PRAGOTI

One can't but agree with Purakayasthya's concern with liberal democracy - the pitfalls and shortcomings that it has. One also cant disagree with his opinion that "messianic figures arose out of the crisis of liberal democracy" (or what Patnaik says: shallowness of the roots of our democracy). But one also can't agree with some of the positions that he has taken.

1. Purakayastha alleges that Patnaiks article "contrasts this (messianic politics) with democracy in the abstract and his location of messianism with pre-modernity". It is not so. The concept of democracy that Prabhat invokes is not abstract but tangible also - in the form of our Constitution. The safeguards that the Constitution provides, and has been achieved (to whatever extent), are quite tangible. The intangible/abstract part, needless to mention, can only be realised through left-democratic movement, but which can't be achieved through weakening of the positive aspects that the Constituiton provides for.

2. Purakayastha then goes on arguing that "messianic figures arose out of the crisis of liberal democracy. Hitler and Mussolini ... were very much part of “modernity”." Certainly crisis of liberal democracy has created opuurtunity for messianism or fascism (Hitler) or semi-fascism (BJP). However, effective fight and decisive victory against fascism historically has come through fighting on a broader common front comprising elements on the side of liberal democracy, not by rejecting liberal democratic forces saying Hitler himself is a part of that. Moreover, the argument that anything which is a "result of a crisis of capitalism" is "very much part of modernity" is wrong. It can blend with the certain form of capitalism at that time and place though. In India, neoliberalism bearing the seeds of capitalism's crisis has influenced the rise of BJP. But, there is very little "modern" with BJP, though it had blend quite well with neo-liberalism. Capitalism and anti-modernity can exist at same time; though possibly with crisis. So neither is it correct to call everything existing inside capitalist structure as modern, particularly at time of the former's crisis.

3. The binary shown by Purakayastha between "remnants of pre modernity" and "crisis of institutions of capitalism" is also not correct. "remnants of pre modernity" can feed upon "crisis of institutions of capitalism". This case is an exaple to that.

The defence for democracy comes precisely because it is the ruling classes and the priviledged minority who wants to subvert it. Not by isolating oneself from modernity, but by allying with such forces "we can step back from the brink and re-start the democratic process again".