Thank you for your comments. Comrade Jayant seems all set to take up the mantle as you gracefully retire, so please do not forget to drop in on here every once in a while. His entry surely is one of the most dramatic ones in recent times anywhere on any blog.

1. We are not discussing whether extremism is good or bad. To help you with your memory, the point of contention is: is a discussion of the theological and semitic-’philosophical’ roots of jihad and evangelism a legtimate part of lib-con political discourse? You say, “how can it be! hate speech! massacre of vulnerable minorities by bloggers!” etc etc, but I say, “it is, whether you like it or not, look at lib-cons like Condell and Hitchens!”. Unforunately I can’t assist with letting you focus on this point any longer because you made your concluding remarks, but surely, Comrade Jayant will shortly elaborate more on this point because he is eager to win the debate.

2. What should be or should not be discussed on this platform will be decided by the blog admin. You shouldn’t unnecessarily get your blood pressure up on the massacare-of-minorities-by-bloggers count. I don’t think this blog author suggested that Jains should be roasted or deep-fried, but if he should say it, let me assure that it’d take more than a leftwing clown to dismiss it as the rant of a fanatic because the said author is a sharp thinker and he generally makes solid points. (And it’s time to let Jayant’s voice be heard on this topic as well. The debate deserves to be won asap.)

3. Yes, I dislike the term “liberal”. Its dictionary meaning is not as relevant as what it actually stands for in the world today. Have you ever come across a group of wackos who call themselves progressives? To cut a long story short, they aren’t.

4. No party should be chauvinist of any sort, and if a party is accused of being chauvinst by other parties, that is not good enough reason to encourage jihadis to kill middleclass Indians. (I wait with bated breath for Jayant’s take on this point because intution tells me that’s gonna be the debate-clincher.)

You are a plasure to debate with, not sanctimonious at all like liberals. Your closing remarks were sharp and succinct, though largely irrelevant to the original topic of lib-conism. The only unexplained puzzle for me is your horror of the tweet that you mentioned with great trepidation. Atanu is another prolific blogger and a fine thinker; the only disgusting thing about him is that he is too lazy to write a book. Best wishes and take care.

OK, let me respond, for one last time, point by your point:

1/ Yes I did make new points and expanded on my older ones. No, I never recommended thought policing or gag orders on hate or any speech. Islamic terrorism/bigotry, Hindu bigotry, leftwing terrorism are all not kosher- is that so hard to get? Maybe it is just that I am sounding too unfashionably close to the 80s GoI propaganda : ( Is Hindu chauvinism the best way to defeat Islamic terrorism? At the implementation level, there will be much complexity to handle- but at least at the intellectual level, can we not agree on this minimum? No form of extremism is justifiable, and I never justified any. I was here on 9/11, and have a good idea what terrorism feels like up close. And how repugnant discussions of root causes of terrorism are, when you have actually experienced it.

2/ To repeat, again, I never recommended a gag order on hate speech or any speech. Like you, I too value the truth and all freedoms. I was just saying that on intellectual platforms aimed at the national interest such as this, hate-inspired agenda should be IDENTIFIED for what it is- unconstructive channeling of ancient bigotries -detrimental to national interest. I would not take as much objection at these bloggers if they were just saying that all Muslims are disgusting and should be roasted; but only because they claim it to be in the national interest ; ) And even then it is only (strong) intellectual disagreement, not prescription for free speech restrictions. There is a difference. Hope you will not again conflate what I am actually saying with what you think or hope I am saying : )

3/ I have said I am a liberal conservative many times, which, yes, incorporates liberal elements. And which is what every reasonable and intelligent conservative that exists today is. To repeat, they are not mutually exclusive. Liberal has many meanings depending on context, and in that case I have clearly used it as an antonym to illiberal. Please don’t selectively pick and choose. You seem to dislike any use of the term liberal, and maybe confuse it with left-liberal, or even left-illiberal. Incidentally, the bloggers I refer to also all use the term liberal! : ) When you implied otherwise, I drew my distinction from the left brand of politics. I have also told you before why my instincts run liberal conservative. To put it sharply and succinctly, as you demand: Belief in a/ free markets and growing-the-pie b/ a vigilant, robust security & foreign policy c/ a conviction that Indian culture, heritage and spirituality are unique and have a global relevance (d/ traditional Indian societal/ family values, but am not getting into that right now). Maybe even with all this, I have left out the big one for you?
Btw, you do agree that we are talking about the center right/lib-con here, and not the ultra-right? The Center is always less emotionally appealing than the fringes, I realize that, but Center Right/ lib-con remains the topic of discussion here.

4/ Hindu chauvinists may always vote for BJP, that is not a good enough reason for BJP to be Hindu chauvinist- so, wrong argument. Bill Maher is a smart guy, and yes, I love him for taking on bigoted bible thumpers. His that particular statement happens to be hyperbolic (remember he is a satirist) and strictly untrue, but a good example of his vigilant libertarianism. And if you do not see anything objectionable in that tweet from a blogger who regularly holds forth at a supposedly Center Right ‘liberal big tent’, I regret to say the culture gap between us is vaster than I thought. It is perfectly ok for them to have those discussions- there is much of that on the internet- only, I would not think them to be in the national interest or center right or mainstream in any way.
And if I am overstaying my welcome, I expect to hear it from the blog administrator.

Finally, I apologize if I have come across as self-righteous in any way. I am not here to score intellectual brownie points- my intention has only been to put out a point-of-view that is under-represented in the Indian CRL discourse, and which, rightly or wrongly, I strongly feel to be in the Indian national interest. I –like you- am spending valuable time doing this, uncompensated ; )

Thank you for indulging me, and I end it here : )

With best regards

Jayant,

Thanks for the understanding. It was getting a bit lonely in here : )

I understand the frustration, and I hope with you too. Amazingly, Vajpayee’s genius is all the more obvious only now, now that he is no longer in it.
And just imagine if all these good folks, with all their obvious enthusiasm and energy, had identified a different target- corruption and sloth in India. How great would that have been!
I think we need a new vocabulary in India to confront this and similar problems- old notions of secular/ pseudo-secular/communal have all become meaningless and polarizing.
And if nothing else, more of the same is not good for our kids. They are growing in a very different world, and if they get hate from us- intellectual, partly-justified, or otherwise- they will be stunted forever and it will hurt them in their lives.

Regds

“When you start seeing things like this http://bit.ly/1p38Pm from a blogger in the movement that calls itself the Indian Center-Right and who posts at a blog-site that self-proclaims to be a liberal Big Tent, it is time to get really worried. In just a few days of trawling that segment of the Indian blogosphere, I have realized that these are not isolated slips but rather the dominant memes in their discourse. So I hope you will understand my reservations in accepting such talk to be all about intellectual fulfillment and inquiry, and not crude intellectualization of a baser and ingrained bigotry, only this time in competent English”.

has evolved into a complete deal breaker for the likes of me. It was not always thus, especially in the days of an archetypal liberal nationalist called ABV. But that is past, unfortunately. One can only hope that a mature, less bigoted and explicitly liberal nationalist alternative emerges from the ashes of the failed BJP.

Oldtimer: I find your posts high on insinuation, sarcasm and even name -calling (bullcrap! gag order!) but relatively lower on actual points (no offence, just calling a spade that). I am sure you have clearly thought out reasons for your perspective, but in these particular comments, they seem an cyclic rehash of a crude narrative of victimhood and the legitimacy of retribution. Maybe if you were to take some time and write after more thought, those of us in the voting public could perhaps try to understand exactly what is not being said. And btw puzzlingly, the comments are also rather contradictory.

e.g. you speak of ‘thought-policing’ by an individual net crawler like fchiramel. Rather OTT, unless of course, you have stumbled on some software that I am unaware of. You then go on to call his concerns ‘paranoiac’! Pot? Kettle?

As for calling others ‘liberal’ as if it is an epithet, you need to read up about:

1) Liberal nationalism and conservatism;

2) Your own enthusiasm to take ownership of that particular label in the comments sections of this post

http://retributions.nationalinterest.in/guest-post-a-10-point-agenda-for-bjp/

Pot? Kettle? Or merely someone tying themselves up in knots when losing an argument?

Best wishes

A sense of deja vu. If you are of the opinion that making short succinct points does not make you sound convincing, please dispel that notion asap. I do not think that a long-winded essay from well-meaning people is necessarily an example of the adage: “if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullcrap”, but surely, the more the number of sentences, the greater the potential to meander off on tangents?

1. You did not make any new points. You expanded on your old theory that a gag order on discussing the intolerance and thirst for world domination intrinsic to semitic philosophies is in order. You suggested that thought-policing by blog-trotting netizens like you will protect vulnerable minorities from getting massacred by bloggers. I responded that well-meaning-sounding the argument maybe, it would actually engender the kind of bigotry witnessed on 26/11, when terrorists would justify pumping bullets into middle class Indians on the grounds that the latter are targetting vulnerable minorities. I also added that liberal conservatives value truth and freedoms; not paranoiac concerns about the alleged consequences of speaking truth and respecting freedoms. Repeating yourself yet again with another paper does not answer this point.

2. You are all for lifting the gag order when you certify that the discussion is at the “intellectual” plane. You passionately believe in free speech when un-intellectual baddie bloggers are not around. (Ah, these bloggers. If only somebody made the point that internet would lead to blogger bigotry, a gag order on the invention of internet could have been issued in time.) But there’s nothing very intellectual about getting shot by a terrorist when you’re having a beer in pub. That’s why true-blue lib-cons have made the discussion of what motivates a terrorist (and evangelist) a part of political discourse. No need for alarm. Bloggers leave IP addresses behind.

3. But I’m glad you cleared up the air about where you stand. You’re a liberal. We got into this debate because I thought you were propounding the principles of lib-con’ism as a practitioner. Stating your “liberal” leanings right upfront would have saved much trouble, but perhaps it’s all explained by the point above I made about the insecurities of someone not comfortable with making sharp succinct points. Unfortunately, I agree with Pat Condell — he again, the former leftist — when he says that there’s nothing “liberal” or “intelligent” about “liberal intelligentsia”. Ironically, he made that comment in a context almost identical to our debate. He took British “liberals” to task for insisting on a gag order similar to the one you advocated. They want it in rule-of-law Britain too, you see. I am not averse to discussing liberalism threadbare, but let us not be under any delusion that we’re discussing lib-consim.

4. Some random but interesting points that you made: That the US is “liberal”. I lived there too. (Only a couple days ago I was reading a WSJ oped that said that every Republican prez got elected with Christian fundamentalist vote, and only yesterday I was watching Bill Maher make the point that no Prez would ever get elected without affirming to the American people his faith in the Bible). And that tweet. Curious why it got you so agitated. But I think using Acorn’s blog to get your worries off the chest is to overstay the welcome. Do consider taking this part of the debate to the blog you’ll set up.

Cheers and best wishes.

Dear Oldtimer

Firstly, you will have to allow for the possibility that I am not a shill for the vast leftwing conspiracy : ) I am a liberal, yes, and some of my specific social policy points may overlap with what passes off as the Indian left. I could even have thought of conditionally supporting them on specific social issues had they not been responsible for, and put up outrageous defenses for, the grotesque and unconscionable Nandigram violence (and the smaller, almost routine cadre executed violence that takes place in Bengal every day), which goes against my core beliefs.

I have lived in the US for a rather long time now, and as you have parodied, do see it as a role model for Indian politics and policy (and vice versa in some societal/ intellectual aspects). US politics, as I see it, takes place mostly in a Center Right liberal space- evidenced by the unshakeable faith in free markets, muscular foreign & security policy, rule-of-law as core principle and most importantly, a loud but high quality national debate in which all concerned parties have defined what is mainstream, and what is not. Hate speech, bigotry and incitement to violence, or defense thereof, in this consensus, are clearly delineated from genuine differences of opinion, and fall outside the pale of mainstream debate. And my intention in our debate here has only been to identify what those limits of legitimate Indian politics should be, from a Center Right liberal perspective.

Believe you me, I am all for free speech and intellectual argumentation. I in fact strongly believe it is the stifling of genuine free speech and absence of airing of historical grievances during Congress decades that is partly responsible for some middle class Hindus being such vitriolic anti-Muslims today. On a tangent- I recently had a minor disagreement on Twitter with a prominent Indian blogger, following his implication that the scientific consensus on homosexuality is that it is genetic/inborn (which is the politically correct view in the West). Knowing some of the research involved, I politely disagreed, to which he responded about alleged homophobia of my links and eventually blocked me from his twitterfeed! The intellectual point I was trying to make to him is that if you stick to the (potentially incomplete/ incorrect ) born-that-way theory of homosexuality, if and when the lay press catches on that that is not entirely the case, anti-gay bigots will exploit it and have a field day. As you can see, I do believe – and rather passionately- in the centrality of free speech: the importance of free exchange of ideas, however inconvenient they may be. This has some parallels with what is happening in India today, when after 50-odd years of inaccurate presentation of Islam by INC as a broadminded multicultural-friendly religion, it is being gleefully shown to be not exactly the case, and therefore justification for bigotry.

And, no, you do not really need a microscope to ferret out the bigotry that exists out there and I am guilty of mis-phrasing in calling it subterranean, as it really is out in the open. When you start seeing things like this http://bit.ly/1p38Pm from a blogger in the movement that calls itself the Indian Center-Right and who posts at a blog-site that self-proclaims to be a liberal Big Tent, it is time to get really worried. In just a few days of trawling that segment of the Indian blogosphere, I have realized that these are not isolated slips but rather the dominant memes in their discourse. So I hope you will understand my reservations in accepting such talk to be all about intellectual fulfillment and inquiry, and not crude intellectualization of a baser and ingrained bigotry, only this time in competent English. The point is not that there should be no intolerance or hate in India- there will always be some everywhere- but rather how this transparent hate meme has gained such currency among educated and world traveled Indians. I do not mean to sound patronizing here but just to illustrate a point: when you are part of the Taliban, it is actually quite difficult to realize you have become the Taliban.

The funny thing I find in all this is that these individuals seem very impressed by the US system and often live here. They will use details of law-enforcement actions against Islamist terrorists or some intellectual debate regarding Islam (besides tons of fringe literature) to insinuate that their bigotry is shared by US civil society or government! I know for a solid fact that US civil society, the government and its press, is extremely liberal, and will not tolerate in mainstream debate the level of hate that these individuals and blogs represent. In fact, these individuals- at least those of them that live here- will soon realize it in a way no intellectual argumentation could have convinced them- when their own US raised, liberally educated kids will be embarrassed at the chauvinism they peddle in the name of Indian/ Hindu heritage. I already see this happening, and I think it is going to be at long term detriment to Indian interests here.

I have approached this debate with the assumption that both of us are reasonably intelligent and aware individuals, with no personal or ideological stake in this except with India’s best interests in mind. With those assumptions in place, I am fully agreeable to being converted on specific points if they are valid, and I find no shame in doing so. It is also quite possible that in writing all this, I am giving a segment that is loud but marginal in the Indian discourse more importance than it has, or deserves. In which case, I am happy to be wrong.

Thanks for reading this long post and best regards.

I don’t see anything “lib-con” about the argument that “(a) some people allegedly exploit truth to target ‘vulnerable minorities’ and therefore (b) truth must be sidestepped in political discourse”. The underlying premise of this argument is that leftwingers — the sort who usually advance it — are special, superior people; their motives are pure; they are in the business not of spreading hate but sweetness and light; and therefore they can unearth “subterranean motives” (seen through some special microscope, no doubt) of the bad guys.

That argument cuts both ways. The left has the greatest motive to vilify and even disenfranchise the middle class because the latter doesn’t vote for it. I am surprised you are not worried that the left can exploit your argument to censor free speech by labeling and silencing people, Nandigram-style. Or for that matter, terrorists (they’re net savvy you know) might target vulnerable Indian middle class people in hotels, 26/11 style, because they are labeled as “anti-Muslim”, you know. In fact, that terrorists would exact “revenge” for Guj riots became a self-fulfilling prophecy: the 26/11 killers claimed that they were killing for Guj, Ayodhya etc. You probably have some nice little explanation for why you are not worried about the hate-mongering potential of your argument. But my key point is that lib-con’ism is not about finding leftwing justifications for suppressing truth and free speech; it is to defend them without motive-hunting.

Your taste and class will definitely win the approval of Comrade Arundhati Roy, but poor me, I’ll have to raise above my pedestrian preference for such banalities as truth and freedom.

Best wishes.

If there are core Hindutva supporters who have supported the BJP in the past, today they have nowhere to look up to. No party represent them. The BJP takes up some of the very contentious anti-Hindu issues very feebly and there is absolutely no follow-up. In such a behaviour, one loses confidence in the ability of one’s party to articulate issues to the end. Due to intra-party squabbles, energies of talented BJP men and women are getting wasted. At the time when what is needed is a cohesive united approach to work out a strategy and come out on tops, they are just making it worse and worse each month.

Your recipe of party election may be an answer, but I’m not really sure if it is a panacea to all its ills.

Thank you for your reply. The blog admin has been indulgent so far, but I must tell you in advance that being law-abiding and all, I’ll retreat at the first sign of trouble from that source.

The intriguing feature that strikes me about your argument is its decidedly leftwing or “liberal” nature; I don’t see anything “lib-con” about it. The argument that “(a) some people allegedly exploit truth to target ‘vulnerable minorities’ and therefore (b) truth must be sidestepped in political discourse” is pretty old hat — we have seen this in countless editorials and opeds of The Hindu, Frontline and assorted left-lib publications. The underlying premise of this argument is that leftwingers are special, superior people; their motives are pure; they are in the business not of spreading hate but sweetness and light; and therefore this sanctimonious bunch can sit in on judgement as to whose “subterranean motives” (seen through some special microscope, no doubt) are suspect.

That argument cuts both ways. Guess who does the middle class decidedly NOT vote? The left. Ergo, commies have the greatest motive to vilify and even disenfranchise the middle class. I am surprised you are not worried that the left can exploit your very Left-like argument to censor free speech by labeling and silencing people, and (when people won’t listen) murdering them Nandigram-style. You probably have some nice little explanation for why you are not as worried, though worried. I am worried too, but my key point is that lib-con’ism is not about finding leftwing justifications for suppressing truth and free speech; it is to defend them without motive-hunting. Your taste and class will definitely win the approval of Comrade Arundhati Roy and Comrade N Ram, but poor me, I’ll have to raise above my pedestrian preference for such banalities as truth and freedom.

I strongly recommend Pat Condell’s videos to you, again. Interestingly, rule-of-law or not, the Left in Britain advances the same “arguments” as you have. For opposing Shariat, Condell was accused of being an extreme rightwinger and a supporter of BNP. The Left vitiates civilized debated by vilifying those that it hates; lib-con’ism, as I understand, stands in opposition to such tactics.

Thanks and take care.

“For example: you found fault with finding fault with semitic philosophies.”
No I didn’t. I already said this in post #21: “None of this should attempt to hide or be defensive about the ugliness that had been involved- Muslim violence, invasions and conversions; Christian proselytization and…” But I am against the illiberal and agenda-driven determination to find fault lines between communities, especially against a largely backward, semi-literate and vulnerable minority like Muslims in India. And especially by intelligent people you would otherwise expect to appreciate complexity and nuance in a serious debate. If this were a debate happening in Pakistan or Saudi ; ) , you can bet I will be talking loudly against the deprivation of minority rights that routinely happens there.

Much I could say about the rest in your post, but I won’t now, especially at the risk that you may not get to read this. I am aware of the benefit and need for intellectual argumentation, including about Semitic/ Islamic intolerance, but (and I speak generally here) when the subterranean motivation appears to be to whip up hate against vulnerable minorities- I consider that tasteless and even classless. India, unlike the US/West where Hitchens and Harris operate, is still a rule-of-law and law enforcement black hole, and when such intellectual argumentation morphs into some kind of self evident ‘truthiness’ in the minds of the Indian middle classes, as is evident from a significant segment of the Indian blogosphere, that then I think is time to bring some perspective to the whole debate. (I have previously substantially argued against what I saw as a less than firm rejection of terrorism and apologia for Islamic fundamentalism at chowk.com, a website largely run by some (real and fake : ) liberal Pakistanis, and where people like Sudheendra Kulkarni and Musharaff’s son (Bilal) used to occasionally comment. )

I apologize to you and the Acorn if my blog/online etiquette is lacking- I have only recently started posting on blogs. The last time I had posted, they were not yet called blogs and I wasn’t aware of any etiquette : )

Best regards.

A few quick points, because I’m rather busy at this point.

1. Mea culpa. The similarity of arguments and mutual appreciation between you abd balaji led me to confuse you with him.

2. You haven’t really addressed any of my points. You started off with outlining what you claimed was lib-con’ism, but it doesn’t look like. Hence my suggestion: bulltize. State what you believe are the foundational principles of lib-con’ism. That will be a good starting point for what we may want to see in an Indian lib-con party. For example: you found fault with finding fault with semitic philosophies. Is kid loves to semitic religions a feature of lib-conism? Is conferring victimhood on them the feature? As I uncderstand that is not lib-conism at all, but a repudiation of lib-conism, for you are stifling to censor discussion of root cause of much strife in the world today: the inistence of followers of holy books of Islam and Christianity on ramming those books down the throats of others, and their taking resort to unprovoked violence in doing so because theur holy books condone such violence. Now, now, don’t fly off on that familiar anti-RSS handle: you don’t mean to seriously suggest that people like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are swayamsevaks in disguise, do you? Read them, sometime. If Harris and Hitchens are lib-cons — they seem to be — I’d think speaking the truth without fear is a key feature of lib-conism. But you are opposed to speaking the truth about semitic philosophies. That’s a feature of the radical left. They tell you, like Islamists, that Jihad is all about love and evengalism is all about choices.

3. Modi: you see, it seems to me that like our friend balaji you want to say a few nasty things about bad boy Modi and expect that to be the last word by way of proving some point. If somebody counters you you can’t stand it. That is not lib-conism. I doubt that libcons get so riled up about Modi that every time his name is mentioned they get upset.

4. Finally, my request for your blog is triggered by the fact that this libcon debate is not relevant to the subject matter of the blogpost. Dunno about you, but I get embarrssed about receiving yellow cards from the blog admin.

Thank you again, take care.

I see insinuations of yankee-philia and condescension. That is, besides the persistent ignoring of my id for Balaji’s : )

I also see that when I respond to your specific arguments, you go off on a different tangent. Anyway, for the record, I do enjoy being in the US, and for the ability to participate in the local and national public life here. I happen not to be an insecure immigrant who becomes a hyper-nationalistic internet crusader for illiberalism back home, while expecting my host communities to be liberal. Also, for the record, I -like you – detest what happened at Nandigram. I lived in Calcutta for several years, and am really not surprised at what happened. Only the scale and media attention this time were greater. When Buddhadev/CPI-M becomes a challenger for the national throne, you will definitely hear more from me about him.

Anyway, maybe another time we will actually talk about -to paraphrase the Chinese- that which unites us, i.e., strong opinions on Narendra Modi. No, I do not have any personal animosity against the Chhote Sardar- I just dislike some of his past actions and the general direction he is taking the Indian polity. Actually his cult-like status today among some reminds me of the mid-late 90s, when another significant chunk of BJP supporters looked at ABV as an usurper to LKA’s rightful throne, and showed their feelings with much passion. The arguments were similar- you know, electrification of cadre, and such. I have lost touch with most of them, but I would have liked to ask them if they felt the same way today.

Unfortunately I do not have a blog, and probably will never have one, which is why I have to pile onto others : ) Hope you will excuse me for the waste of bandwidth.

Have a nice Friday and a great weekend.

>>I am disappointed you do not show much enthusiasm for the product of my considerable labor

I do! I’m a great admirer of motherhood, and nurture an equal amount of admiration for apple pie. I want to see the downtrodden uplifted, and the uprooted resettled. I love secularism — in the liberal conservative/conservative liberal sense — and I even engage bigots in the hope of making them see light. So it is unfair to claim that I am not paying your product any attention.

It is precisely because I am paying attention that I’m suggesting that you reformulate your essay into a format that juxtaposes conservative liberal/liberal conservative first principles with your vision of an ideal platform for a liberal conservative/conservative liberal Indian political party . A white paper that wastes bllions of electrons just to get a bilious point edgeways about bete noir Modi is also a waste of intellectual effort, and no ordinary intellect at that. Please invite me to your blog where you’ll host this great vision for lib-con/con-lib party that’s going to be a Cong alternative. Thanks again.