The nation stands as one

The argument

The pandemic has given rise to solidarity. Facing a shared enemy together, religious groups are no longer finger pointing at each other. They have a new threat to worry about, and working together is vital to overcoming it. From the top, government initiatives - such as the candlelit vigil - to bring a sense of shared purpose to its citizens, seems to be working. As Krishna Nandkeolyar writes in Gulf New,"India overwhelmingly responded to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's call on Sunday night. Right at 9 p.m., Indians switched off its lights and lit candles or flashed mobile torches for nine minutes to express solidarity with "Corona warriors."

Context

On 5 April 2020, India switched off its lights. Prime Minister Modi had called for a symbolic stand against the virus, requesting all 1.3 billion citizens to turn off their electricity for 9 minutes, lighting candles to represent their shared spiritual fight. The move was seen as part of a national drive to push "togetherness" during the crisis, and join divided communities across ideological lines.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The vigil was more symbolic of how divided the nation is. Its fractured society, and growing tensions, have made moves such as this more urgent than ever before. Yet, such moves can only serve as a window dressing. They fail to deal with the real problem at hand, shown just last month in rising sectarian violence in India.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This is asserted without support. That a shared threat produces cooperation is a hope rather than an observation, and the premise offers no instance of finger-pointing actually being set aside — while the weeks it describes saw a religious gathering in Delhi blamed for spreading infection, followed by arrests and a wave of hostile coverage, which is the phenomenon the question asks about. [Rejecting P2] Mass participation in a symbolic act measures response to a national appeal, not a change in relations between communities. The vigil asked people to do something at home for a few minutes at no cost and with no reference to any community, so treating high compliance as evidence of easing tension assumes what has to be shown — and the counter's point stands that a gesture can be widely observed while the divisions beneath it are untouched. [Rejecting C] The timing is also against the conclusion. The premises describe the pandemic's earliest weeks, whereas the question is whether the epidemic aggravated Islamophobia — something that would show in the months following rather than in the response to a single evening's appeal.