While this analysis of the liberal mindset is surely true — that it was not « invented » in 17th century Europe and surely existed elsewhere or perhaps everywhere — what DID evolve in Europe from the 17th to 19th century was a political format in which liberalism, defined as individual freedoms, could flourish as a basis for human society. Religious toleration in India was certainly enlightened by European standards, but no liberal society emerged until contact with the British.
I also heartily disagree with your statement that liberalism « travelled » there with racism and imperialism. Racism and imperialism are not European inventions. They have existed pretty much everywhere for as long as we’re able to trace history. That our self-flagellatory post-colonial historians want to pin all ills on our European ancestors is absurd and pathetic. The colonialism you refer to should be seen in the context of world history, not as some anomalous event.
Right, liberalism is not inherently rooted in the West; it existed in India long before its formalization in the Western world itself. It is a brutal truth that, despite efforts by the framers of the Indian Constitution, Indian liberalism could not distance itself from social intolerance, which has been prevalent since ancient times. Long before Indian society took its current form as a nation-state, caste discrimination—i.e., social intolerance—was an authoritarian tool used by the upper castes over the lower castes. Unfortunately, this tool still exists in today's context, and on top of it, Hindu nationalism, which is gaining popularity through religious intolerance, has become a huge threat to Indian liberalism. This ideology prioritizes religious and ethnic identity over individual freedoms. This mindset—of having authority over other people and forbidding one section from practicing its own liberty—is what the government should strive to remove from society. Nevertheless, the Narendra Modi government's efforts to impose a form of Western liberalism based on religious intolerance in the Indian context will pose a significant threat to individual liberty in Indian society.
My traditional western education was impoverished in terms of understanding African and Asian histories and cultures. Maybe it’s different now, but in the 60s and 70s formal education offered little grasp of non western ideas even though in high school I took both a so-called ‘World History” class and anther one semester course on African and Asian history. The first, of course, was (despite its title) pretty much a Western Civ course. The second was pretty dry and shallow and seemed to focus on African and Asian responses to colonization even if there were topical coverage of pre modern cultures, kingdoms, and empires.
I am going to read the Sen essay as soon as I finish scribbling here. But I have often contemplated how I lack the background in non western cultural and religious history to avoid falling into the tired groove of thinking that western liberal democratic ideas were an outgrowth of our Judeo Christian and classical heritage even if there was a strong sense that a desire for liberty and self determination were indeed universal human preoccupations. Articles, essays, and interviews like this are of vital importance to help us all liberate ourselves from concepts reinforced by colonialism and imperialism.
The West (and now especially the US) likes to see itself as exporting liberalism and democracy even if our historical record portrays us as mostly doing quite the opposite which “we” justify by claiming that our democratic and liberal ideas do not apply well to non western cultures and mindsets. The truth is that democracy and liberalism are fed by primal human impulses and desires, but that all humans are also driven by other impulses and desires that are quite at odds with liberalism, democracy, and human decency and dignity. I feel this struggle is embodied in important strains of Judaism and Christianity. I want to know more about how it is engrained in other traditions that have usually been portrayed to me in slighting, shallow, and condescending ways.
Interesting discussion but I don’t really know why there needs to be this Grumpy Old Men “he started it” type of argument about liberalism. We spend a lot of ink and time talking about the John Lockes of the world and not enough talking about the Romans and the Greeks, which is where a lot of this instinct came from also.
Liberty is an ancient instinct, almost the first non-survival instinct if you ask me. I want to eat, sleep, breathe, go to the bathroom, etc….. but I want to be free to live my life apart from whatever others want me to be doing is pretty basic.
Checks and balances and a government built on restraint and designed to protect freedom as a priority? Maybe that’s a little more modern but it still comes from ancient instincts. Men want to be free but some men who are bad or stupid would like to control or dominate those men for their own purposes. Liberalism is a reaction in that sense.
Why liberalism in nature? You’re already born free. It comes after someone tries to take that natural condition from you. It is no surprise that Indians, Chinese, Romans, Greeks or anyone else would come to similar conclusions. Like the idea of God, freedom is a natural instinct and so, who came up with it originally is sort of immaterial.
It’s interesting enough until it gets into the usual cultural measuring stick stuff like who lived in this land first. We can’t know because recorded history - what’s left of it - is incredibly incomplete. Lots of cultures and societies just didn’t bother (or didn’t know how) to record stuff, many recorded it with absurd biases, many records have been lost over the centuries. So agree profoundly with the statement that we should not romanticize the past. We don’t really know it the way we think we do.
Though we are all fan of Pratap Bhanu Mehta .. I am Indian & lives in india .... half of my political intelligence has come from reading his weekly columns in Indian express ...
His last point needs modification .... It may be theoritically plausible that Nationalism is threatening Liberalism... but he omits mentioning Late Capitalism & its various guises which are actually causally contributing threat to Liberalism..
Lumpenproletariat of Europe-- victim of neoliberalism ; Shareholder/managerial capitalism ; economy driven by gentrification of consumption ---- this are causal origin of European/ western crisis of liberalism..
Of course; this does not apply to India ...
If European / western crisis is driven by Lumpen proletariat taking recourse to Nationalism ... india it is Lumpen-burgieosie who are taking recourse to Nationalism to save them from democratic upsurge from below marginalised groups
While this analysis of the liberal mindset is surely true — that it was not « invented » in 17th century Europe and surely existed elsewhere or perhaps everywhere — what DID evolve in Europe from the 17th to 19th century was a political format in which liberalism, defined as individual freedoms, could flourish as a basis for human society. Religious toleration in India was certainly enlightened by European standards, but no liberal society emerged until contact with the British.
I also heartily disagree with your statement that liberalism « travelled » there with racism and imperialism. Racism and imperialism are not European inventions. They have existed pretty much everywhere for as long as we’re able to trace history. That our self-flagellatory post-colonial historians want to pin all ills on our European ancestors is absurd and pathetic. The colonialism you refer to should be seen in the context of world history, not as some anomalous event.
Right, liberalism is not inherently rooted in the West; it existed in India long before its formalization in the Western world itself. It is a brutal truth that, despite efforts by the framers of the Indian Constitution, Indian liberalism could not distance itself from social intolerance, which has been prevalent since ancient times. Long before Indian society took its current form as a nation-state, caste discrimination—i.e., social intolerance—was an authoritarian tool used by the upper castes over the lower castes. Unfortunately, this tool still exists in today's context, and on top of it, Hindu nationalism, which is gaining popularity through religious intolerance, has become a huge threat to Indian liberalism. This ideology prioritizes religious and ethnic identity over individual freedoms. This mindset—of having authority over other people and forbidding one section from practicing its own liberty—is what the government should strive to remove from society. Nevertheless, the Narendra Modi government's efforts to impose a form of Western liberalism based on religious intolerance in the Indian context will pose a significant threat to individual liberty in Indian society.
My traditional western education was impoverished in terms of understanding African and Asian histories and cultures. Maybe it’s different now, but in the 60s and 70s formal education offered little grasp of non western ideas even though in high school I took both a so-called ‘World History” class and anther one semester course on African and Asian history. The first, of course, was (despite its title) pretty much a Western Civ course. The second was pretty dry and shallow and seemed to focus on African and Asian responses to colonization even if there were topical coverage of pre modern cultures, kingdoms, and empires.
I am going to read the Sen essay as soon as I finish scribbling here. But I have often contemplated how I lack the background in non western cultural and religious history to avoid falling into the tired groove of thinking that western liberal democratic ideas were an outgrowth of our Judeo Christian and classical heritage even if there was a strong sense that a desire for liberty and self determination were indeed universal human preoccupations. Articles, essays, and interviews like this are of vital importance to help us all liberate ourselves from concepts reinforced by colonialism and imperialism.
The West (and now especially the US) likes to see itself as exporting liberalism and democracy even if our historical record portrays us as mostly doing quite the opposite which “we” justify by claiming that our democratic and liberal ideas do not apply well to non western cultures and mindsets. The truth is that democracy and liberalism are fed by primal human impulses and desires, but that all humans are also driven by other impulses and desires that are quite at odds with liberalism, democracy, and human decency and dignity. I feel this struggle is embodied in important strains of Judaism and Christianity. I want to know more about how it is engrained in other traditions that have usually been portrayed to me in slighting, shallow, and condescending ways.
Interesting discussion but I don’t really know why there needs to be this Grumpy Old Men “he started it” type of argument about liberalism. We spend a lot of ink and time talking about the John Lockes of the world and not enough talking about the Romans and the Greeks, which is where a lot of this instinct came from also.
Liberty is an ancient instinct, almost the first non-survival instinct if you ask me. I want to eat, sleep, breathe, go to the bathroom, etc….. but I want to be free to live my life apart from whatever others want me to be doing is pretty basic.
Checks and balances and a government built on restraint and designed to protect freedom as a priority? Maybe that’s a little more modern but it still comes from ancient instincts. Men want to be free but some men who are bad or stupid would like to control or dominate those men for their own purposes. Liberalism is a reaction in that sense.
Why liberalism in nature? You’re already born free. It comes after someone tries to take that natural condition from you. It is no surprise that Indians, Chinese, Romans, Greeks or anyone else would come to similar conclusions. Like the idea of God, freedom is a natural instinct and so, who came up with it originally is sort of immaterial.
It’s interesting enough until it gets into the usual cultural measuring stick stuff like who lived in this land first. We can’t know because recorded history - what’s left of it - is incredibly incomplete. Lots of cultures and societies just didn’t bother (or didn’t know how) to record stuff, many recorded it with absurd biases, many records have been lost over the centuries. So agree profoundly with the statement that we should not romanticize the past. We don’t really know it the way we think we do.
Though we are all fan of Pratap Bhanu Mehta .. I am Indian & lives in india .... half of my political intelligence has come from reading his weekly columns in Indian express ...
His last point needs modification .... It may be theoritically plausible that Nationalism is threatening Liberalism... but he omits mentioning Late Capitalism & its various guises which are actually causally contributing threat to Liberalism..
Lumpenproletariat of Europe-- victim of neoliberalism ; Shareholder/managerial capitalism ; economy driven by gentrification of consumption ---- this are causal origin of European/ western crisis of liberalism..
Of course; this does not apply to India ...
If European / western crisis is driven by Lumpen proletariat taking recourse to Nationalism ... india it is Lumpen-burgieosie who are taking recourse to Nationalism to save them from democratic upsurge from below marginalised groups