The Atheist Discomfort of a Social Market Liberal
On finding no political home in India.
I have a habit of skimming through election manifestos. They are not written in the stars, and a huge chunk of what’s promised never gets implemented anyway. But they give you a directional read on how a party thinks about socio-economic problems.
I remember skimming through the Communist Party of India (Marxist) manifesto in 2024. I loved the social section. They talked about legalising “civil unions” 1 for same-sex couples, a stronger anti-discrimination bill, and measures against honour killings. I was beaming with joy: “Damn! Finally! This is awesome!”
Then I hit the economics section. I felt like vomiting. It felt like the person you fall in love with turned out to be a criminal. The proposals wanted to reverse privatisation across PSUs, introduce a statutory minimum wage decree linked to CPI, double MGNREGA allocations while adding urban employment guarantees, and re-impose trade restrictions. Everything pointed back toward the same license raj2 that kept millions at the mercy of the state for four decades.
Congress's Nyay Patra (The Manifesto of Justice) promised to fill 30 lakh government vacancies and hinted at taxing the wealthy. It was enough to alarm the middle class, not enough to inspire the poor. On social issues, they were cautiously progressive. Vague commitments on caste census, a nod toward minority rights, nothing that would cost them votes. BJP needed nothing more. The BJP's Sankalp Patra (The Manifesto of Pledge), meanwhile, was mostly about continuity and delivery of existing schemes. Free ration for five more years, MUDRA loan limits doubled. On social issues, the silence was loud. The Uniform Civil Code got a mention, but LGBTQ did not - competent welfare, dressed up as vision.
Some aspects of each I liked. Some I couldn’t stomach. The pattern continued across every manifesto I read.3
I have been trying to find a home for my political beliefs for a while. After some soul-searching, I have accepted there isn’t one. A few tenets of what I believe:
I am pro-LGBTQ. They should have matrimonial rights in India.
I believe in secularism. The temple, mosque, and church should be separate from the state.
I believe in free markets. Proper free markets, not ones where only the big conglomerates get richer. 4
Agriculture in India should be commercialised and privatised to some extent.
The government should largely subsidise healthcare (specially for a country like ours), but private players should be allowed to step in.
True competition in the private sector should exist, and the government should ensure that, without over-regulating.
Reservations should exist, but we need to exclude those who already have proper representation and privilege.
I believe in a strong social safety net. Garlic bread and pasta may not be everyone’s right, but bread and butter is.
After some research, I came across libertarianism. It is popular in the US, and closely mirrors most of what I believe, except for one thing, which is a dealbreaker. Libertarians are strongly against social welfare. I am not. I believe it is the government’s & society’s moral duty to ensure everyone can afford dal and bhat (Dal & Chawal). Beyond that floor, market dynamics should do the work.
Turns out there’s a school of thought built exactly on that tension: Ordoliberalism, or Social Liberalism. The German post-war model. The state as referee and safety net, not as player. It even has a phrase for it: Soziale Marktwirtschaft, social market economy.
I started developing a propensity toward the word “liberal” for a separate reason. In Indian social media and political discourse, both the left and right use “liberal” as an insult. I figured: there has to be some merit in a position that both sides find threatening. The liberals might be doing something right. Even though the word means 100 different things to 1000 different people, I have started identifying with the tenets of social liberalism.
Having a set of beliefs instead of a loyalty to a party is uncomfortable. There’s a degree of what I can only call atheistic discomfort. Bhagat Singh was a staunch atheist5. In his writings, he described how the absence of belief in any supernatural force, in any structure larger than himself, worsened his suffering. A belief system might have eased his pain.
Believing in the tenets of social liberalism does something similar. You stop relying on a party. You start questioning their motives. You know, quietly, that none of them will bring the social change you want to see. In your city. In your state. In your country.
They are not your football club. You don’t cheer for them. The tribal instinct is missing.
In my neighbourhood, about a kilometre from my place, there is a beautiful lane built (not sure who maintains it) by one of Hyderabad’s major real estate builders. It has greenery, some standalone gated bungalows and a massive high-rise. I love my evening walks there. And I often have the same internal argument:
“God bless capitalism. No government agency could build and maintain something like this. But when these buildings went up, the promoters made far more than the workers. Then again, ten thousand people got paid who otherwise wouldn’t have. Isn’t that still better than a barren plot?”
I never quite resolved it. I don't think I am supposed to.
Observations, data, and the not-so-ordinary world. Subscribe if that's your kind of thing.
Share this post, or tell someone about Ordinary Analysis.
They also sidestepped the word “marriage”
Explained: What was licence raj - https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/explained-what-was-licence-raj-and-why-is-india-better-off-without-it-123080900215_1.html
Other parties like AAP, TMC, SP, DMK, etc. had a very narrow scope. Not like these 3.
And where I could buy a cheaper Chinese EV if I wanted to.
Bhagat Singh — “Why I Am An Atheist” : I would highly recommend going through this. He was such a clear thinker.
Recognising civil unions is not liberal. The state has no right to know who is sleeping with whom - only reason marriage should be recognised by the state is so that there is a clear hierarchy in terms of who gets your assets when you die.
And by keeping it as a civil union you’re making a conscious choice that you won’t inherit each others assets. And so the state doesn’t need to know about your union.
I resonated with it so much. Do you think Libertarianism would work in rich countries, where people could afford basic daal & chawal. I don't think in India any party has been close to social Libertarianism