A common refrain of secularists these days, especially with the increasing number of diaspora Indians exposing their hypocrisy too often, is to resort to a sleight of hand and discredit the expats: you cannot speak of India while living in US--or, some such western country.
The insinuation being 'you cannot really speak about India since you don't understand being distantly located, or have no real stake and hence are being unrealistic.'
I faced a similar comment from some guy on Chindu blog while talking about Jaitirth Rao's malignant, and rather misinformed swipe at Manu--the author of Hindu lawbook Manusmriti.
Mr Rao called him "misogynist Manu," hence prompting me to question if he or the 'secular' Indian Express will take the same liberty and dare print "misogynist Mohammad" or "misogynist Christianism" or "paedophile Prophet", ever?
The answer is of course no. Else they would have printed Taslima Nasrin's comments in her novel Dwikhandito where she called Islam's prophet Mohammad "our Scoundrel Prophet," or when Jerry Falwell called him "a terrorist," or the Danish cartoons.
What has this question got to do with my location I sincerely don't know, but the 'secularist' in that blog viewer clearly seemed bruised, not because of Mr Rao's comments about Manu, but due to my inquiry about his position regarding Islam's prophet.
The argument about location having anything to do with being in the know--in political or cultural context at least--is silly of course, and cowardly to boot.
First, the 'secularists' don't have the stomach to accept their own communal bias. Second, this talk is a convenient cop out for them.
Almost all Indians who are abroad have families back home and hence do have a vested interest in the ongoings over there. A whole lot are out of the country for work alone, not immigration purposes, and certainly care more intensely because their future is invested in it. Having grown in India for the better part of life there is no question of being culturally severed from India either, to draw the secular scorn.
Au contraire, expat Indians are emotionally linked to India whilst the secularists long for the West--emotionally and ideologically. Rajeev Srinivasan once appositely termed the latter resident non-Indians or RNIs. In his words, "they apparently reside in India, manage to look and act astonishingly like real Indians, even hold Indian passports, but are decidedly anti-Indian in mindset."
Secularists, especially journalist hacks and seminar circuit types, have one more trick up their sleeve. They have no compunction in calling resident Indians as narrow-minded, philistine etc., because they don't travel and hence don't have a 'broad' worldview which the secularists have acquired purely on account of their govt. sponsored limited stays abroad. But when talking to expats the criterion gets reversed. Now the poor soul is disqualified because she/he doesn't live in India anymore. Thus the only enlightened beings qualified to talk about India authoritatively happen to be none else but the jetsetting secularists. Quite convenient, huh?
No one ever seems to ponder as to why so many citizens have been prompted to work abroad. The inconvenient answer being the mess created by this very 'secular' class through its predilection for the quixotic idea of socialism that wrecked India financially. If Tom Brokaw had his Greatest Generation of Americans, the 'secularists' ensured we had the Wasted Generation of Indians. The shipwreck of Nehruvian socialism had crushed Indian spirit for better part of five decades. The country could recover only when Indians started moving out, for the only work to be found was work outside the country. Veritably, Indians abroad have a silent contempt for secularist shenanigans, and this the secularists can't stomach.
I call the question of not-knowing-while-abroad silly because of its inherent irony. Hey, if I can't possibly talk about something simply by virtue of distance, how do you assert so confidently about me, and my ability, including the ability to speak about India, so removed, so distant, so far that you are from me?
The insinuation being 'you cannot really speak about India since you don't understand being distantly located, or have no real stake and hence are being unrealistic.'
I faced a similar comment from some guy on Chindu blog while talking about Jaitirth Rao's malignant, and rather misinformed swipe at Manu--the author of Hindu lawbook Manusmriti.
Mr Rao called him "misogynist Manu," hence prompting me to question if he or the 'secular' Indian Express will take the same liberty and dare print "misogynist Mohammad" or "misogynist Christianism" or "paedophile Prophet", ever?
The answer is of course no. Else they would have printed Taslima Nasrin's comments in her novel Dwikhandito where she called Islam's prophet Mohammad "our Scoundrel Prophet," or when Jerry Falwell called him "a terrorist," or the Danish cartoons.
What has this question got to do with my location I sincerely don't know, but the 'secularist' in that blog viewer clearly seemed bruised, not because of Mr Rao's comments about Manu, but due to my inquiry about his position regarding Islam's prophet.
The argument about location having anything to do with being in the know--in political or cultural context at least--is silly of course, and cowardly to boot.
First, the 'secularists' don't have the stomach to accept their own communal bias. Second, this talk is a convenient cop out for them.
Almost all Indians who are abroad have families back home and hence do have a vested interest in the ongoings over there. A whole lot are out of the country for work alone, not immigration purposes, and certainly care more intensely because their future is invested in it. Having grown in India for the better part of life there is no question of being culturally severed from India either, to draw the secular scorn.
Au contraire, expat Indians are emotionally linked to India whilst the secularists long for the West--emotionally and ideologically. Rajeev Srinivasan once appositely termed the latter resident non-Indians or RNIs. In his words, "they apparently reside in India, manage to look and act astonishingly like real Indians, even hold Indian passports, but are decidedly anti-Indian in mindset."
Secularists, especially journalist hacks and seminar circuit types, have one more trick up their sleeve. They have no compunction in calling resident Indians as narrow-minded, philistine etc., because they don't travel and hence don't have a 'broad' worldview which the secularists have acquired purely on account of their govt. sponsored limited stays abroad. But when talking to expats the criterion gets reversed. Now the poor soul is disqualified because she/he doesn't live in India anymore. Thus the only enlightened beings qualified to talk about India authoritatively happen to be none else but the jetsetting secularists. Quite convenient, huh?
No one ever seems to ponder as to why so many citizens have been prompted to work abroad. The inconvenient answer being the mess created by this very 'secular' class through its predilection for the quixotic idea of socialism that wrecked India financially. If Tom Brokaw had his Greatest Generation of Americans, the 'secularists' ensured we had the Wasted Generation of Indians. The shipwreck of Nehruvian socialism had crushed Indian spirit for better part of five decades. The country could recover only when Indians started moving out, for the only work to be found was work outside the country. Veritably, Indians abroad have a silent contempt for secularist shenanigans, and this the secularists can't stomach.
I call the question of not-knowing-while-abroad silly because of its inherent irony. Hey, if I can't possibly talk about something simply by virtue of distance, how do you assert so confidently about me, and my ability, including the ability to speak about India, so removed, so distant, so far that you are from me?
3 comments:
Very well said , socal. I have interacted with a few 'liberal' NRIs who shrink at the mention of the harm caused by islamic terrorism in India, but never seem to miss any chance at lecturing on the attrocities committed by Indian army in Kashmir. May be that is what they call dialectical materialism.
Thanks. May be it is. I have found that the best approach is to counter their central assumptions as quietly as possible. Most people on the right just let them off without challenge and that's been a big drawback.
The NRIs, who have attachment to India ( Vs the brokers) should see through this "you are in USA" stuff.
I know some of these morons say that to people who leave in India...mistaking them to be NRIs. These NRI morons have mafia gang operating In India...mostly in academics and NGOs. They struggle to be spokesman for a vast majority of India, and get rewards from the white man for doing that. There is a whole lot of NRIs who belong to this latter category...I am not sure what hurts them as a dialog.
1- In long terms it hurts them to remain unaffected by them, while attempting to prove how they are marxists.
2- I think it would hurt them to talk about dogs...how the british created the brown sahebs..who are really not that concerned about poverty.
We have similar situation india...unless you belong to those mafia who need to talk on behalf of people, the leftist mafia would slander you. However if one belongs to their gang, then one could talk charity in 5 star hotels.
Post a Comment