Illiberal ignominy

All it took was one tweet – for his employer to sack a man from his star job, to lose his reputation, to fall into the abyss of (il)liberal ignominy. I’m writing about Atul Kochhar, the celebrity chef based out of the UK. 

Twitter was abuzz with outrage heaping (and rightly so) on Priyanka Chopra for a role in the recent episode of Quantico. The recent episode of the television drama showcased a scene where PC thwarts a plot by “Hindu nationalists” to “frame Pakistanis” ahead of the summit on Kashmir. Stop laughing, now! Notwithstanding the obvious massive holes in the plot, the protagonist foils the plot by finding out ‘rudraksha’ – the sacred chain worn by the “saffron terrorists” – a term conjured by the despicable likes of Chidambaram, Diggy Raja and the clique serving & protecting the Italian queen and her dynasty called UPA. 

Coming back to the episode in the discussion, there couldn’t be anything irreconcilable with reality than this. With 25165464616 terrorist attacks directly indicting the involvement of Muslims in all corners of the world, and zero of Hindus, the makers of the series didn’t think it will a travesty of reality to present this twisted plot. Nevermind! It’s (f)art and pardonable and they have the freedom of expression and all other sundries. But for an Indian actor PC to accept this role doesn’t seem too innocent. It’s not like somebody pushed her to do it. She would obviously be aware of the script and willingly she would have donned the role. 

After backlash in twitter, PC apologized and said she was a ‘Pround Indian’ while she should have actually apologized to Hindus if she has chosen to apologize. This again prompted various reactions. One among them was that of Atul Kochhar’s. 

Let’s see the veracity of the content of Kochhar’s tweet. He was indeed wrong about the number of years he quoted, which he corrected in the subsequent tweet. The attempt of the Islamic invasion of India had started way back in the 7th century; there were initial setbacks but were eventually successful in invading India. This is a part of recorded history - from Alberuni to Firishta, and other Persian & Arabic historians. But since India is a Shariah-compliant country, and whitewashing of Islamic history in India is a state policy, a vast majority of the people are not aware of how bad was the Islamic invasion of India. 

This is another matter and let's keep that aside. How did the fiberals of India react to this? If you can't take a guess, keep this as heuristics - whenever there is a conflict between Islam Vs anything, the fiberals take the former's side. This episode was no different - all in the day's job of the fiberals. One went a step ahead to flagged the tweet to the employer, JW Marriott which severed its ties with him. He was constantly harassed, threatened, and was made to apologize. Finally, he had to delete his twitter account. All these just for a single tweet. Fiberals deliberately tried to destroy the career of a man for just speaking out his mind. These are our self-appointed guardians and purveyors of free speech. 

This episode brought out a well-known fact - the self-proclaimed 'liberals' of India don't give two hoots for the principle of free speech. They stand for a party, religion, tribe etc. per their convenience but never for the principle. If you think they stand for "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", you are in for a big disappointment. As Joker says in the iconic movie The Dark Knight - "their morals, their code... it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble". The self-same people never stop virtue signaling, shouting from the rooftop that the democracy and "liberal values" are under threat.

Second, if you are too vocal and have gained considerable fame and are politically incorrect in social media, it's good not to advertise your employers. Or even better - be anonymous. Because the first place they want to hurt is your livelihood. 

Lastly - in India like in the contemporary West, actors are accorded a high status in the society and their opinions valued. It's people's stupidity that keeps the actors on a high pedestal in the society. Actors' opinion should be confined to acting allied topics, not beyond that. We have seen how incoherent, uneducated an opinion can be on issues of national importance when you see an Aamir Khan, a Kamal Hasan or the latest a Prakash Raj. Clueless about the lurking realities, yet showing missionary zeal to preach and educate the nation. Nana Patekar summed it up in this short clip. 

In ancient Rome, actors were accorded low societal status and more importantly, Romans gave actors pariah rank in the society because "they are faked by profession" as NN Taleb puts it. Roman emperor Julian prohibited Pagan priests from attending theatre so that actors don't get the elevation in their status in the society because of their presence and attendance. Perhaps the Romans went too far but we have a thing or two learn from Romans.

Book Review - How India's Intellectuals Spread Lies

The introduction of the book says:

This book takes a rare, hard look at India's leading public intellectuals whose greatness is taken for granted but whose sophistry is overlooked. Ravi Shanker Kapoor exposes them as cowardly thinkers incapable of challenging conventional wisdom.

Importantly, it's not the personal follies and foibles of these worthies that the author finds troubling but their unquestioning acceptance of failed Leftist theories, and slavish adherence to politically 'correct' ideas. Smug in their acceptance by an adoring Left-liberal media they are blind to empirical evidence which flies in the face of their positions, oblivious both to opportunities thrown up by changed times and to the clear and present dangers of the status quo, whether it be the scourge of socialism or the malevolence of Islamic terror. Thus the spreading of lies, a betrayal of both their own vacation and of the Indian people

The author uses his pen as a butcher wields his knife. In Kapoor's abattoir, no cow is holy enough to be spared - and no reputation hallowed enough to be revered. Combining journalistic experience with solid scholarship, Kapoor relishes in taking on some of the biggest icons in India's public discourse. His is an original voice.

True to its introduction, the book takes a rare hard look at the leading intellectuals of India in a never before manner and breaks the shallow theories they preach and exposes the sophistry they indulge in.

Public discourse in India is increasingly dominated by the people who are leftists or the people who are left-leaning. This book takes a hard look at the people who muddy already muddied discourse of India – how they insinuate and reduce the public discourse to the level of sloganeering and clichés.

Synopsis:

When the communist utopia was in the making in the erstwhile USSR, many human rights atrocities were a daily happening. Many intellectuals and journalists visited the USSR, but they failed to report things as they were due to their allegiance to an ideology. Lenin coined a term for such people – “Useful idiots”. These are the people who blindly and unquestioningly accept leftist lies. The author, Ravishanker Kapoor likens them to the Sheep in George Orwell’s Animal Farm and also to Gandhari of Mahabharata – who is not born blind but chooses to be blind. India has its own set of useful idiots. In his own words the author has exposed the intellectuals as the sheep in the animal farm, as descendants of Gandhari.

The liberals – that’s what most left leaning intellectuals call themselves as, have perverted the values for which liberalism truly stands for. For instance, liberals traditionally sought to limit the scope of the state action and to prefer non-governmental initiatives wherever possible. But the contemporary liberals would ask for just the opposite – favor an increased scope of state action in areas such as education, health care and social welfare.

In a country where sloganeering is confused with etiquette and platitude with wisdom, it’s hardly surprising shouting passes off as the cry of long-suffering, silent majority – If you ever happen to counter the leftist lies you will be shouted down, as the tyranny of decibels rule the roost. You will be abused - in fact abuse is used as the argument, and the name calling – the anti-poor, a Hindu fundamentalist, a lackey of MNCs. These are the time-tested techniques of the left. One more reason for the left’s success in having a great influence in public discourse is that, it has hijacked the pro-poor agenda. The reading habits of Indians and the intellectual bankruptcy of the so-called Indian right aggravates the matter. So, the leftists are free to spread their canards.

Then, the author takes the intellectuals to task – Arundhati Roy,Jawaharlal Nehru, Khushwant Singh, Kuldip Nayar, Mani Shankar Aiyar, P Chidambaram. And puchures their claims, some by empirical proofs and some by effective counter-arguments.

After this, the author explains how the intellectuals spread red propaganda – in most of the cases the liberals act as the B-team of commies. They have an inordinate influence in organizations like NCERT and likes and spread their propaganda and lies through the government prescribed text books and influence the kids at a very early age. The media – is full of liberals and commies - is used as a machinery to spread their canards. Some are born blind, some get afflicted with blindness, and some blindfold themselves. Communists belong to the first category ; liberals and intellectuals belong to the other two categories.

In the concluding chapters, the author explains how communists use guilt as the weapon of mass deception. The leftists saw the society as machinery which can be designed according to some dogmas – dialectical materialism, scientific socialism et al. - rather than as an organism. Communists and left wing intellectuals are the generals of mendacity. Human civilization is the target ; they are softening the target by using the technique of guilt-mongering. The bombardment of lies and white lies continues unabated. More often than not, liberals end up as accomplices of the Left in this war against civilization. They become useful for the commies. That is why Lenin called them “Useful idiots”.

In the final chapter, the author proposes a way out – A theory of Indian conservatism. First he clears off the myths surrounding conservatism. The three strands of conservatism are – open society, free economy and limited government. The origins of conservatism and the three strands are explained at some length. The author says there is a need to develop conservatism as an ideology in India and argues Indian conservatism is inherent and unspoken. In fact, Indian conservatism – based on individual liberty and focusing on open society, free market, and limited government – be in tune with will not only be in tune with the traditions, conventions, and intellectual history of the country but also allow them to grow in a healthy manner. And the final warning – The nation is doomed unless a sizable part of its Illuminati embrace conservatism wholeheartedly.

Conclusion – All in all, I found this book as one of the best reads in the recent times. This book should be read to understand the muddied waters of political discourse. The writing style of the author – holding no cows holy, calling spade a spade – endears him to the readers. This book sets the tone for the much needed alternative discourse in India.

Macaulay lives on...

I'll start with a small tidbit from history which I am cocksure that you wouldn't have studied in your history classes.

Circa 1813 : India was ruled by the East India company. The first stone for the introduction of western education to Indians was laid. Sita Ram Goel in his book History of Hindu-Christian encounters explains the unfolding of events that led to the introduction of western education for Indians:

The renewal of East India Company’s Charter in 1813 had opened the Company’s dominions to Christian missionaries. It had also advised “introduction of useful knowledge and religious and moral improvement.” A controversy had been going on ever since regarding the system of education suitable for India. The Orientalists among the British rulers advocated retention of the traditional Indian system. They were afraid that imparting of Western knowledge to natives would encourage them to claim equality with white men and demand democratisation of the administration. The Anglicists, on the other hand, were convinced that knowledge of Western literature, philosophy and science would wean Hindus away from their “ancestral superstitions” and draw them closer to the religion and culture of the ruling race.

Christian missionaries were, by and large, with the Anglicists. One of them had written in 1822 that, through Western education, Hindus “now engaged in the degrading and polluting worship of idols shall be brought to the knowledge of true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.” Missionaries felt immensely strengthened when Alexander Duff, an ardent advocate of Western education, reached Calcutta in 1830.

Alexander Duff was convinced that “of all the systems of false religion ever fabricated by the perverse ingenuity of fallen men, Hinduism is surely the most stupendous” and that India was “the chief seat of Satan’s earthly dominion.” He studied for some time the effect which Western education was having on Hindu young men attending the Hindu College and similar institutions which had come up in Calcutta and elsewhere in Bengal since more than a decade before his arrival. He came to the definite conclusion that Western education would make the Hindus “perfect unbelievers in their own system” and “perfect believers in Christianity.” In an address delivered in 1835 to a General Church Assembly he proclaimed that knowledge of Western literature and science would “demolish the huge and hideous fabric of Hinduism” brick by brick till “the whole will be found to have crumbled into fragments.”

A Committee of Public Instruction had been set up by the Government for recommending a suitable system of education. Alexander Duff had been made a member of the Committee in 1834. Next year, T. B. Macaulay, a member of the Governor General’s Council, was appointed to preside over the Committee. He wrote a Minute on February 2, 1835, advocating Western education. There was a tie between the Anglicists and the Orientalists when the Minute came before the Committee on March 7. Macaulay used his casting vote and forced a decision. The Western system of education was adopted. In a letter written to his father in 1836, Macaulay predicated, “It is my firm belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolator among the respectable classes of Bengal thirty years hence.”

Macaulay argued that providing education based on Sanskrit is of no use for India’s development, and batted instead for education based on English. He (in)famously envisioned creating “a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect”. [You can find the complete minute here] He correctly identified the strength of Indians was in their tradition, heritage and spirituality. Once you make them believe all that they valued are just a baggage of hogwash, you can easily rule them. As simple as that. In a way, you can call Macaulay a visionary because what he had envisaged did turn out to be true in the future.

I am not adding his one more cardinal sin of adding racial theories which were very prevalent in Europe during 19th century to the new curriculum. Thus applied racial theories to the Indian populace were initially used by colonialists to divide and sub-divide India. This was later used by evangelical missionaries and political parties to serve their own ends. The commie historians who were to rule Indian academics post-Independent India kept this repudiated, outdated theory intact and these hoax theories are peddled even to this day.This is a big story in itself. Let's keep it for some other day.

Who should write history? This is a very serious question that one should contemplate on. Some say history is written by the winners and conquerors. This is true even in case of India. Indian history is never written from an Indian perspective. It was always written with the invaders' perspective be it Moguls or the British. That's the sole reason that we are conditioned to see the invaders as heroes or liberators. So,our history books are full of invasions, wars and subjugation. These are just the products of colonial constructs which are peddled even to this day. Anyone who is a product of this kind of education can never admire the greatness of this nation. All that he can have is contempt for it and its past. People like Vivekananda or Aurobindo are just a few honorary exceptions to come out of the kind of western education introduced by Macaulay. Even people like them, discovered the greatness of India only because they chose to go beyond what was taught to them. Else, even their intellect and perception would have been crippled.

We can see this phenomenon clearly in this country : To be called as an intellectual, you should have an absolute disdain for its heritage and you should be able to debunk it. That's one of the criteria for being a 'progressive' in this nation. The more you debunk the tradition, the more intellectual you appear. Those people who debunk even the profound things of this culture have no problem in accepting absolute trumpery of predatory cultures and religions that have invaded India. This is just a small instance to show the triumph of Macaulay's education system.

So I readily agree when someone says 15th August 1947 is just an end of physical (or administrative) slavery but mental (or intellectual) slavery continues even to this day. I think it's high time that we broke the shackles of mental slavery and came clean.