Dude, this party is not happening !
(Alternatively titled, from India lover(s) to freedom lover(s))
1. I consider myself to be cultural nationalist, a term suitably contextualized according to my preference. When I am in mood for some bitch fest, I go for Hindu nationalist.
2. In case, you feel I am overly generalizing, use BOCTAOE generously, YSLE !
3. What I am going to say, I have said earlier, many times.
A gentleman, with sordid history of crime and violence *, accused me of going Nilu's or Krish's way, now this is ridiculous.Nilu knows his stuff, so that even when he is bullshitting he can embellish things and thus entertain. I, on the other hand, claim no knowledge of anything useful. Krish is funny. I am not.
Anyhow, coming to the topic, why do I disagree with good intentions expressed in this post.
For one, I am not secular, or libertarian, nor do I believe that they are such universal imperatives. I also happen to believe that irrational exuberance and good intentions damn a nation to eternity** of cliche and meaningless rhetoric. We, as Indians have seen this in form of Nehruvian penalty. Our present liberal overlords*** give me creeps. As they say, this is like Deja vu all over again.
Therefore it is not surprising when I am put off by posts saying, "Hey, Indians need a rightist, secular, libertarian national Party, see I am such a genius that I have figured everything out".This is called triumphalism or certitude, or worse "Hey I have some buzzwords lets slap 'em together and call it the new hope for India, where is my marketing degree". As someone who is still trying to figure out stuff, this pisses me off. So excuse my lack of enthusiasm, please !
May be I am being unfair to liberals? Well consider this. If one were to take survey of major countries with both economic and social freedom as parameters, United States of America will surely find place in the top three, if not the first. Yet the libertarian party got less than half percent in latest presidential elections.****
I am sure that universal cluelessness and a normal distribution will result in some people claiming that Republican party is a secular, libertarian party. It is nothing of the sort. Republicans party is a coalition, both social as well as electoral, of libertarian and social conservatives, and unlike identity politics this coalition was not brought about by merely political expediency, but has a solid intellectual foundation as exemplified by fusionism and American conservative movement.
I will repeat what I have said earlier, coming decade will be marked by ascendancy of libertarians/liberals in intellectual circle. Yet, is there any attempt to understand nuance of coalition making by "liberals". No, sir ! It is all grandstanding and unbearable smugness.
This "christian" self-assurance is there, because (as I have said earlier), so called liberalism/libertarianism in India is, for most part, a sham. Just like Fabian socialism, this contraption is devised by unconditional acceptance of western concepts as "brahmavakya".
Instead of even attempting to examine the context and history of these ideals, our liberals are too eager to embrace them. The excuse of argument is "objectivity" or "logic", much like intellectuals from previous generations touted communism (of various hues) as "scientific theory".
The result is a cognitive dissonance of such a order, that we witness spectacle of a self proclaimed "objectivist" ruminating upon the libertarian pedigree of Mahatma Gandhi ! Or another blogger (whom I greatly respect) claiming astonishingly, during the "vande-matram" dustup in not so recent past, that the cultural ethos of this country, the very basis behind her unity, can be taken for granted and hence of no consequence ! Or some genius, who after calling Pankaj Mishra "Hindu nationalist" (!), went on to claim that those who criticize British colonialism support Sati! Can you say WTF? Or BS ? Well, I can.The liberal discourse may have promise in the beginning, but end result is always delusion of epic proportions.
Since our honourable liberals are too busy pontificating about self evident truths and logical fallacies, these most venerable maharishis can not even deign to consider the idea, that may be life is not clock work, to be explained by elegant mathematical expressions, or nice looking economic models, or "self-interest". Or that context matters, or that India is a civilization, that this civilization is a force for good,worth cherishing, worth preserving, and that this must be taken into account when constructing social and political arguments. And may be, dare I suggest, 42 is not the answer.
This marked indifference and attitude of dismissal towards Indic civilization is the best case. In the worst case, any mention of Indian culture in liberal circles result in automatic contempt and ridicule. If you even dare utter the words "tradition" or "social norms", then it must mean that you are a bride burning, Muslim killing, Dalit oppressing monster, and your existence is affront to all what is liberal and noble in this universe. You and your ideas are not to be accorded any dignity, much less any serious consideration. You are going to be branded for ever, an outcast.
This refusal to question and explore premise behind western world view is a sad commentary on sorry state of Indian intellect. Indians may be physically free, but in minds we are still slave.
Divested of any pride and deprived of cultural identity, by centuries of subjugation, physical as well as mental, and wanton social and cultural destruction, we have become dhimmis.
It is a misfortune that once "inquisitive" Indian lacks the confidence to contemplate and discover, instead condemned to satisfy himself with received wisdom.
It is in this light that the unwillingness of liberals to reflect and their disdain, towards everything Indian must be viewed. For the truth is, our mind is infected by self loathing. We are imprisoned in self perceived image of inferiority. It is impossible to have a strong nation, unless her people are proud of belonging to country. Yet for our liberals, it is impossible to express pride and joy in their Indian identity without hesitation or excuse. Nationalism may be a profanity to them for all we know.
A somewhat amusing result is liberals have better understanding of socialist, than us "Hindu Nazis". This is not surprising, considering how both are descendant of same tradition , of morbid obsession with everything western. They may not be in same ball park, but they are in same league, or for those who prefer getting all technical on other's ass, they might not share same frequency, but share same bandwidth. Encounter with nationalism, specially of, Indian kind, leave them confused, because they cant handle it in their world view.
So, dear liberals, go ahead, organize your party. You are grand, you are swell, you are absolutely rocking. As "Hindu" nationalists ,we are grateful for your benevolence on us uneducated mortals living in jahiliya. But unfortunately us bigoted, unwashed, ignorant "Hindutva Fascists" are undeserving of your compassion and gifts of philosophy, which can not be bothered with reality or history of India, so you will be well advised to direct your philanthropy some where else.
As for us, we will hit a different joint, with a better scene, without ingrates who despise idea of India and find patriotism beneath their dignity. Understand this, for us, respect for India and her civilization is non negotiable, as is patriotism, as is allegiance to this country. You are free to live in a utopia of your choice, or to claim oppression/martyrdom by "Hindu thugs" (and write risible rip offs of 1984). But anyway it is confrontation, not compromise. The days when we kissed asses and were expected to meekly accept role of Gunga din to liberal "burra sahibs" are gone, gone when BJP became main stream.
I say, Bring it on !!
* I jest, of course.
** Yes, I know wrong usage. Sue me.
*** Where liberal means classical, neo, paleo, pseudo,quasi, meta, alpha of all possbile varieties.
**** I have often wondered how American identity is so closely entwined with notion of freedom, while I do not have the definitive answer I think Pilgrim father, republicanism, and exceptionalism may offer us clues.
Update: I think I should mention that particular post was just the last straw which broke camel's back.
(Bas aisa samjho ki apne dimag satak gaya, itna freedom party ka demand dekh ke. Bas apun ne baja dala)
Another update: I must also mention, that I believe that this post is crap, and anyone who went through whole post is a very lonely person. The only reason that DP linked to this post is that I fed this ape with 2 dozen bananas. You can also get your posts linked by DP guys if you are as desperate as me, going rate is 4 dozen bananas (negotiable for regular customers like me).
If you can find a liberal and horny female gorilla for this macaca (who imagines this is planet of ape, well !), he will rig Indibloggies for you.
20 comments:
Great post! People should start looking at things from an Indian perspective.
nice post..
if theres one reason why hindutva gets my respect, its because its a philosophy and a language thats born in and evolved in India, not something that changes with whats fashionable in NewYork/London/Moscow.
Good post but I don't this cultural nationalism is viable. The one language, one culture, one religion theory is an RSS creation.
I wish I could have agreed with your post in entirety. For many reasons, I can't. The major points that I got from your post -
1) It is presumptuous to claim that one has everything figured out.
2) When people make such statements of 'we need blah blah...", they're doing it more as an ego-trip than out of any genuine concern or rational thought..
3) A call for the RSL party is politically naive.
4) The ideology these freedom-lovers subscribe to is itself a western import.
5) Secularism is an over-rated ideal.
6) Self-proclaimed libertarians on the Indian blogosphere have made some absolutely ridiculous claims.
7) A liberal/libertarian feels the need to disassociate or be indifferent to the concepts of India and her culture and disregard the inherent virtue of nationalism.
8) 4 and 7 above imply that a liberal/libertarian is still a colonial slave at a mental level.
9) Social status-quo is significantly important when one forms a world-view.
Let's look at them one by one.
1) Yes, it is indeed presumptuous to claim anything of the sort. And your modesty in continuously admitting that you do not know much is remarkable. However, everyone claims to have figured out something. A person who claims to have figured out somewhat more than what you have figured out need not necessarily be wrong. You haven't said so explicitly, but the sarcasm running through the first portion of your post sugegsts that you are extremely sceptical of anyone (except for the heavyweights like Atanu etc) who claims to have figured out anything more than what you have. Slightly unfair, I think.
2) This is an ascription of intentions, and unless one personally knows the person concerned, it is more likely to be false than true. You say that some things piss you off, that post clearly pissed you off and you reacted. Fair enough, but don't you see that what you claim is a case of "Hey, Indians need a rightist, secular, libertarian national Party, see I am such a genius that I have figured everything out" can just as easily be interpreted as "I am deeply concerned about the future of my country. I have been thinking and reading a lot and this is what my present views are". For example, I have mentioned that I find your modesty remarkable. I can just as easily say - "Oh look at him, reads so much, obviously knows quite a lot, writes with such certainity and sarcasm, and still has this compulsive need to claim that he does not have everything figured out just to ensure that he is perceived as the intelligent one who is still searching, the seeker or something. Bloody pseud and hypocrite." Would I be justified in concluding thus?
3) Yes it is politically naive. So? The man just says - this is what I think we need. He doesn't say that such a party is feasible right now, or that it will necessarily succeed, or that it has succeeded elsewhere. These are the things that someone who actually wishes to form such a party would have to think. The post, thus, is not very useful from a practical point of view. With that much, I agree. When seen from the perspective of - this is what we should theroretically be aiming for, its current political viability is irrelevant, one only needs to discuss the merits of the theory behind the concept.
4) There are two reactions I have to such an accusation. One is to say that it need not necessarily be a western import, it is simply a reaction, with foundation in the universal human nature, to the current situation in India, a reaction that has been observed in the west before it hit India. The other is to say - maybe it is a western import, so? You seem to have figured atleast one thing out, that nationalism is correct and important. Do you realise that the very concept of the modern nation state and that of owing one's allegiance to the political entity of a nation is a western import - tracing its roots back at a maximum to the establishment of a parliament in UK in the early 18th century, moving through the American independence and the French revolution, and becoming firmly established with the consolidation of Germany and Italy in the late 19th century. The central foundation of Hindutva identity politics, the concept of the Fatherland as prophesized by Savarkar, of a particular group of people being more indigenous and hence more natural claimants of a certain geographical and political entity than others, is also a western import. If one western import can become so well enshrined in our collective psyche as to be considered a correct ideal (nationalism), why is another theory flawed simply because it is a western import?
5) This depends on how one actually defines secular. I consider the Dharmic religions to be objectively superior, in theory and practice, to the Abrahamic creeds. I don't however think that our laws necessarily need to reflect the fact that our civilization has been shaped mainly by Indic beliefs. Even if I agree that maybe laws could refelct these beliefs, what problems do you have with the legal and correct defintion of secularism (as opposed to the bastardized verison that the Congress et al follow) ?
6) Absolutely agree. One of these days, I'l post something about this myself. Yet, don't you think we're better off discussing the basic principle of libertarianism, instead of its overly stretched applications as some zealous proponents intrepret them?
7) I used to find the libertarian disregard for patriotism equally outrageous. Yet, it no longer offends me - simply because I know that when these worthies talk about how patriotism is oevr-rated etc., they are simply rationalizing instead of being true to what they actually feel. Do you genuinely believe that anyone who does not make a living out of mainsteam writing but still bothers to spend so much time to think, evaluate, write so much about the problems they think their country faces, about what they think we should be doing about it,etc can truly claim to be non-patriotic? It is in part intellectual masturbation, yes. But it is not devoid of genuine concern for the nation. Why do you think it's always INDIA, and not Mumbai or Bihar, or my local ward, etc? These people relate just as strongly to the concept of India as you or I do - either they feel compelled to disassociate themselves with the conscious realization that this is so (which is intellectual delusion, but rather harmless) or they simply feel that the importance of the individual need not be constantly sacrificed at the altar of the society or the country (which is an idea I see some merit in).
As for India and her culture, really, you should try and specify what you mean by that. The concept of India is so broad, has undergone so many mutations, has been framed by so many influences, and has seen such a tremendous amount of history that one need not look towards the west to face a cognitive dissonance, a look inwards is enough. What attitude towards homosexuality, for example, is a true reflection of Indian culture and morality - the current aversion we have for it, which is a result of Victorian ideals and Macaulayite laws, or the attitudes that we had near the 1st century AD, when a book laid out in great detail the exact sexual favours that a king could righteously demand from a man-servant (namely, the auparashtika, or blowjob)? What is a more correct representation of the Hindu society - the norms during Vedic times, the austerity following the rise of Buddhsim and Jainism, or the diffidence and hypocrisy that arose after centuries of Muslim invasions and British rule?
8) This is the most unfair of all your accusations, especially towards the end when you speak of ass-kissing and burra sahibs and gunga din. Since 8 follows from 4 and 7, and I have written why I disagree with 4 and 7, it should follow why I disagree with 8. I do not know or care who or what Dhimmi is, understand the anger that people reserve for pesudo-secularists and mainstream media, but really, you should refrain from viewing all your ideological opponents through the same prism. When you want to criticse a libertarian viewpoint, you should restrict yourself to only the ideals that they profess. There is a strong element of self-irony in a modern critique that lay accusations of 'Oh you are all mentally still slaves' using a curse-word that is imported, and two terms that are so severely outdated that the targets of the critique may have never even heard of them.
9) I agree it is important. But like I've said before, status quo need not necessarily influence morality, it can also be influenced by certain axiomatic concepts of morality. We have argued enough over that, so let's keep it for later. Do remember that there is also the possibility of rejecting the staus quo, which will mark one out as the politically naive sentimentalist of one's time, and yet one may end up influencing the future of the society and the country simply because one rejected the status quo instead of accepting it.
I have my own set of problems with libertarianism, but they largely consist of their unrelenting fundamentalism on economic matters, often not backed by data. My response largely dealt with social aspects because as far as I know, you don't have many problems with the economic principles that libertarianism espouses, it is the social implications that get your goat.
There are a couple of problems with your position quite apart from the fact that for a person who claims he's just figuring things out, you seem to be talking from a position where you've already figured things out. Let me just focus on the American side of your argument:
First of all, if you're as big a nationalist as you claim to be, why would you look to the American model? I find it quite puzzling that people who generally talk about liberals toeing the colonial line have very little problem toeing the American one. Esp given America's international role.
Secondly, the genesis of the American model is liberal. It has some pretty deep ties to the French Enlightenment. The constitution is about as lefty liberal as it can get.
Third, the libertarians dont get a look-in not because they don't have admirers but because of the two party system and the immense cost involved. A lot of libertarians eventually bow down and join the two party system just to get a seat at the table. Ron Paul, currently a Republican candidate for president has talked openly about it if you're interested in that phenomenon.
Fourthly, there is a perception that the Republican party serves the social right including the religious right. In actual matter of fact, they have very little in common and have merely shown themselves willing to give the RR a better seat at the table in return for winning them elections. When push comes to shove, the RR is not the same as the conservative movement as a great many Republicans will tell you at great length and in deep dismay.
Fifthly, I don't believe Atlantean asked you to join the libertarian movement. He simply said here is a gap in the political spectrum and somebody should fill it because there are a number of us who'd like to see that happen. If you don't believe in those ideals, you don't have to vote for it. No problem.
Gaurav,
Quite a remarkable post and an equally remarkable reply from Zen Babu.
Way to go blogosphere !
In my view, things are not that complicated at all. We need not grope in the dark for a light switch forever. There are competing ecosystems in play here. Whatever political formations we see are spawns of the current winner. Other creatures are like mutants doomed to die naturally or be devoured.
All those who desire a nationalist or even honest political formation should strive to starve the current ecosystem of oxygen. Study and understand its feeding grounds and watering holes.
How can the average Joe Schmoe (sorry Suresh Kumar !) undertake such a giant task ?
This is the point in the story where we will be forced to compare the fundamental character of an American individual with our own.
>> I also happen to believe that irrational exuberance and good intentions damn a nation to eternity** of cliche and meaningless rhetoric.
How true :-(
Zen-babu, are you a JNU student??
Wow, shadows, how did you guess?
Detailed response later
Shadows Kindly control your emotions.
Zen I know you are tempted to indulge in flame war. Kindly resist the temptation.
RESPECT MAAAH AUTHORITAAH.
Gaurav,
What? Flame war? No man, I just guessed.
Praveen, Sudeep
Thank you
Chacko,
Let's agree to disagree :-)
Ritwik,
I am shocked that you are impudent enough to contradict my Marwin like wisdom. Anyhoo, now to serious matters.
First your inference from my post
1. "It is presumptuous to claim that one has everything figured out."
I guess it is, I do not care one way or another however. Ultimately we are talking about talk.
2. "When people make such statements of 'we need blah blah...", they're doing it more as an ego-trip than out of any genuine concern or rational thought.."
Not neccesarily, it is possible to be genuinly concerned and deluded.
Path to hell is paved with good intentions and all. Also my main point is that there is too much of intellectual slot and temptation to fall back on buzzwords without understanding them
3. "A call for the RSL party is politically naive."
Refer to 2
4. "The ideology these freedom-lovers subscribe to is itself a western import."
And is accepted without judgement
5. "Secularism is an over-rated ideal."
No it is bull
6. "Self-proclaimed libertarians on the Indian blogosphere have made some absolutely ridiculous claims."
Ridiculous doesnt even begin to describe it
7. "A liberal/libertarian feels the need to disassociate or be indifferent to the concepts of India and her culture and disregard the inherent virtue of nationalism."
Some do, Indian liberals feel to do
8. " 4 and 7 above imply that a liberal/libertarian is still a colonial slave at a mental level."
No. mostly they are intellectualy lazy and too much of confomrist
9. "Social status-quo is significantly important when one forms a world-view. "
It is a factor which should be considered
Now your arguments
1. "Yes, it is indeed presumptuous .... I think."
A person who behaves as though he has the key to unlock life's mysteries is either deluded or dishonest
2. "This is an ascription of intentions ...... Would I be justified in concluding thus?"
Since I am concerned with validity of conclusion reached and methodology used to reach it, personal motivations are irrelevant.
And no, it was not only THAT post which pissed me off, rather it was the straw which broke camel's back.
Lastly, if after reading me, that is the impression you form about me, then I have absolutely no problem
3. " Yes it is politically naive. So? .... the concept. "
What exaclty is the use of hypothetical solutions for real world political situations ? What next, socialism is all right, we just need honest leaders and babus !
4."There are ....a western import?"
Again you get me wrong, I am against uncritical acceptance as I clarified many time even in my post. Yes, I do realize Nation state is western construct
5. "This ..... of secularism ?"
There is a boundary beyond which a word is not intended be used unless you believe in Humpty Dumptyism
I believe secularism is redundant
and thus irrelevant to India
6. "Absolutely agree..intrepret them? "
Discussing theory is nice, but I am concerned with the practice of practitioners.
7." I used .... Muslim invasions and British rule? "
The reason people think is they are driven by instinct and enviromental conditions, patriotism on the other hand is a explicit signal which signifies allegiance.
You are free to dismiss this delusion, I believe their professed beliefs guide their action and therefore I place importance on them
Also even communist talk about India and not their local wards, doesnt mean they are nice guys.
8"This is ..... heard of them. "
As I said in post problem is intellectual meekness, it is result of prevailing culture of servility, you can infer whatever you like. If you like you can copmpare tone of Instapundit and Eminent blogger, both are libertarian, but their tones and their reaction to patriotism is nothing comparable [1], [2], [3], [4]
Again while theory is nice, what people say is "crucial"
I used derogatory words which are well known for their connotations, old or new, is irrelevant
9. Yes later
Amrita,
Yes, I have figured certain things out for example "I am a complan boy", what I want to know is "Hum chloromint kyun khante hain", any answers.
1. I have no problem anyone toeing anyone line, as long as anyone understands whose line is it.
2. American constitution is lefty liberal ? well thats a new one.
3. I said "secular libertarian" party does not work even in US, I gave you evidence.
4. First I didnt talk about religious right but yes I know they are not same there I said coalition.
5. Yes he presented a point, I presented a counterpoint. Thats what blogging is all about, right !
RC,
Thanks. I have a rather pessimistic view. Unless people starting thinking (as opposed to writing columns about thinking it through), we have a problem.
I find automatic derision for our national culture just as distasteful as automatic "respect" for it. There are many vast and varied aspects of Indian culture (a false monolithification in any case) that are not only deserving of contempt but positively require it.
Consider, for example, that Indians are utterly racist and openly so. We are also disgustingly sexist, and proudly so. I don't qualify these generalisations with the words "some" or even "most", because it's 99% of the population we're talking about and the rest is just experimental error. It should be a matter of national shame and immediate outrage, but instead it's "respected" as "culture".
Like it or not, freedom itself is a western concept, at least as it applies to individuals. But I, for one, see no shame in admitting it and borrowing the idea anyway. Not all that is good is Indian, not all that is Indian is good.
You are right. I am an extremely lonely person. But you had no right to expose me like that. It violates the basic principle of freedom.
Gaurav, I finally read it (you lost me early on, but I kept at it!). Are you disowning it now - crap?
I actually agree with some of what you say but I think it's more about pleasing the westerns - see we are just like you - inferiority complex rather than we'll copy you blindly complex (one may feed of the other).
In any case, an interesting rant. :)
Wendelin,
ok,
Sudeep,
:)
Chandra,
About complex well the later follows from the former (inferiority), I raised both the points in post
About crap that was just to make people feel bad. Being misanthrope it comes naturally to me.
Ritwik,
In case you are still following thread consider the tone of this article from Instapundit. Can you ever imagine Eminent blogger admiring or supporting Indian army, however you will get pretty good talking down to, because you know soldiers are either dumb or mercenary and he is grand wizard of logic.
Gaurav,
I hated that post too, Amit's that is. However, you must make some scope of difference between instapundit's and amit's reactions to various events. Instapundit doesn't live in a society where he is asked perforce to stand during the national anthem before a bloody movie, or where there are significant 'lets ban orkut because there are i hate india communities on it' voices in the political spectrum. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the libertarian position on these issues, all I'm saying is - given the context of the present Indian society, which is an antithesis to most things libertarian, it is quite natural that Amit's reactions are more extreme than Instapundit's. Second, Amit and instapundit may just have diferent understanding of the implications of libertarianism - it reveals perhaps a refusal to think it thorugh on Amit' part, though it hardly reveals any mental slavery or conformism to directly imported ideals.
Anyhow, too much talk about talk. When I form my libertarian-centrist, right of centre economically and politically, socially liberal, federalist party that supports free speech as well as the Uniform civil code as well as more tax autonomy to state and city governments, just make sure you and your friends vote for me. You can make your own non-secular cultural nationalist "BJP, but with more conviction in economic reforms" party, and we will form a coalition and rule the nation.
Ritwik,
Sorry for late reply, but I was feeling too important to bother.
Anyway I think for now this thread has run through its course.
To conclude let me say I believe in India first, and while I can admire your valiant attempt to justify Amit, I very much doubt that is his views.
To Indian elite* self loathing is almost second nature.
* By elite I mean any convent educated bastards. In my opinion only KV students should be allowed to rule.
Post a Comment