When we are anxious

But the second thing that is making this conversation difficult is that it rapidly descends into a high-pitched contest,supposedly between a prudish,patriarchal traditionalism on the one hand,and an assertion of freedom and progressivism on the other. Secularists lost political traction,because the secular/ anti-secular debate simply degenerated into slogan mongering and a show of force; secularists could not find a way of addressing real anxieties and complex issues. It became more a matter of thumping one’s own self rather than solving real problems. The debate over freedom also risks undermining the cause of freedom. The concept of freedom,in the liberal sense,is still not very deeply embedded in Indian society. This is not to say that profound social transformations are not taking place. That is the really interesting story in modern India. But it is a transformation that is being negotiated at many levels; it is more a result of moderation and adjustment to change rather than a big ideological push. Most people are still more comfortable with the idea that,to adapt Mark Twain,the best equilibrium will be to have freedom and the good sense never to use it.

The principle of individual liberty has to be defended vigorously; no majoritarianism can take away individuals’ rights to lead the life they wish to,compatible with respecting others’ rights. On this there can be no debate. But we have to acknowledge that the culture wars we are witnessing about liquor are also about something else. Just around the time that Ashok Gehlot made his notorious statement,journalists in Rajasthan made a big fuss over Vikram Seth having wine on the podium while discussing literature. This fuss was almost laughable.

But it also points to three real social challenges. First,we cannot deny the fact that there is widespread social resentment against what are seen as new aspirational norms. The contest is not seen as one between freedom and repression; it is between competing visions of what constitutes decorum and propriety. The difficulty is not so much that people are drinking,that is their choice. The difficulty is that in the eyes of some non-drinking has been relegated to the realm of orthodoxy or lack of progressivism. The question of what freedoms people have does not answer the question what norms are and should become cool.

Second,there is deep resentment over access. Most of the Rama Sene goons are youths in their twenties,and do not share the life trajectories of those they so brutally and unconscionably attacked. What looks like a culture war will derive its momentum from all kinds of resentment over access and opportunity. For them “holding hands” or going to pubs is not so much about freedom as it is about privilege. This association of freedom with privilege is something that redounds on freedom.

Finally,it is simply turning a blind eye to social reality not to acknowledge that freedom is manifesting itself often in pathological forms. Whether we like it or not,the ruptures created by the spread of a culture of drink in states like Rajasthan were enormous,most of the costs of which were borne by women. The fear of pubs is not always a fear of freedom; it is a fear of rival norms being enshrined. The norms about drinking amongst the young in Delhi’s elite schools will leave even the most liberal chastened. The social transition towards a culture of freedom,individuality and experimentation is inevitable and desirable. But we will need an open conversation about what new social values signify and how they can be properly embedded in society without repression and conflict.

In Ishiguro’s novel,The Remains of the Day,Stevens is asked,“What do you think dignity’s all about?” He remarks,“The directness of the inquiry did,I admit,take me rather by surprise. It’s a rather hard thing to explain in a few words,sir. But I suspect it comes down to not removing one’s clothing in public.” This is a joke,but much more than that. At one level Ishiguro poignantly exposes the hypocrisy of the traditionalists: a culture steeped in decorum and repression but ultimately hollow in its moral values. The goons of the Rama Sene and Shiv Sena are appalled at the slightest break in what they think is propriety,but oblivious to the appalling violence they unleash. But at another level it is also a premonition: no society can escape having a conflict over what constitutes propriety,decorum or aspirational norms. We have to defend the freedom of the individual with full vigour. But we will lose the battle if we don’t find a means of engaging with all the nervous anxieties that our politicians are more alive to than we are.

The writer is president,Centre for Policy Research,Delhi

express@expressindia.com