Any objective assessment of the man would reveal that his failures were many, real and substantial. His claimed successes, on the other hand, owed much to the fact that as the first Prime Minister of independent India, he was judged against the benchmark of what the British had left India in. The British was here as our colonial overlords, and they had little interest in India’s development. Therefore, a comparison with their record is setting the bar very low, closer to the floor.

Exactly how poor is Nehru’s record? A good beginning can be made by borrowing a couple of cues from a recent speech by the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. He was responding to a comment by Rahul Gandhi that one man riding on a horse cannot solve all the problems of the country, and his rejoinder was essentially that it all depended on the qualities of the individual concerned.

Soon after independent India came into being, the most pressing challenge facing the country was getting all the disparate princely states to integrate into India. The task was entrusted to two of the leading lights of the Congress party, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Nehru was given the mandate to integrate Kashmir (being a Kashmiri himself), while Patel had the responsibility to tackle all the other 600 odd princely states. As it happened, Patel quickly accomplished what he was asked to do, but the one state assigned to Nehru continues to fester, even after six decades.

Modi’s second point was about the state of agriculture in India after Nehru had ruled for a decade and a half. By the early sixties, India’s agriculture was in crisis, and we could not feed our own people. We depended on the United States to supply us with free wheat under their PL (Public Law) 480. As he put it, “Those were days when the stove in a poor man’s home would not light till the ships from the US had berthed at our ports.” In a largely rural country, India’s agriculture was reduced to a sorry mess. Modi went on to contrast Nehru’s record with that of his successor, Lal Bahadur Shastri, who laid the foundations of the Green Revolution with the clarion call of “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan”, but that is another story.

Modi’s indictment did not allude to one of Nehru’s biggest failures. This was the defeat inflicted on us by the Chinese, a stark example of how one man’s high-minded delusion can bring an entire nation to its knees. Almost everything about India’s humiliation had Nehru’s imprint, beginning with the naiveté of Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai, to the appointment of an opinionated and downright incompetent defence minister.

But to lapse into a recounting of specific instances of Nehru’s failures is to miss the wood for the trees. How Nehru wrecked India’s economy for three generations to come cannot be reduced into a list with items serially numbered from A to Z. As the first man in command, it was about setting a course for the ship and Nehru got the bearings completely wrong. When a leader with a halo embraces folly, the outcome is disaster because people are lulled into unquestioning acceptance of the idiocy.

Looking back, the idiocies were many. It began with an erratic moral compass that set out to locate equidistance between the free world and the totalitarian bloc led by the Soviet Union. Neutrality was the stated goal but in truth his heart lay with the Soviets. That explains the ill-concealed admiration for the Stalinist economic model that found echo in India with a planning commission dedicated to capturing “the commanding heights” of the economy. As it turned out, the commission succeeded only too well, and to our lasting misfortune. When the industrialist J.R.D. Tata spoke of the need for public sector enterprises to make a profit, Nehru chided him thus, “Never talk to me about the word profit; it is a dirty word.”

Fifty years after his death, we continue to pay the price with desperate poverty and rundown infrastructure. That’s not all. Nehru’s lasting legacy is the cobwebs in our minds that impede straight thinking on the economy even today. A country of 110 crores came to the conclusion, after going through all the due processes, that paying people to dig trenches was a great way to solve unemployment. The fossilisation of the Indian economic discourse (and the mindset playing host to it) began with Nehru.

The conventional defence offered by Nehru’s defenders is to redirect the debate to his legacy as a “true” democrat, that democratic institutions could take root in India when many other decolonised countries strayed into dictatorship. There is merit in the argument but here’s what it does not consider. The true test of a leader’s faith in democracy is not how he responds when he wins elections but his behaviour when he loses.

Nehru was fortunate that he was never tested. As the last survivor of that trinity of great freedom fighters, he had an aura about him that helped him win three elections despite delivering so little to his people. In defence of India’s electorate, I have already noted that the benchmark for comparison in those days was the tumultuous British rule that preceded Nehru, with riots and famine fresh in the mind. With these low expectations, it’s no surprise that Nehru came out smelling of roses all the time.

Would Nehru have behaved differently if electoral outcomes had gone in favour of those he disapproved of? We may never have a certain answer to this question but do keep in mind the autocratic way he dismissed the first democratically elected communist state government in Kerala. Moreover, Nehru was a liberal in the non-classical, debased sense the word has come to mean these days. Instead of liberty, this version of liberalism emphasises the expansion of the state to deliver ends deemed desirable.

Typically, liberals cast in this mould have faith in freedom of speech so long as the arguments oscillate within a defined range. They also have great faith in democracy provided the electoral process yields power to parties falling within the range of acceptability of their definition. Anything beyond, and the wolf is sooner revealed. Had he faced defeat at the hands of a party he detested (say, the Jan Sangh), I suspect that our picture of Nehru would have been closer to his daughter, Indira Gandhi.

By and large, it’s true that Indians continue to have an exalted image of Nehru. As common people we generally do not come to our own conclusions. We depend upon the intelligentsia to do our thinking for us and then tell us what to believe in. India’s intelligentsia is dominated by the socialist and the left-liberal types who call themselves liberals and progressives.

Ramachandra Guha is widely considered to be among India’s leading intellectuals of the left-liberal mould. In a recent article overladen with effusive praise, “The commanding heights of Nehru, “(The Hindu, November 13, 2012), he mentions Mikhail Gorbachev who, as a young law student at Moscow university, heard Nehru speak and was deeply impressed. Guha then proceeds to draw a conclusion straight out of a stand-up comic’s act.

“Thirty years after hearing Nehru speak in Moscow; Gorbachev helped bring about a peaceful end to the Cold War while permitting a transition to democracy in Eastern Europe. Unlike Soviet rulers in 1956, 1968 and 1979, he did not send troops into Soviet satellites whose people wanted an end to Stalinist one-party regimes. It appears the early exposure to Jawaharlal Nehru played at least some part in the reformist and reconciling politics of the mature Gorbachev.”

If you have missed the irony, here it is. A fleeting glimpse of Nehru helped Gorbachev change the world for the better. Back in his home country, people saw Nehru every day for 17 long years at the end of which they were scanning the horizon for a sighting of the next American ship bearing charity wheat under PL 480. India’s “leading” intellectual is blissfully unaware that Nehru’s commanding heights left the country plumbing the depths of despair and dysfunction.

What explains the Indian intelligentsia’s adoration of Nehru?

The simple fact is that every dysfunctional system breeds dysfunctional elite that returns the favour by singing paeans to the system. India’s intellectual elite is mostly the progeny of those who held high office in the Nehruvian bureaucracy and its many offshoots. Thanks to their access to power, and thanks to the wealth that comes with access to power in a dysfunctional set-up, they live American style lives in our grim, third world setting. When you (and your close family) don’t suffer the consequences of dysfunction, it’s easy to pretend there’s no dysfunction. Put another way, you don’t find fault when you don’t pay the price.

I once worked at an office where the traffic to the gent’s toilet was very high. Even when cleaned in the morning, it would stink by noon and using it was always unpleasant. One particular day, as I stepped in, I found the place as muddy and smelly as before. But as I got going with my purpose, I was taken aback. For a change, it all smelled so good. My gut reaction was to look around and recheck if anything was different. Nothing had changed. And then I found it.

The wall to which the urinal was attached had a ledge positioned approximately in line with my nose. Today, someone from housekeeping had placed a toilet freshener here. With every breath I took, I found myself inhaling its fragrance directly, before it could dissipate into the overwhelming malodours around. The toilet was dirty as ever but the experience had become pleasant. Cutting the story short, the intellectual class in India that adores Nehru is a victim of the strategic toilet freshener fallacy.

Nehru’s apologists will, of course, question whether his economic record is as bleak as what I’ve painted here. All that I ask of them is to read the arguments put forth by their fellow-travellers in the current debate over the Food Security Bill. Pay close attention to the percentage of malnourished children, the extent of poverty and hunger among the poor, and all the related statistics of misery and deprivation which is said to make an unassailable case for saddling the taxpayer with yet another boondoggle. Since Modi cannot be blamed for any of this, can we make a fair beginning with Nehru for a change?

When a nation holds its failures in high esteem, by definition, it is a failed country. The more we continue to hold Nehru in esteem, the longer we are condemned to poverty and backwardness, because it means we still haven’t come to grips with how and where Nehru went so wrong.

This is not to say that no men support the cause of feminism; far from it. They exist, in individuals and in groups; but, their support has low visibility. Some have even rallied under a sub-classification: Pro-feminists. While that is heartening to know, its breaking-off from the main provokes the inevitable question – why do men need a separate definition for the same cause?

The problem might lie with the word, Feminism – an excluding and exclusive term that possessively holds woman alone in the embrace of its roots. It might also extend to disquiet with what feminism has come to represent; a reason too why many women themselves fight shy of the term. What began as equality has gradually shifted to embracing entitlement and to a more radical form that mistakes misandry for empowerment.

The entry of fringe radicalizations has done undue damage to mainstream debate of the real issues by muddying common purpose. Yet, most women are uncomfortable with publicly denouncing these positions. Their hesitation makes men uncomfortable with lending full throated support on the larger issues.

The women’s rights movement started as a struggle, in the West, for equality with men in the political, social and economic sphere. As expected, the political goals were relatively easy to achieve. It was political equality that was the threatening notion of its time. Once that took root and rapidly spread, suffrage automatically followed in its contrail. The other two fronts were slow to keep pace. Rather predictably too; since change herein directly threatens the social order as it exists.

Equal pay for equal work is a principle most men align with reasonably. It has not yet translated due to structural impediments created by vested interests and delays in governance reform. This should have been the focus of feminism’s next major thrust. Instead, it was side-tracked by the tumult in families wrought by the rapid devolution of the social order.

It was Carol Hanisch, a sixties-era feminist who popularized the phrase: The personal is political. While that indeed is true; its corollary is not. The political is not always personal. Not in an emotional or social sense. The political and economic facets of equality for women can deservedly target the ideal position. However, on the social and familial front, equality is a hard nut to crack.

Here, the chasm splits wide open between the ideal and the actual. Change at this micro-personal level will not happen with a single tectonic shift. It has multiple interwoven interests and will necessarily be in fits and bursts with revisions and edits. Unfortunately, frustration with its tardiness has transformed feminism into activism aimed at enforcement. This is rightly interpreted by many as the long arm of the State extending into the personal spaces of relationships and families.

At the level of the family; feminism is but one cause in many and a feminist is just one hat. It jostles with multiple kinships, competes for space, and is no longer an identity absolute. With this contextual shift, there are many hyphenated roads to its end-goal. Expectedly, the feminist label has split into a bewildering mélange of: liberal-feminists, conservative-feminists, cultural-feminists, eco-feminists, material-feminists, pro-feminists, etc. The cleaving is especially jagged on social issues. Irrespective of the reasons this fractured identity has fragmented the faith. No more does feminism reside in an unquestionable resplendent absolute; it now cowers in the shadows of an adjectivized state.

Indian feminism reflects the heterogeneity of its origins. Broadly it can be grouped into two categories: activism against oppression and activism for equality. This neat slotting, while diligent on paper, is confounding on the ground. Oppression of, and brute violence against, women violates the lowest bar of their fundamental rights. Curiously, it is not restricted to any one economic or educational stratum. Disagreement between the sexes on this issue is rare and is the exception to the norm.

It is on the matter of social/familial/work-life equality that gender divide raises its clunky head. The easy transmutation of what is really an equality debate into one of oppression and the latter’s over-use as a convenient, brook-no-opposition, fallback for all and any disagreement, alienates men and denies both sexes the opportunity of a more harmonious co-existence.

At this juncture, the women’s movement would do well to heed the models by which political equality gained success. Time and again, we are shown historical evidence of the patterns by which a collective end-goal was achieved. The most successful ones are homogenous in purpose, have a well-defined goal, have multiple players invested in it and importantly, have invariably had the support of breakaways from the privileged class. ‘Subordinate’ groups have easier gained a seat at the table when they’ve commissioned the active support of ‘insider breakaways’. Whether out of genuine or opportunistic belief insider involvement is critical to the process.

For women; this implies the active and tacit support of men. Every familial issue – whether that is education, marriage, children, work-life balance, elder care and support – necessitates the hands-on involvement of both sexes. A cooperative approach to and with men will not only hasten the fruition of feminism’s goals; it will also ensure a stable and sustainable change in the social order. An inclusive and participatory change has a better chance with longevity than enforced and regulated change.

Equality at home is best achieved by a balance of compromises. Fathers and grandfathers (along with their women) were feminists before we were. They and many others of their ilk from even older generations made great and bold sacrifices to enable the empowering reforms of the 20^th CE. Whether as proto-feminists or pro-feminists, both women and men have more control over challenges than we are willing to accept responsibility for. One way of exerting control is through a mature response, not a shrill one. Through assertion; not aggression. Our mutually cooperative response to the challenges of our times will set the agenda for the coming generations. Ideally, (having transcended these divisions) that should be to merge feminism into a more universal humanism.

In the immortal words of one of Tamil’s greatest poets, a 19^th-20^th CE Indian Nationalist and an Ur-feminist, Shri. Subramania Bharatiar: Kangal irandinil ondrai; kuthi Kaatchi keduthidalamo? Pengal arivai valarthal; vaiyyam Pedamaiyatridum kaaneer [Would it be reasonable to destroy the vision that two eyes contribute to, by intentionally destroying the sight of one? Will the world not be a better place if we encouraged the intellectual development and progress of women?]

(Sincere apologies to Tamil readers and scholars for my weak attempt at translation)

______________________________________________________________________

(Image Courtesy- chsaplitprideandprejudice.weebly.com )

One such tribal kingdom that faced the brunt of the Christian onslaught in 1947-48 was the kingdom of Jashpur. Raja Vijay Bhushan Singh of the Jashpur royal family was the leader of the “Hindu-reaction”. Since then, the services of the Jashpur royal family to the Hindu cause has been unwavering. The Jashpur royal palace, “Vijay Vihar” has been a resting place for itinerant sadhus, saints and various Hindu holy men for more than 6 decades now.

The tribals of Jashpur hold the royal family in high esteem for their sacrifices and services to the upliftment of the tribal populace. Dilip Singh Judeo, the scion of the Jashpur royalty and the sitting BJP MP of Bilaspur in Chhattisgarh is known as the “King of the Tribals” in this region. These Jashpur royals have given up almost all their wealth to the welfare of tribals. Yet, Dilip Singh Judeo was accused of corruption by creating a misleading sting operation under the guidance of Amit Jogi (the son of former Congress CM of Chhattisgarh). Thankfully, the voters of Chhattisgarh saw through the machinations of the Jogis and the Congress-friendly media. Chhattisgarh has never voted for a Congress government since that Amit Jogi fiasco of 2003.

Vikas Mantra from the tribal heartland

“Congress gave India a new slogan, ‘Garibi hatao’ (get rid of poverty) some 40 years ago, but India is still grappling with poverty after 4 decades” avers Narendra Modi amidst rapturous applause from the more than 75 thousand strong audience in Rajnandgaon. He then goes on to add, “give Raman Singh ji 5 more years and Chhattisgarh will grow beyond Gujarat, that is the achievement of BJP in a decade (what Congress couldn’t achieve in 6 decades)”.

Modi has a knack of invoking regional pride like no other leader India has seen in its democratic history, but his regional appeal is a message coated in staunch nationalism. Thus when he spoke in Chhattisgarh on Saturday, his appeal was to the state’s pride on the development agenda of BJP’s Dr Raman Singh government.

This is the difference that BJP in general and NaMo in particular have brought to Indian polity. Even in a state like Chhattisgarh, where there is a history of Christian-Hindu political divide represented by Congress and BJP respectively, the agenda is now driven almost exclusively on the development plank. At the same time, Congress party and Ajit Jogi are still stuck in a time-wrap – a decade ago, I had the (good) fortune of interacting with Ajit Jogi (the then CM of Chhattisgarh) and his ophthalmologist wife to only realize their zealous commitment to Christian missionaries and their efforts at religious conversions of the tribes, an ideology they still hold close to their heart as per media reports.

The path that the saffron party has traversed from the Dilip Singh Judeo territory to the Raman Singh terrain is a story that can potentially transform India. The ideological base of Hindutva now has development agenda at the core of its DNA. This is a fact the Dilli BJP has never come to terms with, while the state units (including even Karnataka) of the party are way ahead of the learning curve.

The transformation of Modi is complete

If Karnataka is used as a barometer, then the NaMo factor is now an exclusive construct of the development agenda with almost no baggage of religious appeal. Narendra bhai campaigned in three cities/districts of Karnataka; Bangalore, Belgaum and Mangalore. In the first two districts, BJP performed exceedingly well, winning about 21 seats, but in Mangalore the NaMo campaign failed miserably.

In Bangalore and Belgaum, the message was loud and clear on development and progress, so NaMo met with great success. Whereas in Mangalore, the attempt was to repolarize the Hindu voters in order to counter the minority consolidation in favour of the Congress party and the verdict was pretty clear to even the most superficial political observer. Thus Modi today has become almost an exclusive icon of development, with no religious baggage despite non-stop media hankering.

This is what the intellectual class of India has failed to understand, the transformation of NaMo as purely a phenomenon of development politics. While the intellectual-media complex is still stuck in expired definitions of quasi-religious faultlines, India has started to align itself to the politics of aspiration and development. This is not just a sub-regional anomaly limited to the western state of Gujarat, as the secular-intellectuals would want us to believe. Development politics is now a pan-India wave stretching from Chhattisgarh to Tamil Nadu and the biggest exponent of this new wave is Narendra bhai Damodardas Modi.

Epilogue:
Nitish Kumar, the Bihar CM, undertook a “Adhikar Yatra” last year across his state. What is scantly reported in the national media is the number of protests and the amount of opposition and rebellion against Mr Kumar wherever he travelled in Bihar. The flashpoint of that state-wide tour by the CM was in Khagaria district when there was large scale violence and the CM had to actually suspend his yatra midway.

“Raman Singh is a CM with the courage to re-visit the people of his state through Vikas Yatra to explain to them the welfare and development initiatives during his rule”, quipped Modi in his speech in Rajnandgaon yesterday. He then went on to take a dig at Nitish Kumar by adding, “There are few chief ministers, who had to suspend such an yatra following protests from the people”.

Development politics of India today is not just about courting media houses to get positive press, but it is to make real difference to the lives of the people. The sooner Nitish realises this, the better it would be for his political future. Sadly, Nitish Kumar is too enamoured by Dilli’s sophistry of secularism and is living in a fantasy land of the “Tilak” and the “Topi”.

Pushyamitra Sunga, a high ranking general stepped out of the neatly stacked Mauryan infantry lines and confronted the Lord of Magadha. The emperor looked at him in mild annoyance but soon that expression turned to terror. Pushyamitra had drawn the scimitar out of his scabbard and drove it through Brihadratha’s chest. In one swing of the shoulder, the sun set hurriedly over the Asokan empire as steel met flesh. A new Sun would rise the next day, over the Sunga Empire.

The terrifying control Pataliputra exercised over its dominions during the time of Ashoka had already been diluted and this coup in the royal capital only made the Maharathis ( the local Governors) more ambitious and avaricious. Amongst them who took advantage of the confusion in the plains of Magadha, was a young man in the Deccan. Srimukha.

Little did he know that his mere assertion of independence would sow the seeds to one of the largest empires the Deccan would ever know – The Andhra Satavahanas.

Sungan dominance was challenged by the Kanvas a century later and it was a Satavahana king Pulomavi who kills Susarman, the last Kanva king and ends the dominance of Pataliputra over Indian politics forever. The Mauryan empire fell prey to its great size and centralized administration, like all large empires which tend to believe in centripetal usurpation of power do ( Remember the Khiljis after Allauddin or the Mughals after Aurungzeb). It was supplanted to a large Satavahana empire which captured the Deccan and the Kushans and Indo Greeks who took over the NorthWest.

The first great king of the Satavahanas was Satakarni I. From the information which the Nanaghat inscription of his wife Naganika offers us, we can conclude that he performed a Aswamedha sacrifice and proclaimed himself Dakshinapatha Swami ( a title to be famously used by Pulakesin II several centuries later as he defeated HarshaVardhana in the only defeat the Uttarapadha Swami would ever face).

Satakarni I was undoubtedly the initial empire builder for the Satavahanas who raised them to becoming the paramount sovereigns of Trans-Vindhyan India spreading outward from the Godavari Valley challenging the Greeks of Punjab and the Sungas in the plains of the Ganges.

It was the river Narmada. The year was 78AD. The horses of the Western Shatrap ruler Nahapana squarely faced the armies of the Satavahana king, Gautamiputra Satakarni. The Western Shatraps were the local descendents of the Sakas, the warring tribes of Central Asia.

As horses rode into battle over the din of war drums and clashing of swords, the young man from the plains of Godavari stood observant as his generals raised the flags of war, brilliant in vermillion and yellow. It wasn’t a mere battle. It was the sole event which would alter history as India burst forth on her unavoidable assimilation of all foreign tribes. Nahapana should be destroyed. That was the oath this young man had sworn in front of his mother and he would fulfill it. The war capitulated quickly as the Satavahanas fought fiercely with the speed of the Sun ( from whom, some say they descended as the Saptavahanas) and the Saka rulers were routed. The Satavahana dominions in the Deccan were safeguarded from the continuous pressure from the invading Iranian tribesman and the important ports of the West coast moved into their hands. Bharukachcha, Sopara, and Kalyana.

To commemorate his victory, Gautamiputra performed two Aswamedha yagnas, took the title of Trisamudrapitatoyavahana (one whose horses had drunk waters from 3 oceans). Not a big fan of elaborate minting, he instructed the coins of Nahapana be restruck with the Satavahana royal symbols at Jogulathambi. He ordered the earlier Vikrama calendar to be abandoned. It was the Era of the Satavahana now.

His conquests are generously extolled in the Nasik inscription of his mother Gautami Balasri. It which describes his dominions to extend from Banavasi in Karnataka to Kanchi in TamilNadu in the South to Aparanta(Konkan), Anupa ( MP) and Saurashtra in the north. He is said to have defeated the Yavanas (Greeks), the Shakas( Scythians) and the Pahlavas. He built a second capital at Dharanikota, near the present day Amaravati in Guntur district of AP, in addition to the traditional Pratishtana in the Maharashtra region.

Although he gave himself the title of “EkaBrahmana” and proclaimed the superiority of the caste system, the Satavahana empire has sterling examples of the promotion of minority faiths and languages. Buddhist art, learning and monasteries were promoted. The caves at Karle and the Buddhist stupas at Kanheri and Amaravati were built during this period, with generous donations from the Satavahana rulers. Various sects among the Buddhists sprung up.

Gunadhya wrote Brihatkadha in Paisachika language and Hala wrote Gathasaptasati in Pali. The great works of Bhasa, including the memorable Swapnavasavadatta and Aswaghosha composed his Buddhacharita and the greatest of the Mahayana scholars, Nagarjuna composed his seminal work Mūlamadhyamakakārika (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) during the Satavahana period in Sanskrit.

Gautamiputra Sri Satakarni (often revered as the Salivahana) was succeeded by Vasisthiputra Pulamavi who continued to expand the empire. He was succeeded by Vasisithiputra Satakarni who was defeated by the Western Shatrap ruler Rudradaman. It should be mentioned here that Rudradaman was the father in law of Vasisthiputra Satakarni but doesn’t seem to have any qualms in defeating his son in law in war, twice actually.

    His Junagadh inscription specifically states that the only reason that the Satavahana king was allowed to live after the defeat was due to the alliance which bound the two kingdoms. (Ouch!)

After this defeat, the Satavahanas never recovered except for a brief period of glory under Yajna Sri Satakarni.

The emperors of the empire were known for their peculiar custom of matronymics. Gautamiputra and Vasisthiputra were among the rulers of this line who consciously decided to be identified for posterity through their matrilineal heritage than anything else. Romila Thapar in her book is deliberately vague as to the importance of this practice and its allusion towards a matrilineal and probably matriarchal practice among the Satavahanas. Even though inheritance to the throne was certainly patriarchal, this matronymic idea is unique to the Satavahanas. It should also remembered that the two major inscriptions of their period were on the orders of the royal queens (Nasik Inscription by Gautami Balasri and Nanaghat inscription of Naganika) and these are the major sources of information for us about the Satavahana Empire.

The Satavahana Empire became the first among several successive Deccan Empires that defended the plateau successfully from the northern invasions. (Taking the mantle from them were the Vakatakas, Chalukyas of Badami, Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas of Kalyani, Kakatiyas and the might Vijayanagara Empire).

The Deccan route became an important trading route between the mineral and rice rich southern parts of India and the rest of Northern India and the Satavahanas defended this route zealously and promoted trade and commerce. The ports of Kalyana and Sopara were teeming with Oriental and Occidental trade, making it truly the Mercantile Age.

One of the most underrated Empires of the south; the Satavahanas shall remain tied to the destiny of India forever, bound by a silken thread of a singular administrative instruction. The official Saka Calendar which the Government of India has adopted was started by the greatest of the Satavahana kings, Gautamiputra Sri Satakarni. AD 78.

In today’s episode Deepak Singh taks with CRI Editor Prasanna and social media commentator RealistIndian on the upcoming Karnataka elections and impact on national politics

First is the ” Chasing the Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State”. The book traces the political dynamics and the interwinding of the religion since the early days of the Islamic world. It deconstructs the much romanticised notion of an “Islamic nation”, Caliphate and Islamic state. In fact, so powerful is the work that Tarek has become the hate figure of Islamists and the book was dropped by its Indian publisher after the first print citing potential for communal disharmony! His second book “The Jew is not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that fuel anti-Semitism” takes on the demonization of the Jews in the Muslim world. He is also a columnist and a regular appearance on the talk shows on Islam and Islamism.

At the age of 63, he is on his first visit to India with his wife. In his own admission, he feels like coming back to his “Janambhumi”. He is here to do the research on the his upcoming book ” Jinnah’s Orphans” which traces the many of the problems facing the Indian sub-continent- political, social or religious- to the Muslim separatism of the last century. Be it Kashmir, Pakistan, ongoing decimation of the Indian civilization including Indo-Islamic culture, stateless Bihari Muslims in Bangladesh, genocide of Balouch and Shias, purging of the local cultures of Sindh and Punjab due to Urdu supremacism, rising Islamic extremism and fascism, all can be traced back to the Muslim separatism and the dream to create Islamic supremacy in India.

He was invited by Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi to deliver a lecture in the shamelessly named “Yasser Arafat” hall on 11th April, 2013. But his talk was cancelled at the last moment due to “unavoidable reasons”. The story is that gang of several Islamofascist students had threatened to disrupt the speech. Also, many of the Islamic “academics” also had reservations about allowing a “Secular Muslim” to speak in what Tarek has aptly called “Mini-Pakistan” in Delhi. As expected, the usual statement deploring the “unfortunate incident” by liberal and academic establishment was not heard who are otherwise quick to breath fire on almost any issue anywhere in the world. No left activists, organisations like Sahmat and others, no alumni association, no liberal group has come forward to defend Tarek’s right to speak and student’s right to listen him.

But fortunately, the whole incident has once again brought to light the rising power of the Islamofascism in India. This is not an isolated incident but comes in the backdrop of monthly communal riots in U.P, ethnic cleansing of tribals by illegal Muslim Bangladeshi settlers in the North-East, Owaisi’s speech in Hyderabad, violence in Azad Maidan in Mumbai, vandalism of Buddha’s statue in Lucknow to protest for Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and banning of films, plays and exhibitions even remotely critical of Islam or even Muslim extremists. It seems that today, Muslims are the only religious group, who are totally incapable of listening to any criticism, not only of Islam but anything related to the Islamic history and polity.

They protest if you criticise Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb, they defend the Islamic Imperialism by citing “benefits” it brought in the form of Taj Mahal! Imagine Indian Christians springing to a fight if you call British foreigners and plunderers! And at the same time, Muslims don’t think twice before criticising the others and their religion & society even to the point of demagoguery, not only Zakir Naik, Owaisi and the cheering crowds but the Muslim academics, journalists too.

Why do Muslims suffer from such extreme self-righteousness and supremacism is a curious question in itself? Why such a naked double standard and hostility towards non- Islamic people and cultures? The reasons must be explored in the depth if one wishes to understand and rectify it. Otherwise strains of fascism will assert themselves again and again like they did in 1947 India, in 1990 Kashmir or today in what is left of India.

First reason is the very philosophical nature of Abrahmic religions. The messianic religions wedded to the prophetic cult of one true God and only one true path are behind the most of the horrors inflicted upon the humanity in recorded history. By their very nature they are not about simply believing in one supreme power, as it is claimed, but in an idea of God which mandates the belief in prophets, book of the God, God-made rules for humans to order their social and political life etc. The claim of believing only in God is only so much true.

This belief in God-made social and political laws leads to attempts to impose the true interpretations of the true book of the true God which in history has led to nothing but wars, death and destruction of entire civilizations and regression of scientific and rational thoughts. It must be understood that intolerance towards what is considered heresy or kufr, Inquisition and Jihadi vandalism, like in Timbuktu or Bamiyan are not an aberration but a zealous expression of the Abrahamic monotheism. From the belief that God is infallible, to that his book is infallible, to that his prophet is infallible, to that his religion is infallible, and to that followers of that God’s religion are infallible is but a short step.

Second reason goes back to the earliest history of Islam itself. Within a very short period early Muslim Arabs had carved out a huge Empire for themselves. The tribal fierceness, unity provided by zeal of the newfound expansionist religion, capable charismatic leaders and other geo-strategic reasons ensured that Muslims emerged victorious in their assaults on established powers of Iran, Byzantine Middle-East and others. Egypt, Syria, Berber states, Iran etc fell with ease to the forces of Islamic Imperialism.

Ultimately, this victorious march was halted in southern France in the west, desert in the South, Byzantium in the north and Battle of Rajasthan in the east. But the early victories had affirmed in the collective consciousness of the Muslims that these victories were due to their faith and steadfastness on the God’s true religion. Sovereignty belongs to Allah and he chooses followers of his rightful religion to rule and establish his divine order in the world. The halt was temporary as the victorious march of imperialism began with new vigour in 12^th century.

The Indian lines were breached by the Turks who succeeded in establishing the Delhi Sultanate and at the same time Turks were increasingly successful in rolling back the power of Byzantium which culminated in the conquest of the Constantinople in 1453.

Islamic Imperialism was the order of the day and even Europe cowered under the shadow of “Sword of Islam” until late 17^th century. In India, the early Muslim period was that of wholesale death and destruction, brutal repression and religious persecution. Buddhism was all but wiped out from Bamiyan to Bengal. The depopulation of the older urban centres and founding of new settlers colonies was an important feature of this period. All this imbued the ruling upper-caste Muslims with an unshakable sense of superiority over the dark skinned coward Hindus who could be crushed at will.

This indeed was true until 14^th century when Vijaynagar and Rajput confederacy under Rana Sanga began to reverse the fortunes. The game began to change by 18^th century, Marathas and Sikhs decisively broke the power of the Imperialism in India and European states were embarking on their own Imperial endeavours, routing the forces of the Islamic Imperialism wherever they went. It may be lost to the people cheering likes of Owaisi that Muslims have suffered defeat after defeat whenever they met the “Hindu Baniya” in the battlefield in the last three centuries.

Battle of Panipat, 1761, was an aberration and anyway from 1771, the Saffron flag of Marathas unfurled over Red Fort (Mughal Emperor ruled under Maratha protection) while Afghans were thrown out of the equation after the war. But still the myth of invincibility and bravado remains among a large section of the Muslims of the sub-continent especially among Jihadist and Armed corps of the Pakistani army. The false sense of being the rulers for a thousand years is deeply entrenched and gives rise of intense contempt for the pagan Hindus.

Third factor has to do with the social structure of the Muslim society. It is not usually acknowledged that Muslim rule on India was the Imperial rule of the foreign dynasties entrenched in the urban centres like Delhi. Turani, Irani, Mughlani had all the powers concentrated in their hands with some crumbs thrown for the Hindustani nobility. The ruling feudal upper-caste Muslims were the ones who were hit hardest by the eclipse of the Islamic Imperialism. It was hard enough to be under the heels of the British but it was abhorrent to see the “dark skinned Hindus” returning to the power.

In fact, genesis of the Muslim separatism and Pakistan goes back to the early 18^th century. Besieged by the Marathas in the Deccan, rising British power in Bengal, Sikhs on the North-East and “Kafir Shia” Iran in the West, the landed gentry of the upper-caste Muslims were later horrified by the idea of the democracy in the non-Muslim majority India. This complex interplay of the superiority complex, fear and now inferiority complex of being out of power has resulted in the sulking of the entire community. Add to this the massive undercurrents of the assertion of rights and pride by the Pasmanda Muslims and one have the upper-caste Muslim elites running for the cover of religion. This is the class to which likes of Owaisi belongs.

It is a last ditched attempt to safeguard the old power and privilege by whipping up the religious passion and uniting Muslim population by raising that eternal cry of  ”Islam in Danger“. Otherwise it is clear that forces of democracy and modernisation will sweep the old guard including Mullahs and Maulavis off their feet. Therefore, it is necessary to shield the Muslims masses from any rational discourse on religion, history & politics and keep perpetuating the myths of glories of past and blaming others for their misfortune. How on the earth, then, can persons like Tarek Fatah be allowed to speak?

Also, the collapse of their imperial glory has left the Muslims perplexed. Why are they behind dis-believers in each and every aspect? How come God’s true followers are being defeated by the kafirs everywhere? Has God abandoned them? But why? Surely, Muslims are best of the people and if they are falling behind others then it certainly must be wickedness and treachery of dis-believers, that Hindu Baniya and eternal Jew, which has robbed them of their rightful place in the world! The superiority complex and self-righteousness has prevented them from any rational examination of their faults.

Certainly, people who are on the right path by following the true religion can do no wrong! So, it must be the wickedness of the others, which has succeeded because Muslims have strayed from the true message of Islam. Hence, there is an upsurge of the revivalist and puritan movements in the Islamic world. The increasing conservatism, textual orthodoxy and desire to establish the seventh century laws to find that right path which once propelled them to the top of the power pyramid is all too visible. It can be seen even in the relatively moderate Muslim communities of India, Indonesia, and Turkey etc.

It has led to the remarkable increase in the intolerance towards non-Muslims and secular/liberal Muslims. Any criticism of Islam or Islamic world or personalities immediately incites huge protests and violence. Muslims, even educated ones, are increasingly becoming “touch me not” type, who are quick to anger and prone to threats of violence if they disagree with anyone on matters even remotely related to Islam. That is why people like Tarek Fatah are treated with such hostility as they deconstruct the dominant narrative of the Islamic world which glorifies imperialism and conquests and harbours sympathy with terrorist groups like Taliban. Also, intolerance towards non-Muslims is reaching the boiling point, be it in Europe or India or the Muslim countries themselves.

Only recently, The Hindu reported that Muslims are objecting to the Hindu festivals in the villages where they are in majority, case of Islamisation of Kerala is all too well known to be repeated here. The No-Go Sharia zones are mushrooming in Europe at an alarming rate with the majority of the second generation Muslims wanting sharia to be imposed on the secular democratic countries of their residence. None of this is a good indication for the future of both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

But what is more surprising is that Left has abandoned whatever wisdom it had to become the running dog of Islamic Imperialism. It has abandoned the protesters at the Shahbag Square in Bangladesh, tribals of the North-East, its fellow leftist in Iran, Egypt, North Africa, ex-Muslim writers like Taslima, Rushdie etc., it has sided with the Islamofascist of Kashmir, Jamaat-e-Islami, with theocracy of Iran , terrorist groups like Hamas and “understands where the Taliban is coming from”!

It is quick to defend the Islamofascists by labeling any criticism as Islamophobic, racist, communal and fascist! Not surprising given that it was the communists who had provided sophisticated arguments to the Muslim League by converting the communal demand for Pakistan into a struggle between Muslim peasantry and Hindu zamindars.

It was the communists who sided with the Islamofascists during the Islamic Revolution in Iran, 1979. In both cases they paid a heavy price as they were the first to be eradicated, both in Iran and Pakistan. But still it seems that they have not learnt any lessons from history. I don’t think that they side with Islamists simply because of the old dictum of the enemy of the enemy being a friend. I think that the rot runs much deeper but this is not the place to elaborate on it. What matters is that Jamia Millia incident has once again exposed the alarming rate with which forces of fascism are taking hold in the country and how they are being greeted by the deafening silence.

The rightwing (being clever and cunning) knew that social media was someday going to come into prominence. It positioned its activists strategically in places like Twitter right from the beginning. Soon enough, as social media matured, these lackeys of rightwing organizations are all over the place running their propaganda. They strut about as a dominant force on these media, with the larger aim of creating an illusion of being a dominant voice in society itself. (Which they are not, as we all know, because the Idea of India is solidly socialist and stubbornly secular). Moreover, these activists are abusive. Driving away neutral voices with abuse is part of their strategy.

And now the Congress is also wising up and getting into the game. (Poor, naive, dumb-in-a-cute-sort-of-way Congress! It allowed itself to be beaten by the rightwing in putting technology to devious use!). Realization has dawned upon it that it has been outmaneuvered by the wily rightwing. So it is also injecting its activists into social media, who are successfully out-shouting the entrenched Right. If you have seen the Feku-Vs-Pappu stand-off, you sure understand what I mean.

The conclusion therefore is that social media is at best a battlefield of partisan and funded activists, and at worst a generator of random noise and abuse. (By the way, to contain this abuse, we need to start thinking about regulating social media). If you rely on social media for information, you’d only know what activists want you know, not what really is going on in our society. In contrast the mainstream media, whatever be its faults (and being reasonable I agree it has some), will always remain the bona fide barometer of public opinion.

Those who advance the aforementioned critique clearly believe that the apparent dominance of the rightwing on social media is the result of a conspiracy. I argue below that they believe so partly out of ignorance, and largely out of the need to live a comforting denial.

The conspiracy theorists are unaware that the rightwing had a strong presence in the Indian quarters of cyberspace from quite early on, from the time when the internet was almost unknown in India. Networks resembling social media existed even before World Wide Web came on the scene, except that the terms “social media” and “social networks” were not coined yet. One such pre-historic social network is Usenet, popular in the ’80s through early 90′s. It perhaps originated the “user-level publish-subscribe” messaging model that is at the heart of modern social networks like Twitter. This model meant that a user could publish content addressing no one in particular, and any number of subscribers could consume it.

The India-centric parts of Usenet buzzed with rightwing activity. Kashmir, Ram Janmabhoomi, Common Civil Code, secularism, communalism etc were the raging topics of the day. No prizes for guessing which viewpoints had the most backers: right-wingers trumped opposition, of course. (I believe journalist Chidanand Rajghatta, then reporting to Indian Express from Washington DC, observed and commented in Indian press on this phenomenon). Note that internet in those days, and therefore Usenet itself, was confined largely to universities and research institutions in the developed world. It would stretch credulity to argue that this early dominance of the Right on Usenet was the result of a deep conspiracy. The internet was hardly known in India, and it made no sense to “strategically” “invest” in it. But if one must set aside reason and argue thus nevertheless, then a bigger conspiracy must be proposed: that the rightwing coached and trained its members to infiltrate universities around the world. Obviously, it is an absurd argument.

Our conspiracy theorists, for many of whom internet is still a novelty, are ignorant of this history. Conspiracy does not account for this rightwing skew on Usenet, but relating it to the demographic that used it does. This demographic is the creme de la creme of urban Indian middle-class, for Indian students in foreign universities came from the aspirational section of this segment. By late 80′s, in the pre-economic-liberalization era, this class was disillusioned with the Congress party, its corruption-soaked socialism and divide-and-rule secularism. The BJP at that point in time was on the ascendant, at least as far as capturing the imagination of the middle-class is concerned.

Following this line of thought further, we must surmise likewise that today’s social media approximates the views of the demographic that patronizes it. This demographic as at the moment still the urban middle to upper middle-class. And evidently, it is disillusioned with UPA government. The question hence to ask is not why the online segment of the middle-class is beholden to rightwing views, but how is that mainstream media of the English language variety has no place for the sentiments of the market segment it sells into.

This leads us to the denial angle of the aforementioned critique. One of the means by which mainstream media tries to derive its legitimacy is by claiming to reflect public opinion. But for MSM to acknowledge that the views prevalent on social media are indicative of any significantly sized segment of population, let alone of public at large, is to contradict decades of its track record, to admit that journalists and social pundits were deceiving us all along. Cognitive dissonance therefore compels the ancien regime of opinion industry to persuade itself that rightwing dominance on social media is the result of conspiratorial activism.

Left-liberals are particularly stricken with this denial disease, because the stark reality of social media busts their long-propagated myths. Indeed, their denial borders on the schizophrenic. For example, they explain away Modi’s popularity on Twitter and Facebook as an optical illusion created by fake followers and (supposedly miracle-working) PR firms like APCO. They insist with great vehemence that the contempt for the UPA regime seen on social media is not the result of UPA’s poor performance, but merely the propaganda of rightwing activists. The Left particularly sets much in store by propaganda. It believes that people’s lived experience can be negated by sustained campaigns constantly blaring out a blatantly untrue message that contradicts that experience. (And, looking at opponents through tinted glasses, the Left also believes that they are on to the same propaganda mischief as it is!) But time and again such a belief was proved wrong. No matter how shrill is the campaign that Modi is “feku” and his development works are a myth, the people who voted him in a third time were not swayed by it because their lived experience told them a different story.

Social media, unfortunately for the propagandists, mirrors and approximates this lived experience. Those who do not have first hand experience develop perceptions on the basis of reports of those who do. Reports and perceptions reinforce each other in a positive feedback loop at the same time that falsehood and error are detected and filtered out. In the context of any piece of information, there is eventually a state of equilibrium, in which that piece of information is as accurate as it can get. This is not to say that crowd-sourcing of information does not have its pitfalls. Sure it does. For example, it is possible to succeed in propagating false or misleading information on social media for a short while. But in the end, the angularities cancel each other out. The net result is no poorer, if not superior, in accuracy and reliability to that MSM can achieve. Wikipedia is a good example of this phenomenon: the system is self-correcting and self-examining to the point of transparently discussing its own performance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia .

All of this also does not mean that social media is not susceptible to manipulation. Networks like Twitter, after all, are commercial entities much the same way as mainstream media outfits are. If Twitter can be bought out, yes, why not, the game can be rigged. But then it may cease to be a credible medium. Moreover, at $10 billion valuation, Twitter is a less cost-effective proposition than buying out, with the same budget, approximately 5 crore swing voters at Rs 1000 apiece.

 (Image Courtesy- cartoonistsatish.blogspot.com )

]]> http://centreright.in/2013/04/can-a-rs-100-crore-campaign-change-the-writing-on-the-facebook-wall/feed/ 13 http://centreright.in/2013/04/to-zahir-janmohamed-2/ http://centreright.in/2013/04/to-zahir-janmohamed-2/#comments Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:53:54 +0000 Saswati Sarkar http://centreright.in/?p=19293 Dear Zahir

I have been one of your avid readers over the last few months. Let me express my unadulterated admiration for the style of your exposition, which becomes all the more engaging as you compellingly use the personal anecdotes that you acquired during your Gujarat sojourn. More importantly, though, I find your columns educational because I disagree with many of the perspectives you present. You must therefore indulge me for taking the liberty to try and engage you in an open dialogue over the differences in our ideological positions.

I learned a little about Gujarat during a month long trip that I undertook to satiate my wanderlust. A highlight of my trip has been the engaging conversations that I had with the blue-collar Gujaratis who I would not normally encounter had I been on an academic conference circuit. I started with Ahmedabad, visiting the Nal Sarovar bird sanctuary on December 9, 2012, the morning that I flew in from Philadelphia. I entertained myself with conversations with my boatman in between the bird sightings. He aired his grievances about business slowing down due to the recent prohibition on tourists from driving up right to the lake. I desisted from sharing the environmental ground that I believed motivated the above move in order not to impede his candor.

Little later his cousin ferried me in his motorbike to another viewing location. Emboldened by my success with the first stranger, I initiated a political conversation with my chauffeur. I asked him who would win the impending state elections – he would not hazard a guess. I unabashedly trespassed on his privacy by asking him who would he vote for. Pat came the answer, “Kangress “(Congress). He went on to tell me that the political choices in his village were divided, with some support- ing Bhajpa (BJP). I never asked either about the faith they profess, but, their names told me they were Muslims. The point, Zaheer, you would have noted by now, is that they did not hesitate to reveal their grievances or political choices, to a rank outsider, even though the choices evidently were against the ruling dispensation which was very likely to be voted back.

I could continue with similar stories, for example, that of the auto-rickshaw driver in Vadodara, also a Muslim by faith, who did hazard a guess on the electoral outcome, that in favor of BJP. But, I will fast forward to my Gir safari in a post-election Gujarat. You may know that the limitations in the habitat is threatening to arrest the growth spurt in the Asiatic lion population in Gir. Some neighboring states like Madhya Pradesh have offered to host a part of the Asiatic lions in its forest premises. Gujarat government has so far refused to oblige. I asked the guide and the driver of my safari of what they felt about the prospect of translocation of some royal residents of Gir.

My guide summarily rejected the possibility asserting that “sher bhi nahin denge, unke baal bhi nahin denge “. My driver was more measured in his response, yet in full agreement with his colleague. Incidentally, Zahir, the guide was a Muslim and the driver a Hindu. I would not digress to articulate the opinion that I hold regarding the merits of such a translocation, but rather dwell on the fact that I observed in my guide a confident Gujarati Muslim, an equal stakeholder in his state’s economic progress as his Hindu brethren By now, you must be contemplating on whether I talked only with Muslims during my trip – not quite – I just highlighted my interactions with them since they revealed a mindset which is in stark contrast with your observations.

In this connection, Zahir, you voiced your concern on the Gujarat government’s refusal to disburse the scholarship for students who are religious minorities. I wonder why religion ought to constitute the basis for selective economic empowerment – shouldn’t current economic status suffice? Wouldn’t such selective benefits be perceived discriminatory and exacerbate the religious chasm in our society? Granted, India has since independence administered economic protection based on castes; it is debatable if this has substantially empowered the target population. Regardless, it is undeniable that a citizen (read Hindu) can not alter her caste, but can migrate to a new faith. Will it be acceptable then if religious conversions are motivated through selective economic benefits?

I will move on to the actual trip now. Starting from Ahmedabad, we, that is my mother and I, completed the Northern circuit enjoying the splendid sun temple at Modhera, the unique artwork at Rani ki Bhao at Patan, the Buddhist ruins of Vadnagar, and paying obeisance to Goddess Ambaji. The northern loop was followed by a day trip at Varoda, the Indus valley ruins at Lothal, and a couple of days at the Blackbuck national park at Velvadar, one of the best places for viewing the black bucks amidst a dense grassland. We proceeded to the Jain pilgrimage of Palitana and ascended the 3800 odd steps up to the exquisitely carved Shatrunjaya temples, subsequently opted for a brief foray out of Gujarat into Diu and returned for the Somnath pilgrimage.

Another pilgrimage followed, that at the last abode of the Asiatic lions, Gir, of which I wrote before. We alternately celebrated faith and reveled in nature as we treaded into Dwarka and the unique Marine national park in Jamnagar; a fascinating marine-animal safari in the latter while wading into the sea during a low tide remains etched in my memory. The highways were among the best I have come across and the landscape was dotted with windmills, a pleasant reminder of the government’s focus on alternate energy. The last stop was the incomparable Kutch, devastated in the earthquake of 2001, but now a resurgent industrial hub. Kutch is also a tourist’s delight what with the Ranotsav at the white Rann, the spectacular Indus valley ruins at Dholavira and the wild ass sanctuary at Little Rann. And, thanks to the splendid local road network, acquisition of exquisite block-printed shawls, or Ajraks as they are locally known, from the Muslim artisan villages around Bhuj have become remarkably facile.

A combination of public and private transport helped us realize this odyssey.We found our hotels mostly through the world-wide web and sometimes through helpful auto-rickshaw drivers, and organized our onward travels and local sight- seeing without availing of the services of a travel agency. We traveled at odd hours, at times, and I ventured out in the streets well-past midnight, sometimes by choice and at other times by compulsion. Yet, we felt safe throughout.

My confidence led me to not so advisable course of actions of disagreeing vociferously with service providers who I thought were fleecing us. And, more often than not, a rank outsider like me, who also happens to be a woman traveling without a male companion, would comfortably win in the debates, without any knowledge of the local language whatsoever. My mother wisely counseled that I will not get away with such recklessness in my hometown, Howrah, a suburb of the progressive metropolis of Calcutta. But, I did, in Gujarat. I was therefore naturally surprised to read that most women you know no longer feel safe in Gujarat. Have my experience then been a fortuitous coincidence, more of an exception than a norm? The conversations I had with fellow women travelers  students, mothers of teenaged daughters, however discredit the above conjecture. More conclusively, media groups like India-today, ABP-news and IBN7, some of which have not been particularly supportive of the current ruling dispensation have felicitated Gujarat for ensuring safety of the residents (1)

I was very disappointed to note from your articles that housing discrimination is prevalent in Gujarat. Having spent only one month, that too as a tourist, I would of course not have a first hand knowledge of the gravity of the challenge. But, let me take you instead to my home state where I do have a firm knowledge of the ground realities. West Bengal is typically associated with socially progressive values in public perception owing to the three-decade long left regime there.

Even there, I can assure you that Muslim families will be discriminated against if they seek rentals at suburban middle-class family homes. Similarly, there are large Muslim neighborhoods where Hindus will not be accommodated. Moving South, we learn from the Hindu (April, 11, 2013), that Hindus and Muslims live in separate neighborhoods in V. Kalathur, a village in the Perambalur district of Tamil Nadu; worse, Muslims are objecting to Hindus holding religious processions through the streets in their neighborhood. Note that housing discrimination is not limited to faith-based-distinction but includes many other considerations: single women, and likely single men too, will have similar plight locating rentals of their choice.

Extrapolating, housing discrimination and ghettoization constitute sad realities of entire India, but then, are these phenomena limited to India?

It is worthwhile to note that in many states in US housing discrimination based on gender identity, marital status, sexual orientation continues to remain legal. I am certain you have been to China-towns throughout US, and individuals not of Chinese descent are rarely welcomed to houses in the China-town of Philadelphia.

There are also predominantly Indian, Bangladeshi, African-American neighborhoods throughout US; without further elaborating on this unseemly phenomenon, it is therefore safe to conclude that segregation has gone global. The large scale prevalence of this social evil does not make it right though, for example, I have deliberately chosen a cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic neighborhood of Phildelphia as my home if only to avoid being cloistered. It is however unreasonable to attribute this evil to the social structure of one specific state, and even more, to the policies of one government. It is my understanding that segregation existed in Gujarat long before Mr. Modi or even his party assumed office.

I did notice that you associated Modi government with misogynistic practices. More specifically, you mentioned that Modi is seeking to distance himself from misogyny which in effect insinuates that he was associated with the same. I learned from you in a social media platform, where we have recently connected, that your statement has been motivated by the failure of the Gujarat government to control the rapes that were perpetrated during the unfortunate riots in 2002.

Rapes constitute one of the most barbaric violation that members of our species inflict on each other, but should the failure to control them in one ghastly event of mass-violence constitute sufficient basis for concluding misogyny?

By that rationale, many other governments in the world ought to be accused of this social evil. For example, US forces have been accused of rapes in Afghanistan as late as December 2012, which ought to implicate Obama of misogyny, more so, because he is their commander-in-chief, while the rioters do not report to Modi. I would have hoped that an author of your reputation would have alleged the same somewhat less cursorily. Regardless, to assess the veracity of your preconception, I delved into governmental policies subsequently. I share my findings below.

India has had a checkered record of gender sensitivity: on one hand she has been one of the first to be governed by a premier who was a woman. On the other hand, as late as 1987, a hapless bride, Roop Kanwar, all of 18 years of age, was burnt in the pyre of her husband; worse, all those who cheered as she reduced to ashes have been acquitted in a court of law.

The young, progressive and western educated prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, incumbent when this atrocity was perpetrated, had also negated the spousal maintenance that a 62 year old Shah Bano had secured from her former husband through a verdict of the Supreme Court of India. The negation was accomplished through the Muslim Women Act, 1986, enacted by Mr. Gandhi’s government which en- joyed absolute majority in the Indian parliament at the time. While several empowered women have succeeded as entrepreneurs, academics, scientists, engineers and doctors in the 21st century India, many unborn female foetuses are routinely aborted leading to an alarming gender imbalance nationwide.

Thus, a comprehensive agenda that seeks to ensure the (1) social and physiological well-being of women (2) their economic empowerment and (3) participation as equal partners in decision processes is imperative.

Above and beyond, women’s empowerment initiatives ought to focus on the most economically disadvantaged woman since her more fortunate sister would likely be equipped with the tools to contest and even win against gender discrimination as and when she chooses to. It was heartening to note that the empowerment drive in Gujarat has been structured accordingly.

But, presuming that by now I have already overstayed my welcome on your indulgence, I will mention only a few flagship initiatives of the Gujarat government that seek to accomplish the above goals. The beti bachao andolan (“save the girl child”) has arrested the severe decline in child sex ratio noticed be- tween 1991 to 2001 (from 928 to 883 women per 1000 men), and in fact slightly enhanced it to 886 per 2011 census.

The trend is therefore positive though restoration of the gender balance will need a sustained effort. Modi utilizes many of his highly publicized addresses (eg, Google hangout in 2012 August, address to the women’s wing of FICCI) to draw public attention to this men- ace confronting Gujarat, as also the entire country. Gujarat government has undertaken the Kanya kelavani initiative for furthering girl child education, which is now in its tenth year of operation. I learned that that the literacy rate of girls has increased by 13% and the school dropout rate has dropped by 29.77%; the dropout rate in primary schools is now 2% (per census 2001 and 2011 data). The chief minister auctions the gifts he receives every year and contributes the proceeds towards this initiative; the auction in February 2012 fetched 2.04 crore Indian rupees.

The Chiranjeevi Yojana that has substantially reduced the infant mortality rate has been awarded the Asian innovation award by Singapore Economic Development Board and The Wall Street Journal. A whopping amount of 1094 crores has been provisioned annually for the Mission Balam Sukham initiative that seeks to counter malnutrition by attending to the needs of 44 lakh beneficiaries including pregnant women, nursing mothers and girl children. The CAG report on integrated child development scheme has revealed that Gujarat has reduced its percentage of malnourished children from 70.69% in 2007 to 38.77% in 2011.

Regarding economic empowerment, the sakhi mandal project provides a micro finance platform for funding initiatives of rural women in the lowest rung of the socio-economic strata. Skill development and entrepreneurship are being promoted among single women, particularly widows. To incentivize property ownership, property registration fees have been waived for women. Gujarat is striving to provide 50% reservation for women in local bodies.

Towards enhancing the electoral participation, in an election address, the chief minister had publicly appealed to women for voting in large numbers (voting percentage has traditionally been substantially lower among women). That, and concerted efforts by the election commission, ensured that the percentage of women voters in Gujarat increased from 57% per cent in 2007 to 68.9% in 2012. Not surprisingly, some of the worst media critics of Modi, like Aakar Patel, Mahesh Langa, Rajdeep Sardesai have ceded that Modi commands a strong support base among the women in Gujarat. In a fitting tribute to his contribution to women empowerment in Gujarat, Modi was invited to address the annual general body meeting of the ladies’ wing of the industry lobby Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI).

I conclude this rather long monologue with the hope that we continue this discussion further, and learn from, if not agree with, our divergent perspectives. I will look forward to get together with you whenever you happen to visit Philadelphia.

Regards
Saswati Sarkar

Footnote

(1) They have adjudged Gandhinagar and Surat as the best cities in India in the category of crime and safety, Rajkot as the safest for women and Gujarat as the best big state for ensuring citizen security.

You can find a PDF version of this post here.

Undoubtedly, these groups bicker much among themselves and are not part of any monolithic Right; however, they all have their place in national politics as long as they represent a community of interests and values within the state. CRI recognizes this diversity and welcomes it, and The Right People tries to talk to different people to better understand their views and aims.

In the seventh episode of The Right People, CRI editor Jaideep Prabhu talks to Shailesh Pandey. He is the man behind #Alakh2011- A quest to bring unknown heroes their due respect and attention.

Download

Previous episodes

Ritwik Priya

Sandeep Balakrishna

Jaymin Panchal

Mediacrooks

Sunanda Vashisht

Amit Malviya

mrhayata/flickr

In February 2009, British philosopher Phillip Blond’s essay “Rise of the Red Tories,” published in London’s Prospect magazine, sparked a transatlantic discussion about the failure of politics, both Left and Right, to address our most pressing social problems. “We are a bipolar nation,” he wrote, “a bureaucratic, centralized state that presides dysfunctionally over an increasingly fragmented, disempowered, and isolated citizenry.”

Each side has had its revolution. Liberals’ cultural coup overthrew traditional mores and installed government as the fount from which all blessings flow. Conservatives swore allegiance to the market, enthroning capitalism as arbiter of ultimate worth. In so doing, both enslaved the individual to forces beyond his reach and leveled the intermediate institutions that once grounded and valued him.

Blond’s call for a new dynamic civic movement based around association has become a book, Red Tory ^[1], just released in Britain. He explains, “Red because it caters to the needs of the disadvantaged and believes in economic justice; Tory because it believes in virtue, tradition, and the priority of the good.”

During Blond’s recent American speaking tour, New York Times columnist David Brooks observed that in this country, rising contempt for the political class has taken a more libertarian expression, most recently in the Tea Party movement, but allowed that civic association might be more effective in restoring public trust.

Here we offer a taste of Red Toryism, along with a discussion of whether these ideas could gain traction in the U.S.—or whether they even should.

We live in a society of decreasing circles. More and more of us know fewer and fewer of us. We live alone and eat by ourselves, often with a TV or computer rather than a human being for company. If we do marry, the time an average relationship lasts decreases with each passing year.

In the Anglo-Saxon world, we abandon our old and increasingly care badly for our young. Our grandparents can recall a vivid life in which aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces wove together the social fabric of a stable, mutual society. Nearly half of all children are born out of wedlock. Many grow up without a father, some without any loving parent at all. The young people emerging from this background, denied any real education in public and private virtues, are easily seduced by glamorous dreams that promise consumption they cannot afford. Untouched by ideals of love and fidelity, they operate free of commitment, discipline, and responsibility. These unreformed teenage idioms become adult habits and ruin lives by creating people unable to bond or relate.

For men, especially those at the bottom of the social scale who are increasingly losing out in education and career advancement, an emasculated life at the margins of society awaits. For successful young women, having a degree is fast becoming an indicator of a childless future. No one would choose this outcome nor wish it upon anyone else, not least because it drains the energy from domestic life and compounds the terrifying fate of getting old alone. Everywhere we look, the ties that bind are loosening, and the foundations of a secure and joyful existence are being undermined.

What is the origin of this degradation? Looking back over the past 30 years, we could blame longer working hours that families must put in, a situation itself compounded by the financial necessity that in most households both adults must work, higher levels of personal debt, job insecurity, distrust of institutions, and fear of each other. Our society has become like a ladder whose rungs are growing further and further apart so it is increasingly difficult to ascend. Those at the top have accelerated away from the rest of us by practicing a self-serving and state-sanctioned capitalism that knows no morals and exists only to finance its own excess. Those in the middle are being crushed by bureaucracy and the effort of squaring stagnating wages with higher demands. Those at the bottom are more isolated and despised than ever before.

But decisive as these factors are, they do not add up to the social disaster that we are living through and that many, perversely, increasingly regard as normal. A healthier society could have resisted these trends. A society that still had strong families could have ensured a lifestyle that secured rather than undermined the economic base of the household. A society that still had neighbors who knew one another could have created trusting communities, and they could have produced institutions that served the needs of people rather than the bureaucratic demands of a distant and hostile state.

But through the privileging of alternative lifestyles, the prioritizing of minority politics, and the capture of markets by monopolies, we have destroyed the sustained and sustaining society. Little wonder that in a world in which binding norms, civil behavior, and notions of the common good have ceased to exist, frightened, isolated individuals call upon an increasingly authoritarian state to impose the order that we can no longer create for ourselves.

The loss of our culture is best understood as the disappearance of civil society. Only two powers remain: the state and the market. We no longer have, in any effective independent way, local government, churches, trade unions, cooperative societies, or civic organizations that operate on the basis of more than single issues. In the past, these institutions were a means for ordinary people to exercise power. Now mutual communities have been replaced with passive, fragmented individuals. Civil spaces have either vanished or become subject-domains of the dictatorial state or the monopolized market.

Neither Left nor Right can offer an answer because both ideologies have collapsed as both have become the same. Those who construe the libertarian individual as the center of current rightist thought actually draw upon an extreme Left conception that finds its original expression in Rousseau, who held that society was primordial imprisonment. It was Rousseau whose social theory forced the diversity of the world to conform to the general will—which was but this same individualism writ large—thereby sponsoring the rationalist and secular red terror of the French Revolution. In fact, any anarchic construal of the self requires for its social realization an authoritarian statism to control the forces that are unleashed. Collectivism and individualism are but two sides of the same devalued and degraded currency. And this has been the history of recent modernity—an oscillation between the state and the individual that gradually erodes civil association, which is in reality the only check on the extremes of either.

The 1960s New Left, to counter the authoritarian state it created, built a personal zone free of control in which to repudiate all standards and sell the poisonous idea of liberation through chemical and sexual experimentation. But when these New Left individualists preached personal pleasure as a means of public salvation, they were not resisting state control. They were, through their demands for freedom without limit and life without responsibility, undermining all autonomous self-governing structures, leaving a dreadful legacy of anarchic individualism that required state authoritarianism as the only way to re-impose order and society. Contemporary libertarian individualism and statist collectivism created each other and are locked in a fatal embrace that destroys the civic middle and the life and economy of the associative citizen.

This whole scenario dawned on me when I realized that my left-wing friends didn’t really believe in community. They only believed in choice. They supported abortion because they found it validating, a demonstration of real personal autonomy. But they think that fox hunting is terribly cruel and so should be ardently opposed. No doubt the same dispensation finds similar expression in the United States.

The Left harbors a deep and abiding hatred of fixity and tradition, a loathing of anything settled. In Anthony Giddens’s Third Way—the book that was behind the Blair revolution in Britain—he talks about how a new cosmopolitanism will free people from nature, and one gets the sense that Cool Britannia so envisaged is the permanent destruction of taboo and tie. According to the Blairite radicals we have to constantly rewrite ourselves by a willful assertion that wipes the slate clean and lets us begin again through the permanent act of choice—as long as such volition shows no teleology or direction. Nobody is told what to choose because the moral act in our contemporary paradigm isn’t what is chosen, it’s the act of choosing itself. Indeed, to choose is to repristinate and repeat the idea of oneself as an isolated, atomistic agent.

The contemporary Right all too often believes exactly the same thing, but expresses it through economics. The dominant actor for right-wing theory is the self-interested individual. The invisible hand is meant to mediate goods and allocate resources according to the price system and the efficient market cycle. But that “free” market produced a massive centralization in capital, and it fed an asset bubble whose expansion and disastrous contraction has been underwritten by the state.

What has been exposed is the shared agenda of cultural libertarianism on the Left and economic libertarianism on the Right. There really was no difference between them because both were upholding the same perverted liberal ideology.

The breaking of that ideology began in the United Kingdom when David Cameron was elected as Conservative leader and began using the phrase “broken Britain” to refer to the dislocation that was happening in our society. Suddenly conservatives were talking about social justice, and it wasn’t the failed form of “compassionate conservatism.” It was a revival of an original One Nation Toryism that was acutely concerned with the interests of the bottom half of the population.

This was violently attacked by the Left. Liberal journalists were caught in a bind: “This is nonsense. The lives of the poor are fine. Oh no, we can’t say that: we’re left-wing. Well, it’s not broken, it’s just different. If people want to have seven partners in one week and to take drugs in front of their children, that’s their choice. But wait, that can’t be right. We just won’t talk about it then.” The Left was completely wrong-footed, and conservatism, which had been out of power for three elections and could easily have been out for another, rose to the top of the polls by adopting the mantle of social justice.

This was not wholly unique. During the 19th century, the Tories were far more radical and more inclined toward the cause of the poor than were the liberal Whigs. It was the conservatives who largely led the campaign against slavery, who argued that the conditions of the white working class in the mills were analogous to those of black slaves, and who pushed for reduced working hours. It was the Tories who through the factory acts opposed the Whigs forcing women and children to work 16 hours a day.

Conservatives need to look back to William Cobbett, Thomas Carlyle, and John Ruskin, who were critics of authoritarian statism as well as denouncers of self-serving capitalism. As conservatives, they hated the cultural consequences of industrialization—the creation of a landless, dispossessed mass forced to work at subsistence levels, cut off from any cultural enrichment. Then came Hilaire Belloc’s 1912 tour de force, The Servile State, in which he denounced both capitalism and socialism for instituting master-slave relations. The capitalist monopolizes land, ownership, and capital, forcing the formerly self-sufficient to work for subsistence wages. The socialist dispossesses in the name of general ownership and communal monopoly. For the worker, both have the same result.

Because this new conservatism echoes a nobler and more radical past, it has great resonance. But it is still allied with the idea of the old neoliberal model of markets. Conservatives can care for social justice, but they still have to support the political economy that had done great damage to the bottom half of society. In 1976, the bottom 50 percent of the British population had 12 percent of the wealth (excluding property). By 2003, that percentage had fallen to 1 percent. So much for the idea that assets and equity will through market mechanisms evenly distribute themselves. A recent UK government survey showed that asset inequality between the 90th percentile and the bottom tenth was 100 to 1—a massive capture of assets by those at the top of the tree.

Now I view myself a pro-market thinker who advocates a popular capitalism and is persuaded by what the utopic thought on the Right wanted: a market economy of widely disbursed property, of multiple centers of innovation, of the decentralization of capital, wealth, and power. But neoliberalism has delivered none of these things. It has instead produced centralization; reduction in plurality; the driving upward, not the driving downward, of opportunity, leverage, and innovation. It has re-inscribed the very things it purported to end.

A vast body of citizens has been stripped of its culture by the Left and its capital by the Right, and in such nakedness they enter the trading floor of life with only their labor to sell. These individuals created by the market-state settlement cannot form a genuine society, for they lack the social capital to create such an association or the economic basis to sustain it. All neoliberalism has done is change class to caste and cut people off from the means whereby self-improvement can result in a genuine change in circumstance.

But most people don’t know what has unhinged their lives, what has driven them and us apart from each other. We don’t know why the ideology we spout and the language that we claim as our own has delivered a situation radically different from what they purport. Liberalism has linked Left and Right into the most illiberal political formation we have yet crafted. I attack it in my book from the point of view of liberty itself:

I am in part appalled by the legacy of modern liberalism precisely because I take myself to be a true liberal. I believe in a free society, where human beings, under the protection of law and guidance of virtue, pursue their own account of the good in debate with those who differ from them and in concord with those who agree. Since in this life we cannot know all that can be known and all human knowledge is conditioned by our own lives and the culture in which we are immersed, we can never transcend this condition and know directly and completely the ultimate principle of everything that exists…

But it does not follow that there is nothing to be known. Unfortunately, all too many British students, who have suffered the misfortune of ten weeks of bad French philosophy, or empiricistic analytic philosophy of a more homegrown kind, emerge from university with the deep and abiding conviction that there is no such thing as objective truth and that everything cultural is arbitrary. They carry into their twenties and beyond the view that any claim about truth is hierarchical and therefore synonymous with fascism and all manner of evil and conservative consequences. Happily convinced by the radical import of this message, too many of our talented young people give up on the possibility of transformative politics and assiduously work their way into the managerial and governing class of our country. Once there, with self-interest duly satisfied, they repeat and institutionalize the same compliant liberal nostrums, which ironically translate into increasingly centralized and bureaucratic procedures that exclude the poor and those who have not been so well-positioned or so well-advantaged to work the system. While the idea of a universal relativism doesn’t survive the first brush with serious rational reflection, such juvenile dictums have permeated our governing elite and undermined the foundations of all our great institutions…

If we are just empty, atomized individuals whose only mode of progress is whim and personal inclination, then no common bond can exist between us, because bonds limit will and subject us to something other than ourselves. For the liberal, there is no more profound violation than that. Moreover, a self-interested individual needs the state to police relationships with other individuals. Ergo, extreme individualism leads to extreme collectivization—and back again.

This defines our political life. The Left loves collectivization: the state is a moral proxy for anything I do; the state protects my rights so my little individualisms can subsist and my cultural liberalism can then be defended by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Right enforces an economic system that supports exactly that vision.

Those dominant oscillations in the West—between the extreme liberalism of the Right and the extreme collectivization of the Left—are one in the same and subtend from the same origin: from a violent, secular liberalism that broke with the antique model of liberty and has essentially destroyed both the Left and the Right.

I want to suggest three ways to move forward: economic, political, and social.

First, we must acknowledge that the whole of our free-market economy has been captured by the Chicago School. Because we’re only focused within competition law on price utility as the interpreter of what would be a good outcome, the bigger your company, the cheaper you can deliver goods. So we pursue monopoly in the name of freedom and asset capture in the name of wealth extension. What we have produced as a result, from the Right, is a whole ideology of competition but no competitors. We’ve created a condition in which large businesses dominate—via a rigged market of rent-seeking capital—in an economy that cuts off for the majority the path to mobility and prosperity.

What do you do for people who aren’t that clever, or that well positioned, or that rich, but who are hard-working? Well, it’s permanently low wages for you—and for your children, and your children’s children. You say you would like to open a store or a business, to have some financial autonomy? Well, we can’t have that. The truth is, we can’t create a situation in which you could prosper because you can’t compete—you can’t bully suppliers, you can’t cross subsidize, you can’t access the supply chains that are already controlled by the new monopolies, so you can’t capture the price utility that those big concerns can. (No matter that the corporate model is subsidized by various tax breaks.) Consequently, there is no route out for many of those in the bottom half of the population.

Until we can change that economic structure, we cannot break the law. So staying within the private sector, we need to adopt an older liberal model and broaden it with a Catholic, distributist, or even Austrian account of the notion of various plural senses to give human beings a chance at a stake in the world. An economy not wedded to a single market model susceptible to the winds of global finance could spread wealth throughout the sectors, creating a resilient and plural economy capable of self-sustaining in the face of the collapse of one segment.

I believe in the free market, but we haven’t had a free market. In a brilliant paper, the head of monetary stability at the Bank of England, Andrew Haldane, recently asked why the speculative economy has done so well. Because the state has taken all the risks. Capital will always seek the highest return, and if you look at the rise of the state and the way it has legislated the banking sector, it has essentially (through deposit, capital, and liquidity insurance) taken on the risk of investment banking activity. Investment bankers can take any risk and not pay any price. Because of this, all capital is centralized. Why would you go to Wisconsin to open a smelting plant when you can get a much safer and higher return in Wall Street or the City of London because you are engaging in the highest return activity at a risk premium covered by the taxpayer? The most you can lose in high finance is your original stake, and sometimes not even that, as there seems no limit to what the state will do for finance capital. If you add up all the debt in the UK—personal, state, and corporate—it comes to 468 percent of GDP. This could mean 10 to 20 years of de-leveraging—a generational economic contraction. There’s nothing free about that.

Along with the private sector being captured by big capital, the public sector has been captured by the big state. The public sector should be broken up—not privatized out, so that big-money interests could essentially gain the difference between the wages of those in the public sector and the wages they were prepared to pay, but turned into employee-owned co-ops. Let’s have worker buy-outs instead of multi-leveraged management buyouts that game both stakeholders and workers. Let them de-layer and de-managerialize their own professions, and let them have a stake and deliver the service they’ve always wanted.

In terms of public assistance, I argue for a power of budgetary capture. Millions of welfare dollars are spent, yet all that ever does is make recipients passive. Ordinary people, recipients of public largesse, can’t in any way create the associations and culture that can be part of their own renewal. So why not allow citizens’ groups to take over government budgets and run them for themselves? Imagine women bonding together because they don’t want to see their children fall into crime and degradation. In giving these people power over their own communities with the public money that has been subsidizing rather than transforming their lives, we will be giving the poor capital. And if they can gain access to the market, they might really create the free economy that everyone has been claiming but no one has been delivering. Then we’ll have a situation in which the state won’t regulate the small and the intermediate out of existence, a situation in which people can genuinely compete.

In the political realm, we have to admit that democracy doesn’t work particularly well, mainly because it’s hugely centralized and substantially captured by vested interests. We need to turn it upside-down—a doctrine of radical democratic subsidiarity that would allow local associations both to select and vote for their own candidates. We can’t do that in the current political settlement. It’s too locked; there are too many vested interests. But if, like budgetary capture, we had a democratic capture, we could send democracy back to the streets. If we could ally that political economy with actual democracy, we could really have bottom-up associations and render the central state increasingly superfluous.

This sort of subsidiarity isn’t a fetishization of the small. It’s a belief in the most appropriate, and that can even be large transnational corporations. I don’t, for example, believe in a localized nuclear industry. In addition, there will always be a role for the state as a kind of ultimate guild or virtue culture that can step in when things go wrong. In that view, it’s not Robert Nozick’s night-watchman state nor is it the centralized state of the Fabian socialists. The state becomes a facilitator of the sort of outcome it wants, but it has to be agnostic as to how people realize that outcome. And only if the outcome isn’t being realized—for instance, if poor people aren’t being educated—should it step in.

Finally, the real recovery has to come in civil society itself. Society should be what rules, what regulates, what is sovereign. Both the state and the market must be subservient to renewed civil association. This requires a restoration of social conservatism that recognizes the claim of the common good over the free agency of the individual. Rather than being a reactionary force that makes war on minorities or vilifies one-parent families, it should, for example, promote the understanding of the family as a feminist institution that because of its reciprocity and mutuality liberates both men and women to pursue the ends that most of them want, which is human flourishing, probably involving children. It should also reach beyond the family to restore the social square. Placing people in relational matrices recreates for those who don’t have a nuclear family the possibility of a civic and extended one.

In Britain, there’s a part of Birmingham called Castle Vale that has had no government money. But they drove from their streets the drug dealers, the prostitutes, the criminals. They took complete control of their area purely through social capital and self-organization, and all the indices of crime and violence dropped to rates unseen by any sort of state action. By having that social capital, they were able to capture political and economic power.

This is the essence of the Western liberal tradition: the rise of association—a state that isn’t dictated by the oligopolies of the market and the central government. The task of a radical conservative politics is to recover this: the middle life of civil society. Villages should run villages, cities cities, and neighborhoods their own streets and parks. Additionally and most importantly, a transformative conservatism must take on the rampant individualism of the self-serving libertarian, not least because an individualism that undermines all social goods by denying a virtue-binding code and moral belief is not a conservative philosophy. On the contrary, extreme individualism is a leftist construct and should be recognized and abandoned as such.

The future is there to be gained. It is the politics of the middle, the life of the civic, and the empowerment of the ordinary. It is to be hoped that a radical conservatism embraces this opportunity and creates and facilitates this future for us all: free association and a self-organizing citizenry producing the norms and the universals that alone license a civic state, a plural society, and a participative economy.

Phillip Blond is director of ResPublica in London. This essay is partially adapted from a speech delivered at the Tocqueville Forum at Georgetown University.

This article has been reprinted with permission.  Copyright TheAmericanConservative.com. You can find the original here