The distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is quite simple, and the protesting students recognise it.

Unlike socioeconomic and political colonialism and violence, which can remain primarily external, psychic violence embeds itself in the soul. And it embeds itself in the soul of both the oppressor and the oppressed. So, it dehumanises not only the oppressed but also the oppressor.

When those four young protestors released a harmless coloured gas in the parliament, they were consciously or unconsciously hoping to spark consciences that have been deadened by statism. 

If Gandhi and Ambedkar are indispensable to political thought today, it is because both are deeply committed to the figure of the minor, and to an equality centred around this figure. This is why we must study the antagonism between them.

The stakes of recognising Hindutva as a supremacism are significant. When we call it majoritarianism, we implicitly make it more acceptable: not only are most democratic regimes today majoritarian to a greater or lesser degree, but also, relatively speaking (though only relatively), majoritarianism is a much milder form of violence. 

Thinking with Gandhi allows us to conceptualise an anti-racism and equality that begins from anti-speciesism. Such an anti-racism can help us move towards an equality based on difference rather than similarity.

At a time like this, when Hindutva has become dominant, it becomes especially relevant to ask: why does Gandhi consider Hindutva evil?