India, Hinduism, Conservatism & Liberalism

INDIA, HINDUISM, CONSERVATISM & LIBERALISM

Conservatism says order is more important than freedom. Liberalism says freedom is more important than order. The genius of Indian/Hindu civilisation is that it has always aimed at a perfect balance between both order and freedom. Thus Hinduism is both conservative and liberal. But if we are forced to choose between order and freedom, which should we choose? The Second Law of Thermodynamics gives us the answer to this question. It says that a system's entropy (disorder) always tends to increase. That is: the natural tendency is for a system's disorder to increase – and order to decrease. In other words: in the tug-of-war between order and freedom, freedom has the natural advantage – and order has the natural disadvantage. So if we are forced to choose between order and freedom, we must always choose order. If we err on the side of too much order (and too little freedom) that error is reversible – because the natural tendency of the universe will correct this error. But if we err on the side of too much freedom (and too little order) that error is irreversible – because the natural tendency of the universe will magnify this error. In other words: freedom lost can always be regained – but order lost is lost forever.

Hindu Conservatism: Dharma or Moral Order

From Russell Kirk's "Ten Conservative Principles":

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it. Human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word 'order' signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. 25 centuries ago Plato taught this doctrine. But even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since 'conservative' became a term of politics.

Our 20th century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the 5th century BC, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which societies fall that mistake clever self interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an old-fangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honour, will be a good society – whatever political machinery it may utilise. While a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society – no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

This is one of the similarities between Hindu conservatism and Western conservatism. In Hindu thought, of course, we know this moral order as Dharma.

Andrew Sullivan

For a blogger, strangely I don't read a lot of blogs. I mostly stick to magazines and newspapers (online editions). The one blog that I read regularly is the Daily Dish, by Andrew Sullivan.

Andrew Sullivan is a 45-year-old British writer living in Washington DC. He has a PhD in political science from Harvard. He is Catholic and conservative. He is also homosexual and HIV positive. An unusual profile, to say the least :-)

Why do I read the Daily Dish regularly? I think it's primarily to do with the wide range of subjects the blog covers. Though Sullivan writes mainly on politics and current affairs, he also writes on other areas like religion and culture. Another reason is the unique insight he brings to each topic. Even when you don't agree with what he says (which is quite often), you will find his arguments interesting. A final reason is that his blog has a lot of links to other excellent articles. Some of the best stuff I've read on the web I found through the Daily Dish.

Of course, the blog is very America-centric. You won't find anything on India there. Even the viewpoint is a highly American one (which can be a little annoying at times). If you are OK with that, you will find the Daily Dish an enjoyable read.

Sullivan is not your usual American conservative. In 2006 he wrote a book called "The Conservative Soul", in which he accused the Republican party and the Bush administration of betraying conservatism. Today he is so pissed off with the Republicans that he is supporting Barack Obama in the US Presidential elections! In fact, he was perhaps the first pundit to predict that Obama could win the Democratic nomination – a prediction that looked insane at that time.

Sullivan's conservatism is, of course, Western conservatism – the political philosophy founded by Edmund Burke. One day I hope to write a post on Hindu conservatism, and how the two philosophies compare with each other.

Freedom, Happiness and Order

Amidst all this talk of Dharma and society and order, one may ask: What about individual happiness? What about personal freedom? Is my job only to follow the rules of society (Dharma)? Don't I have any right to pursue my own happiness?

For the answer, look at any river. It is a body of flowing water, bound on both sides by its banks. As long as the banks are strong, the river flows properly. But when the banks become weak, the river spills over and floods. Its own flow is disturbed. It also causes grief to the people living near it. Such is the relationship between freedom, restraint and happiness.

Freedom does not mean absolute freedom, or the right to do whatever we like. Freedom is meaningful only when it comes with certain limits. As we long as we respect these limits, we can be both free and happy. Once we cross these limits, there is neither freedom nor happiness.

It was keeping this in mind that the rishis of ancient India developed the code of Dharma. Individual happiness can be pursued only in a stable society. If society starts falling apart, how can the individual be happy? The rules of Dharma were so designed as to strike the right balance between personal freedom and social stability.

But, as noted before, Vedic society gradually decayed. With the various invasions and conquests, Hindu society became reactive and defensive. It went into a shell. Dharma – once a living and dynamic tradition that nourished the greatest civilisation in the world – became ossified and rigid. In the name of stability and order, freedom and happiness were buried.

But that was yesterday. Today is different. After a thousand years of slavery and foreign rule we are free again. Free again to reclaim our lost Dharma. Free again to pursue happiness, virtue, beauty and Truth. This pursuit, to be successful, has to be based on our age-old tradition – one that balanced the needs of the individual with the needs of society.

Our Western-style liberals don't understand this. For them, individual liberty is everything. Dharma, society and order mean nothing to them. They fail to see the harm that excessive focus on individual liberty has done in Western societies. If we follow that path, we shall surely come to grief.

But I am an optimist. I am confident that Dharma will prevail. I am confident that Indians will achieve not only personal freedom and happiness, but also a stable and harmonious society.

Conservatism

From the beginning, man has been in pursuit of happiness and the good life. Much has changed over the millennia, but not this basic human desire. The earliest men also wanted the same thing (essentially) that we want today. And in this pursuit, they made many mistakes, and learned from them. They asked many questions, and found answers to some of them. They had many problems; they found solutions to some of them. By a painful process of trial and error, they managed to learn a few things. They managed to make some progress.

These people passed on their hard-earned knowledge to their offspring, so that they (the offspring) would not repeat their parents' mistakes. So that they would not face the same difficulties. So that their lives would be safer and easier. And the offspring learnt whatever their parents had to teach them. Thus knowledge was transmitted from one generation to the next. This process of transmitting knowledge continued with every generation. Each generation learned new things and passed on that knowledge to the next generation – in addition to what it had learnt from the previous one. Thus was knowledge accumulated and over time, a store of knowledge built.

Some of this knowledge was explicit and tangible. It could, for example, be written down as a book. Other knowledge was more implicit. People developed many beliefs, practices, customs, habits, values and norms to make their lives better and more meaningful. They gradually built many systems and institutions to help society to function more effectively. This implicit knowledge grew as life and society became more and more complex. The explicit and implicit knowledge together make up a way of life, or what we call culture. Culture is mostly intangible. It improves and enriches our lives – in ways that are not immediately obvious. And when this culture is passed on from one generation to the next, it becomes tradition.

The tradition that we inherit is thus the product of the cumulative efforts of our forefathers in their quest for the good life. It has been developed over a long period of time and with great difficulty. It is good, useful and precious. We cherish it. We preserve it. And we nourish it. Tradition has sentimental value too. It is the bond that we have with our ancestors. It is what connects the past to the present, and the present to the future. Tradition is also a responsibility. It does not belong to us alone. It is given to us to hold in trust, so that we can bequeath it to future generations the way we found it, or in a better condition. This, in a nutshell, is conservatism.

Conservatism does not mean we should keep things the way they are. It means we should build on what already exists.

Conservatism (contd)

Modern conservatives look up to Michael Oakeshott (1901-90), not Burke, as their guru. Oakeshott defined conservatism as, "To be conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, and the actual to the possible". This sounds more like a definition of timidity and cowardice. However, one could argue that while boldness and risk-taking are good for an individual, at a societal level it is better to go in for incremental change.

As an aside, this article points out that Margaret Thatcher - the darling of conservatives - was anything but conservative. She was a radical.

Conservatism Vs Liberalism

I've been reading a bit on this topic. Here's an attempt to set down the nuts and bolts of the subject.

The word 'liberal' comes from the Latin word 'liber' which means 'free'. The word 'conservative' comes from the Latin word 'servare' which means 'to preserve'. Liberals thus consider individual liberty as important, whereas conservatives consider tradition as important.

Liberalism arose out of the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason. John Locke laid the foundation with his Second Treatise of Government (1689) in which he introduced concepts like rule of law, property rights and freedom of speech. The missing brick was individual liberty, which John Stuart Mill provided in his On Liberty (1859). The case for individual liberty is made based on rational and logical arguments.

Conservatism arose as a reaction to liberalism. The ideas of the Enlightenment inspired the French Revolution (1789). A year later, Edmund Burke argued in Reflections on the Revolution in France that tradition is a better source of wisdom than reason. Society is so complex that it is impossible to conjure a perfect society merely by our reason. It is better to rely on tradition, which is accumulated social experience.

Side note: The intellectual divide of tradition vs reason translates into a practical divide of culture vs politics. Daniel Patrick Moynihan summed it up best when he said, "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success or failure of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change culture, and help save a society from itself."