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