Some are saying that liberalism is dead or ought to
be; others say it is under siege and ought to be saved; still others say that
it is nothing but an elitist conceit or intellectual soft headedness or even
colonial mulattohood; yet others say it is the vitalizing layer of all thought.
The narrative is on the boil globally since Brexit, Trump, etc and in India it
has got fresh vim after the recent general elections. Here are two bits adding
to the narrative, which is not going to be squared soon.
The first bit is about what actually is liberalism.
What is it? What are its doctrines, its tenets, its beliefs; what is its Book?
Nobody knows. Odd, no?
Historically the European word and idea originated
in Latin during the ancient Roman empire to designate some senators who did not
represent particular geographical or commercial interests. These senators were
called liberal – free – who did not have obvious “agendas”. Such liberals were
valued and considered necessary in the agenda-packed Roman senates, much more
so after republicanism gave way to Caesarism.
The word and the idea have evolved through the
subsequent French, Spanish, and English templates of political thought. And we
find in the 21st century that liberalism retains a similar connotation. It means an approach, an attitude, to
matters which is “free” of the rigidities normal to these matters; an
approach to liberate, not bind people to imperatives.
Seen this way the liberal approach is as old as
mankind. In India the Rig Veda, which is a samhita
– a compendium, is full of delightful and free floating hymns quite different
from the business of the main body and bulk of the Indra-Agni hymns. Upanishads
were liberalism par excellence of course; so was the entire shramana tradition. In China Confucian
orthodoxy was diluted by Taoist strands, Islam was always shadowed by Sufism,
Judaism by the Cabbala, and so on.
But liberalism is not, it should be noted, a
standalone thing. It is not a doctrine
but an accompaniment to some doctrine; certainly not a revolt or even an
adversary. The liberal senators of ancient Rome were integral to the senate not
reactionaries. The Upanishadic rishis did not repudiate the Vedas. The Sufis do
not challenge Islam. Liberalisms leaven the doctrines, humanize them; make them
more palatable.
Democracy, monarchy, communism, fascism, etc are
mainline business things in political thought and practice, with substantial
doctrines and precepts – these can be upheld or trashed as you please. And as
may be expected we also have liberal democracy, liberal monarchy, liberal
communism and so on. But curiously upholding or trashing these is not quite the
same thing; does not carry intellectual punch. Why?
The answer may be found in the question: why do
doctrines yield liberalisms? Mainly because the full range of diversities of life
cannot be contained by any doctrine. Then there are also reasons of differences
in geography, historical epochs, nativities, and sheer contingencies and cussedness
of human condition. Truth is doctrines tend to become dogmas. And liberalisms
try to soften the hardening edges; bring in nuance, layering, chanciness, even
disguise. No surprise that liberalism seems to have a life of its own! And when
liberalism is being calumnied and trashed it shields the underlying doctrine
but it is really the doctrine that is under attack. This often gets overlooked.
During the 20th century the West has seen
the spectacular rise and fall of both the Left and the Right. Their subsisting
liberalisms, now without centre of gravity, have a disembodied look today. They
are mere specters haunting Europe – dealing with issues like abortion,
immigration, gender, race, LGBT, gun laws, rights in general; no doubt
important things but hardly mainline stuff. The post Reagan-Thatcher era is neoconservative
and in Newspeak it is called neoliberal,
but by now it has become clear that it
is just global capitalism and there is nothing liberal about it; actually it is
brutal capitalism in the same sense as was 19th century colonialism.
In India and indeed in most of Asia and Africa the story
is very different, where the initial, post independence dalliances with the
Left are now over, and the current close encounters with the Right are on. In
these parts bashing liberalism really is no more than bashing the departed
Left.
Nothing gives bone structure and sinews and
substance to a doctrine than its embrace by a state. The European 20th
century moulds of the Right are being reshaped and naturalized in the 21st
from Turkey to Philippines, in native forms and styles that are rich and
strange. In India the turn to Right started with post-Janata Party Indira
Gandhi of 1980 but officially from 1991 by Congress led regimes, with their
habitual hypocrisy and half heartedness. The later BJP led regimes have been
more forthright and energetic. But Indian Right is very much a work in process
which is evolving creatively; it is not wholly contained within the early 20th
century bunch of doctrines of its founding gurus. Same goes for Asia as a
whole, mutatis mutandis.
Sensing an emerging doctrine, the central features
of which will not be drastically different from the 20th century
European Right, a liberalism of the Right is burgeoning in India. If our Left
liberals` habitat was the Universities and the Indian Coffee Houses – but never
Khan Market – the Right liberals have found refuge in the newly spawned fledgling
Foundations and WhatsApp/Twitter. About half the Right liberals are erstwhile
Left liberals who have simply moved over.
The second bit is about who owns liberalism. Where
does liberalism reside in the society? Which segment of the social layers works
as the native habitat of liberalism as a cognitive slant?
The elites? They seem to own all isms – in fact the
entire mental space of social narratives. Regular incomes are wonderful jumping
boards for ideas, this way or that way. But when ideologies shift with times the
seemingly embedded elites often get stranded. In India today the left liberals
are floundering while the greenhorn Right liberals do not yet make the grade for
the first eleven. Twentyfive years from now things might well be different. The
old liberal narrative now is of doom and gloom. Along with liberalism the old
elites are facing a bashing.
But all over
the world elitism of the day is always an expedient, a matter of shifting
politics, because elites are moored with the ruling regimes and always function
as the machinery of governance in public and private sectors; elites have no
nativity of vision. The 20th century has shown mankind that elites
can easily become very illiberal indeed. Elites won`t do. Their liberalism is
tactical, not natural. We have to look elsewhere.
As noted,
liberalism arises from the demands of infinite changeableness and contingencies
of life itself. The “ignorant” working masses – the shudra castes, women,
antyajas – will bow to Ram & Sita, also to Shiva, Hanuman, will also tie a
hopeful thread around a boon tree, also go to a gurdwara or a dargah of a pir alongwith their neighbours, and
also fold hands to an ochre daubed stone on the path to his/her field of work,
wear a charmed bead or locket round the neck, and do all such things. S/he will
go to all gods and powers: who knows what will work and who cares if something
works? S/he will go for any science or superstition: who knows the difference,
and when one changes into the other? The scenario is similar all over the
world. S/he has been doing this for centuries, giving primacy to practical life
over ideas and doctrines: this is the wellspring and aquifer for liberalism, at
once both vulgar and protean. Syncreticism, a word much used but opaquely, is a
clumsy and condescending name for this.
The working masses all over the world have always owned
their liberalism, picking their way through thickets of dogmas. This native liberalism
is ontological, an openness in seeing and accepting reality itself, very much
like quantum physics. They would not have survived without it. The elites have
merely to join up if they wish. Liberalism is safe and well, far from extinct.
