1. Liberals are strongly opposed to conservative values in all cultures across the world. But in a culturally diverse society, there exists an added layer to this opposition which is based on misperceptions about the foreign cultures.
2. Liberals from one culture tend to feel more strongly opposed to the conservative values of other cultures because they don't fully understand the social intricacies of the foreign culture. Thus, a part of their opposition arises out of ignorance and a phobia is generated.
3. A phobia implies an irrational, unreasonable aversion towards a culture in this context. Both anti-semitism and islamophobia are examples of this. Essentially, you don't know about a culture but yet you tend to believe the worst about them based on hearsay.
4. These phobias are often employed by the far-right politicians to generate leverage in elections. Liberals often oppose such attempts because they value ideas like secularism and syncretism. They try to convince people how crucial these ideas are to the collective progress.
5. However, unless Liberals introspect and overcome the phobia in themselves about Conservatives from foreign cultures, they will end up aiding the far-right movement, and being the enablers of fascism. We are seeing this right now in India.
6. By virtue of their strong opposition to conservative values, Liberals forget that Conservatives deserve equal rights. They fail to recognise the other's right to dignity and equality. They refuse to stand up for them when these rights are endangered.
7. Liberals must be able to empathise with the marginalised despite their conservative values. The attitude that solidarity is reserved for those who share liberal values is quite misplaced and dangerous in a diverse society like ours.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Rather than curbing the power of caste, then, economic liberalisation has exacerbated caste differences because it has exacerbated inequality in a society stratified along caste lines."
"It is certainly the case that in liberal democratic societies, the formal equality of individuals serves as a convenient alibi for obscuring collective histories of advantage and disadvantage."
"We see this playing out in evaluations of merit in which the individual is treated as a person with certain innate capacities rather than as a person who has been afforded structural advantages."
While ideas like secularism and pluralism are undoubtedly the goals which we must work towards, we must recognise the fact that these words have never had much to do with the reality of this society. Even the most progressive thinkers in the mainstream often fail to realise this.
Those who've been marginalised by the oppressive power structures in this society will invariably mock the facade of those in the mainstream calling themselves "secular" or "plural". It is crucial to realise that this mockery isn't coming from a place of ideological opposition.
Their mockery is coming from a place of mistrust that got accumulated based on their lived experiences in a society that has turned its back on them for ages. It is an expression of exhaustion from participating in an age-old charade about an imaginary secular society.
All the popular arguments against caste-based reservations are founded on myths and have no basis in reality. This is not surprising as the dominant social groups are always threatened by attempts to create a more equal and just society.
A thread with counter-arguments 👇🏽
Argument 1: "Those who are economically better off benefits more than the weak, so caste should be replaced by economic criteria for reservation"
Counter argument –– Part 1: The premise itself is invalid. Reservation in employment has been a significantly pro-poor policy.
a) According to the National Sample Survey data, in 2011–12, about 68% of all permanent SC employees were educated below the secondary and higher secondary levels or were diploma holders, while 32% were educated up to the graduate level or above.
Reacting to RG's tweet about how minorities are being ostracised in India, many have reiterated their belief that him, his mother and his sister are the only people in the INC leadership who won't switch to BJP. Unfortunately, 3 people don't make a party, it's a family.
Such a statement by the INC supporters is not just an endorsement of the Gandhi family, it is also a statement of dissent against their party's pro-Hindutva politics, which they see as antithetical to the family's ideology. This is a welcome development during a fascist rule.
It is good that INC supporters are able to see through the fault-lines of their party and are condemning the likes of Scindia who've left the party and joined the BJP (including Khushbu, the latest one to switch).
Sooner all of them leave, the better for the Congress party.
In solidarity with Bhagyalakshmi, Diya Sana & Sreelakshmi ✊🏽
It takes courage to do what they did and then accept the accountability for it. Here's hoping that this glorious effort will serve as a lesson to every misogynist hiding behind their computers and spewing venom online.
There are many who see nothing wrong in what that vile man did. To hell with them. But a lot of men (and a few women) who otherwise stand against patriarchy have refused to support their act citing few concerns.
Let's address their arguments one by one.
"They shouldn't have taken law into their hands"
Like in the case of #MeToo movement, it is precisely because there is no proper process in place to address the problem that these activists had to take law into their hands. Active resistance arises out of a failed system.