Ever since Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party swept the General Elections for the second time, that too with a bigger majority, there is a visibly distressed and lost looking bunch of people who are trying to figure out what the heck happened: Liberals. This includes me.

To seek some answers, some 200-odd contemplative folks gathered at the India International Centre in Delhi where Pratap Bhanu Mehta delivered the first Vinod Mehta Memorial lecture. Pratap Bhanu Mehta is Vice-chancellor of Ashoka University and columnist in The Indian Express. Many of his writings have espoused the values that liberalism stands for and he’s a political thinker who talks about where the ideology is headed. And, according to the title of his lecture, it is “The End of Liberalism” as we know it.

I attended the lecture and found myself sitting amidst a room full of grey-haired, worried looking people who were wringing their hands wondering what PB Mehta (PBM) was going to tell them; also present were Vinod Mehta’s friends and family who were there to remember their dearly departed and the values he stood for when alive. 

All in all, it turned out to be an incredibly academic exercise where the speaker clinically told the audience what he thinks went wrong. Let me try and unpack (and simplify) what he said, for the greater good of liberalism. Maybe.

Right off the bat, PBM pointed out how since the 1920s, every seven to eight years, the world goes through a “is this the end of liberalism” cycle. Book publishers stock their shelves with books with these titles that herald to the world that liberalism is, finally, dead. We are in one such cycle and this lecture was one such lecture. 

In his inimitable cheerful manner, PBM told the crowd, “We should all become like cows, we should eat a little bit and ruminate.” 

He pointed out that this cyclical inherent weakness in the liberal ideology — unsure people who follow the ideology start questioning themselves — makes it vulnerable. In five points, PBM then laid out the challenges liberalism is facing in India today and also around the world.

But before we get into that, it’s necessary to give some context about liberalism, in general. Because, during the event, it seemed like everyone in attendance was totally in tune with what the ideology is and what it stands for. They kinda weren’t though. I spoke to a few people there and what I got were varied ideas, more or less distinct from each other, but almost every person uttered the words, “In the troubling/dangerous/awful/horrible times we live in…”

Liberalism is a belief system which is concerned with broadening perspectives, to learn from others and to accept behaviours that are different than their own. These are beliefs which are subject to change, at any given point of time, depending on the circumstances. So this group of people gathered in IIC were exhibiting a belief system which is just extremely complex and varied, depending on the person you talk to. As it is supposed to be.

PBM, in his first point, explains how the very nature of Liberalism is such that if it succeeds, it will fail. The moment liberalism takes lead, becomes dominant over a group of people, it will not be able to stick to its own basic beliefs. It will lose.

Second, he pointed out how Liberalism has betrayed itself by branching out and taking the form of ‘neoliberalism’. Now, for those who don’t know, neoliberalism is a modified form of liberalism that favours free market-based capitalism. Neoliberals believe that the role of the private sector needs to be expanded and government should just limit itself when it comes to the economy. According to PBM, the current form of liberalism has failed to balance capitalism and democracy. It has failed to separate political and social power from economic power.

Third, Liberalism fails because it has no sense of a ‘political community’. PBM pointed out how there is confusion over who can and cannot join the liberal ‘community’. Meaning, because the ideology is supposed to be all-encompassing and welcoming of all sorts of other belief systems, it is not able to form a tight-knit community that can move towards a singular goal. 

To be honest, this fact was very evident to me just looking at a representative sample of 200 people gathered at the lecture. There was no sense of alignment except for the fact that everyone thought we live in troubling times. But that is a flimsy short-term thought to form a community around. 

Fourth, Liberalism tends to ‘domesticate its challengers’. This is a wee bit convoluted point, I know. According to PBM, there is this state of permanent fear within liberal societies. There is no real clear direction, because of its very nature, but there is a constant talk about dangers to society which might emerge from the unlikeliest of places. If dangers to society do emerge, the first instinct of a liberal is to understand it, to try and have empathy, instead of just crushing it and getting it out of the way.

PBM gave the example of China, which is not constrained by the pious beliefs of liberalism, and how it takes quick decisive action, that too with a strong sense of purpose.

And finally, fifth, Liberalism has failed to understand the nature of modern-day populism that is visible all around the world. PBM pointed out how liberalism has become more of a set of principles laid down by an invisible authority, a political dogma. It is no more a social movement as it is supposed to be. Whereas modern-day populism is flexible in nature, not grounded by any particular ideology and it is able to encompass a wide range of people with different beliefs. 

Essentially, allow me to put it in simple terms, modern-day populism is like a cream roll: Outer hard layer of nationalism and a cream filling of good ol’ flexible smorgasbord of beliefs. And, goddamn, everyone wants that cream roll. Liberalism, on the other hand, has become a rigid inflexible set of principles that goes against the very core of what it is supposed to be.

So, what was the summation of all of this? Is Liberalism actually dead? In the end, PBM pointed out how it isn’t but there is a need to think about its waning relevance. So not really. But from what I understood, every liberal in that room except maybe PBM, was really unable to articulate what they really stand for. A core principle that like-minded people can rally behind. Perhaps that is exactly what Pratab Bhanu Mehta was also trying to say, in ultra-layered academic fashion: Liberalism as a belief system is not at fault, the flag bearers of it are.

It’s time to become a cow, chew the cud and ruminate.