Karl Popper's point is different. He is talking about those that would actively undermine pluralism e.g. intolerant monotheistic religions which do not seek or wish for coexistence.
We've adopted "cutting the cake" for birthdays. This originates from Christian weddings, where "cutting the wedding cake actually represents breaking the bride's hymen." (for end of virginity).
We Indians copy blindly just like we sing "ring-a-ringa roses" uncomprehendingly.
A large majority of farmers across India support the unshackling of Indian agriculture.
But a small fraction wants the cartel to continue. They also have money and muscle power as big landowners. No surprise that they're lynching small dalit farmers.
I've not heard a single argument against the farm law reform which is not based on speculation and fear-mongering. If there is, I'm happy to listen. These kind of arguments make no sense.
How exactly does the ability to sell anywhere hinder farmers?
The "liberal" discourse in India is to cater to the powerful claiming to speak for "marginalized."
1. The concern for "tribals" is not for those who'd resist Christian conversion. It is to sever cultural ties and show Hindus as enemy to aid $powerful evangelical conversion war.
2. The concern for "dalits" is not because they care the least for "dalits." If they did, they'd have been agitating for the removal of Article 370, which deprived Dalits of rights in J&K they got elsewhere. But they *opposed* that. Why? To serve the agenda of powerful Islamism.
3. The narrative on "atrocities on dalits" is for a singular purpose. A stick to beat Hindus with to aid powerful #ChristoIslam. This is why they bury the many cases of Muslim atrocities on Dalit Hindus. It doesn't serve the agenda of the powerful.
The Puritan ideology of Protestant Christianity dubbed all expenditure on entertainment as "wasteful", indeed anything used for other than the glory of the Christian God.
"Modern Hindus" replicate these arguments determining what is "wasteful" in how others spend their money.
When the British Empire impoverished India by draconian taxation, destruction of industry and colonial loot, villagers still managed to scrounge up some money for the wedding of their children.
The British then dubbed wedding expenditure as "wasteful" and the *cause* of poverty.
The same arguments are replicated by the colonial courts and the colonial Indian state to civilize the natives and control who they should be allowed to spend their own money.
Yes, this is very true. Pretty much the entire "elite class" in India, those who were wealthy and in power at the time of Independence were collaborators of the British.
Those who truly rebelled were impoverished, their lands taken, livelihoods destroyed.
Then those who'd been collaborators branded themselves as "freedom fighters" and wrote their own hagiography and faked the history of the real freedom struggle.
Read book "Netaji" which documents, from British archives, what caused the British to leave.