decade under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) rule, we have witnessed the transformation of once-termed “fringe” tactics into tools employed by democratically elected governments. JCBs and bulldozers have evolved into symbols of instant justice. Persecution through non-judicial state apparatus has become a primary method. Every other political discourse, particularly in North and Northeast India, reinforces the view that these fringes are no longer on the outskirts but have, in fact, become part of the mainstream. And they truly have.
But are they also the majority?
There are two ways to respond to it. One, who has more resources? Two, what is playing on the screens?
In times of digital transformation, misinformation and troops of favourable video editors can sway voters and construct imagery of leaders and parties far removed from truth. For example, consider the case of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the two primary political rivals who happen to be approximately in the same age group. Trump, at 77, and Biden, at 81, are merely four years apart in age. Yet a campaign spotlighting Biden’s age in the United States gains more traction than a similar focus on Trump’s age.
Clearly, the “Sleepy Joe” propaganda caught up on TikTok and within mainstream media, siding with Trump’s narrative. This pattern parallels the propaganda in India where the BJP labels the opposition as ‘pappu’ (incompetent) and prime minister’s characterisation of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s parliamentary speech as “entertaining” is followed by a campaign on prime-time TV, shaping the debate agenda set by the far–right.
Digital competition is brutal, unkind and leaves no space for truth to travel faster than an entertaining lie. If anything, digital outlook thrives on it. Social media platforms and online spaces provide a megaphone for extreme views, amplifying their impact beyond their numerical presence. The far-right’s ability to command attention is confused with broad public endorsement.
Like those of us in our school, which was equally diverse like the Indian demographics, the majority electorate is silent. Only a handful of individuals, often the same set of familiar faces, appear to be vocal, ringing the bell and warning us about the challenges facing our democracy. The silent majority watches far-right propaganda capturing discourse but sits back.
Also read: What Explains the Political Right’s Ascendancy to Global Power?
Non-far-right parties misread this and take a cautious approach. If recent election results (Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Telangana) tell us anything, it is that “the people” want the far-right BJP to be reined in. Non-far-right parties often take cues from the electoral success of the far-right and overestimate people’s affinity to traditional values or a sense of narrow nationalism. In the process, they lose sight of the silent majority, which cares about democratic values like equality and wants a government that delivers on public services.
The same elections reveal that co-opting far-right issues, such as soft Hindutva – projecting the ‘Ram Van Gaman Marg’ as an achievement of the Chhattisgarh government – did not help them win votes. If anything, it cast doubt among voters about the political ideology of the non-far-right.
Congress leaders like Kamal Nath focused on the clamorous voices of the far-right, and risked neglecting more tempered and nuanced views, resulting in losses to the BJP in urban and semi-rural areas. Whereas, in Telangana, the Congress presented an alternative ideological agenda and did not play on the far-right’s turf. Evidence from these 4-state elections also suggests that Congress vote share increased in rural areas across all four states. This indicates an electorate seeking politics driven by issues that directly address the everyday life of the people, rather than an imaginary alternative reality of “Ram Rajya”.
The silent majority, in its desire for a modern democracy, adopts a conservative stance — a dichotomy and anomaly in itself. They are the people with an attitude of ‘wait and watch’. They observe non-far-right parties adopting far-right politics to appeal to the electorate which shows a disconnect with their past stances, policies and limited ambitions for future reform. That frustrates the silent majority. But all is not to be non-far-right parties’ blame. The silent majority is also impatient, inconsistent, indecisive.
The non-far-right can still challenge the far-right. The strategy is straightforward: present a consistent alternative ideology to that of the far-right, broaden the alliance, and do not play on the far-right’s turf. The silent majority will find you.
Pius Fozan is a public policy student at Central European University and the Brandt School.
