Got some random thoughts on this post, here are my two cents.
On the first impression, this post gave me a smell of elitism, the thought "An educated idiot is still an idiot"; that new "elites" are naïve, conservative, uncultured and backward than older elite, hence there in lies the problem - the democratisation of thought to the masses will make regressive thoughts more mainstream and will even give the regressive ideologies a decent intellectual footing which may have been absent till that point whereas non-democratisation will keep the masses regressive in itself but an "enlightened elite" will rule over them with liberal ideals. But we should keep in mind that this democratisation is inevitable but will the result always be the same as discussed above is a matter of debate.
Let's take a step back and see; from Chinese post-Marxist fascists disillusioned with Marxism, finding an identity in borderline fascist Chinese nationalism (and to some extent the Singapore) to the secular Kemalist Turkey voting for Erdogan, Iranian revolution fueled and given an ideological footing by the likes of Ali Shariati (who unfortunately died at the backdrop of the revolution, may he rest in peace) to the election of our own PM Modi overthrew the 65+ years rule by "enlightened" Congress and left - a feature common in all of them is the same democratisation of thought which overthrew the old "enlightened elite' and bought a relatively conservative ideology at the forefront (in some cases it was the conscious decision of the elites themselves - China). It should be noted that the enlightenment that older elites was never indigenously developed (as many critics argued) but was adopted from the western thinkers in part of the awe of their material, industrial, social and scientific process, the older elite thought that applying the western principles over the indigenous people will inevitably result in progress the way it had in west also with the hope that as the elite will expand through materialistic development they newer ones too will accept their thinking.
Why the process did not saw the same in the west and Japan? Well, it did. I see twentieth century world wars as the direct result of this shift but the destruction caused them to realise the great dangers of that "inevitable" conservative shift and moved much more towards left both socially and economically. In short, a great backlash made the that shift a loathed period.
Now, coming back to Muslims, there's a certain kind of backlash already happened after the global jihad phenomenon and moreover in Indian context, there's more with the election of Modi and the onslaught of "regressive Islamic practices" in "intellectual" circles and media houses; it'll inevitably lead to a more conscious disassociating from those practices.
(Feeling lazy now, may add more later)
