[This is the first essay in our Spotlight Series. Archives for the series can be found here. Note: Regular programming continues below.]
Being Liberal in Contemporary India
———————————–
Dilip D’Souza
At a kite-flying festival some days ago on a Bombay seafront, I idly noticed one of the organizers strolling through the milling hordes, badge dangling from her neck. It didn’t occur to me to connect her to the middle-aged couple I had idly noticed a few minutes earlier. But the lady with the badge soon changed that.
This couple was one among many who were sitting on the sea-wall, as lovelorn pairs do every evening in this city starved of private space. Like several of the others, these two had their arms around each other and were exchanging smiles and the occasional kiss. Which was too much for Organizer Lady. She stopped in front of them and launched into a harangue: “If you want to do all that dirty stuff, you better get up and leave! There are kids here! Leave, or your photograph will be in the paper tomorrow morning!”
Chastened and sheepish, the pair left.
I was too far away to interrupt this performance. But a few minutes later, I caught up with Organizer Lady and asked why she had expelled the couple. “They were kissing!” she hissed, “KISSING!” “What’s wrong with kissing?” I asked. Whereupon she gave me a disgusted look and said: “Nothing wrong! Why don’t you take your son up on the stage and make him kiss people? What kind of father are you?” And to my amusement, she pointed me out to bystander after bystander over the next 15 minutes, making several clearly pointed remarks about my fathering skills.
You want to know about being liberal? This woman might have some thoughts. I’ve always thought that one of the things about being liberal is that you live your life as you want and leave others to their lives. Man and woman kissing, hurting nobody — leave them be. But Organizer Lady must think that’s for the crows. Instead, we must foist our values on others, especially if we wear an official-looking badge.
But put that down to officiousness if you like. If it’s a distinction between liberals and conservatives we’re searching for, here’s how I see it. Liberals value egalitarianism and change; conservatives hold dear tradition, hierarchy and elitism. Conservatives see individuals as the engine of societal progress; liberals see a role for the structures — like governments — that individuals build. Liberals believe in dialogue with different views, therefore in the need to introspect; conservatives swear by power and the will to exercise it. Conservatives are contemptuous of talk of “understanding” and “introspection”; they are persuaded no dialogue is possible with criminals. Liberals are just as contemptuous of heavy-handedness; they know it will only heighten hatred and perpetuate terror.
These are passionately held views. So liberals’ bile rises with the actions of conservatives; conservatives grow irate with what liberals advocate. When I read and hear some of the rhetoric, it’s easy to believe people in either camp simply hate each other.
And somewhere in there is Organizer Lady.
Yet consider this. These themes — liberalism and conservatism — are intimately part of people’s temperaments, our very make up as human beings, our ideas about ourselves. By themselves, why should they inspire anger and hatred? Do you hate a person because she is funny, or prone to falling asleep during lectures (well, maybe that applies to us all), or argumentative? No, you just learn to live with her, that’s all. Why shouldn’t much the same apply to ideological divides among us? Or is that, itself, a liberal idea? Does advocating it, by itself, put me in that camp?
It’s hard to admit it at times, but a functioning, healthy society needs both liberals and conservatives, plus everything else in between. When one set pulls in one direction, the other pulls back; the result is that societies live off the best of both influences (though, arguably, the worst as well). An entirely liberal society might stifle creativity and entrepreneurship; an entirely conservative one might wallow in the supposed glories of the past, outlawing kissing on the way. (Among other delights, on each count).
Yes, I was appalled by Organizer Lady, but I try hard — believe me — to understand that there are limits, even if hers are different from mine. She was disgusted by the couple, perhaps more by me, but I live in hope that she now understands that she can’t dictate how others should carry on.
As you’ve heard often, India is rapidly transforming itself. Times like these, there’s tension between those who embrace change and those who want to hold on old certainties. Between those who see nothing wrong in being affectionate, even in public, and those who think such a thing disgraces our traditions and culture, besides being scandalous for our kids.
Now I don’t want to read too much into a badge-lady’s behaviour. Even if I can see virtues in some conservative ideas — for example, I think elitism is fine — I’m glad I look out at the world through my liberal lenses.
Yet I have to say it: a world without kissing makes no sense. For that matter, and more seriously, nor does a world without conservatives.
Though I have to wonder, again: is that last sentence, itself, another liberal idea?
Linked by BA. Join Blogbharti facebook group.
great post, dilip, like always. and thank you for posting it here.
i’ve question: you say ‘ liberals see a role for the structures- like governments’. would you consider public transport systems
(like trains, buses), bazaars etc., as ’structures’?
Good to have you here, Dilip! I particularly liked this phrase: “the need to introspect”.
Perhaps this discussion is for another time, but I could not but help noticing the somewhat functionalist approach (”healthy society needs both liberals and conservatives”) in the essay.
Thank you Kuffir and Bhupinder. I’m honoured to be here!
Kuffir, by structures I really meant “institutions” — the judiciary, parliament, bureaucracy, laws, universities; certainly then, also public transport systems etc. What people devise when they get together. And as opposed to the anarchy of every individual doing what they want to do.
Bhupinder, I’m a believer in introspection. It doesn’t always change your views, but it clarifies them. I don’t know what you mean by “functionalist”, though. Please expound on that! I’m intrigued. But that remark about a healthy society — put it this way. I mean it in the same way that I think democracy is best served both by a strong opposition and wide representation.
Define healthy? :-)
If a conservative doesn’t hate a liberal, he/she is a liberal.
Dilip,
Well put.
“a functioning, healthy society needs both liberals and conservatives, plus everything else in between.”
You said it. The earlier this realisation comes, the better.
I meant it in the Durkheimian sense. More info here. To me the statement (””healthy society needs both liberals and conservatives””) reads as saying that the rulers and the ruled are both necessary, so are the patriarchs and the plebians, the capitalist and the worker, the rich and the poor. I see conservatism as an ideology of the rulers, with liberalism being more conducive to the interests of the ruled.
Nice post, Dilip. I agree that society needs both sides of the spectrum. Of course, I have problems with certain conservative ideologies that make me want to tear my hair out! :)
Hmmm, confused, forced but not felt, inconsistent and pointless.
Nothing about it is liberal( we love that don we), contemporary( cud be mar 23 1981) and of course indian!!!
hee. word verification is worry
It is amusing that most talk about liberalism generally circles around topics such as relationships, sexuality etc. Though not very surprising in a (sexually) repressed society such as ours.
Anyways, coming to my main point I would think that having the freedom to ‘live your life as you want and leave others to their lives’ is something which needs to be sought *after* having the freedom for open discussions on such matters. To give an example, most people might agree that a couple ‘making out’ in public is a debatable act and may require some kind of censorship but few would agree that people discussing the possibility of it not being censored is in itself objectionable.
Take another example (this time from US). In 1990’s a college student named Andrew Martinez was expelled from U. Berkeley since he started attending classes in nude. The important point to note here is not whether he was considered right or wrong by the authorities/government but the fact that at the least the idea of someone being naked in public was not deemed downright wrong in the media or society at that point (and that remains true even now).
So my minimal definition of liberal society is where some act which involves consenting people (consenting to make love on a beach or to fly kite on their roof-top or cook sandwiches on roadside or whatever you like) and which doesn’t involve any other persons’ live is not ruled out without a sincere public debate.
It is amusing that most talk about liberalism generally circles around topics such as relationships, sexuality etc.
Not true. In my experience discussing the idea what has figured equally is (more) political issues like the freedom of speech, or ideology, or the rise of religious nationalism, etc.
For me when I sat to write this, the task I set myself was, how can I raise the wider themes via the entry point of a small, simple example? That’s why this example. (Besides it had just happened and I was annoyed by it).
Hi Dilip,
I’d like to know is how the liberals and conservatives view “education”.
By which i mean the process of providing children/youth with skills that they can apply in real-life
—towards building valuable personal relationships and
—the pursuit of happiness and value.
How is this for a differentiation?
Conservatives have an answer for every questions (usally a tried-and-tested-and worked-didin’t-it answer which they beleive they should hold true lest it be defeated by actual eveidence)
Liberals have a question for every answer (as they introspect, dissect and re-question, never sure till they hear from every single stakeholder and issue)
Regards
Santanu Chari
Dilip,
The piece is well-written but I’d like you to elaborate on some of the stands you’ve taken. The statement: “(A) functioning, healthy society needs both liberals and conservatives, plus everything else in between” is very problematic. (I think Bhupinder has said well, what I would like to have said.)
And then you use this very statement to make simplistic assertions such as: “An entirely liberal society might stifle creativity and entrepreneurship; an entirely conservative one might wallow in the supposed glories of the past, outlawing kissing on the way.”
Pray, how would an entirely liberal society stifle creativity? (It seems to me that you are talking here of the bourgeois-democratic version of liberalism so even if does stifle creativity — as some people on the Left might claim — conservatism certainly won’t be the solution.)
I understand that you set out to write a medium length essay, a format in which some generalisations need to be made. But a clarification in the comments section would help.
Anirudh, I think a reasonable society has to have and encourage every shade of opinion. If not, you have a downward spiral into a totalitarian, bloody mess: Nazi Germany, the USSR, China under Mao, Pol Pot’s Camodia are all examples.
What you think is a simplistic assertion is really a rhetorical thing that I see I didn’t write clearly enough: there are people who say that liberals will stifle creativity (because they don’t stress the individual); there are people who say that conservatives only want to wallow in the glorious past (because they are obsessed with tradition), etc. This is the fear each “side” of the spectrum has of the other.
My feeling is, neither is true. In particular, I think being truly liberal has everything to do with individuality; that a truly liberal outlook will celebrate entrepreneurship and individual excellence (as I like to think i do).
Sorry for the late reply, I just saw your comment today.
…and do i sense misogynism in the harping on the Organizing Lady as if she alone found people making out in a public space objectionable…you don’t fart or pick your nose in broad daylight in a public space either…even though neither actually physically ‘hurts’ anyon else
seems to me this is more elitist nonsense - have you nothing else to worry abuout you pseudo-intellectuals
Nice Post. I agree with anonymous’s
“So my minimal definition of liberal society is where some act which involves consenting people (consenting to make love on a beach or to fly kite on their roof-top or cook sandwiches on roadside or whatever you like) and which doesn’t involve any other persons’ lives is NOT RULED OUT WITHOUT SINCERE PUBLIC DEBATE”. Liberalism it seems is being replaced by intolerance in today’s India.