W’end Links: Modi, Liberal Nationalism & Mighty Men’s Conference

Dear Shantanu

I like the idea of liberal nationalism – which, however, is a highly nuanced and strategic concept, quite unlike brute nationalism advocated by fascists or other zealots. The nation is not a God-given precept to a liberal, but a creation of his own hands. Hence it must meet his needs, else (in extreme cases) opposition to the state can be justified. Because all liberal rights are guaranteed only within the bounds of a liberal nation, it is crucial that the nation be defended vigorously and vigilance exercised internally.

The theory of liberal nationalism is very complex and nuanced. It allows for a range of options but all options start with citizen vigilance and readiness to fight for his freedoms. I’m adding here an extract from my manuscript ‘The Discovery of Freedom’ available for public comment at:
http://www.sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/discovery.html

====
.. nation states are extremely fluid. Over time, new banners can force their way on existing banners. The American Declaration of Independence forced a new banner upon the British domains in America. At times, the purchase of territory – even gentlemens’ agreements – have created nations. Australia was created through an agreement among erstwhile British colonies.

History is a moving feast of national boundaries. Thousands of wars have been fought over disputed territory, or to expand national/tribal boundaries. Indeed, early Greek philosophers eulogised the expansion of boundaries and acquisition of slaves. In the end, reality dawns and the fighting fizzles out. Former foes often become allies; people intermarry; and nations appear, disappear, and reappear in some other form or shape. Therefore, acquiring additional territory must rank among the particularly stupid things that humans do. Why fight over the expansion of something as temporary as a nation? Ensuring strong self-defence, though, is an altogether different matter, not to be placed in the same category.

Excessive love of one’s nation becomes a terrible disease when we want to constantly expand our boundaries. It is a great waste of human life to expand national boundaries, take control of bits of land, only for one’s progeny to give them away, or for the land to be wrested away from them. Extending territory is not a sensible or sustainable activity. Much better to work towards political and economic unions instead (on the pattern of the European Union). That way the resources needed to guard borders can be minimised.

Since tribal banners (nations) remain a very powerful expression of our nature, peaceful methods of expression must be found. It is possible that, ultimately, as all nations follow the dictates of freedom and deliver good governance, the nation state will wither away into a cultural boundary. If nations offer high levels of individual freedom, then only languages and ‘national songs’ will differ. If freedom is universally assured, we could find the cultural home we are most comfortable with, and where necessary, migrate suitably. The world is increasingly becoming a smaller place. With pollution now an across-Earth issue, we need better coordination across national states. Not only have tribes and petty kingdoms outlived their utility, the nation state is also losing its primary relevance as the unit to defend human life and liberty.

Freedom is not uniformly available across nations today, forcing people to migrate from less free to more free nations. (Thus, in my own case there is no reason I would have left India but for its disastrous misgovernance – and my failure to organise political opposition to it). People ultimately have to vote with their feet when all else fails.

It is not reasonable, however, to wait for the equalisation of freedoms in some remote and distant future. Oppressed minorities such as the Jews in Nazi Germany have legitimate grounds to demand and work for their own self-defensive fortress. Secession is, however, an intermediate step towards the day when freedom will be more uniformly available, making it irrelevant to secede. Secessionist movements will, of course, need to demonstrate their political backing through democratic engagement (if available). If demonstrating political support through democratic processes is not an option, then force may need to be considered. Neither option existed for the unfortunate Jews of Nazi Germany. For them the only hope was got other countries to come to their help – which they did not, allowing 7 million Jews to die.

On the other hand, numerous secessionist movements in India seem to rush to the use of force without even exploring democratic options. By thus not displaying even basic regard for life and liberty, then effectively nullify their claim to represent the best interests of ‘their’ people. Random killings of people through bombs, etc., are totally indefensible, anyway. The path laid out by Gandhi in emancipating India through non-violence should be fully explored before rushing to violence. Terrorist secessionist movements in India should stop killing innocents and talk about the benefits of their cause. Before doing that, they should assert their in-principle allegiance to the Indian republic and first show us how their freedoms are not supported within the Indian union. They should also seek to form governments through a democratic mandate. Having done that, they should negotiate peacefully with the rest of India. If these movements kill people indiscriminately, why should we trust them to look after the lives and freedoms of ‘their’ people in some distant future? All they seem to be offering people is anarchy.

Either way, only after the ‘fortress’ is fully established and functional, can we meaningfully talk about the social contract that includes the defence of our individual property rights.

==
Regards
Sanjeev

Sabhlok-

>>>>It appears that you’ve picked precisely **one word** out of my 900 words!

Comment no 2 discusses the first para of comment no 1.
That para alone threw up a no of questions.

>>>> “…I did mean the Nazi and Italian fascists, but any xenophobic collectivists fit the bill very well, too. … Think communist China. Think religion-based nationalism in Pakistan and Islamic nations. ”

The tendency to put broad labels may not be appropriate.
China claims to practise Communism, which is an ideology(as claimed by them) that existed even before fascism rose in Italy. Moreover, Communism was imposed in a lot of countries during the last century. It is present in some form or other in many countries even now. To not recognise Communism for what it is and instead, to equate it to a much lesser known and even less practiced ideology like Fascism is poor discrimination.

Islam and its jihadi elements have been around for even more time.

The damage caused by the proponents of these two ideologies in terms of destruction of civilizations and killings of people have been much much more than Fascism.

>>>>>”I’m a fundamentalist about defending everyone’s right to be whatever they wish and to do whatever they wish – so long as they abide by the law (accountability) in the making of which they must have equal rights. ”

So you mean to suggest that practising muslims, christians, communists and even capitalists should abandon their ideologies and with equal rights make new laws together, to which they will be held accountable ?

Are you not seeking a dissolution of all differences, a uniformity in thought …? which is what these ideologies are also seeking, in their own way…?

There is something about laws too.

Taliban wants Shariah. That too is a law, as claimed by them.
Something that is lawful to you may not be so to somebody else.
But there is something called Righteousness that is above and beyond laws.
Laws can give guidance to Righteousness.
Your idea of law however seems to be a compromise between diverging thoughts rather than to uphold Righteousness.

>>>>>”Freedom, dear Incognito. I want a nation to defend our freedoms.”

Real freedom is the freedom of the mind.
That is something that all of us has access to, but which we do not seem to value nor practice.

>>>>>”Each of us is sovereign. That is the message I bring.”

The vedic sages had a more comprehensive idea of their selves when they declared- ” Aham Brahmasmi ” .

>>>>” Not nations. These are not sovereign in the ultimate sense. They are merely our creation and must serve our purposes, or else they become irrelevant.”

And what is our purpose ?

The purpose of our existence ?

>>>>>”Your calling me fundamentalist doesn’t bother me at all. You can call me anything you like. I will vigorously defend your right to say it. Your liberty is what I fight for, and stand for. ”

Nobody called you a fundamentalist. What was pointed out was that your statements in para 1 of comment 1 appears to be very similar to that of a fundamentalist. The observation was meant to set you thinking, introspect, not try to appropriate for yourself the halo of a martyr.

>>>>”I really must suggest you take the time to read the first five chapters of The Discovery of Freedom …”

Attempted.
Distinct lack of knowledge about ancient indian culture evident.

The first para starts with reference to “erstwhile alpha males” in brackets “male Brahmins”, “white Europeans” in that order, their imagined superiority over Harijans and women among others ‘having been given short shrift by science’.

By this ‘alpha male Brahmin’, do you perhaps refer to the Sudama of Puranas, who went begging to his old classmate Sri Krishna, who is considered a Yadava, an OBC in todays’ India ?

At least that particular ‘alpha male Brahmin’s imagined superiority was given short shrift some five millennia ago.
Another example is Drona. That ‘alpha male Brahmin’ went begging to King Drupada, got insulted, abandoned brahminical ways and became Kshatriya teacher to princes of Hastinapur.
Other ‘alpha male Brahmins’ of yore seems to have lead very frugal lives, subsisting on alms. Pretty poor way of being the ‘alpha male’.

The fact that ancient indians which included the so called ‘alpha male Brahmin’, revered women as equal to men, example- Saraswati has equal place alongside Brahma, Lakshmi alongside Vishnu, Parvati alongside Shiva, illustrates the falsehood of the next insinuation.

You can read more about the status of women in ancient india in these two posts- https://satyameva-jayate.org/2009/02/25/abul-kasem-rebuttal-maliger/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2009/04/10/women-in-hinduism-part-2/

It is a pity when indians themselves put down their ancient culture without understanding it.

One wonders why such indians refuse to see the worth of ancient indian culture that is apparent to foreign born people such as Francois Gautier, David Frawley, Koenraad Elst, Frank Morales, Stephen Knapp, Brannon Parker and many others.

What is the use of education when one cannot or does not do independent thinking, yet considers himself qualified to write a chapter on it.

@Incognito,
You are spot on. The problem is people jump the gun without understanding the essence of sanatana dharma. The more you read, the more you fall for it. Unfortunately people have scant respect for the same. There are multiple reason for the same and partly our education system is the culprit. The other issue is the dharmic gurus’s who represent us have been fairly unsuccessful in giving a logical meaning to many of our rituals .

Correct me here, but I think Sanjeev’s intellectual and philosophical fount is Ayn Rand rather than sanatan dharm, so Ayn Rand’s musings on religion seem to influence Sanjeev’s thoughts. Just an observation.