The White(washed) Liberal's Burden

"If you are not a liberal at 25, you have no heart.
If you are not a conservative at 35, you have no brain."
- Quote by Unknown

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed in this post are purely my own personal opinions. I identify as neither a liberal nor a conservative but prefer the label "freethinker." I have critiqued both liberal and conservative positions with a constitutional lens. That said, many of my opinions, but not all, align with liberal policies. This post, however, might be contrarian to prevailing liberal opinions.

This post is a sequel to my earlier post Libreal Overreach and the Global Right Turn. If you have not read that before, do check it out--should be a good warmup to read this one. :)

Now, if the global right turn was the old zeitgeist of our times, the new zeitgeist has got to be the ignominious failures of America's "nation-building" adventurism in the Middle East, first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan. Iraq is now in likely worse shape than under Saddam Hussein, terrorized by ISIS. Afghanistan swiftly returned to Taliban rule as US forces and their allies fled the country. Tens of thousands of lives (American, Afghan, and more), as well as trillions of American taxpayer dollars went down the drain. To what end? To stroke the egos of many naive peddlers of "freedom" (on the right) and "human rights" (on the left). And to enrich America's famed military-industrial complex and their political cronies. Yet, many still clamor for wars and invasions to continue to "save" Afghan women, "save" Yazidis, etc. Whatever happened to a nation charting its own course? Whatever happened to national sovereignty? Whatever happened to multilateralism?

To me, all the blather about America being the "savior of the world" by imposing freedom, human rights, etc. abroad feels like history repeating itself. Over a century ago, it was called "The White Man's Burden". This century, we can very well call it "The White(washed) Liberal's Burden." In this post, I pick apart this burden, describe some blatant hypocrisies I see in it, and share my thoughts on what I believe liberal democracies need to "save" themselves from themselves first.

The past edition of this burden was rooted in so-called "European Enlightenment" (so enlightened that they slaughtered each other, twice within four decades and even worse!), White Supremacy, and the religion of Christianity. The present edition is rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Liberal Supremacy, and the religion of Humanism. There are differences, however, in how convinced they are about how right they are, as well as the flow of money in these civilizing missions. In the former, there were still lingering doubts in some quarters (albeit minor) and money was sucked from the "savages" by the "civilized." In the latter, there seems to be worryingly little doubt and money flows from the "civilized" to the "savages." Both are wrongheaded.

Just to be clear, I am a huge supporter of the human rights doctrine myself. I even wrote an ode to human rights, enumerating many key groups of people who still suffer dehumanization and discrimination. In that post, I also noted how the UDHR is similar to moral religious texts of yore, e.g., Bhagavad Gita, Bible, or Quran. But two fundamental differences exist. First, the UDHR was drafted collectively by a huge chunk of humanity, not by parochial interests of one tribe or nation like those religious texts. Second, the UDHR is grounded not on supernatural delusions but on the mathematical game theory notion of "stable equilibrium" among individuals. But the UDHR was meant primarily as a guide for each nation to chart its own course, not a prescription to violate national sovereignty with external invasions or wars (stopping genocides was the key exception). Even so, the espousal of UDHR, especially by liberals, is replete with hypocrisy, especially when the "universal" part is shamelessly skipped. Next up, I dive into these inconsistencies and the new-age burden.

The Burden of Human Rights Hypocrisies

Conservatives often hypocritically harp on a specific subset of human rights (e.g., right to freedom of religion) but often turn a blind eye to others (e.g., right to equality). Analogously, liberals hypocritically harp on human rights standards for some groups and nations but often turn a blind eye to others. Despite all their (faux) protestations of "championing" human rights, I see at least five major such hypocrisies in the practice of the UDHR: the Islamic world, Israel-Palestine, Chinese Communist Party, corruption in developing nations, and votebank politics. Let me elaborate on each.

1. Failure to Hold the Islamic World Accountable

Many liberals in India, Europe, and the US use kid gloves when talking about the checkered history of Islamic empires, as well as the nasty human rights record of many nations with Islam as the state religion today (e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt). In fact, many liberals prefer to be apologists for Islamism and Islamo-Supremacism. Such hypocrisy is a major reason for the resurgence of Hindutva nationalism in India and that of far right / White nationalism in the US and Europe. This hypocrisy takes many forms.

First, while liberals rightfully condemn the extensive crimes against humanity perpetrated by European empires, they consistently fail to do so for similar crimes perpetrated by Islamic empires. While there is much talk about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade that predates it and inspired it is typically ignored. Arab and Islamic empires had been enslaving Black African peoples for centuries, just as the Roman Empire before them. Even today, anti-Black racism is common in the Arab world, including literally calling Black people slaves! Such crimes against humanity did not end in Africa. Millions of Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs were slaughtered or tortured over centuries in the Islamic invasions of India. So many were enslaved and killed in Central Asia that an entire mountain range got the name Hindu Kush, literally "Hindu Killer"! Indian liberal historians shamelessly covered up many such ethnic cleansing episodes by Islamic empires from Indian history books. Likewise, liberals often claim to respect "indigeneous" cultures in the US, New Zealand, etc. but hypocritically invert that stance when it comes to indigeneous Hindu monuments destroyed by Islamic empires, e.g., like in Ayodhya. If European nations ought to pay reparations for historical crimes, shouldn't Islamic nations--Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc.--do so too? If "German Guilt" and "White Guilt" must be a thing, shouldn't "Muslim Guilt" be too? A real liberal will not traffic in such double standards.

Second, criticism of Islam and some of its medieval practices in sociopolitical contexts (as against private religious/spiritual contexts) are often maliciously dubbed by many liberals as "Islamophobia." The real intent is often to muzzle rightful criticism. By such (il)logic, "Naziphobia" should also be a thing! Many ex-Islamic intellectuals such as the brave Ayaan Hirsi Ali and many atheists, freethinkers, and reformists who are practicing Muslims in Muslim-majority nations are thrown under the bus by liberals elsewhere. No wonder the term "regressive left" is now a thing. The world recoiled in horror when the allegedly "barbaric" government of the Islamic State murdered gay men en masse. But the truth is that the allegedly "civilized" Islamic government of Iran is not much better. A real liberal would condemn the pervasive suppression of the human rights of women, LGBTQ+ people, and religious minorities in the Islamic world and hold those nations accountable, not just (rightfully) condemn overreach in the name of Christianity in the US or Hinduism in India.

Finally, American liberals and conservatives are both equally to blame for the prevalence of absolute dicatatorships (including monarchies) in the Middle East. America's meddling in Iran to stifle the democracy there with the dictatorial Shah is what ultimately led to its brutal Islamist regime. Liberals still turn a blind eye to the export of toxic Wahhabist Islamism by Saudi Arabia, the root of many of the disasters in the Middle East today, including many Islamist terrorist groups. A real liberal would leave the Middle Eastern nations alone to chart their own democratic destinies instead of propping up tinpot dictators. Ironically, such independence from US interference is literally what Osama bin Laden wanted for Arabs and what the Taliban want for Afghans! Apparently, this basic logic of national sovereignty is too hard to fathom for many.

2. Failures on Israel-Palestine

Nothing underscores the dysfunction of the United Nations more than the 7 decade-old stalemate of Israel-Palestine. American liberals make a lot of noise about Palestinian human rights but ultimately, they are just as culpable as American conservatives in propping up Israel's continuing brutal occupation. The US has arrogantly vetoed over 50 UN resolutions to hold Israel accountable. It is as if Israel and the US alone are right and the overwhelming majority of the entire rest of humanity is wrong! This hypocrisy is at the root of what makes Islamist terrorist groups appealing to many disgruntled Muslims across the Middle East and South Asia. And then there is trend of malicious elements mislabeling rightful criticism of Israel as "Anti-Semitic." That term has become a perfect example of the parable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, often leading to actual Anti-Semitism rising. Likewise, there is a lot of noise about getting Palestinian militant and Islamist terrorist groups to disarm and adopt non-violent tactics but little action to ensure that. A real liberal will simultaneously seek to end the American/Israeli stonewalling at the UN to ensure Palestinian human rights and end Palestinian violence to ensure Israelis' right to peaceful existence. Tokenism such as the BDS movement touted by some liberals helps no one.

Personally I believe the two-state solution is not viable due to the massive entanglements between Israelis and Palestinians: economic interdependence, myriad Jewish settlements on UN-assigned Palestinian land (illegal under international law), mixed cities with both Jews and Arabs, displaced landless refugees, etc. I also think ethnonationalism such as Zionism or Arab nationalism are anachronistic. In my opinion, Palestinians and Israelis will be better off building a unified state of Israel-Palestine as a multi-ethnic multi-religious secular democracy, not a "Jewish state" or "Arab/Islamic state." After all, Jews have a rightful claim over historical Canaan as their homeland (from which they were ethnically cleansed) just as much as Palestinian Arabs have a rightful claim over the erstwhile British mandate as their homeland (on which a poorly thought out partition was imposed). A federal substructure to ensure diverse democratic representation based on constitutionally codified power sharing between all ethnic/religious groups, repatriation of Palestinian refugees and fair resettlement of lands, while also preserving the Jewish right to Aliyah, and strong affirmative action to help uplift Palestinians impoverished by decades of Israeli colonialism (e.g., using India's quota system as a reference) will help ensure peace in such a unified state. All this may sound delusional, but I think the alternative is actually even more delusional and will only perpetuate hatreds.

3. Kowtowing to the Chinese Communist Party

Flawed neoliberal economics touted by the Clintons are at the root of what decimated the US manufacturing sector and moved jobs to Communist China. Hillary Clinton deserved to lose the Rust Belt in 2016. But who is the biggest beneficiary of this debacle wrought by American liberal shortsightedness? Not American conservatives but the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). A thuggish regime that brutally massacred hundreds of brave Chinese students, intellectuals, and other protestors at the heart of their own capital was hypocritically given a free pass by American liberals in the name of "economic growth." Even today both the US and Europe are beholden to labor and supply chains controlled by the CCP, only boosting their dictatorial power.

Emboldened by liberal complicity in "looking the other way" first on the invasion and oppression of Tibet, then on their violent internal ethnocultural cleansing campaign, and then on the Tiananmen Square massacre, the CCP just accelerated its grip on power, destroying all criticism from within using widespread state terror of arbitrary arrests and torture, the most sophisticated censorship machinery in history to suppress and distort the flow of truth, and now an artificial intelligence-enabled mass-surveillance state to keep people under the CCP's thumbs using fear. But the worst of its crimes against humanity may very well be the ongoing industrialized ethnic cleansing campaign in Xinjiang, which some nations have already deemed a genocide. Of course, the UN is again useless because Communist China is a veto power. It is curious how liberals in the US, Europe, and India do not condemn the CCP at even a fraction of the rate at which they rail against conservatives in their own nations. Is it because such Commies are their far left chums (mirror image of Nazis vis-a-vis conservatives)? Or do they secretly salivate over bringing such Big Government control and muzzling to liberal democracies too?

4. Apologia for Corruption in the Developing World

One of the biggest reasons for the quick collapse of the US-backed Afghan government against the Taliban was the former's massive corruption, a veritable kleptocracy that was deeply unpopular among the people. It is impossible to solve an endemic problem like corruption with external money or militaries. Instead of wasting trillions of American taxpayer dollars on useless guerilla warfare and vanity projects, the US could have invested more in empowering grassroots Afghan activists fighting against corruption, for women's education, for human rights, etc. India too recently saw a massive recent movement against political corruption, ironically helping dislodge a corrupt liberal government. Herein lies a key lesson for liberals everywhere: just cyring hoarse about (faux) "fascism" or "White supremacy" does not mean the alternative will be automatically better.

The same story plays out in much of Latin America, Africa, Middle East, and South Asia. Extensive corruption is typically the biggest factor in keeping many nations impoverished. And yet most liberals fail to combat corruption with the seriousness it deserves. Why? Well, there is some truth to conservative accusations that much of this corruption is perpetrated by liberal leaders. Likewise, many developing nations still have inherent tribalism, civil wars, and other issues. Lack of introspection on such poor governance-related factors is a sorry excuse for external "savior" complexes. Key examples of such self-goals are Zimbabwe, Congo, Myanmar, and some Latin American nations such as Honduras and Guatemala. But there are also positive examples right next to them who are economically more well off, in large part due to combating corruption and due to prudent economic policies: Costa Rica and Chile, Kenya and South Africa, and the famed East Asian "tigers" such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Thailand.

5. Votebank Politics

Finally, one of the perennial banes of India's multi-party democracy has been votebank politics, where some parties pander to selfish needs of people from a specific caste, religion, or language instead of more prudent rule of law. Liberal parties are often the worst peddlers of this idea, routinely employing a complex caste calculus. Liberal parties also engage in appeasement of Muslim votebanks, e.g., peddling unequal "special rights" for minority religions but seeking government interference in Hindu affairs, or opposing a Uniform Civil Code, which is the norm in secular democracies worldwide. Such hypocrisy has led to majoritarian consolidation among Hindus, ultimately leading to the Hindu nationalist BJP gaining firm control at the federal level.

Indian liberals are yet to learn from such mistakes. For instance, the BJP recently promulgated a controversial citizenship law to grant citizenship to non-Muslims who entered India illegally from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh. Ostensibly, their Muslims were excluded because, well, those nations have Islam as their state religion. But the BJP also has a real Islamophobic streak. The constitutionality of this law is now before the Supreme Court. My read of the law is that it is cruel because many Muslims are persecuted too in those nations (e.g., Ahmadiyyas, Shias, and LGBTQ+ Muslims). But it is likely still constitutional because the right to freedom of religion applies only to Indian citizens, not refugees/illegal migrants, and the elected federal Executive has sole authority over naturalization/citizenship policies. As if validating that take halfway, the court refused to suspend the law's implementation prima facie. Overall, naive Indian liberals were put in an unenviable position: supporting illegal Muslim migrants from AfPak/Bangladesh and opposing refuge to Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians who fled from actual Islamist extremism. If Indian liberals genuinely cared about these Muslim refugees, why did they not craft such a law for them in the 50 years they were in power? Due to such hypocrisy, I think India's liberals will remain stuck in the political wilderness for the foreseeable future against the BJP juggernaut.

I see the same trend taking root among American liberals (or perhaps it was always latent). The most glaring recent case is the Democratic Party appeasing Hispanic/Latino votebanks by subverting the rule of law to create shortcuts for illegal immigrants from Latin America. Naturally, resentment has been rising among many White voters, leading to a resurgence of White nationalism. All the while, skilled professionals from India and China are unfairly made to languish in the legal immigration line for even 20 years! Liberals like to cynically exploit the language of "compassion" but why is such "compassion" conveniently manufactured only for Latin Americans but denied to people from Asia, Middle East, and Africa? Why not institute new visa categories with due process and checks for lower skilled immigrants from all over the world, not just Latin America? Is it because they boost liberals' fastest-growing votebank, unlike Syrians, Afghans, or Congolese? Will American taxpayers be forced to bankroll such subversion of the rule of law? Or will more debt bonds be issued to liberals' chums in the oil-rich Gulf Arab dictatorships or worse, the CCP? Thankfully, the Biden administration has seen the light and is course-correcting. They may yet avoid this trap of hypocritical votebank politics.

Concluding Remarks

It used to be that liberalism was known for fostering fearless critical thinking rooted in freedom of thought/speech. Alas, many liberals these days seem more given to intellectual echo chambers, social media bubbles, social justice soundbites, hero worship of naive and/or duplicitous loudmouths, Islamism-apologia, and cancel culture. If all that sounds familiar, it is because many American conservatives have already gone down a mirror image rabbit hole with Trumpism; just swap social justice for White nationalism and Islamism-apologia for Islamophobia. I hope this madness can end and liberals everywhere can engage in genuine introspection to end the hypocrisies I discussed above. That will help liberal democracies reinvigorate themselves and fight the flames of authoritarianism fanned by the dictatorships in Russia and China.

In my opinion, to achieve such reinvigoration, there is a pressing need for genuine and universal adherenece to the UDHR principles, not hypocritical and politically expedient cherrypicking. I outlined five key issues on which this pivot matters. First, hold the the Islamic world accountable, both for its past crimes against humanity and its ongoing abysmal record on human rights. That can start with teaching the full history of genocides and human rights, not lying by omission or covering up truths. Second, end the stonewalling on Israel-Palestine, explore creative solutions that reflect ground realities, and ensure equality for Jews and Arabs/Muslims. Third, hold the CCP accountable and wean the modern world off of its addiction to the goods and supply chains they control. That can start with sanctions against their leadership. Fourth, prioritize the fight against corruption, especially in the developing world. Fifth, combat votebank politics and appeasement policies, especially on illegal migration.

Finally, more specifically to America, liberals must aim to end these ridiculous "civilizing mission" adventurism. The US must abandon the Middle East and let those sovereign nations deal with their issues on their own. As such, the US is now a major oil producer itself and the sun is anyway setting on the fossil fuel era. Israel has nuclear weapons and is capable of defending itself. If Saudi Arabia and Iran want to kill each other, that is not the American taxpayer's problem. Likewise, Europe, Japan, and South Korea can handle more of their own security against Russia, China, and/or North Korea instead of bleeding America. And finally, the US must stop meddling in other democracies, now that they got a taste of their own medicine from Russia in 2016. The US has enormous social and economic challenges to tackle in its own society. It is time for liberals to show they can deliver actual results where they are needed the most: at home, not abroad.

India and America: Both Sides, Now

It has been 12 years since I came to the US--almost 80% of my adult life! I received my non-conditional Permanent Resident card (aka Green card) earlier this year, marking a milestone in my immigration process. Change of nationality is an inevitably lifelong process for immigrants throughout history, one filled with the pain of letting many things go, the joy of assimilating new things, and living as a mixture of identities. I write this post as a part of that process for me.

Superficially, India and America are a world apart. Literally on the opposite sides of the planet. Yet, I have never felt out of place in the US, unlike "ABCDs" I suppose. :) Why? Well, look a little closer and you'll see that India and America played key roles in creating each other's very identity!

America was "discovered" by lost Europeans who were desperate to find a sea route for spice trade with India and ended up mislabeling Native Americans as "Indians." The Black Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., a huge part of the tussle of US identity, was directly inspired by the life of Mahatma Gandhi and his political philosophy of Satyagraha. Likewise, White nationalism, also a huge part of the tussle of US identity, also owes a lot to myths of "racial purity" of Aryans, a once innocuous Sanskrit endonym for Indians. Conversely, modern India's Constitution owes a great deal to the Constitution of the US, as I will elaborate soon.

Basically, there would be no America as we know it today without India. And there would be no India as we know it today without America.

So, in this hopefully amusing--but sometimes weighty--memoir I draw analogies and contrasts between these two nations that I now call home. Yes, there will be many generalizations, stereotypes, and derision over some stuff on both sides. But there will also be praise, admiration, and celebration of some stuff on both sides. With that prelude, I share some key similarities and differences between India and America that have stood out for me in my experiences.

Key Similarities

1. Geographic: Mind-bogglingly Large, Varied, and Beautiful!

Obvious one. The US and India are the 4th and 7th largest countries in the world by land area, with the US being 3x as large as India. But the variety and beauty of geography is immense in both countries: snow-capped mountain ranges, large plateaus, large plains, long rivers and large lakes, long coastlines and many beaches, sandy deserts and arid semi-deserts, dense forests, swamps and mangroves, volcanoes, tropical island paradises--you name it, both have it. It will take many years, if not decades, to visit all the major touristy spots. I know because I have plans/hopes of doing so in my lifetime. :)

2. Constitutional: Federal Secular Democratic Republic

Another obvious one. America's is the oldest active Constitution in the world; India's is the largest. In fact, America's Constitution heavily influenced India's, as it did many other nations' too. This includes at least the following. The abolition of monarchies and aristocracy to establish a republic. A rigorous separation of powers into 3 branches: Executive-Legislature-Judiciary, with carefully thought out checks and balances. Equal rights and due process for all citizens before the law. A democratic government "of the people, for the people, and by the people." Organization of a large and diverse nation into a federal "union of states" with a clear separation of authority. And finally, secularism with no role for religion in government. Both nations have stood the "test of time" in upholding these Constitutional values and avoided dictatorships and military coups.

3. Political: Free Speech and Mockery of Politicians

Freedom of thought/speech/expression is central to both nations' identities and protected in their Constitutions. There is even a book titled "The Argumentative Indian" and I too have written about the millennia of debates among Hindu religions. America's First Amendment is often touted as the paragon of free speech rights. But a flipside is that hate speech is legal in the US. This disproportionately hurts minorites and/or marginalized groups, especially Jews, Blacks, LGBTQ+ people, and Muslims. India has stricter laws against hate speech on various grounds (e.g., religion, race, language, etc.) but they are sometimes abused by politicians to harass political opponents.

Speaking of politicians, mocking them with political satire is a vibrant industry in both nations! When politicians try to aggrandize power inappropriately or hypocritically, they ought to be mocked. :) Strangely, people from some European democracies, e.g., Germany or Sweden, seem to be more reticent on this front. But the contrast with the muzzling of people in Communist or other totalitarian regimes, e.g., China or Russia, is sad to me. I can never fathom living in fear of speaking out against one's government, let alone not mocking those with power.

4. Societal: Obsession with Movies, TV Shows, Sports, and Celebrities

Hollywood and Bollywood are the largest film industries in the world by revenue and volume, respectively. Fans in India do crazy stuff in "devotion" to film celebrities. Turns out it is the same in America! As if movies are not enough, both nations have tons of TV shows with high TRPs--soap operas, comedies, "reality" TV, dance, cooking, religious shows--you name it, both have it. And in 10+ languages too in India! I will admit I watch a lot of movies and streaming shows from both nations. :) The sports industry is also big business in both nations. India is the big brother of cricket, the main sport obsession there. Americans are obsessed with football, basketball, and baseball. But I don't care for any of these 4 sports and like tennis instead.

5. Societal: Obsession with Religiosity and Religious Charlatans

Religion is big business in both nations, almost pathologically so for secular democracies. I too was religious as a kid in a Hindu Brahmin family, but I became a freethinker as my interest in science grew. Overt religiosity is common in India and everyone is showy: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians. There is also a cottage industry of charlatans who exploit peoples' blind faith to accrue money and power. Some get busted for nasty crimes ranging from fraud and extortion to rape and murder. Many politicians and religious leaders are in bed with each other due to votebank politics, undermining secularism.

Then I came to America, the land of huge scientific and technological breakthroughs. I thought there'd be more freethinkers here. Instead, I see a gazillion churches everywhere. Droves of Evangelicals and Mormons run around with Bibles, proselytizing. Jews wear skull caps instead of Muslims. Hilltops have giant crosses. Tens of millions believe in creationism instead of science. Some Senators believe in talking snakes. Charlatans preach "prosperity gospels" to swindle gullible followers. Many politicians and religious leaders are in bed with each other due to votebank politics, undermining secularism. OK I am just repeating myself now. :D

6. Societal: Systemic and Societal Discrimination but Unity in Diversity

Discrimination is pervasive in both nations, both due to age-old inequities and new issues. The stranglehold of the millennia-old Hindu caste system is still strong in India (but reducing in urban areas). South Asian Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs too have their own forms of casteism. Although India's Constitution boldly outlawed caste discrimination, many Dalits, tribes, and some so-called lower castes still occasionally face illegal discrimination and hate crimes by casteist extremists. Homosexuality was criminalized until 2018. Many women suffer pervasive patriarchical oppression and "rape culture." More recently, hate crimes against Muslims has gone up due to the rise of Hindutva nationalism. Hate crimes are rarely prosecuted because police are stretched thin and often corrupt. The judiciary is overburdened and slow. Yet, in spite of all these struggles, the sense of "unity in diversity" remains strong in India. And a thriving culture of social activism for human rights for all is alive and well.

In America, Black people were enslaved for centuries. After the American Civil War, they were ostensibly made "equal" but segregated and terrorized by both vigilantes and White supremacist groups for decades. Blacks still face pervasive systemic discrimination and casual racism today. Native Americans faced centuries of ethnic cleansing and genocides. Hispanic/Latino people, LGBTQ+ people, women, some sub-groups of Asians and even Whites--all faced systemic discrimination too. Rape culture is rampant here too. Thankfully things have been improving for all groups in the last few decades. More recently, there is a resurgence of White nationalism and hate crimes, especially against Jews. Thankfully, both police and judiciary are efficient here (but not perfect). And in spite of all these struggles, America's motto too emphasizes unity in diversity. And here too a thriving culture of social activism for human rights for all is alive and well.

Key Differences

1. Geographic: Population Density

Obvious one. India has 4x the population of the US, which means its density is 12x! To me everywhere in India feels like people are living on top of each other. :) The traffic jams of Los Angeles have nothing on those of Delhi. Believe me, Delhi will show you what it feels like to have life energy sucked out of you, even as you are choking on smog! In contrast, most of America lives in a more spread out fashion. Air and water quality is much better in most places. Almost everyone prefers more privacy and breathing space. OK, except for those crazy Manhattan types. :D

2. Technological: Developed vs Developing

Another obvious one. The US is one of the richest nations in the world and the birthplace of many revolutionary technologies, including the airplane, modern computers, and the Internet. Indeed, one the biggest changes for me was how Internet connections went from slow and capacity-capped to fast and unlimited capacity. Quality of life is much better in such a developed nation due to better electronics, appliances, transportation, utilities, and logistics. For instance, power cuts were a routine part of life in India. But I've seen power cuts only 4 times ever in the US. Thanks in large part to Capitalism, the US is also home to many of the world's largest and most innovative companies, especially in software, biotechnology, (aero)space, defence, and other engineering. All this helps attract immigrants from all over the world. Despite all its troubles, the US remains the world's premier "land of opportunity." I think it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

3. Economic: Mixed Socialism-Capitalism vs Runaway Capitalism

India has a mixed economy combining elements of both Capitalism and Socialism. India used to be very Socialist but after a humiliating near-insolvency, the failures of Nehruvian Socialism were recognized and more Capitalism was adopted. That said, one outsized positive impact of Nehruvian Socialism is the world-renowned federally owned higher education system: IITs, IIMs, NITs, IISc, and AIIMS. Most Indian-origin faculty in America's STEM academia and many in industry are from that system, including me. :) There is near-universal support for government investment in education in India. Likewise, there is near-universal support for government-run free/afforable healthcare for the poor, even if its quality is lower than private hospitals.

While Capitalism has helped America a lot, it has been wreaking havoc in education and healthcare. State governments have been steadily defunding academia, while federal investment has failed to keep pace with growth. College student loans are debilitating many Americans and many are not able to afford college anymore. Facing budget shortfalls, American universities inevitably turn to more self-paying international students, perpetuating a vicious cycle that is pricing Americans out of their own higher education system. K-12 schools fare worse, with many teachers paid so low they need to work two jobs. These are all classic symptoms of runaway Capitalism. Likewise, the US healthcare system is crazy expensive, with little options for the poor. Only deep government investment in universal up-to-college education and public healthcare can fix this mess. But many Americans live in denial of Capitalism's failures on these issues. :-/

4. Societal: Collectivism vs Individualism

Another key difference I've seen is that Indian society over-prioritizes collectivism, while American society over-prioritizes individualism. Most Indian parents exert too much control over their children's lives, including career and marriage. Often it stifles or even negates individual creativity and initiative. Things are changing slowly though, especially in urban areas. In contrast, most American parents are hands off on their kids' choices on both career and marriage. People are not as nosy about other people's private lives. America's level of celebration of individual "liberty" is perhaps unparalleled in human history. In fact, the distance and space America offered me for self-reflection, away from India, played a big role in my own coming out process. New cultural movements such as Pride also help bridge the individual-collective gap in positive ways.

The above said, a major flipside of the individual-first culture is that many Americans have rather callous attitudes toward poor people. Systemic factors that destroyed social mobility and keep people trapped in poverty--e.g., the decimation of US manufacturing or the high cost of college I mentioned earlier--are disproportionately misrepresented as an individual's "failure." Likewise, many in America still live in denial of the urgency of combating human-caused climate change. Such me-me-me attitudes are not conducive to tackling a problem that all of humanity must tackle collectively by making equitable sacrifices. :-/

5. Societal: Handling of Historical Inequities and Constitutional (Non-)Ossification

Finally, one of the biggest differences between the two nations is in their attitudes toward affirmative action to redress the historical inequities I listed earlier. The Indian Constitution mandated an extensive system of quotas to help Dalits, tribes, and many so-called lower castes, a strong "positive discrimination" form of affirmative action. They were later expanded to cover more so-called middle caste groups. But the system was abused due to votebank politics. Resentment grew among so-called upper castes. Ultimately, income caps were imposed to bar the rich among lower castes, while a new quota was added to help the poor among upper castes and/or non-Hindus. Overall, there is no doubt that India's quota system has uplifted tens of millions of lower castes and/or poor people out of destitution.

In contrast, there is not much support in the US for quotas or any strong affirmative action, even in ultra-liberal California. This is despite the systemic disadvantages faced by, and absymally low representation of, Blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics/Latinos in higher education, industry, and government, as well as rising despair among poor people of all races, including Whites, leading to a tragic epidemic of opioid addiction. There is a widespread delusion in the US that it is an ideal "meritocracy." But from what I've seen, the truth for many groups is closer to a poignant line from an old Tamil song: The world gets you a peacock, breaks its leg, and then asks it to dance. :-/

In my opinion, the US will benefit from learning more from India about equitable affirmative action just as India will benefit from learning more from the US about meritocratic practices. After all, "systemic racism" in the US is a form of caste system too. But change will not be easy because of--once again--its Constitution! Amending the US Constitution is vexed due the political polarization here. For instance, there have been 104 amendments to India's Constitution but only 27 to America's even though the latter document is 3x older than the former! I hope less political polarization, more equitable prosperity, and more empathetic policy making can help heal age-old societal wounds in both nations as they march toward a better future for all.

My All-Time Favorite Villains

There is no doubt we live in the golden age of (super)hero movies. For instance, Marvel just capped its epic Infinity saga with the stupendous Avengers: Endgame, the highest grossing movie of all time. While I like a good hero-worshipping story as much as anyone else, I also enjoy stories of earnest, perhaps also tragic, (super)villains.

While I will certainly not call this "villain-worshipping," there is something undeniably magnetic, enigmatic, and dare I say, even awe-inspiring about a certain kind of villain. One that is not a cartoonish personification of evil but a complex multidimensional being cloaked in a vaguely appealing aura of poignancy. A villain that is gripping not just for their deeds but also for their backstory. A villain that is oh-so-stylish that they often outshine the heroes themselves.

This post is about such villains, my all-time favorites from across different kinds of movies: Thanos, Artemisia, Magneto, Malik Kafur, Amy Dunne, Hannibal Lecter, Lord Shen, and Apocalypse. I explain briefly about who they are and why they are in my list. I also cite my favorite lines and scenes of those characters. The 8 names are in no particular order, although I admit my top favorite is Thanos. If you have not watched the movies I list here, I highly recommend watching them all to witness their magnificent villainy for yourself!

CAUTION: This post includes quotes with swearwords and also talks about stories involving rapes, murders, massacres, genocides, slavery, and/or cannibalism. If you get triggered or too upset when reading such things, you may want to skip reading this post.

---

Thanos

Movies:
Avengers: Infinity War
Avengers: Endgame

Who?
Perhaps the most anticipated villain ever in the history of filmmaking, Thanos is the biggest villain of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). His life-long quest has been to collect all 6 infinity stones and restore "balance" to the universe by randomly killing half of all living things.

Why?
The comic book version of Thanos is a crude megalomaniac who kills half of life just to impress Lady Death. But I was really blown away by how creatively Thanos was "humanized" in the MCU: a forthright Malthusian philosopher on a mission to save the universe from itself having been traumatized by the extinction of his species on Titan due to overpopulation. A doting father to Gamora who mourns her death after being forced to sacrifice her, almost a Biblical Abraham. A selfless warrior who throws away all that God-like power after finishing his simple mission. Up until his (first) death, Thanos is hands down the most virtuous, honest, and respectable villain I have ever seen. Of course, the second Thanos's mission changes in Endgame with less virtuous goals.
Although Thanos's visual rendition is computer-generated, it is based on fine-grained motion and facial capture. Josh Brolin delivers that and the voice perfectly for all stages of Thanos's mission.

Favorite lines:

Explaining his mission to Gamora: "Little one, it is a simple calculus: the universe is finite, its resources finite. If life is left unchecked, life will cease to exist.

Explaining his mission to Doctor Strange: "The hardest choices require the strongest wills."

After defeating Iron Man in the Battle of Titan: "You have my respect, Stark. When I am done, half of humanity will still be alive. I hope they remember you."

Favorite scenes:

Thanos sacrifices his only love to attain the soul stone:
Thanos fights and defeats Iron Man in the Battle of Titan:
Thanos rests after accomplishing his mission:

---

Artemisia

Movie:
300: Rise of an Empire

Who?
Artemisia is the commander of the vast navy of the Persian Emperor Xerxes I, who is on a quest to invade Greece and humiliate the Athenians. She is partly based on a real historical figure although the character in the movie is mostly fictional.

Why?
Born a Greek, her family was killed by Greek soldiers in an unexplained war. She was raped, tortured, and sold into sex slavery as a girl by the Greeks, and eventually left to die on the street. A Persian emissary rescues her, adopts her, and moulds her into the fiercest warrior in the Persian court. Her valor sees her rising to become the most trusted confidante of Emperor Darius. After Darius is killed by Themistocles in the first invasion of Greece, Artemisia shapes his son's rise into a warmongering god-king. She convinces Xerxes to seek vengeance against Greece. She initially defeats the Athenian navy, and Xerxes destroys Athens. But the Persians are ultimately defeated as the Greek city-states unite.
Portrayed masterfully by Eva Green, Artemisia is hands down the most impressive and awe-inspiring female villain and performance I have ever seen.

Favorite lines:

To Xerxes after Darius's death: "Only the gods can defeat the Greeks? You will be a god-king!"

To Xerxes after Themistocles's navy still stands after Athens is burned: "I will attack the Greeks with my entire navy... Now sit on your golden throne and watch this battle from the safety I provide you."

Favorite scenes:

Artemisia shapes the rise of the Persian god-king:


Artemisia burns the Athenian navy:


Artemisia spars with Xerxes on how to defeat Themistocles:

---

Magneto

Movies:
The X-Men series, especially First Class, Apocalypse, Days of Future Past, and The Last Stand

Who?
Perhaps the least villainous and most complex character in this list, Magneto is a very powerful mutant who can control magnetic matter. My favorite villain before the arrival of MCU's Thanos.

Why?
Born a German Jew before World War II, Magneto was imprisoned as a boy along with his family at Auschwitz by the Nazis. Watching his mother being shot dead enraged him into controlling his power. Given that the Nazis murdered his parents and the Soviets murdered his wife and daughter too, little wonder then that Magneto does not trust humankind. He was initially a part of the X-Men and a friend of Professor X. But they parted ways disagreeing on the future of mutantkind-humankind relations. Affirming that mutantkind must reign supreme, Magneto becomes a key antagonist of the X-Men, although he and Professor X remain good friends who respect each other. In the dystopian future of Days of Future Past, they even team up again to fight the Sentinels created by humankind to commit genocide against mutantkind and their human allies.
Ian McKellan portrays the older Magneto with incredible grace and style, while Michael Fassbender perfectly portrays the younger Magneto's pain, rage, and confusion.

Favorite lines:

Rhetorically when moving the Golden Gate Bridge to Alcatraz for his attack: "Charles always wanted to build bridges."

To the Brotherhood when attacking Alcatraz to destroy the mutant cure: "In chess, the pawns go first."

To Charles when about to be defeated by the Sentinels: "All those years wasted fighting each other, Charles. To have a precious few of them back."

Favorite scenes:

Magneto artfully kills Shaw, his mother's murderer:


Magneto moving the Golden Gate Bridge to Alcatraz:


Magneto teaming up with Storm to fight the Sentinels:

---

Malik Kafur

Movie:
Padmaavat

Who?
Malik Kafur was a eunuch slave-general in the court of the Afghan-Indian Emperor Alauddin Khilji. He is also based on a real historical figure, who rose to become Khilji's most trusted confidante and successful military general.

Why?
As a likely gay man who was castrated and sold into slavery as a eunuch, Kafur is eventually gifted to Khilji as a personal slave, guard, and concubine rolled into one. From the get go, Kafur makes it clear he is gloriously ruthless and recklessly devoted to his master. He proves to be a cunning and resourceful confidante and a fierce warrior who helps Khilji conquer many Indian kingdoms for his empire. But when Khilji wages war against the Rajput kingdom of Chittor, he is almost defeated by the Rajput king on the battlefield. Kafur intervenes to save Khilji by shooting an arrow to the king's back, affirming that his devotion to his master matters more to him than war ethics. However, the most surprising and endearing part of the movie for me was the sneakily inserted love story of Kafur and Khilji. I found out later that this story of homosexual/bisexual relationship is based in historical facts, although Indian history books have obviously erased it!
Kafur's eccentricity is memorably portrayed by Jim Sarbh, a master of the stage who came to the big screen for this role.

Favorite scenes:

Kafur's introduction scene:


One of my favorite songs, Binte Dil, showing Kafur tending to Khilji:

---

Amy Dunne

Movie:
Gone Girl

Who?
Amy is a successful and famous writer of a children's story based on herself called Amazing Amy. She falls in love with and marries a small-time journalist called Nick.

Why?
After Nick loses his job, Amy uses her money to help them start afresh in his home town in Missouri. But they grow apart emotionally due to Nick's narcissism. He then cheats on Amy, leaving her devastated. Instead of moping in self-pity, she crafts an elaborate scheme to "disappear" herself and frame Nick for her "murder." The stunningly intricate and interconnected "clues" she plants are thoroughly gripping and convincing. But the pinnacle is her last scene with Desi, a high school stalker-friend who gives her shelter. After changing her mind about Nick, she hatches a scheme to return. She seduces Desi to have sex and right after he ejaculates in her vagina, with her "rape evidence" now secure, she dramatically slits his throat and bathes herself in his blood as more "evidence" for her rape-murder fabrication. An incredibly polished story of a narcissistic, psychopathic, and murderous woman who wants her husband back in her grip, I thoroughly enjoyed it because I could not predict any of its shocking plot twists.
Portrayed brilliantly by Rosamund Pike, who got nominated for an Oscar for this role, Amy Dunne is hands down the scariest female villain in history.

Favorite lines:

From the cool girl monologue about her husband: "I inspired him to rise to my level. I forged the man of my dreams.."

Also from the cool girl monologue: "He dragged me, penniless, to the navel of this great country and found himself a newer, younger, bouncier cool girl. You think I'd let him destroy me and end up happier than ever? No fucking way!"

Nick to Amy after she returns home covered in blood: "You fucking bitch!"

To Nick in the end before their joint interview to reveal her pregnancy: "I'm not a quitter. I'm that cunt. I've killed for you. Who else can say that?"

Favorite scenes:

The glorious "cool girl" monologue:


Interview scene at the end:

---

Hannibal Lecter

Movies:
The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, and Hannibal Rising

Who?
A forensic psychiatrist by trade and a cannibalistic serial killer on the side, Dr. Lecter is considered by many to be the greatest villain in American movies. He gets incarcerated for his crimes but eventually escapes.

Why?
Lecter's origins lay in a traumatized childhood during World War 2. Amidst a brutal winter, he and his little sister get trapped in a forest house. Passing mercenaries set up camp there and due to a lack of food, kill his sister to make a stew. Lecter unwittingly eats it before learning about its contents. Eventually, he exhibits markers of psychopathy, up to his famed cannibalistic attacks. Outwardly he is a highly learned and cultured person who easily gets along in society without raising suspicions. In a twisted form of virtuosity, he primarily targets only men who are deviously powerful, immoral, or even evil in his view for his cannibalism. He even helps law enforcement and Clarice find other serial killers during his incarceration, while respecting and adoring Clarice. Overall he is complex and far from evil himself in a weird way.
An instant legend, Lecter was portrayed impeccably in multiple movies by the great Anthony Hopkins, who also won an Oscar for this role.

Favorite lines:

To Clarice during the interview in his cell: "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti."

Again to Clarice over the phone after his escape: "I do wish we could chat longer, but I'm having an old friend for dinner."

Favorite scenes:

The famous dialogue scene with Clarice:


A scene that is so shockingly grotesque (yet artful) that Youtube makes it non-embeddable, age-restricts it, and still cautions viewers! The open-brain dinner scene.

---

Lord Shen

Movie:
Kung Fu Panda 2

Who?
The prince of the Gongmen City in China, where gunpowder and fireworks are invented. Shen repurposes that to create the first cannon, a powerful weapon for his plans to conquer all of China.

Why?
A young Shen is rattled by a soothsayer's prediction that his plans will be defeated by a giant panda. So he massacres all giant pandas in the kingdom. His parents, aghast at the genocide, disown and banish Shen from the kingdom. He uses his exile period to build up an army and expand his cannon firepower so that he can retake Gongmen one day. But unbeknownst to him, a baby panda had escaped the genocide due to its mother. It grew to become Po, the eponymous kung-fu master Panda and the legendary Dragon Warrior who ultimately defeats Shen. So in the sagely words of Oogway, Shen basically met his fate on the path he took to avoid it! Although Shen's story is not as poignant as the above villains, his gloriously posh style and lines, sheer ruthlessness, and decisive victory over all but one of China's kung-fu masters earns him a place as one of my favorite villains.
A key part of Shen's charm is his voicing by the British actor Gary Oldman. Hollywood really seems to like villains with a British accent!

Favorite lines:

Opening line to the Masters Council at Gongmen Palace: "Good afternoon gentlemen. Now that we have the pleasantries out of the way, please leave my house."

Again to the Masters Council presenting his secret weapon, the cannon: "It's a gift. Oh, it's your parting gift, in that it will part you. Part of you here, part of you there, part of you waaay over there, staining the wall!."

To the soothsayer goat: "My parents hated me. Do you understand? They wronged me. And I will make it right. [The goat rebuts] The dead exist in the past. And I must turn to the future. [The goat is set free and wishes him happiness] Happiness must be taken. And I will take mine!."

Favorite scenes:

Lord Shen's introduction scene:


The hilarious scene where Po Panda meets Lord Shen:

---

En Sabah Nur (aka Apocalypse)

Movie:
X-Men: Apocalypse

Who?
The world's first mutant, a megalomaniac with many powers who once ruled the world. He was worshipped my humankind as a God but was eventually betrayed and lost to history.

Why?
Once the ruler of ancient Egypt as Ra incarnate, En Sabah Nur was betrayed and rejected as a false God. He was lost to history buried underground. After rising again, he is disgusted with how corrupt the world had become running after money, fame, wars, weapons, superpowers, etc. and wants to wipe it clean. In this sense, he kinda embodies the Christian/Islamic/Bahai eschatology of the Second Coming and the Vaishnavite Hindu eschatology of Kalki (I doubt his gray-blue skin color was a coincidence!) Anyway, as with Shen there is not much poignancy in his story but he is on this list due to his awesome power, sheer brutality, and unflinching commitment to mutantkind. As with Thanos, he wants to commit genocide for population control but unlike Thanos, he does it for personal power. Nevertheless, Apocalypse adopted Storm and Magneto as his horsemen and raised their power massively, but they too ultimately betray him and join the X-Men.
Apocalypse was portrayed impeccably by Oscar Isaac.

Favorite lines:

To Storm after learning about the 20th century world: "This world needs to be... cleansed (in ancient language) [Storm asks what he said] ... saved (in English)."

To Magneto and the other horsemen at the Auschwitz, where Magneto's family was killed: "I am born of death. I was there to spark and fan the flame of man's awakening, to spin the wheel of civilization. And the when the forest grew rank and needed clearing for new growth, I was there to set it ablaze."

Also to the horsemen after raising Magneto's power to enable him to destroy Auschwitz: "Everything they've built will fall! And from the ashes of their world, we'll build a better one!"

To the X-men via Cerebro after disarming the world of its nukes: "You can fire your arrows from the Tower of Babel. But you can never strike God!"

Final line while being killed by Jean Grey's Phoenix Force: "All is revealed!"

Favorite scenes:

Unfortunately I could not find any of my favorite scenes as legitimate videos online because Fox and Disney blocked them! :-/ So, here are the trailer videos instead: Teaser Trailer, Official Trailer, and Final Trailer. The movie is now available online on Disney+ though. :) My favorite scenes are the infamous Auschwitz scene, the scene where he disarms the whole world of its nukes and other powerful weapons, and the final battle scene.

Liberal Overreach and the Global Right Turn

"If you are not a liberal at 25, you have no heart.
If you are not a conservative at 35, you have no brain."
- Quote by Unknown

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed in this post are purely my own personal opinions. I identify as neither a liberal nor a conservative but prefer the label "freethinker." I have critiqued both liberal and conservative positions with a constitutional lens. That said, many of my opinions, but not all, align with liberal policies. This post, however, might be contrarian to prevailing liberal opinions.


Nothing captures the zeitgeist of our times more than the incredible rightward turn in polity across the world, from Asia to Europe to the Americas. The massive victory the Hindutva nationalists in the Indian federal elections in 2014 and again in 2019, the shock referendum result of Brexit in 2016, the equally shocking victory of Trump in the US Presidential election in 2016, the almost unfathomable gains of the far right AfD in Germany in 2017, and the election of Bolsanaro as Brazil's President in 2018. Not to mention the recent hysteria about a "border crisis" in the USA, the "Islamization" of Europe, and the rising tide of ultra-nationalists in many supposed democracies like Turkey, Russia, Hungary, etc. So dramatic is this global right turn that many even wonder if the liberal ethos of humanity formalized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is now lost.

In this post, I argue that this right turn is less of a rollback of liberalism and more of a natural consequence of fundamental human traits that span cultures. The pendulum will inevitably swing back but it is still worthwhile to glean useful lessons from this phenomenon. My analysis focuses on 3 crucial cases I am (at least somewhat) familiar with: USA, India, and Germany. If I were to use one word to sum up a large part of this upheaval, it would be identity. While mixing identity and polity is often seen as inimical to democracy, this view ignores a simple fact: Identity is and always has been the bedrock of almost all human societies. When smug dismissive views of the importance of identity cross the invisible line into political overreach, blowback is inevitable. In this case, I contend that liberals are perpetrators of such an overreach with majority identities.

Thought Experiments

In ethics and moral philosophy, there is a famous thought experiment called the Trolley Problem. Often criticized as being extreme, it is actually a useful abstraction of priorities in human decision making. I now use it to demonstrate a simple, perhaps even obvious, point that underlies the global right turn: Not all people are effective equals. This is not the view of merely racists, xenophobes, etc. I contend that this is the natural and inevitable view of almost all reasonable humans.

Experiment 1: The Basic Version.
5 people are tied to a trolley track. 1 person is tied to a second track that branches off. None of them can escape. A heavy trolley is barreling down the first track. Left as such, the trolley will kill those 5 people. But there is a lever to switch the trolley to the second track. You are the only person near the lever who can switch the trolley's path. You have only 2 options: (1) Do nothing and let the 5 people die. (2) Pull the lever to switch the trolley track and let the 1 person die. Which option will you pick? Take a moment to contemplate your decision before reading ahead.

Philosophers and ethicists have debated this problem for decades. There is no "right" answer but the common view is that the "morally right" decision is (2), since it causes the least amount of harm (also called utilitarian ethics). I suspect you also picked (2). In some macabre science, cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists are unraveling the workings of the human brain to explain why we pick the options we do. This basic version is an "impersonal" dilemma. Fascinatingly, more "personal" dilemmas such as the footbridge problem typically yield opposite results. As you probably guessed, we will now get more "personal" with the trolley problem.

Experiment 2. 
Suppose you are told in advance that the 5 people are random strangers but the 1 person is your only child who you deeply love. Which option will you pick now? Take a moment to contemplate your decision again.

It does not take a genius of human psychology to guess that most people will now switch to option (1). Now what if I told you further that the 5 random strangers are refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war or violence in El Salvador? Will your decision switch back? Likely not. Does this mean most people are evil and bigoted and hate refugees? No. Can love conflict with human rights principles? Yes. A preference for one's own offspring is the natural evolutionary trait of not just humans but many other animal species. A generalization of this sentiment underlies why many people are indifferent even to the extremely heartwrenching stories of Alan Kurdi or Angie Martinez. Clearly, empathy has its limits. Let us now extrapolate it further.

Experiment 3. 
Now suppose you are one of the last few members of a proud tribe that share a rich but almost extinct language. The 5 people are random English/Spanish speaking outsiders. The 1 person is a fellow tribesman. Which option will you pick now? Take a moment to contemplate again.

It is quite likely that most people would pick option (1) again in much the same way as we saw for Experiment 2. Essentially, tribal attachments are the sociological generalization of family attachments. They are a natural consequence of being a social species, a trait we share with our fellow great apes and many other higher mammals. Heck, even a single church building raised over a billion Euros in a few days, while estimates for permanently eradicating child hunger in Africa are only a couple of times larger. Clearly, even inanimate objects can be more equal than fellow humans when they are as integral to identity as Notre Dame is to the French.

Lessons from the Thought Experiments

I contend that a major part of what powers the global right turn is a grand generalization of Experiment 3. Economic anxieties caused by recessions, joblessness, and unfair global trade policies are the trolley. Modern tribes may not be physically colocated but are more complex and multi-faceted: language, ethnicity, religion, region, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Not everyone who prefers to live within one's own tribe is an evil racist, xenophobe, etc. This recognition of the importance of identity is not a moral position nor is it apologia for the real harm that racism, xenophobia, etc. cause (e.g., the mass shootings in New Zealand). Rather, it is an admission of fundamental psychological forces that make it hard for many to draw the boundary between the scenarios of Experiment 1 vs 3 depending on how the tribe is defined. If liberal democracies are to progress, they need to acknowledge and understand the power of such forces, be clear about where the line falls, and figure out how to mitigate or even leverage such forces. By applying this lens to the global right turn, I see two main lessons.

1. Uncontrolled Immigration Subverts National Identities

Like it or not, the framework of national identities underpins our modern world. The UN itself stands for United "Nations," not a world government. Many post-colonial countries even promoted healthy nationalism to forge new "umbrella" identities out of their myriad sub-national identities. Some like India have largely succeeded in this endeavor. Some like Yugoslavia failed spectacularly. Some like Iraq remain slow-motion failures ruined by civil wars. Newer umbrella identities continue to be forged, say, like the EU. Regardless, what defines a national structure is a tenuous combination of legal statutes and informal assumptions. But only the former has the force of law.

Alas, uncontrolled immigration violates the integrity of nations in a way that resembles Experiment 3, especially amidst economic uncertainty. This is a key reason for the backlash seen in the USA and Germany. As an analogy, most people will not throw open their homes to random strangers, especially at a cost to their own family. National structures, physical or otherwise, have similar emotional import for many. National borders are not mere administrative conveniences.

The USA was indeed created as a "nation of immigrants." But this umbrella identity is an informal assumption, not a legal statute in its Constitution. Indeed, the (derisive) phrase "hyphenated American" was coined to promote a new unified umbrella identity. This latter nation is what is codified in law, not an ad hoc collection of immigrants. USCIS recently made this distinction comically literal. So, subverting such legal statutes will obviously lead to pushback. Yes, there is racism and xenophobia among many, but there is also legitimate non-malicious desire among many others to preserve national identity and the due process of legal immigration that is fair to all. This desire is not hateful but rational for any nation.

The subversion of constitutional "civic nationalism" by misguided liberal policies is a major cause of the rise of "ethnic/white nationalism" in the USA.

In fact, I fear it is likely white nationalism will continue to gain strength in the USA if liberals continue to unfairly favor Latino/Hispanic people from Latin America on immigration. Similarly, the sudden mass influx of non-Germans, especially refugees and economic migrants from the Middle East, subverted the legal statutes that define German national identity. A nationalist backlash then is natural. Yes, there is "German guilt" about the Holocaust that leads many to think Germany has a special responsibility. But equally legitimate is the desire to put poor German citizens first, especially those from former East Germany. No wonder then that support for the AfD is strongest in eastern Germany.

Large umbrella identities take time to evolve. The USA only recently (a few decades ago) expanded its identity to include equality for black people. This is still a work in progress given the everyday racism still faced by black people. One day Germany's national identity might expand to include non-German languages but it is unlikely to happen soon. Even the integration of Turkish migrants into German identity took decades and is also a work in progress. Thus, it perplexes me to see liberals being so impatient about expanding national identities quickly. Crying "xenophobia" or "racism" every time, even on legitimate non-malicious pushback, is a dangerous tendency akin to the fable of the boy who cries wolf. It will only devalue the significance of these terms.

Strangely, neither country is learning from history. Refugees and economic migrants have been handled better elsewhere. India hosted millions of refugees from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka during their civil wars. They had temporary status and returned to their own nations after the wars ended. (Interestingly, illegal immigration from Bangladesh is now a hot button issue; I will return to this later.) Why can Germany not adopt similar policies? Why the irrational push to subvert German national identity to "assimilate" refugees? Contrast this with the hypocrisy of the rich Arab nations of the Persian Gulf!

Speaking of the Gulf, they also host millions of poor South Asian laborers. They are recruited with due process, earn income, pay taxes, and return to their own countries after their stints. Why can the USA not adopt such mechanisms for Latin American people (or any other nationals) pursuing low-skilled jobs in a way that does not disadvantage US nationals but also protects the rights/benefits of migrant workers (which the Gulf nations fail to do)? Why the irrational push to offer legal residence without due process for recruiting or economic checks? With such policies, the path to residence and citizenship need not be any different than other legal immigrants. Finally, why not help Central American nations improve their own economies instead of just hosting refugees or migrants?

2. Legal Codification of Identity Heterogeneity and Evolution

Umbrella identities are complex and have many moving parts. Legal recognition of sub-national identities and a clear codification of a fair balancing of power are essential for umbrella identities to work. Without such safeguards, a stable equilibrium is unlikely. India is a good example of such codification that defused the power of two major forms of sub-national identities: caste and language. India's Constitution rectifies the historical power imbalance inherent in the Hindu caste system with explicit quotas in education and jobs for so-called lower castes and some tribal groups. While this is an imperfect and evolving system, it has been instrumental in uplifting many marginalized groups. Of course, such quotas are resented by many so-called upper castes. These issues are being mitigated with restrictions to prevent abuse by the rich among so-called lower castes, as well as an interesting new quota for the poor among so-called upper castes.

As for language, the approach of organizing states based on language has largely proved successful in avoiding major internal ethno-linguistic conflicts in India. Indeed, attempts to subvert this organization have often led to violent pushback. For instance, the Indian state of Tamil Nadu saw massive protests in 1960s against the imposition of Hindi, an alien language for Tamil people, by the federal government. More recently, Assamese-speakers in Assam protested against the federal government's plans of offering citizenship to Bengali-speaking migrants from Bangladesh.

However, the Constitution mishandled another powerful sub-national identity: religion. Many Hindus resent the fact that religious minorities receive special rights that violate the right to equality. Indian Muslims, for instance, have the so-called Muslim Personal Law. Civil law is not uniform like it is in most secular nations. This led to unfair interventions by the federal government and courts in Hindu religious affairs, while minority religions were exempt. As an example, only recently was the ridiculous practice of "instance divorce" outlawed, helping advance gender equality for Muslim women. Yes, there is Islamophobia among many, but there is also legitimate disgruntlement among many others about such "appeasement" policies.

Such unfair special rights for religious minorities created/defended by misguided liberal policies are a major cause of the growth of Hindutva nationalism in India.

I also see no harm in offering special Constitutional recognition (without special rights) to the indigenous Hindu religions, akin to the indigenous cultures of other nations, e.g., the First Nations in Canada. Of course, this does not contradict secularism but acknowledges the Hindu roots of India's millennia-old secular umbrella identity that differs from French-style secularism. As another example, the Anglican church has special status in secular England.

Finally, national identities are not static; umbrella identities, all the more so. But explicitly recognizing heterogeneity and codifying the balance of power will help smooth out changes within complex umbrella identities. Due to historical power imbalances between groups, the USA is currently facing an identity crisis. I contend a major reason for this mess is that the US Constitution largely ignores identity. Faced with systemic biases and discrimination, black, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American communities in the USA remain unfairly disadvantaged economically and also politically. Perhaps legally codified forms of affirmative action for such groups and for poor white people can help improve the situation. Of course, this is no easy change because many Americans live in denial and delusion that the USA is an ideal meritocracy (it is not). But then again, achieving equality for women or black people in the USA was not easy either. And similar to India, I see no harm in offering special legal recognition (without special rights) to the Judeo-Christian religions (including the black church), the Native American religions, and the humanist/atheist philosophies that together gave birth to the USA's umbrella identity.

Concluding Remarks

A classic non-response to tackling racial inequities is being "color-blind." In the same way, being "identity-blind" will likely doom society into more fragmentation and conflict. While liberals are often torch bearers for celebrating myriad minority identities, intentionally or inadvertently dismissing majority identities is a recipe for disaster. The global right turn is less of a story of reinvigorated nationalism defeating liberalism and more of a re-examination of evolving umbrella identities. Even if we eliminate nations and create one world government, the thorny question of how to organize federal sub-structures is inevitable. Without an accommodation of identities in this context, even a unified world government will likely collapse (e.g., see the tussle in Spain/Catalonia).

In my opinion, (1) explicit recognition of all major identities, (2) legal codification of balancing of power, and (3) consistent enforcement of legal statutes that underpin national structures are together critical for umbrella national identities to work. Perhaps one day in the distant future, humanity will break free of the chains of tribalism and maybe even Darwinian evolution thanks to science, technology, and medicine. But until that day, prudence in the handling of identities within and across nations may help avoid a societal catastrophe.