The dilemma of an Indian liberal is easily solved. Emigrate to a place still ruled by White people. Gurcharan Das disagrees. In 'the dilemmas of an Indian liberal' he writes-
For good or for bad, there is a nationalist government in power,
Gurcharan thinks the Indian National Congress is not nationalist. Manmohan was probably a Chinese agent- right?
and this raises another dilemma.
But the solution of every one of Gurcharan's dilemmas involve his saying 'we should be nice. Naughtiness is totes not nice. Why can't the rest of you brown monkeys just learn to be less naughty for a change?'
A liberal is against tribalism,
No. A liberal thinks that indigenous tribes should be allowed to manage their own affairs on their own territory in the manner they think right and proper.
and nationalism is a form of tribalism.
Nonsense! Some Arabs and Afghans might know which tribe and clan they belong to. Few Europeans or Americans do because tribes disappeared leaving only linguistic communities which were defined as 'nations'. I suppose, the Israeli Jew might know if he is from the tribe of Levi, but this does not affect the degree to which he is an Israeli Nationalist.
Hence, a liberal is suspicious of the kind of nationalism that arose in 19th-century Europe
No. Liberals supported nationalist leaders like Kossuth or Mazzini. At a later point, Gladstone was even willing to accommodate the Irish nationalism of Parnell. Indeed, the Indian National Congress received support from Liberals like Florence Nightingale.
when modern states were formed on the basis of identity—of a single religion, or language, or ethnicity—
Liberals welcomed Greece and a unified Italy and Germany into the comity of nations. Is there a single example of Liberals opposing the creating of mono-linguistic or religious states on the Wilsonian pattern? No. There may have been objections re. expediency or financial or military viability. But, Liberals have always supported the right to national self-determination even if nations are defined in terms of religion- e.g. Pakistan and Israel.
Imperialists, on the other hand, have suggested that multi-ethnic cosmopolitanism is better even if this means that Imperial storm troopers have to massacre civilians in different parts of the Empire from time to time.
and went on to become instruments of power and violence in the 20th century.
Not really. Gurcharan does not understand that the Kaiser or Hitler or Tojo wanted to grab lots of territory and create a vast Empire which they would rule over. But Communist Commissars too had no objection to conquering territory and subjugating the native population. At any rate, that's what Mao did to Tibet.
This nationalism proclaimed one’s country was superior, sought an enemy and excluded minorities.
Some Emperors, e.g. the Tzar, fucked over certain minorities- e.g. the Jews- with vim and vigor. Gurcharan probably thinks Abdul the Damned used to kiss and cuddle Armenians.
It drove European nations to colonise the world;
No it didn't. Certain Kings- like Louis Phillipe or Leopold of Belgium- may have sponsored colonial schemes in Africa and elsewhere. But nation states which went in for this did so through commercial enterprises- e.g. the Dutch or British East India Companies.
The Norwegians are notoriously nationalistic. After gaining independence from Sweden, which country did they colonize?
it made Germany and Japan militaristic;
This cretin has never heard of the Junkers or the Samurai.
it led the Nazis to murder six million Jews in the Holocaust.
Christians have been murdering Jews for thousands of years alleging that they are 'Deicides'. The Hutus in Rwanda were agriculturists. They had no difficulty carrying out a genocide against Tutsis, who were a more martial caste, using agricultural implements. But the Tutsis then invaded and conquered the country.
These were the tragedies of this narrow-minded nationalism.
They had nothing whatsoever to do with nationalism. Don't forget Jews were prominent among the nineteenth century and early twentieth century German nationalists. Indeed, Turkish Jews supported the Young Turks, while in England, there had been a Jewish origin Prime Minister.
There is a good nationalism, however.
Nationalism can be nice. But it can also be naughty. Please read my next book 'Why it is nice to be nice'. Kindly desist from shoving it up your arse because such behavior is naughty and totally lacking in niceness. Mind it!
It can help a country to modernise, develop with a sense of urgency, as Japan did after the Meiji Restoration in 1867-68.
The slogan was 'revere the Emperor, expel the barbarian!'. This later became 'enrich the country, strengthen the Army'.
It can bring diverse and plural peoples to unite to throw out an imperial foreign power, as was the case in India during its freedom struggle in the first half of the 20th century.
The Brits left because America wouldn't pay for them to remain as the Umpire between the squabbling Indian parties.
Meiji Japan focused on giving excellent education to all Japanese children,
No. It focused on getting rich and strengthening the Army so it could conquer territory. It was able to go on the gold standard after getting reparations from China. Only at that point did Japanese parents begin to eagerly enroll their boys in schools in the hope that they could get into the Army and amount to something.
instilling a sense of national unity that helped mould the modern Japanese personality.
They didn't bother getting rid of untouchability though.
India was born in 1947 out of good nationalism without shedding an ounce of blood,
Gurcharan is Sikh. He thinks not a single Sikh shed any blood during partition.
and it happened in the shadows of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Stalin and Mao were Communists, not Nationalists. This man is a cretin.
That nationalism was Indian, not Hindu or Muslim.
In 1939, Gandhi said the INC was Hindu. The Brits must hand over the army to the INC because otherwise the rapacious Muslims and the Punjabis (regardless of creed) would overrun the country.
It was the creation of Mahatma Gandhi and his associates.
Gandhi could have presided over a transfer of power in 1924. But he surrendered unilaterally in 1922 because he thought Muslims and Punjabis would beat up the cowardly Hindu and take all their nice shiny things.
He was able to capture the hearts and minds of ordinary people because he spoke to them through traditional words and symbols.
Viceroy was able to rule over the sub-continent with little effort because hearts and minds of Indians had been captured by stupid nutters.
He appealed to their imagination with an inclusive, civilisational concept of sadharana dharma, a universal ideal applicable to all human beings—leading to duties such as ahimsa, ‘not hurting another’, or satya, ‘telling the truth’.
Also, if you suddenly remember Whitey is ruling over you, you can form an orderly queue to be hit on the head after which you can spend a year or two sulking in jail. Somebody should tell Gurcharan that Muslims did not buy Gandhi's 'sadharan dharm'. They created a country called Pakistan.
Unlike the dharma of caste, this dharma of conscience resonated with all Indians.
Jinnah wasn't India. He was a Scottish lady from Aberdeen.
As a result, an incipient sense of unity began to emerge in the popular consciousness, uniting the multitudinous communities of the subcontinent into one national community.
Gurcharan was born in Lyallpur and spent his first years in Lahore. When he was four years old, his family had to flee for their lives. Since they neglected to tell the boy that Pakistan had been created, he remains convinced that Karachi and Lahore are still part of India.
Unfortunately, Mahatma Gandhi died soon after Independence.
He was shot. Autocracy is tempered by assassination.
None of the leaders after him was up to the task of selling the excellent idea of a modern secular republic based on the rule of law.
Gandhi failed to sell it to the Muslims.
Well-meaning Jawaharlal Nehru was too much of a Western oriented gentleman; he tried but failed to connect with the people as Gandhi had been able to.
Which is why Nehru kept losing elections- right? I believe he moved to Bournemouth in 1950. His landlady would often ask if he was a wog. 'No Madamji' he would reply 'I iz not gollywog. I iz Western oriented gentlemans. Kindly stop sitting on my face.'
This is why the ordinary person still believes that the Constitution fell from heaven one day, and does not understand or own it.
The Constitution owes something to Nehru's 1928 program and much more to the British 1935 Act. There is also some stupid shite copied from Da Valera's Ireland.
Tocqueville has taught us that underlying a liberal democracy is a moral consensus which is expressed daily in ‘habits of the heart’,
Tocqueville was describing America. But England had already been like that for a century. Anglo Saxon habits were indeed different from French habits. But, that is still true.
which is why the great Sanskrit scholar called our Constitution a ‘dharma text’.
Which scholar? Tocqueville? Gurcharan is senile. The Indian Constitution can't be a 'dharma text' because it can be amended, abrogated, or wholly ignored without any soteriological consequences.
The political class as a whole has failed not only to create new ‘habits of the heart’ but also a sense of modern national community.
The RSS has done a good job in that sense. The Dynastic INC hasn't. That is why Modi has prevailed over the moon-calf.
This has led to a Hindu nationalism instead of an Indian nationalism.
Nothing wrong with Hindu nationalism or Buddhist nationalism or Muslim nationalism. That is the liberal view. If you are an Imperialist, you may say 'I wish the House of Windsor still ruled over a united Indian Empire- including Burma and Aden. ' But, Imperialism is antithetical to Liberalism. It is predicated on the notion that the right to national self-determination must be denied to 'lesser breeds without the law'.
In Milestone 26 in Chapter 5, I tried to answer the question why Hindus, who are 80 per cent of India’s population, felt insecure in their own country.
This nutter hasn't heard about what happened to Hindus in the Muslim majority Kashmir Valley or in Sikh majority areas during the Khalistan insurgency.
If bad nationalism is about power,
No existing nation state is not evil because it has power. Still, the good news is that Gurcharan will say that a nation state which is too weak to avoid being conquered is very sweet and nice.
a good nationalism is cherishing one’s country’s natural beauty, the memories of childhood, of a particular time, place and a way of life.
That isn't nationalism. It is nostalgia. You can have it for foreign countries where you were raised or which you visited as a child.
Bad nationalism is about power, prestige and wanting to dominate others.
Bad people want power and prestige. They want to become boss. Good people want to be beaten and fucked in the ass by all and sundry.
Bad nationalists are haunted by the belief that the past can be altered.
Gurcharan is a bad nationalist because he says Gandhi unified India. There was no Partition. Pakistan does not exist. His parents didn't have to run for their lives from Lahore.
They feel the need to holler, and shout slogans to proclaim their country’s greatness,
Gurcharan is merely hollering about his own greatness.
which often reflects insecurity, low self-esteem and even a feeling of inferiority.
Gurcharan is inferior. He may have done well enough in the Corporate world, but he has achieved nothing since. The man has shit for brains.
Good nationalists are quietly confident, comfortable in their skin, aware of their nation’s strengths and weaknesses.
Gurcharan is describing Modi.
They even wonder why their love has to stop at the border, because they are humans first and citizens of nations afterwards.
Why did Gurcharan's family run away from Lahore? They should have remained there loving it to pieces while mobs hacked away at them.
Today, the world is witnessing the ill-fated rise of bad nationalisms.
Fuck was it witnessing in 1947?
They are all driven by a utopian vision of a past when ‘we were great’ before we were beset by irritating immigrants, foreign invaders and minorities.
This cretin just described a utopian India united by Mahatma Gandhi. He thinks that was a great place to be alive. Yet, his own family had to run away from Lahore when he was four years old.
The result is an unhappy polarisation in society, as in India, caused by the notion of a pure Hindu past that began to decline when Muslims came and began to rule.
Gurcharan thinks Hindus didn't decline when 'Muslims came and began to rule'. Yet he shows no inclination to return to his ancestral home in Pakistan. Why is that?
It is typical nationalist history, driven by power and distrust of and hatred for the Other.
His family should have trusted their Muslim neighbors in Lahore to keep them safe. Clearly his mummy and daddy were very wicked and evil.
The danger of bad nationalism is that it runs the risk of turning militaristic.
So, Indian nationalism is good nationalism because India is not militaristic. No doubt, if Gurcharan had remained in Lahore, Pakistani Army would not have taken over that country.
There is another form of negative nationalism that leads nations to conspiracy theories and paranoia.
This cretin has a conspiracy theory about how Nehru was 'western oriented' and this caused his Mummy and Daddy to pick him up in their arms and to run for the border in 1947. Had they remained in Lahore, Muslim mobs would have given them lots of hugs and kisses.
When I was working for a multinational company, I was sometimes its target.
Which was very unfair. MNCs never use over-invoicing and other such tricks to cheat the tax-man of the host country.
Both Indian and Latin American social scientists used to complain incessantly that their poverty and backwardness were the result of the misdeeds of world capitalism.
The United Fruit Company was very sweet and nice. Why didn't Banana Republics understand this?
Multinational companies like mine were the villain in their eyes.
They were seen as chumps by smart merchant bankers. Gurcharan was fortunate in that he retired before the Proctor & Gamble/ Bankers Trust derivatives debacle blew up. What was not mentioned at that time was that such transactions can also short change the countries where tax was payable. This has to do with different accounting conventions in different jurisdictions.
Raul Prebisch, the Argentine economist, had created a ‘dependency theory’, which argued that poor nations would always remain dependent on rich Western nations because of unequal terms of trade.
Bhagwati's 'immeserizing growth is like the Prebisch-Singer thesis. Chichilnisky was originally a Prebisch type economist. However, the fact remains, Argentina did stupid shit and thus failed to move up the value chain. The lesson here is don't do stupid shit. Perhaps Milie can turn things round. I'm kidding. The man is a clown.
It led to export pessimism and isolationist policies in many countries, including India.
No. Manmohan worked under Prebisch in the mid-Sixties. Previously his name was unknown in India. The sad truth is some of Marshall's best students encouraged India to go down the wrong, Listian, path. But it made money for certain industrialists and politicians. More than money, they enjoyed 'the best of monopoly profits- viz. a quiet life'.
As a result, many Third World countries failed to participate in global export booms that began in the 1950s and ’60s.
No. They did increase exports but there was capital flight or reckless borrowing or rampant corruption and thugocracy.
The Asian miracle in the 1980s proved the dependency theory wrong as Asian tigers rose on the basis of the export of manufactured goods.
All it proved was that if you do sensible stuff and work your asses off, you can climb the value chain. But this may involve shooting 'dissidents' or labor organizers etc.
Another danger of bad nationalism is that it finds someone else to blame for one’s troubles.
Gurcharan is guilty of bad nationalism. Instead of blaming himself, he targets the Hindus of the country his parents had to flee to. They are very nasty. Why they are distrusting Muslims? It is because Nehru was 'western oriented'? Sadharan Dharma says you should trust everybody to sleep naked with your wife. If they also beat and sodomize you, your cup of joy will overflow. Gurcharan will give you a gold star.
Today, bad nationalism makes us suspicious of trade treaties.
Why be suspicious of a treaty you have no intention of abiding by? Still, Gurcharan has a point. Only a 'bad nationalist' would be suspicious of a treaty offered by Hitler or Putin or Mao.
It is still not too late for India to benefit from the positive lessons of East Asia’s international trade liberalisation.
Nor is it too late to tell Gurcharan that he is shit for brains. This is because he isn't yet dead.
Although the world is moving against globalisation, India should reposition its atmanirbhar, or self-reliant, philosophy to mean not just ‘make in India’ but ‘make in India for the world’.
Currently India is not in the world. It exists in a different dimension. Gurcharan is pleading with Modi to relocate India onto the same metaphysical plane as the rest of the world. That way, stuff made in India would be made in this world rather than some other. Sadly, Narendraji is not listening to Gurcharan. He is insisting that Indians should make in India for the planet Venus. This is because of bad nationalism. Had Narendraji just trusted some nice Muslims to beat and sodomize him, he would not be so naughty.
India needs to shed export pessimism, bring down tariffs, join the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP),
hand over Arunachal to China and Kashmir to Pakistan
participate in global supply chains, and reorient its Production Linked Incentive Scheme (PLI) contracts to incentivise exports.
also it must ensure that all kaffirs gain the opportunity to be beaten and sodomized.
Only thus will it bring about ‘the great transformation’ to become a middle-class country.
No. It just needs to raise the female participation rate by getting rural girls into giant factory dormitories. It will happen one way or another. Either the thing is done by respectable businessmen or it will be done by ruthless gangsters.
Exclusivism and isolationism are bad, self-defeating ideas for nations and societies.
Not necessarily. Inclusivism and Globalization can quickly eradicate a nation or a society.
In my personal life I go further. I feel we all have multiple identities
this nutter has been reading Amartya Sen
and we ought to resist privileging our national identity.
Why pay tax only to your own country? Why not pay tax to every country under the Sun?
For example, I am an Indian male, but I am also a Punjabi,
Punjabis can't be male. Thus Gurcharan has a dual identity- like Batman. By day, he is a Punjabi lady. At night, he grows a penis and thus qualifies as an Indian male. He uses his penis to fight crime. The Joker escaped from Arkham Asylum and was robbing a liquor store. Gurcharan pulled down his chaddi and his penis became so long and strong that it was able to slap the Joker silly. Say what you like, a Harvard education really can make a difference.
a father of two, a writer, a vegetarian, a lover of Kishori Amonkar’s music, a cheerleader of our liberal reforms, a fan of the Indian cricket team, and so on. I have different identities,
No. He has a single identity to which a number of predicates can be validly applied at certain times and in certain contexts. Thus, Gurcharan is not a lover of Kishori Amonkar's music when CDs of the same are shoved up his bum.
and I choose a particular one depending on the context.
No. A particular predicate has salience in certain contexts. Thus, when Gurcharan goes to a restaurant, what is salient is that he wants to be served only vegetarian dishes. Though he is Punjabi, he would refuse to eat a Punjabi meat dish.
While I am proud of my Indian identity,
Being Indian is a predicate of Gurcharan. If he changes his Nationality, that predicate will no longer apply though Gurcharan will remain Gurcharan.
I don’t feel that I have let the side down if I enjoy Thai green curry or Italian pasta, Bach’s German baroque or Kurosawa’s Japanese films.
You have let the side down if you enjoy such things while shitting on India.
Our identities also change with time;
No. Identity does not change. Predicates applied to a particular identity change.
some people even change their religion; others migrate and change their nationality.
These are predicates. Only if they switch bodies would their identity change. On the other hand, Gurcharan may be Batman- playboy by day, masked crime fighter by night.
The point is that identity is a matter of reasoned choice.
No. Gurcharan can't choose to be Narendra Modi. On the other hand, he can change some predicates which apply to him. For example, he could write something sensible instead of this senile shite.
Unfortunately, a Hindu nationalist wants to force-fit me into an overarching, rigid religious, nationalistic identity that takes away this choice and impoverishes my plural human spirit.
Hindu nationalists don't give a shit about Gurcharan. He is welcome to fuck off back to Pakistan or Amrika or wherever.
I think of human beings as diamonds with many faces.
I think of human beings as having just the one face and the one nose and the one mouth.
Hate begins when we categorise people, choosing one face and ignoring the others.
So does love. Gurcharan hates Hindu nationalists. Why oh why did Mummy and Daddy run away from Lahore? Didn't know that India is full of those beastly Hindus? Moreover those Hindus were very good at killing people who tried to kill them. Knowing this, it was a terrible crime for Mummy and Daddy to choose illiberal India over Pakistan which follows the 'sadharan dharma' of Mahatma Gandhi.
When we reduce people to one dimension, we encourage a fragmented view of humanity.
But that is what this cretin is doing! Just because it is Hindus that he hates, doesn't mean that he isn't a hate-filled bag of shit.
Instead, we should celebrate our plural identities.
Thus if some nice jihadi chops Gurcharan in half and we get two Gurcharans for the price one, we should all celebrate. Sadly, the chance of this happening diminished the moment the boy crossed the border. Still, we can live in hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment