A big relief to BJP strongman Yeddyurappa, Karnataka HC today ordered quashing of an FIR against him in an illegal minin..
Is the so-called Liberal Left Really Liberal and really Left? - The Secularism Conundrum

I recently watched a video clip of a ‘We The
People’ episode that dealt with Muslim identity.
Participants included Shahrukh Khan, Soha Ali Khan, Kabir Khan,
Karan Johar, and Zakir Naik and another Imam, along
with others. After one of Shahrukh’s comments about Muslim
identity, Barkha Dutt had quipped, ‘But is it really so simple?’
Perhaps if religion and governance were really and truly separated
and if there were equal laws and policies for Indians across
religions it could all have been simple.
The Indian Constitution intended that all Indian citizens be
treated equally in all walks of life. The Constitution’s Directive
Principles for State policy spoke about a uniform civil code to be
instituted shortly. Not only was this directive principle ignored,
but somewhere along the way, Haj subsidies for
Muslim pilgrimages crept in but none for Hindu, Christian, Sikh,
Buddhist, Jewish, and Jain pilgrimages. Likewise,
Muslim religious education
institutions-Madarsahs became heavily subsidized by
the government. At one stage, George Orwell’s famous quote ‘All are
equal but some are more equal’ was considered an outlandish joke
that could never touch a vibrant democracy like India. Later it
began to be applied to corrupt politicians who broke laws but
slipped away using the heavily flawed judicial system in the
country. Today, the statement ‘All are equal but some are more
equal’ undoubtedly additionally describes the status of Muslims in
India, who are privileged citizens in a country that, sadly, was
created for Hindus.
The media anchor who posed the above question on simplicity appears
to have a rather simplistic definition of secularism, as have her
fellow journalists belonging to the mainstream media. Implicit in
their reporting is the implied definition of secular–Standing for
Muslim demands (no matter how unfair and unjustified the demands
are) is being secular. Speaking out against discriminatory policies
that benefit Muslims at the cost of other communities, on the other
hand is non-secular or communal.
However, even when the implied meaning is evident from the tone of
their political commentary, the proponents of this kind of
secularism do not provide an honest definition of this
kind of secularism, for, in doing so, they would have to
admit that it is discriminatory, unfair, and unjust. If they were
to provide an honest definition, such ‘secularism’ could be defined
simply as Muslim appeasement. Knowing that
under Imamdirectives, a large number of Muslims tend
to vote en masse; secularism as it is defined today
in India can be defined as Muslim appeasement to harvest Muslim
vote banks. Muslim vote banks tip the balance due to
their en masse voting (block votes).
Opportunistic political parties vying for block votes eagerly
jumped on the bandwagon of this brand of so-called secularism.
What, however, is not easy to either understand or digest is the
role of mainstream media to a) NOT question the innate unfairness
of this brand of secularism, and, b) to in fact propagate this kind
of secularism.
India is a country characterized by corruption, chaos, and
confusion. One more characteristic of the country is how terms like
‘secularism,’ ‘left liberal,’ ‘right,’ and ‘minorities’ have been
loosely bandied about without a thought to what they
really shouldmean. As a result, in
India, they have taken on meanings that are rather different from
what they were originally created to describe. This sullies the
discourse on fair legislation, equality of citizens across
religions, a need for uniform laws, etc.
Defining Secularism and Minorities: Given the
uniqueness of the Hindu non-evangelical ethos, vis-à-vis Christian
democracies, the terms and labels ‘secularism’, ‘left liberal’, and
‘right’ cannot be directly lifted/borrowed from the west to imply
the same politico-social dynamics in India as they would,
there.
In fact, even for western democracies, the term secular is used to
describe a government that treats all its citizens equally and
fairly, for it indicates a separation of state and religion.
Additionally, in the west, the term secular applies predominantly
to collective entities such as the state or government and may also
describe policies or governance but is rarely if at
all used in the context of individuals. In India, however,
the term ‘secular’ is additionally used to describe individuals
(politicians, celebrities, etc.,) who tend to be ‘minority’
friendly. Then again, in the Indian context, the term minority or
minorities has come to mean the Muslim community. Hence, a secular
individual is one that is friendly to the cause of Muslims.
(Ideally, the term minority should define a host of communities
including Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Jews, and others,
but that is not the case.)
If the term secular were used in its correct and original spirit,
it would describe qualities such as ‘all encompassing,’
‘inclusive,’ or ‘pluralistic,’ but in India it has come to connote
rather the opposite by implying Muslim friendly. In fact, when the
term secular is used to define ‘all encompassing,’ a Hindu
individual becomes more of a Hindu when s/he is secular
(inclusive), but a Muslim individual will no longer remain a true
Muslim when s/he is secular (pluralistic/inclusive). By the
Muslims’ holy book, being inclusive and being a Muslim is a
contradiction in terms. How can a true Muslim look at
individuals of other faiths as symbols of universal humanity—for,
as per their holy book, all individuals of other faiths are
non-believers or ‘kafirs’ who need to be
discriminated against, intimidated, eliminated, or converted to the
‘one true faith’ that is Islam. The secular conundrum arises from
the difference in the way the two faiths look at genuine
inclusiveness or secularism.
There is then the concept of free speech that is an implicit
component of a modern democracy. However, Islam and free speech are
not compatible. Amongst many European leaders who have become vocal
opponents of multi-culturalism in Europe, Geert Wilders is one, and
his argument about how Islam and democracy are not compatible can
be seen here.
Defining Left Liberal Intellectuals:
Are They Liberals?
This in turn brings us to individuals from the mainstream media who
have christened themselves as the ‘Liberal Left’ or even as ‘Left
Liberal Intellectuals’. Any intellectual would see the inherent
contradiction between secularism and Islam at both the macro and
the individual levels, and both in terms of tolerance and free
speech. An intellectual would also clearly also see that Hinduism
provides an innately secular ethos, but apparently the breed of
‘‘Left Liberal Intellectuals’ in India do not, and if they do, they
would rather not discuss it.
Even without consulting a dictionary, one can fathom that the term
liberal means generous. Liberals are supposed to be generous in
thought. What is supposed to differentiate Liberals from others is
their generosity in accepting different beliefs.
Multiple questions arise from the notion or principle of acceptance
of diverse beliefs and faiths. When a Liberal tolerates other
beliefs, would s/he tolerate intolerance? Would they tolerate the
implicit intolerance of Islam? Any individual true to their
principles would see the inherent contradiction of tolerating
intolerance, but apparently our mainstream media notables do not.
Perhaps it would help if they at least cared to debate or discuss
the issue but there is an ominous silence from these
intellectuals.
Then again, it appears that these self-christened Liberals have
restricted the principle of acceptance to religious beliefs. A
self-christened Left Liberal is therefore accepting of all
beliefs however bigoted they may be and
therefore includes Islam/Muslims in this acceptance. Why then, do
they not extend this courtesy to beliefs other than those of the
religious kind? Why not be equally accepting of ideologies
divergent from their own?
When it comes to practicing acceptance of views and ideologies that
are not religious per se, self-christened Left Liberals portray a
streak of intolerance. Thus, they are quick to dismiss the
right-wing ideology on the basis of its alleged intolerance. So, a)
the intolerance of Islam is acceptable to them but not the alleged
intolerance of right-wing ideologies. b) Their own intolerance when
it comes to right-wing ideology contradicts the definition of a
Liberal as an individual that respects all points of view and
beliefs. If intolerance of any kind is so despicable to this breed,
it is surprising that they engage in radical intolerant behavior
when it comes to right-wing groups. Similarly, if intolerance of
any kind is so despicable to them, how can they willingly embrace
and espouse the Muslim cause that is founded on an inherent
intolerance?
Consistency of principles requires that they would reject the
intolerance of Islam as well as the intolerance that stems from
radical right-wing ideologies or embrace and accept both as part of
a multi-faith multi-ideology society. Also true Liberals would
choose to co-exist with divergent ideologies in a multi-faith
multi-ideology society and not themselves engage in intolerant
behavior that includes belittling, labeling, name calling,
stigmatizing, or refusing to engage in discussion with right-wing
ideologues. A large group among the right-wing are merely
questioning of the inherent intolerance of Islam.
Based on the above, the title Liberal to describe these political
commentators and media personalities is fallacious. These are
radicals that choose to blindly and eagerly support Islam’s
intolerance, while engaging in a studied hate campaign against
those that question Islam’s compatibility with democracy, using
labeling, stigmatization, ranting as mechanism.
Do they represent the interests of the
disenfranchised?
The Left is by definition expected to represent the interests of
the disenfranchised or the poor. However, our mainstream media are
notoriously pro-Congress-establishment. The Left is supposed to be
pro-poor and pro-people but coverage during the Anna Hazare
anti-corruption movement amply showed how mainstream media went
overboard to discredit the movement through discrediting its
members, alleging ulterior motives, and being overly concerned
about what they called the ‘subversion of democratic institutions’.
A real ‘Left’ media would have encouraged and supported a people’s
movement where people’s pressure groups get to influence policy and
pressurize an errant government to bring a stringent
anti-corruption legislation in the face of numerous scams of
humongous proportions.
If there is any doubt that mainstream media are mere minions of the
Congress establishment, you can check this, this, this, and this. There is a reason why
mainstream media are no longer trusted and social media are
increasingly taking over the dissemination of information as
noted here and here.
If there are any doubts about mainstream media being elitist,
perhaps this story would be very
telling.
Clearly, the self-imposed title of ‘Left’ is also a misnomer when
it comes to our media notables.
Can the notable from media be called
‘intellectual’?
Stories abound about the rotten state of the media.
Check this one out. For another
story on shoddy journalism, check this out. Perhaps,
intellectual is not quite the word either.
Author: Silver1000 | Follow the writer on
twitter.com/ChaandiS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Disclaimer: The author is a commentator on issues of national
interest. These are her personal views and do not necessarily
reflect IBTL's opinion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Share Your View via Facebook
top trend
-
High Court, Yeddyurappa's FIR and twitter
-
35 Muslim groups benefit from OBC quota in Gujarat, compared to 24 Muslim groups in Bihar
Left-liberal media’s myth-making by Shashi Shekhar
In this age of 24x7 electronic media reinforced urba..
-
Sanjeev Bhatt and recruitment scam in 1996
The list does not end here- Mr. Bhatt was at the centre of a massive recruitment scam that hit Gujarat in 1996 when he h..
-
Follow Japan in Land Acquisition
The country is burning due to acquisition of farmers’ lands for development projects. People are agitated in UP over..
-
My Conviction about Kashmir - Anna Hazare
My Dear Sisters and Brothers,
Namaskar!
Some people talk incoherent things about Kashmir related issues bu..
what next
-
-
"Coal allocations since 1993 are arbitrary and illegal", Says Supreme Court
-
Palestine, 6 billion people and second hand opinions
-
Malegaon 2006 vs. Malegaon 2008 - Blast Politics
-
Who will investigate Chidambaram & Co for the Dabhol Loot?
-
Narendra Modi prepares to climb the ramparts of the Red Fort
-
The Great Jindal Swindle
-
AAP's insidious anti-Hindu agenda
-
Nagma - Sonia Gandhi's Star Soldier
-
Aam Aadmi Party : Anti-Modi stalking horse
-
What in God's name is Teesta Setalvad's agenda?
-
-
-
Time to rethink : Saffron surge and the secular debacle - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
-
India's Wishlist for Prime Minister Narendra Modi
-
My first meeting with Narendra Modi - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
-
Telangana - Divide and Rule?
-
Myths vs Facts about RSS
-
The Two States: Telangana and Seemandhra
-
Answering Media on Questions to Narendra Modi, but will they venture into responding these queries?
-
#AAPCon : Dilli ke log ban gaye Mamu
-
Secularism is just synonymous with Sanatan Dharm
-
Beware of the Hoax called Aam Aadmi Party
-
Comments (Leave a Reply)