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 

We need to stop objectification of human body

During one of the panel discussions on one of NDTV programs social scientist Kamla Bhasin raised a very interesting point, she called nakedness a natural phenomenon but objected to nudity which in commercial media tries to objectify the female body. Kamla Bhasin made very interesting argument against the widespread nudity in advertising and movies which objectifies male and female (especially female) bodies and presents them as a consumer product. She also took a strong objection to derogatory lyrics of some Hindi movie songs which clearly present the female body as some object for male enjoyment. She raised similar concerns during the episode related to domestic violence and gender sensitivity on Amir Khan's show Satyamev Jayate. She insisted that nakedness is natural, and there is nothing wrong in it but nudity is purposeful, and especially female nudity which directly results in the objectification of female body (especially in movies) is also the result of age-old patriarchal culture.

One can argue that what type of clothes to wear or how much to expose one's body is entirely a personal choice, and what is shown in movies is a matter of artistic freedom. But I guess she wants to question whether this is done because of individual choice or because of pressure to present oneself in particular form because of the prevalence of patriarchal culture. One can clearly see this when men are all dressed up in suits and on the same stage one can see women wearing revealing clothes and high heels that too in nicely air-conditioned rooms, which must make them feel chilly and uncomfortable. If all this is because of individual choice then no one should object to it but is it really like this? No one can question an individual's right to choose what dress they want to wear on any occasion but whenever I talk to people it doesn't seem like like there is a choice. I see many women and men complaining that they can not wear same dress on two different occasions because people will taunt them or pass some adverse comments about their dress. I always wonder whether people dress up out of choice or out of compulsion or pressure to fit in? I never used to feel comfortable in suits and many traditional Indian dresses and on many occasions, in functions like marriage or festival celebrations, I refused to wear them and faced a lot of criticism for doing that. I didn't care what people thought about me when they saw me like that but it seems many do care and they care a lot about what people will say about their external appearance. They care so much that many dress to fit into that image of real men and real women at the cost of their own comfort and choice.

To pressurize or force anyone to expose their body is equally bad as to force them to cover it. Surprisingly most people don't believe that because of aggressive advertising, there is tremendous pressure on men and women, especially on women to dress and look in a particular way. Specially women are considered modern, liberal, or progressive only if they wear certain type of clothes, this stereotype is very common all over the world. I see many people talking against the burqa or ghoonghat where women are forced to cover their bodies, this system is part of some cultures or religion but not many people raise their voice against pressure on women in today's world to expose their body or dress in a certain way. I always wonder why only one of these things is considered regressive and forceful? It seems many believe that wearing a burqa is more oppressive than a bikini walk which is mandatory during many beauty contests. It also seems that people find it hard to believe that women can choose by their own will to wear burqa, sari, or ghoonghat but they easily believe that all women choose to wear revealing clothes out of their own choice. Actually, in both cases, if it is done under any direct or indirect pressure, there is no individual choice. The human body is treated as an physical object in both cases. If forcing women to wear a burqa is wrong them forcing them to walk on a ramp in a bikini is also wrong. The male body is also objectified heavily in movies which is again a very serious issue. I agree that it is a very recent phenomena compared to female body objectification but we can see that it has also started. One can see many products in the market and aggressive ad campaigns which strongly advocate of certain body types and shapes for men and women both. 

We need to stop this human body objectification. I don't think it is easy to stop this process because this objectification is so seamlessly done that many times people don't even notice that they are being objectified. They follow it as a fashion trend or a way of looking beautiful or just to fit in the image of an ideal man and woman created by this seamless objectification process. With examples from my own family and friends I can see how seriously it affects the minds of people. I was so surprised by this phenomenon that I started thinking that it is a myth that people choose their own dress, my observation says that most people choose their dress based on what others think about their choices, and very few dare to choose what they want. One can give different names to that force, one can call it peer pressure, gender stereotype, fashion trend, culture, or some other name but I found very few who were willing to go against the popular norm and dare to think differently. I know it is a tough battle, and it is not easy to stand alone from a crowd, I know how it feels. But still, I hope I see some more people who are willing to take this path, who are willing to question this objectification, challenge the stereotypes, and defy these unjust norms. After all, progress depends on all unreasonable people who challenge the status quo and demonstrate that it is possible to change things.

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

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

Links:
1. हम लोग : आगे बढ़ती लड़कियां, पीछे खींचता समाज
2. http://www.onebillionrising.org/249/kamla-bhasin-south-asia/

Meaning of being liberal

I read this message on someone's Facebook wall. This message does a pretty good job of explaining the meaning of being liberal as well as some problems liberals face in our society, it also tries to clear some misconceptions about the term tolerance. Being tolerant doesn't mean being weak or submissive, rather one needs to be very strong-minded to be tolerant and liberal. Most people who make fun of the non-violence philosophy try to equate tolerance with weakness or cowardliness but in reality, it's exactly the opposite. I consider myself a liberal and open-minded person, by this I mean a person who respects other individuals on equal terms regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other difference; and who is willing to listen to others' views and share my views in a democratic and civilized way. I believe in discussions, debates, and dialogues rather than forcing my opinion on others. I also believe that there can be more than one right answer or solution to the same problem. Behaving as if my way is the only right way is not my habit but that doesn't mean I accept whatever others say even if I don't agree. If I don't agree with certain things I make sure to express my disagreement in a civilized way, being liberal and tolerant doesn't mean agreeing and accepting each and everything thrown at you.

I also believe that people can live peacefully and work for the betterment of society even if they don't agree on some issues or have differences of opinion. We can always agree to disagree with each other and move on. This is very important for any civilized society. Many people, especially in the comment section of some blog posts expect that as I claim to be liberal and open-minded I should accept their views as correct views and also accept my mistakes (that I was wrong as my views didn't match with theirs). They wish me to align my views with theirs because I claim to be liberal. They also question me objecting to some famous personality's opinion, they claim it's an insult to that person. According to them, being liberal means arbitrarily respecting everyone and accepting everything. Basically, they want liberals not to challenge anyone and respect each and everything. As an open-minded person, I am willing to listen to their views and ideas but I have no obligation to agree with them or with anyone if I don't find those things right. I also believe that there are some things that no one should tolerate like gender discrimination, racism or casteism, sexual abuse, terrorism, etc. But people support these things directly or indirectly and I am willing to listen to them but I just can not agree that these things in any form are acceptable.

I guess many people have serious misconceptions about what is meant by being liberal. It does mean being open to all ideas and views but that doesn't mean one should also accept them. Liberals can very much disagree and oppose views and ideas with which they don't agree but the major difference is they don't just want to silence the people who voice ideas by force but want to debate and challenge those views. They believe in change via debates and discussions. They believe in constructive criticism and dialogue but at the same time, there are certain things on which they can't compromise. They also have their own beliefs. But according to me the major difference between liberals and hardcore conservatives is, that liberals acknowledge that there can be differences of opinion and there can be disagreements on some issues, we can have debates or discussions about them and we can live together peacefully even with all our differences. A tolerant society is a type of society where everyone has the right to express their opinion, and at the same time, everyone has the right to question. People are allowed to question anything and everything. Once we understand this then no matter who we are, liberal or conservative, we all can live together peacefully.

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

Image from: Facebook
[Copyright for text: 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)