Amit is concerned that -- given BJP's structural inability to shed the bigotry at its core -- the future for secular-right politics in India may be less than rosy.
Not surprisingly, this is a topic we've given much thought to. We'd like to make three points.
1. Amit's implied assumption, that secular-right politics can emerge only from the right and not from among the secular, is questionable. We are personally aware of senior Congressmen who are sufficiently secular-right even by our uncompromising standards. The main issue with such leaders is their untested political savvy to influence their party rightwards. Nevertheless, they should not be written off.
2. Lenin wrote about a small vanguard elite that leads ideological revolutions. In America, we have the recent example of a handful of friends -- of diverse political and professional affiliation -- coming together to lead the neo-conservative revolution. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has up-ended decades of stilted foreign policy thought in the U.S. We only need to ask Mr. Saddam Hussain how this has played out! If this can happen in America, there is no reason to believe it cannot in India.
We need clarity of objectives. If our objective is to re-orient India in a secular-right way, that is undoubtedly achievable without the burden of running political parties. If our objective is to capture power through the electoral process, then we should immediately abandon ideology and sign-up at the cult of whatever's-working-now. These are entirely different games.
Political parties should be viewed only as highly effective machines to raise and deploy campaign funds for elections. They are not designed to be the petridish where political ideas are innovated. To the extent they talk of ideas, it's only for the purpose of raising campaign funds. These are commercial juggernauts that are in the business of leasing their formidable & essential electoral capability to power-seeking individuals -- the price of the lease is, frequently, the dilution of ideology. This is a business dynamic where scale -- built-up over decades -- matters. Clearly, there are huge barriers to entry, overcoming which from scratch for reasons of ideology is surely a futile endeavor.
In contrast, ideological campaigns (like PNAC) operate across parties and social affiliations; they end up creating unexpectedly refreshing alliances. They are led by a small group of people devoted to their ideas, not to claiming power. As it turns out, if they succeed in converting millions to their way of thinking, they become powerful by proxy. This is a far quicker and less expensive route than the traditional political party approach. The contrast to political parties is stark: this is like comparing swift, flexible, and stealthy special forces to the slow-moving, rigid, and gigantic armies. Each is a different approach for a different objective.
3. Given this, the real tactical question before secular-right Indians is whether we can identify and network a 100 or so like-minded -- and relatively young (mid 30s, early 40s) -- people who are also independently influential in their lives and professions. These people can then leverage their personal and professional credibility -- and intellectual strength -- to make passionate and convincing political arguments that few in the party system dare make. This is likely the way to a secular-right Indian revolution, not the empty promise of a secular-right political party magically showing up one day.
Let's prepare the ground first; we'll worry about what germinates there later.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(581)
-
▼
July
(71)
- Song And Memory
- Cheapening Lives To Reduce Their Cost
- Another Wall Of Worry
- Choosing One's Enemies
- Puzzling Attitude
- NRI Voting Rights
- Water And Fire
- Water Water Everywhere
- Whither ARF?
- A Really Cool Car
- The Gurgaon Riots
- Drunk On Art
- Want To Scream?
- Want To Laugh?
- Asra Nomani
- Another Police Disgrace
- Two Poems From Bengal
- Terrorism
- Pakistan
- Nuclear India
- Indian Samurai
- Terrorism
- Indian Art
- Silence Of A Blogger
- Neoconservatism
- A Week For The History Books
- The Loony General
- On Liberty
- Karzai And Blair
- Nuclear Club
- Stress Reduction
- Unsound Judgment
- Libertarianism
- Security Council
- Empowering Muslim Women
- I Am Become Death, Destroyer Of Worlds
- Yet Another Terror Apologist
- HIV In India
- Answering A Contemptible Charge
- Vinod Mehta On Terrorism
- Politics And Toothpaste
- See No Evil
- Apologies For Fall-Off In Posting
- Oh, No.
- Project For A Secular-Right India
- The State Of Muslim Society
- Terror Apologists
- What In The World Is Goin' On?
- Where In The World Is Dr. Singh?
- Blogs
- Surprise! Surprise!
- Terror In London
- Global Warming
- Nostalgia
- Solidarity With Britain
- A Very Puzzling "Could"
- Uniform Civil Code
- Dalai And Dubya
- G8 Expansion
- Godless Continent
- Televising Interrogations
- Terror In Ayodhya
- Influenza
- Mindless Design It Surely Ain't
- The Nimbu-Paani Airlift
- HIV in India
- Blog Mela
- War Of The Worlds
- Mace The Bastards
- The Imrana Matter
- US: Politics To Trump Geo-Politics Until Further N...
-
▼
July
(71)
12 comments:
Good post, PR, and I agree with all of what you say. Just a clarification: it isn't my assumption, even if it seems to be implied, that secular-right politics can emerge only from the right and not from the secular. In fact, I'm more inclined to believe that it can emerge simultaneously from both sides, as TCA Srinivasa-Raghavan had predicted here.
It'll take a while, though, for either secular-right or libertarian politics to become feasable in India, where identity politics still determines who gets to power.
Great idea! In addition, we can try getting good libertarian people elected/appointed in high constitutional places! Success of T. N. Seshan should give a great hope for such a project!
Kumar, I agree with you about the impracticality of "top-down" politics. I'm intrigued by your phrase, "commit theology in the public square". I don't quite understand what you mean, and I would like to. Can you elaborate, on your blog if you have one, please?
Eswaran, what I meant was not that identity politics precludes a shift towards the secular right, but that elections in India are not fought today on the basis of issues, but on the basis of identity equations. That won't change for a while. So even if a party moves towards that space, it cannot win elections on the basis of those ideas.
Very interesting post. Let me know when you decide to sign up these 100 people...
Amit Varma writes:
"It'll take a while, though, for either secular-right or libertarian politics to become feasable in India, where identity politics still determines who gets to power."
I'm not clear how identity politics prevents libertarianism in India. I would have thought that allowing each Indian his/ her own distinct identity, and to vote accordingly, actually increases their degree of freedom. Therefore, identity politics (if done voluntarily) appears quite commensurate with, indeed a requirement for, libertarian politics.
One could even make a strong argument that since identity-less-ness can ever be achieved in real life (except in moksha), it is a natural human condition, just that it will be manifested in different systems.
In the US, for example, there is a huge lobbying industry which has all the unmistakable earmarks of identity politics.
Sanjay
Thanks for the great discussion. Will post a detailed response as soon as am able.
Best regards all.
Very engaging discussion indeed.
But I am sceptical about Secular - Right emerging from Congress (thats what people mean by secular usually).
In india all the arguements and counter arguements for any issue are validated not by their merits, but by the brute power of electoral majority.
That is the reason that our politicial discussion still revolve around some form of "Socialism" (even the BJP, officially proclaims "Gandhian Socialism" as their ideology)
In the end, the idea of "A few good man coming to the aid of country" is too naive.
Personally I think secularism is over rated.
I agree with Primary Red. A few strong-willed individuals, with a united common goal, is primarily what we need to swing public perception. That's what's happening in the States right now. Problem with "identity" politics is that it segregates...and weakens. Weakness cannot change minds. Strength arising out of an organization of a few strong-willed powerful individuals can bring about subtle differences in public thought without much hoop-hulla and avoid hurdles that outright political parties have to suffer.
Sanjay, the identity politics I speak of is the caste politics that dominates most of India, especially crucial states like UP and Bihar. Politicians depend on the votebanks they build on the basis of this identity politics to win elections. Such identity politics is eroded by prosperity, so it is in the interest of politicians to keep these votebanks poor and uneducated, and to keep them feeling deprived so that they vote for someone who claims to represent them and will fight for them. Lalu in Bihar is classic example of this. Thus, while a politician may actually hold libertarian or pro-free-market views, it doesn't help him in elections, and may actually harm the Lalus and Mulayams in the long run. It is a nuanced subject I won't go into in detail here.
Kumar, thanks for your explanation. Have you read Amartya Sen's "The Argumentative Indian"? I'm certain you'd enjoy it. And do you have a blog?
When you sign up those 100 people, let me know too! While have very little influence, I'd love to do what I can to bring about this particular revolution...
(doubting)gaurav, I think you are mistaking the "secular" to be the curse word it is today in the Indian context. If I may be so bold as to speak for PR, I think in this case, secular means "not-religious", not "appeasement-of-minorities-and-vote-bank-politics".
Basically, try if you can, to envision a BJP without the Hindutva/RSS/VHP connections...er...what I mean to say is imagine a political party which doesn't prevent women from wearing miniskirts, doesn't conduct pogroms against minorities, doesn't distribute trishuls (or saris) during elections, is all for small government, privatisation, and an inclusive view of a strong and rich India.... well that's my view of it, at any rate...
To TTG,
I agree "secular" means "not religious". My objection is to its being used as a replacement for "tolerance", "compassion" or any such generally accepted social virtue.
Historically, concept of secularism arose due to struggle of power between emerging nation states and vatican church in Europe.
However, in India Religious and Political Power were always distinct (that was before advent of Islam), while kings did patronize particular faiths, religious authority did not interfere with political authority.
In india when "secularism" was originally invoked it was to promote atheism. While I have no problems with atheism, I object to State promoting atheism.
Regarding your reference to BJP
while I would venture to say that BJP is perfect, I prefer, or used to prefer, before it relinqueshed its role of a responsible opposition.
Minority Pogrom is mostly a fiction, for reference you can read any of the Arun Shourie's detailed analysis.
Problems between Hindus and Muslims are not due to BJP or its sister organisation, these go long back, unfortunately instead of resolving them, either these are swept under carpet ("lets concentrate on economy blah blah")
or perversely,all blame put on Hindus or Muslims (depending on which side of discussion you are)
Kumar, you express a view I heartily endorse. I hate this Abrahamicisation of "Hinduism" being carried out by the VHP, BD, et al. Other Indic traditions are just being ignored and crushed, because they do not offer scope for mindless rabble-rousing.
Post a Comment