Our ears have been frequented by phrases such as free world, free society, liberal countries, just society, advanced nations, etc as points of references.
These are often accompanied by other phrases such as liberal democracy, civil liberty, equality or equal opportunity, fundamental rights, human dignity for all, secular society, multi-culturalism, social integration, pluralistic society, and so on and so forth.
Yet, an observant mind can notice that these phrases only belong to the vocabulary of the minority liberals in the developing world, or the good number of liberals of the developed world whose clout has been in steady decline as of late.
We hear these phrases regularly because liberals still occupy a sizeable part of the national and international public discourse.
But debates in the wider society don’t really follow liberal norms. It was once assumed, especially when the colonial states gained independence in the shape of new modern states, that the liberal thinker would lead the thought process of the members of society and gradually transmit liberal values to the common folk the way it happens in developed and advanced societies. In South Asia, leaders and thinkers such as Gandhi and Nehru certainly expected that socio-political trajectory, and perhaps even Jinnah as well.
Liberal leaders and thinkers in these aspiring post-colonial states had to deal with several tricky situations as they went forward with their liberal agenda. In fact, they had to undertake the responsibility of a massive social reform that entails the inculcation of liberal values in their backward-yet-changing societies.
Religious, linguistic, and caste-based solidarities of corresponding communities and the majority-minority notion have already been ingrained in these societies even before independence. Gandhi and Nehru’s response to this was the development of a liberal, broad idea of secular Indian nationalism.
It worked to a degree for several decades, but it now seems to have outlived its potential, or at least the Gandhi-Nehru version of it. That attitude is being seriously challenged by regressive Hindu nationalism now. Universal adult suffrage is coming to greater help for bigoted forces, instead of the forces of progressiveness.
That is the main limitation of public reason in less developed or developing countries.
While in India, Gandhi-Nehru liberalism demonstrated substantial resilience in the context of an under-developed society; in Pakistan, Jinnah’s brand of modernism was short-lived. Two unexpected incidents -- ie Jinnah’s untimely death and the assassination of Liakat Ali Khan --precipitated the demise of liberal dreams.
However, a substantial bit of modernity was retained by strongman Ayub Khan. But it all fell apart when an ignorant demon called Zia-ul-Haq unleashed the crude forces of faith in order to completely engulf the Muslim socio-cultural identity.
Religious minorities in Pakistan were weakened in 1947, and after Zia-ul-Haq’s era, whatever subset of that minority survived has been pushed to the extreme corners of their society -- oppressed and persecuted at every turn. After the elimination of the Hindu and Sikh minority, the unleashed monster of Sunni majoritarianism looked for, and found, new targets in the Ahmadi, Christians, Shia, Barelvis, Sufis, and a few other minority groups.
The trend itself seems to be one that resembles ceaseless bigotry.
In Bangladesh, 1971 brought forth hope of a modern liberal society as we broke away from Pakistan. But regressive and conspiring counter-revolutionary forces struck back at an opportune moment, became entrenched in our polity over the course of several years, and changed the norms and vocabulary of the public psyche and even public discourse.
In Sri Lanka, militant Buddhist majoritarianism, an unthinkable phenomenon to many, reared its ugly head in many occasions.
A dissection of this reality brings forth a few analytical perspectives and even deeper questions: What exactly failed the liberal projects of the post-colonial states of South Asia, whereas East and Southeast Asia acquired much greater success in this regard? What is, or are, responsible for the current trends of intolerance across the sub-continent? Was it society which remained quietly unresponsive to all the positive prodding? Is it the systems put in place after the independence which were faulty?
In an electoral democracy, reinvigorated majoritarianism seems to have found a channel to assert itself. Advanced means of communication and information, instead of helping modernization and progressivism, appear to be helping the agendas of quasi-liberals and orthodoxy.
Bigotry in one country or one community is also giving birth to reactionary bigotry in other communities and other countries.
Fighting from a principled position is a less desirable option these days, it appears. For now, it seems that liberals are running out of ideas, being wedged out of the public discourse that guides any given society. But the steering of society is something too important to let go of so easily.
Liberals have to find innovative and effective approaches to expand liberalism from its current slump and decrease support bases in the face of such regressive forces. They need to strive harder to bring back their respective societies back on the track of gradual progressivism, if not a revolutionary one.
There is, simply, no other way forward.
Sarwar Jahan Chowdhury is an opinion contributor to the Dhaka Tribune.
