The disagreement common to both responses is to my remark suggesting that the German left had assisted in Hitler’s ascent. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on 30th January 1933. It is now well a documented fact that his government was very vulnerable even as it came into being (A Bullock, Hitler - A Study in Tyranny, 1953, pp 229-233). Leon Trotsky, then in exile, is perhaps the closest we have to a contemporary critc of the left from with in the left. He had believed it inconceivable that Hitler would win without a civil war but the German labor movement put up no resistance and collapsed under the first onslaught. Even after the Reichstag fire, in elections held under unbridled Nazi terror, the socialists and communists polled 12 million votes. There was also the fact that there was mutual distrust between Hitler and his partners, which might well have disrupted the coalition if the socialists and communists had moved into action. Trotsky, at that time, commented that the working class ‘was not conducting any defensive battle but was retreating, and tomorrow the retreat may well turn into a panic-stricken rout.’ (I Deutscher, The Prophet Outcast: Trotsky: 1929-1940, 1963, pp 198-200). The German left apparently assisted Hitler through its timidity and inaction in a time of crisis. This is especially worthy of comment considering that the left regards itself as the leader of the working class, which is supposedly a revolutionary force.

The definition of ‘liberal’ as positioned between right and left is the strict classical one and may not be pertinent in today’s India where there is no such thing as a national political left - although the political left exists in pockets of influence. The CPM, which is the harbinger of capitalism in West Bengal cannot apparently be described as the political left. Every political party that comes to power also has the same – or nearly the same – economic agenda. I therefore suggest that the term ‘liberal’ should be adopted to also describe all people who are not engaged in political action but who are partial to radical thought and/or are nostalgic about Marxist utopias. Radical intellectuals and politically minded academics in India, all those in the cultural left including those like Shiv Sethi, CR Sridhar and myself would be liberals by this definition because we treat politics as essentially confined to ideas. An intellectual position is perhaps not the same thing as a place in political action.

Indian liberals (as I have defined the term) are so removed from the actual exercise of politics that they have the tendency to regard politics only in moral terms - without considering strategy. Judging from the responses above, India distancing itself from USA and Israel (which have been immoral in their political conduct) will result in a cessation of terrorist attacks upon Indian soil. This is plainly a simplistic proposition. A statesman in a democracy, I suggest, cannot only be a moralist. S/he has also an obligation to remain in power long enough to achieve the achievable. Strategy is perhaps the art of reconciling 'politically correct' action with restricting its cost. I suggest that liberal polemicists are preoccupied only with politically correct action because they are insulated from considerations of cost.

While the observations about radical Islam and Hindu extremism does not bear contradiction, the fact that radical Islam cannot be dealt with as easily makes it more dangerous. There is a suggestion in Shiv Sethi's response that radical Islam can be pacified through moral action - e.g. India distancing itself from Israel and USA. I cannot agree with this proposition.

Indian liberal polemicists (Pankaj Mishra rather than Arundhati Roy) who spend much of their time in the West are morally vocal in the international press about India's political doings but tend to be silent or subdued about the US, when the US is their major constituency. I am sure there are several ways of explaining such conduct away, but it may still not deserve our admiration.