Protection of Liberalism - International and Indian trends

[brihaspati]

^^No comparable studies published as far as I know. But the explanation could be rather simple - it is about multiplicity of competing optimizers [in all senses - economic, scientific, ideas, social] making for higher efficiency. Kind of the "free market" == "efficient market" hypothesis. Non-dogmatic cultures would be more efficient at adaptively maximizing growth - in science, ideas, economics. However, the same autonomy of individualistic approach will weaken the emergency unification mobilization needs. It is here that dogmatic cultures will win over in military, coercion, imperialist spheres.

[RajeshA]

Arjun ji,

this one is for you!

deals with exclusivism!

[Arjun]

Arjun ji,

this one is for you!

deals with exclusivism!

Thank for that link Rajeshji. I have been going through Rajiv Malhotra's book, 'Being Different' and it has some excellent insights. The parts that I have finished so far have been well worth it - especially the one on 'History Centrism of the Abrahamics' which he also stresses on in this conversation.

Its interesting that Mark Tully agrees that the Church and certain denominations have been exclusivist and he would like this to be moderated - while Rajiv prefers to use 'history centrism' as the ultimate reason for Christianity's exclusivist claims.

Also, as Tully and Malhotra both seem to agree on - the mainline Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church are relatively sympathetic to Hindu concerns on aggressive proselytization. Its the other Protestant sects primarily from the US that are troublesome.

Also for you Rajeshji, you will find Rajiv Malhotra being very much opposed to the concept of inculturation in his book - ie the practice of Christian missionaries adopting elements of the local culture in order to gain converts through 'subterfuge'.

It might be a good idea to start a thread to discuss the book - maybe sometime in mid-Jan when more folks have been through it.

[RajeshA]

It might be a good idea to start a thread to discuss the book - maybe sometime in mid-Jan when more folks have been through it.

Arjun ji,

I think it is a very good idea to start a new thread on that. Something like "India - An Independent Civilizational Pole" or something like that, or one can simply call it "Being Different".

Rajiv Malhotra actually has a Yahoo Group for discussion of his books - both "Breaking India" and "Being Different"! The group is called "RajivMalhotraDiscussion" Some material can be cross-posted.

I actually would wish that some of the topics in General Discussion Forum could be made public, topics like

• Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas
• Distorted history- Causes, consequences, remedies
• Deracination - From What?
• Link Language for India
• Indian Soft Power
• India's Yoga and Ayurveda
• Civilization- Harmonization/Homogenization
• Indic values and its contribution

So that these topics have more prominence as the book seems to make! Perhaps one needs a General Discussion Forum without the Burqa!

[shiv]

Arjun started this thread with the following statement, about which I do not actually have any quibbles.

Liberalism is:

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.

But I have a poser. "food for thought" if you like, about liberalism.

I may be mistaken, but I get the impression that most people tend to accuse Islam of illiberalism, based on the disqualification of certain types of debate in islam. For many of us, Islam has become the embodiment of illiberalism.

But is this fair. Or at least, is it completely true?

In fact it can be argued that for a person within Islam there is a lot more "liberalism" allowed of a type that our so called liberal non Islamic societies allow.

If you start with the premise that your religion is the best and must not be questioned, my liberalism allows you the right to say that.

It is therefore well within your rights, within your religion to talk openly about how to deal with people who disagree with your premise that your religion is the best. For example if you decide that your opponents should be killed and that idea is allowed in your society, it is the liberalism in your society that allows you to talk about killing others as one solution. Your society, within you religion is so liberal that it allows you even to discuss killing your opponents as a solution.

On the other hand, my society discourages me from thinking of killing you. My "liberal" society allows you to say what you like about your religion. That is your freedom of expression. And my liberal society also allows you to talk about killing me. as part of your religious freedom. But my society does not allow me to talk about killing you. My "liberal" society prevents me from exploring all possible solutions. It prevents me from talking about some things, while your so called "illiberal" society is free to say what it wants.

What the furk is this liberalism all about? it is a load of crock isn't it? This liberalism is just a way of not taking any stand on any issue. A cop out.

[Arjun]

Hi Shiv, the Trojan Horse within liberal societies is the need to be uncritical of religious education and preaching in the name of 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom of propagation of religion'. Once religious education and preaching comes under the same scanner as Pakistani school education was put through (by the USCIRF) - this Trojan horse disappears. And I don't think the latter action would or should be incompatible with liberal principles.

[shiv]

Hi Shiv, the Trojan Horse within liberal societies is the need to be uncritical of religious education and preaching in the name of 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom of propagation of religion'. Once religious education and preaching comes under the same scanner as Pakistani school education was put through (by the USCIRF) - this Trojan horse disappears. And I don't think the latter action would or should be incompatible with liberal principles.

Arjun the issue has greater ramifications than would appear to be the case on the surface. For far too long liberalism all over the world has been pseudoliberalism. For example human rights organizations get their chaddis in a twist over "oppression" of religious minorities while they do not touch religious principles at all. That leaves thee organizations open to manipulation by religious conservatives.

Te United Nations itself is a huge mass of pseudoliberalism where religion is let off

The problem with "liberalism" is that it is defined by parameters which are superficial like saying "If the human has long hair, wears a skirt or alternatively a burqa it is female" This allows pretenders and cross dressers to pass themselves off as female. A whole lot of frauds are hiding behind the liberal mask because of this.

One of the earliest things I noticed was that many Indian liberals were hardly liberals - they were plain under informed Macaulayite dhimmis whose social circle enabled them to call themselves "liberal". Later, it became obvious that "Liberals" in Pakistan were predominantly frauds. Like Salman Taseer and his Indian fans like Sagarika Ghose

[Arjun]

Couldn't agree more, Shiv. Tolerance is a virtue to be celebrated, as long as the object of your toleration returns it in equal measure. Offering toleration of all ideologies - without any qualification whatsoever, is not a sensible way to define liberalism.

A key reason behind starting this thread was to debate this issue. Also, too many right-wingers in India oppose liberalism because of this faulty reasoning - which I don't think is the right strategy. The effort should be to take ownership of the term and question the legitimacy of those who use the screwed-up definition. More so because Hinduism is in many ways a naturally liberal doctrine - with its emphasis on freedom of choice whether in its multiplicity of Gods, or paths to salvation.

[shiv]

Also, too many right-wingers in India oppose liberalism because of this reason

Arjun it is my firm belief that terms like "right wing" and "liberal" were finer points in describing western societies. Those expressions have sometimes been applied without thought to Indians society that has evolved in a completely different way and the terms do not fit perfectly.

For instance I have found that saying any goddam thing that represents a Hindu viewpoint is instantly branded as "right wing" by a group of self styled liberals I used to debate with (online). It gradually turned out that they were completely fake and did not even know what they were. They were just using these fancy English terms. The most confused (nowadays) are the America returned ones. They have often belonged to what they thought was a liberal group in America and they try and fit that into the Indian context and fail miserably. I have many hilarious examples but quoting them may only make accidental lurkers angry.

There seems to be an assumption among many English educated Indians that they come from a Hindu background and therefore "liberalism" means being ready to condemn the Hindu background at the slightest notice in the mistaken assumption that trying to stand up to anything Hindu in origin is the same as "Conservatism" and therefore not liberal. After this group get past the anger of cognitive dissonance they are able to think straight and realise that "liberalism" is a different ball game from what they imagined.

It astounds me that some of the most educated, seemingly intelligent and erudite Indian are actually dumb when it comes to their lack of understanding of the meaning of these terms. They have no insight because India doe snot use these terms in its own society and only a sprinkling of English educated people borrow the terminology from the west. They are frauds and frauds have so far got away with it. A decade ago I would have been afraid to call these people "dumb" but ten years of debate have made me see things so clearly that I am generally willing to rip up fake liberals at short notice and make them really angry with me as a result.

[RajeshA]

We should avoid the use of the world liberal at all to describe these self-styled "liberals" in India. They call Hindus right-wing. We should call them constantly Hindu-Haters and let them defend themselves. Put them on the defensive!

[Bharath.Subramanyam]

A Satire on Harvard - Subramanian Swamy fatwa:

http://harvardfatwa.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-eck.html

Touches whats the issue with 'liberals' ?

[Arjun]

Russia: Gita verdict deferred after Hindus appeal

I don't think India should apply any pressure at all on Russia wrt the case on the Gita. The best interests of Hinduism would be served only if the court follows its due process - irrespective of the decision that it finally comes out with. The fact that religious books and preaching can be taken to court will ultimately only be beneficial to non - Abrahamics.

[shiv]

Not with that thing on, sisterSo it turns out, I cannot enter a nightclub in Dubai.

My my! The lady is bursting out of her hijab with liberal thoughts

What if I wore a hijab and enjoyed swaying to some trance? Or what if I didn’t wear a hijab and still didn’t dance or drink? How would they know not to let me in? And what about the boys? Why is it that all boys, devout or not, have the freedom of entering a club, but not all girls? Would the bouncer exercise the same discrimination on a man whose pants were above his ankles? Would this bouncer even be able to differentiate these men in a sea of sweaty bandanas and bermudas? Why did they let me enter the desert safari camp for dinner and allow me to see a belly dance? There was the dance and bottles of Jack went around, but no one said, “Hey, get that covered one out from the camp first”.

<snip>

if you’re a girl and cover your head, you can’t do anything else, but if you’re anything besides that, then the world’s your oyster.

<snip>

I wonder if this rule stems from the concern of protecting Islamic values. If this is the case, then here’s an idea: do away with the clubs and the alcohol

Maybe we need a thread called "Hypocrisy and islam"?

[ManuT]

X-Post

Salman Rushdie
India Today Conclave 2012.

Excellent talk by Salman Rushdie at India Today Conclave 2012.

He taken on Imran Khan for his dramatic refusal to attend IT Conclave, the Congress Party's appeasement in UP and how the average Muslim all over world is hostage to the shenanigans of self-appointed 'mullahs'. [sic for leaders]

Video Link

[RajeshA]

There are many hues of liberals, e.g. left-liberals. The article goes into how Democratic Party uses the black as vote-banks not much different than how "secularists" in India pretty much use various castes and minorities as vote-banks. A few leaders earn big bucks while the rest are put on some welfare program, rather than uplifted. Good article!

Published on Apr 14, 2013
By Wayne Dupree
Why are liberals afraid of black conservatives?: Washington Times

Too many liberals think they have the black race all sewed up, and it just paralyzes them to hear of black conservatives.

What they hate is that there are thousands of conservative blacks continuing to talk, continuing to make noise, continuing to be rebels against the liberal plantation that is the Democratic Party.
Progressive liberals think of themselves as magicians: They can reach into a deck of cards, and pull out the race card every time, almost without consequences.

[Mukesh.Kumar]

Weird article on Washington Post: A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries
More India baiting- India is shown as one of the most racially tolerant countries.




Where and how did they come to this conclusion. This needs to be investigated and rebutted.