Update: Ritwik writes a rebuttal, I am still trying to figure out what exactly he was rebutting (and I say this in all seriousness). And yes I do subscribe to Male Chauvinist, Kayastha Supremacist, whatever one intends to throw. I have no idea about reverse snobbery, but infamy is more easily gained and the end result is same. I do hope however that he took into consideration that I was talking about trade-offs.
Another Update: In comments, Ritwik, me.
Final Update: Everyone is ordered to read the comment thread by royal decree.
Should I have freedom or should I have nation? This is the query which troubles dear friend Rohit. His shoulders are of course weighed down by the burden of sacred creed of secularism, liberalism and rationalism of which he is a member. Now yours truly doesn't have membership card of the above creed, as a consequence he is totally unburdened and free of any worry in this world.
Anyhow the point is, some of educated readers might remember when the incomparable dissimulator* asked a rhetorical question. He had demanded to know who is more honourable or rather who should be considered a better Indian. One a thief, a lout, a murderer, in other words a thoroughly despicable human being, but one who respects Indian flag and Vande-Matram, or second of impeccable manners, of irreproachable speech, and a admirable knowledge who refuses to pay respect to flag or Vande-Matram and perhaps is even less than enthusiastic about patriotism.
Apparently the big boob** assumed he was posing a dilemma, however to me there is no dilemma.
I submit that in the example given, the lout who repulses us is nevertheless a better Indian than the latter. I further submit that not only the second person a bad Indian, he is an actual threat to India.
To understand this, a nation is a nothing more than an idea. An idea of unity which derives from another idea even more fundamental, that of a shared culture, ethnicity, language or religion, in other words from a group identity. In itself this idea of nation is abstract and has no legs of its own. The strength of this idea comes from the strength of group identity, the cohesion of group, the affinity of individual constituent of group with each other.
It follows then that a nation is not sustained and protected by her army or the reserve. It is also not defended by the platitudes about freedom, secularism and rationalism. Ultimately what saves a nation, and not only saves but also helps it rebirth in fashion of phoenix is the allegiance of constituents to the group, the extent with which the member identify with the group identity.
Now a related question from this line of reasoning is why form groups at all? The answer to this is not found in treatise on liberalism or even in fond facts of economics, but in Discovery channel.
The first and the foremost reason groups are formed is because such an formation is required for my second wager, in the sense that it protects life and nourishes life. Here "nourish" requires explanation. I believe that freedom, scientific temper, individualism are the necessary factors for this "nourishment" of life, that we should aim to create freemen and not slaves. However none of the above can exist, if the group ceases to exist. Therefore it turns out that safety of group precedes considerations of individual participants.
From the above paragraphs, I conclude that for any normal human whose instincts are not distorted by substance abuse or over-indulgence in narcissism, the course of action should be to ensure that groups remain intact, from which it follows that he has to resist by any means available any challenge to group, which means any entity or even idea which dilutes group cohesion. Further a conduct contrary to this course, or even indifferent to this is a threat to the group and hence must be discouraged by any means possible. Further any action which harms group identity harms the constituents. In safety of group lies the safety of its constituents.
Here there are three uncertainties. The first order of uncertainty is what constitutes the definition of nourishment, this is a subjective term. What I believe may this is best for civilization may not be the belief shared by others. Therefore this term remains subject to debate.
The second order is introduced by the fact that the freedom and allegiance are contrary in nature. Which means a trade-off is involved with an aim towards achieving the optimized configuration to achieve the objective (that is nourishment). As in the first this also is open to disagreement.
The third order is introduced by disagreement over what exactly constitutes threat to the group, what is the severity of the threat and what should be the extent of any effort to neutralize this threat. During war time it is given that civil rights may be restricted. What about preemptive measures ? What about counter terrorism? All the considerations are subject to scrutiny.
My rough and ready rule of thumb is to consider how severely the challenge to unity is. I place more importance to the ideas which bring about disunity and division, because ideas are what drive the action. The second rule is to consider how much the effort to neutralize threat results in monopoly of power in the form of state. I will prefer efforts which work without the the monopoly which inevitably leads to moral corruption. Here I again emphasize. Inaction is not an option.
And it is here that I accuse Indian liberals of various errors. (BOCTAOE, YSLE)
First and foremost is that Indian liberals fail to take cognizance of group identity. Indeed they continue to remain in denial, deliberately suppressing any shared memory, to the extent that in some cases they actually denigrate it, and attempting to fill the void by chanting the liberal mantras. Related is the easy dismissal of history as a medium which can illuminate our decision by providing context, providing information to fill the gaps.
Other errors derive from this "original sin". Since the very idea of group identity is non-existent, any discussion of security, purpose of group, and any trade offs involved in group formation is condemned to remain superficial.
Why this happens is puzzling to me. My first guess was that liberals are antithesis of engineers. Scared of constraints, they cling superstitiously to their notion of false absolutes.
But this is not correct. For one I am a lousy engineer myself, for other what I have written have for the most part prompted by repeated viewings of discovery channel*** and reading Robert Heinlein. Also most of them are clearly smarter than me.
The other explanation which I find more plausible is their unwillingness to admit that in the end any system of logic rests on some belief which can not be "proved" and thus is essentially irrational. That and perhaps resentment at the realization that beneath this trapping of civilization there still lurks a jungle.
Now in conclusion I will admit of my own bias. I believe (and apologies for reiterating for nth time), that a strong India benefits all its constituents. I also believe that in absence this land will revert to a state of disharmony and chaos. Further (being Hindutva Fascist) I believe that our actions must be guided by the considerable influence of the ummah to our west and its eroding effect on the civilization.
*,** I think everyone must be aware who is that unworthy I am talking about. I am talking about really big boobs.
*** Of course to shield my nephews from inappropriate content. I do realize that Anaconda on Anaconda action is considered incredibly hot in some disreputable sections, but my own tastes are rather conservative.
