Liberals can go ahead and pour scorn on Modi. It will only strengthen his base and reaffirm the myth of victimhood.
It would probably have been more apt if I had headlined this the Ayatollahs or Archbishops of the Liberal Pulpit. Because, for all the sermons they deliver, the Shankaracharyas do not issue fatwas or encyclical bulls. But you have to be careful these days. If I had done so, I’d risk being targeted by both, the conservatives of these faiths and the “liberals”, equally for profiling minorities. Better, therefore, to mess with my own fellow Hindus.
This argument, though, isn’t about any of these great faiths. I’m addressing the latest religion to emerge in the history of humankind (see, I didn’t say mankind): The Order of Liberalism. It’s new, so it is yet to develop a diversity of strains. It won’t tolerate any deviation from its own Holy Book. No Shia/Sunni, no Catholic/Protestant, no Vaishnavite/Shaivite. If you belong to my Peeth (or order), you have to conform fully. There are no exceptions here, no exemptions, no straying, not even a weekend’s furlough. You are either with us, or against us. Now, we’ve heard that line before, from George Bush Jr., and he was no liberal.
I might ask though how can you be liberal and yet have a vacuum-packed book of rules, behaviour and speech?
Nevertheless, let me first try summing up the minimum code of conduct you set for the rest. The first is, be secular on my terms, so dump your religiosity and gods. Second, accept free-market, globalisation and deregulation are toxic, neo-liberal abominations. Accept the state as your holiest deity and just help us make it perfect. Say that all corporates are thieves and don’t ask me who, if not corporates and robber barons, funds the holiest foundations, Ford, Rockefeller, Bill & Melinda Gates, MacArthur, Inlaks, Tata that sensibly funds me in turn. None of your neo-liberal business.
You must also oppose all dams, power generation, mining and pesticides. Accept Trump is the devil elected by stupid American Rednecks, but Putin and Xi Jinping may be not so. At least you can’t blame their people for installing them. Government is great but NGOs better, science is dangerous, especially when controlled by the private sector, and the greatest threat to humanity is genetically modified foods. Any deviation, any violation of this Shariat, and you are an illiberal pig in the pay of evil corporates and Amit Shah, or both. The short message: Be liberal, do it my way. Just, exactly as I say.
Amit Shah, did we say? So, get off my virtuous kerb if you describe the Judge Loya story as “controversial death of Judge Loya” and even seek a fresh and fair investigation. A true liberal would use the “correct” language: The Judge Loya murder. And why waste time probing how he died? You know he was murdered and also by whom. Just find a few threads to tie it all up and hang Amit Shah. You stray from this, and you must also be in Amit Shah’s dread.
The rest follows naturally. If you are a public intellectual or what the social media calls “influencer”, every word you speak can be evidence against you. And finally, if you are an editor, you are on trial over each newsroom call you’d make. The liberal Shankaracharya, the holiest of the self-styled holy, is watching over you.
We published on ThePrint.in this Wednesday, an article by Mumbai-based Rupa Subramanya. She’s an economist and a formidable Twitter warrior. For five years, she has been among Narendra Modi’s most ardent supporters and brutally unforgiving of anybody criticising him, this writer included. She now offered us a piece saying why she was disillusioned with Modi, that she had backed him on his promise of economic reform and wouldn’t put up with bigotry and economic statism in its place. It’s a very well-argued piece, if a mea culpa.
As expected, it drew a barrage of abuse from the BJP lot, on her for being a “renegade” and to us for “using her betrayal to fulfil our agenda”. Unexpectedly, it also angered the self-avowedly liberal opinionators. Just how could we offer our platform to a once Right-wing “troll”? Why were we dignifying her and diminishing ourselves? The argument that a newsroom isn’t a court or police station didn’t wash because she hadn’t “as yet apologised for her past indiscretions and won our forgiveness”.
Now, this is confusing. You would think the definition of liberalism is to not set rules for others and insist these be followed, or else. If you set rules for me, define a code of good conduct and acceptable (to you) behaviour, you aren’t liberal. Maybe you are virtuous, more righteous than me, and most probably holier than cow. But liberal, no. You are an Ayatollah, pontiff or Shankaracharya, take your pick, ordering others how to behave, what to say, who to publish. It’s a challenge for those of us who’ve believed in a different “ism” altogether: Journalism, which in turn is based on scepticism and (political) agnosticism.
Just about three years ago, an American undergraduate won a small battle for her version of liberalism but lost the war for her faith. Please Google Halloween and Silliman College, Yale University. Briefly: Some students at this residential college complained to their master and his colleague and wife that they were being given too many dos and don’ts (don’t dress like this or that so as not to offend a community) for Halloween. Prof. Erika Christakis wrote a cheery email to all, basically asking them to chill and not bother being overly politically correct. It led to angry protests from the liberal group of students. One was caught on camera asking Nicholas Christakis, the master, “…why the f..k did you accept the position?! Who the f..k hired you?! You should step down! You should not sleep at night! You are disgusting!”
The 1:20 minute clip ran in loop on Fox News. It fuelled the already rising white American anger what they saw as exaggeratedly liberal political correctness. It didn’t help that it was at a “notoriously” liberal East Coast campus and the angry student was a young woman of colour. It may be too much to say this swung the election for Trump. But surely, it didn’t hurt. Please read also the op-ed Erika Christakis wrote for The Washington Post. “My Halloween email led to a campus firestorm—and a troubling lesson about self-censorship,” she wrote. “The right to speak freely may be enshrined in some of our nation’s great universities, but the culture of listening needs repair.”
Go ahead and pour scorn on Trump now, in seminars, pubs, coffee shops, op-eds, on Twitter, Facebook or on your T-shirt. Win instant applause by hurling abuse at him in public like Robert De Niro. You can do the same with Modi here. The result will be the same: Their base will only become stronger. Because, your actions will reaffirm to them the myth of victimhood that the illiberal Right has successfully built, with some help from you.
In polarised democracies, who gets the power is determined not by the conversion of true believers on either side, but by those in between who might go one way or the other. If you judge them all as brainless, uncultured, illiterate, illiberal philistines, they will see no difference between you and the other side. You will lose them, as the other side will also come laced with unapologetic nationalism and a convincing discourse of mass grievances.
Therefore, those who call themselves liberal must expand and share their space rather than dig in, build walls and let the island erode. Most of all, as Erika Christakis said, repair that culture of listening.
पढ़ें हिंदी में: लिबरल पीठ के शंकराचार्य जो अनजाने में करते हैं मोदी का सबसे ज़्यादा सहयोग.
Mr Gupta please before you make another rant on how the Liberal today is more theological than political, try to brush up your non existent political theory so you can atleast pass off as someone in the know. I can feel your righteousness boiling over but unfortunately you have not devoted even the slightest bit of brain space to the concept of the political. Read Carl Schmitt perhaps, it’s a small book and you can finish it at your reading pace in a month.
You are one of them too,Mr Gupta,the so called elites.
In fact to add to my earlier comment, there is no doubt in my mind about the Mr. Gupta’s political shifts. Over the past few years he has almost perfected the art of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. His was not a larger piece on liberals encompassing De Niro, the Western world etc. His pointed attacks were clearly for his constituency back home. There is no centrist like a pseudo-centrist and this blistering, ‘all-nuances-obliterated’ attack is certainly not one of his first in this direction. Of course if you ignore the baggage of all his past columns and look at this in complete isolation, the damage may seem much less, but increasingly an opinion maker is defined by his body of work and he has done far too many pieces like this one, for me to have any confidence in his world view.
I gave up on Shekhar Gupta a long time ago, so his puerile ‘National Interest’ column is not something I follow anymore. Occasionally though his drivel does appear on my timeline and I go, ‘Oh no, not again.’
Here is a man who almost consistently substitutes nuanced thought with clever sweeping arguments. His bizarre attack on liberals is of a piece.
Only a complete blooming idiot will see the most cacophonous lot that a grouping of liberals can be as a monolith. To not see through that is either disingenuous or downright mischievous. Mr. Gupta is no blooming idiot as we all know. So it’s anyone’s guess why he says what he does.
The argument he offers where he strings up a whole list of neatly packaged causes against which ‘all liberals’ must rail against is itself an unwitting but damning indictment of his retarded piece.
No, I am not abusing, just calling the piece out on facts.
To assume that a liberal, if she is against Islamophobia MUST BE against Big Dams…
Or that if he is for subsidised healthcare MUST BE against globalisation and deregulation…
Or that if she is casting doubts over Judge Loya’s death MUST BE against the holy book…
Or that if he is for Nehru, MUST BE against Patel (isn’t that what he is implying too)…?
Where do you get these fanciful ideas on liberalism Mr. Gupta? Or are you pretending to be too thick in the head to understand the concept on which all sorts of liberalism actually thrives… which is Diversity!
Yes, we liberals do rant a lot and we do lose our shirts and odhanis over many issues but to confuse the few bad eggs who want to curtail someone’s freedom of speech with ALL OF US, and then to brand us as Ayatollahs or Archbishops of the so-called Liberal Pulpit in an entire desperate piece which looks like it was designed to win you cuddly friends from the right-wing pseudo-centrists (time we coin that term right and proper) shows you up to be the liberal imposter you seem to have become over the last few years.
We know your type Mr. Gupta, thank you very much. If you feel like becoming the more respectable Arnab Goswami of the print elite with all sorts of circular arguments, I say ‘Good thinking’. There is a lot of moolah, not to mention, adoring fans, to be made there. But next time, do get your argument watertight so that we at least get to work on punching holes into it.
This one was too obvious!
To dispel the most obvious fallacy first, there’s a huge difference between Modi and Trump. Modi won because of a massive wave of personal popularity. Trump, the most unpopular president in US history, LOST the popular vote by several million votes (despite having the weakest Democratic opponent possible), but won the election because of the unrepresentative nature of the American electoral college. Therefore, equating their rise, let alone blaming liberals for both, is completely baseless. In real life, Trump’s rise has been fuelled by crazies like the Tea Party and Christian neo-Nazis who think slavery was “a choice”, reject climate change (though what “rejecting” scientific fact means is unclear), believe that the US government is trying to “turn frogs gay” (Alex Jones) and wish to tear up ALL the laws except the Constitution. What response apart from scorn does the author expect to such ideas?
Second, the author confuses between someone being liberal in terms of general behaviour, and someone believing in Liberalism as an ideology by mocking their “minimum code of conduct” . While being liberal is more or less a behavioral phenomenon that amounts to engaging constructively with those you don’t agree with, Liberalism is a doctrine with its own ideological system, and therefore evidently espouses certain principles and ideas like free speech while opposing others such as protectionism or ethnic nationalism. The author seems to advise that those who believe in Liberalism replace their ideology with a general “liberal” behaviour. While such behaviour is indeed constructive, it is no substitute for a doctrine or an ideology.
This confusion is best demonstrated by the author’s assertion that “liberals” (he probably means socialists as well as Swadeshi-loving sanghis) oppose liberal (he calls them “neo-liberal”) economic policies!
So yes, it is possible for a supporter of Liberalism to exhibit “illiberal” behaviour. That said, it seems strange that the author devotes almost the entire article to such people, while only briefly mentioning the torrent of abuse that flows from the Right. The pioneers of such abuse were the ones who called all non-BJP parties “Pak agents”, routinely referred to Muslims in derogatory terms etc. In the structurally tribal space that social media is, such abuse inevitably provokes a backlash. Small test; did anyone ever notice the use of the term “feku” until the trolls started using “pappu”? Yet the author targets those stung into a reaction rather than those who poisoned the discourse in the first place.
As regards publishing the piece by Rupa Subramanya, the problem is one of basic editorial responsibility. An editor doesn’t publish everything that comes across his/her desk. So readers are perfectly within their rights to ask why someone who, to put it politely, doesn’t exactly adhere to the highest standards of journalism (an -ism the author claims to champion), is being published by the Print. Equally the editor has the right to defend his decision. One wishes he would do it more coherently and in a less “holier-than-cow” tone.
The arguments against liberal thinking, as it were, are just too sweeping, the author is committing the same fallacy (of setting rules for others) that he is accusing others of committing. Now for example this ridicule of demands for probing the death of Judge Loya. Apart from those who used it against Amit Shah, there were also those who had plausible doubts of the events surrounding the episode. And what were some of the grounds to reject the demand? Four judges who said the death was beyond suspicion couldn’t be wrong (since when judges are the expert forensic medics?), son and family didn’t ask for a probe (Ha, ha! Since when an IPC crime has ceased to become crime against state/public and has become private litigation?). To use this example to construct and develop an argument against liberal thinking is appalling. The disdain for NGOs is another idea stolen from powers that be. Of course they have their own (usually not so noble) reasons. But what the author has against NGOs I don’t understand. Just as there can be black sheep among journos, there may be among NGOs too. We don’t dismiss journalists, don’t ridicule them? By the way, I don’t think an author as eminent as this would have missed the latest about big-small dams being dismantled across Europe for environments sake. So it’s a set off. Please sir, don’t set your rules over our thought that they have to be good for India.
A whisper to you Shekhar sir, most BJP-RSSwallas consider you as the elite liberal (that you ridicule in this piece) running paid writings.
Ms Tavleen Singh kind of piece ( deserved to be disliked )
Fantastic sir fantastic you just wrote the feelings i held a long time now. I just dud not have the words which you certainly have of great quality.. thank you
A big face-palm. Not at all well-argued. Please retire. You mean to say one doesn’t need the ability to understand what is right & wrong. The fence sitters are better than liberals/ conservatives? Like seriously?
Mr. Shekhar, as a self-avowed liberal (Amit Shah’s army would consider me a “sickular”), allow me to correct your presumptions about us “ayatollahs”. I’m someone who supports the Congress Party and Rahul Gandhi. Shashi Tharoor is my ideological mentor. I have no affection for Marx and Trotsky although I find some of their literature quite engrossing. But, that’s about it.
Not all liberals are alike. So, I cannot in good faith agree with your assumption that we have a singular denomination. That’s simply not true. You can be a liberal and not oppose the construction of dams, unlike Medha Patkar. You can be a liberal and a 100% patriotic Indian, nothing like Arundhati Roy or the misbehaving students of JNU. They are reactionaries, just like the Right-Wing have the VHP-RSS and normal BJP voters.
The lunatic fringes of the Left and Liberal persuasion do not define our identity and purpose. Congress party, as per it’s own creed, is a Centre-Left party. Samajwadi Party, TMC and RJD are slightly more left compared to us. Of course, CPI(M) and BSP-Mayawati are extreme left because they advocate the rights of extremely marginalized groups e.g. Dalits. It’s not that Congress does not support the empowerment of Dalits and Muslims but as a mainstream national party, it has to look after the socio-economic interests of all groups, including wink wink, upper caste Hindus.
That shouldn’t come as a surprise. BJP isn’t the only party that can claim to safeguard the interests of upper caste Hindus. Congress has been doing something similar for over 60 years. In fact, I’d like to think that we did a much better job than someone like Modi who runs away from his responsibilities of protecting Kashmir, contrary to his election promise of bringing 10 severed Pakistani heads for every dead Indian soldier at LoC. Congress (UPA) never made such exaggerated promises. Being liberals, we believe it’s a bit barbaric to bring severed heads in 2018. But at least, UPA understood the ground realities of Kashmir better than Modi does. We were able to forge a stalemate peace in the Valley. Given the complicated conditions and considerable UN pressure, you’d appreciate it’s not very easy. But, at least UPA leaders knew the pulse of Kashmiris and tried to patch a solution. You see during UPA-2, normalcy was returning to the Valley. Tourists had started filling in the houseboats of Dal Lake once again.
Then Modi came in 2014 with his tall promise of ache din and everything fell apart in Kashmir. Today the situation in Kashmir is so serious that India may be at its weakest point in terms of exerting control over Kashmir Valley. It might take a long time for a future Congress government to clean up the mess created by an incompetent Modi administration. Modi has the habit of leaving a job half-attended. He is not a finisher. As we saw with demonetisation and other failed schemes. We don’t blame him. Modi simply does not have the level of experience required at running a complex country like India, and Congress simply has more influential people in its ranks to face the diverse challenges of our country owing to the experience gained in running the show for over 60 days. Comparing Congress (and UPA) leaderships with Modi is like comparing a Bollywood film made under the Yash-Raj banner with a two bit C-grade movie from somewhere down South. Hopefully, the people of India will realize the mistake they made in 2014 by giving inexperienced leaders like Modi the reins of food country. Who in their right mind would appoint someone like Smriti Irani to an important portfolio called I&B. Thankfully, she’s been removed now.
One might argue that Rahul Gandhi isn’t very experienced either. Fair enough but one must also remember that he doesn’t have any personal ambitions to be PM. He’s pretty content being Congress Party President. It’s not an important issue for Congress Party who will be next Prime Minister. Congress as well as other mature political parties of India don’t believe in running a one-man/two-man show. Congress has always respected checks and balances in institutions and does not let the executive branch gain more power. Congress believes in Coalition Dharma. I think the real issue with present BJP is a self-proclaimed strongman as PM who mistakenly believes that he alone has the ability to solve all problems of India. We saw his boastful claims squandered on the curb during demonetisation and the recent Kashmir imbroglio. Modi is a leader who’s incapable of keeping his allies happy. You cannot expect bipartisanship from such a leader. He has no awareness of political protocols and winning support of opposition leaders. If he had any respect for the Opposition, he wouldn’t appoint a 10th fail B-grade actress like Smriti Irani to ond of the most important posts in the Cabinet.
Being liberal or secular isn’t wrong in any sense of the word just like being conservative isn’t a problem as long as you’re not an extreme right-winger.
One more thing, the liberal values of Congress Party in India are not the same as Democrats in the US or Labour in the UK. Indian liberals have no use for Gay rights, abortion rights, same-sex marriage and other unique Western political planks. Recently Shashi Tharoor drew some flak about speaking in favor of marijuana legalization but that’s not a big head ache for Congress party or any other political parties to the left of Congress km India.
The issues of the Indian liberal are indeed very different. They are steeped in a uniquely Indian milieu and the main concern is about issues that affect the poor and the marginialized of our country. Here is a checklist for you.
1- We Indian liberals care about the government offering free and subsidized education to all our citizens, particularly the vulnerable sections of our society. We are against the undue importance being given go unregulated private schools under Modi raj. There has to be a balance. Modi government does not believe in utilizing taxpayer funds to build world class schools and Universities. All the IITs, NITs and AIIMS were built under mostly Congress governments.
2- Likewise, we Indian liberals believe in free or subsidized healthcare similar to most civilized countries.
3- We Indian liberals believe in social and communal harmony. Also, national unity is a great concern to us. We believe in the territorial integrity of India, much more than the Modi regime does. We hate to see how meekly Modi is giving up on Kashmir.
4- We Indian liberals believe in Dalit and minority rights, not because they are special people but they are massively underrepresented in the corridors of power. Upper caste Hindus have far more privileges in this country than they realize. It’s only fair to level the field for all Indians a bit, so that good opportunities are served to one and all.
—-
Mr. Shekhar, I normally enjoy reading your columns but today you have disappointed by painting Indian liberals in the wrong light. The original premise of your article was to create suspicions among the undiscerning public of the real intent and mindset of Indian liberals. I would have never expected that from you. It’s one thing to go after some lunatic fringes in the liberal-left world, but painting all of us with the same brush is not a well thought out premise.
I expect nothing short of an apology or clarification from you for misunderstanding and misrepresenting us Indian liberals. Whatever you wrote about us here is not who we are. At least I hope that you have had a refresher course on how Indian liberals of Congress party think. So that you don’t misrepresent us again.
Thank you for reading.
Superb. Long overdue. And I hope some of the ‘liberals’ are listening.
Worst article by so called liberal editor-in- cheap.
Shekhar ji, let him breathe as he is just four years old.
Why don’t you questions people who ruled before him. This is biased.
It is quite in line with what Mr. Gupta has been professing notwithstanding his not so successful attempt at hiding his being a dyed-in-wool neo-liberal. This is the role usually assigned to moles. It is about time liberals. quasi-liberals and those who believe in the modern sensibilities about equality, fraternity and freedom rise to ward off the danger of sick patriotism and nationalis,.
I’ve been mostly critical of your tweets. However I am no liberal not to be impressed by your brilliant analysis,not afraid to expose the liberals with irrefutable logic and reasoning. And unlike the liberals who can’t accept a Rupa till she apologises for her past sins,I,a right wing non- liberal,do not expect/ demand such apologies from you for praising this blog.☺
Brilliant, awesome piece.
Such a great article!! Necessary evisceration of pretentious intellectuals and pseudo librals….
Brilliant article. Very well argued. Now only if the liberals would read it.
What I don’t understand is why is Nationalism considered such a bad thing by the liberals. It is synonymous to patriotism. I agree with the author. The more they attack nationalistic sanad of Modi and Amit Shah, it will only help polarise the fence sitters in to the BJP camp and rightly so. I wish there are more like Manishankar Sister, Saifudheen Soz and Diggy in the congress camp shooting their mouths off in favor of Separatists and Pakistan, not to mention the gaffes by their leader Rahul Gandhi. BJP may not even break a sweat in 2019.
Excellent analysis everyone should apply to self.
This piece makes a really good point. Many intelligent liberals can’t grasp that conservatives whether here or anywhere else are also well meaning individuals who are making choices and sharing thoughts based on what they think is best. Liberals like to think conservatives are motivated only by greed and fear which allows them to dismiss conservatives. The fact that most liberals act like “Ayatollahs” as the piece says also means that they aren’t very likely to regularly interact with anybody whose opinions on key issues differs with theirs significantly. This adds to the Holier than thou attitude of liberals where even those within their circles hesitate to deviate even slightly from the party line, lest they be seen as someone who has a little too much sympathy for the sexist, casteist, corporatist evil doers.
I quite like the wine and cheese limousine liberals. Their frailties still do not add up to what the other camp is upto, Hapur being the latest instance.
Agree fully. An excellent article.
Prof PK Sharma, Freelance Journalist,Barnala(Punjab)
In an era of power, pelf, self politics truth no doubt can be pushed under the carpet for some time but not for all the time !
Truth ultimately triumphs but how much time will it take no body can even fancy or dream?
Mr. Shekhar Gupta in this thought-provoking piece has sounded a note of caution, dwelling at length at the same time on
the concept of liberalism with simlies and tales drawn from national and international sources !
My humble experience bears testimony to the fact that in Indian Society there is nothing hard and fast! Here anything can
happen anytime as you cannot rule out anything !
Is it not a new type of “Liberalism” very rarely to be found anywhere in the world ?
We have a written constitution, law of the land too in black and white with its IPCs and CrPcs ! Are these either followed or
adhered to in letter and spirit impartially ? These assume liberal postures where “mighty” and “affluent” are in the forefront
whereas implementation of these two become realities instantly in toto where weak and poor class of society is involved !
Many searching questions arise where are we liberal, honest, hard and fast in approach?
There you see liberalism- extremism, good-bad, propriety- impropriety, honest-dishonest, hard- soft, fast-slow and fair-unfair
assume relative dimensions ! We can exclaim too in this context ,” Strange indeed are the ways of Nature !”
In light of this discourse, we can safely draw a universal conclusion,
” You can befool some people for sometime but you cannot befool all the people for all the times to come ”
Then we should not overlook one fact that PM Modi and his BJP both do not need any foes because both are their own worst
“ENEMIES”. This sums up the NaMo-BJP tale in its true colours !
Amazingly and interestingly, we are now redefining and reinventing NATURE in an age of transformation in which we are at this
juncture ! This exercise goes on and goes on endlessly and this is called LIFE !
Prof PK Sharma, Freelance Journalist
Pom Anm Nest, Barnala(Punjab)
P
That is what a good writing is.Liberals are doing more harm to themselves than to Modi by their false sense of moral superiority over all others.Their fatwas against any balanced writeup which is not in conformity with their ideology is bound to be denounced mercilessly by them.Remember,a couple of months before, RamChandra Guha had to face the ire of liberals of all hues on his piece on Muslims in India (appeared in IE),so much so the he had to write a rejoinder in a apologetic mode to to pacify them.Debate,dialogue,discussion of broadest spectrum of opinion does not smother but nurtures the liberalism.
After ages you wrote something good lalaji….till now you were acting as good lala earning by writing for your constituency who was both following and funding you….better late than never….i thoroughly enjoyed the article…
modi is playing victim as he is always awed by the rich and powerful ,he is a theli with a tea stall ibackground but so was gandhi and so many others who rod\se from humble backgrounds ,about 60 ooo acres of land near ratnagiri famous for alphonsa mango orchards and so many other price less things is being destroyed to make aramco saudi refinery destroying the lives and livelihood of so many people on the west coast of india ,like wise the bullent train between bombayand ahmedabad destroys one of the most beutiful orchards in india bertween gujarat and maharashtra ,as you may note saudi arabia which has the worst human right record towards non muslims inits violent and turbulent history is the only country to confer a highest civilian award to modi all other countries sweet talk him ,eentertain him and then accompany him to the airport to make sure her doentnt linger or stay longer ,he and his company are gone in 2019 ,hope amit shah is not hanged due to his involvement in justice loya murder ,these guys are just going to be stuck in quicksand after 2019 ,rgds prof dr t ms prasad
How true. It is said today’s liberals are tomorrow’s conservatives.
This is indeed a nicely narration about so-called liberals (instead I would call them commies).
Very balanced post. Coming back to Rupa Subramanya, should she not have freedom to change her viewpoint based on data she sees? That makes her neutral, gives her freedom to question powers that be and follow the path of truth. Does one become a true liberal, only when he / she sticks to party line?