The Purpose of Liberal Ideals

I consider myself a socially liberal person. I was born and raised in a very conservative family and society. Concepts like gender equality, feminism, racism, casteism, equity, and social justice were alien to me while growing up. Liberal values entered very late in my life but when they entered they provided a solid backbone to fight against many social evils, such as gender discrimination, casteism, and racism, that were and still are prevalent in our society. The enduring relevance of liberalism does not just lie in winning elections and forming governments to reform societies towards more secular and inclusive values but it lies in its ability to create pressure whether directly, through electoral victories, or indirectly, by forcing opponents to temper their agendas. In this context, liberalism serves its purpose, regardless of immediate political outcomes. The real purpose of liberal ideas is to perform the balancing act, where any extremism is tamed due to the mere presence of a watchdog who threatens to take back the power if the situation gets worse. Liberalism needs to be a persistent force of progress irrespective of who is in power. 

As conservatives craft narratives that excite and energize their voter base, liberals remain the unseen hand guiding societal balance. Their role is less about immediate dominance and more about ensuring the long-term sustainability of democratic ideals. This is how liberalism always worked. The entire world was dominated by narrow and conservative ideas that perpetuated discrimination and hate. Under the name of preserving culture, religion, and supremacy so many people were killed or suppressed. Even then, there were people who dared to propagate liberal values and this is the reason social evils like slavery were eradicated and other evils like racism and gender discrimination have been tamed to a considerable extent. 

Moving forward, if liberals want to remain as a viable political option their challenges in the current political climate are clear. First, they need to rebuild the trust. Liberals must reconnect with their base, understanding and addressing the evolving needs of diverse groups is critical for them. One of the most pressing tasks for liberals is to rebuild trust with their diverse voter base. Over time, relying on socially and economically suppressed classes as a core constituency has proven insufficient. Why? Because the social and economic needs of every group evolve. Liberal parties must recognize that no single group can serve as a permanent foundation. A broad coalition built on mutual trust and inclusivity is vital. They must address criticism of perceived elitism or disconnection by demonstrating authenticity and commitment to all sections of society. Second, they need to energize the participation of people who subscribe to social liberal values. Mobilizing voters who align with liberal values is a significant hurdle for liberals, and they struggle a lot in this, especially in the emotionally charged and polarizing electoral atmosphere. Many voters feel detached from electoral stakes for liberals, and their participation often lags behind that of conservatives. Finding ways to mobilize their core constituency, not just online but on the ground and during the elections, especially those who feel detached from electoral stakes is crucial, they must strengthen on-the-ground efforts to reach voters where they are. Creating compelling narratives that make people feel their vote truly matters by connecting political outcomes to their day-to-day lives is crucial. Third, they need to upgrade their communication with electoral voters. In an era dominated by social media and an overwhelming flow of information, liberals must craft their messaging to resonate in a rapidly changing landscape. Simply relying on their reputation as the "good guys" is no longer enough. They must speak to people’s immediate concerns in clear, relatable terms. Abstract ideals or overly intellectual arguments may alienate some voters. They need to utilize social media strategically and understand the platforms where voters spend their time and adapt messaging to suit each medium. Visual storytelling, short videos, and concise messages often outperform traditional approaches. Finally, while adapting to contemporary concerns, liberals must not compromise on their foundational values of inclusion, equality, and justice. 

Liberal parties can no longer assume that voters will align with them purely because of their ideals. They must work hard to earn every vote by demonstrating the tangible impact of their policies and by staying closely connected to their constituencies. This is not just a political challenge but an opportunity for reinvention. By rebuilding trust, energizing participation, and modernizing their messaging, liberals can carve out a new path that not only sustains their relevance but also positions them as a robust and compelling alternative in the global political arena. The political climate is dynamic, and with the right strategies, liberals can regain their electoral footing. No doubt, the work will be difficult and demanding, but it is essential - not just for the survival of truly liberal parties but for the health of democratic systems worldwide. The real purpose of liberal values is to protect democratic principles such as equality, equity, and inclusion and fight against social evils such as gender discrimination, racism, majoritarianism, and communal hate.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

*Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

Where are the true liberals?

I consider myself an ardent supporter of liberty. Liberty, which means freedom to choose, express myself the way I want, and live life the way I like are among the most important things that I value. I consider myself a liberal, not the "liberal" in a way people understand in political terms, but a true liberal. Actually, I find the terms "liberal" and "conservative" quite misleading as far as their political usage is considered, they don't make much sense to me. These labels are used as alternate names for major political parties without any meaningful association with the real meaning of those words. Recently I had the following conversation with one of my friends.
He asked me, "You must be a supporter of illegal immigration and socialism, do you want the US to open its borders?"
I said, "What makes you think that? Why will I support illegal immigration?"
He seemed to be surprised by my reply and asked back, "Aren't you a liberal?"
I replied, "I am a liberal, not a moron to support illegal things".
This is the level of conversation between so-called liberals and conservatives nowadays. It is really amazing to see what type of impression they both have about each other. I can't associate myself completely with any of these groups. I found some really good and some really bad ideas coming from both these groups. I choose to call myself a liberal because, I am open to all new ideas, nothing is sacred or unquestionable for me, I am willing to listen to all ideologies and for me, only the good ideas matter not their source, so, I am a liberal, open to all possibilities. Unfortunately, I don't see these characteristics in many of these so-called liberals, these people have made the term liberal so restrictive and narrow that it means you are a Democratic party supporter. It is no more a description of an emotion or a trait that liberates you from barriers and makes you a free thinker. That's why I ask where are the true liberals?

Being a true liberal is not easy, and that is why there are very few true liberals around. Most people like to associate themselves with a certain religion, political ideology, or cult, they love the comfort and warmth of that community as it gives them a sense of belonging and provides a safety net that they need. This feeling of belonging to some group is a very important part of our social behavior. Actually, we all belong to some group or other, some of these groups are very huge (like country, city, or religion) and some are small (like school, friend circle, our workplace, etc.). This feeling of belonging is not wrong or bad, but to accept everything propagated or taught by that group without questioning it is something I don't like, I just can't do it. A true liberal will never reject or accept an idea just because it is coming from a political group that he or she supports or doesn't support. They will never bother about the source, but treat every idea or thought based on its merit. It is not an easy thing to do as we have to first acknowledge and then eliminate as much as possible our prejudices and think objectively. 

True liberals will always be fair to others, especially to people whom they criticize. They will support the freedom of expression for everyone, not just for themselves, no matter whether they agree or disagree with that group or person. They will never get offended by anyone's remarks as they will know that freedom of expression comes with the freedom to offend. They don't discriminate or judge people based on their food, dress, sexual orientation, religion, race, color, age, gender or any other thing. They also know that any type of bigotry cannot be curbed by silencing bigots, but by allowing them to express their stupidity and countering it with rationality and logic. They will not support or demand a ban on any book, movie, or speech. Any type of discrimination will not be acceptable to them, they also acknowledge that rights come with responsibilities. They support equality, equity, and justice for all. They not only support equal rights but also equal responsibility and equal accountability. They also accept that their views can be rejected, challenged, or even ridiculed as these things are part of any public debate or argument. They question or challenge opinions or ideas, not individuals. They understand that the freedom to choose is the right of everyone. True liberals also support feminism as it is about equal rights and eliminating gender discrimination. I would love to see these so-called liberals try to do justice to the real meaning of this word, until then I think I have no choice but to continue my search for true liberals.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Fanaticism is dangerous, avoid it

We can find fanatics in each and every field. The reality is that no field can claim to be untouched by fanatics. Fanaticism is spreading so rapidly that even so-called liberals and tolerant people seem to be so aggressive that they sound fanatic about their views and their attitude leaves no scope for discussion. The mindset that "you are either with us or against us" is rapidly becoming very popular among people across the world. Very few are interested in real exchange of ideas, most people are interested in delivering their own views and ideas. They don't want any feedback, counter-arguments, or alternate views, but only want agreement or acceptance. Even so-called big political leaders are falling prey to such a mindset, that is why I say that this increasing spread of fanaticism is dangerous. Especially on social media, this attitude is clearly evident. The public platform that social media has provided us is an amazing opportunity to have various discussions with people across the world. One can discuss any topic with anyone, from anywhere if they have a simple internet-connected device like a computer or smartphone. Many people are making use of this technology and sharing their ideas with each other, but at the same time, many are not open to any scrutiny or questioning. People want to share their opinions but are seldom interested in listening to others. Discussions quickly turn into arguments and arguments into verbal fights. This reduces the scope for any sensible discussion. The major signs of fanaticism are that people don't like disagreements, they are not very welcoming or tolerant towards alternate views and ideas, and they show contempt towards the other side's views. Another aspect of fanatics is that they are not interested in knowing the other side's arguments, they are only interested in defeating the other side and proving them wrong at any cost. Normally, these people are very passionate about their beliefs, there is nothing wrong with being passionate about anything, but to become overly aggressive and intolerant is definitely not right.

Free exchange of views or ideas is one of the necessary features of any tolerant and progressive society, but I think slowly we are losing this very good quality. Tolerance is not a sign of weakness, it requires a lot of strength and patience to be tolerant of others' views even if you don't agree with them, but liberals and conservatives both are failing to display any tolerance. This attitude leads to intolerance and that results in a highly polarized society. Polarization stops the flow of ideas, it creates barriers that are often difficult to break. People stop talking with each other and start talking about each other that too only bad stuff. This creates a very unhealthy and regressive environment as people start living in their own silos. I understand that many people are very passionate about many issues and they want to convey their ideas as assertively as possible, but there is a difference between being assertive and fanatically aggressive, one can be assertive without being overly aggressive. Actually, people should understand that fanaticism doesn't help their own cause, rarely do people from the other side yield to fanatic arguments. Discussions and arguments are integral parts of any progressive society, but they need to be carried out in a very healthy and conducive environment. Previously radicalism was limited to certain people who used to be brainwashed by certain religions or cults, but now this habit is spreading rapidly all across the sections of society and we need to spread awareness about this. We need to be aware of our own behavior and check from time to time that we are not becoming fanatics while propagating our own views. Discussions and negotiations are the best way to solve any complicated or sensitive issue, but fanaticism shuts the doors for both of these options. As a society we need to talk to each other and discuss our differences, then only we can solve the many complicated problems we face today. I hope people become more tolerant towards each other's views. Tolerance doesn't mean one has to accept those views, but just try to listen to them and try to understand the reason behind those views. I know it is not an easy task but it is worth our time and effort, it is easy to become a fanatic, so, please don't take the easier route as easy doesn't always mean good.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Liberal extremist - not better than conservative extremist

Recently, one very interesting news made headlines in Indian electronic and print media, one of the world's best management schools, Wharton was in the news for withdrawing its invitation to Gujarat's chief minister Mr. Narendra Modi as a keynote speaker for its Wharton India Economic Forum (WIEF). The reason for this withdrawal was fierce opposition to Mr. Modi as a keynote speaker by sections of Wharton professors, students, and other stakeholders. They opposed him because of his communal political background, especially for his alleged involvement in the Godhra communal riots of 2002. I was totally surprised by this decision of WIEF. Opposition to Mr. Modi was not surprising because there is a section of secularists who love to bash only some political parties or leaders for their communal policies or views but conveniently ignore similar acts by other people.

I agree that religion and politics should not be mixed but in reality, this happens everywhere in the world. Religion and politics have so many similarities in them that it's really hard for politicians to resist the temptation not to mix them. Both these faculties get benefit from each other and survive with the help of each other. Some secular groups are trying to make "secularism" a separate religion that has its own rules and norms. They also treat some things as untouchables and are extremist in their views on some issues. Most of these people love to call themselves liberal, they got angry when Mr. Salman Rushdie was not allowed to speak at some literary festival in India, and they cried for freedom of speech at that time, but the same people kept mum when Mr. Modi was not allowed to speak as a keynote speaker at WIEF. There is nothing wrong with protesting against anyone's policies or opposing some political actions. People who are against Mr. Modi should protest or try to ask him questions wherever they face him but I think not allowing him to participate in any function is a bit too extreme, similar to what some groups did to Mr. Rushdie a few months back. One can have serious differences with Mr. Modi's political stance or Mr. Rushdie's books but to stop them from participating in any public function or bar them from sharing their views from any platform is not the way to fight with their ideologies.

I also don't understand what they achieved by stopping him from participating in this function. Many controversial political leaders are there in US politics. Many of them and others from all over the world visit the US and deliver seminars or speeches at so many places. I really admire this quality of American people and institutes. They are very tolerant of a broad spectrum of ideas and beliefs, and they encourage open debate about various sensitive issues. But this indecent is really unique and I think a huge mistake. They lost a chance to hear from one of the very successful chief ministers of one of the very successful Indian states (Gujarat), at least this is what Indian media projects. It's not a loss for Mr. Modi as he will find some other platform, but a loss for the students of Wharton. This group who opposed his visit must be very happy about their achievement. They must be thinking of this success as another feather in their cap to show their secular credentials, but in this process, they have shown that they are not at all different than other people who don't allow certain people to express their opinions just because it doesn't agree with their own beliefs. Like conservative extremists, we also have liberal extremists and both are the same with absolutely no difference in their attitude only they identify themselves with different name tags. I think we need to fight against both these groups to have a true liberal or free society, where every voice is heard and every topic is debated, where issues are more important than the person who is speaking.

Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

References:
1. Full text of letter protesting Modi invitation to Wharton
2. Modi’s address at Wharton cancelled
3. Wharton backs Modi invite cancellation

India and Bharat - are they different?

Recent remarks by RSS chief Mr. Mohanrao Bhagwat that rapes are prevalent in India (by this he means a more liberal and modern population), not in Bharat (a rural, more conservative, or traditional part of India) created a lot of controversy in the media. Many people found it very controversial. Even Asaram Bapu said something very stupid in this regard. Personally, I was not very surprised after reading this comment as this type of mindset is still prevalent in even educated people in India and Mr. Bhagvat is representative of that conservative mindset. I have seen a lot of good work done by RSS, they try to instill a feeling of patriotism among people at the same time they are heavily biased toward Hinduism and are instrumental in spreading communal divide based on religion. They don't hide their close association with Hinduism. This is one of their major handicaps like many other organizations that associate themselves exclusively with a particular religion and feel the compulsion to defend each and everything mentioned in their scriptures and try to reinforce their traditions and culture. This particular comment comes from that mindset, where they believe a traditional, conservative society is better for women. Women should stay indoors, they are supposed to take care of their homes and families and cover themselves. Earning or doing a job is not considered a woman's responsibility. 

This statement by Mr. Bhagwat clearly doesn't make any sense. Actually, this shows that he is totally out of touch with reality. Every society has rich (more affluent) and poor sections, in India the difference is more contrast. Very often rich people follow a more liberal lifestyle, and this is somehow blamed on the Western influence. There is no logic behind this, it's a pathetic attempt to blame some outsider for things that one can not avoid or control. In today's world with modern and sophisticated modes of communication interaction between different cultures and societies is more common. People adopt whatever suits them. The exchange of ideas, traditions, and customs is very easy and common and no one can stop this. Whatever is good and relevant to people's needs will survive and other things will go away. Some bad elements will also creep in and will stay, but this was the case all the time. At every point in time in every society in our history, we had good customs and traditions and also bad ones. Today's society is not very different in that way. We are much more well equipped as far as technology and resources are concerned and it can do wonders if we can use it to our advantage.

This logic of India and Bharat is an indirect attempt to criticize the more affluent section of Indian society for their more liberal lifestyle. Women are generally more independent in these societies and also more outgoing. This criticism is mainly directed towards these independent women. According to his statement, such independent women only live in India but not in Bharat. It sounds very illogical and weird but it seems this is how Mr. Bhagwat thinks. While making this comment I wonder how Mr. Bhagwat conveniently forgot the situation of women in his so-called Bharat, where they are raped, molested, burned, and killed every day. Their situation is not very different than other parts of the country. The law and order situation is even worse in these places compared to cities. Just because women stay mostly indoors, do conventional jobs, they don't wear Western clothes doesn't mean they are safer and well-protected or well-cultured than women who do these things. I really wonder how people still believe and live with these types of illusions.

What type of world do they want to live in? Why are they so against independent and strong women? Why do they feel that women are supposed to do only certain types of work? Why are they not willing to give them equal treatment and the respect they deserve? There are many questions like this and I know what answers these people will give to most of these questions, but even then we need to ask these questions and argue with them because these people who think like this are part of our society and we can not neglect or ignore them. We need to question them. We need to argue with them and try to convince them. We should share our views about equality and women's empowerment with them. We all need to pay our part in bringing this change, unless the whole society is transformed this change will not come and our job is not done. If we brand them as conservatives and backward, ignore or neglect them, then we will be making the same mistake that organized religion did with nonbelievers. We need to talk with them, understand their views, and show them the other side of the coin, sounds very tough but there is no other way.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

References:
1. Rapes prevalent in India not in Bharat- The Hindu
2. Rapes occur in India not Bharat-Bhagwat-TOI
3. Marriage is like contract between husband wife-Mohan Bhagwat (TOI)
4. Delhi gang rape victim as guilty as her rapists-Asaram Bapu (TOI)