The Rediff Special/Ashwin Mahesh
Modern liberalism is in danger of becoming nothing more than left-wing
conservatism
Activists belonging to a farmers party in Karnataka, led by Professor M D
Nanjundaswamy, pelted the KFC outlet in Bangalore's posh downtown
neighborhood and caused mild injuries to a few customers of the
famous restaurant chain.
Remember that headline, in the months and years to come, it will make a
difference to your life. I don't mean Nanjundaswamy and Co, their actions
may well go down as no more than one episode of violent protest in a sea
of changes. But the two sides that line up with or against the
conservative tide that is sweeping our nation are both clamoring to be
heard as the one true voice of India. Where you stand will matter both
personally to you and socially to others.
Are you a liberal or a conservative? How many of us have heard that
question? In light of the increasing appeal of conservative parties to
Indian voters, this is a question that bears examining now. We are living
in the half-light between our ancient culture with its traditions that
comfort us, and the unfamiliar but all-encompassing world that liberalism
promises. The pro-BJP and anti-BJP forces are marshalling their forces.
One small step at a time, we are being wooed by highly polarised
intellectual armies waging war for our hearts and minds. We must choose,
it seems.
Multinational corporations, in pursuit of their economic interests, exert
tremendous pressure on the government. They are not going to walk away
from this battle thinking that India is quite unlike the rest of the
world, a place where their products cannot be sold profitably. They have
learned from similar experiences in other places that if they can get the
door open a crack, the chances are it will swing wide open. As for the
conservative interests that are outraged by what they see as
recolonisation, their convictions are strong enough that they will hold
fast for a long time. If the rising popularity of conservative parties
like the BJP is any indication, there's quite a few of them too. In time,
this conflict will reach centerstage.
Before you decide where you stand, ask yourself this -- who exactly is a
liberal, and who is a conservative?
Most people have never thought much about being one or the other, they
merely try to respond to events as they see fit. But lets try to answer
the question by an experiment -- we'll try to imagine how a conservative
newspaper might report the attack on the KFC store, and compare it to how
a liberal newspaper might report the same.
Paper C will condemn the violence, express outrage at the incident, lament
the image of India that this presents to the rest of the world, etc. The
paper will suggest that as a glorious culture, we must maintain a standard
by which threats to our culture are met in non-violent ways, because
violence itself undermines our society. Paper C will suggest that Professor
Nanjundaswamy and his ilk should trust the courts to protect Indian culture,
and that he should appeal to the public to support his stance by
boycotting KFC. Paper C will not, however, address the single most
important question -- does KFC pose a threat to our culture?
The reason paper C cannot address this question is that they implicitly
assume the answer. That's what makes them conservative.
Paper L, on the other hand, will take a different approach. The paper will
condemn the violence and express outrage as well, but there the similarity
ends. Paper L will suggest that we are a gloriously adaptable culture, and
to feel threatened by a mere restaurant is ridiculous if not ludicrous.
Vandalising KFC, like the destruction of M F Husain's paintings, is a
disgusting act of a small minority that needs to respect the rule of law,
the paper will conclude. Paper L too usually will not address the
underlying question, because L, like C, makes assumptions about the
answer.
L knows that there is an element of truth to the charge brought by the
conservatives. KFC does represent a deviation from Indian culture, even if
not a threat. But what the heck, if enough Indians want fried chicken and
are willing to pay KFC for it, this must be a valid expression of Indian
life. That is, if I like KFC and Nanjundaswamy does not, there is no reason
to think that he has the right to physically obstruct me when I go out to
get my fried chicken. In any case, what makes his opinion more Indian than
mine? Quite simply, the moron should be locked up for the nuisance that he
is. That, in essence, is the liberal point.
Unfortunately, it is no less exclusive that the conservative position.
Modern liberalism is in danger of becoming nothing more than left-wing
conservatism. While the conservative resists change, the liberal promotes
it. Neither is willing to accept that there are some things that need
change and others that are best left alone. The conservative feels
threatened by all things non-Hindu and may avidly support the Hindutva
movement. The liberal, on the other hand, will rise to the protection of
minorities who feel threatened by the conservative posturing. Pro-Hindu
assertiveness is not very Indian in the eyes of the liberals; for
conservatives, it is the only thing that is unshakably Indian.
Caught in the crossfire of these extreme positions, we find ourselves
disagreeing with both positions. The socio-political establishment in most
democracies, however, has sided with the liberals on this issue, and as a
natural consequence, Indian media and government also claim to support
liberal and secular opinion. Those who are inclined to agree with the
conservative position find themselves ridiculed for their views, and simply
remove themselves from the debate. As in most disputes, this is taken as a
sign of weakness. In the process of withdrawing into the protective shell of
their convictions, conservatives have yielded to floor to the so-called
liberals, who in turn have abused their new-found strength by using the media
to batter the conservative view.
I've long admired and acclaimed the various causes that liberalism
championed over the years. But it is despairing to see liberals resorting
to the kind of exclusion that I've normally associated with conservative
opinion. Liberalism's greatest appeal to any people has been its sense of
inclusiveness. Disenfranchised women, the poor, minorities, almost every
group with a grouse has sought refuge under its umbrella and gained
progress by its clarion voice. That being the case, there's no reason to
exclude conservatives from this protective tent. Moreover, unless we can
extend the frontiers of liberalism to provide a voice for non-liberal
causes, we will remain mired in constituency-based politics that pits us
against one another.
Conservatives may be biased, but they stand for something. Their ideas are
not merely borne of Hindu fanaticism. They fight against what they see as
an erosion of some historical basis for their identity. Moreover, they
object to the kind of religious freedom that recognizes everybody's right
to their religious opinion except theirs. Varsha Bhosle's article written
a few weeks ago explored and deplored this attitude in society. India is a
Hindu country, if not in its constitution, then in fact. Even among
people who do not profess to any religious ideology, there is a general
acceptance of their Hindu-ness. Given that, to ostracise the Hindu opinion
is not merely shameful, it is dangerous.
Most Hindus are benevolently tolerant towards other religions. Whereas
they have their own preferences, they usually do not accept the notion
that any one religion is superior to others. Hindus, for the most part,
are not inclined to oppress other people because of their religious
practices. This is ingrained in our culture and our religion.
However, when other religions teach that they are inherently superior to Hinduism,
that gets our goat. It is difficult to be tolerantly inclined towards
those whose religious ideas demean us. Non-Hindu religious expression in
India is therefore sometimes seen as a classic case of biting the hand
that feeds. Minorities derive their freedom of religion from the
tolerance of the majority. The minute you condemn Hinduism, this freedom
is endangered.
Liberals need to recognise this fact before it is too late. Excluding the
voice of religious conservatism from the debate will not do, that will
only force most people into the arms of those who champion the cause of a
Hindu India. The more the BJP is branded as Hindu nationalist, the more it
will prosper. In a Hindu nation, that is not very hard to understand. We
have to find a way to allow conservatives to preserve their religious
preferences.
By being open to frank discussions based on legitimate
grouses, we can assuage conservative fears and work towards a more
progressive society that highlights our similarities more than our
differences. To the extent that traditionally liberal establishments like
the media and constitution-based government do not address the concerns of
conservatives, one can't really blame Nanjundaswamy for trying.
Hinduism is not anything to be feared. As liberals themselves have said
over and over again, Hinduism has shown an amazing resilience to outside
influences, taking hundreds of invaders in stride and turning them into
essentially Hindu people, despite appearances to the contrary. Liberals
themselves are largely a product of this resilience and tolerance. That
should clue us in to the truth about the current popularity of religious
conservatism -- it is not that Hindus have suddenly become intolerant. They
are merely wondering how good their tolerance can be if it is repaid with
intolerance and exclusion.
Conservatives too, have been grossly guilty of grinding their own axe. Often
they have grouped together problems that are not necessarily related to each
other, because it promotes their contentions. Ms Bhosle has effectively
silenced her liberal counterparts on Rediff for the moment with her stirringdefense of pro-Hindu opinions. A pro-Hindu stance, however, always has the
accompanying danger that it can turn into an anti-minority tirade.
Talking about terrorism, territorial rights, illegal immigration and
ISI-funded activities in the same breath as roadside namaaz is unforgivable.
Roadside namaaz, whether or not it is a law and order problem, is an affair
that pertains essentially to the rights of Indian citizens and their
religious habits. To equate that with Muslim-connected problems which are
mostly derived from non-Indian citizens not only sends the wrong signal, it
is downright mean.
In grouping Muslim Indians with Pakistani and Bangladeshi
citizens, Ms Bhosle strays from the realm of finding solutions to India's
problems, to subtly disguised minority-bashing, even if not intentionally. No
wonder then that useless politicians with no social or economic agenda of any
kind are able to stay in the limelight merely by claiming to represent
India's secular interests.
We must seek solutions to our social problems in the spirit of inclusion. To
say that conservatives are exclusive is not much good if the response is to
exclude them from the national debate over who we are. At the same time, it
is not excusable to vehemently deny that non-Hindu voices have a legitimate
place in the dialogue. If all Indians are to be my brothers and sisters, then
I must have a right to sit at the table of brotherhood without feeling
ostracised for my opinions, regardless of what they are. Without that, I am
liable to forget that in sibling rivalries, siblings matter more than the
rivalries.
Tell us what you think of this column
|