Consider the wikipedia article on liberalism. On the right hand side of the page (on a 12+inch screen) there is a list of topics which are related to liberalism. So it lists things such as say, Classical and Conservative and so on. These are the flavours of liberalism or stances which oppose it, or its variants, and so on.

Now consider the wikipedia article on Nationalism. Similar to the page on Liberalism, you will find various links to other flavours, variants, stances opposing or supporting nationalism and so on. One of the links say ‘Antinationalism.’

Now let us consider the two in parallel. While I am alright with liberalism having a classical variant, or with social democracy having an antagonistic stance to it…do I feel the same about antinationalism, which is just another link that is connected to the idea of nationalism? Logically, I should be, right? If x is a variant of y, and if b is a variant of c, and if y and c are just two ideologies, then it isn’t criminal to have an opinion on x, y, b, or c, surely?

My friend tells me of a scene he witnessed on an August 15. By the road where a group of people who have been evicted from their homes have set up shacks, a young girl, dressed in the tricolour, was taking a dump on the shoulder of the road.

When we see Hamas described as a ‘paramilitary organisation,’ and RSS as a ‘paramilitary organisation,’ what do we feel about these statements?

While we finish ourselves off on historicism and context and situatedness, surely we must regard ourselves as just historical entities who are, as my friend calls us, “people who lick the remnants of history?”

So much for our agency and free will.