Bharat Rakshak

ManuT wrote:Liberalism are the freedoms you allow your children (especially daughters) in selecting their religion, nationality, profession and spouse.

Anyone who comes between me and my food (be it beef, pork, chicken or fish) and drink on a Friday or a Tuesday is a bigot.

Pranav wrote:

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.

nsriram wrote: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

Hyderabad: Eight-year-old Sonia, a Muslim, who has been adopted by a Hindu family will be presented before the state Human Rights Commission today.

The commission has sought a report on the child's legal status.

Sonia was four when Jayshree and her husband, Papalal, found her alone and terrified after a bomb exploded in Hyderabad. They gauged that she had been orphaned and that she came from a Muslim family.

The couple decided Sonia was destined to be their daughter. But others resisted. Muslim groups wanted the child to be sent to an orphanage so that she would not be raised as a Hindu.

Papalal is in jail on the basis of cases aimed at harassing him till he gives up Sonia because she is a Muslim.

vera_k wrote:Exactly right. Lokpal will only be useful until that body gets corrupted itself. Decentralising power and implementing electoral reforms so people have a greater say in matters will be a more robust solution.

Who are America’s 'militiamen'?

Some view them as fanatics, while others see them as Americans with a strong civic sense. Who are America’s “militiamen”? Amid the collapse of the American economy and the comeback of Obama’s Democrats, constitutional militias have been going through a strong revival. They are not neo-Nazis, even though some of them share views with the extreme right. They are not bloodthirsty, although their libertarian principles are being embraced more and more by Americans enraged by Obama’s government. They are an amorphous group of men and women, generally white, who regularly train in self-defense techniques.

The paramilitary organizations they form are called “militias” to differentiate them from the armed forces of the state. (Communists used to give the same name to police units, to show that they are actually composed of citizens.) American “militiamen” are a modern occurrence (spread across all the American states), even though they consider themselves to be the direct followers of patriotic colonists, who fought against the British troops in the 18th century.

The First Wave: 1994

According to Professor Robert Churchill, an expert in the matter of American insurrectionist groups, the history of militia movement begins in the second half of the 1980s, when organizations started advocating and lobbying for the right of citizens to own firearms.

Those supporting the right to own guns turned to historians to legitimize their cause. At the time, many studies were written and published about the American Revolution and the role the citizen militia had in those days. “The fact that militias were meant to act as an insurrectional force, with the purpose of defending citizens from the abuses of the state, became popular in the pro-firearms camp,” says Churchill. “After that, police stations added special paramilitary units (SWAT). As the controversy over the right to own firearms grew, these police units became increasingly aggressive. They were already trained to use paramilitary tactics in actions against drug dealers, and there was a fear that they will turn their attention on those owning firearms,” Churchill adds.

Amid these tensions, exacerbated by two bloody incidents (Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992 and Waco, Texas in 1993) in which the U.S. federal forces stormed the camps of groups accused of holding illegal weapons, tens of thousands of Americans began creating armed self-defense groups — in other words, militias.

The Decline: 1995

The militia movement has never had a centralized command structure. In addition, as a result of a phenomenon by and large spontaneous, the hundreds of emerging groups who called themselves “militia” did not always share the same values and beliefs. Historians and sociologists have identified from the outset two different branches to the movement: one focused mainly on the so-called recovery of the American Republic, based on maximizing rights and personal liberties (“constitutional militias”), and an apocalyptic and racist one, animated by a dark vision of an international conspiracy meant to subdue “free Americans” (“millenniary militias”).

On April 19 1995, Timothy McVeigh, a sympathizer of the millenniary doctrine, detonated a massive bomb in front of a federal government building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. The attack, which aroused the attention of journalists and the FBI overnight, had major repercussions on all the militias.

Shortly after the attack, several millenniary groups were dismembered and some constitutional militias actually ended their organized activities. In recent times however, with the collapse of the American economy and the return to power of the Democrats led by Obama, constitutionalist militias have seen a strong revival.

The Second Wave: 2009-2010

The number of militias grew significantly over the past two years. Unfortunately, there are few and incomplete sociological studies on the subject, making the process of identifying the reasons for their appearance even more difficult. Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that keeps track of extremist groups in America, mentions three major causes for their resurgence.

First, economic woes are radicalizing Americans. Another influence is the increasingly violent discourse of conservative American commentators and politicians, who are constantly bringing forward all sorts of alarming conspiracy theories. Finally, according to Potok, a demographic change — symbolized by Obama’s election as president — is profoundly disturbing some white citizens. The vast majority of militia members, however, vehemently deny any accusations of racism.

Neither the constitutionalists, nor the millenniaries had identified with racist ideologies pertaining to groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or the skinheads, but the millenniarists’ paranoid vision attracted many people with anti-Semite and racist tendencies in the 1990s. They actually felt threatened by a supposed internationalist clique set on conquering the world.

American Ceaucescus, Beware!

Mike Vanderboegh, who was a militia leader in Alabama during the first wave, is currently considered by many as a gray eminence of the militia movement.

“Freedom is a God-given, inalienable right. The present administration thinks that it can dictate to the minority how to act, because they were elected by a majority. But for the founding fathers of this Republic, democracy without limits is as dangerous as dictatorship. Absolute democracy is like having three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. If there is no constitutional menu which says “sheep will not be eaten” and a sheep dog to impose conduct, the sheep will be eaten by the wolves. It will be a purely democratic act and at the same time, purely dictatorial. The armed citizens of the United States are the ones playing the role of the sheep dog,” says Vanderboegh.

He doesn’t hesitate to compare contemporary America society with communist era Romania: “We are witnessing federal government tyranny — see the recent health care law, which demands that each citizen buys his own health insurance. I sincerely hope that Obama will remember what happens to tyrants like Nicolae Ceausescu and his lovely wife!” concludes Vanderboegh.

The Sacred Right to Bear Arms

By far the most important claim made by American militia supporters is the right of citizens to own firearms. The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits limiting people's right to bear arms. The law isn’t specific on what types of arms are allowed, however, which led to many virulent arguments between those who wish to forbid some types of firearms and those who believe the citizens have the right to own any kind of arms — including automatic rifles, such as Kalashnikovs.

“The second amendment guarantees that the citizen may exercise his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” says David Codrea, an American whose grandparents emigrated from Transylvania during the first half of the 20th century. “The American government seems to have forgotten that this amendment states that the citizens’ right to bear arms cannot be restricted. We are witnessing the continuous efforts of disarming the people, under the false pretenses of a fight against terrorism. We are constantly being associated with extremism, with hatred; what really amuses me is that I am being accused by the left of being racist and anti-Semitic, while the real racists and anti-Semites are accusing me of selling myself, because in my writings I support everyone’s right to bear arms, regardless of race, color or religious belief.”

The owner several rifles and pistols, Codrea believes that disarming the population will not strengthen public safety in any way. “If we think about it, the most important mass murder in American history was carried out using box cutters. The second biggest mass murder, the attack in Oklahoma City, used fuel and fertilizer. Anyone can have access to these kinds of things.”

What do Militiamen Believe in

Americans who are already part of a militia talk about why they joined these movements and what they intend to do in the future.

Roy McCarty, member of the Northern California State Militia: “A few years ago, I was living in Arizona, where we had a real problem with illegal immigrants coming across the border. In my area, the border patrol caught 2,500 [illegal immigrants] each month. The police were completely overwhelmed by the situation, so the people living there formed a militia to help them. We would patrol the border, catch illegal immigrants and hold them back until the police came to arrest them. In the old days, if you were member of a militia, you were seen as a patriot. Things changed when the extremists, like the neo-Nazis, came. We are simply neighbors helping one another in case of floods, fire, earthquakes and so on. We do not want to destroy anything, nor are we interested in fighting the government.”

William Krause, member of Liberty Guard of New America: “Right now, 40 percent of Americans are paying for the other 60 percent. The government is not doing anything to fix the problem — not the Republicans, nor the Democrats. Their only concern is to take our money and all they can for that matter, in a socialist-communist manner. Here in Oregon, we have a bunch of illegal Mexicans, who are walking on the streets all day, committing crimes and the police is not doing anything about it. They won’t speak English and they won’t work. If there’s a flood or an earthquake, they might even start stealing or robbing. But if we are threatened, we members of the militias, we will fight force with force. It is really bad and it might even end in a civil war.”

Jeff Foust, member of Indiana Militia: “We believe that everyone has to be ready for everything. Back in the old days, it was natural to be able to look after yourself, even in the worst case scenario. Now, people cannot do that anymore. A lot of people live with their eyes closed. The whole society is scheduled not to worry about the safety of personal liberty.”

Mike Vanderboegh, former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia and currently a political militia strategist, also explains his reasons: “The new health care law forces us to buy insurance. When we will say no, they will fine us. When we will refuse to pay the fine, they will come and arrest us. If we do not allow them to arrest us in our own homes, they will send armed federal [agents] to break our doors and drag us to prison. At that moment, I will resist with my rifle. The English and the Americans have a long tradition of fighting tyranny.”

Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a guarantee would likely produce. Among the examples of an articulation of a right of revolution as positive law include:

- The szlachta, nobles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, also maintained a right of rebellion, known as rokosz.
- New Hampshire's constitution[29] guarantees its citizens the right to reform government, in Article 10 of the New Hampshire constitution's Bill of Rights: Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

- The Kentucky constitution[30] also guarantees a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in the Kentucky Bill of Rights: All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

- Similar wording is used in Pennsylvania's constitution,[31] under Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights:All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

- Article I, §2 of the Tennessee constitution[32] states: That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

- North Carolina's constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights:

3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.

- The Constitution of Texas[33] also contains similar wording in Article 1, Sect 2: All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

- The post-World War II Grundgesetz, the Fundamental Law of the Federal Republic of Germany contains both entrenched, un-amendable clauses protecting human and natural rights, as well as a clause in its Article 20, recognizing the right of the people to resist tyranny, if all other measures have failed.

In a large sense, the United States Constitution and the general Anglo-American political tradition contemplate two ways for the people to take collective action. Today, we are very familiar with one way: the ordinary method of government through politics and law. This system contains specific limits on the government's abuse of power: electoral accountability, separation of powers, federalism, and individual rights. If the people disagree among themselves or if the government disagrees with some of the people, authoritative methods exist for resolving those differences, including election results and court decrees. If the form of government is well-designed, these resolutions may be presumptively just.

For the Framers, however, no form of government could guarantee that powerholders would not become corrupt. The Framers therefore foresaw that the people might have to re-take power into their own hands through the second form of collective action: resistance and revolution. The primary textual basis for this form of action is the Second Amendment. While Articles I, II, and III give power to the people "in-doors," tamed in formal channels of government,[310] the Second Amendment, by contrast, contemplates the People "out-of-doors,"[311] regnant, militant, and creating the channels for its expression.[312] This civic republican armato populato is the final limit on governmental power.(p.948)

Who, however, will limit the people? Scholars who endorse an individual rights theory of the Second Amendment might suggest that this question is illegitimate because the people, as the fountainhead of all legitimate authority, are entirely and always trustworthy. Indeed, some of these theorists accuse gun control advocates of an elitist distrust of the masses.[313] In the end, the people must therefore stand as their own limit; they are at the end of the regression, and there is nowhere else to turn.

The Framers of the Second Amendment would agree with that conclusion. They were not indiscriminate proponents of revolution; indeed, they were always fearful that the revolutionary people would become nothing more than a mob.[320] They felt, however, that they had two protections against such degeneration. First, the people were formed into a universal militia, raised and disciplined by the state. Second, American citizens were a republican People--homogeneous, virtuous, and committed to the common good. These qualities made it possible to trust the people in 1776, but one should not always and everywhere trust the people out-of-doors. Resistance made by an unvirtuous population--such as the laboring classes of European cities-- could not be a revolution for the common good.[321] In short, unlike some modern proponents of a revolutionary Second Amendment, the Framers worried not only about limiting government by an armed populace but also about limiting the armed populace itself.

Even in the late eighteenth century, the Framers may have been wrong in supposing that American were a unified People; they may have been conjuring with the concept of a People, because otherwise their republican structure of thought would crumble. Militia writers might argue that if conjuring with the People was good enough for Patrick Henry, then it should be good enough for modern Americans--or, more precisely, then it is a constitutionally sanctioned form of rhetoric. In fact, however, even if conjuring with the People was once constitutionally sanctioned, the situation has changed. First, the Framers of the Second Amendment gave the People an institutional form--the universal militia--celebrated in the Second Amendment. The United States no longer maintains such a militia; the citizenry, apart from conventional politics, is merely a collection of individuals. Second, the Constitution itself has changed. The original Constitution allowed, even promoted, corporate unities of the sort that might ground peoplehood. States could and did maintain religious establishments; the citizenry was limited to white males; the Bill of Rights (p.950)had little substantive reach.[322] Today, the Constitution has become a great protector of liberal individualism. American society is no longer a Christian, white, male citizenry, and citizens have individual rights to make personal life choices. In short, Americans no longer exhibit commonality in part because the Constitution protects the right not to be part of a commonality. In such a legal regime, conjuring with the People is no longer a constitutionally sanctioned form of rhetoric.

The most important change, however, is that over the last 200 years, diversity has become a permanent and accepted part of the American political landscape. In the 1790s, the Framers of the Second Amendment could still conjure with a People because even if the American citizenry did not meet that ideal, the Framers hoped to make it do so. Today, that hope is dramatically less viable; for many, it is no longer even attractive. This Article has detailed the demographic, epistemological, interpretive, and political difficulties in constituting a people today. Those difficulties strongly counsel that it is time to stop conjuring with the people. It is possible that a People does exist; if not, it is possible that a People may be created. Unless and until such conditions are demonstrated, however, the revolutionary Second Amendment by its own terms does not apply to late twentieth-century America.

That conclusion would have filled the Framers with foreboding. It certainly fills the militia movement with dread, and it probably fills many adherents of the individual rights view of the Amendment with concern. If Americans lose the constitutional right to revolution, then they have no choice but to trust ordinary politics and law to protect them from oppression. If the government ever falls into the hands of a committed tyrant, those structures may not provide sufficient protection. That threat is real, and in my view it is right to worry about it. The great strength of the individual rights theory is its realism on this point: citizens may live under a basically just system now, but there is no guarantee that it will always be so.

But the right to bear arms cannot guarantee that the American system will remain just either. Votes may not secure a just society, but neither could an armed populace. The individual rights theory is realistic about the threat of government tyranny, but it is profoundly unrealistic about the threat of revolutionary tyranny. Today, armed resistance is no less likely to bring oppression in its wake than is government. In other words, the citizenry forfeited its effective right to armed revolution some time ago, not through the decision of a court, but through historical changes. Even if the Supreme Court guaranteed each individual the right to arms tomorrow, even if Congress supplied (p.951)each home with an assault weapon, citizens still could not exercise a right to revolution, because they are not a revolutionary people. All they could do is kill each other. It is terrifying to have to trust ordinary politics, to have to give up the ultimate sanction of armed revolt, but America has already reached that point.

In the end, individuals may always maintain a moral right to defend themselves against unjust government, regardless of circumstances. If the conspiracy theories were true, citizens might all need to beg, borrow, or steal a gun and take to the hills, fighting a guerrilla war for their liberties--and they would be right to do so. In America, it is easy to forget what people in the former Yugoslavia cannot forget: only force wins. And therefore, if the revolution comes, and if the nation collapses in virulent internecine warfare, perhaps everyone would have a right to take up arms in defense of the family, the home, or themselves. That right of self-defense could not be a constitutional right, however, because it would occur outside of all constituted authority, in the war of all against all. In such a time, it is difficult even to speak of justice and injustice; one simply does what one has to do. The Second Amendment does not contemplate arming citizens in preparation for such a time; it contemplates arming the populace in preparation for revolution made by an orderly and unified people according to commonly shared norms and understandings. And that sort of arming is no longer available.

As a result, America must hope that it never comes to the pass of revolution. To forestall that pass, Americans can rely only on ordinary politics. Citizens must struggle to create together a healthy and viable democracy, unified enough to prevent fatal fissures in the body politic but pluralist enough to celebrate different cultures and individuals. Unfortunately, the theoretical world of the revolutionary Second Amendment actively frustrates the creation of such a politics. In that world, citizens must always be suspicious, seeing disagreement as the product, not of good faith, but of deceit. In that world, citizens must always be ready to take up arms and abandon political means of reconciliation. And as a result, in that world, citizens must see the political landscape as populated by the People and potential Others, not by multiple, co-equal parties with different views but equal rights and legitimacy.

For that reason, paradoxically, the militia's conception of the Second Amendment poisons not only ordinary politics but revolutionary politics as well. For a revolution to occur, the people must be even more united than in a healthy democracy. Completely outside of the normal political structures, they must rise as one to smite the tyrant. If the American citizenry were already a People, the Amendment might protect the right to revolution. But when a people, as now, (p.952)does not exist, the suspicion, hostility, and violence implicit in the militia movement's theory of the amendment would make it almost impossible to create one. Ironically, then, the movement's particular rendition of the revolutionary Second Amendment would actually ensure that a legitimate, constitutionally sanctioned Second Amendment revolution could never occur.

In short, the Second Amendment right to revolution presupposes a particular factual scenario. The People are profoundly unified with a particular and consensual notion of their own good. A small band of evildoers captures the government, departs from the general will, and uses its power for its own nefarious purposes. The People then make a revolution. Under these circumstances, the right to revolution makes sense. The right does not make sense when the people themselves are profoundly divided about the common good, when the problem is not a straying government but fissures within the citizenry itself. Under today's circumstances, the right to revolution loses its grounding, and citizens must look elsewhere for safety. Different historical circumstances call for different forms of collective action.

With the loss of the right to revolution, however, come compensating gains. Unlike the patriots of 1776, America now has a representative government and a written constitution.[323] Throughout America's history, groups of citizens have resisted the government in the name of an abstraction called the People. On inspection, however, that abstraction always turns out to be a subset of the citizenry, united by class, language, or political viewpoint; America is now a nation of groups, not one unified people.[324] The compensation is that we no longer enjoy peoplehood precisely because we now have the right to be different from each other. Because we will not suffer the cultural orthodoxy necessary for unity, we have lost one great guarantor of freedom, the right to revolution, but we have gained the day-to-day freedom of a pluralist society. It remains to be seen whether such a society can survive, but it has no hope so long as we are prepared to kill each other in the name of a constitutional anachronism: the People.

Manny wrote:My hatred is reserved for the leftist sekularists of India. Not Hussain. He was ok. He did what he had to do.

In principle I am a libertarian. Everyone has a right to give offence to another as long as its not physical. So if the same thing was an issue here in the US, I would say, he has every right to do it, paint Hindu godessess in the nude, as much as others have a right to paint Mohammad in the nude or worse

But in India, the right to free speech is restricted to not give offense to religion or religious sentiments

Section 153A of the penal code says, inter alia:

Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, . . . shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.[3]
Enacted in 1927, section 295A says:

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.[4]
[edit]


Under that restriction, the gall of these leftists to call any Indian who appeals to the law for justice as hatemongers is one of the cruelest and incedious things done by these lefty sekularist buggers. These lefties are the anti Hindu bigots in my book. They are worse than any Islamists. They are immoral and evil.

Entering the debate on national identity and religious tolerance, the Prime Minister declared an end to “passive tolerance” of divided communities, and say that members of all faiths must integrate into wider society and accept core values.

To be British is to believe in freedom of speech and religion, democracy and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality, he will say. Proclaiming a doctrine of “muscular liberalism”, he said that everyone, from ministers to ordinary voters, should actively confront those who hold extremist views.

He warned that groups that fail to promote British values will no longer receive public money or be able to engage with the state.

His speech, to an international security conference in Munich, comes after The Daily Telegraph disclosed the extent to which the British intelligence community fears the “unique threat” of terrorist attacks by radicalised British Muslims.

Mr Cameron promised a new willingness to argue against and “defeat” extremist ideologies that lead some to engage in terrorism.

That means abandoning the notion that different communities should be able to live according to their own values and traditions as long as they stay within the law. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream,” Mr Cameron said. “We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.”

All Britons should believe in basic values of freedom and equality, and actively promote them, he said. That means ensuring that immigrants learn to speak English and that all schools teach “elements of a common culture and curriculum”.

The Prime Minister accepted that multiculturalism has left some members of the white community feeling unfairly treated. Racism and intolerance are “rightly” condemned, he said. “But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious, frankly too fearful, to stand up to them.”

The speech comes after Baroness Warsi, the Conservative Party chairman, caused controversy by claiming that prejudice against Muslims was widespread and socially acceptable.

Mr Cameron will drew a clear distinction between “Islamist extremism” as a political ideology, and the Islamic faith itself. “We need to be clear: Islamic extremism and Islam are not the same thing,” he said.

The Government is reviewing its entire strategy for counter-terrorism and community cohesion amid concern that the state is working too closely with Muslim groups that do not fully endorse liberal values. Mr Cameron said that community groups will be scrutinised in future to see if they promote democracy, equality and integration. Those that fail the “tests” will be cut off. “No public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers,” he said..

Authentic liberalism was a doctrine of social progress based on maximising the good in people’s behaviour and minimising the bad. It thus depended upon making moral distinctions between good and bad.

But these distinctions have been destroyed by a combination of hyper-individualism —which grew out of liberalism — and a form of cultural Marxism whose agenda is to destroy liberal values. Between them, these trends tore up the concepts of objectivity, authority and the Judeo-Christian moral codes underpinning western values and substituted emotion, subjectivity, and moral and cultural relativism.

All lifestyles were now deemed to have equal status. Social or moral norms were intolerable because by definition they excluded by those who lay outside them. So normative values were replaced by those of groups hitherto deemed to lie outside them. Such self-designated ‘victim’ groups became unchallengeable: they could now do no wrong, while the dominant culture could do no right. And ‘universal’ human rights law became the judicial weapon for minorities to overturn the values of the dominant culture.

Under the banner of liberal values, this actually destroyed the core precept of liberalism — the distinction between right and wrong, good and bad, truth and lies. Instead, feelings and emotion became most important. The particulars of a culture were deemed hurtful and thus illegitimate because by definition they divided one culture from another. The nation, rooted as it is in the particulars of history, religion, law, language and tradition, became seen as the cause of all the ills of the world from prejudice to war. And the culture of a nation had to be replaced by multiculturalism.

Many people think multiculturalism just means showing respect and tolerance to other cultures and faiths. If that were so, it should be unarguable. We should all support respect and tolerance. But that’s not what multiculturalism is at all. It holds that all minority values must have equal status to those of the majority. Any attempt to uphold majority values over minorities is a form of prejudice. That turns minorities into a cultural battering ram to destroy the very idea of being a majority culture at all. And so, since no culture can assert itself over any other, liberalism cannot assert itself as a dominant cultural force. Instead society must fragment into a kaleidoscope of equal — and opposing —values, and liberal values must give way to their opposite.

Multiculturalism has reversed the notions of truth and lies, victim and victimiser. Since minorities can do no wrong, they cannot be held responsible for acts such as suicide bombings which must instead be the fault of their victims. This key confusion, which has caused intellectual and moral paralysis in the west, plays directly into the pathological Muslim victim culture which makes dialogue impossible. Because so many Muslims genuinely believe they are under attack by the west, which is a giant conspiracy to destroy Islam. So they perceive their own aggression as legitimate self-defence, and the west’s defence as aggression.

This fundamental untruth has created a dialogue of the demented. Because instead of treating it as the mad discourse that it is and refusing to play along with it, Britain regards it as an extension of its own multicultural, minority rights doctrine which routinely reverses victim and aggressor. So the untruths driving the terror are merely deepened – particularly since the left, which controls British and European culture, demonises America and Israel. So the central Islamist perception of the Big and Little Satan, America and Israel, is echoed in mainstream British discourse where anti-Americanism is rampant and Israel is well on the way to being delegitimised altogether. This acts as an echo chamber for Muslim prejudice, reinforcing it and fuelling the sense of paranoia and victimisation. And it has also released the virus of Judeophobia, with claims of a world Jewish conspiracy that are a re-run of the medieval blood libels leading to rising numbers of physical attacks on Jews. Our debased liberalism thus negates the power of reason, the key characteristic of liberal thinking, promotes murderous prejudice and weakens the west in its defence against Islamism by paving the way for its distortions and twisted thinking to take even deeper root.

People say, however, that the only alternative to multiculturalism is intolerance of minority faiths and cultures. This is completely wrong. It is a false antithesis; and it betrays a profound confusion between multiculturalism, which is fundamentally illiberal, and pluralism, which is the essence of a liberal society. Pluralism allows for many different groupings but, unlike multiculturalism, does not try to impose one uniform status on all of them. It allows a thousand flowers to bloom, with minorities forming communities of faith, ethnicity or culture within a society — but under the overarching umbrella of a national identity to whose core values everyone signs up. It is only by having that overarching set of common values — monogamy, freedom of conscience, equal rights for women, freedom of expression —that a society coheres as a common project. And a liberal society is no exception. If a liberal society doesn’t accept a hierarchy of values, that there are core principles which are non-negotiable and to which everyone must sign up, then by definition it can no longer remain a liberal society but must fragment into a kind of Balkanised tribalism in which the strongest groups win through intimidation or force.

devesh wrote:multiculturalism is a failed concept. the grandest, and longest experiment is India itself.

harbans wrote:Arjun Ji, on the topic of muscular liberalism, like to introduce the AH angle. After reading about how he runs his village, i lost complete respect for the person. Because he is the anti thesis of the liberal values we are trying to (i assume so, in case i am mistaken), find common ground on.

What we must attempt is to get some form of consistency or clear constituency that's a)pro liberal economic reform, b)pro pluralist value systems and c)ready to see and challenge doctrinal truth or untruth in a muscular manner. That's not coming from the UPA with the passage of their anti-communal bill, that's not being seen from the BJP, that's not visible if you look at people rallying behind civil society types as AH.

brihaspati wrote:
Destroying the org or its basis of power/infrastructure would be necessary for what you are talking of.

1. Reclaiming 'Traditional' India for the Indics
2. Containment of Islamic Strength: Policies and Privileges
3. Empowering Muslim Women
4. Codification of Fundamentals
5. "A Code of Belief and Conduct for the Society" vs. "Liberal Democracy"
6. Debating the Muslims on Fundamentals
7. Indic Islam; Cracking the Monolith
8. Basic Freedom of Spiritual Quest: External Assessment
9. An Activist Agenda: "The Indian Ethos Charter"
10. Systematic Empowering the Munafiqs and Provoking the Momeen
11. Indian State: Tools of Persuasion
12. Dharmics: Tools of Persuasion
13. The Momeen in the Crosshairs
14. The Ulema in the Crosshairs

Neo-illiberalism is India’s bane

Dear Justices Nijjar and Reddy,

Many of us welcome your decision in the Supreme Court case on black money, castigating the government for its inaction and setting up an independent special investigative team. This approach needs to be institutionalized: i have long argued for an independent Police Commission, analogous to the Election Commission.

However, in a long preamble to your judgment, you attribute black money and the “predatory state” to neo-liberal ideology. Excuse me, but the very opposite is true: the licence-permit raj is what creates a predatory state in which politicians make money out of controls. This would be difficult or impossible in a liberal framework that has impartial rules and no political discretion.

Liberals aim to get rid of controls imposed in the holy name of socialism and then used for kickbacks and patronage networks. Instead, liberals seek a rule-based system and free competition that ends kickbacks and favours.

You refer to neo-liberals promoting a “greed is good” model. May i request you to cite a single great liberal who ever said that? On the contrary, the books of great liberal thinkers from Adam Smith (“ The Theory of Moral Sentiments” ) to Milton Friedman (“ Free to Choose” ), all emphasize morality. Friedman says the foremost argument for free markets is not efficiency but morality—freedom to choose empowers citizens, whether in politics or the market, and the moral imperative of such empowerment matters much more than higher GDP.

“Greed is good” is the quip of a fictional character, Gordon Gecko, in the Hollywood film “Wall Street.” Unable to cope with the reality of Smith or Friedman, the Indian left invokes Hollywood. We trust your future judgments will cite reallife liberal giants.

Neo-liberalism is said to represent the abolition of nearly all regulations, leaving everything to markets. No country has such a regime and never will—governments do not come to power in order to abolish all their powers. So, neo-liberalism is a straw man. Far from being neo-liberal, India remains terribly illiberal. The 2G scandal, the Adarsh housing scam, the Commonwealth Games scam and many others are the consequence of politicians making money out of allocations, permits and contracts.

The Heritage Institute brings out an annual Index of Economic Freedom. This has long shown a strong relationship between economic freedoms on the one hand and income and lack of corruption on the other. The freest societies-—Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand—are also among the cleanest.

In this Index of Economic Freedom, India ranks 124th out of 183 countries. Is this really too liberal? Would we be better off becoming even less liberal and matching Togo (153rd) or Sierra Leone (164th)?

The Heritage Foundation divides all countries into six categories, ranging from free to repressed. India, alas, falls into the category “mostly unfree”. Will we be better off moving to the category “unfree”? Should we be going in the direction of North Korea and Myanmar?

Again, consider the Doing Business reports of the IFC/ World Bank. The 2011 report rates India 134th out of 183 countries in “ease of doing business”. Is it not a cruel joke to call this neo-liberal? India ranks among the most illiberal countries in the world in starting a new business (166th), getting a construction permit (177th) and enforcing contracts (182nd). Is there really a case for tightening controls and coming last in the world?

India has indeed liberalized industrial licences, import licences and foreign exchange. But in other areas, we have half-baked liberalization where permits and allocations are still needed, enabling politicians and their cronies to mint money. Full liberalization ends corruption and black money. For instance, if industrial licensing is abolished, nobody can demand or receive bribes for licences. Foreign exchange convertibility on current account has killed the black market premium on the dollar. The slashing of import duties has virtually ended the once massive smuggling of gold, electronics and synthetic fibres.

But we have moved from the old illiberalism (where everything was controlled) to a new illiberalism, where some sectors are liberalized (helping increase the economic cake), while other sectors are kept illiberal to enable politicians to extract more than ever out of an expanding economic cake. This is not neo-liberalism. It is neo-illiberalism. This is not the Washington Consensus. It is better called the New Delhi Consensus—all parties are fully agreed on continuing to making money out of a smaller but hugely profitable licence-permit raj.

We trust that in your next judgment, you will castigate this New Delhi Consensus as a cesspool of illiberalism that spawns corruption and black money. The problem is not neoliberalism. It’s neo-illiberalism.

RajeshA wrote:Some old posts of mine.

RajeshA wrote:My fundamental premise rests on certain codified fundamentals according to which Indian State and society has to behave. I believe the Indian Constitution should lay down these fundamentals. As of now, these fundamentals are too undefined, too vague, too abstract, too hidden in spirit rather than explicit in words.

The Constitution should lay down fundamentals -
o how religion can be practiced in India,
o what should be considered the Indian ethos,
o the State's duty to encourage reform in all religious practice to conform to this Indian ethos.
o ban on religious preachers regarding espousing of violence
o clear definition of blasphemy
o balance between right of speech and justice on blasphemy
o ... and much more

Indian Laws should specify -
o full bookkeeping and accounting obligations of religious institutions and charities
o declaration of all donations
o routing of all donations through a bank account under observation of state
o ban on all foreign donations to deny influence to foreign institutions
o ... and much more

The State should then be required by Constitution and Law to follow these fundamentals.

There is no need for anything to be anti-Muslim, but rather pro-Ethos. This ethos needs to be drilled into each and every child, Muslim or non-Muslim.

How does one go about it? Well first of all we need Parliamentarians who would support this agenda. For that such Parliamentarians would have to elected first. So I would suggest

1. one should create a non-profit organization whose task is
2. to first formulate all these fundamentals.
3. This can be an interactive process through the Internet.
4. Then we have to win over some of the groups who stand behind our media.
5. We need the help of the media to publicize this agenda.
6. Then we tell the people, that they should support only those candidates in elections who accept this agenda in their manifesto.
7. Then when they get elected, this non-profit group should hold their feet to the fire.

The Indian System needs a stronger skeleton than we have now as our Constitution. We need a lot more steel in this skeleton.

The other way is if we get the Supreme Court to refer these inquiries to the Parliament : -

For example the Supreme Court can demand from Parliament to define blasphemy in a way that the right to speech and the general right of scientific analysis and criticism is preserved. There are other things that an activist Supreme Court can get the ball rolling for.

Or one can use both tacks.

Once we have the fundamentals defined in the Constitution, then one can open a steady front to take on the religious fanatics, both Evanjihadis and Islamists. Then one can tell these people to either to put up or to get out.

The Indian politician is a slippery fish. He would follow his own interests and vote-bank politics and do appeasement. He doesn't care whether the law is followed. So the only way to trap him, is to force him to build his own cage, in the form of an enhanced Constitution.

RajeshA wrote:Indian Laws should specify -
o full bookkeeping and accounting obligations of religious institutions and charities
o declaration of all donations
o routing of all donations through a bank account under observation of state
o ban on all foreign donations to deny influence to foreign institutions

- Under the proposed offence, a conviction could have been secured if the prosecutor could prove that “insulting words” were used and: “…having regard to all the circumstances, the words, behaviour or material are (or is) likely to be heard by any person in whom they are (or it is likely) to stir up racial or religious hatred.”

- The legal threshold of what is deemed to be “insulting words” is disturbingly low following the case of Harry Hammond v DPP [2004] EWHC 69. A pensioner who displayed a sign equating homosexuality with immorality was deemed to have used insulting words for the purposes of a public order offence.

- Given the Hammond case as legal precedent, it would be easy to see how a person of a non-Christian faith could be insulted by the claim of the Christian faith that the only way to God is through His Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:6).

brihaspati wrote:Thus I would think that it is this search for simplicity, avoidance of complexity and the politically costly task of setting up preference ordering - is that what has characterized the "Indic" for a very long time. not setting up the preference ordering has been touted as "liberalism", but in reality this is part of the enforced simplification process - and hence is "illiberalism".

Arjun wrote:RajeshA ji,

You've arrived quickly at where the rubber hits the road !!

- For #3 and #4, I don't visualize these 'directive principles' to translate to any actual laws on the ground, and leave it at least initially to the religions themselves to self-regulate and evolve in the right direction. But in order to facilitate the evolution, the government should encourage the publication of a high-quality independent, third-party annual (or once in few years) report from an appointed think-tank that monitors the progress of various religions on the parameters of 'indegenization' as well as adhering to principles of liberalism. Hinduism itself need not be an exception - if large-scale instances of caste-based discrimination continue on the ground for example - these would find mention in the report as a negative for Hinduism.

Arjun wrote:I am not even so sure that having a Uniform Civil Code is really important - but even if there are separate civil codes by religion each religion needs to be encouraged as above to have a debate on moving their own marriage, inheritance and personal laws be as reflective of modern liberal and Human Rights values as possible. However, I would support a move to UCC IF either (a) there are gross violations of commonly accepted human rights standards in some personal laws OR (b) the difference in personal laws provides allure for a not insignificant section of the populace to consider converting purely on the basis of differential personal laws.

Arjun wrote:- For #1 and #2, I strongly believe these need to become justiciable - ie transgressions need to be taken to court. As a matter of fact, as long as there is a directive principle under the Constitution, there do not even need to be any additional laws other than what is already available under existing 'hate speech' laws in India. The court just needs to recognize any usage of terminology on the lines of 'All Gods other than ---- are False' as hate speech....This is not in the least far-fetched...in fact Christian proselytizers in the UK were afraid of being taken to court on precisely this count - and got the UK to change its hate speech laws. But the loophole that allows denigration of other Gods specifically in the course of proselytism for the UK, is not present in Indian laws. I will followup with another post that references this issue in detail.

Arjun wrote:#1. No religion to be allowed to denigrate other Faiths either specifically or generally (as in Gods other than mine are False). Here Faith is defined as the key symbols of a Religion and is not equivalent to the entire religion (so it would include the Gods, Prophets, Holy Book, Places of Worship & other symbols, but not the key ideas of the religion)
#2. No religion should attempt to be monopolistic in claiming only one Path to God would lead to salvation (If #2 is considered as following from #1, this may not be required as a separate condition)

• A preacher can decide to avoid any comment on the "violent parts" of the body of text.
• A preacher can decide to downplay the relevance of those "violent parts" as simply outdated, irrelevant, deprecated.
• A preacher can point to additional dogma, which repudiates the position on an issue by the Qu'ran or Hadiths, this may in fact be part and parcel of the particular sect to which the preacher belongs.
• A preacher can refer to a codified interpretion of the controversial part of the text for the sect, which entails no coercion or violence, etc.

Arjun wrote:- Finally, there is one more (#5) principle that I think deserves to be included under Indian Ethos...and that is

#5. The government will take steps to actively preserve and promote the local mythology of every region across India

Even though mythology (eg Ramayana, Mahabharata) and religion are closely interlinked in the case of Hinduism, I would like to separate out what I call mythology from the rest of the faith. (PS - despite the terminology I use, I am not necessarily making any judgements on whether these events historically did occur or did not). Indian mythology is a key element of soft power that goes beyond religion, and there needs to be theme parks, movies, comics, and whole range of paraphernalia that leverages Indian mythology as themes; Indian tourism needs to leverage these themes as well. Similarly each state government would be required to promote mythology that may be quite specific to that state...

Btw, I am taking as a given the following other points you had already made in your earlier post-

RajeshA wrote:Indian Laws should specify -
o full bookkeeping and accounting obligations of religious institutions and charities
o declaration of all donations
o routing of all donations through a bank account under observation of state
o ban on all foreign donations to deny influence to foreign institutions

• pluralism & diversity
• preservation of culture
• mutual respect (no more calling names like kufr, etc.)
• individual pursuit of spirituality
• scientific inquiry
• equality
• individual rights
• etc.

brihaspati wrote: Because different identity niches have been created one after another without clarifying where they clash and which should overrule the other in case of clash, the only way forward appears to be a fight to the finish - because none of those "privileged" niches are going to be given up easily. India will head towards a civil war - with a multifactional and multi-group complicated war of attrition.

brihaspati wrote:The question then ultimately reduces to identifying the preferred set of underlying values which are assumed to be that of the society. It is here I see unresolved issues which are also unresolvable in the Indian context without a clear victory of one set of values over all others.