Globalization, with all of its vagaries and confusing aspects, often fosters identity crises in affected nations. Often the added plurality and exposure to global media culture that accompanies globalization results in right-wing reactionary movements that radically try to redefine what is original and “pure” about a nation undergoing development. They often carry an undercurrent of fundamentalism and nationalism. One of the most obvious of these movements is the far-right Hindu BJP. BJP literature speaks with extreme derision the customs of the British: “Mythology. The whole construct is a British anthropological revenge on us. Hence we adopted their standards, their calendar, their ways to greet the guests, their worldview became ours, and we discarded everything that we cherished, adopted their attire and weird uniforms to look modern and progressive.”[1] This quote portrays the British dominance over
In its press releases and media outreach, the BJP often exploits anti-foreign and anti-pluralist sentiment to hijack social relations between religions and people and force a constructed concept of what is “Indian.” The BJP is attempting to project a certain definition of the Indian citizen. This sort of stance is encouraged by the increased plurality that globalization brings about. The BJP is not even expressly anti-capitalist in any way and supports most of the economic parts of the spread of global capital. But this is combined rather fascistically to still remain an anti-foreign and anti-plural movement. Globalization has directly influenced and caused these sorts of movements to spring up across the world. While not directly relational (the BJP would still exist even if globalization were not happening), globalization encourages and delivers a perfect environment for these parties to thrive. Globalization provides both an enemy- foreign influence, plural religions- and a means for success- a modular media and easy communication. This leads to tragic violence and a loss of what truly makes a society- not homogeneity and exclusion, but plurality and inclusion.
