Was India ever liberal? | Cover Story | Times Crest
Popular on Times Crest
  • In This Section
  • Entire Website
  • Movers and shakers Inc
    July 13, 2013
    Insiders say the Gymkhana is a way of life — quite literally.
  • Dancing but no dhotis
    July 13, 2013
    The only time in recent past that a rule was bent was in 1989, ironically for a politician. It was the only time the club turned a blind eye to the…
  • The knowledge hub
    July 13, 2013
    Director Kavita A Sharma says, 'IIC isn't really a club but a cultural centre meant to help this country understand others better, and vice…
More in this Section
Leaving tiger watching to raise rice Ecologist Debal Deb, who did his post-doctoral research from IISc in…
The crorepati writer He's the man who gives Big B his lines. RD Tailang, the writer of KBC.
Chennai-Toronto express Review Raja is a Canadian enthusiast whose quirky video reviews of Tamil…
Don't parrot, perform Maestro Buddhadev Dasgupta will hold a masterclass on ragas.
A man's man Shivananda Khan spent his life speaking up for men who have sex with men.
Bhowmick and the first family of Indian football At first glance, it would be the craziest set-up in professional football.
From Times Blogs
The end of Detroit
Jobs in Detroit's car factories are moving to India.
Chidanand Rajghatta
How I love the word ‘dobaara’...
Can ‘bindaas’ or ‘jhakaas’ survive transliteration?
Shobhaa De
Anand marte nahin...
India's first superstar died almost a lonely life.
Robin Roy
The Gag Effect

Was India ever liberal?


POINT OF RETURN: Protests against Salman Rushdie's visit outside the Kolkata airport

We Indians take pride, with considerable justification, in the fact that we are the world's largest, ie, the most populous, democracy. But is our society liberal? Is there enough space in India's political-ideological spectrum for authentic liberalism? 
My regretful answer is: No. Not merely because of the plight of a host of creative persons who have over the decades had their freedom of expression circumscribed in the name of not hurting collective communal sentiment or, sometimes, to appease a violenceprone politician or religious bigot. A Salman Rushdie or a Kamal Haasan, an M F Hussain or an Ashis Nandy faced the heat of intolerance because tolerant liberalism lost its glow after flickering for a while in the early years of the republic.

It had a promising start. The Constitution as it was first implemented was a liberal document, though we can quibble over the presence or absence of certain liberal features in the way it finally turned out. Among the early directors of India's destiny were many liberals. The architect-in-chief of the Constitution was B R Ambedkar, a profound liberal;C Rajagopalachari, independent India's first governor-general, was a liberal intellectual;and Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister, was a true liberal in values and thought. And there were others in that elite corps of leaders.

That very elite exclusivity, within which grand debates took place over values and policies in a liberal spirit, was perhaps the problem for liberalism's future. The spirit did not really trickle down to mass politics or into the inner minds of most of midnight's children, barring an elite few, who came of age in the '50s and '60s. For, as a concept liberalism sounds attractive, but it's not easy to appreciate in full form. 

The word 'liberal' comes from the Latin 'liber', which means 'free'. That's why a founding pillar of liberalism is freedom of expression. It has several pillars on which the idea rests, but the right of all citizens of a liberal democracy to be entitled to free expression is a central requirement of any society that cares to call itself liberal.

A crucial corollary of that right to free expression is the right to offend. That's precisely where the Indian experience has veered off the liberal path. But if I can never offend anyone, how can I freely express myself ? We are not talking of tonal quality or the necessary grace of social behavior. But my views are mine and anyone who feels offended can express a competing viewpoint to offend me in turn.

After all, what good is democratic politics without disagreement that can, and often does, offend persons holding different views? Thus, a Marxist-Leninist in India might describe me contemptuously as a 'bourgeois liberal' and I might not like that. Or a religious and cultural nationalist from the right might describe me as 'pseudo-secular' or a 'chamcha' of un-Indian values, but then I reserve the right to call them prehistoric idiots. Orderly disagreement despite offensive speech is democracy.

The ensuing conflicts of speech can be resolved through a number of forums in a liberal democracy. There are, to start with, elections at periodic intervals in which political parties that have very different and conflicting opinions can compete to garner support. There's Parliament and there are state assemblies, where debates are supposed to take place within established rules. In case of libelous speech we have the courts. And a free media would be the other vital channel to express our thoughts, feelings, disagreements and anxieties, offensive or otherwise.

OK, but is the right to offend absolute? Of course not. The moment offensive speech becomes a clear call for violence, or forcibly steals the legal rights of others to live and think as they like, you forfeit your right to free expression. It's easier to say this than to judge a crisis in real life but liberal democratic experience worldwide has developed fairly clear norms. Thus, say, an Islamic cleric claiming to speak on behalf of a whole community can say that his brethren have been hurt by Kamal Haasan's film;but while he can call the film maker foul names, he can neither beat him up nor must he, by threatening violence, force a ban on the director's right to show his film.

Somewhere along the way, the lofty liberalism of the early years became just an ideal to nod to. Actually, the degeneration probably began in the '50s, when some films, books and organisations were first banned. But with the arrival of Indira Gandhi's style of politics, liberalism took a long hike from which it has not returned.

With an amendment forced through Parliament in the '70s, it is now technically impossible for a political party to operate in India unless it first declares its adherence to 'socialism'. Liberalism is not socialism though it can sit well with social democracy of the kind that is prevalent in modern welfare states. In India, however, there is no presence in the political arena of a truly liberal party, whether free market-oriented or social democratic.
So, has the liberal space shrunk in India? Yes, but it was hardly ever there.

Reader's opinion (8)

Srinivasan GopalaraoFeb 7th, 2013 at 17:26 PM

Liberal to me means respect for others opinions

Deepak SinglaFeb 7th, 2013 at 15:12 PM

india is indeed a liberal country but seems like just for the politicians as they can use slangs and abuse on national media but artists can't even publish their cartoons,paintings,or article because they are offensive to these so called liberal nations politicians or to some partucular commmunity..

Surendra NathFeb 4th, 2013 at 12:29 PM


Rajiv EdavanFeb 4th, 2013 at 09:37 AM

India has always been a liberal society from time immemorial. We gave world an open religion, yoga, kamasutra, great arts skulptures (e.g khajuraho), music, science, astronomy and what not. The culture of protest is new, mainly from fanatic groups risen recently. This is the beauty of democracy.

Tanya SinhaFeb 3rd, 2013 at 19:52 PM

Democracy and liberty are fancy words today used by people to make there speech or article more effective. Gautam Adhikari ji i totally agree with you.

Srinivasan GopalaraoFeb 3rd, 2013 at 19:37 PM

India does not qualify to be called a democracy liberalism comes later on. Mere voting in elections and electing your representatives and then having no space to voice your honest opinion does not make india a democracy .It is populous agreed

Srinivasan GopalaraoFeb 3rd, 2013 at 19:33 PM

I agree . India is not a liberal one and it is not a democracy too. Democracy is where the peoples opinion supersedes over any other opinion. A democracy can never be imposed .

Sekar NairFeb 3rd, 2013 at 11:52 AM

India never been a single political entity until 1947,,,,, despite the fact we hv been taught in school,,,that india is 5000 years old,,,,,,, how can we say its been a democracy,,, it is early experience fr us that's why we are making mistakes,,,,

Other Times Group news sites
The Times of India | The Economic Times
इकनॉमिक टाइम्स | ઈકોનોમિક ટાઈમ્સ
Mumbai Mirror | Times Now
Indiatimes | नवभारत टाइम्स
महाराष्ट्र टाइम्स
Living and entertainment
Timescity | iDiva | Bollywood | Zoom
| Technoholik | MensXP.com


itimes | Dating & Chat | Email
Hot on the Web
Book print ads | Online shopping | Business solutions | Book domains | Web hosting
Business email | Free SMS | Free email | Website design | CRM | Tenders | Remit
Cheap air tickets | Matrimonial | Ringtones | Astrology | Jobs | Property | Buy car
Online Deals
About us | Advertise with us | Terms of Use and Grievance Redressal Policy | Privacy policy | Feedback
Copyright© 2010 Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. All rights reserved. For reprint rights: Times Syndication Service