It is high time the politics of appeasement was restrained

Whether political parties choose to make it an issue or not, society, too, must reflect upon it. There must be a just expression of public concern 

These days, the politics of appeasement are being widely discussed in Indian public life. Ever since the Election Commission initiated its special voter list revision campaign, political rhetoric surrounding appeasement and irregular migration has intensified. During the elections in West Bengal as well, allegations of political accommodation of undocumented populations remained at the centre of political discourse. Along India’s border with Bangladesh, during the Election Commission’s special revision drive and after the election results, the entire country witnessed images of individuals returning to their homeland, reigniting debate over migration, citizenship, and political patronage.

This debate is not unique to India. Several European countries and the United States are also grappling with questions relating to migration, national identity, and policies that many critics describe as appeasement. Earlier this month, a British youth of Indian origin was sentenced to life imprisonment in the United Kingdom for the murder of a British citizen. A few days before the sentencing, a video of the incident surfaced, triggering widespread anger and sparking fresh discussions about migration policies and the responsibilities of the state. A major movement questioning migration policies and perceived political appeasement gained momentum throughout Britain. A debate has also begun regarding rights, responsibilities, and the role of public institutions. Discussions are taking place not only on appeasement but also on religion.

A video of former British prime minister Keir Starmer has been circulating widely on social media, with him, in answer to the question if Britain was still a Christian country, stating that Christianity occupies a prominent place in Britain’s unwritten constitution. And further adds that Britain celebrates many faiths and that he takes pride in this diversity. 

Following this statement, a fresh debate on religion erupted in Britain. The question being raised is whether Christianity is receiving diminished importance in Britain. A section of Britain’s native population has expressed dissatisfaction with Starmer’s remarks. Their argument is that while followers of all faiths should be respected, the country’s historic and foundational traditions should continue to receive primacy and preference.

This debate has crossed Britain’s borders. Apart from France and Germany, the United States has also joined the discussion. Alongside religion, attention is now focused on the responsibilities of the state. Questions are being asked about whether the state should demonstrate compassion and a sense of justice toward victims. In Henry’s case, many observed that the police failed to show compassion toward the victim. Nor were they able to uphold even basic standards of justice. 

The debate in Britain has now reached the issue of national identity and belonging and is influencing British politics. Who does Britain belong to? For whom are Britain’s laws intended—its native citizens or those who have arrived through migration and, subsequently, benefited from political accommodation? 

US Vice President JD Vance shared Henry’s video on X and wrote that Henry Novak died in the same way a civilisation dies. The authorities neither trusted him nor cared for him. He was even accused of a hate crime that he had not committed. In his lengthy post, Vance wrote that Henry was neither the first young man to lose his life in such circumstances nor would he be the last. The only way to respond to such incidents, he said, is through the just expression of public anger. 

Public anger across Europe continues to grow and has spread beyond Britain, Germany, and France to countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden. It is being argued that policies perceived as excessive accommodation or appeasement have weakened protections for native populations and undermined public confidence in institutions.

India, too, has long struggled with challenges arising from irregular migration and the politics of appeasement associated with it. Taking Bengal as an example, critics have argued that undocumented migrants were at times provided Aadhaar cards and ration cards to regularise their presence, allegedly in pursuit of electoral gains and political power.

Our country has also suffered greatly from the politics of appeasement. It was appeasement that enabled the emergence of a large class of criminals and gangsters. Apart from Bengal, Uttar Pradesh offers another example. Due to appeasement politics, notorious criminals such as Atiq Ahmed and Mukhtar Ansari not only emerged but also established vast criminal networks and spheres of influence.

Today, the biggest question before the country is whether India, like Europe and America, should pursue politics focused on protecting the rights and interests of its citizens or whether it should continue policies perceived as granting legitimacy to undocumented migrants and other interest groups for the sake of political power. This issue could become central to the upcoming Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections. The signs are already visible. Whether political parties choose to make it an issue or not, society, too, must reflect upon it. There must be a just expression of public concern and democratic debate on the consequences of appeasement politics.