The fallacy of balanced approach

Interesting News article today: Left out: Marx, Engels to play minor roles in Bengal school books

It is surprising to see that Politicians/Academicians in West Bengal are striving to reduce/remove Marx and Engels from History. We can ignore the Economics part as hardly anywhere in world is Marxian economics taught. A News channel debate today explained that the 34 years rule of Communists in West Bengal resulted in a lot of Marxism being taught. It didn't explain than that why didn't a Communist revolution occured in WB in last 34 years? Why was Social democracy so closely knit into the political fabric of Bengal for these many years and not pure Communism? Why was there 'State Capitalism' in WB and not Communism as envisaged by Marxist ideas?{1} Many more questions remain unanswered though.

This is yet another instance why Marx is being suppressed and neglected as much as possible. These bourgeois personas of West Bengal's ruling party think they can suppress Karl Marx. Even if that's done, it makes no difference to Marxist methodology at all! As such, who needs mainstream syllabus to teach anything relevant today?

Today's case of Bengal clarifies how much afraid the dominant politicians and their bourgeois compatriots are of Marx{2}. Schools, Colleges and Universities are centers of brainwashing young population so that they can obey the dominant ideology and safely skip what they must actually know.

No doubt then, that most of the syllabus in India is filled with ideological biases of the ruling class. If they feel threatened by Marx's ideas, they can indeed reduce/remove him. Still, these ideas will return, with far more strength and endurance. Sad that History is being politicized. And sad that hardly anyone understand's Marx's ideas except that he was a Communist{3}.

Can there be a balanced approach?

The fallacy of balanced approach is very clearly visible in mainstream History and Economics curricula. Every new political party in power wishes to introduce its own ideological standpoint so as to bring changes it wants. That's not bad per se{4}. What is bad is that Marx's ideas are hardly taught in their correct, real form. What is presented in the name of Marxism is a critical analysis of his ideas by some other ideologues who have completely different ideological standpoints. This is dangerous. Such a trend will destroy the very future of our young generations. If we wish to have a better India, we need to allow "bias-free" flow of ideas. 

Balanced approach in Economics and History is a fallacy, and a dangerous one. It is to fool people that the committees framing curriculum is a bias-free, neutral set of humans. That's not possible. Every human has an ideology, whether she knows it or not. In the name of balanced approach, a different ideology is presented. The brainwashing still continues.

Agreed. Marxist ideas may have been overdosed in Bengal due to the Communist party's rule there for many years. But that is not a good reason to say that the now-ruling party is a balanced party. Far from it. A newer ideology will be put. Pro-Capitalism, Pro-markets and Pro-capitalist ideas will be fostered, maybe to create a well-obeying, pro-capitalism youth that turns out to be a 'productive' labour force{5}.

Is Marx really understood today?

Talking in terms of India, Marx is hardly even known to majority of the people. A nation where a large chunk of population resides in poverty/sub-poverty/near-poverty levels, its hard to expect them to read Marx and forget about their stomachs. That's not possible for now. But even the well-off sections of society do not understand Marx except the experts in various related subjects. Common populace must understand Marx's ideas in its originality rather than learning it in schools and colleges from ideological tutors- who nevertheless will promote their own ideologies. 

Today, we have a growing number of Austrians in Government colleges. They're able to help people understand their ideas well by engaging in productive teaching which is a healthy sign. Same must be done by Marxians. Just like Marx's ideas, even Austrian Economics is hardly taught or even understood in India. Dare you find a book by Ludwig von Mises or Murray Rothbard in school, college libraries{6}. You might find Marx though- but that's the only good thing. 

This boils down to one simple point: There's nothing like a balanced approach in History and Economics. Both are the pillars of Politic's justification in its present form. Common people must disapprove such a move. The brouhaha about introducing Indian point of view of History is equally fallacious. It is being talked as if only Marx was taught in Bengal's curricula till now, and Indian history was kept aside. There too, comfortable ideas will be put, challenging ones reduced/removed. People must resist such political manoeuvres. Let us focus more on solving nations's immediate problems 

rather than politicizing academic subjects which can be best left 

to academicians to sort out.

In the end, we can say that there's not too much of Marx in Bengal's schools, but a lot of politics to justify the society in its 
current form and skip the ideas people now really need to understand.

Notes:

1. State undertaking decisions that private competing firms must be taking is merely capitalism replaced by political executives taking those decisions. That's far more harmful.

2. This might be the case in face of the recent crisis in Capitalism that has engulfed most of the capitalist countries- E.U., U.S., etc. Justification for the American model of Capitalism is possible when it is justified and taught as if it were the best way to achieve human freedom.

3. The common people in India hardly understand Marx other than the mainstream ramblings against his ideas. Former USSR, Eastern countries,  &c. are publicized as failure of Marxism- as if they had anything to do with Marx.

4. Healthy spreading of one's ideology is always good. World needs different ideologies. But replacing something to introduce another while calling it a balanced approach is very mediocre.

5. Indeed, if wage-labour system is justified in the minds of young people, they'll end up accepting it as the sine qua non of modernity. That's dangerous too. It keeps radically different viewpoints about History, Economics and Future deliberately away from them. We can't afford that.

6. There is a lack of awareness about Austrian Economics in India. Moreover, one will hardly find the literature by this school of thought in Economics- except a few. At least this blog's author has experienced so. That's unfair. Such radically different ideas, diverging from mainstream perspective must be fostered and promoted. Combustion of ideas is the key to prevalence of truth.

---------------------

Are Fundamental rights absolute?

No, they're not. This post attempts to put some argument for the said case that Fundamental rights as per our Constitution, aren't absolute. We then shall proceed to see that it would be harmful to the society at large if that were the case. This post comes at a time when a lot of discussion is occurring on whether one can express whatever he/she desires to and this right to do so must be protected as a fundamental right. 

Liberty: A modern day obsession

Liberty(i), in modern times has become an obsession, an end that seems to be the only correct goal for the homo sapiens species. Yet, Liberty is not an isolated, all encompassing end for Societies. Equality and Fraternity too are very much crucial for establishing, sustaining and nurturing Liberty. Pro-Liberty dogmatics tend to press hard for it without realizing that the other two elements are equally, or even much more essential for an efficient, fair and most importantly a happy and prosperous society(ii). Liberty, Equality & Fraternity are the three crucial elements for a truly developed, prosperous & sustainable society.

Ensuring Liberty, is not a naturally managed, non-interventionist task. It needs active participation of varied Social institutions. Also, Liberty has to be ensured, it is not naturally available to people. Institutions have to exist that protect it. For Eg. Private property is one such example which needs Institutions such as courts that enforce it & the State that recognizes it. Today, we are far better-off than our forefathers. We can be at home and relax that the property purchased by us is ours and no one would come and snatch it away. Yes, many a times injustice occurs, but we're secured as we have courts and a Justice mechanism to redress and solve it.

Liberty- Origination 

Where does Liberty originate from in Indian context? By Liberty, we here mean 'Freedom'. It is important to appeal to an authority to answer this question:

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, on 4th November, 1948 said in the constituent assembly: "I am sorry to say that the whole of the criticism about fundamental rights is based upon a misconception. In the first place, the criticism in so far as it seeks to distinguish fundamental rights from non-fundamental rights is not sound. It is incorrect to say that fundamental rights are absolute while non-fundamental rights are not absolute.The real distinction between the two is that non-fundamental rights are created by agreement between parties while fundamental rights are the gift of the law. Because fundamental rights are the gift of the State it does not follow that the State cannot qualify them." 

Here, following important observations are to be made:

1. There are two types of rights that need to be focused on: a). Fundamental and b). non-fundamental

2. Non-fundamental rights are those that are created by coming together of parties in an agreement. Eg. Contracts, Private property, Purchase and Sales, etc.

3. Fundamental rights are a gift of the state. Now that's a metaphor. It means that the state(Government) ensures that these rights are available to every citizens. It thus protects these rights and ensures its enforcement when needed.

4. The state cannot qualify them, meaning change them(as per the interpretation by this blog) as the Supreme Court has time and again ruled that the basic structure of Indian Constitution i.e. its Preamble cannot be changed by any Authority under the State(iii). Thus the central spirit of even the Fundamental rights cannot be changed if change/affect the spirit of the Constitution(iv).

Article 19, Clause 2 states: Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1){refers to the freedom of speech and expression} shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.(v)

Hence, reasonable restrictions are to be put, on the freedom of speech and expression. This makes it clear that any expression that affects any of the above mentioned subjects, namely the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence; shall be prohibited/regulated/restricted.

The rationale behind this restriction:

India, as we know, is a vast, multicultural, multilingual, multiracial, multireligious and a very diversified society. It is very much possible that expression and speech  of a particular entity may affect the other entity in a manner, unacceptable to them. Thus, it becomes essential to prohibit any such activity.

Having said that, it also becomes essential to point out at the other side of the issue under discussion. It is very much possible and evident too that in the name of such entities, especially religion, caste, etc., unnecessary barriers to the freedom of expression and speech shall rise. It may take the form of bullying by fundamentalist groups, or pressure from some organizations claiming to represent a particular section of society, etc. These matters, though do occur, can be dealt with more amount of clarity in the law about what shall affect the above said factors due to which reasonable restrictions are required. Lack of clarity on which entities, to what extent must be allowed to exert restrictions based on the said factors(vi) is an area requiring immediate intellectual discussion among the Lawyers.

If Fundamental rights were absolute:

People in such a society and Polity would have to face serious consequences. It is well-known what happens when two or more communities do not respect each other. Communal riots aren't alien to India, are they? Due to reasonable restrictions, we as citizens are able to maintain harmony and peace. Indeed, disruptions occur, but are managed due to availability of such restrictions. Exempli Gratia- We don't go out and start abusing some community, religion or any entity especially in public, only because we feel that expression and speech is our freedom, do we? We apply restrictions on our actions and behaviour. Indeed, one may argue that these are Social norms and manners that we learn, but Law has a crucial role in shaping and more so strengthening our norms and behaviour. 

An 'absolute freedom' society would mean, expressions that, either may not have been made in a relative freedom(vii) society as currently in India or would have been prohibited/restricted/redressed under a relative freedom society. In such a situation, harmony would have prevailed. Since, in an absolute freedom society one can freely express whatever he/she desires to, non-state social entities(religious groups, communities, etc.) would exert control over the social behaviour(viii) of individuals. Its very well possible that there would be non-state regulating devices, wherein individuals may not be given sufficient rights and representation as is today under constitutional institutions. More on this topic in later posts.

Conclusion:

Freedom/Liberty is not an absolute concept. It is provided by the State, which derives its power from the people, thus ensuring certain fundamental rights to its citizens. These rights, as explained by Dr. Ambedkar, aren't absolute and possess reasonable restrictions. These restrictions, however offending, are important to maintain peace and harmony. The assumption that people shall respect each other even if Freedom were absolute is ill-founded. Restrictions on freedoms(which are minimal) help to tune individual behaviour in tandem with social harmony and tolerance. This means, in different nations, these restrictions vary. In a more tolerant or a largely homogenous society(Eg. nations where diversity in terms of religion, caste, etc. is less), restrictions would be less while more in a largely heterogenous society. Lastly, such restrictions have their flip side too. Unnecessary pressure may be exerted by various entities that may reduce Freedom of expression and speech to a large extent only to a paper-promise. This issue thus needs further clarity as per the law on the entities and sentiments that must be protected and which shall be considered as valid for reasonable restrictions. 

Reference and Notes:

(i)- The term Liberty has different connotations as explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty, the above article refers it as Freedom of expression as stated under article 19 of Indian constitution.

(ii)- By prosperity I mean both Quantitative and Qualitative wealth. 

(iii)- Authority here means: - As defined under Article 12 of Indian constitution.

(iv)- Spirit of the constitution here is referred to the Preamble

(v)- As given in our constitution; for a link see here:

http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/Const.Pock%202Pg.Rom8Fsss(6).pdf

(vi)- The said factors refer to: the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, as given under Article 19, clause 2.

(vii)- Relative freedom society here means a society wherein Freedoms aren't absolute and have necessary restrictions. Indeed, these restrictions are minimal as evident in our constitution.

(viii)- Social behaviour here is referred to behaviour of individuals during social interactions/in Public.