Thread by @shrikanth_krish

The words "Right" and "Left" / "Conservative" and "Liberal" are bandied about a lot in Indian public discourse (and more so on Twitter).

But there is also a reaction against these labels from certain quarters of the political spectrum. Let's discuss the two principal reactions

Firstly there is the "Libertarian" reaction- a segment that is prominent among young Indians

Many in this cohort claim that they are "Socially Liberal" but "Right wing" in Economics

So their stance is the labels "conservative" and "liberal" don't represent their position v well

The other opposition to these labels comes from a segment among Hindu nationalists who feel that "RIght" and "Left" are "European" constructs, and don't apply to India!

They like to identify their politics as "Dharmic", which somehow transcends the conservative / liberal labels

This thread is an attempt to defend the so-called "European" labels and why they do apply to India.

It is also a polemic against the two principal reactions just discussed, and on why both these reactions are wrong-headed.

First let's consider the Libertarian position.

So their stance is - We are "socially lib", but fiscally conservative / pro market.

Is this even a tenable position?

Is it even possible to be "socially liberal" but conservative in other domains?

To answer this question we have to understand what conservatism is.

The astute political commentator @swapan55 in his Tagore Lectures in 2015 identified 3 characteristics that define Conservative politics in most settings.

a) A preference for communal wisdom over Individual discretion

b) A preference to constrain the power of the "State" and limit its role in social / economic engineering

c) A certain respect for religion and the idea of the "Sacred" in public life

Now what would be the "socially liberal" Libertarian position on the 3 points?

Most Libertarians would heartily agree with a) and b) while demurring strongly with c) and with socially conservative stances more generally

Now let's see if such a position is internally consistent

A) is about preferring social wisdom over individual discretion. This is very much aligned with libertarian positions. After all, the "Free market" represents social / communal wisdom.

Whereas centralized executive power implies trusting "individual discretion"

If millions of investors / traders feel that TCS stock is worth Rs 2000, then it most probably IS worth that amount as the market price represents "Communal wisdom".

However 5 year plans or the choice of "Institutes of Eminence" are not likely to be as beneficial as they represent the discretion of a few well meaning individuals at best.

So communal wisdom clearly trumps individual discretion

This belief is also central to the urge to constrain the "State" because the State represents centralization of authority as opposed to the market - which represents the wisdom of the crowds.

But the consequences of A and B imply that you will also need to defer to social wisdom and "traditions" in areas outside the domain of markets. And this might mean that you will need to "repress" individual choice / urges once in a while.

If the "crowds" are so very good at assessing the price of TCS stock, they should do a pretty good job in determining what's moral, and what's appropriate.

Prejudices of a large group may contain wisdom that eludes an individual's powers of "reason".

Edmund Burke best summed it up with his immortal line -

"The individual is foolish the species is wise".

This naturally means that one ought to take "Traditions" and "religion" and "Communal wisdom" a lot more seriously than one's "reason" might be willing to because they represent the wisdom of the ages.

Their "Inductive wisdom" may prove superior to one's "Deductive brilliance"

Let me illustrate with an example.

When I was 16, my passion was to study history. I hated math and science. So the "socially liberal" choice for me would have been to pursue history - "follow my inner calling" so to speak.

But being a conservative, I doubted my own "passions", but instead chose to defer to the prejudices and fads of the crowd instead. And pursued Engineering and later MBA.

To me these "fads" represented communal wisdom. And hence superior to my "individual preference"

18 years later I am glad I chose the "conventional route" at 16.

Thanks to my "herd mentality" and "socially conservative" choice, I have had mostly cushy jobs which I learnt to love. Rather than pursue an ideal, which may have left me economically and emotionally insecure.

This is an example to illustrate how a preference for "social wisdom" invariably implies not just a "Free market" orientation but ALSO "social conservatism".

The second conservative "characteristic" we discussed was the "urge" to constrain the state. This is something "Libertarians" completely buy into. They do want to fight "Big Government".

But what causes Big Government? Big Government is a consequence of social liberalism.

For instance, if you live in a society where families are weak, marriage is not robust, and social insurances are non-existent, then you need the "State" to chip in with safety nets to take care of the infirm, the elderly, the unemployed, among others.

It is not a surprise then that the largest welfare states exist precisely in those parts of the world where both "conventional religion" and "family" are the weakest - Northern and Western Europe.

So Social liberalism is a cause of big government.

If you are against big government, then you cannot say you favor greater social liberalism.

That's an internal contradiction!

So we have so far discussed the arguments against Reaction A mentioned at the start of the thread

Clearly the Libertarian quibbles on the Conservative vs Liberal divide are misplaced and riddled with contradictions!

It should prompt them to examine their beliefs more closely!

Now let's turn to Reaction B

This is the reaction that stems from the Hindu nationalist types, who prefer the "Dharmic" label. And think of "conservative" and "liberal" as dirty European words imposed by the white man.

Dismantling this "Reaction" is actually easier than dismantling Reaction A. All one needs to do is examine what "Dharmic" means.

The very word "Dharma" stems from the root "Dhr" which means "to hold/maintain /support"

What is often called "Dharmic", by its very etymology, refers to a world view that values "conservation", "continuity" and "stability".

These are v much "Conservative" talking points!

So for the "Hindu Dharmics" to say -

"Hey..we are Dharmic, don't call us "conservative".
Or to say
"Hey...we are not conservative. Hinduism is a liberal way of life"

is Bullshit!

Dharma by its very definition is "Conservative".

And there is no reason to shy away from the "Conservative" label! One should embrace it if one is a Hindu "Dharmic" type!

Now let's turn to Swapan's 3 characteristics of Conservatism. What is the HIndu "Dharmic" take on the three -

I'd say it is a big YES for all 3.

They favor communal wisdom over individual choice
They favor a less powerful state
And yes, they respect the idea of the sacred!

In fact - the argument for a small state comes from Manu himself who says famously in his Smriti -

"धर्म एव हतो हन्ति धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः ।
तस्माद् धर्मो न हन्तव्यो मा नो धर्मो हतोऽवधीत् ॥ १५ ॥

Translation -
"Dharma blighted, blights; and Dharma, preserved, preserves; hence Dharma should not be blighted, lest blighted Dharma blight us."

Now what does this signify?

This is an argument that "Dharma can defend itself!" And that it does not need a "State" to enforce / protect it.

Dharma / Virtue is capable of prevailing on account of its inherent superiority. It does not need a bureaucracy to enforce it.

This is actually a v v strong argument from Manu himself against an Expansionist, Paternalist state which tries to impose virtue.

Manu is not calling for a police state, but feels Dharma can be trusted to prevail on its own!

There can be no finer statement against BIG Government than this shloka from Manu!

So the Hindu nationalist aversion to the conservative and liberal tags is puerile.

They must embrace these terms. There is nothing "European" about these terms. These terms, if understood properly, are just as applicable to India as any other geography.

This thread's purpose was to clarify the usage of Conservative and Liberal and demonstrate why this usage makes sense, and why the libertarian as well as the Hindu right wing's aversion to these terms stems from a lack of understanding more than anything else.

"Conservative" and "liberal" are not meaningless "labels" but accurate categorizations of world views that exist in a free society

It is fallacious to say that these are "European" labels

It is just as puerile to say that one can be "Socially liberal but conservative otherwise"