This is an attempt to change the goalposts, but I'll indulge. The shared Indian cultural identity and

Hindu ones are two VERY important distinctions. India is not Hindu, despite what J Sai Deepak claims. India is multicultural and diverse. Also Pre-Colonial India might have been non toxic monotheism, but modern India very much is not. The majority believes the state must impose their religious beliefs, not very "Non-Toxic Monotheism" of them wouldn't you agree?

Early Islam in India was definitely not toxic, the Mughals, as rulers, were very tolerant for their age. And as far as different laws created to appease religious groups, I agree with you they are ridiculous, so I think we should repeal every ban on beef.

As far as why campaigning for a Hindu state is stupid, the admin's comment points that much out.

Academic books are very interesting when not forced onto you by institutions, I have noticed despite the books schools asking you to read being classics, i enjoy them far less because schools and other institutions force them onto you.

The alt right points out legitimate problems but it ascribes them to a vague degeneration of culture, (usually its minorities getting rights or something along those lines) plus the problem with the distinction between government and capitalism is that they're the same institution. The state is there to enforce capitalism and capitalism exists to uphold the state. I agree many on the left have a problem with discourse and demonising those they disagree with. You must consider many on the left are not just fighting for an idea they agree with, it is usually their right to equality, opportunity, fair treatment, etc. So it'd be pretty infuriating if someone that benefits infinitely from the system simply opposed your right to exist because of who you are. Discourse should happen, but the "intolerant authoritarian left" are usually people that just want equality.

Interesting, thanks for sharing and engaging in a reasonable manner.

Regarding the "cultural identity of Indians" being "non toxic monotheism": does that definition include all pre-British-occupation 'Indians', including the more tolerant Mughal rulers like Akbar or some of the earlier Buddhist rulers or the Parsis, or does 'Indian' in his context only apply to Hindus? I.e., is he fundamentally making an anti-Islamic argument or is there more to it than that?

One difficulty with this argument seems to be that a country or a peoples and history as diverse as geographical 'India' can not surely just be defined by a single religion. Every religion including Hinduism in particular (which is by nature very adapative, dynamic and accepting of a larger and increasing pantheon / polytheism) went through so many transformations and adaptations through the centuries and in various countries, that it's impossible to generalise like this.

A few centuries BCE, for example, the Mauryas, greatly expanded the influence of Buddhism in parts of modern-day India, which was undone and assimilated by Gupta or other dynasties several hundred years later, until around the Mughals largely ruled nearly for nearly a thousand years alongside Hindu-ruled pockets or other empires such as the Vijayanagars, all of whom added significantly to India's 'regional identity', culture, scientific and military advancement and political stability throughout that time.

You or JSD may have preferred an India in which the Mughals never came, but the reality is that this it the way the historical cookie crumbled. History has for thousands of years included various conquering people spreading their cultural, religious or genetic influences around other countries, and there's no way to erase it or wish that away, any more than an English person trying to eliminate Greco-Roman heritage from their life because of the Roman Empire, and arguing for a return to the Druidic religions that the Romans stamped out.

Anyway, after the Mughals, the nominally British did not really impose their own monotheistic religion of Christianity, but encouraged Hinduism again and arguably also (ab)used it and the caste system as a tool of control and oppression, a playbook that they used elsewhere in the world too.

India as a constitutionally secular but diverse nation, is perhaps exactly the reason that India has managed to remain a democracy when so many other post-colonial or regional neighbours have struggled.

And modern-day and ancient India's broader culture and diversity has in-part helped it survive. This includes India's version of (mostly) tolerant Hinduism, but also India's version of Islam, which is different from the Islam practiced in many other countries (and certainly a completely different kettle of fish from say, Saudi's or the Taliban's Islam, which is again different from Turkey's or Syria's). India's Christianity too is a more tolerant brand than that practiced in some other parts of the world, as well as India's Parsis, Buddhists and other minority communities that broadly are very tolerant of their neighbours having beliefs different from themselves.

In short, you can't have a democratic country with multiple languages, faiths, cultures, customs, etc, without also respecting and tolerating each of these, and every community in India has played their part. The alternative is a road to repression, injustice and potentially unrest and/or civil war / partitions.

Traditional Hinduism is quite good at non-toxic tolerance (though arguably less so under the British divide-and-conquer strategies), but some of the modern-day fringe incarnations of Hindutva are surely also somewhere on the toxic spectrum and actively condone violence or oppression against minority communities or attacks against their religious buildings or symbols (i.e. more Aurangzeb than Akbar).

In short, putting all blame for India's problems at the doorstep of so-called toxic-monotheism (or Pakistan and partition) seems simplistic and reductive, considering the complicated history and problems that seem at least as big and more directly within an Indian government's control, such as discrimination on basis of caste and tribes, corruption, environmental exploitation, uneven basic education, the rise of inequality and oligarchies, India's conflicts with China, etc.

Sure, having separate Muslim and Hindu personal law is problematic, but it was a pragmatic unhappy compromise of accepting different customs and religions to live together in relative harmony in an otherwise secular country. The fact that India even survived as a democracy, even after horrors such as partition and other challenges, is surely a testament to its political system, people and pragmatism rather than solely one or several of its religions (although you could argue that Hinduism's caste system coupled with some democracy acts as a strong stabilising influence that prevents a revolution of the ultra-poor, but that's a different story).

Ultimately the reality is that India will (hopefully) continue to be diverse in thought and religion, and that can continue to be a source of great strength. The other option to create Hinduism as a dominant political ideal and forcefully elevating it as the source of India's greatness, is unlikely to have positive outcomes and judging by history, would mostly alienate minorities and destabilise the country further.

Would be interested to hear your views, or what you think JSD's rebuttal on this would be.

One of things academics tend to ignore is how a "religous/spiritual feeling" is common across people even if they are diverse. The shared cultural identity of Indians was "Non Toxic Monotheism" ie. Indians generally tend to beleive that there are many ways to reach divine and can worship as the way you like. This is more common in the history - kings, elites as well as laymen- where all of entities participated mutually in each of the other rites and rituals.

JSD in his first book talks about this a lot. The shared cultural identity - whether you call it as Hindu or Indian - is Non Toxic Monotheism

Toxic Monotheism (along with the cultural baggage that c omes with it) through Islam and Christianity is the first shock "indians" encountered and in one sense philosophically and politically is the eternal conflicting point in India since centuries that drove to partiition and the ridiculous lessness of having a religions laws for a certain section of community in the supposeldy secular india.

Thank you for the reading list!

If someone from the other side of the spectrum could engage constructively to this, please try to engage with the points mentioned herein rather than going off on a tangent rants or ad hominem (such posts will not be published).

I would genuinely and honestly like to know whether there are argument's J Sai Deepak's book makes besides espousing a Hindu state, or whether and why you think there are good reasons that there should be a more Hindu state (in spite of India's secular history).

Thank you for sharing your story, that was really interesting - will have a look at Foucault, didn't realise they were books people actually read and got value of outside of academia when they're forced to. :)

What I've found interesting is that some of the talking points of the fringe alt-right seem to be based on kernels of truth (i.e., corporate media is biased, capitalism and governments control individuals, freedom of speech is being attacked by accountable organisations, etc), though they usually over-simplify matters intentionally, which can make it an attractive philosophy for the reasons you describe. At the same time, the left-leaning US media and internet (and some humans) on the left of the spectrum too can sometimes have a tendency to over-simplify or demonise. This seems to result in more extreme narratives on both sides where there is very little common meeting or talking ground.

I have both read and understood Sai Deepak's work, and I do not believe in the shared cultural identity of a nation as pluralist as India, I think India's beauty and strength lies in how diverse we are, J Sai Deepak arguing for an "Indic" culture does not sit right with me because it argues for a hindu identity, a hindu state identity to me is pretty much the same as christian nationalism in the US. An argument for india's national identity from a secular platform is far more valid. This left you disavow is the reason the Indian nation exists. Though I digress, i'll recommend a reading list that should hopefully help you realise why J Sai Deepak's beliefs are deeply flawed.

1. Ur-Fascism - Umberto Eco
2. The myth of sisyphus - Albert Camus
3. The argumentative Indian - Amartya Sen
4. The nature of fascism - Roger Griffin
5. Left hand of darkness - Ursula K Le guin

I would recommend some specialised indian literature such as D.D Kosambi but i assume you'd just dismiss him given what happens when you mention anyone remotely marxist in the presence of a conservative

Good day!

I'll start with the question you asked. For me, I was born into a relatively affluent brahmin household, and that, of course, comes with a degree of privilege from the system. It took me a while to grasp this and come to terms with it, but when I was in my era of believing in things alt right, it often took a turn to an indian version of the pre-dominantly US-based Alt-Right philosophy. I was raised in a rather left-leaning household, but my parents never really tried to make me believe a certain thing. They just handed me books and left me to interpret them. And given that I was a child through all of this, I wasn't able to quite grasp the nuance in these books, my first bad experience started with the fountainhead when I was 7 or 8, it made me believe in this myth of a true meritocracy, so those people that need systemic support have an inherent flaw, this belief more or less subsisted until I was 15, I read more literature and was exposed to more viewpoints, my beliefs at the time I was 15 would be that the ideal societal structure would be an atheist objectivist society, which is unachievable and unfair for a myriad of reasons. The people that most often fall into the far right are deeply dissatisfied with their life, at least from what i observed, these people wanted a scapegoat to blame, it was always "if X didn't exist we'd be much better off" so a combination of unrealised systemic privilege, dissatisfaction with life, and a contempt to those they view as "undeserving" is what throws people into the far-right.

My transition back from the alt right started with research of climate change, and reading more literature, which is what had thrown me in it, in the first place, the book I would attribute my change to is The Archaeology of knowledge by Foucault, pretty much recategorised the study of history for me. I definitely don't believe politics is hard wired though, I am currently 17 so my viewpoints will definitely change but I feel like the shift towards conservatism is often motivated by a disconnect from the status quo (you're culturally connected when you're younger) as you get older (also richer) you feel a disconnect from both cultural and the economic state of the nation you reside in, so you often feel a disconnect to the political messages of the youth. My dad is almost 50 now, but he's still left leaning, I think he is so because he reads voraciously and keeps up with issues despite not needing to, so I don't think one has to shift to conservatism as they get older (most do) I also don't like a dogmatic view of politics, I think it hurts our prospects to move towards a better society, politics isn't an identity, it is a reflection of the beliefs you hold, and ever changing beliefs are a sign of improvement I'd say.

I find it rather hard to find common ground with most conservatives given they are diametrically opposed to my beliefs, a lot of them also disapprove of my existence (I am a queer person) i would be open to discourse between conservatives but so many often jump to their axiomatic beliefs.

When you said 'jihadist intolerance' is when any tolerance we might have had for your comment went and the rest practically censored itself. You're welcome, sometimes we need to save you from your own nonsense. Feel free to make the same point in your Dear Moderator letter again, but please express yourself civilly and reasonably, or not at all. kthksbye!

Thanks for sharing your account and balanced experience, that's fascinating and rare to see.

I always wondered whether it's possible to come back from an almost-alt-right POV and whether most / any people can even ever move between both sides of the spectrum. Politics and leanings seem like such a hardwired thing in many people (other than arguably a common drift towards conservatism as you get older), or something that seems to become hardwired or people double-down on very quickly, that it becomes very hard to find common ground between both sides (and good arguments don't really seem to cut it once an opinion is formed).

One question I had for you, if you don't mind: what did you find attractive about the alt-right 'movement', 'sub-culture', 'literature', etc, when you were toying with the ideas? I can see that the eco-system can be a fascinating, but that can't solely be the reason people are into it, right?

Hi, as someone who's been both almost alt right and now leans left, the progression for me was the more literature i read and the more academically inclined i became, the more left i moved. The most fundamental thing we need to accept is, not everyone starts on the same level economically, socially, or anywhere. The fundamental difference between conservative values and progressive values boils down to the dismantling of hierarchies which help these people who have historically, and still continue to lack equality of opportunity.

It is also a factual truth that the US is more polarized not because the left has moved farther left, but because the right has moved farther right (overturning roe v wade, repealing protections for transgender folks, threatening to overturn gay marriage, the bashing of immigrants, the christian nationalist agenda the republicans have espoused) the US democratic party is where it has always been, centre right. The US democrats don't become left leaning just because the party they oppose becomes more right wing.

This "someone" is a PragerU speaker who makes a ton of money off making vague culture war videos. PragerU is infamous for never citing their sources and all their "sources" being questionable in their academic merit. I could sit here and debunk every argument she makes with sources, but its the same "HAVE WOKE LIBS GONE TOO FAR?????" that has been the conservative narrative for 2 centuries now. There are dozens of videos talking about how PragerU is bad and there are various academic disapprovals of the organisation too but the nail in the coffin is PragerU and other conservative commentators are funded by billion dollar oil companies that don't have the best track record when it comes to caring about human lives.

Also India and the US are more similar than you might think, we also lack a large leftist presence in India, BJP is ultranationalist and Congress is at best a classical liberal party, the "socialist" parties here have to operate in a capitalist framework and are already plagued by infighting over disagreements with things like caste (samajwadi party lol) and the only social democratic presence, CPI M has resulted in what is by all metrics that concern quality of life, the best state in the country, even Delhi under AAP, a party with keynesian ideals has seen incredible public sector undertakings.

Stop reading J Sai Deepak and pick up an actual book written by someone who cites their sources and actually has sensible things to say. (I'd recommend Cornel West or Angela Davis, Piero sraffa if you're economically inclined, also capitalist realism is a fun one)

You should reflect on your own points before asking others to do the same.

The right has permitted/encouraged a government to destroy the independence of most of its basic institutions and we are moving to an illiberal tyranny. But for some reason you are more interested in trans bathrooms and western talking points. You blindly drink from the udders of losers from the west without coming up with any original thoughts of your own. You are hypocritical about it because most of these people would spit on the Indian culture you lionise.

Sort your house out before asking others to do the same. Stop posting all this western crap and come up with your own original stuff.

Can you please provide a tl;dr of the video? At nearly 1.5 hours, it's really long and doesn't seem relevant to LI, nor, considering the forum, is it likely to have any actual discourse or differing opinions (other than trying to stoke US-style Democrat-vs-Republican culture wars).

If your point is simply that cultural discourse is polarised and both the left and right of the spectrum in the US lie and are hypocritical in different spheres, and that political correctness vs freedom of speech online is a complicated subject, then maybe this does not deserve more great discussion, unless you have something specific to add that you would like to discuss.

But it seems you are just sharing a video with the afterthought "also, let's discuss". If you can't suggest a legitimate avenue of discussion or angle on this, will unpublish this thread as off-topic. What's next: Trump, AOC and Bernie Sanders speeches?

But if US politics like this is of genuine interest to readers, please let us know.

Reading some of the comments (not all) on LI compels me to think that many of you need to exercise more rigorous self-reflection before taking a stand and that the discourse in India is getting as dangerously polarised as in the US. I, therefore, dedicate this YouTube video for you all (the moderator in particular) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA4RDoTjwLk

Also, let's discuss!