In the last post this author deliberated on the growing narratives in the social-discourse, both of which are either biased right-of-centre or left-of-centre.
However is there a real reason to take an objection to either of these ideologies. To uncover this, we’ll essentially have to go back to the roots of these ideologies. Religious fundamentalism is the right narrative. As against this the left that considers itself to be more in line with egalitarianism and evolution, liberalism oriented.
That said, they are naturally at loggerheads with each other. The left is relatively a more recent and modern philosophy with its origins rooted in the French Revolution. It is beyond the scope of this article to go into the exegesis of the above ideologies. However that said, the right was born out of religious fundamentalism and the left as an anti-thesis to it. It suffices to say that the clamour of both ideologies have polluted and convoluted our drawing rooms.
This brings one to the concept of identity as essentially these two positions are essentially based on “conversion” — the right tries to market you their identity, the left (in Bharat’s context) has ended up merely being a tool to deracinate the native indigenous in the name of liberalism thereby aiding in the achievement of the right’s objectives.
That said, in the spirit of liberalism one must (and naturally) raise the following questions:
- What is the “cause” of identity? Why should one protect or defend it?
- If X is the identity of A, why (or why shouldn’t) A protect it?
- Is the merit of identity alone a reason to protect and defend one’s identity?
- If one concludes that their identity is devoid of merit, should that be reason enough to abandon it in favour of evolution?
- What are the after-effects and ramifications of an identity-transformation?
It would only be natural and commonsensical for one to prioritise the protection of their belongings over others’. But essentially the question is “why” when you are being offered a free replacement. Questioning such basic facts, one must consider the risk of getting tagged as being devoid of commonsense.
However, it so turns out that this is not the first time this question has presented itself. If lack of commonsense were to be the justification for raising this particular questions, Arjuna would never have found himself so helpless when faced with the decision of taking a position against his kith and kin. Essentially in that context it was the execution of ones righteous duty. But if protection of identity is the case of righteous duty, the question gathers even more relevance.
In the next post we’ll deliberate on some of these very basics and fundamentals and the “cause” of personal, social, cultural, civilizational, national and various other facets of the question of “Identity”.