This article describes a very particular kind of person who thinks it doesn’t apply to them. Yes, you.
It has to do with the modern political Liberal, who takes it upon themselves to play reasonable “peacemaker” between the Left and the Right.
From Biden’s U.S.A., to Trudeau’s Canada, to Macron’s France, to Starmer’s United Kingdom, it seems that level-headed arbiters of sense in Liberal Democracies are laying out the red carpet for the sharp rise of the far-right. India, not to be outdone in this tradition of level-headedness, also has quite the same tradition of “reason” right here amongst a spectrum of its privileged population: of borderline apolitical, extremely generous Indian Liberals, who (thank God!) keep saying “You do you!”
Where would we be without them?!
Aligning, even verbally, with the aims of social justice is, of course, always a tad bit too “radical” for these intelligent centrists. The economy is what the nation should focus its attention on, the rest will fix itself! “All these social justice movements, no, they can go too far sometimes, you know?” Those movements will obviously have the Liberal’s sympathies. Consider yourself lucky to have it! However, this support always goes unsaid and unpronounced – strangely parenthesised. It gets caught in the Liberal throat, somehow.
“We’re with you in spirit. Thoughts and prayers.”, they croak, waving their arms from a good distance, smiling wide and flashing a thumbs-up. The Liberal will then sidle up to you later: “Can’t say the things you’re saying too loud or the right-wingers will pick on me. I think you can be a little reasonable, though, can’t you see it from their point of view?” Broad, vague sets of non-words will proceed to be employed – of being “modern”, “liberal”, “pragmatic”, “open-minded”, “progressive”, “forward-thinking” and “development-oriented”. All without getting too controversial with the icky nitty-gritty, of course.
Let’s face it, we’ve all been there. We’re all right there now – either whole, or in bits and pieces. Even the most hardened activist understands that urge to self-preserve. That urge to narcissism – to fall in love with your own narrative, to always present as perfect, while avoiding the embarrassment of being corrected and criticised for tiny little missteps and faux pas at every turn.
It’s the terror of being interrupted. More terrifyingly, for a reason that is indisputably justified.
Bigotry, bias and unchecked claims have been baked into all of us throughout our childhoods, without exception. Those who end up making the difference in the long run are the ones who step out of these molds and attempt to continually confront that ignorance. What does not help in this continual fight with the self is what I’d call the “Liberal” “process” of deferring accountability. It only seeks to coat it, and not confront it – shifting the goalpost of acceptable change to a very comfortable point dictated entirely by the lethargic impulse of self-preservation. This process in the individual, multiplied many times over in the order of communities, leads to a veritable political heat death.
Change is stalled, and bigotry becomes far more well-disguised – locked in a tight little shell of anxiously-guarded complacency. As a consequence, it becomes harder to pick up on in an external environment, hidden behind a curtain of learnt, swiftly delivered platitudes. If you’ve ever had the unfortunate privilege of debating a hardened liberal at length – an infuriating activity which I would quite honestly recommend to anyone and everyone – you will realise that when it comes to internalised bigotry, even the most well-meaning tend to tap into the same pool of misinformation and narrativising that the open, hardened bigot drinks from.
All that changes by a thin margin of acceptability is the coating – the team colours, the layers of deflection, all generously sprinkled with a complete unwillingness to truly reflect on privilege.
These layers and layers of intricate shielding make the standard open bigot almost relieving to deal with. At least with this bigot it is an open thought offered with conviction, laid bare for the world to see. With the Liberal, the exact same undercurrents are proffered, though tangentially – capable of being withdrawn at any point for the sake of “pragmatism”. This is combined with the anxiety that comes with such evasion, and the ever-intensifying horror of being looked upon as a bad ally to the “weak”. But they continue to insist, as an extension of this complex: ”We’re not like “those” smelly, uncouth, bigoted conservatives, after all. We’re much better.”
And the rest of us should be thankful they’re not like them! They could very easily be “them”, after all.
The Liberals are not radical Islamophobes or Casteists, are they? Let’s take a closer look: The American Liberal only, after all, offers harsh criticism of those “bad” Muslims at home and abroad while openly accepting “good” Muslim citizens of shapes, colours and forms. Isn’t this as it should be? Similarly, the Indian Liberal (with roughly similar opinions on Islam) only offers rational, much-required criticisms of Anti-Caste movements when they get “excessive”. The “bad”, “uncivilised” activists must be dealt with and kept in check, while the “good”, “respectful” ones can stay.
By what logic does this filtration take place?
In the end, what ultimately manages to filter though this net are marginalised individuals and stances that are deemed “acceptable” to the Liberal’s personal whims, all in line with the logics of what happens to be the status quo at any given point. After this filtration, the filtered individual’s ability to effect change and speak in the same register as they once did is greatly limited. Stances are neutered, robbed of their momentum and fetishised – suddenly travelling through impossibly viscous, impossibly sweet honey. Nor is there any active curiosity on the part of the Liberal to actively extract new information from this individual regarding the history, concerns and experiences of their communities. They are instead turned into props, conveniently used as tokens to display the Liberal’s magnanimity, and kept at arm’s length – neutralised and fangless.
“Of course I have [insert marginalised community] friends!”
The Liberals can thus genuinely believe that they’re being kind and accepting, and with “the good guys” while only proffering “rational”, “necessary” criticisms which are necessary to keeping social balance, harmony and the status quo. But this rationalisation leads to a greater sin – in addition to serving as an excuse to not enquire or learn about the daily lives of the marginalised because they’ve already “done enough” by their own standards, it also concretises the status quo in a firmer way than any Conservative could ever hope to do. This is accomplished by providing a strong, almost impenetrable defensive core to those same regressive beliefs – beliefs which aren’t thrown out into the open as loudly and violently, but which go unsaid, unchallenged.
Yes, of course, tolerance, fairness and rule of law. But contextless, what do these words mean anymore? Especially in 2025?
Growing up in India, I have lost count of the number of times I’ve heard “Oh, I don’t have a problem with individual Muslims. I have many Muslim friends. They’re such kind, friendly people. Amazing food. However, when they get together as a group…”
This was certainly the way I justified it to myself as an Islamophobic youngster.
But actually talking about my biases and continually seeking out opposing viewpoints helped me get over these deep-seated biases and irrational phobias. The Liberal, terrified to be perceived of as being in the wrong, plays their cards extremely close to their chest, while continually raising the stakes anxiously for themselves for no reason at all, by making pronouncements, both to the world and to themselves, about how ethical, fair and flawless their “balanced” standpoint is. Even where social justice movements meet partial success, the conversation must necessarily revolve around the thoughts, feelings, emotions and ideologies of the privileged Liberal, rather than the sweat, blood and tears of the marginalised.
It is main character syndrome at its finest. A convenient curtain between good and evil, marked entirely by one’s own convenience.
In the U.S., Islamophobia isn’t a partisan issue, as the Democrats would like it to be – always painting “those” smelly, idiotic Republicans as the bigots. But it clearly is not the case, as evidenced by the policy, perspectives and International decisions set into motion when the former party has been in power. Identifying with “the Liberal Party” in any country is not the grand, cleansing maneuver people think it is. There is a lot of self-confrontation that remains to be done – maneuvers and conflicts to be dealt with, upbringings and concretised beliefs to be revisited. Popular Liberalism seems dedicated only to the preservation of a very particular ethical image of the Self as arbitrator, and its corresponding image of perfection, raised above both the unreasonable, pathetic extremes. It leads to stances divorced in very crucial places from content and conviction. It is a very particular “hollowing out” that seems apt for our time of hyperconsumption and accelerated volatility.
Yet the Liberal also has a very keen awareness of the way discourses flow and the manner in which social spaces operate – of what gains mileage in certain spaces versus others.
Take our own Department as an example – an avowedly “Liberal Space” to the average student, which is by default rendered “forward-looking” in the imagination. What these terms mean, of course, is open to such broad interpretation that they might as well mean nothing at all. Belief in this broad undercurrent initiates a complacency which kills curiosity, and dulls the weapons that one wields in that crucial, never-ending battle with the self.
“Liberal” Savarnas in the Department offer a prime example. They who keep their mouths tightly shut about caste and caste politics at all times. They who become anxious and strangely combative at the very mention of privilege, but miraculously turn into the veritable reincarnation of Ambedkar only when another savarna – openly bigoted this time – commits a casteist faux pas. The glee to pounce upon and tear apart the aberration is a sight to behold, as pit pat come perfectly-crafted arguments to discredit this idiot, this bigot, this fool.
So you did know what to say all this time!
This action confirms the Liberal’s deep-seated need to be “better than them” – but only to a certain extent. After the aberration is dealt with (lowkey, not too flashy either), the silence returns, along with the anxiety to engage and speak up.
Where is the feedback loop for learning and confronting bias? Where is the addressal of the anxious, tightly knit, terrified bubble within? The “subtler” aspects of casteism and bigotry are completely lost, buried always, with the threshold for fury being demarcated only by the Liberal’s own discomfort. The ascription of subtlety itself is flawed, as it implies a severely diminished form of oppression which can be glossed over – but these are the only terms our flawed sense of discourse, which can only operate in relative terms, has left us with.
In their refusal to fully engage with the marginalised, refusing to be a threat to the status quo and being deemed “acceptable” (who by?), Liberals are offered a lot of space in discourse, and in turn dictate where “acceptable” progressive attempts end. Liberals are also, by virtue of media hegemony, unfortunately the most visible messengers of a diluted social concern for minorities – a fact not lost on the Far-Right, who thrive and multiply in the act of pointing out the continually inconsistent stances and hypocrisy of Liberals. Continually on the fence as they are about Social Welfare, they provide a perfect pathway for the Far-Right to radicalise the working classes. They become a perfectly constructed, “acceptable” strawman for the Far-Right – their dream opposition, even as Liberals helpfully hush the more radical voices which actually speak from the depth of actual experience.
“Wait, wait, your time will come. They’re not ready yet, trust me.”
The spotlight must, of course, be on our interpreter!
What is the point in priding oneself on “reading theory” and complicated philosophers like Foucault, Derrida or Deleuze if you’re unable to inculcate even a hundredth of a fraction of their analysis of discourse into your own lives, and the conversations you have? Does this tool of pride not then simply become a narcissistic aesthetic, hollowed out of any real content, neutering any conviction in active change – generous handfuls of which these thinkers colourfully infused their works?
Again, there is almost a point where you prefer the open bigot, because at least their remarks are visibly recorded, come from a place of actual conviction, and may be refuted or noted in public record. The progressive aspects of the Liberal’s arguments, on the other hand, seem only to be a tool to advance the Liberal’s ego and belief in their own saviour complex. Wherever it becomes inconvenient and a threat to the status quo – in public, or to their own identity and privilege, they are suddenly helpless again.
I am aware that I am painting the word Liberal in very broad brushstrokes which may be horrifying to some.
Good, I mean you too! This phenomenon doesn’t magically stop with people who self-identify as the Modern Left. I must emphasise – this is not a fun, blanket villainisation of the Liberal. There is enough of that going on already, with gleeful attacks on dumb, smug Liberals contradicting themselves over and over again. But this in turn serves for its purveyors much the same obstinate, concretising, self-cleansing function as the previously outlined Liberal “process”.
These urges exist within all of us, to mute ourselves, to hide within and express nothing, yet be seen as shining warriors for progress and forward-thinking. And I’d be lying if I said I’m absolutely nothing like the despicable portrait I’ve just painted. It’s convenient. It’s easy.
But a process of learning from, and confronting the lethargies of the self has to be established.
Inner turmoil, conflict and bias can be dealt with only through honest, genuinely curious conversations with a variety of different human beings. Conversations that contain deeply uncomfortable topics which challenge you and your beginnings, and shake your very foundations. This can and should be seen in the greater context of the Depoliticised State of the Department, where such conversations simply do not happen, and where very vague Left-leaning views remain exactly that – vague – and are not challenged, revised or even admitted. It would be sad indeed for defanged, depoliticised, vaguely liberal students to go into the world just the same way as they walked in.
But that’s the way it is. That’s the way it has been. It’s more the rule than the exception.
And so this facade is constructed and maintained. A grandstanding, non-controversial, essentially apolitical aesthetic that evades controversy, and enables liberal snootiness in liberal spaces, sans any actual content. This results in communities that undertake a convenient, silent circle-jerk of virtue, where everyone assumes they’re in a cute Liberal space, and so reflects on absolutely nothing. Without putting forth actual opinions that move away from the liberal status quo, your personal misconceptions and internalised biases will remain just those things. Self-confrontation is crucial for individuals of all political stripes. Understanding your own privilege does not mean the end of you as an individual and the demolishing of all your achievements and talents. It is only a vital contextualisation.
If you genuinely believe in progress, there should be a part of yourself which understands that you exist beyond the Institutions and titles you’ve collected. Move forward. Broaden what education means to you. Seek out discomfort and curiosity. Talk to your friends about the uncomfortable things. Live a little. Argue furiously about your “cringe” opinions. Get called out. Furiously idolise writers and philosophers to the point of insanity and then de-pedestalise them when they inevitably disappoint you. What is the point of youth if not to be painfully stupid?
Live. Laugh. Learn?
No motives. No saviour complex, or the requirement to always be right, and continually perceived as a shining (but sensible) defender of the “weak”. Make space. Listen. Appreciate complexity, the fact that you’re going to be wrong, and that your opinions and actions have contributed to harm at one point or another.
Acknowledge your own limitations.
I don’t know. Find what works for you. I’m no expert. I hate how preachy this sounds. Guess I’m an annoying Liberal too.
If you recognise yourself in this, great – I’m sorry, it does suck, doesn’t it?
If you don’t, have a nice day!
Design by Yatin Satish
Article 19 