We Are Like This Only: An Indian Conservative’s explanation for why the Liberal model of Indian society is flawed

The Pew Research Agency released a report about religion in India, sparking off a lot of debate.

Many of us reacted that this only reconfirms our understanding of Indian society. But what it reveals about India is also clearly very different from the description or understanding of many international commentators (particularly of the Anglo world), or even many intellectual elites of India itself.

Some, like the Print in its 50 word editorials, even said “this shows that we Indians cannot be put in a box”. Some said the findings seemed to have “contradictions”- how can there be both “tolerance” and segregation? Were respondents lying?

I won’t rehash the findings in this piece, nor do I vouch for the validity or quality of the survey- except to say that many of the findings are entirely unsurprising for many of us. There are definitely some dubious findings as well (19% of Muslims voted for BJP in 2019, really?), but many are also similar to a CSDS survey done a few years ago, and I think they’re largely valid.

But rather than the findings itself, I make a more foundational claim- namely, that the fundamental framework or mental model that many use to understand Indian society is flawed, and the findings being confusing or “counter intuitive” are merely a manifestation of that.

In other words, I think the intellectual failure here is not merely empirical (as in not knowing that these social facts about India as revealed in the Pew Report are true) but an ontological failure- of using a wrong mental model (of liberalism) as a cognitive apparatus to understand a very different civilisation, whose foundational concepts are fundamentally different.

In this blog I seek to describe and contrast some elements of what I call the Liberal framework of understanding and describing India, with an alternative framework- the framework of an Indian Conservative or a Indic one, which I think is a fundamentally different mental model, that is equally coherent, but far more relevant at least to understand India.

I do this, by contrasting some of the core beliefs of the Liberal model, with the core beliefs of a Hindu or Dharmic society on the *same* key Big questions- on religion, social harmony, individual’s relationship with society, nationhood etc. . I then seek to show how that contrast, and hence a shift in the mental model, is consistent with the findings of the Pew Report.

I argue that this is because Liberalism arose in a context- the context of a western Christian civilisation. And hence, in both its ontology and epistemology, it adopted many Christian premises and definitions on what religion is, and while its prescriptions then are logical derivations of that understanding of religion and culture, because the Dharmic or Hindu definition of religion is so different, you end up with an inapplicable framework, and even a harmful one.

I also outline in many of these sections, the implications of this shift on how the state and its institutions, but also the intellectual ecosystem, should have a more productive engagement with society, driven by this new mental model of Indic thought or Indian Conservatism, instead of Liberalism.

Section 1: What is Religion? How do you attain religious knowledge?

Liberal and Christian answer: A Universally True Belief System- that is, what you BELIEVE or THINK defines religion. How you acquire religious knowledge is by revelation (this is the Christian answer, not the liberal one, but this is the unconscious premise that underpins the mental model of “religion as a belief system” in liberalism).

Indic or Indian Conservative answer: Diligent Praxis (that is what you DO, that too across many aspects of life) and adherence to inherited traditions across time is what defines religion.

That is: A diverse set of practices — that then allow you to live a good life, and through a process of sadhana and shraddha allows you to finally access the Ultimate Truth. Religious Truth is not revealed, it is *experienced* if one’s Praxis is diligent.

*******************************************************************

That is the Truth is not known to you to *believe in* at the beginning through a process of revelation. But the Ultimate Truth IS accessible *at the end* of an inner directed search. We have many tools- traditions, rituals, texts, to be diligently followed and importantly practiced (that is the sadhana and shraddha) to be able to achieve that goal of the ultimate Truth. This series of 3 articles by Prof. Sreejit Datta explains that very well.

One of the striking findings of the Pew Survey shows the contrast- there is a lot of diversity of specific religious beliefs (e.g., is there one god in different forms, only one god or many; is there reincarnation or not) BUT very strong adherence and diligence of *practices* which are however diverse (prayer, visiting places of worship, to even marrying only within caste and religion, to dietary practices etc.).

The Dharmic model recognises that such practices are diverse. There is no expectation that ANY practices or traditions are *universally valid*. BUT there IS an expectation that you follow whatever practices that you have inherited diligently.

It is meaningless to call any tradition as “true” or “false”- a tradition is either old or new, and either rightly adhered to or not, but it is a category error to talk of “true” or “false” traditions, or that you have to “believe” a tradition- you have to DO or PRACTICE tradition- that’s the key.

The liberal (and Abrahamic) model of religion is Universal across space, but different across time (there was a moment of revelation of the Truth, and what prevailed before that was Jahiliya, or Falsehood etc.- hence there is a rupture and difference across time).

And importantly in the Abrahamic worldview, practices flow from that True Belief. Any practice that cannot be traced to belief is invalid, a deviation or a heresy, that should be eliminated, as such practice perpetuates *false* belief.

The Dharmic model is diverse across space (every tiny sub community has its own practices, and traditions) but continuous (though not unchanging) across time. There is a reason that the core part of the Hindu religion is called “Sanatana” (eternal) Dharma- the key focus is continuity across time, not universality across space and peoples.

I would use certain mantras to sanctify my wedding that my ancestors used 3000 years ago as well. Practices evolve, they aren’t unchanging, but like all evolution it is slow; and there is a huge emphasis on rigorous adherence to praxis as was done earlier by our ancestors.

The key question is not — Why should I do X? (that is belief is less relevant) but What is the *right way* to do X? (say circumambulate the temple 3 times clockwise, but not anti clockwise).

The Ultimate Truth has not been revealed, and is hence not readily available in a book. It is attained by a personal journey, which involves, among other things, a rigorous praxis of inherited traditions.

Diversity of not just praxis, but belief is inherent in this; because the Ultimate Truth is not revealed, but has to be discovered through a personal journey of praxis; there are very many diverse beliefs that different people can have.

That’s why Hinduism and Dharmic thought has so many Darshanas, which can differ on even the most profound beliefs- from epistemology to metaphysics.

Also, religion is NOT a belief system alone, but inextricably linked with culture, that is a set of traditions, norms and institutions that you practice not just believe. And the Pew Research also reveals that- followers of the Indic faiths and the Abrahamic faiths realise that they are VERY different from each other, BUT value the diversity as well.

Implications for the state institutions and intellectual ecosystem: If the Dharmic model of religion is a diverse set of traditions, the quest for a so-called “Essential Practice” is a cognitive fallacy.

It presuppose that practice has to flow from belief encoded in a universally true text, to which there are later heresies or deviant practices that get interpolated; and so one has to scrutinize practice as a logical derivation from an authoritative text to examine how “essential” it is.

That’s simply NOT how Dharmic traditions work. There is no derivation from axiomatic first principles that are revealed, no such litmus tests, and hence this entire mental model that the Indian judiciary and state uses is flawed.

Tradition just IS, it isn’t a corollary of a singular authoritative text, and one can’t “purify” religion by purging it of heresies and making it to conform to axioms that have been revealed to mankind.

Section 2: How do we ensure social harmony in a society with religious diversity by

A. The nature of the state and

B The values we promote in society itself?

Liberal answer to A- the nature of the state: “Secularism”- involving neutrality (the state has no religion, and there is “separation” of religion and state), liberty (you are free to follow a religion) and equality (people of all religions have equal rights). That ensures that religions can compete in a free market of beliefs, without that competition descending to conflict.

Indic or Indian Conservative answer to A- the nature of the state: The state would be a Dharmic one, and has the Raja Dharma to ensure diversity of practices and beliefs. That is, you have social harmony BECAUSE the state, and society IS Dharmic, not because the state is *separated* from Dharma (loosely and wrongly translated as religion).

And hence there is not just tolerance but acceptance, even celebration of diversity of practices, beliefs- leading to religious liberty, and equality(that is same rights) without uniformity.

*******************************************************************

The liberal answer to ensuring religious harmony is frankly a very logical implication of its model of religion. Liberalism arose in Europe, which was then a very Christian society, and it is natural that the mental model that Liberalism had of religion was the Christian one- that it is an assertion of universally valid Truth.

Now, it is the nature of Truth, that if X is True, then “Not X” is False- not just different.

Hence if you have a society where you have different Christian denominations all claiming to be Universally True, that’s a recipe for conflict- because a claim of Truth implies a corollary claim of the other being False. It is then incumbent upon you to bring people from falsehood to the truth- indeed you are doing them a favor by doing so and saving their soul from eternal damnation. How do you then ensure social harmony?

The “secular” state was a good solution for that- to say the state itself should be “neutral”, that is not have any belief of its own, so that it has broad based legitimacy from all such sects. Second, it “separated” religious practice from the state- after all, if religion is about “belief”, then one can clearly separate out the regnum (the domain of the state), from the sacerdotium (the domain of religion), and one can believe whatever one wants in the privacy of their home and private spaces, while religion is kept out of the state and public spaces.

And then liberty to follow religion and equality before the law is ensured by a neutral state so constructed. The state becomes a neutral party in an environment of competing truth claims in a kind of free market of religion, where all religions contest for converting people to their beliefs while the state ensures that the competition doesn’t become a conflict- by the guarantees of neutrality, liberty and equality. Hence what you attain is a state of “tolerance”.

Frankly, that’s a very good solution but is applicable ONLY for a Christian society with a Christian model of what religion is. This is totally unintelligible, even destructive, in ANY non-Christian society- even Islamic ones, and much more so in Dharmic ones.

In Dharmic societies (and in this limited sense even in Islamic ones) religion is what you DO, and not just what you THINK- that is an orthopraxy and not just an orthodoxy. There is NO clean separation between regnum and sacerdotium. Religion permeates many aspects of life, because it is a set of traditions of how to live life, there is no limitation of its scope to only particular aspects of life, it is inextricably linked with a lot of culture.

The Pew Research also establishes that- over 60% of people think of religion as related to ancestry and culture as well, not ONLY religious *beliefs*.

Only in Abrahamic religions is religion emancipated from context, and that’s because it claims to be universally valid Truth, so by its very nature it is not contingent on context. But Hindu Dharma is linked to nature, to this land, to almost every aspect of life. How does one separate it?

And that’s where we make several cognitive errors in discourse in India, by questions such as — is doing Yoga Hindu? Is the harvest festival of Pongal- Hindu or not? If I break a coconut before shooting a movie, is that a Hindu practice? If a government event starts with lighting a lamp, is that Hindu? What if a government event to launch a project starts with a Carnatic invocation to Lord Ganesha as a remover of obstacles for the project- is that Hindu?

These are meaningless questions or at least ill formulated ones because they assume (coming from a Christian framework) that there can be a line drawn between specific cultural context, and religion- which is defined as a sort of abstracted *belief system* which is universal and hence independent of context. That’s simply not the case in a Dharmic society — religion is not just a belief system, its purview is not just a private sphere, and it is not abstracted out from cultural context. So ALL of these are indeed Hindu, and that’s ok, let’s not try to purge public spaces and life from Hindu religion- that effectively is a recipe for deracination and to get away from our culture itself.

But Dharmic societies have also historically also had social harmony even with diversity of religions, at least more so than the Abrahamic societies. So how did they ensure that even if the state is not “neutral” and religion is not confined to the private sphere? After all from the Mysore Maharaja to Shivaji to others, there was religious harmony even with Muslims as subjects of the king, even while the state very publicly and consciously followed its own set of specific traditions and religious practices and didn’t create a “separation” of religion and state.

That’s because the nature of the Raja Dharma *itself* involves a respect for diverse traditions as alternative paths to attain the Ultimate Truth through a personal journey of practice. That is, religious liberty and equality are both achieved by a Dharmic state BECAUSE it is a Dharmic state, not *in spite* of it being supposedly “non-neutral”.

One can see this in the Pew survey as well, with people (across religions incidentally- and I’ll address that later), that an *essential* part of our identity as an Indian is to have respect for all religions; and that an essential part of our identity as adherents of A *given* religion is ALSO respect for all religions!

Our goal is not tolerance, bur celebrating the validity of DIVERSE paths; it isn’t a temporary truce while the free market operates to finally convert everyone to the Only Truth, it is a stable equilibrium of multiple valid paths, each of which has value, and doesn’t have to only be “tolerated” like a foul smell that one can’t get rid of.

Ok, but does this matter? Maybe a Dharmic state or a modern “secular” state BOTH achieve religious liberty and equality- which are the outcomes we want, why is the Dharmic model superior or better suited than the “secular” state one? In other words, are there any drawbacks to a “secular” state, even if the underlying framework is one that is not consistent with the Dharmic model of religion and is derived from the Christian one- what are the practical challenges one faces?

My argument is that the insistence of imposing that framework is a recipe for both state-society conflict (undermining the legitimacy of the state) and inter-religious conflict in society itself. I’ll cover the latter in the next sub-section.

On the former, that is state-society conflict: A state that is forced to be “neutral”, that is in the sense of having a separation of religion and state, in a society where religion is a set of cultural practices that permeates most aspects of life, and the private versus public sphere separation for religious practice is not intelligible, is one that will sporadically come in conflict with society; OR be forced to be so deracinated (as a lot of culture is indistinguishable or at least inextricable from “religion”) that it becomes disconnected and lacks legitimacy in the eyes of society.

That is bad always, but particularly bad in a post-colonial society which is seeking to build a strong state that reflects and secures the interests of the nation. You end up with unproductive debates like- Is the state promoting yoga not “secular”? Is the state lighting a lamp and having a Carnatic prayer to Saraswati before an education conference not “secular”? And so on.

A Dharmic society, even an Islamic one actually- that is ANY non-Christian one doesn’t make this distinction. No surprise then that even the Pew survey reveals that a majority of Indians across religions feel that the state, and politicians can and SHOULD be involved in religious affairs. Separation of state and religion, and public and private spheres, with religion being confined to the latter, is not something that is suited for Indian society.

Implications for state institutions and the intellectual ecosystem on A:

1. Stop the self conscious and Quixotic quest to separate out religion from public life. Public life including the state’s conduct, pageantry and even policy thrusts will inevitably be imbued with Dharma. Work instead for representation — say there is a public function, it can start with an invocation to Saraswati and that’s ok, nothing “non secular” about it; same with say the inauguration of a new Parliament building, and if other faiths ALSO want representation that should absolutely be allowed and celebrated in the same inclusive spirit of Dharma. In other words, include, don’t separate religion from public life, that’s what is organic to India. We will never have laicite or anything resembling that.
2. Recognise the limitation of framing religion as a free market contest of different universal truth claims. That’s simply not the model for Dharma. Hence, recognise that while religious liberty should be guaranteed in the sense of the right to profess and practice, the right to *propagate* religion should be reimagined. Propagating religion is an absolute right when religions are all similar — all are claiming to be universally true, and you let the free market decide where people land up; but in an environment where the dominant framework is one which asserts that there are multiple paths to the Ultimate Truth, and has a “live and let live” mutual respect approach to many diverse traditions, then there is a fundamental asymmetry in treating it like a free market of similar, competing universal truth claims. To force it into that paradigm is to force it to adopt the intolerance of an Abrahamic faith, its certitude, its compulsive need to get EVERYONE to adopt one homogenous belief and value system. Now, an individual should of course be free to convert their religion, but *organised* conversions would not be allowed in the interests of social harmony. To be fair, the judiciary in India as well as several state governments have recognised this distinction between propagation, and organised, mass conversions.

Liberal answer to B- what values do we promote in society: Promote values of Liberalism- that is liberty, equality and fraternity. That is promote individualism, make community identity take a backseat, and have high interaction and deep, shared relationships for individuals from different communities to build harmony. Make the meta identity (that is national identity driven by constitutional patriotism) much more salient and erase or at least de prioritise the traditional community identities- annihilate caste, make people less religious, or confine religion to private lives etc.

Make community identity irrelevant or less salient for life decisions- where to live, friends and family, marriage, what to eat etc.- all of those should be about individuals, not communities, based on liberty, equality and fraternity. India is tragically not very Liberal, and hence “Muslims/ minorities are in danger or oppressed”. We need to get away from religion so that we build a truly inclusive society.

Indian conservative or Indic answer to B- what values do we promote in society: Promote the Purushartha values- where the individual liberty to pursue security and prosperity (artha) and desire (kama) is moderated by Dharma and Moksha- that is a sense of balance, with duties and obligations to society, to the environment, to our ancestors and descendants, to ensure stability and sustainability of all.

If that seems too abstract, promote not just the 3 moral foundations (to use the term by Jonathan Haidt)of liberty, fairness (loosely equality), and care for others (loosely fraternity), BUT also allow space for 3 more moral foundations- respect for authority, loyalty, and sanctity.

In practice, also minimise too many interfaces with those of other traditions in shared and public spaces as that reduces conflict and ensures stability while allowing everyone the liberty and equality to pursue the *practice* of their religion (not just belief) without violating the sanctity or imposing sacrilege upon another.

***************************************************************

We have religious freedom, and Muslims and other minorities in India feel free to practice their religion, and don’t feel discriminated against precisely BECAUSE we are a Dharmic, and NOT a liberal society- and hence we have a “live and let live” attitude towards religious diversity as opposed to a liberal one which seeks to ultimately reduce the impact of religion and increase the salience of *individualism*.

It is NO surprise (except for those who peddle the “Muslims/ secularism are in danger” narrative) that the Pew Research reveals that Muslims and Christians and all other religious minorities feel as free to practice their religion as Hindus do.

We are NOT liberal- that is a society that accepts individual liberty as the primary or sole moral foundation of human existence. We are simply not a society where atomistic individualism is the right way to understand and analyse us.

We are socialised from birth, and apart from liberty, respect for authority, loyalty to community and country, and a sense of sanctity & sacrilege, are all very core to our sense of identity.

For liberals, liberty, equality and fraternity are the only valid moral foundations for public life. But respect for authority, loyalty, and sanctity are also deeply held values *in public life*, not just in private life, for most Indians.

Let’s take just one example to establish that point: More than ANYTHING else (including belief in God itself!) what people saw as a litmus test for being a Hindu/ Muslim was abjuring from eating beef/ pork.

And that is entirely unsurprising if one has even a passing knowledge of Indian society and history. Think of it this way with an analogy: The American colonies rose up in their war for independence from the British when they felt they were being taxed too much, without having a say. That is, the covenant between state and society, and hence the legitimacy of the state, rested on whether it upheld the values of i) minimum government, and ii) representative government, and if the state didn’t do that, that would even rouse them to violent revolutionary war against the British. That shows how deeply held minimum and representative government are as values for American society- they were willing to fight and die for it.

What’s the equivalent in Indian history- what triggered us to violent revolution in 1857 when it became intolerable for us that the British colonial state is illegitimate? What were we willing to fight and die for? It was the *sacrilege* of, as it was perceived, the British having bullets coated with cow and pig fat. That’s what led to Indians across religions and regions rising up in violent rebellion. So the notion of sanctity/ sacrilege (that too specifically on dietary habits) is as core to our sense of religious and national identity, as a small state and democracy are in the US- THAT’S how core it is.

A state in India that thinks of only liberty, equality and fraternity, and atomic individualism simply doesn’t understand India, and may sometimes even be abhorrent to India.

As a thought experiment, had the British said- hey, if you have a problem with this bullet, use this one which is not greased with cow or pig fat, but others should have the “liberty” to do so, would that have quelled the war? No. Sanctity and sacrilege operate at a social level, NOT only an individual level.

For liberals, that’s a violation of liberty- how can you tell me what is sacred or sacrilegious? But that’s the nature of those moral foundations- just as equality and fraternity circumscribe individual liberty (you can’t say you won’t employ people of a given race in a private company though it is an exercise of “liberty” because it is a violation of equality and fraternity), similarly sanctity, obedience to authority, and loyalty, ALSO circumscribe individual liberty.

That, frankly, is very intuitive to Indians- we don’t just pursue Artha and Kama by exercising liberty, but seek to circumscribe that by observing our Dharma- that is defer to traditional sources of authority, stay loyal to our institutions and norms, and adhere to notions of sanctity.

We should continue to nurture these deeply held values.

Now, if you combine the facts that- i) Indians respect religious diversity, ii) Indians recognise that religion is something you practice both in public and in private and is inextricable from culture, and iii) that notions of sanctity are deeply held, then it is obvious why the social structure is one of “live together, but separately”. That’s not driven by bigotry. And there is no contradiction, contrary to some bemused people who try to explain it away by saying people lied in the survey, between respecting religious diversity and wanting to live separately, and not inter-marry.

It isn’t surprising that Jains, more than others, don’t want a Muslim or Christian neighbour, because they have the most strict dietary restrictions- so in crowded living spaces in India, they would be exposed to, what from their POV is sacrilegious, constantly.

The liberal answer is to declare this to be invalid- you shouldn’t care that your neighbour is eating an animal while your belief is that all life is sacred. But that’s not how our values are- that is to retreat the practice of your religion to an individual and private space.

Our solution is suited to our context. Same with inter-marriage as well. Should people have the freedom *by law* to inter-marry- definitely yes. But will there be a custom of NOT inter-marrying and frowning upon it?- ALSO yes, and understandably so, because religion is not just a matter of private belief, but of daily practice and culture, and cultural similarity allows you to discharge those obligations and observe those practices easily without friction.

The other point here is — the secular state model of neutrality, liberty, and equality will cause MORE inter-religious conflict than the Dharmic model of celebrating the validity of many diverse paths. That’s because by the state viewing all religions as belief systems making competing Universal Truth claims in a “free market” it FORCES Hinduism and other Indic faiths into an alien paradigm. That is — it willy nilly adopts the meta claim on what religion IS- from Abrahamic faiths, and effectively mandates that Hinduism and other Indic faiths should lose their basic organising principles and refashion themselves on Abrahamic lines.

What that will lead to is issues of conversion and proselytization; a predator- prey dynamic; and forces Hinduism to become Abrahamic- that is more insular, *discard* the tenet of validity of different paths, become an organised faith with greater homogeneity etc.

This would frankly be a huge cultural loss, where the beauty and genius of Dharma is forced to be discarded to adopt what is, in my opinion an inferior model of what religion ought to be (inferior in the sense of bound to cause MORE conflict), just so the state can treat two very different phenomena as if they are competitors in a free market.

This isn’t Coke versus Pepsi, it is Coke versus a Banyan tree- they aren’t the same thing! Just because you call both “religions”, doesn’t mean they are the same thing.

Force fitting a framework (of what religion is and hence how inter-religious harmony has to be achieved) derived from one paradigm, onto a context where the dominant paradigm is totally different, is a recipe for cultural conflict, that too where it hitherto did not exist to the same extent.

If there is a version of Hindutva that is “extremist”, that is a direct consequence of this neutral free-market approach- the state has signaled to Hinduism that the ONLY way it can process and understand Hinduism is if it transforms itself into another Abrahamism to make this Coke versus Pepsi. What are your “essential practices”? Compete for followers- you also proselytise. Organise yourself and become a religion that mobilises people collectively rather than one that focuses on the inner directed spiritual search, so that you can “compete”. Homogenise to create unity to prepare for that competition.

What are these facets of so-called “extremist” Hindutva, other than being the direct consequences of the imposition of this paradigm on Hinduism?

Implications for state institutions and the intellectual ecosystem on B

1. Recognise that respect for authority, loyalty, and sanctity, WILL be core values of society, and hence will find reflection in law as well- NOT just liberty, equality and fraternity. There WILL be laws on cow slaughter (but at the state level, recognising our diversity), restrictions on freedom of expression for blasphemy (say including disrespecting Islam by depicting the Prophet). If you wave away the deeply held values of society, that is not a state that *represents* the nation, it is an imperial one that seeks to govern a nation supposedly to improve and civilise a barbaric people. Liberalism (like all univeralisms) does have that sense of imperial arrogance- you should be forced to accept it in your own interest, and if you haven’t it is because you are ignorant or morally depraved.
2. Don’t apply liberal frameworks to wrongly judge and hector people. A Muslim wanting to marry ONLY another Muslim is not a bigot. A Jain wanting to live in a Jain apartment complex isn’t one either. Yes, we shouldn’t prevent people who voluntarily want to cohabit, inter-marry etc., by law- BUT communities will self organise to have strong norms against that and that’s ok- to declare that to be illiberal, by holding up liberalism as some universal normative standard is the issue. We respect, not just “tolerate” diversity, BUT recognise that the observance of faith is not confined to private spaces, and that activities in some shared spaces may not be acceptable to others and hence one should have a segmented approach on what common and separate interfaces one builds with other communities. That is respectful, wise and pragmatic- not bigoted.
3. To reiterate- in the interest of inter-religious harmony, reframe the model of what religion is, and hence how you achieve inter-religious harmony- NOT by the imposition of secularism, but by the state and society embracing the Dharmic value of diversity and validity of different paths which are NOT in competition with each other.

Section 3: What defines the Indian nation-state?

Liberal answer: India did not exist before the British. Our liberal Constitution and hence “civic nationalism” or “constitutional patriotism” binds us- with the Constitution as the shared *social contract* among a people who belong to different regions, religions, ethnicities etc. The Constitution has the legitimate mandate to drive a “social revolution” (to use Granville Austin’s term) for an unequal, superstitious, and oppressive society.

Indic or Indian Conservative answer: India is an ancient civilisation which now has a modern nation-state. What defines us is a common culture and civilisation, which has been shaped pre-dominantly, but not exclusively, by Hinduism. That is- what binds us is “cultural nationalism”, not ‘civic nationalism” or “constitutional patriotism”.

It isn’t a social contract that binds us, but a trusteeship, where all of us are trustees who have been fortunate to inherit an ancient and superior shared culture from our elders or ancestors, which we have an obligation to pass on to our descendants.

There was no moment of revelation, when our modern prophets revealed the Universal Truth of Enlightenment liberalism, in the form of the single holy book of the Constitution. And independence and the modern republic did not invalidate the “superstition” and “ignorance” and “moral depravity” of the Dark Ages, or Jahiliya. That’s NOT how Indians see the Indian nation-state.

***************************************************************

The Pew Research shows that Indians think of our culture as superior; respect for elders (and I see that as representative of a humility and a sense of legacy for inheriting that culture) as not just a core moral value, but a value that DEFINES what it means to be an Indian.

The research also reveals that the common civilisation or culture is recognisably predominantly (though not exclusively) Hindu.

See the view on religion itself: Not only do most Indians, including most Muslims and Christians, believe that religious pluralism should be respected, but that respecting other religions is a defining feature of being Indian, as well as a core feature of being adherents of their own religions- that is it is BOTH a national value AND a religious value.

Now, that’s a VERY Hindu concept- outside of Dharma and paganisms, this sense of reciprocity is absent, and the notion that there are possibly equally valid paths to God would be a heresy.

Commentator and podcaster Kushal Mehra called this the “Dharmification of Abhrahamisms” pointing to not just this, but the acceptance of things like Karma, and significant minorities among Muslims and Christians even believing that God could manifest in human beings, in the Ganga, in nature etc. This of course would be very different for Muslims and Christians in India versus elsewhere, where all of this would naturally be considered heretical.

In this sense there is an analogy with western civilisation and Christianity. Professor S.N. Balagangadhara wrote that Christian ideas spread in two ways — evangelism/ proselytisation AND what he called “secularisation”. Secularisation was the process by which the tropes (or specific frameworks or ideas of Christianity) were filtered out from their Christian theological context, to become the topoi, or commonplace foundational ideas that play a central role in the conceptual world of a society.

Tom Holland, in his book “Dominion”, showed how profound the impact of Christianty was through this process of “secularisation”, and how modern Western liberal civilisation (and hence much of the world because of colonisation etc.) was shaped by Christian tropes becoming topoi.

In Indian civilisation it isn’t to the same extent, but SOME tropes of Hinduism have become widely accepted as the topoi of what it means to be Indian, and indeed what it means to be a Muslim or a Christian in India, even if those topoi (such as the nature of religious diversity, attitudes towards other religions etc.) sometimes contradict the theological beliefs of those faiths.

India hence is not just a profoundly religious society, but that the shared mental model (among Indians of different religions) of religion, religious diversity, the relationship between the state and religion, and attitude towards culture, is fundamentally Hindu tropes becoming commonly held topoi amongst all Indians.

The Indian nation is foundationally a Hindu civilisation, that doesn’t mean it is exclusively Hindu (that would be an oxymoron), but that the meta topoi or mental models or frameworks on major concepts of state, nation, society, religion and culture- all are Hindu tropes which have been extended to now nationally accepted topoi.

Implications for state institutions and the intellectual ecosystem:

1. Unselfconsciously promote the common culture of India (which is predominantly, though not exclusively Hindu)- it is what binds us as a nation
2. Stop trying to do social engineering, or using the state to “reform” our culture. That’s a deeply patronising approach. That doesn’t mean the state and religion are “separate” but that the state should work with society as a part of it, not as an agent that lies outside of society that educates it to get it to adopt the true faith of Liberalism.

Section 4: What is caste?

Liberal answer: A hierarchical system of oppression and discrimination due to Hinduism and its texts like the Manu Smriti. We should annihilate caste.

Indic or Indian Conservative answer: Caste oppression is wrong, but caste itself is a source of identity and traditions. We should retain caste to retain that cultural diversity, while eliminating ANY and ALL caste based oppression. (Note this is MY answer as an Indian Conservative, there is a wide variety of views in what is called the right wing in India, and many would want to actually annihilate caste as well)

As Professor S.N. Balagangadhara writes: Caste is an autonomous and decentralised; stable, dynamic and adaptive self reproducing social organisation; which stays independent of political, economic and even religious context.

The Pew Report also shows that while caste consciousness and caste as a source of identity and choices on endogamy are high (vast majorities do think think that people should marry within their caste- and this is true even for Muslims and Christians), caste *discrimination* is not as high as one would think with around 17% of SCs saying they’ve personally experienced discrimination.

Now ALL oppression is bad- so we should fight this till it comes to zero, but this itself, plus the fact that SCs, STs ALSO want caste endogamy, shows that caste is not necessarily the same as caste based *oppression*. What is bad is oppression- so let’s attack that.

Of course some would make a Marxist false consciousness argument- people don’t even know they are oppressed. But again I find this patronising, as also an unscientific form of argument, where inconvenient facts can be explained away as people not knowing better and that the Liberal, with his superior wisdom, will enlighten the ignorant masses who are stuck with the false faith. (as an aside, notice the remarkable similarity in attitude between this form of liberalism, and Abrahamic faiths- that’s what I mean by liberalism, which arose in the west, also adopting Christian tropes as commonplace topoi, the apple does not fall far from the tree!).

Caste itself is autonomous and decentralised- no central authority enforces it across the continental size India. It is stable, adaptive and dynamic- if we track it through history one can find both continuity and change- so it constantly evolves gradually and is hence adaptive and dynamic, while being stable (that is not causing massive civil wars or social conflict).

It is also self reproducing- people voluntarily want to maintain caste endogamy. And it is independent of political, economic context (we have had caste under different kings, Hindu, Islamic rule, British rule and the modern Indian state; through farming, industrialisation and services; through recessions, famines and droughts, prosperity etc.).

It is ALSO somewhat independent EVEN of religious context with most Muslims and Christians ALSO being conscious of their caste.

Purely as a form of social organisation then, it is very resilient while being adaptable.

Implications for state institutions and the intellectual ecosystem:

1. Zealously prevent caste based oppression- that’s a scourge that must be eliminated.
2. But rethink what caste means. What we have now is an uncritical acceptance of caste as a sort of original sin and moral depravity of India that Christian missionaries and the British colonial power framed as a narrative to justify why we needed to be governed in our own interest, as we needed to be educated and civilised. Interrogate caste by all means, but study it with a fresh lens- seek truth from facts as the Chinese saying goes. What makes it so resilient and self reproducing across contexts? In what way is it dynamic and adaptable- when and how does it adapt? What value does it provide to people due to which it is self reproducing?

Conclusion: In this blogpost I’ve just tried to sketch out some of the areas of how our civilisation is fundamentally different, and hence why adopting a liberal framework to understand it leads us astray.

Even though liberalism thinks of itself as universal, it arose in a specific cultural context — western civilisation, where you had religious conflict between Christian denominations. The paradigms of liberalism reflect that legacy, and hence when it is applied to a very different civilisation — which has a fundamentally different concepts of what religion is, what our moral foundations are, what our nation and state are, what the relationship between religions is, and what the relationship between religion and the state ought to be, then you end up with wrong understanding, and what is worse- wrong policy prescriptions.

Rethinking those mental models and ontology, and anchoring them in our context, will provide far greater insight, as well as more productive engagement for our state and intellectual ecosystem.