Whoa, what’s happening? It used to be BJP versus the rest. Then the tolerant fought pitched battles with the intolerant. How did it become nationalists versus anti-nationals now?

A couple of kids protested at JNU. No big deal there, as JNU probably has more protests than classroom lectures. However, this article is not a judgment on JNU – though it is about time that university began to behave like one.

This article aims to examine why there is so much labelling of people as “anti-India” or “anti-national” going round. From award wapsi to the JNU protests, someone is always being asked to go to Pakistan. In asking why, this article will not take sides. When both sides behave stupidly, it is just best to watch.

So, what is going on? Essentially, Indian politics is governed by the equation: D+M>H.

Sorry to be nerdy, but let me explain. D refers to Dalits, or rather all lower caste voters (including SCs/ STs/ BCs/OBCs). You can even call it the Downtrodden vote. M refers to the Muslim vote. Again, if you prefer political correctness, you can call it the Minority vote. H refers to the upper caste Hindu vote. The greater than sign means that the Downtrodden plus Minority vote is always greater than the upper caste Hindu vote.

D is roughly at 40%, M is 20% and H is 40%. Of course, those numbers are vastly oversimplified. But they help understand the political dynamic in the country today.

The equation means that under normal circumstances, BJP can almost never be in power. It isn’t surprising that out of nearly 70 years since Independence, BJP has been in power for less than seven.

The only way BJP can be in power is when one or more of the following happen. One, the D+M vote gets divided due to multiple parties competing for the same vote. Two, D and M separate from each other in a particular election. Three, BJP projects a charismatic candidate who woos some of the D and even a few M votes to the H side.

In the 2014 Lok Sabha election all of this happened, propelling Modi to victory. In the recent Bihar election, parties opposing the BJP ensured D+M did not split, and they won. In Delhi in 2015, AAP not only took the D+M vote but also managed to slice out a fair chunk of H.

Why does D+M vote in constant opposition to H? Well, D and M both feel persecuted by upper class Hindus, who they feel have denied them opportunity. D+M is such a sizeable chunk of the vote that many political parties woo them. They feed the victimisation theory to do so.

The eventual solution for uplifting D and M lies in their focussing on educating and modernising themselves. Since that is too difficult, the political parties representing them often stick to agendas of attacking the H, and H’s aspirations.

Congress has always enjoyed the D and M vote. SP, BSP, TMC, RJD and JD(U) are other parties who seek this vote. Even AAP realises the value of this vote, hence its constant attacks on Modi.

Meanwhile, the H vote sees things differently. It doesn’t feel like a victim,hence there is no inherent need for retribution. In fact H can even dream of a better India. It aspires to a nation that is prosperous, free and respected in the world. Since D+M wants to annoy H, it often enjoys seeing H aspirations being punctured.

This is where the “anti-national” narrative is born. H wonders why can’t D+M, already appeased and given reservations, move along and share its aspirations? Aren’t they anti-national in not dreaming big like itself?

Meanwhile D+M thinks, how dare H dream big while we are suffering? India owes us first. How dare H impose its aspirations on us?

This fundamental tussle is what generates our daily politics. Sadly, it also allows true anti-nationals to divide us. A terrorist group infiltrates and attacks India. D+M vote seeking parties do not condemn it enough, fearing to upset the M vote. Similarly, a fringe H group makes an outrageous Hindutva statement. BJP doesn’t condemn it enough, so as not to antagonise the H vote.

In this constant D-M-H conflict there is one casualty – India. But the equation doesn’t have to be this way. D+M+H is a better combo, and it can decide who to vote for based on real issues rather than merely settle scores.

The politicians like this divide. It allows them to be relevant just by feeding the conflict, rather than focussing on real work. And we citizens can’t seem to get past it either. But if we don’t all come together as a nation, aren’t we all anti-nationals?

D has to integrate and engage with H, and come up with a better plan than perennial reservations – which only maintains the divide. M has to realise India comes first, religion later. H has to stop imposing its culture and views on others as not everyone thinks the same way as them.

We need to come together, listen to all sides and fix our differences. There is no D, M or H. All of us need only I, which stands for India. And that is when we no longer deserve the “anti-national” label.