Some long drawn arguments on social media have brought out the different definitions of being a liberal and as someone who considers herself as one, I thought it may be appropriate to discuss my own definition of one.
First and foremost, a liberal believes everybody has the liberty to choose from various options as long as it does not harm others. It is hard to find a liberal that believes in violence as a solution to anything. So very clearly, the options on offer do not include violence, at best legal remedies.
That leads us to define “not harm others”. Here I would clearly define “harm others” as something that directly affects my ability to choose from my options apart from physical harm. The most apposite example to my mind is clothing. Because a sikh man chooses to wear a turban or a muslim girl a headscarf, their choices do not in any way harm me or my choices, whether I choose to wear shorts or a 9 yard sari or jeans or a salwar kameez.
The problem really comes when all this leads to a discussion on “vulgar clothes” or “inappropriate”. Who defines vulgar and inappropriate? In my first few weeks at IIMA, a friend and I went for late night walks in our night dresses covered by dressing gowns. Other than our faces and hands I doubt anyone could see any more than they saw when we wore skirts or saris. Yet one of the senior girls approached us and said this was inappropriate. I remember the two of us discussing that in a place where men and women sometimes cohabited, how can this dress be considered inappropriate. We could have rebelled and continued to wear, but it was hardly high on our priorities, but when the next batch came, and some of the girls roamed in their nighties, we made it a point, not to tell them to desist. That is what I think makes us liberals.
This leads us to the concept of morality. Which is the line we draw on morality of say how much interaction between the genders is moral and acceptable. From smiling at each other to one night stands to living together without a marriage certificate to boot, the whole range of options are considered acceptable or unacceptable in various cultures. But again the bottom line for me, is am I allowed to do as I please? Clearly under the human trafficking scenario the girl or boy prostituted is not being given an option and hence completely unacceptable. But the choice being made by the customer, is difficult to define. Should he/she have the right to go to a prostitute? Or does he/she have the right to prostitute themselves? Many cultures do think it is acceptable and have legalized prostitution. The critical thing then is does he/she know that the other party is being forced or is there willingly?
Then the troubling question of should they be allowed to have their offices anywhere? Many (including me) may find it uncomfortable to know there is a brothel next door. The whole Somnath Bharti episode revolved around whether or not there were brothels running in the areas he targeted. I think given that the law currently makes all prostitution illegal, with clear proof, police can take action. But suspicion of illegal activities cannot include neighbours not liking someone and hence complaining without proof. I remember incident where a sister-brother duo one Sunday afternoon were lazing on the banks of Yamuna some 30 years ago had cops come and harass them. Which is where the liberal in me says, legalize prostitution and make it essential to register the locations. Then I have the choice of deciding if I want to live there or not. Sure I will be limited in my choice if I own my house, but that is a problem I have even if I find the mafia moving into my locality slowly or several of my neighbours turn alcoholic. As long as I am not forced to enter into their households or they into mine, I just will have to lump it or live in a ghetto of similar minded people.
The other troublesome idea is the idea of “vulgar” or “hurting sentiments” through television, books et al. I shocked some people a while ago by saying India should not only not keep hauling the Fashion TV guys for vulgarity, but they should allow the playboy and penthouse channels of the world in. it is the right of those who want to watch these channels to do so as much as it is my right to not watch them. Years ago I remember a friend buying a video compilation of “happening” Bollywood songs so that his 8 year old daughter could learn the steps of those songs. The lyrics and the moves of the songs were to me quite inappropriate for an 8 year old and I was sure if I had a daughter I would not let her dance to it until she was at least 15 at which time she was at liberty to choose to learn. But the fact is it was that family’s choice and I was okay with it. Similarly, if I want to watch jay leno/comedy channel and watch it with my children, I should be allowed to, without some idiot deciding which words to bleep out. If you don’t like those programs, don’t watch them. If you want to watch but don’t want your kids to watch, choose between not watching or watching at a time when they are not around. You don’t get to say, nobody gets to watch!! Same with books, movies and so on.
Often, you find cases where people push liberalism to the edge to just check how people react. Rushdie’s Satanic Verses or the kids in Meerut openly rooting for the Pakistani team are really examples of such tests to the society. It is difficult to figure out what exactly would have happened if they were let alone, because invariably, no body leaves them alone for very long. The Danish Cartoons were neither funny nor intelligent, but caused deaths around the world. I was happy to share them on my facebook page to register my support his right to draw them, just as I tried reading the terribly dull Satanic Verses.
A recent facebook exchange brought again to fore the issues regarding how must a liberal react when two unknown parties have a falling apart. An author had a contract, which had an exit clause, which the publishers used because they disagreed with him on his politics. The publisher did not refuse to give him his right to go elsewhere to publish, the publisher did not keep the rights and not publish the books, the publisher openly acknowledged he no longer respected the author and did not want to work with him. Does the author have the right to his political opinions? Absolutely. Does he have the right to publish his book? Absolutely. Does he have the right to choose his publisher? Absolutely. Does he have the right to insist the publisher of his choice publish the book? Absolutely not. Because the publisher has the choice to reject too. Like any relationship, both parties do need to agree on the terms. The publisher has the right to decide the tone of books coming out of his publishing house as it is a part of his brand. Would Mills and Boon try and publish anything but romance and hope to succeed? Would you expect Harvard to publish a romance? Someone on this thread had suggested that a liberal must support everyone in whatever they do. Absolutely not. A liberal has strong opinions on subjects, but let’s others have theirs. As long as nobody’s rights are violated, why should a liberal pass judgement on every incident? In this case, the writer has the right to publish, which have not been taken away. The publishing house has the right to not publish something as long as the refusal is within the terms of the contract. If not, it is for the courts to rule on the terms, not for an unconnected liberal. If the terms have been violated, I don’t see any liberal fighting for the publisher.
Similar questions were raised about thoughts about nationalities. I reserve the right to like someone from a country, even if my country is at war with that country. Period. Does that mean, it’s okay to spy for that country? If the spying is going to lead to the war stopping, I will probably say yes. If it is going to cause more deaths on one side or the other, I will say no. Do I think it’s my duty to spy for my country? No, I get to choose what line of business I want to be in. If it’s not spying, I don’t have to. If my country started the war on terms I think are inexcusable, I do get the right to disagree and protest. On the flip side, you believe it was justified, you have as much right to take pride in what ever is happening. As long as your celebrations or support is not enforced on me, if I do not want to participate. Does that make me Anti-National? Nope, more like a global citizen. Is that irrational or utopian. Absolutely not. In the times when the sword ruled, liberals were probably mowed down willy-nilly. Yet somehow those liberal genes survived, and now are more dominant globally and that is why most countries have made their governments jump through hoops before letting them go to war. That is why the current century has been the most peaceful in history. That is why the human population on Earth is the highest it has ever been.
Does one have to support one’s country in every sporting event one’s country participates in? As far as I am concerned, I don’t care. I am assuming those who think their cheering at home at their tvs is what gets their teams to win, will have serious disagreement with me. Does cheering even in the stadium, really help? Just because Indians came out in droves to watch Leander Paes against Goran Ivanisevic, it did not exactly end in Paes winning. Carrying ones nationalism on one’s sleeve is not my cup of tea. For years that was the norm. When I was young, being in love with Imran khan or Wasim Akram was practically a rite of passage for Indian girls and some of my friends had rooms adorned with posters the current love and were genially looked upon by parents just as was love for Marilyn Monroe or lust for Sharon Stone for boys. Nationality of these loves was of no relevance in that context. My vote still is for letting such preferences alone. The line for “anti nationalism” is too nebulous to define and cannot be pandered to. Pay your taxes, keep your neighbourhood clean, and follow the law and as far as I am concerned you are a good citizen.
What about burning the flag, wearing it on your shoes, laughing through the national anthem when its playing? In the movie, American President, in the last monologue, Michael Douglas says – “America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.”
I saw the movie and felt these lines said exactly what I always felt. I would like the symbol of Indian freedom too to be linked to each of us being allowed to do what we think is appropriate as long as it does not physically harm anyone. All these notions of mental harm should really by done away with. Yes sometimes, you might feel hurt, but just get over it!
I was born an Indian and am happy to be one. I am unlikely to become an ultra-nationalist when I was never one. My father went to the 1971 war when was 3. I insisted on my Mom switching on the radio and listening to the list of martyrs for the day and cried for all of them. I think the futility of all this set in right then, in my mind. My dad came back. On his way out, he even picked up two Pak bombshells that had fallen near his bunker. I still have one of them right where I can see it every day and still think war is rubbish. Sure the norms of the society allow for wars. But I don’t have to like them. I am happy each time our government can avoid one. The price is paid by all of us through a ruined economy but the devastation to the families who lose a loved one, is truly avoidable. Makes me a bleeding heart, but I am very proud of being one.
The biggie is religion. Are all religions equal? Should the government get involved in that subject? Are liberals and “seculars” the same? First of all, the term secular as used for individuals in India is non existent in the rest of the world, as far as I know. Secularism is usually only used for governments to indicate the separation of state and church. So by definition, England is not secular and neither is Iran. India chose to highlight the secular credentials of its government because of the tragedy accompanying the partition. Here it came to mean, the government will not promote any religion and support all. So the Governments in state and center have been paying for priests, maulanas etc., paying up to hold kumbh melas, subsidizing haj trips, providing security for events relating to religious ceremonies and so on. Yet, most government functions now start mostly with invocation to hindu gods and rarely hold the early practice of “ Multi faith prayers”. These are small things that no one complains about.
The current issue of running down any support to secularism comes from assertions that by trying to be out of the religion equation, the government has supported religions with smaller followers. So any support to the thought, as liberals are bound to have, is seen as Anti- Hindu leading to the die hards prejorative “ sickular”. As a liberal, it does not affect me at all, because it only reinforces the reasons why this country chose to insist on the government needing to keep out of religion. But each time someone tells me that hindus have been denied their rights in the last n years. I have to disagree vehemently. What they may have been denied is their right to impose their thoughts on others, but their own rites and practices continue. The law against sati did not come about in isolation. It was promulgated after members of the Hindu community began to argue against it. Until then the British may have thought it a barbaric practice but did not enforce their thoughts. Similar is the case with dowry deaths. That brings us to cases like Mary Roy’s on inheritance by daughters in Syrian Catholic communities or the Shah Bano case on maintenance after divorce. In the former the government did not intervene and it did in the latter. In the former, the complainant was fighting against her siblings and latter against the ex husband. In the former, the judge wrote a ruling that changed the lives of all similar women. In the latter, the judge by awarding a ridiculously low amount, made the judgement worthless yet despite the govt bringing in the much malignedThe Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, it is also a fact that the muslim community has now begun to ensure that on divorce, a one time settlement is made to ensure fiscal stability of the woman and her children.
Inheritance and rights after divorce have been unfair to women in pretty much all communities and countries. In a country like US, the outstanding alimony and child maintenance payments is said to be running in billions, which is what led to the division of assets during the divorce. Equal inheritance is only applicable in the absence of a will and parents can ensure unequal distributions and they do. As far I know for Muslims, marriage is a contract unlike Hindus for whom it is a divine intervention. If it is a contract, can a life long payment schedule be possible after the contract has fallen through? I am told the concept of mehr was exactly for this. On marriage, the man made a settlement of an agreed sum which was to be hers during and after the marriage. Over time, the sums were reduced to such a paltry amounts ( in negotiations I presume between the groom and the father/brother of the bride) that a divorce meant devastation to the woman. So I think there are very many reasons to feel sorry for women who do not have the means to take care of themselves independently and the reversal of the Shah Bano judgement is only one of them. They don’t affect others but are indeed a window into how our society functions.
There are a number of other such issues that are regularly debated on which people say liberals have inconsistent stands. One of which is allowing more than one wife. Data shows that in India more hindu men have two wives than muslims. And then there are the innumerable cases of mistresses. A few years ago an mid level engineer from India died in Afghanistan and was found to have a wife and a mistress, leading me to realize just how deep into the society this sort of a thing has got/been. There is legislation in place for preventing this for hindus. Yet there seems to be no let up in the numbers. While people point fingers at Karunanidhi for having two wives, the fact is that he married them before the legislation came in. that is not true of the Boney Kapoors of the world. Yet, it is a very difficult thing to debate. If all parties involved have nothing against the arrangement what should the society do? If a girl is willing to be a mistress, what should we do? Of course if it is a case of fraud, the party affected can go to court and get suitable remedy, but as a liberal, I do tend to say, leave them alone. It upsets me that there are people willing to be with a married guy, encouraging him to be disloyal to another woman, but that is a different story all together. I don’t see my stands as inconsistent. They are not mutually exclusive.
A few days ago was the furore over Rana Ayyub’s article on Amit Shah getting removed from the DNA website without letting her know. As it picked pace on social media, someone pointed out that NDTV had removed an article on the Herald House Case a few days before. The complaints on the latter came in after the complaints on the former becoming louder Liberals were held to be inconsistent in their stands again as they did not have much to say on the NDTV behaviour. This again brings us back to all actions are equal and liberals must say the same things irrespective of what the facts are. What are the facts? Not on what was covered but what happened to the articles. In the former, Rana Ayyub, a free lance journalist of known ideology was asked to write on the elevation of Amit Shah as President of BJP, which she did. Did the newspaper not know what tack she would take? Did they put the piece up without reading it? Is the editor saying we cannot tell you or Rana what we did not agree/like/think is wrong about the piece but it needed to come down, an acceptable answer to Rana? In the case of NDTV, it was their own reporter writing and they say they need to do some fact checking on it and took it down. Their reporter is not complaining. Rana Ayyub is. The support is to Rana and if Sunethra Choudhary had complained chances are many of the liberals would have supported her too. I am guessing liberals can see the difference and others cannot.
The overlap between liberalism, free thinking, secular outlook and left wing economic ideology is pretty high but you know, they are not the same. There are liberal free thinkers who believe government should intervene minimally in the markets but should ensure there are no monopolies. And many other such combinations. So yes when someone uses these terms interchangeably, you know they have no clue who is what. And that is why this long piece.