Movements and Ideologies - India

The Aam Admi Party(AAP) which was formed in 2012 was borne out of a nationwide movement against corruption. Adding them to my list of major political parties:

AAP: Bourgeoisie (many top leaders appear to be atheistic but follow unethical atheism by pandering to religious and casteist elements).

Aravind Kejriwal, the leader of the party comes from a merchant caste. Among the leaders from merchant castes, M K Gandhi overcame "crisis of faith" and even supported the caste system, while EV Ramaswamy became a true atheist and denounced both religion and the caste system. However, in present day, it's believed that majority merchant castes support the Hindu nationalist party, BJP and basically play second fiddle to Brahmins in propagating Hindutva ideology. I wonder if Aravind Kejriwal becomes successful, will they remain loyal to the BJP?

Growing up in Karnataka, I hardly knew anyone from merchant castes. I must say, I haven't met any of them in Kannada and Malayali societies. Also, in Dravidian lands their caste position wasn't much different from weaker Shudra castes. However, the situation did appear to be similar in northern India  in olden days but conversion to Jinaism by some sections and the Raj appeared to have elevated their social position rapidly there. But ritually, their claim to become part of twice born castes and fight over the right to wear the sacred thread wasn't all that different from their Dravidian counterparts in Telugu region. Now they are part of the official 'twice born' or the forward castes or they aren't considered for affirmative action. The term 'Vaisya', which meant common people initially, has almost become synonymous with these castes.

After moving to Telugu region, I came across few Telugu and many northern Indians of merchant caste background. However, among northern Indians all my interactions were with Marwadis (though none of them from Rajasthan). Even though, I can't generalize but all my acquaintances of Telugu merchant background don't show any atheistic or rational bent of mind and appear to be deeply religious. This is in stark contrast to their northern counterparts. Of the four acquaintances, two of them are openly atheistic, another one is a believer but doesn't subscribe to astrology and superstitions. The fourth one, an openly BJP supporter, comes across as a staunch Muslim hater than Hindu believer.

I would think typical merchant castes would be like my Telugu acquaintances. It seems longer educational traditions of these  northern Indians probably have given them progressive attitude. However, there was one exception. One of them, a highly successful businessman, had the basic education of ten years and then went into business. That probably speaks more of his family tradition than his intellect. But what interests me about these atheists from the northern merchant caste is that their strong anti-Brahmin outlook.

Now this isn't new to me. I've seen OBCs in my circle from northern India having strong anti-Brahmin outlook. However,  there is one big difference. Even though OBCs are anti-Brahmins they are also overawed about Brahminism or Hindu scriptures. In this they match many Dravidian OBCs. But these northern Indian atheists don't hesitate to criticize the scriptures too.

But that doesn't mean they are just normal people who overcame all types of indoctrination and prejudices. Both of them are strongly against affirmative action.

It's well known that the BJP is hypocritical about social justice or its Hindutva ideology actually undermines affirmative action. In my opinion, the support of merchant castes to the AAP also depends upon how far it steers clear from social justice agenda.

Movements and ideologies - Secular Enemies

With the fall of the feudal system (not really true in many parts of India), there are no true secular enemies to fight against. Corrupts, the present day enemies,  pose a grey are for the general population. Because when it comes to money, many people have ambiguous attitude even though majority of them will never get a chance to commit corruption.

In such a situation, it becomes imperative that we change our definitions of right versus wrong. A person's integrity is irrelevant in the fight against corruption. The necessary thing is whether s/he accepts the view that an uncorrupt society is better for all and in fact can improve his/her financial status in the long run (which can be better or equal to benefits from the corrupt self). I think this attitude is better than hoping to have pure leaders to lead us in the fight against corruption. Following an ideal leader itself is self-debasing.

But the alternative of course requires our vision of future society where we can create jobs for everyone and distribute wealth justly. There are many countries with low corruption indices and which are highly successful. However, many of them have been colonial powers and others have benefited from these colonial powers. So those are not true models for a country like India. We need a model which is neither dependent upon colonies nor dependent upon exports oriented economy.

Update: 26-12-2011
There is no central point in this piece but there are some good observations along the way. The ones I'm quoting below are not.

When you're inside a myth it looks like fact, and for those who were inside the myth of the end of history it seems to have given a kind of peace of mind.

         Surely we would be better off if we put an end to our obsession with endings.

It appears some Europeans are losing big picture in their economic turmoil. Let's see the other side. Or the present society. A recent study sums up the situation quite beautifully.

Why do we stick up for a system or institution we live in -- a government, company, or marriage -- even when anyone else can see it is failing miserably? Why do we resist change even when the system is corrupt or unjust?

When we feel we can't escape a system, we adapt. That includes feeling okay about things we might otherwise consider undesirable.

The point of concern is not whether utopians really seek for a peaceful ending but the common people feeling that the present situation as the best of all endings. 

Movements and Ideologies : Berber-Arab Spring

In the relative success of "Berber Spring" and "Arab Spring", it was heartening to see that non-fundamentalist Muslims also have guts to oppose authoritarian regimes or Muslims do have courage without religious brainwashing. The corruption and humiliation felt with the rule of single families perhaps was too strong that it could mask the fear of Islamic take over. But I believe if democracy prevails, the political system could be better than that of Iran. In any case, the so-called secular regimes in these regions didn't do anything to further the cause of secularism among common people(with few exceptions). They just controlled the fundamentalists through force.

But this makes me wonder whether the secular support of the Iraq war even with the argument for democracy is valid or not. Perhaps it was just a matter of time before even Iraqis rebelled against the regime. Maybe secularists thought Muslim Berbers and Arabs were completely hopeless to bring about any change in their society.

Anyway, non-Muslim world is still few years away from becoming completely comfortable with the Muslim Berber-Arab world.

Update: 23-12-2011
A related article in the BBC magazine

According to the historian Eric Hobsbawm:
About the traditional Left;

The traditional left was geared to a kind of society that is no longer in existence or is going out of business. It believed very largely in the mass labour movement as the carrier of the future. Well, we've been de-industrialised, so that's no longer possible.

The most effective mass mobilisations today are those which start from a new modernised middle class, and particularly the enormously swollen body of students.

About Iranian model repeating itself;

The people who had made concessions to Islam, but were not Islamists themselves, were marginalised. And that included reformers, liberals, communists.

What emerges as the mass ideology is not the ideology of those that started off the demonstrations.

Movements and Ideologies - Overview

I was thinking about the causes for success or failure of any movement. I opened the Iranian Revolution page at Wikipedia. Well, that certainly was not the best revolution to understand the causes. The Iranian Revolution was supposedly an exception than a true case for any revolutions to succeed. Anyway, I consider the four causes given in the article as the basis for understanding other movements. According to that article one of these four causes have helped revolutionary movements.

1. Defeat at a war
2. A financial crisis
3. Peasant rebellion
4. Disgruntled military

But I'm more inclined at mass movements and I believe only second and thirds causes can be called genuine. However, considering the Iranian Revolution, I would say a third cause , Threat to identity, can be added for any mass movements. Then there is a fourth factor, a revolution driven by outside wave, should be added. Because sometimes other causes may be secondary. Here, I'm considering all kinds of mass movements revolutionary or otherwise. Also, I consider these causes responsible for both success and failure of a mass movement. My causes for the success or failure of any mass movement;

1. A financial crisis
2. Rebellion of the left behind
3. Threat to identity
4. Driven by outside wave

All these movements need intellectual leadership and ideology. At present I can only think of two such ideologies, Communism and Religion.

Let me look at various countries.
1. Russia
  Ideology: Communism
  Success: Rebellion of the left behind
  Failure: A financial crisis

2. Iran
 Ideology: Religion (Shia Islam)
  Success: Threat to identity

3. China
 Ideology: Communism
  Success: Rebellion of the left behind

4. India
  Ideology: Religion (Hindutva)
   Success: Threat to identity
Comment: It would have been a natural course of action for the caste system or Hinduism to become multiple entities as the middle and lower castes would have become enlightened and would have their own intellectual circle. However, by breaking the nation into two Muslims gave all the castes an anti-identity. This was further solidified by the Hindutvites by blowing up issues like Muslim breeding and Muslim men marrying Hindu women while keeping their own women closeted.

5. Afghanistan
  Ideology: Communism
   Success: No internal causes; driven by outside wave
   Failure: Threat to identity
Comment: In Afghanistan, Communism was driven by elites. We should note that a vast majority of the Afghan society is highly egalitarian (probably, nothing to do with Islam but because of its tribal and non-hereditary leadership structure). So, there was absolutely no room for Communism to make any kind of difference in their life. Thus religious fundamentalists could easily exploit these people.

6. Yugoslavia
  Ideology: Communism
    Success: No internal causes; driven by outside wave
    Failure: Threat to identity

I suppose any new ideology should align itself to one of the above four causes if it has to become a mass movement.

Movements and ideologies - India

I was discussing with Maju about various people's movements in Europe. I thought of making a note on Indian movements.

Indian National Congress: Humiliated feudal+clerical nexus(no longer aristocrats since British were in place, Ethical secularism by nature) and Bourgeoisie (Ethical religiosity by nature). Against British aristocracy. Socialist turned capitalist.

Muslim League: Humiliated Muslim feudals (no longer aristocrats since British were in place, Unethical religiosity by nature) and Bourgeoisie. Initially, against British aristocracy but later Islamic ethnocentrism to re-establish feudal order. Feudal economy.

Indian Communist Party: Humiliated educated feudal+clerical nexus (no longer aristocrats since British were in place). Against feudals. Socialist.

Dravidian movement: Bourgeoisie (Officially atheist and unlike any other Bourgeoisie in this respect). Anti-Clerical and anti-religious. Theoretically capitalist.

Bharatiya Janata Party: Hindu Bourgeoisie + clerical nexus. (Unethical religiosity, unlike European Bourgeoisie movements which were ethically religious). Against secularism. Capitalist.

Janata Dal/Samajawadi party/Bahujan Samaj Party: Caste based. Numerically strong castes (farmers, herders and Dalits respectively). Against discrimination. Socialist. (BSP-Capitalist?).

Hindu nationalist movements: Clerical(Unethical religiosity by nature). Anti-Islam and anti-Christianity.

Islamic fundamentalist movements: Proletarian(Ethical religiosity by nature). Used by the Muslim feudal establishment. Anti un-Islam.