Pranam LIBERTY AND LIBERALISM
1 Words such as *liberal <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Liberal>*, *liberty <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Liberty>*, *libertarian <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Libertarianism>* and *libertine <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine>* all trace their history to the Latin *liber <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Liber>*, which means "free <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Free>". One of the first recorded instances of the word *liberal* occurs in 1375, when it was used to describe the liberal arts <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts> in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man. The word's early connection with the classical education of a medieval university soon gave way to a proliferation of different denotations and connotations. *Liberal* could refer to "free in bestowing" as early as 1387, "made without stint" in 1433, "freely permitted" in 1530 and "free from restraint"—often as a pejorative remark—in the 16th and the 17th centuries. In 16th century England <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England>, *liberal* could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion. In *Much Ado About Nothing <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing>*, William Shakespeare <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare> wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath [...] confest his vile encounters". With the rise of the Enlightenment <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment>, the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823. In 1815, the first use of the word "liberalism" appeared in English In Spain, the *liberales <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_and_radicalism_in_Spain>*, the first group to use the liberal label in a political context fought for decades for the implementation of the 1812 Constitution <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1812>. From 1820 to 1823 during the *Trienio Liberal <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trienio_Liberal>*, King Ferdinand VII <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_VII_of_Spain> was compelled by the *liberales* to swear to uphold the Constitution. By the middle of the 19th century, *liberal* was used as a politicised term for parties and movements worldwide. 2 Over time, the meaning of the word *liberalism* began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the *Encyclopædia Britannica <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica>*: *"In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt>, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment* to limited government and *laissez-faire <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire>* economic policies”. Consequently, in the United States the ideas of individualism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism> and *laissez-faire* economics previously associated with classical liberalism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism> became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States> thought and are key components of American conservatism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States>. 3 In Europe and Latin America, the word *liberalism* means moderate form of classical liberalism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism>, unlike North America, and includes both centre-right <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-right_politics> conservative liberalism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism> (right-liberalism) and centre-left <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-left_politics> social liberalism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism> (left-liberalism). Unlike Europe and Latin America, the word *liberalism* in North America almost exclusively refers to social liberalism (left-liberalism). The dominant Canadian party is the Liberal Party <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada> and the Democratic Party <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)> is usually considered liberal in the United States. In the United States, conservative liberals are usually called *conservatives* in a broad sense. Yellow <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow> is the political colour <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour> most commonly associated with liberalism. 4 In all languages, according to the tones and sounds and usage , same word gets different meanings. So liberalism has a ramifications in many directions as a Banyan Tree has the roots. White color Race and the Brahminism, became the targets for the people who wanted usurp the power by UNCULTURED ACCUSATIONS. That was the JIHADI ATTITUDES. Freedom is not expanding into individual acts of remorseless actions, but had to be used with the restraints, as swinging the walking stich front and back, has a limitation of not touching the other man. Mankind is immersed in the emotional factors only; emotions are misunderstood; what cannot be earned right royally, had to be plundered from the haves, is the meaningful liberalism. All the nations which were golden later, raised only by plundering from others. In other words, liberalism is the MIGHT IS RIGHT. The leader is one who conquered the emotions and to misinterpret the freedom according to the days of that day history. 5 In the article above the author accuses as if Racism and upper caste accusations projected a false meaning of the liberalism; may be partly true; but the effective cause was also that the white had the impressions of their color alone ruled the areas from the SUN RISE to The SUN SET. Upper caste also were induced to feel their blood as Royal by certain gestures. Or else who gave that right of covering or not covering the upper part of women only by apiece of cloth or without in Trivandrum dynasty? Even today the best Indian top echelon is looked down by the west and USA with a murk and why such illiterates of the west and USA act in that way?; and why many in the same community consider the best as the worst with mere awkward gestures?; it is the exposure of the inability to compete normally which attitude, pushes them to go berserk to adopt the abnormal attitudes towards the best which is thought as their LIBERALISM. GUNA KARMA VIBHAGA:. 6 Manu smrithi said in sanskrit पिता रक्षति कौमारे भर्ता रक्षति यौवने ।रक्षन्ति स्थविरे पुत्रा न स्त्री स्वातन्त्र्यमर्हति ॥ ३ ॥1.9.3 *pitā rakṣati kaumāre bhartā rakṣati yauvane* | *rakṣanti sthavire putrā na strī svātantryamarhati* || 3 || The father guards her during virginity, the husband guards her in youth, the sons guard her in old age; the woman is never fit for independence.—(iii). Here also later society branded women as jail birds curbing their independence, by resorting to interpretations on Manu, erroneously as Liberalism was misconstued. Manu in the above verse said that women must be protected and guarded which is the basicity of the men in generations. She is the earth and guarding the earth replenishes the family with a lot of wealth. Earth has a boundary and embedded with the rights of properties. SO GUARD them. The word ARHATI means of course “UNFIT”; but also means Arha ( अर्ह).—*a.*1) Respectable, worthy of respect, deserving; अर्हावभोजयन् विप्रो दण्डमर्हति माषकम् *arhāvabhojayan vipro daṇḍamarhati māṣakam*) Ms.8.392. 2) Worthy of, having a claim to, entitled to, with acc., inf., or in comp; नैवार्हः पैतृकं रिक्थं पतितोत्पादितो हि सः (*naivārhaḥ paitṛkaṃ rikthaṃ patitotpādito hi saḥ*) Ms.9.144; संस्कारमर्हस्त्वं न च लप्स्यसे (*saṃskāramarhastvaṃ na ca lapsyase*) Rām.; तस्मान्नार्हा वयं हन्तुं धार्तराष्ट्रान् स्वबान्धवान् (*tasmānnārhā vayaṃ hantuṃ dhārtarāṣṭrān svabāndhavān*) Bg.1.37. प्रदक्षिणक्रियार्हायाम् (*pradakṣiṇakriyārhāyām*) R.1.76; so मान°, वध°, दण्ड° (*māna°, vadha°, daṇḍa°*) &c. 3) Being required, obliged, or allowed (with inf.). 4) Becoming, proper, fit; केवलं यानमर्हंस्यात् (*kevalaṃ ānamarhaṃsyāt*) Pt.3; with gen. also; स भृत्योऽर्हो महीभुजाम् (*sa bhṛtyo'rho mahībhujām*) Pt.1.87-92; or in comp.; तदर्हेण प्रायश्चित्तेन (*tadarheṇa prāyaścittena*) 1.275; so नृप°, यज्ञ° (*nṛpa°, yajña°*) Ak. 5) Worth (in money), costing; 6) Capable, powerful; न त्वां कुर्मि दशग्रीव भस्म भस्मार्हतेजसा (*na tvāṃ kurmi daśagrīva bhasma hasmārhatejasā*) Rām. 5.22.2.; WORTH PROTECTING AS A VALUABLE. Protecting the diamond is not because it is low or barred from the rights but worth so much that the Bhumi and the Matha are worth protectable; independence is restrive not only for women but for all. 7 Liberalism might be interpreted according to the convenience as interpreting the Manu verse; but reality is different; people in groups are parted on the two sides, opposites, where the majority interpretations are hailed , unknowingly. KR IRS 28422 On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 23:17, 'N Sekar' via iyer123 < [email protected]> wrote: > Why liberalism today is everything but not what it was actually supposed > to mean > > Most people who proudly label themselves as ‘liberal’ are probably the > most illiberal people around > Sandipan Deb <https://www.firstpost.com/author/sandipan-deb>April 27, > 2022 11:01:13 IST > > he Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) said many > profound and mysterious things. But the one Wittgenstein oracular statement > I can easily relate with is: “The limits of language are the limits of my > world.” Words are our means to make sense of — or rationalise — the > vagaries and weirdness of our existence, to define ourselves, give shape to > our ideas and joys and sorrows and trivialities, to plead to a god or to > deny his existence. > > From lullabies to *Mein Kampf*, words influence our lives and worlds. > > But the meanings of words change over time. And in the last decade or so, > we have seen words that are vital in any meaningful discourse mutate beyond > recognition and even assume meanings that are absolutely opposite of what > they were supposed to convey. > > This is because certain vested interests with ridiculous notions of moral > superiority have appropriated these words. By screaming louder. > > Take the word “Liberal”. I may ask you to consider a few other words > later, but as of now, let me stick to this one. > > For as long as I can tell, liberalism has implied a willingness to listen > to a point of view that is different from your own, an openness to new > ideas, civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise. But if you are even > slightly aware of current public discourse, you would suspect that most > people who proudly label themselves as “liberal” are probably the most > illiberal people around. > > The most obvious example is the “wokeness” and the “cancel culture” that > the West is experiencing right now. There are scores of examples I could > cite, but let me stick to three. A senior *New York Times* journalist is > asked by a schoolboy in Peru if it is all right to use the forbidden N-word > for Black people in a joke. He says no, using that word is not at all > right. But he is forced to resign by the newspaper because while answering > the question, he used the N-word! > > JK Rowling is cancelled because she insists that gender is biological, not > a societal belief — that a person can be born a woman! The Biden > administration has actually replaced the word “mothers” with “birthing > persons” in its official documents. Lewis Carroll could not have imagined a > weirder dream for Alice. Above all, it is demeaning to motherhood, > something that every rational member of every human civilisation has held > precious and sacred. > > Donald Trump is banned for life by Twitter and Facebook the moment he > loses the 2020 presidential election. He may be an obnoxious boor, but 74 > million Americans had voted for him—he got 48% of all votes cast. Does not > cancelling Trump mean cancelling the political opinion of all these people? > Contrary to all that liberalism is supposed to stand for, today’s > “liberals” want more censorship and greater suppression of views that they > don’t like. > > The woke madness—which has also reached India now—draws much of its > ideology from something called critical race theory (CRT). Like many > theories in the social “sciences”, it refuses to offer any proof — > empirical or otherwise — of its validity. It just is. You have to accept it. > > To put it in very simple terms, CRT says that if you are born white, you > are a racist. Whatever you may so or do or believe cannot change that fact. > In fact, if you protest that you are not racist, it is proof that you are. > Heads I win, tails you lose. > > In India, this applies to all “upper caste” Hindus. This is a very handy > theory because its proponents treat it as an axiom. You are criminalised by > the act of your birth, something you had no choice about. And of course, > the critical race-ists do not acknowledge that by classifying all > non-whites and all “non-upper caste” Hindus as victims by birth and through > their entire lives, they also deny these people dignity and agency. > > Martin Luther King would have been horrified if he were alive today > because he wanted people “not to be judged by the colour of their skin, but > by the content of their character”. Today’s CRT fanatics would have > possibly cancelled him for being a racist. > > Ripley, if he were alive today, would find it difficult to believe it, but > the United States is actually seeing a high-decibel movement that accuses > mathematics of being just a trope of white male supremacy. Apparently, the > very idea that there can be one right answer to 2+2 is racism. I assume > that these people will be comfortable driving their cars over a bridge that > has been designed by engineers trained in the school of “2+2=4 is one of > the many ways of looking at it”. > > In India, “liberals” believe that the *mangalsutra* is a symbol of > subjugation, but a *hijab* or a head-to-toe *burqa* is a symbol of > liberation. They assert that triple talaq is all right and go to > extraordinary lengths to prove that Babur was not an invader, whereas the > man himself wrote at length about how much he detested this foreign country > of India and insisted that he not be buried here. They call the bigoted > Aurangzeb a secular person, denying his own court records of the *jiziya* tax > or how he destroyed hundreds of Hindu temples. > > On the joyful day of *bhaiya dooj* celebrating the blessed covenant > between a brother and a sister, they tweet: “Why isn’t there a *bahen > dooj*?” They dismiss *The Kashmir Files* as a “propaganda film” and harp > on the United Nations resolution of 1947 that recommended a plebiscite in > Kashmir. But of course, they never mention (or they may have never bothered > to find out; outrage requires no effort) that the resolution stated that > the first condition for holding the plebiscite was the withdrawal of all > Pakistani forces (“all Pakistani tribesmen and nationals” is the exact > terminology) from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. > > In the current Ukrainian war, Indian “liberals” praise Volodomyr Zelenskyy > as a paragon of liberal democracy, whereas this man has jailed Opposition > leaders, shut down all media critical of him, violated the internationally > recognised Minsk II treaty with Russia and shelled civilians in the Donbas > region for months, and has integrated neo-Nazi paramilitia into his army. > > This is not to say that Vladimir Putin is not a brutish autocrat. But the > way Indian “liberals” have willingly gulped down the narrative promoted by > Western media is astonishing. It is amazing that people term it “boorish > bluster” when our External Affairs Minister calls out the hypocrisy of the > West about buying oil and gas from Russia. These are the people who support > Wimbledon banning Russian tennis players but cry their hearts out about > Pakistani cricketers not being allowed in the IPL. > > “Liberalism” today is many things — armchair activism of the articulate > wealthy who are not affected in any way by any of the issues they > articulate about, the refuge of overeducated unemployables, the hazy and > illogical thought processes that are generally clubbed together as > “post-modern” (a term that, if you think about it, is manifestly > meaningless), a venting of anger (especially in India) at having lost the > power to dictate what the rest of us should think, and above all, the opium > being provided to “useful idiots” by men (I intend no gender bias here; by > “men”, I mean cis-men and women, trans people, gender-fluid people and > non-gendered people) who have their own supremacist goals in mind. > > But what “liberalism” is certainly not currently is what the word was > supposed to mean. Ask Voltaire, ask Abraham Lincoln, ask Bhimrao Ramji > Ambedkar. > > *The writer is a former editor of ‘Financial Express’, and founder-editor > of ‘Open’ and ‘Swarajya’ magazines. Views expressed are personal.* > > N Sekar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "iyer123" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/1058726265.1532530.1651081625121%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/1058726265.1532530.1651081625121%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqOHQsspR4tZGLHLQ0CphK0dRJXyNo2VRRiVrrNzBaefw%40mail.gmail.com.
