Thread by @shrikanth_krish

Dogmatic Libertarianism is a theological doctrine that doesn't subject itself to any validation

The problem in India is not that the State is too big, but that it is too weak. An acute lack of State capacity characterizes India like no other

https://twitter.com/amitvarma/status/1034702198725390336

(Contd..)

The other major problem with "Libertarian" thinkers is the tendency to glorify the idea of the Individual while being completely unmindful of cultural context

The idea of viewing society as a collection of atomized individuals whose freedom is paramount is specifically an Anglo Saxon idea.

The fierce individualism of Anglo Saxon culture was remarked upon even over 1000 years ago - by external observers.

It is not a surprise that political theories centered around the individual arose in England, and not in any other country.

To assume that those ideas have universal applicability all over the world is to indulge in a pecular form of Whiggery that wants to turn the whole world "Anglo Saxon"

Heck...Anglo Saxon ideas don't work very well even in a country like Italy, leave alone India.

While a lot of Indians do think of themselves primarily as individual entities, a much much larger section of Indians think of themselves as part of a collective.

As a part of a family, a caste, a lingual group, a religious sect, or maybe even all of them

So while it is fashionable among Libertarians to engage in a great deal of rhetoric around "Individual liberty", many Indians don't care for it as much.

In my own experience, several Indians take greater offence when their "culture" or "family" is attacked than when they are themselves abused / insulted

You may or may not like this. But that's the reality on the ground. That's how Indians are wired.

Many of the classical liberal principles that get parroted mean much less in communal societies like India where the collective takes precedence over the whims and desires of the individual.

Let's take a couple of classical liberal principles that are aggressively positioned as "universal" principles

"Freedom of Speech"

"Freedom of Religion"

Now with regard to "Freedom of Speech" - the reality on the ground is people don't value it as highly as their own cultural security and social relationships

Leave aside social discourse - even in families, there is no "Freedom of speech" in India. Family members don't speak their mind because they don't want to offend their loved ones

Now a libertarian may bemoan this, but that's how Indians like it.

And when people can't take criticism from their loved ones, it is far less likely they will take criticism from strangers.

The costs of free speech (in terms of its damage to social concord) are far greater than the benefits that accrue from it - in an Indian context

This is partly because of lack of trust in society where people don't take what you have to say at face value but see ulterior motives and bad blood in everything.

And they are perfectly justified in doing so, because these prejudices stem from historical experience

Which is why what you get is "qualified" free speech in reality.

Now a Whiggish take on this is to view this as a stepping stone on the path to absolute free speech. But that may not happen in every culture

It is wrong to assume a progressive liberation of speech as "natural"

Let's take the other much cherished principle - "Freedom of religion"

Again this is a principle that arose in Protestant societies like England and Colonial America where "Belief" is paramount and central to religion. And everything else secondary.

This manifested in the rhetoric of "religious freedom" - eventually leading to militant individual atheism / materialism as well - which is a variant of "religious freedom"

A Hugh Hefner is just as much of a fundamentalist as the Puritan ministers of Boston in 17th cen

But this rhetoric of "Freedom of belief" is less relevant in communal societies like India or even many Islamic countries where the religion is less centered on belief but is encompasses many aspects of social existence. In other words the religion is actually a "way of life"

In such societies, "Freedom of Belief" is viewed with suspicion as it can amount to betraying one's ancestors, betraying one's "roots", betraying one's inherited ideas of right and wrong.

How can an individual's whims overturn centuries of inheritance?

While one can legitimately argue for or against this mode of thinking the fact is that in this set-up where religion is more of an ethical and philosophical framework and less about personal belief, "Freedom of Religion" is a somewhat hollow ideal

It is on account of these fundamental cultural schisms across cultures and geographies that "Classical Liberalism" / "Libertarianism" are often ideologies that invite derision than serious consideration in communal societies