WHY INDIAN LIBERAL IS A LIBERAL FALLACY ITSELF? AND THE REAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROLETARIAT OF THE COUNTRY.

-

Anyone with a slight progressive or center to left thought today is labelled in India as a liberal. People with bourgeois upbringing and background, especially those who are not well read but want to be portrayed as educated or bourgeois people who were malnutritional enough to not be able to grow a pair of balls against their fellow rich or even their own self are a broad category called liberal. 

A liberal today is not a supporter of laissez-faire economy or pure scientific optimist, but a sceptic who does not know anything, hence does not like anything. The fallacy of being a liberal in India is that a wide mass of population that we call Middle class is without a thinking mind and that leaves them an easy prey for the fundamentalist Hindu Identity. Not to mention, it is the very background of this unaware liberalism on which such fundamentalist ideas can take their stance. 

This specter of an ignorant liberal is very common in university campuses in form of faculties, Students etc. An easy prey for the right-wing groups, they show no plan at all to fight them hence giving a political delusion that only right wing is the ultimate alternative. 

Until, this mass hysteria is curbed, the left, The actual Communists are keeping their slumber intact either in their silos of their party offices, University campuses or working in lowest of rungs hiding their face in the ground because of their fear of power. In my humblest of opinion, It is safe to say that Communist parties of this country do not represent the real left of this country or the workers of this country. The left has been completely denigrated to the masses. This is because there is an inherent contradiction in the formation of any communist party in theory itself. 

We see, whenever a communist party comes in power in any country, it comes in power because it represents a big chunk of the population, the proletariat of the country. Their whole idea remains to change the control on the means of production from the petty bourgeois to the proletariat. But the nature of India proletariat remains very diverse and very dynamic and hence not graspable by the Communist parties. But then who represents the proletariat in its whole Genuity in India? 

The real proletariat of this country, from life immemorial, has been represented by the Teacher community of the country. As old as we see in Ancient India, whether it is Chanakya or Shankaracharya or Buddha, these are teachers of spirituality to politics that guide the country. The Indian Sanyasi community has been able to create a learning atmosphere (excluding the exception of caste restrictions) which they call the Guru-Shishya Parampara. The country always has a post of a teacher, which has been a political post. Be it, Rajgurus in Indian Autocratic systems, or be it in Modern times, say Mahatma Gandhi. Why did Mahatma Gandhi not become the prime minister of this country? Because, of the Indian psyche somehow conceives a leader without formal powerful position yet having control. That is of a philosopher or a teacher or a guide. Currently, at the rise of Communication technology and edtech companies, the rise of some giant coaching teachers is very easily visible. Vikas Divyakrti, Awadh Ojha, Khan sir are the names that even non-students know today. Why they are so visible to the Indian people? This country has a knowledge hunger, in the form of religious beliefs, spiritual quests, it is often expressed and hence wasted. The reality of this knowledge hunger is that it is to be used in this direction only. This democratization of knowledge brought by capitalism only can lead to its own end. It will be the ultimate bootstrap. The snake eating its own tail. But for this, the teachers of this stature should actually realize their potential and build something. Be the Chanakya and build the Chandragupta they always imagined and let the welfare state be established. So, Perhaps, again in history, The history is demanding a Chanakya first. Because Chandragupta will follow the lead. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THANK YOU!

-
Image
Journalling will be continued and so will Foucault reading. But I just wanted to share something very personal with you.  You know, Once upon a time, there was a kid who came to a small town in Patratu, leaving his parents behind because their parents were struggling with their own lives and relationships, to a Bijli Board given D-type quarter (House), of two of his Grandparents, Dadaji and Dadima. For a whole year, he was confused where he has come since, he did not know Hindi, only English and Tamil, may be a little Kannada.  He entered a school which was super-Hindi school. For a lot of time, He was a confused kid who did not understand what is going on.  It took at least one year for him to learn basic Hindi to be able to comprehend what was going on? Of course, he was never a brilliant student. Forget brilliant, He was not even mediocre when he used to study in LKG in Bangalore.  Now, cut to, when I see me, this little kid, who has no idea whatsoever, to me, mem...
Read more

EVERYWHERE, EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE

-
I wrote it after a sweet experience of is-ness after a Bhajan. Life, as it is, seems quite incomprehensible to us. Too much of everything. Too much of things, too much of people, too much of emotions and too much of reason. The best description of life, as it is, should be Everywhere, everything, all at once. Things exist, and from those things arise man which can comprehend itself and its is-ness.  Is-ness is a quality of the man. The capability to be able to acknowledge how existing feels like, it is a unique feature of the man. Stones cannot describe is-ness. From is-ness, a need for meaning arises. A dire need to formulate why we are able to comprehend so much.  From meanings, arise a need of articulation and from that arises language. Language worships meanings through words. Words create, in turn, their own symbolic or otherwise meanings. These meanings have a world of their own. One meaning that arose due to is-ness, another meaning which was the cause of language and t...
Read more

LET'S READ FOUCAULT: CHAPTER 1 (CHOMSKY-FOUCAULT DEBATE

-
Image
Michael Foucault, in my opinion, is the most influential thinker of 20th Century. No cap. I think the extent to which he has inspired literary theory, Philosophy, Sociology and Contemporary thought in general, it is immeasurable. I mean, everyone thinks he is not Foucauldian until I tell them what actually Foucauldian is, and then they realize that most of their actions in their lives is Post-modern and hence Foucauldian.  Here, in a couple of chapters, we will try to understand Foucault and his thoughts. In no way, it is meant to create an analysis of his work or trying to interpret his work. It is just an informative blog., the way I understand him, I would like to present so as to consolidate my knowledge. Next in the series might be Marx, Zizek, Lacan, whatever.  My beginning to understand him began when I watched this debate happened on a Dutch Television show, where these two Great thinkers, Noam Chomsky and Michael Foucault, appeared. At that time, and it was some 4-5 y...
Read more