A senior
journalist and columnist Sagarika Ghose’s ‘Why I am a Liberal’ is related with
individual freedom. She focuses on the contemporary social, political and economic
issues in India, especially those which are imposed on individual freedoms by
the Big Government(s). The democratic values; liberty, equality and justice
have been continually trembling because
the Big Governments are imposing the number of new norms in the name of
so-called ‘nationalism’ which leads to destabilise and damage the social fabric
of India.
When Ghose defines the basic term ‘liberal’ she comprehends all the
contextual references in history, even she understands the limitations of the
term then why she is using this term as main theme of the book? Because she
thinks that word ‘liberal’ is central to all social, economic and political
debates at this moment. She believes that ‘the Hindutva nationalist government
born in 2014 has shattered the fragile yet prevailing liberal consensus that
had existed since 1947.’ So in the
present political and social scenario the importance of progressive and liberal
thinking is more significant as compare to the period of the twentieth century
because people are being divided in the name of religions, casts and creeds.
‘Creating political divides is the essence of extremist ideology’, which is
very hazardous for the healthy democratic essence. She claims that M.K. Gandhi
was not just the father of nation he was also the father of Indian liberalism
because he did not believe in enforcing his personal ideology through
government agencies; and Jawaharlal Nehru was a ‘social liberal’ and B.R.
Amedkar was a ‘quintessential liberal’ respectively. So her liberalism is
multi-dimensional.
Sagarika Ghose has been working as a journalist from the last three
decades, so she understands how the governments and corporate bosses control
the media in India that is why she realises that ‘institutionally, India’s
press is dreadfully and shockingly weak’ because ‘muscular nationalism’ has set
new norms in the contemporary journalism. She considers that anti-national is
the blanket term to delegitimize and marginalise all those who raise questions
in the ‘Modi-era zeitgeist. Even intellectuals are divided in two major
categories ‘nationalists’ and ‘urban Naxals’.
All though India is known to believe in diversity because Indian
political and social system is much liberal. But new-India has changed this
definition now if anyone wants to live in India he or she has to prove his/her
nationalism by sporting all the ‘bans’ imposed otherwise he or she would be
categorized as ‘anti-national’. That is why Sagarika Ghose is claiming that
individual freedom is important because the people of the world’s largest
democratic country cannot be bound to certain believes of the any ruling party.
She strongly criticises scaremonger in the name of nationalism because she
trusts in civilisation which is ‘the idea of India’. She takes number of
examples from history, politics and mythology to prove the cultural
diversification in India. ‘Indian patriotism is not about making enemies of
other human beings, it’s about making enemies of injustice, oppression and
prejudice.’ she notes. It is shocking that the most of the prominent scholars,
writers and reporters had been attacked, even killed and some got threating
letters/emails every day they feel insecure their life because the far right
groups are so active in the Big governments.
When the orthodox Hindus imposes prohibition of meat or any
non-vegetarian food with the help of mob or the Big State at that time they
degrade and damage the true spirit of a religion which endorse the sectionalism
and sectarianism. Ghose says that the religious extremism in any form is an
extension of politicization and leads to degeneration and deterioration of a
religion. She finds that the Hindutva has some injudicious elements which have
nothing to do with the true Hindu traditions, the political Hindu are
politicizing Hinduism merely. This thesis is proved with applicable quotes form
The Bhagavad Gita where she authentically differentiates the true Hindu and a
political Hindu; at the end of this discourse she concludes that ‘Hinduism sits
easily with liberalism because of its rejection of authoritarian power.’ So she
is very clear about the true spirit of a religion and its importance in our
life; she quotes some significant incidents form the holy books to prove
something in the context of liberalism and cultural diversities in India.
India has the second largest Muslim population in the world but what
an ironic that they feel ‘not safe’ in their own country because some political
‘agents’ and their accomplices are constantly asking their loyalty and
commitment to the ‘nation’ which is hazardous for Indian democracy.
She says that the decision of demonetization was an act of
‘rampaging’ Big State power, because at the movement the government had a not
only ‘temporal power’ only but she had a certain ‘sacred power’ that is way the
decision of demonetization was apotheosised as a purification rituals. She believes
that coalition governments have tended more liberal, consensual and respectful
than governments with massive mandates because the massive mandates may lead to
centralise the policies, endorse the ‘ban culture’, stamp out individual
freedom and break all the institutional checks on the power of the Big State.
She acclaims the work of Narendra Dabholker, Govind Pansare and
Gauri Lankesh who made conscious efforts to resist Hindutva majoritarianism or
‘saffron terror’. Ghose has a faith in liberal ideology; she has a firm
determination that ‘the pen is the foremost enemy of the sword because the
sword does not have a solid case against the pent.’ But what a satirical that
every government tries to control the power of the pen, even in ‘secular
congress’ she finds some culpabilities, ‘It was secular congress who in Indira
Gandhi’s time imprisoned 253 journalists and Rajiv Gandhi, who tried to bring
in Anti-Defamation Bill.’ So her
retrospective analysis of historical events is much balanced. ‘The true journalist
is a patriot when she tells the truth, a blind ‘nationalist’ when she falsifies
it for political ends’, she writes. She genuinely believes that it is the duty
of a journalist to reveal the truth. Ghose finds historic recurrences in the
two major political parties in the BJP and the Congress like: ‘A Congress
government once created a terror-spreading Jarnil Singh Bindranwale in Punjab
in the 1980s; today’s BJP-led government rarely condemns terror-spreading
cattle protectors or gau rakshaks.’ So she demands a genuine accountability
form the Big State that a state should act against perpetrators of such type of
terror and violence.
Ghose rejects reservation for women in politics because liberal must
discard the quota mentality and the group identity mentality because that type
of reservation undermines individuality for the sake of narrowly defined
collective.
We always live in a current and contemporary history because in our
times a history writes itself. This book reshapes some liberal thoughts a manifesto
for Indians who believe in individual freedom in the context of contemporary
history. Though, this book does not give us a certain answer of the
contemporary political, economic, and social issues rather than it is a
question bank which defines the accountability of the Big State as well as the
accountability of the individual one. This book consciously makes an effort to
save the ideology of liberalism in India and spirit of federal
multiculturalism. If one understands the true spirit of liberalism in India he
or she must read this ‘polemical book’.
Contributed by Satinderpal Singh Bawa
Comments
Post a Comment