Liberals in India

After a long time (too long actually), I was reading some of Vir Sanghvi’s blogs. It got me thinking (the man does argue and articulate well, whether or not you agree with him). This blog is triggered by some of his recent blogs.

When Modi won by a landslide, many weren’t sure why he had won. Was it a vote for Hindutva? Or was it a vote for a strong, decisive leader (one, who as Sanghvi put it, “who did not take orders from party high commands and whose word was final”) who had, equally importantly, demonstrated that he could deliver on promises of progress?

In recent time, many Indians are getting wary of the Hindutva brigade running amock now that “their man” is the PM. The major trigger for that were the religious conversions that started in Agra. Sanghvi raises some very interesting questions for the liberals on that topic:

1)      Yes, forced conversions are bad. But does anyone really believe that Hindu conversions are being done the way the Christians and Muslims did centuries back, i.e., by threat of death and/or imposing heavy taxes?

2)     Moving onto bribe/gift based conversions, Sanghvi then asks:

“(Can we ban someone) from changing his religion? And if we did so wouldn’t we be interfering with his fundamental right to choose his religion? Wouldn’t we be making a mockery of secularism by saying that we would decide whether his conversion was ‘genuine’ or not?”

3)     What are the options here anyway? Do the liberals really want to pick up the BJP gauntlet and pass a bill banning religious conversions? Be careful, he warns, because that very legislation could then be used against Christian missionaries and Islamic clerics too!

All this is why Sanghvi is unhappy with the “standard knee-jerk liberal response” of the liberals. They aren’t thinking things through.

All this leads us to Charlie Hebdo (I know, I know, I blog too much about that: but hey, it combines two topics I feel very strongly about: Islamic terrorism and freedom of speech). Liberals in India tie themselves into knots by supporting bans on books and movies that might offend some group:

“This uneasy case-by-case approach to restricting free speech has meant that we rarely refer to first principles. Instead, Indian liberals make up our positions as we go along.”

Thus, liberals agree to ban the Danish cartoons of Mohammed but support MF Hussain’s right to paint Hindu goddesses in the nude. This lack of consistency then leads to the following accusation:

“Hindu organisations say that when the demand emanates from minority groups, authorities and liberals are more sensitive to any alleged offence. But when it is Hindus who say they are offended, they are dismissed as fanatics or fundamentalists.”

And so, argues Sanghvi:

“What does it say about us that even at the level of ideas and arguments we advocate positions that are not only essentially illiberal but are also contradictory, paradoxical and badly thought-out? The only truly liberal position on the whole issue of causing offence is this: freedom of speech is meaningless without the right to cause offence.”

And concludes with:

“What I can't understand is how we can delude ourselves into believing the opposite of everything we should stand for while still calling ourselves liberals.  Is it any wonder that Indian liberalism is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the people of our country?”

Methinks that was perfectly put.