Protection of Liberalism - International and Indian trends

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 04 Jun 2011 14:15

This thread is intended to explore a topic that has been of much interest to me and I am sure to many others on BRF. Multiple threads have discussions that touch upon this topic - yet there has not been a single thread that can be considered a natural 'home' for these. This thread's focus will be on Liberalism and the status of liberalism both internationally and in India.

Liberalism is a frequently misused word, and for the discussion to have any meaning - the word needs to be rigorously defined. The meaning of Liberalism as used on this thread will be-

1. Freedom of inquiry and expression in any field whatsoever, and pursuit of excellence and knowledge in any such field.
2. Freedom of entrepreneurship - ie to form organizations or be part of one created for the pursuit of any commercial, social or political goal whatsoever
3. Freedom of spiritual inquiry and personal means of salvation - without any restriction based on dogma.

India has a long history of venerating these ideals. It is the only country as far as I know to encapsulate the pursuit of knowledge and inquiry into its official motto - Satyameva Jayate. India is the only country to venerate and worship (literally) both knowledge as well as the creation of wealth (Saraswati & Lakshmi). Finally - the separation of means of salvation from the definition of religion and the belief in multiple paths to God IS a uniquely Indian contribution to global religious thought.

Defending India implies defending not only defending its geographic borders but also defending the idea of India and the Indian concept of liberalism defined above. As such - this is a topic that deserves a special place on the BRF Strat forum.

While India and the threats to liberalism in India will be a focus - the thread should not be restricted to the situation in India but also look at global issues and country-specific trends - such as in the West, China and the Muslim world.

Among the questions and issues that this thread could address -

1. The ideals mentioned above are not to be trifled with lightly. At the same time, one cannot deny that there might be certain very select occasions when freedom of speech and the other freedoms defined above might need to be regulated....This thread would be the right one for debating the necessity of any such restriction on freedoms of expression, of business and social entrepreneurship, & others.

2. 'Hate speech' regulations as well as religious defamation laws in India and globally. For India, this has come into greater focus following the release of the NAC draft of the communal violence bill last month.

3. Regulations on the kinds of business, social and political entrepreneurship allowable in India and globally.

4. Which are the real forces in the country that are not in synch with Indian liberal ideals? Commies, INC, BJP, RSS - what is the truth behind the rhetoric?

5. Islamism, Christianism, Hindutva, Communism - evaluating the threat to liberalism from each of these ideologies.

6. What is the liberal stance regarding protection of native mythologies and cultures?

One of the biggest conundrums in the study of liberalism is how best to deal with illiberal forces. There are obviously powerful forces and dogmas that pose an active challenge to the three freedoms that I have outlined above - HOWEVER these same forces are powerful enough and have sufficient buying power to portray any activist stance against them as illiberal-ism.

I am hoping that this forum will draw the interest of those with sufficient reasoning and logical capabilities to distinguish between the claims and counter-claims - and have the capability to distinguish between those 'conservative' forces that champion illiberal dogma and those that are opposed to such dogma. This is the biggest challenge to India currently - and is fast becoming the biggest issue facing the West as well.

Also hoping the users of the thread will NOT be hostage to political correctness - at the same time, the language and tone of the posts needs to be based on reasoning and logic, rather than on slanging of any group or person.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 04 Jun 2011 14:17

visit deracination thread on GDF.. I would like to paste this post in that thread and continue discussion there. You may as well do the honours of cross posting.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 04 Jun 2011 14:25

Atri wrote:visit deracination thread on GDF.. I would like to paste this post in that thread and continue discussion there. You may as well do the honours of cross posting.

Will cross post. However would like this one to be a separate non-hijab thread that is focused on true liberalism and its defence in India and internationally.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 04 Jun 2011 14:28

well I tried that. adminullahs moved it to gdf. that was the purpose of deracination dhaga. anyways, lets see, if this dhaga persists here. will contribute here then. till then, take care my brave mujahid. see you on the other side.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 04 Jun 2011 16:23

Before coming to other forms of illiberalism, a quick post relating to restrictions on freedom of expression. Here's an interesting article providing context on the 'hate speech' laws in the EU: Censorship as Tolerance

Quoting from the article:

Human-rights agencies are sympathetic to hate-speech laws partly because international human-rights conventions at the United Nations were instrumental in globalizing and mainstreaming them. The U.N.’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognizes a right to freedom of expression, but it also states that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

The first working draft, as early as 1947, included only incitement to violence — universally recognized as a permissible ground for restricting freedom of expression — but the Soviet Union, Poland, and France wanted to include incitement to hatred as well. This was met by resistance from most Western states; the U.S. representative, Eleanor Roosevelt, hardly a libertarian, called the prohibition of incitement to hatred “extremely dangerous.” The U.K., Sweden, Australia, Denmark, and most other Western democracies opposed the criminalization of free expression, counseling that fanaticism should be countered through open debate instead.

But these objections did not impress the majority of the U.N.’s member states — Saudi Arabia asserted at the time that Western “confidence in human intelligence was perhaps a little excessive” — and the “incitement to hatred” language was kept in. So it was that a coalition of totalitarian socialist states and Third World countries, many of them ruled by authoritarians, succeeded in turning a human-rights convention into an instrument of censorship.

But things were to get worse. In 1965, the U.N. adopted the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). CERD obliges states to criminalize “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred [and] incitement to racial discrimination.” Once again, the West was pitted against socialist states and Third World countries with questionable human-rights records, and once again the West came up short. Thus, in the name of human rights, the state was entrusted with an obligation not only to ensure equal protection before the law but to eliminate racial discrimination as such, even in the private sphere, through criminal law. It is not surprising that such an instrument of oppression should appeal to the totalitarian regimes behind the Iron Curtain, which were already skilled in eliminating “undesirable” views through systematic censorship or, if need be, the gulags.

Despite their initial opposition, most Western states ratified both ICCPR and CERD, and European countries from Austria to Sweden accordingly moved to restrict freedom of expression.

The U.N.’s efforts to eliminate hate speech continue to this day. In 1989, several members of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination criticized France for allowing Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses to be published, calling the book an incitement to “racial hatred.” None other than the U.N.’s special rapporteur on freedom of expression, supposedly the U.N.’s guardian of free speech, publicly condemned both the Mohammed cartoons and Geert Wilders’s film Fitna. For more than ten years, the Islamic states of the OIC have pushed for criminalizing so-called defamation of religion; their most recent effort concerned a convention to target “cybercrime,” including offensive online content. Why has the OIC targeted cybercrime? Because the European states criminalized online hate speech in 2003, and the OIC expects it will be difficult for Europeans to resist its agenda without appearing hypocritical (not to mention Islamophobic). Hate-speech laws have also spread beyond Europe to Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. This leaves the U.S. as the sole Western country with sufficient confidence in reason to let its citizens express themselves freely.

The US has remained the ONLY country that has remained true to its values and its belief in the First Amendment.

As regards India, an analysis of the the relevant laws in India show it to be far more vague and backward in the nature of its restrictions than any comparable regulation in the EU. Desi media as usual has not shown the intellectual capacity to even engage in any type of reasoned debate on the matter.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 04 Jun 2011 23:15

^^^

your approach is completely wrong. you are falling for rhetoric on MSM. and if you want to have a thread where you want to analyze how the West is facing the evil East full of Socialist and "Third World" countries, then you should look for another forum......not BRF.

and I see the usual Hindutva == Islamism has also been done in the opening post itself.

IB4TL....

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 04 Jun 2011 23:55

Arjun ji, an excellently written and composed first post. You are absolutely right that any strategic calculus India derives must be based on threats to our ideals and value systems. That alone comprises India's true interests. There is a need to encapsulate our value systems that we seek to defend.

There are threats to those value systems posed by various interpretations of Islam, Christianity, Communism and psec'ism. Psec'ism going under the garb of liberalism also is a big danger to Indian value systems as it condones illiberal practises of Islamics and turns a blind eye to sufferings of Dharmics in the neighborhood.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 05 Jun 2011 00:30

I don’t really have anything to add at this moment, except to say that I think this thread is very important and that it definitely belongs in the ‘Strategic Issues and International Relations Forum’.

A case in point: Look at the United States, which has done a near-perfect job of ‘protecting the homeland’ since 9/11, at least territorially; but which has shredded the Bill of Rights, twisted jurisprudence, institutionalized wide-angle surveillance and justified torture and illegal detention without trial; all the while, subjugating the press and doing all manner of other things that are not in the public interest, including cover-ups for acts of treason like outing Valarie Plame.

In a very real sense, that America which was once (supposedly) a beacon of freedom and democracy in the world, has already been snuffed out – not by al Quaida, but by the American response to al Quaida – which in many ways, is like a severe auto-immune response that has killed American liberty, and liberalism in America.

Rakshaks would be wise to guard liberalism in India, lest Desh become nothing more than the dirt under their feet.

JMT

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 05 Jun 2011 02:15

^^^

now that is the right approach for the thread, instead of "The US has remained the ONLY country that has remained true to its values and its belief in the First Amendment," or "So it was that a coalition of totalitarian socialist states and Third World countries, many of them ruled by authoritarians, succeeded in turning a human-rights convention into an instrument of censorship."

Atri and Klaus have already posted some interesting stuff about the obsession with Avataras coming down to Earth in Abrahamic religions and also some wings of SD. will try to find them and cross post them. that should be very relevant to this thread.

if the right approach is taken, I retract my IB4TL.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 05 Jun 2011 02:25

Cross-posted from Deracination thread:
_______________________________________________________

by Atri ji:

Any attempt to break away from this "entrenched" system of mental slavery is not "Deracination" in my opinion. Deracination, according to me, is when an Indic starts mimicking the beliefs of Abrahmic system vis-a-vis standardization and removal of "anomalies" (diversities) of India in such a way that those steps will benefit abrahmics in next 100 years. This is different from harmonization of Shankaracharya. In one of the articles on my blog regarding romantic frolics of Krishna and Radha, one adminullah of BRF (Al brazakuddin ) commented a beautiful insight. The artists, people who try and "show off" their rebel side to defy the given system and do "whatever they want to" are aping the middle-eastern memes of standardization. The famous example is that of Valentines day, Pink-Chaddi campaign and all the antics related to it. The "Custodians of Indian Culture" too ignorantly are aping the middle-eastern memes of bringing about standardization and violent removal of any anomalies.

If a person is attempting to escape (in his limited capabilities and understanding), from this corrupted system, how justified is it to call him "Deracinated"? There are chances that this behaviour might lead to his returning to inherent "cultural unity" based on coexistence in spite of disagreements. His attempts will depend upon how knowledgeable and perceptive he is in understanding the system which he is trying to escape from and the changes that have taken place in that system over the period of centuries.

I guess, this is what defines and demarcates an "Indic" from a "Abrahmic". In today's "connected" world, it is hard to suppress individual's creativity. Any attempts by any "Indic" individual to return to this "open-sourced" nature of is welcome. We cannot defeat Abrahamic memes by trying to be more crystalline and fanatic than them. They are optimised for that. Our strength is plurality and diversity. If we unleash that on abrahmics in India, the crystal structure won't last long, it will dissolve.

As long as the "drive to excel and evolve" is respected by everyone for everyone, there is no problem in imagining whatever one wants to imagine and propagate. The "intrinsic drive to evolve and excel" is called "Dharma". And it cannot be localized, it has to be "Universal". Since, Dharma is not universal today, some novelties may be misconstrued by macaulay-putras OR by abrahmics proper to bring about the "standardization" in India as implied in "abrahamic system". Any attempt of any individual, community which upsets these plans of "bringing about standardization" in India and Indics is not Deracination. It is impossible to return to system which was flourishing 1400 years ago, that will be undoing all that we have gained (knowledge and experience of defeat).

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 05 Jun 2011 02:48

Arjun wrote: 1. Freedom of inquiry and expression in any field whatsoever, and pursuit of excellence and knowledge in any such field.
2. Freedom of entrepreneurship - ie to form organizations or be part of one created for the pursuit of any commercial, social or political goal whatsoever
3. Freedom of spiritual inquiry and personal means of salvation - without any restriction based on dogma.

India has a long history of venerating these ideals. It is the only country as far as I know to encapsulate the pursuit of knowledge and inquiry into its official motto - Satyameva Jayate. India is the only country to venerate and worship (literally) both knowledge as well as the creation of wealth (Saraswati & Lakshmi). Finally - the separation of means of salvation from the definition of religion and the belief in multiple paths to God IS a uniquely Indian contribution to global religious thought.

Since, you acknowledge India has a positive history in these areas; why use a Western construct to analyze what it means to India and its survival in India? Liberalism makes sense only when there is Conservatism, just like shade makes sense only if there is Sun or dark makes sense only if there is light. Wholesale import of Western concepts at the cost of native theories, practices and ideas is nothing but destruction of the indigenous culture. Why saar, why?

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 05 Jun 2011 03:24

harbans wrote:Arjun ji, an excellently written and composed first post. You are absolutely right that any strategic calculus India derives must be based on threats to our ideals and value systems. That alone comprises India's true interests. There is a need to encapsulate our value systems that we seek to defend.

There are threats to those value systems posed by various interpretations of Islam, Christianity, Communism and psec'ism. Psec'ism going under the garb of liberalism also is a big danger to Indian value systems as it condones illiberal practises of Islamics and turns a blind eye to sufferings of Dharmics in the neighborhood.

Thanks Harbans ji. Having seen and appreciated your posts on various threads, I would venture to say that my views probably mirror yours to a large degree on the importance of value systems to the strategic calculus, & in the source of threats. Look forward to your active contributions as the thread evolves.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 05 Jun 2011 03:55

devesh wrote:^^^

your approach is completely wrong. you are falling for rhetoric on MSM. and if you want to have a thread where you want to analyze how the West is facing the evil East full of Socialist and "Third World" countries, then you should look for another forum......not BRF.

and I see the usual Hindutva == Islamism has also been done in the opening post itself.

My opening post was to provide the context of the kind of discussions to be conducted on this thread.

You can rest your mind regarding any apprehensions of an == on this thread. But this has to be come out as a logical inference based on objective criteria. The definition of liberalism I have provided is a good start. I do intend to followup with a post that takes the reasoning further.

As regards the freedom of speech issue - the quality of debate in India regarding the matter leaves a lot to be desired. Irrespective of your views regarding the US on any other issue - please research what the position of the US is wrt 'hate speech'. What I admire about the US stance on this particular issue is that it has backed up its value system and the consensus regarding the importance of the First Amendment into its steadfast refusal to implement any hate speech laws. It is the ONLY major country to hold its convictions on this matter.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 05 Jun 2011 06:29

SwamyG wrote:Since, you acknowledge India has a positive history in these areas; why use a Western construct to analyze what it means to India and its survival in India? Liberalism makes sense only when there is Conservatism, just like shade makes sense only if there is Sun or dark makes sense only if there is light. Wholesale import of Western concepts at the cost of native theories, practices and ideas is nothing but destruction of the indigenous culture. Why saar, why?

SwamyG, you raise a very relevant question.

I would like to make the following points in response-

1. If one agrees with the premise that value systems need to play a central role in our strategic calculus - the next question is of the terminology that has the highest chance of communicating these value systems...What are the choices here?

a) Use purely Indic terminology such as 'Dharma' or SD to refer to the driving value systems
b) Use phrases such as 'Indic ethos' or 'Indic civilization'
c) Take 'ownership' of an existing internationally understood term and give it an Indian flavor (Indians are masters at this...think of Indian English or IPL cricket)

I believe the last has the highest chance of success from a POV of communicating to the external world India's value systems, and 'liberalism' is the phrase with the closest fit.

2. The objective of terminology such as 'pseudo-secular' and 'deracinated' was to free the colonized, Macaulized Indian mind from the crutch of Western constructs. This effort has been successful, partly through the efforts of BRF - but yet maybe less than 0.5% of India understands or identifies with such terminology. I am of the view that there needs to be next generation terminology with the more ambitious objective of conveying the Indian value systems to the 99% + of India not yet covered, & moving beyond that - to evangelize these value systems to the rest of the world. These need to be necessarily expressed in simple to understand, 'human values' language in order to be successful.

3. Some words just cannot be fought. Liberalism is one such - and if you cannot fight it, then join it ! Part of the reason the admins could not immediately shut down this thread is because of the terminology of the title...its for the same reason why more folks will give you a hearing when you make the case that Indic value systems are about liberalism. By ceding ground to the INC to (in my mind falsely) claim itself as the 'liberal' alternative, I believe the religious right is making a big mistake in India.

4. You are right that the religious right in India is definitely not 'conservative' in the Western sense. The difference between the INC and BJP is NOT that one is conservative and the other liberal. They are both liberal parties that differ only in how to deal with the illiberal. The INC believes in accommodating illiberal elements such that Indian society will make the necessary adjustments while the religious right believes that illiberal elements have to reform / conform to Indian standards of liberalism.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 05 Jun 2011 07:26

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:I
In a very real sense, that America which was once (supposedly) a beacon of freedom and democracy in the world, has already been snuffed out – not by al Quaida, but by the American response to al Quaida – which in many ways, is like a severe auto-immune response that has killed American liberty, and liberalism in America.

Internal US politics is really outside the scope of this forum, but this is a large overdramatization.

US has always had significant internal security apparatus and surveillance of citizens dating back to post Cold War era. Post 9/11 has not changed that much. The strong points of 1st amendment protections remain and the minus points of extensive surveillance and detention remain. The scope of detention powers has expanded- a little. All else is maya.

Anyway this shouldn't turn into a referendum on how you feel, "I like US therefore it is a beacon of liberalism and India should do the same", or "I dislike US therefore it is a horrible travesty and India should do the opposite".

For India the salient points are preserve age-old internal tradition of pluralism and open debate and free press. Indian press may be deeply flawed but most news organizations are because of the lowest common denominator factor. However it is one of the freest and that quality should be safeguarded at all costs.

It would be useful to have a thread on maintaining freedom of the press in India.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 05 Jun 2011 08:23

Arjun wrote: The US has remained the ONLY country that has remained true to its values and its belief in the First Amendment.

This is a very important topic, thanks for starting the thread.

Unfortunately, the US has also taken many steps backwards from its original liberalism, with hate speech laws, Patriot Act, and so on.

The recently introduced Communal violence bill has very broad provisions which can be used to crush free speech.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jun 2011 08:54

There is a huge difference between liberalism as envisaged by the Indian growing up in India and liberalism that which is called "liberalism" in the west.

The difference lies in the origins of the two. Ancient Indian society was one step beyond liberal - it was libertarian. Only a libertarian society can tolerate rigid religions side by side with the shocking (to some) practices of tantra. Only a libertarian society can tolerate the concept of more than one God. Every type of belief and way of life has a space for itself in a society that is so liberal that it is libertarian. A person who seeks order and uniformity can find it within a sub-set of a libertarian society.

The religions Christianity and Islam were political concepts that sought uniformity. Libertarianism is the antithesis of such uniformity. In fact libertarianism is the same as "anarchy" compared to the security and uniformity of belief and action under one God.

Western liberalism has grown out of the shackles of religious conservatism. In the Western narrative, conservatism (of religion) came first, and liberalism followed that. In other words liberalism carved out a space for itself trapped by the limits that religious conservatism allowed that liberalism. In India religious conservatism came in and grabbed some space - but the religions got only some of the space that libertarianism allowed. What I am trying to say is that western liberalism is small area allowed for it within the larger area of religious conservatism. In India religious conservatism occupies a smaller area (allowed for it) within a larger area of libertarianism.

The two are not strictly comparable and when you try and reconcile the two you come up against irreconcilable differences. For example our laws, inherited from the British declare marijuana illegal. But the use of marijuana is normal among some people at some times in the old liberal Indian tradition.

So we need to define what is meant by "liberalism"? Pakistani liberals talk about gay rights while they ignore the genocide of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. So what the fuk is "liberalism"?

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 05 Jun 2011 09:15

Pranav wrote:Unfortunately, the US has also taken many steps backwards from its original liberalism, with hate speech laws, Patriot Act, and so on.

Pranav, there have been some laws passed recently regarding 'hate crimes' which are actual crimes committed on the basis of hate of a particular group - but that is different from 'hate speech' regulation. There is a very significant internal US consensus not to fiddle with the First Amendment. Can you provide references to any actual hate speech laws passed in case you still disagree ?

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 05 Jun 2011 09:22

Ancient India was not libertarian as the term is used in the West. It doesn't fit into any western political label. For example on the multiplicity of religious paths that is one huge factor that may be called "libertarian". There were many paths to God for the individual- but they were tied to social roles. However in many other matters the term is misleading as it treats the individual as the essential unit of society. Whereas in India social norms and codes very much governed behavior; and economic security and livelihood were social and not individual matters (like in most societies). Hereditary lineage and exalted birth were also critical factors repeatedly stressed in the itihasa.

Libertarianism is an artificial construct growing out of 18th century frontier America. It is a very frontier spirit philosophy that denies social ties and norms.

We may say certain aspects of Indian life tangentially related to "libertarian" because of the freedoms afforded to the individual but that is an incomplete picture.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Jun 2011 09:31

UBanerjee wrote:Ancient India was not libertarian as the term is used in the West. It doesn't fit into any western political label.
<snip>
Libertarianism is an artificial construct growing out of 18th century frontier America. It is a very frontier spirit philosophy that denies social ties and norms.

We may say certain aspects of Indian life tangentially related to "libertarian" because of the freedoms afforded to the individual but that is an incomplete picture.

I agree. But there is no other word in English unless you say things like "ancient indian society" or "hindu society" The word "Hindu" itself is a relatively recent construct.. More relevant to this thread "liberalism" itself is a word carved out of some existing image of society. The existing society has a big role in saying what "liberalism" means and liberailsm begs proper definition before it can be discussed, leave alone protected. If liberalism is debatable, the aspects of liberalism that need protection become fuzzy and debatable.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 05 Jun 2011 09:42

shiv wrote:Western liberalism has grown out of the shackles of religious conservatism. In the Western narrative, conservatism (of religion) came first, and liberalism followed that. In other words liberalism carved out a space for itself trapped by the limits that religious conservatism allowed that liberalism. In India religious conservatism came in and grabbed some space - but the religions got only some of the space that libertarianism allowed. What I am trying to say is that western liberalism is small area allowed for it within the larger area of religious conservatism. In India religious conservatism occupies a smaller area (allowed for it) within a larger area of libertarianism.

Shiv ji, I know this is an old area of interest for you - and of course you are spot on with your insights !

So we need to define what is meant by "liberalism"? Pakistani liberals talk about gay rights while they ignore the genocide of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. So what the fuk is "liberalism"?

You are absolutely right in that liberalism needs to be defined. Here's the definition I have used in my opening post:

Liberalism is a frequently misused word, and for the discussion to have any meaning - the word needs to be rigorously defined. The meaning of Liberalism as used on this thread will be-

1. Freedom of inquiry and expression in any field whatsoever, and pursuit of excellence and knowledge in any such field.
2. Freedom of entrepreneurship - ie to form organizations or be part of one created for the pursuit of any commercial, social or political goal whatsoever
3. Freedom of spiritual inquiry and personal means of salvation - without any restriction based on dogma.

India has a long history of venerating these ideals. It is the only country as far as I know to encapsulate the pursuit of knowledge and inquiry into its official motto - Satyameva Jayate. India is the only country to venerate and worship (literally) both knowledge as well as the creation of wealth (Saraswati & Lakshmi). Finally - the separation of means of salvation from the definition of religion and the belief in multiple paths to God IS a uniquely Indian contribution to global religious thought.

To the three criteria I have listed above, I would add one more which I did not because I believed it was so basic that there was no disagreement on the matter:

4. No discrimination in the eyes of the law- on the basis of religion, race or sexual orientation.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 05 Jun 2011 20:24

Arjun:

1. If one agrees with the premise that value systems need to play a central role in our strategic calculus - the next question is of the terminology that has the highest chance of communicating these value systems...What are the choices here?

Before getting onto terminologies, one would need clear definitions and understanding of "value systems". I might have my own version or understanding, but we have to get on the same page. And are these absolute or relative?

If one considers Dharma as values, then one has sadharna dharma and visesa dharma. And dharma depends on place (desa), time(kala) and circumstances (nimitta). Then one has the dharma categorized for different varnas. Varnas (a.k.a classes or roles) dictate dharma based on the role as well. For example, I might say as a civilian I should not feel elated or jump with joy when an innocent Pakistani is killed, yet I would not recommend similar restrain when an Indian soldier kills a Pakistani solidier. There are times when dharma (values) should be put on back burner to pursue strategic interests. One might argue that is Rajadharma.

c) Take 'ownership' of an existing internationally understood term and give it an Indian flavor (Indians are masters at this...think of Indian English or IPL cricket)

What works in one case does not have to work with another case. Take the words dharma, karma, punya etc there are really no equivalent words without a loss of meaning. English is notorious for taking in words from other languages including Indic, so what not continue to infuse Indic words?

2. The objective of terminology such as 'pseudo-secular' and 'deracinated' was to free the colonized, Macaulized Indian mind from the crutch of Western constructs. This effort has been successful, partly through the efforts of BRF

I have read and heard these terms well before my BRF days, so we cannot give BRF undue credit unless BRF invented these terms. The readership of BRF is minisicule.

3. Some words just cannot be fought. Liberalism is one such - and if you cannot fight it, then join it !

It has to be fought because it narrows the scope of definition and suffocates discussions. For example your #2 could very well fit a Conservative or Libertarian. And your two other points will fit them as well with little or no modifications. And in other cases, it threatens to blackmail the population. For example your take on why Admins did not do anything about the thread. So here we have a few terms that are restrictive in nature and yet we want to see how it makes sense in Indian context. When we have our native traditions, thoughts and practices that encompass all these terms. I say restrictive because if one observes America, where these terms are worn on the sleeves it is easy to see there people with a mix of ideas and are unfortunately forced into one category. However, there is a trend to hyphenate to give room. For example socially-conservative, fiscally-conservative, social-liberalism, economic-liberalism, political-liberalism ityadi.

Essentially you are redefining India with Western ideas, terms and words. This was done in the 18th century by the Europeans. Look at the problems we are running into by introducing "secular" in our Constitution. On the topic of Constitution, some scholars argue our Constitution does not reflect our traditions and values. Maybe we should rewrite the Constitution.

A very important differentiation that I want to make about the Western and Indic ideas is the sense of duties and rights. Indic system values Duties more than the Rights; while the West values Rights more than the Duties.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 05 Jun 2011 20:34

UBanerjee wrote:Libertarianism is an artificial construct growing out of 18th century frontier America. It is a very frontier spirit philosophy that denies social ties and norms.

Beautifully put, I was searching for words and my cursory reading and understanding of Libertarianism is that it is naive and full of holes. Too Utopian & impractical in nature. And when one actively implements it in the society, it will fall flat on its face. I say that because, if one looks at the definitions, there are again plethora or hyphenated definitions. So what is wrong about hyphenated definitions? Inherently there is nothing wrong, but it highlights the fact that the original term cannot definition or encompass differing sub-thoughts. While one might be a "libertarian" politically she or he might not be economically libertarian. Essentially they have to make room for diversity of thoughts. Not bad, but then why not just use Indic terms?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 Jun 2011 20:48

Swamy Ji your post only proves how relevant this subject is. Value systems cannot be different for any human being rightfully. Some value systems are universal. This is not about duty and right. It's about what we define as value systems we as a nation think we defend. There should fundamentally be no difference in costructs of value systems. However we have ideologies that influence value systems: Communism, Islamism, Real Politik etc.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 05 Jun 2011 21:54

a useful topic for this thread would be: how to make sure that non-liberal ideologies are not given protection under the garb of liberalism??? this is the biggest threat to India.

an example is how do we prevent the Shah Waliullah types from influencing India? the first step is to teach Indians the disastrous consequences of the activities of men like Waliullah...
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... er629.html

His emphasis on Arbisation of Indian Islam did not allow the emotional integration of Indian Muslims with rest of the population of this country. Regressively affecting the Muslim psyche, his ideology debarred it from a forward-looking vision.

He wanted the Muslim society to return to the Prophet era for the political unity of the then Muslim rulers. His religio-political thought was based on the 'Perso -Islamic theory of kingship' (Shah Wali Ullah and his Time by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, page 397) and Mahmud Ghazna and Aurangzeb were his heroes among the Muslim rulers. His objective was to re-establish the Islamic cultural hegemony in the Indian sub-continent.

Shah Wali Ullah realised the political rise of non-Muslims like Maratha, Jat and Sikh powers and the fading glory of Islamic rule as danger to Islam and therefore, any loss of political heritage of Muslim was unbearable to him. He was the first Arab scion in India, who raised Islamic war cry for stalling the diminishing glory of Mogul Empire. His religio-political theory inspired a large number of successive Muslim scholars, who carried forward his mission and resultantly gave birth to Islamic politics in India. The slogan of 'Islam is in danger' - is profoundly embedded to his hate-non-Muslim ideology.

Wali Ullah "grew up watching the Mogul Empire crumble. His political ambition was to restore Muslim power in India more or less on the Mogul pattern. Pure Islam must be re- enacted, a regenerated Muslim society must again be mighty" (Islam in Modern History by W.C.Smith, Mentor Book, 1957, page51-52).

In the face of the fading glory of Mogul Empire and indigenous resurgence of non-Islamic forces like Maratha, Jat and Sikh in Muslim dominated India Wali Ullah decided to re-evaluate the Muslim dilemma. He realised that sectarian divisions and dissensions in the community and struggle for power among the various Muslim rulers were the major factors responsible for the diminishing pride of Mogul Empire. Forging unity among them with an overall objective to restore political dominance of Islam therefore, became his intellectual priority. The main thrust of his extensive writings was to present an integrated view of various Islamic thoughts.

Giving a call for 'a return of true Islam' and asking the Muslims to go to the age of Quran and listen to its literal voice sincerely, Wali Ullah boldly asserted that " the Prophet's teachings were the result of the cultural milieu then prevalent. He opined that today (that is in his days) every injunction of the Shariat and every Islamic law should be rationally analysed and presented" (Muslim Political Issues and National Integration by H. A.Gani, 1978, page 184).

Being proud of his Arab origin Wali Ullah was strongly opposed to integration of Islamic culture in the cultural mainstream of the sub-continent and wanted the Muslims to ensure their distance from it. "In his opinion, the health of Muslim society demanded that doctrines and values inculcated by Islam should be maintained in their pristine purity unsullied by extraneous influences" (The Muslim Community of Indo-Pakistan subcontinent by Istiaq Hussain Qureshi, 1985, page 215). "Wali Ullah did not want the Muslims to become part of the general milieu of the sub-continent. He wanted them to keep alive their relation with rest of the Muslim world so that the spring of their inspiration and ideals might ever remain located in Islam and tradition of world community developed by it". (Ibid. page 216).

On principle Wali Ullah had no difference with his contemporary Islamic thinker Abd-al-Wahab (1703-1787) of Saudi Arabia, who had also launched an Islamic revivalist movement. Wahab, who is regarded as one of the most radical Islamists has a wide range of followers in India. He "regarded the classical Muslim law as sum and substance of the faith, and therefore, demanded its total implementation" (Qamar Hasan in his book - Muslims in India -1987, page 3).

Wali Ullah also supported the rigidity of Wahab for strict compliance of Sharat(Islamic laws), and shariatisation was his vision for Muslim India. He maintained that "in this area (India), not even the tiniest rule of that sharia should be neglected, this would automatically lead to happiness and prosperity for all" (Shah WaliUllah and his Time by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, 1980, page 300). However, his theory of rational evaluation of Islam was only a sugar quoted version of Islamic fundamentalism for tactical reasons. He was guided more due to the compulsion of the turbulent situation for Muslim rulers at the hands of non-Muslim forces around them than any meaningful moderation of Islam, which could have been in the larger interest of the subcontinent.

Glorifying the history of Muslim rule as triumph of the faith, WaliUllah attributed its downfall to the failure of the community to literal adherence to Islamic scriptures. His movement for Islamic revivalism backed by the ideology of Pan-Islamism was for the political unity of Indian Muslims. His religio-political ideology however, made a permanent crack in Hindu--Muslim relation in this sub-continent. Subsequently non-Muslims of the region viewed his political concept of Islam as an attempt to undermine the self-pride and dignity of integrated Indian society.

The religio-political theory of Wali Ullah was quite inspiring for Indian Muslims including the followers of Wahhabi movement. It drew popular support from the Ulama, who were the immediate sufferers from the declining glory of Muslim rule in the subcontinent. The popular support to his ideology "has seldom been equaled by any Muslim religious movement in South Asian subcontinent" (The Genesis of Muslim Fundamentalism in British India by Mohammad Yusuf Abbasi, 1987, page 5). He was of the view that the lost glory of the faith could be restored if the Muslims adhered to the fundamentals of Islam literally.

Contrary to Akbar's 'conciliatory' policies in the governance of multi-religious and multi-ethnic Indian society, Wali Ullah wanted "a return to the ideals of the first two successors of Prophet Muhammad" as the only answer to the social conflicts. Laying stress on adherence to "the orthodox religious principles of Sunnism" he was against seeking any cooperation from Hindus or even Shi'is (Shah Wali Allah and his Time by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, 1980, page394). He invited Ahmad Shah Abdali of Afghanistan to attack the Maratha in third battle of Panipat and advised his collaborator Najib al Dawla to launch jehad against Jats.

Eulogizing the barbaric persecution of non-Muslims in medieval India as glory of Islam, he did not believe in Indian nationhood or any national boundary for Muslims and therefore, invited Shah Abdali, Amir of Afghan to attack India (Third battle of Panipat 1761), in which Marathas were defeated. In his letter to the Afghan king he said, "…All control of power is with the Hindus because they are the only people who are industrious and adaptable. Riches and prosperity are theirs, while Muslims have nothing but poverty and misery. At this juncture you are the only person, who has the initiative, the foresight, the power and capability to defeat the enemy and free the Muslims from the clutches of the infidels. God forbid if their domination continues, Muslims will even forget Islam and become undistinguishable from the non-Muslims" (Dr. Sayed Riaz Ahmad in his book 'Maulana Maududi and Islamic state' - Lahore People's Publishing House, page 15 - 1976).

He further wrote:

"We beseech you in the name of Prophet to fight a jihad against the infidels of this region… The invasion of Nadir shah, who destroyed the Muslims, left the Marathas and Jats secure and prosperous. This resulted in the infidels regaining their strength and in the reduction of Muslim leaders of Delhi to mere puppets" ( Shah Wali Allah and his times by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, page page305).

He also instigated Rohillas leader Najib al Dawla against his Hindu employees alleging that they were sympathetic to Jats. "Shah WaliUllah pointed out that one of the crucial conditions leading to the Muslim decline was that real control of governance was in the hands of Hindus. All the accountants and clerks were Hindus. Hindus controlled the countries wealth while Muslims were destitute" ( Shah Wali Allah and his times by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, 1980, page 304). In his letter he advised Abdali for " orders prohibiting Holi and Muharram festivals should be issued" (Ibid. page, 299) exposed his hostility towards both Hindus and Shias.

Reminding the Muslim rulers of the dominant role of Muslims even in a multi-religious society Wali Ullah said, "Oh Kings! Mala ala urges you to draw your swords and not put them back in their sheaths again until Allah has separated the Muslims from the polytheists and the rebelious Kifirs and the sinners are made absolutely feeble and helpless" (Ibid. page 299)

Noted historian Dr. Tara Chand remarked:

"He (Wali Ullah) appealed to Najib-ud-Daulah, Nizamul Mulk and Ahmad Shah Abdali - all three the upholders of condemned system - to intervene and restore the pristine glory of Islam. It is amazing that he should have placed his trust in Ahmad Shah Abdali, who had ravaged the fairest provinces of the Mogul empire, had plundered the Hindus and Muslims without the slightest compunction and above all, who was an upstart without any root among his own people" (History of the Freedom Movement of India, volume I, 1970, page 180).

Even though the defeat of Marathas by Abdali could not halt the sliding decline of Mogul Empire, it made Wali Ullah the hero of Indian Muslims and he emerged as main inspiring force for Muslim politics in this country. His Islamic thought was regarded as saviour of the faith and its impact left a deep imprint on Indian Muslim psyche, which continues to inspire them even today. Almost all the Muslim organisations in this country directly or indirectly draw their political inspiration from Wali Ullah.

Some prominent followers of Wahhabi movement like Muhammad Qasim Nanauti and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi drew furter inspiration from the religio-political concept of Wali Ullah and set up an Islamic Madrassa at Deoband in U.P. on May 30, 1866, which grew into a higher Islamic learning centre and assumed the present name of Dar-ul-Uloom (Abode of Islamic learning) in 1879. For last 135 years Dar-ul-Uloom, which is more a movement than an institution has been carrying the tradition of Wahabi movement of Saudi Arabia and of Wali Ullah of Delhi. Even Sir Sayid Ahmad drew inspiration from the tactical moderation of Islam from Walli Ullah in launching Aligarh movement. The Muslim politics as we see today in Aligarh Muslim University is deeply influenced with the Islamic thought of Wali Ullah.

Most of the Muslim scholars and Islamic historians have projected Wali Ullah 'as founder of Islamic modernism' and a reformer of faith because of his emphasis on rational evaluation of Shariat. His attempt to present an integrated view of the various schools of Islamic thought was however, more a tactical move for the political unity of Muslims to restore the political authority of Islam than for overall development of an integrated Indian society. His insistence for not diluting the cultural identity of Arab in a Hindu-majority environment shows that his so-called reform of Islam was only for a political motive. His obsession to extreme Sunnism of Sufi tradition exposes the theory of Islamic modernism. His political objective that followers of Islam should not lose their status of dominant political group in state Wali Ullah was against the concept of civilised democracy.

Contrary to his projected image of a reformer, Wali Ullah like other militant group of Islamic intellectuals did not appreciate any cultural and social reconciliation with non-Muslims in an integrated society. His communal bias against the political rise of non-Muslim powers like Maratha, Jat and Sikh goes against the theory that Wali Ullah was a Muslim thinker for Islamic moderation. His exclusivist theory favouring political domination of his community all over the world with starting point in India vindicates this point. In the background of his hate-Hindu political move, Wali Ullah may not stand the scrutiny of being a Muslim thinker for rational evaluation of Islam and its moderation.

read the whole essay in the link. lots of interesting info for those who don't know deep details (which includes myself)....

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 05 Jun 2011 22:24

harbans wrote:Swamy Ji your post only proves how relevant this subject is. Value systems cannot be different for any human being rightfully. Some value systems are universal. This is not about duty and right. It's about what we define as value systems we as a nation think we defend. There should fundamentally be no difference in costructs of value systems. However we have ideologies that influence value systems: Communism, Islamism, Real Politik etc.

Wikipedia says:

A value system is a set of consistent ethic values (more specifically the personal and cultural values) and measures[clarification needed] used for the purpose of ethical or ideological integrity. A well defined value system is a moral code.

So tell me why we need to define a value system based on foreign ideology, when we have our traditional one that WILL work. The key words are "will work". It would have been fine if we did not have something indigenous. For example, telephone (or the concept of electronic communication) being invented outside India has a non-Indic name for it. Some Indic languages have formulated a word for it; however some Indians just use the English word - as it is common and prevalent. However, the term Doctor (or the concept of a physician) has existed through out the World. So why use the word "doctor" when there is an perfectly working equivalent word in our Indic language?

Let us take Dosai (a.k.a Dosa); in the West some try to explain Dosai as a Crepe. That is because though of French origin, the Western audience are familiar with Crepe. So they are able to associate Dosai as being made of a liquid batter that is poured over a frying pan. However, that explanation should be for the Western audience. If you were to explain this similarly to an Indian audience it is a shame onlee. Over time, essentially we make Dosai a type of Crepe instead of it be two different items that are similar in nature. Similarly, if we start defining Indic values in terms of Western values, then there is a danger to tweak and fine tune Indic values to fit in Western definitions and sensitivity thereby we could lose features intrinsic to Indic traditions.

"Value systems" are different for different human beings. It is okay for a soldier to kill, but it is not okay for you or me to kill.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 Jun 2011 22:27

how to make sure that non-liberal ideologies are not given protection under the garb of liberalism??? this is the biggest threat to India.

I am sorry, but this is not correct at all. Why do you say illiberal ideology is a threat to India? What is India defending? Liberalism? Libertarianism? You have to define what you intend to defend from non liberal ideologies in the first place. That is the exercise here. If you don't have anything to stand for you fall for anything. Remember that.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Jun 2011 23:19

In real life cannot support dialectical logic. You cannot be both A and not-A in real life decisions. True liberalism means exactly such dialectical logic. You cannot support the right to kill anyone who denies a certain set of claimed beliefs as true, as well as the right to deny exactly those set of claimed beliefs as true - both at the same time - something that true liberalism would require.

Which means, there are only two ways you can solve that dilemma. Either you choose only one side and declare the other side as "illiberal", or choose to do one side some of the time while choose to support the other side the remaining times. This is exactly what has has happened with every practical implementation of "liberalism" including India.

Behind it all, when you have to choose sides on a "liberalism" debate - you are always using a set of preference values. You could be aware of it or not - but those values are what decide which side you reject and which side you accept in case you are forced to choose between the two.

It will be mistaken to portray pre-Islamic, pre-Christian Indian society as "liberal" or "tolerant" - because a purely tolerant liberal society would be in permanent paralysis and open to imperialist aggression - both ideologically and militarily. No society has ever been completely "tolerant" or "liberal" - and are only claimed so in historical reconstructions for specific political purposes, as in India where only the "Hindu" is repeatedly and ad nauseum claimed to be "tolerant of everything and anything thrown at it". This is required for a very specific political military purpose to create one way rashtra protected traffic into specific imperialist theologies.

Ultimately it is a clash of one set of values against another set of values. In that set of values - tolerance or "liberalism" of tolerating contradictory sets of values to be applied or practised has to be of lower priority than preservation of the "value-system" itself.

For example freedom of inquiry, thought and criticism is definitely part of the Indian value system, but when you have to choose between this value and "liberalism" or tolerance for another value system which claims the right to slit my throat if I criticize their primary belief has to come lower in priority to the value of "freedom of critical inquiry".

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 06 Jun 2011 01:10

When we hear about liberalism, we should be careful about the messenger. More often than not the pseudo-liberal is just using the liberalism vocabulary to justify extremism-apologism.

What even well-minded liberals however fail to comprehend is that just like any other ideology, say communism, Nazism, Islamism, capitalism, etc., liberalism too needs to be furthered and protected, and it cannot be an exception to the rule: it cannot claim that liberalism can be spread and protected without the force of arms and without fighting the enemies of liberalism.

Another misconception that liberalism has is that its enemy can only be the state or the conservatives of the society in which liberalism has taken root, and as such liberalism makes the assumption that the rest of humanity is already open and willing to embrace liberalism if only the state and tribal tradition would allow its message to be heard by the masses. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is not just conservatives of the Western society that are keeping liberalism at bay, or tribalism that is keeping blocking away the voice of liberalism or the state that is subduing society and not allowing the liberal society to come into its own. Liberalism fails to understand that there are ideologies and their armed warriors who would bury any buds of liberalism which dare to sprout in their strongholds, and these ideologies need not even be identical with the interests of the state. In fact, these ideologies use the anti-state memes of liberalism to subvert the state and give its supporters more leeway. In fact, these ideologies use the freedoms espoused by liberalism, to gain the freedom to spread their own anti-liberal views in their ghettos in societies which otherwise value liberalist thinking.

If liberalism has to win in the world, then pseudo-liberalism would have to die, and liberalism would have to shed off its misconceptions that it should show any consideration for the "cultural sensitivities" of traditional non-liberal societies. Any ideology that goes against liberalism needs to be taken down, and this process should always start with the most illiberal ideologies working towards the least illiberal. There is nothing in liberalism which affords it an exception to the laws of ideologies.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 06 Jun 2011 02:57

Arjun ji, what ever I write now, may be familiar to you.. may be not..

if it is familiar, please return it with a smiley..

I question the very premise of the word liberal in the topic.

अयं निज: परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम्।
उदारचरितानाम तु वसुधैव कुटुंबकम्. ll

"This person is my kin and that one is alien” such a thought occurs only to the narrow-minded people. To the broad-minded (or liberal) person the whole world is one family.

The word Liberal Nationalism can be translated as "Udaara Rashtravaad". But is it the correct translation? lets check the meaning

Udaara - The word Udaara has following meanings

1.generous;

2.noble;

3.honest;

4.good;

5.proper;

6.eloquent;

7.kind;

8.rich;

9.large;

10.beautiful;

11.unperplexed;

12.exciting

Charitra (Charita) is Chara iti - (he/she/it) walked thus.. in relevant terms, (subject) behaved thus.. hence charitra is right word for biography.. It is also used as "character" but it is not the right word for the same.. for character, we have swabhaava.. udaara charitra is one who behaved (so far in his life) in (any one of the 12 meanings) way..

Out of the possible meanings of udaara, the following would definitely correlate with a liberal personality.
1.generous;

2.noble;

3.honest;

4.good;

5.proper;

7.kind;

But is there any direct synonym for "liberal" in Sanskrit as we understand these days? The direct synonym for "liberal" is "mukta".. liberation is "moksha".. for a "mukta" person, world is definitely one family..

The problem is, now a days we have concept of dictionary, the word gets rigid.. this was not here in our older days. All these meanings of udaara that is listed are not meanings but different contexts in which the word is used "so far".. The literal meaning of "udaara" comes from roots (Ut) and (ar) is Ut + ara = upward going.. Further new meanings open up, if we take this literal meaning of the word.. For upwardly mobile individual, world is family.. in other words, in order to be upwardly mobile, you have to give up thinking like "mine" and "yours".

Based on these real meanings of the words, I would rather translate "udaara rashtravaad" as "upwardly mobile nationalism".. Looking from Indian point of view, the term "liberal nationalism" is an oxymoron in itself.. one cannot be truly "mukta" if one is bound by ideas of "rashtra" and "dharma". Indian system talks about Swa-tantra. here the word "tantra" comes from the word "tantu" which means a "thread". Tantra is a system based on continuity in which we bind ourselves. thus, Indian word "swatantra" implies bondage which chosen by us. When I choose to bind myself in a system designed and accepted by me (or by my ancestors), I am "swatantra".

The concept of "dharma" deals with tolerance levels among human beings for other "ideas" as well as "other species". There is one word to address them both - Meme.

A Udaara/Dhaarmik meme is that meme which tolerates other "tolerant" memes.. This is the "ideal Nash Equilibrium".. This is dharma and this is Sajjana.. This is what "swatantrataa" implies in Indic context.

Dharma implies not only sustenance of tolerant memes, but also eradication of non-tolerant (or should I say, Virulent) memes.. This is what Geeta is all about.. This is what Krinvanto Visham Aryam implies. And this is how all our heroes (mythological and historical) strived to achieve.. This is what Krishna refers as "Dharma Sansthaapana" (establishment of dharma)..

Saral · Post by **Saral** » 06 Jun 2011 02:59

Arjun,

I sense that this thread is important but am wary of the semantic difficulties for such an overloaded concept such as "liberalism". The word "liberal" has distinct connotations in America (where it is closely aligned with the 'socialist' left) vs. Europe (where it is aligned with free market capitalism). In the Indian context, the folks at freedomteam.in have made a manifesto for a hypothetical Indian liberal party and have various documents on their website (they are "classic" liberals they insist but not libertarian). I'd be interested in your thoughts on their positions.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 06 Jun 2011 08:03

harbans ji,

what am I trying to protect: I am trying to protect the indigenous culture and long existing belief systems of India?
what am I trying to fight against: I am trying to fight against those ideologies, both internal and external, which have either a wrong understanding of Indian belief systems and wish to destroy them, and/or those that are fundamentally intolerant of and wish to wipe out said culture and sytems.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 06 Jun 2011 08:12

brihaspati wrote:In real life cannot support dialectical logic. You cannot be both A and not-A in real life decisions. True liberalism means exactly such dialectical logic. You cannot support the right to kill anyone who denies a certain set of claimed beliefs as true, as well as the right to deny exactly those set of claimed beliefs as true - both at the same time - something that true liberalism would require.

Which means, there are only two ways you can solve that dilemma. Either you choose only one side and declare the other side as "illiberal", or choose to do one side some of the time while choose to support the other side the remaining times. This is exactly what has has happened with every practical implementation of "liberalism" including India.

Behind it all, when you have to choose sides on a "liberalism" debate - you are always using a set of preference values. You could be aware of it or not - but those values are what decide which side you reject and which side you accept in case you are forced to choose between the two.

It will be mistaken to portray pre-Islamic, pre-Christian Indian society as "liberal" or "tolerant" - because a purely tolerant liberal society would be in permanent paralysis and open to imperialist aggression - both ideologically and militarily. No society has ever been completely "tolerant" or "liberal" - and are only claimed so in historical reconstructions for specific political purposes, as in India where only the "Hindu" is repeatedly and ad nauseum claimed to be "tolerant of everything and anything thrown at it". This is required for a very specific political military purpose to create one way rashtra protected traffic into specific imperialist theologies.

Ultimately it is a clash of one set of values against another set of values. In that set of values - tolerance or "liberalism" of tolerating contradictory sets of values to be applied or practised has to be of lower priority than preservation of the "value-system" itself.

For example freedom of inquiry, thought and criticism is definitely part of the Indian value system, but when you have to choose between this value and "liberalism" or tolerance for another value system which claims the right to slit my throat if I criticize their primary belief has to come lower in priority to the value of "freedom of critical inquiry".

Brihaspati-ji, You have honed in on the most critical aspect of this terminology as I knew you would.

The only way this will work is if there is a completely objective definition of liberalism and one proceeds on the basis of logic.

Let's take the three criteria I had put down earlier in my definition of liberalism:

Liberalism is a frequently misused word, and for the discussion to have any meaning - the word needs to be rigorously defined. The meaning of Liberalism as used on this thread will be-

1. Freedom of inquiry and expression in any field whatsoever, and pursuit of excellence and knowledge in any such field.
2. Freedom of entrepreneurship - ie to form organizations or be part of one created for the pursuit of any commercial, social or political goal whatsoever
3. Freedom of spiritual inquiry and personal means of salvation - without any restriction based on dogma.

Let us now compare the doctrinal positions of three major religions Islam, Christianity and Hinduism on these criteria. I don't know about #2, but Islam most certainly does not satisfy #1 and #3. Christianity certainly does not satisfy #3. Hinduism satisfies all three.

The conclusion therefore is that Hinduism as a doctrinal philosophy is liberal, while Christianity and Islam are not. While comparing Christianity and Islam, one can conclude that Christianity is more liberal. For the more politically correct readers of this thread, note that I am talking doctrinal positions and have not yet come to the broader societal conditions - which requires some more analysis but the conclusions may not be materially different.

If the goal of India is to protect its historical liberality - the conclusion can again be inferred logically. The only way India can maintain it is if either the proportion of Muslims and Christians is maintained at a low percentage OR if Christians and Muslims can be made to move away from their doctrinal positions on the criteria listed.

Similarly the challenge before the West is exactly the same - the only way Christian majority nations can maintain their current state of liberality is by either keeping the Muslim percentage low or by making them conform to their (ie Christian) standards of liberalism.

The supporters of illiberalism will try and confuse issues by equating liberality with tolerance - the only way to counter that is by sticking to logic and agreeing on an objective definition of what constitutes liberalism AND agreeing that all elements that do not meet that bar of liberality NEED to be reformed.

The question then is why go through the trouble of defining things in terms of liberalism when we know that detractors will confuse issues ? The answer, in my mind, is that it is very important to convey to the world that unlike the conservatives of the West or Islamic world - who are fighting to defend dogmas, the religious right in India is fighting against dogma.

Believe me, when even the Somnaths of the world & I am sure there are thousands of folks like him in India - do not understand that the religious right in India is actually on the side of liberalism - there is no question that folks overseas and even, unfortunately, in India will be easily taken in by the Hindutva == Islamism == Christianism fallacy.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 06 Jun 2011 08:40

RajeshA wrote:If liberalism has to win in the world, then pseudo-liberalism would have to die, and liberalism would have to shed off its misconceptions that it should show any consideration for the "cultural sensitivities" of traditional non-liberal societies. Any ideology that goes against liberalism needs to be taken down, and this process should always start with the most illiberal ideologies working towards the least illiberal. There is nothing in liberalism which affords it an exception to the laws of ideologies.

Well said, RajeshA ji !

I would go to the extent of saying that if one does not have a policy of removing / reforming illiberal elements and ideologies, then liberalism itself will ultimately die.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 06 Jun 2011 10:20

Atri wrote:A Udaara/Dhaarmik meme is that meme which tolerates other "tolerant" memes.. This is the "ideal Nash Equilibrium".. This is dharma and this is Sajjana.. This is what "swatantrataa" implies in Indic context.

Dharma implies not only sustenance of tolerant memes, but also eradication of non-tolerant (or should I say, Virulent) memes.. This is what Geeta is all about.. This is what Krinvanto Visham Aryam implies. And this is how all our heroes (mythological and historical) strived to achieve.. This is what Krishna refers as "Dharma Sansthaapana" (establishment of dharma)..

Thanks Atri-ji !

This synchs well with my thoughts regarding liberalism. Unless the illiberal are removed / reformed, liberalism will remain under threat.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 06 Jun 2011 10:31

nsriram wrote:Arjun,

I sense that this thread is important but am wary of the semantic difficulties for such an overloaded concept such as "liberalism". The word "liberal" has distinct connotations in America (where it is closely aligned with the 'socialist' left) vs. Europe (where it is aligned with free market capitalism). In the Indian context, the folks at freedomteam.in have made a manifesto for a hypothetical Indian liberal party and have various documents on their website (they are "classic" liberals they insist but not libertarian). I'd be interested in your thoughts on their positions.

I checked the site.... I would agree with most of their positions, excepting the following:

The goal of a nation is to protect our life and liberty.

I would probably modify it to say 'The goal of a nation is to protect our life, liberty and fundamental liberal values.'

'Freedom of choice' is a basic undercurrent of liberalism. The key question is what does 'freedom of choice' mean wrt religion. Does it only mean that a person is free to choose his or her religion and convert as required? Or does it mean that there should be no dogma that restricts the paths to salvation to any single God. I believe that Indian liberal standards in this regard are higher than the West, and therefore, it is the latter meaning that should be adopted.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 06 Jun 2011 11:34

"This person is my kin and that one is alien” such a thought occurs only to the narrow-minded people. To the broad-minded (or liberal) person the whole world is one family.

The word Liberal Nationalism can be translated as "Udaara Rashtravaad". But is it the correct translation? lets check the meaning

Good post Atri ji, puts the Indic angle to 'value' systems in the global and importantly not local perspective. Sanatana has always implied 'universal'. It is for India to understand, follow ad protect these ideals which have been born here. We do not say UN of HR is a Western construct. We applaud the step as being in synch with our very own SD. We do not say 'Freedom of expression' is given to us or known to us because of the US 1st amendment principle, we say it's been followed by us for ages and we welcome the US highlighting that aspect in modern times. We do not say Democracy is a Western construct, we say the mounds in Vaishali approve of the system in very own culture. We are historically a nation that does not ram down others' throats our own 'isms. We valued that as a principle and welcome it's ascendency in the modern era as is clearly visible.

Thus there are many value system constructs that have evolved in the West that have been core to Indic and SD thought. Today even people like Lisa Miller of Newsweek thinks that it's not Indians that are becoming more American, but Americans becoming more Indian (read Hindu).

The problem arises when we start dismissing legitimate Western constructs (that are actually in recent history derived from our very own thoughts and scriptures) as alien. Problem arises when we stop understanding our Indic/ SD construct as not global but local. The problem arises when we think there is only a narrow way of defining the construct. The problem arises when we dismiss these constructs and don't really stand for anything, then we will fall for anything.

So tell me why we need to define a value system based on foreign ideology, when we have our traditional one that WILL work. The key words are "will work". It would have been fine if we did not have something indigenous. For example, telephone (or the concept of electronic communication) being invented outside India has a non-Indic name for it.

Firstly there is a very SDRE person by the name of JC Bose who gave the first known demo on wireless communication.

While no one disagrees putting our own terms in our own construct, there is no ego or harm in usage of constructs that may be familiar to a much Macaulized generation, unfamiliar with Sanskrit or Indic language constructs. The important issue is the construct and the Idea not the language it is garbed in. If we protect with our hearts 'Freedom of expression', we are protecting with our souls our very ancient culture of debate, discussion and doctrinal dissection. If we protect with our hearts the right of the other person to commune with God in his or her own way, we are protecting the Vedic saying 'God is one, but many sages call him by different names'.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 06 Jun 2011 17:51

For people interested in values and ethics and Indic connection, please read "Dharma and Ethics: The Indian Ideal of Human Perfection" Edited by D.C.Srivastava and Bijoy H. Boruah. You can buy it from Amazon.com, if you are in maasa.

Saral · Post by **Saral** » 06 Jun 2011 19:32

Arjun wrote:I checked the site.... I would agree with most of their positions, excepting the following:
The goal of a nation is to protect our life and liberty.
I would probably modify it to say 'The goal of a nation is to protect our life, liberty and fundamental liberal values.'
'Freedom of choice' is a basic undercurrent of liberalism. The key question is what does 'freedom of choice' mean wrt religion. Does it only mean that a person is free to choose his or her religion and convert as required? Or does it mean that there should be no dogma that restricts the paths to salvation to any single God. I believe that Indian liberal standards in this regard are higher than the West, and therefore, it is the latter meaning that should be adopted.

I noticed that this page http://freedomteam.in/blog/content/are-you-a-liberal has a particularly clear discussion on what they mean by "liberal" and the assumptions implicit in their position. Liberty aka freedom would encompass whatever values are deemed essential.

Family and religious freedom
Do you believe that a government has no role in the creation, design, or operation of our family and religious life?
The liberal believes that the nation is merely there to protect us and enforce accountability. It has no business in our private family and spiritual affairs. This includes not telling us how many children we can have.

This is obviously not even true in Maasa (where religious freedom is very high compared to rest of the world) where polygamy is illegal.

I think the freedom to convert (religion) is not proscribed (freedom to change personal life practices is surely a freedom that liberals must support?) but unfair variants would be covered by "The liberal believes that a government can monitor the market for accountability, including preventing injury at work, deceptive conduct, unfair trade practice, negative externalities, etc. ". So if conversions are carried out using deceptive conduct that would cause such activities to come under scrutiny. This ties in well with Rajiv Malhotra's business model of religion which is at http://tinyurl.com/5shabep

Saral · Post by **Saral** » 06 Jun 2011 19:46

SwamyG wrote:For people interested in values and ethics and Indic connection, please read "Dharma and Ethics: The Indian Ideal of Human Perfection" Edited by D.C.Srivastava and Bijoy H. Boruah. You can buy it from Amazon.com, if you are in maasa.

Swamy Ji,

If you have the book, could you consider providing a gist? In particular does the "Indian Ideal" view human beings as essentially flawed (and therefore in need of regulatory institutions) or does it pursue something else. I am particularly interested in how Dharma as depicted in this book contrasts with classical liberalism (which is essentially a recent product advanced by European/American thinkers)