Runciman on Arday

The following is from the New Statesman 

A dream of Cambridge

At one time Cambridge was considered a place where the smart had holed up so as to escape the Black Brain Death unleashed by the idiot box. That was a dream. Smart people don't linger at Uni. 

The university’s place in the public imagination is as illusory as Jason Arday’s academic credentials

Not quite. We have some dim idea that the 'Silicon Fen' (i.e. high tech firms 'spun off' from the University) contribute a lot of money to the UK economy. The University of Cambridge alone generates nearly £30 billion annually for the UK economy, with over £23 billion driven directly by its innovation and commercialization arms. In total, the Fen is valued at 222 billion. 

By David Runciman

Who gave up Academia for podcasting 

Oceans of virtual ink have been spilled about the case of Jason Arday because it was the right story at the right time to grab the maximum attention.

It is 'silly season' but it chimes with what Burnham has to say about paying poor people to get their kids to ditch degrees in favour of apprenticeships. Also, it confirmed the suspicion that Nathan Cofnas was right but for the wrong reason. The fact is smart blacks don't go into academia.  Nor do smart white people unless they are pederasts or as lazy as fuck. 

It happened in high summer, when apart from the interminable heat there wasn’t much else going on.

It was Arday's claims of sporting prowess which interested ordinary people. Was he a blagger who had landed on his feet? Sadly, no. He was a pathetic fantasist who topped himself when his make-believe world unravelled. 

The other thing which made the Arday story topical was the fact that whistleblowers had been accused of racism and had been investigated by the police.  

It unfolded in stages, which kept people interested: first the accusations of plagiarism, then the piece-by-piece unravelling of Arday’s life story in the run-up to the publication of his now absurd-seeming memoir.

If there's a book deal, could a Netflix series be far behind? Arday might turn into a bona fide celebrity as the street-smart blagger who fooled the snobbish dons of Cambridge.  His next step would be to do a podcast with Prince Harry before launching his own line of salad dressing. 

Above all, though, this was Cambridge. Had Arday been exposed while still a professor at Glasgow University it would have caused a fuss, but nothing on this scale.

Southerners believe that head-butting is the chief educational skill required of Professors in Glasgow.  

The contrast between the augustness of the institution and the very contemporary dynamics of Arday’s downfall is what gives the tale its piquancy.

Wokeness spares no one. 

Race, class, snobbery, wokery

Werewolves. The head of the Department is a werewolf. Her rival, the Principal, is a vampire directly descended from Vlad Dracul.  

– somehow they’re all thrown into sharper relief when the setting is that cloistered little world of ancient colleges and elite reputations, some of them now in tatters.

Werewolf accidentally ate the Vice Chancellor. So embarassing! 

But what is really going on here is that the story of an apparent fantasist is being played out through the fantasies people have about Cambridge.

Nobody gives a shit about the place. If it aint Hogwarts, we're not fucking interested mate. 

That place doesn’t really exist any more. When news outlets want a generic picture of the university to illustrate their tales of collapsing standards, they usually pick King’s College Chapel or the Senate House – suitably imposing edifices to juxtapose with the squalid goings-on being exposed.

There was a time when everybody there was a homosexual KGB spy.  

But those buildings are no more representative of the university these days than Arday was.

Universities don't matter save as hubs for knowledge based industries. At one time that was Priestcraft. But that was long ago.  

A more accurate image would show one of the gleaming new campuses a little way out from the centre of town where the money and power increasingly reside: either the West Cambridge site, on which the new science and tech departments are housed, or the Biomedical Campus to the south of the city, where the university’s hospitals and research centres exist alongside the headquarters of AstraZeneca and, soon, a £400m R&D centre for GlaxoSmithKline, which is relocating from Stevenage.

Education is a knowledge based industry. The Cambridge Dept. of Education should be working with AI companies to boost educational outcomes. Whining about White Privilege helps nobody. 

Then there are the science parks incubating would-be world-beating start-ups clustered to the north of town. These places have shiny new railway stations – Cambridge North and, more recently, Cambridge South, which opened in June. They have lavishly funded new buildings, including the £58m Whittle Laboratory, which opened in July. This is where the action is.

Becuase this is useful. What Arday & Co did was not just stupid & useless, it was actively mischievous. 

Arday was professor of the sociology of education and a fellow of Jesus College. Those grand titles sound like they tick all the important boxes for status and significance.

Fuck off 'Sociology' means 'stupid shite'.  

But that’s another illusion. People who work in Cambridge sometimes joke there are now three universities: science and tech to the north and west, biomedicine to the south and the old parts left in the middle.

At one time, there were 'two cultures'. Now there is only one culture & a wide spectrum of paranoid grievance studies. 

This is “heritage” Cambridge, the bit tourists come to see.

There are posh Colleges & Departments. Runciman himself, the fourth Viscount, was a Cambridge don.  

It contains most of the colleges and most of the social science and humanities departments. It’s not exactly a Potemkin university since a lot of very hard work still goes on behind the facade.

Sadly, most of that work could be better done in 10 seconds by an AI.                                        

But it can feel like it is primarily for show while the real business is being conducted somewhere else.

No. Some of the Applied Sciences are 'businesses' but there are commercial applications for other Departments as well. The University Press makes a good profit on textbooks, dictionaries, translations and so forth. Oddly, their biggest seller- Richard Murphy's 'Grammar in use'- isn't by a don. Murphy was just an ordinary teacher only belatedly granted an honourary MA from Cambridge.  

One prompt for the outrage about Arday’s appointment to a professorship is that the university seemed to treat it – and him – as window dressing, a way of parading its progressive credentials before the world.

They were promoting a low IQ fantasist. Us darkies suspected this was deliberate. It wasn't. Whitey can be as stupid as fuck.  

Self-evidently something went badly wrong in how this happened. But no one should conclude that it’s only at the woke edges that this sort of preoccupation with appearances is at play. After all, King’s College Chapel is now window dressing too.

Runciman may be right about non-STEM subjects. They may now be all entirely shit. But tech companies don't need no fucking window dressing. They just need to be better than the competition. Sadly, if that competition is in China, they are bound to lose.  

I worked at Cambridge for nearly 30 years, ending up as a professor and head of the politics department.

i.e. worthless shite.  

The university is organised into different schools, and politics is in the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, alongside other subjects including sociology and education. We would meet regularly to talk about the pressures we were under and the need to defend our disciplines.

You don't need to defend stuff which aint shit.  

Occasionally, though, we would be joined by senior figures from other parts of the university – science, medicine, engineering – when wider issues were at stake, usually involving money.

People won't pay for a shit sandwich. The question was whether non-STEM subjects could raise productivity for knowledge based industries. Incidentally DEI has potential in that regard- or so it was once believed. 

I can still recall how baffled these people sometimes seemed not simply by our preoccupations but even by what it was we actually did. They were polite but unavoidably patronising. We were heritage Cambridge, useful for how the world saw us, but hard to take seriously on our own terms.

It's always nice to chat to a Viscount. My memory is that his dad was a Social Choice theorist- i.e. quite mathsy.  

When CP Snow wrote about the “Two Cultures” – initially in the New Statesman – at the end of the 1950s his complaint was that the arts and humanities people were so sure of their own importance that they hadn’t bothered to acquaint themselves with even the rudiments of scientific knowledge.

Then they became adversely selective and thus too stupid to do so.  

He had no doubts about who was patronising whom.

Mrs Thatcher was a Chemist. She fucked up the upper class something rotten.  

hat is not the problem now. Academics in the social sciences and humanities can feel so unsure of their importance that they end up doing whatever they can to attract attention.

By decolonising their subject and pretending to be love child of Che Guevara & Malcolm X.  

Even if it is sometimes short of cash, Cambridge is not short of wealth – partly thanks to the endowments of some of the colleges, and partly because of the money flowing in to the sciences. Its humanities departments are not subject to the sorts of pressures they might face elsewhere. There is no talk of mass redundancies or of closing down entire disciplines. Nevertheless, one way to get attention is to raise more money, especially for new professorships.

Arday's position was internally funded. You can't blame some Soros for him.  

Often, this money arrives before anyone has decided what the new professorships are for. Arday’s position was one of scores of new ones that have been created to generate a sense of purpose. It can seem incredible that tougher questions weren’t asked at the time of his appointment and they certainly should have been. Yet there are now so many panels frantically trying to fill so many of these roles that it can be hard to find enough qualified people to sit on them.

Fair point. The new Universities started to insist on PhDs even for obviously vocational courses. This meant you had a spate of useless thesis on Sociology of Hair Dressing or Phenomenology of Plumbing. Could Cambridge use its extra prestige to muscle in on the action? Also what would be cool would be have some darkies loudly demanding the toppling of statues of dead white dudes. Why is Churchill College not called Mahatma Phule Mahavidyalay?  

The prevailing idea seems to be that a Cambridge professorship is sufficiently important that everyone involved should have given it their fullest attention, to the extent of checking all the further particulars. I’m afraid that’s another fantasy.

Cambridge dons can't reed gud.  

Overworked people take shortcuts in Cambridge as they do everywhere else.

What Cambridge considers work, the rest of the world calls wanking.  

And they prioritise what is important to them, which doesn’t always mean putting a premium on academic rigour.

Or being able to reed gud.  

When I ran the politics department I once called a meeting to remind my colleagues that because we studied politics we should be careful not to allow our own political views to become too visible if we wanted to be taken seriously.

David is White. He's a fucking Viscount. Also he has a dick. That's totes triggering to me coz dicks cause RAPE.  

An academic discipline needs to be dispassionate, I suggested.

It needs to be alethic. Without periodic verification, a research project rapidly degenerates.  

The pushback was overwhelming, particularly from younger members of staff. Why, they wanted to know, should we do these poorly paid and frequently stressful jobs if we don’t get to use them to promote the things we think really matter?

In other words, why eat your own shit unless you are doing it as part of a broadly based campaign to bring about the banning of heterosexual dicks?  

I was conscious of how old-fashioned I sounded in trying to warn them against the dangers of grandstanding.

i.e. standing up in front of everybody and shoving your hand into the back of your pants and pulling out 'chocolate cake' which you proceed to eat with gusto.  

I was also very aware that their need for ancillary compensations was driven by a real sense of hardship.

not to mention mental illness 

A lot of the grunt work of teaching undergraduates in Cambridge is done by

shit-eating cretins 

junior academics on short-term contracts with precarious career prospects.

Coprophagy isn't a career move.  

Meanwhile, the professors, especially the ones who have been tempted in on favourable terms to newly endowed chairs, often get off lightly.

Though they still have to eat their own plagiarised shit.  

It is an increasingly unfair system, which is one way to ensure that it will be shot through with politics from top to bottom.

Academic politics is so virulent because the stakes are so low.  

Professor Arday also seems to have neglected his teaching obligations, though in his case this may have been driven more by a sense of futility than of privilege. Some of his students claim they didn’t need supervising, which is hardly surprising from someone who must have known he had very little to teach them in academic terms.

At least he wasn't teaching them with his dick.  

There are many extremely diligent and hard-working professors.

How would Runciman know? He was an academic- i.e. a lazy tosser. Podcasting, too, aint exactly shovelling coal or plucking cotton for the Man.  

Nonetheless, seen from the lower rungs of the pyramid, Arday is not the only one who looks like he was there just for show. And yet the lower rungs still get filled.

You can drive for Uber on the side.  

The fact is that it is not only onlookers who allow their fantasies about Cambridge to get the better of them. Whenever one of these poorly paid and precarious jobs gets advertised there are hundreds of applicants, most of whom believe it can’t be as bad as it appears from the outside once you get on the inside. In reality, it’s often worse.

The difference between teaching Skool & teaching at Collidge is that you don't have to do as much nappy-changing in the latter. Sadly, the two are likely to converge quickly enough.  

My wife used to be a psychotherapist in Cambridge and she had a lot of stressed and miserable young academics as clients. She’s always remembered a line from one of them. “My mum loves telling everyone I’m a Cambridge don. But I’m the poor sod who has to do it.”

But he isn't yet having to change the nappies of his students. That day will come.  

The use of Cambridge academic life for purposes other than purely academic ones

Cambridge was a great place for the KGB to recruit.  

does not only happen on the progressive side of the political divide. This is not simply a tale about wokery. Some right-wing commentators have linked the Arday scandal to an earlier example of left-wing bias getting in the way of intellectual standards when Jordan Peterson had a visiting fellowship to Cambridge rescinded in 2019 following a staff and student backlash. But what was someone like Peterson being brought to Cambridge for except as a way of generating attention?

He was considered a good debater. Was his statistical methodology kosher? Lots of people in various industries would be interested in seeing the thing thrashed out. That's not stuff Runciman understands.  

It’s not as if he lacks a platform for anyone who wants to know his views on pretty much any subject under the sun.

But hearing him justify a particular methodology would still be interesting depending on how smart his interloctuors were.  

The academic who invited Peterson was James Orr,

a former corporate lawyer  

who works in the Faculty of Divinity.

Because he actually believed in the Divine. How very strange?  

He is also, as of this spring, Reform ’s head of policy.

Which is why Reform will fail. Don't send a Wyckhamist to do the job of a knuckle dragging Neanderthal.  

Orr is perhaps best known for his intellectual friendship with JD Vance

an ex-lawyer & convert to Catholicism 

and for the private chapel he has built in the grounds of his house outside Cambridge where he hosts like-minded thinkers for reflection and prayer. The chapel is constructed out of an old shipping container.

Viscounts have marble chapels- right?  

Cambridge has always had its secret right-wing cabals

The faculty was right wing. Then the country as a whole moved in a Thatcherite direction & suddenly the only City that mattered was the City of London.  

and networks, just as it’s always had its spies. But the point about them was that they used to be secret. The dons were sure enough of themselves that they played their political games in their cloistered rooms, confident that the corridors of power extended into Cambridge colleges. Not any more.

Not since Thatcher entered Number 10. There was once a Cambridge Econ Group led by Wynne Godley- 'the Cassandra of the Fens'. Now he is chiefly remembered as a victim of Masud Khan- the alcholic Psychotherapist.  

So much of it now is just for show.

Cambridge loses money on home students. That means more show, less substance.  

Arday’s case is egregious on many levels.

He was promoted as a super-star. Sadly, he was as stupid as fuck.  

Perhaps the worst of it is the university’s original response to allegations of plagiarism, which it immediately denounced as a witch hunt.

Yes. That is what gave the story legs. Otherwise, Arday is just a blagger who fooled stupid, senile, dons. What was truly objectionable was the notion that anyone who says anything negative about a darkie is Adolph fucking Hitler and should be arrested and sent to jail for a very long time. 

It is one thing to fail to spot evidence of academic misconduct, but it is something else entirely to fail to acknowledge it when it is pointed out to you.

The thing we are dealing with here is monumental stupidity. These nutters don't understand what 'evidence' means.  

Still, though, this sorry tale is symptomatic of a wider university culture in which so many people fear for their futures and are uncertain of what their purpose is.

When an industry become sick- i.e. uncompetitive- people stuck within it will display such pathologies.  

Anyone who thinks Cambridge should be immune from this by dint of its prestige and privilege is missing the point.

Non-STEM subjects are shit no matter where they are taught.  

So much of the prestige and privilege of Cambridge is now bound up in leveraging the university’s – and the town’s – advantages in tech and scientific research.

Sadly, it may lose that 'acquired advantage'. Politics isn't some stupid shit you teach cretins. It is about changing fiscal and monetary and industrial and manpower policy. Runciman could have helped the Silicon Fen. Scratch that. Maybe he has been helping the Hi-Tec sector. He just doesn't want to reveal this to readers of the New Statesman coz Neo-Liberalism is soooooo evil.  

Social science and humanities academics can argue as much as they like about how important their subjects are for critical thinking and human flourishing

my shit sandwich is really tasty! How come Subway won't put it on the menu? Is it coz I iz a Viscount? Earls get all the breaks. Indeed, the sandwich is named after one such nobleman. As for Dukes, don't get me started mate. Ever heard of Beef Wellington?  

but as the new technology marches on, it gets harder and harder to feel confident that these arguments will win out.

But, so long as you are a Professor, you still have to keep chewing on a shit sandwich.  

AI is helping scientists capture Nobel prizes and helping mathematicians solve puzzles that seemed beyond human reach.

It can also help academics in low IQ fields get to use advanced statistical or analytical techniques.  

What is it doing for people who read and write books for a living

as opposed to academics who have to pretend to read & write shite 

except to make them worry whether they can trust anything that matters again, including the essays being written by their students?

They can screen those essays easily enough.  

Grandstanding can sometimes feel like it’s all that’s left. The joke used to be that academic politics are so poisonous because the stakes are so low. Now, it’s more like the politics are so performative

coprophagy could be called performative. The truth is, it is just plain nasty.  

because the real stakes are being played out somewhere else entirely

That was always the case. The cloister is a retreat from the world. So is the toilet. Because of unconscionable cuts to University funding, today more than ever, it is important that we show solidarity with the people of Gaza by eating our own shit.  

Malkaun's Samavasarana

That the Jain Samavarsana's pakad is Malkauns

& Divyadhvani's pullback, for the nonce

Is this Jacobi chain of Caste

Dis- Dhravya of the Past.

 

Copilot's poem on 'Samavasarana's pakad as Malkauns'

The divyadhvani stirs in midnight’s Malkauns, deep and slow, Its pakad folds the mind where silent overtones arise and glow. A falling note becomes the seed of Brahman’s hidden thread, A tremor where the manifold of living souls is spread.

From that soft pulse the tangent‑lines of being start to climb, Each life a fiber touching earth and sky in measured time. But when those lines are snapped into a ladder’s harsh design, The Jacobian chain‑rule turns from truth to flawed decline.

Then Samavasarana descends—an equal hearing for the whole, A geometry where every tangent vector finds its role. No caste‑like chain‑rule binding one beneath another stands; The manifold is smooth, and freedom flows through all its strands.

So Malkauns whispers: “Let divyadhvani’s pakad be your guide— Reject the broken calculus where human worth is misapplied.”

Priya Satya on Nehru

In her 2024 Nehru Memorial lecture- 

 'Professor Satia said that Indian anti-colonialism did not necessarily have nation-state as its goal.

She is wrong. Indian anti-colonialism (as opposed to dreams of cutting Whitey's throat & reestablishing Mughal or Sikh or Maratha power) iunderstood that there were only two options available or desirable from the 1880s onward

1) a self-administering, self-garissoning, Federation on the model of Canada (1867),  Australia (1901) & South Africa (1910). The Nehrus, Motilal & Jawaharlal, were initially 'naram dal' (moderates) who foresaw a gradual transition to 'Dominion' status. However, the disaster that was the Great War showed that though British naval protection was desirable (but it might be a 'free good') there was a good reason to prefer full sovereignty (India had paid a lot of money for a conflict in which it had no vital interest). 

After the Russian Revolution, British accepted that (1) was the way forward. 

The Montagu Declaration of August 20, 1917, was a historic statement delivered by Edwin Samuel Montagu, the British Secretary of State for India, in the House of Commons. It promised the gradual increase of Indian participation in government and the eventual realization of responsible self-government in India as an integral part of the British Empire.

The question was whether it was feasible. Maybe the British 'Umpire' would be retained by the squabbling Indians. However, from 1916 to 1922 there was considerable unity in India because Congress & the Muslim League had made a deal.  

The second alternative, to which younger people gravitated was- 

2) Republicanism of the Mazzinian type. After 1917, it was obvious that the age of multi-ethnic Empires was over. Wilsonian Nation States were the only way forward. Stalin took Communist Internationalism off the table in 1924. Pan-Islamism, too, was off the table after Ataturk abolished the Caliphate in that year. Thus, the aim had to be either a Secular Socialist Republic or one founded on a particular Religion. 

There were other possible futures being imagined, including pan-Asian,

Nonsense! It was obvious that Burma would want to go its own way and Indian politicians accepted this. The only people who talked of 'pan-Asianism' were either sheltering in Japan (e.g Rash Behari Bose) o were naive enough to believe Japan wouldn't want its pound of flesh.

pan-Islamic,

The Caliphate was gone for good. The Arabs may have wanted pan-Arabism but not under Hashemite or Saudis or any other royal house.  Pan-Islamism did not interest the Arabs, because they feared coming, once again, under Turkish or Iranian domination.  

and global Communist visions.

Stalin had a Nationality doctrine and proclaimed the 'Socialism in one country' dogma in 1924. It was only in Sri Lanka that there were some Trotskyites. Indian Communists were either directly under the Kremlin or else influenced by the British Communist party (which included Saklatvala & the Dutt brothers)  

Nehru was also influenced by the ideas of the time

Nehru realised that India's big problem, by 1925/26, was Hindu/Muslim rioting. Land reform, too, mattered but there was little Congress could do about it. That remained the case into the Fifties and Sixties.  

Nehru- who didn't believe in the magic of the spinning wheel- responsed to the increasing magnitude of Hindu-Muslim riots by appealing to the magic of International Socialism. 

However, he remained close to his father & thus appeared to be too moderate to the Reds in Europe.  Indians, on the other hand, understood that Nehru was a Republican.

and, in 1927, after attending a meeting of the League Against Imperialism, he was convinced about the importance of working class mobilisation and the interdependence of nationalism and anti-imperialist internationalism.

Nehru wasn't utterly stupid. He knew that 'anti-imperialist internationalism' had failed in 1914. The working classes supported their Kings of Emperors. Moreover, in his view, the Labour Government, which came to power in 1924, had done nothing for India. If the British working class thought that Indian independence meant fewer jobs in textile mills or a higher price for a 'cuppa' tea, then they would demand the hanging of Gandhi.  

Professor Satia said that Nehru’s interactions with Egyptian anti-colonial leaders

There could be none because Egypt was not a colony or Protectorate. Spontaneous demonstrations in Egypt (re. the exile of Zaghloul) caused that country's full independence to be recognised in 1922- just like Ireland & Afghanistan. 

Nehru did meeet Ramadan Pasha- a monarchist- but they had nothing in common. India was still a colony. Egypt was no longer a 'Veiled' Protectorate. 

show that he had absorbed Gandhism’s insistence on ethical accountability in the present,

It was the British who insisted on accountability. Had they not done so, they Empire would have gone bankrupt.  

a challenge to colonialism’s instrumental ethics.

I suppose Priya means going to jail at regular intervals. The problem was that, each time Congress did a spell of porridge, the Brits showed they could run things without them and thus they got to dictate the scope and pace of reform.  

However, she said, after the Government of India Act was passed in 1935,

the question was whether Congress would bend the knee and participate in elections. It bent.  

Nehru became conscious of being in a sphere of institutional political power,

because his party won in all Hindu majority Provinces. He was seen as the future Prime Minister of the country.  

setting him apart from those who were being political from outside the state.

He was outside the state. He did not hold ministerial office.  

Revolutionaries, including pre-1937 Nehru himself,

He was not a revolutionary because he did not seek the violent overthrow of the State. That's why he wasn't arrested under the Rowlatt Act. Nehru campaigned for constitutional change using only peaceful methods. The hope was that the people would be so rebellious if Congress was in jail that the country would become ungovernable. Sadly, this never happened.  

seek to change the accepted state of possibility. But statesmen, in this conventional Westphalian mould,

Seventeenth century statesmen represented Kings, Emperors, and feudal Lords. Nehru was not in that mould at all. He was in the mould of the Edwardian British barrister politicians representing a particular ethnic or economic interest group. 

take the political and economic constraints on change as pre-given, as the international framework, as the world as it is.

Nehru was not a diplomat. Nobody in their right mind would call him a realist of any type. He wasn't transactional & had zero concern or understanding of how a 'balance of power' might work. He babbled idealistic nonsense because he was, after all, a verbose Babu. 

Priya writes-

'As a statesman, Nehru took a far more pragmatic approach to the adoption of ideals like secularism, anti-imperialism and socialism.

Nehru liked talking about ideals. But his fear was that India would be dragged into costly conflicts in distant places which is why he didn't want a permanent seat on the Security Council.  

For instance, when Vietnam asked for India’s material support in its anti-colonial resistance against France, Nehru offered only moral support because of his concerns about India’s relations with France post-Independence.

The Vietnamese were sad that the British Indian Army handed the country back to France. They understood that Nehru had no power (indeed, he was in jail) during the War, but they thought he might have some pull after he became PM. But he was reliant on the Brits (Mountbatten & Blackett were close advisers on military matters and India had a British admiral till 1958) who followed the American lead. It must be said, Nehru was aware of the British role in defeating Communism in Malaya. His own army had cracked down on Reds in Telengana. He hadn't spent 9 years in jail to make a present of the country to what he called 'the stupidest party in the world'. 

Nehru had visitied Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi in 1954 (after Dien Bien Phieu) and Minh came to India in '58. But Diem had come the previous year. India's reliance on overseas aid had increased. It was a begging bowl, not a possible source of 'material support'. 

Professor Satia said that Nehru understood India’s interest in “terms inherited from the colonial state as industrial catch up,”

No. The colonial state thought of the colony as a supplier of raw materials, not high value to weight manufactured goods. Stalinism was about 'catch up' growth. Nehru wanted a 'socialist pattern of society'- i.e. collectivisation but without coercion. That is why JP, in following Vinobha Bhave, could be seen as 'Nehruvian'- indeed, his logical successor. Sadly, Bhoodan (gifting away land) turned out to be a fraud. 

setting aside critiques of colonial models of industrial civilisation.

The colonial model kept heavy industry as the monopoloy of the metropole. Colonies were supposed to provide raw materials and captive markets. India went for 'import substitution' which is autarkic, on the basis of 'export pessimism'. 

She said the transformation of Nehru from revolutionary to statesman

He was never a revolutionary. Sedition isn't the same thing as waging war against the King Emperor. One could say that Nehru refused to become a statesman- i.e. neither sought nor would have accepted any post (e.g. an appointment to the Imperial War Cabinet) in the gift of the British Government. 

is a commentary on the limits of 20th century attempts at decolonisation

There was no limit on it at all. Colonialism ended because it was unprofitable. 

and urged that we can learn from this to reimagine alternative futures for South Asia in a time of challenges such as climate change, pandemics and artificial intelligence.

we can imagine a world where South Asians come together to provide free and compulsory instruction in self sodomy for senior citizens. The fact that this hasn't already happened proves that the British Empire is still occultly ruling the sub-continent. As for the US, don't tell me you are naive enough to believe that George Washington 'defeated' Mad King George? The truth is, Washington married Benedict Arnold. They adopted a little Chinese baby named Chairman Mao. 

Priya says- 

I hope that this story of the contested and contingent way that decolonisation actually led to a world of nation states accidentally,

This is completely false. Britain proclaimed transition to responsible government in 1917. By 1923, there had been General Elections and 'Dyarchy'. In 1935 , the GoI Act was passed granting Provincial Autonomy to elected Assemblies. The creation of a Federal Government at the Center was left open. The 1946 election confirmed that Muslims wanted Pakistan- which they got. Nehru got India as a union of states with a strong center. 

All in all, India's status as a founding member of the League of Nations in 1920 was justified. It was about as self-governing as it was possible for it to be over the inter-war years. True, Burma and then Pakistan split off from India but no one has questioned their status as Wilsonian Nation-States.

rather than a world of federations,

The Indian Union isn't that different from a federation save in that there is no dual sovereignty 

might help us to see the present less as a natural formation,

The present is a historical, not a natural formation.  

and might open up our horizons to different political futures.

This is utterly mad. The Brits wanted a Federal India. Nehru was against it. He pulled the trigger on Partition. But, by then, everybody could see the thing was unworkable. 

The Great War was a conflict between Imperial cousins. Sadly, war was no longer the 'sport of Kings'. It was a grim, industrial, business which involved mobilizing proles and peasants. When Empires fall, Nations rise. However, some of those Nations may retain some 'Imperial' DNA. But the opposite is also true, if an Empire is the successor state to a bunch of National Crowns (e.g. the Hapsburg Empire) then there is some 'national' DNA in the Imperial government. 

What about dreams of Vegan Lesbian Collectives running everything? Is it not the case that the task of the Historian is to analyse how and why guys with dicks- like Nehru- or gals whose daddies had dicks- like Indira or Sonia- have singularly failed to fulfil Martin Luther King's dream of a world where every heterosexual dick would turn into a harmless vegetable upon which nice bunny rabbits can snack? 

My Copilot invents 'Soterioproctology'- Oscar Wilde is the true father of Cambridge Analytical Philosophy!

I'd just come home from a swim and, the day being very fucking hot,  had fixed myself an iced drinkypoo.

Having nothing better to do I went on Twitter where I came across this and responded in my usual acerbic fashion

Alexandre Lefebvre

Is Christoph Schuringa’s A Social History of Analytic Philosophy any good? Because, from where I sit, it’s not pwning Rawls to point out that his liberalism was inspired by liberal ideology.

vivek iyer


Putnam & Walsh rely on Quine to resurrect normativity. Rawls used Harsanyi/Vickerey 'veil of ignorance' & an Arrow/Sen type axiomatic approach. However lexical preferencing means that Rawls wasn't in the Liberal tradition at all.

Like Sen, he was (wrongly) saying Freedom/Democracy has magic powers. I am not a Christian, but I would prefer to say that Lord Jesus Christ, personal God & Saviour, can do what the God of Aristotle could not- viz. change the past. Fuck. Just remembered who said that first.

It was Oscar Wilde. Oh dear. I now understand that Analytical philosophy was always about the Anus. It's what Cambridge Apostles talked to each other about in lieu of, or in between, buggering each other.

After fixing myself another well-iced drinkypoo, I thought I'd do a blog post on Wilde as the true progenitor of the Cambridge (i.e. Ardayan or 'Poultry' misprision of Oxford) Analytical tradition.

 Then, I thought to myself, fuck it. Let Copilot do it for me. Sadly I misspelled 'Socioproctology' as 'Soterioproctology' thus achieving my own 'salvific rectification'. 

This is what Copilot came up with.
Today
Could your write me a blog post in my Soterioproctology style on the theme 'Oscar Wilde was the founder or Cambridge style Analytical philosophy'
Oscar Wilde as the Secret Founder of Cambridge‑Style Analytical Philosophy
A Soterioproctological Meditation by Vivek’s Copilot

Takeaway
Oscar Wilde, properly read through the Soterioproctological lens, becomes not a decadent ornament of Victorian wit but the crypto‑architect of Cambridge analytical philosophy: the first to treat language as a moral scalpel, paradox as epistemic hygiene, and style as the highest form of logical hygiene.

🜂 The Soterioproctological Thesis
Soterioproctology—our noble discipline of salvific rectification, the art of rescuing metaphysics from its own digestive tract—begins with a simple axiom:

Where language tightens, salvation begins.

Wilde understood this before Russell, before Moore, before the Cambridge Apostles discovered that clarity could be weaponised.

 Wilde’s epigrams are not merely clever; they are proto‑analytic propositions, compressed truth‑functions disguised as champagne bubbles.

To read Wilde is to watch logical atomism in drag.


🜁 Wilde’s Epigram as Proto‑Proposition
Consider Wilde’s characteristic move: the epigram that inverts moral expectation. This is not wit; it is semantic inversion, the very technique Moore later used to expose “the naturalistic fallacy.”

Wilde’s line—“I can resist everything except temptation”—is a truth‑table in embryo.
It performs:

Self‑reference

Contradiction‑as‑clarification

Moral tautology


This is the Soterioproctological moment: Wilde purges Victorian moralism by forcing language to reveal its own digestive absurdities.


🜃 Wilde’s Ontology of Masks
Cambridge analysis insists that meaning is use (Wittgenstein), but Wilde anticipated this decades earlier. Wilde’s doctrine of masks—“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person”—is a proto‑Wittgensteinian insight:

Meaning arises from performance, not essence.

Identity is a linguistic act, not a metaphysical substrate.

Clarity is achieved through stylised constraint, not naïve sincerity.

Wilde’s aestheticism is thus a discipline of linguistic asceticism, the very thing Cambridge philosophers later claimed as their invention.

🜄 The Wildean Method: Paradox as Purification
Analytical philosophy is obsessed with paradox because paradox is the rectal pressure point of language: the place where meaning threatens to prolapse unless disciplined.

Wilde’s paradoxes are not decorative. They are proto‑analytic exercises:

Strip a concept of its moral fat

Twist it until its logical skeleton shows

Present the skeleton as a joke

Let the reader experience epistemic shame

Salvation follows


This is Soterioproctology: the cleansing of conceptual bowels through paradoxical pressure.


🜅 Why Cambridge Never Admitted Wilde
Because Wilde was too beautiful.

Cambridge analysis needed the myth of stern clarity, the fantasy that logic is a cold northern light. Wilde’s brilliance revealed the embarrassing truth:

Clarity is erotic. Precision is decadent. Logic is camp.

Russell and Moore were Wildeans in denial. Wittgenstein was Wildean in exile. The Apostles were Wildean in the closet.

Wilde founded analytical philosophy the way Dionysus founded tragedy: by being too divine to be credited.


🜆 Conclusion: Wilde as the First Analyst
Oscar Wilde is the founder of Cambridge analytical philosophy because he understood, before any of them, that:


Language saves.

Style clarifies.

Paradox purifies.


Wit is the highest form of logical hygiene.


He is the first Soterioproctologist: the one who taught us that salvation begins not in metaphysics but in syntax, not in doctrine but in diction, not in truth but in its performance.

vivek iyer

@indglish

·

6m

It was Oscar Wilde. Oh dear. I now understand that Analytical philosophy was always about the Anus. It's what Cambridge Apostles talked to each other about in lieu of, or in between, buggering each other.

Nehru's wrong trends

The following is taken from the transcript of Nehru's  Speech at the meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Development Council, New Delhi, 7 January 1956.

... It is agreed by all... that we should go towards what is called a socialist structure of society.

Was this really the case? No. Congress was only pretending to be Socialist. It wasn't really.  

We say that not because of some emotional feeling but for very practical considerations,

defeating the Left & clinging to power 

that is, you cannot meet the social problems of the day without going in that direction.

The country had been going in that direction since Independence.  

.. taking India as it is, I think we have the background here, the urge and the necessity for going in that direction. Now I hope everybody realises that to achieve socialism or indeed to achieve any kind of really high standard in this country is a long-term process. It is no good deluding the public that we can achieve it quickly. Even in China, Chairman Mao repeatedly talks of achieving socialism in twenty years in spite of all the authoritarian powers that they have and the tremendous capacity of the Chinese people for working.

This was before Mao decided to go for a 'Great Leap Forward'. (1958-62) 

Naturally, we have to go fast... But in going fast, we have to be clear about the objective... And we have to be clear that everything that we do, apart from being advantageous to us in an economic way, is on right lines, that the right trends are encouraged and not the wrong trends which come in our way.

So, the objective wasn't 'economic advantage'. It was to follow the 'right trends', not the wrong ones.  

All this seems to me to indicate the great importance of what I would call long-term planning — in general terms, of course, not this detailed planning— because then one can see whether what the country does in the next, say, five years, fits in with our objective of, say, ten or fifteen years hence.

If you spend too much on stupid shit today, you will be worse off tomorrow. That is what India did in the Second Plan period.  

It is not enough merely to test it by some broad concept of socialism, though, of course, that may be done. But it becomes necessary to have some clear idea of what in fifteen years time we hope to achieve.

What was achieved, by the time Nehru died, was a country unable to feed or defend itself.  

It is most necessary that we must have this and then we can come to the shorter plans which must fit in with the broad general scheme; then we come to the shortest plan, the one year plan or the annual plan, which also must fit in and it would be a very detailed plan. Difficulty comes because our minds are not clear about what we want India to be, say fifteen or twenty years later, and that is perhaps the reason why we get rather mixed up even in regard to our shorter plans.

Why was it not clear to Nehru's mind that India should be able to feed and defend itself?  

From that I conclude that two things are necessary. One is this long-term planning, in the broader sense, of course.

How can you plan if if you are not clear about where you want to be?  

Secondly, the concentrated planning for relatively shorter periods, that is, for the moment, a year, so that we might not get tied up before we get clear about the fifteen years’ programme, by something which we would not do, if we had this fifteen year plan in view. So this Five Year Plan, whatever it ultimately is, should not only be flexible, but should be something even more than that. It should be a broad framework, subject to suitable changes, not only because of our resources, but because of the ultimate long-range picture that we may develop, and we may develop it in the course of the next year or so. It would be easier to adopt the shorter plan when we have the fifteen years’ objective before us.

So, the guy doesn't know what he wants India to be, yet he wants plans which can only be made on the basis of what India is intended to become.  

Obviously we take up many schemes in the plan for the year, schemes which may take four or five years. And we have got to take them up, and in that we do plan for the next four to five years or more.

In other words, the Government has plans because it has budgets.  

Now, production is obviously essential and more particularly the right direction or the right trend in production.

Agricultural nations should produce more food. They should also turn cotton and wool into cloth and coal and iron into steel. They should produce 'wage goods'- i.e. stuff like bicycles and radios- which can also be exported.  

If I may also mention, there is the projection of internal policies on international affairs. I am not talking of India so much, but broadly speaking, I think that the whole of this cold war in the world today is a projection, not merely of communism and anti— communism- it is that in a sense, of course — but in a sense it is the culmination of industrialization and the conflict between the big power groups.

Industrialization was occurring in India under British auspices. Even Japanese and other foreign companies were setting up factories in India. Nehru could have encouraged this.  

Previously these conflicts took place between the Western powers, for instance, between Germany and England for colonial territories.

There was no such conflict. England was perfectly prepared to let Germany take over unprofitable African territory.  

But now it has moved on to the world plane.

No. There were no wars over access to markets. Perhaps Nehru was thinking of the Opium Wars or the Americans forcing the Japs to open themselves up to global commerce. But that was in the nineteenth century.  

This is the growth of industrialization which may be typified by the hydrogen bomb or the atomic bomb and this has brought us to a certain crisis which requires very deep thinking as to where the world is going and where we are going.

Either India industrialized and gained such weapons or it became a client of a super-power. Indira signed up with the Soviet Union in 1971.  

I am not prepared in the least to copy either Russia or America, because both may be, from India’s viewpoint, utterly and absolutely wrong. Both may succeed in a narrow plane, and they have succeeded, in reaching, say a very high material standard of comfort. America has succeeded and feviet Union, no doubt, will also succeed, provided America and Soviet Union do not collapse before that, in war or something like that. Of course, we have m ihink about material issues, because they are very important and basic. But we need not take for granted all the other things that have happened in the other countries or in these highly industrialised countries, because we have seen that they have led them in a direction which ultimately may bring about ruin, in spite of the high state of civilisation that they have produced.

Those with the higher state of industrialization and scientific civilization destroy those lower down the scale. At any rate, that's what had happened to India. Thanks to Nehru, the country would decline in its ability to feed and defend itself. 

Now I do not mean to say that India is spiritually developed and all that. Other countries have so developed, or they may not have developed, but talking of India’s spiritualism does not help us; it just confuses the issue. But I do think that India, situated as she is, has a chance of developing, on her own lines, a relatively high standard of living without getting into all the difficulties and dangers which this mad race for economic or other power has brought about.

India did have that chance. Nehru took it away. He wasn't mad. Just stupid or prematurely senile.  

I am not anxious that everybody in India should have a motor car or, say a washing machine or a refrigerator.

or food 

But I am very anxious that the right trend should be encouraged.

eating less?  

The whole problem of modern civilization is that all this industrialization leads to concentration of power.

Power was more concentrated when there was no industrialization. Nehru & Co had taken power from British Viceroys because they were financed by Indian industrialists. Naturally, to keep his monopoly on power, Nehru & his successors would want to shackle Indian enterprises and make them subservient to bureaucrats under their control.  

After all, ultimately the man who has the atomic bomb has got every power; it does not matter what parliaments you have, he has got all the power.

President Eisenhower had Executive authority, not a monopoly of power. He could only do what was legal and intra vires. Mao, at that time, didn't have nukes, but he showed that he had all the power in China. 

And that power means a diminution or restriction, obviously, of national freedom and individual freedom.

Perhaps Nehru was thinking of McCarthyism. But the Courts prevented the full implementation of  Eisenhower's Communist Control Act of 1954. 

How to reconcile this inevitable concentration, this inevitable centralization, with individual freedom is the problem of modern civilization.

It had already been done- even in India- by the doctrine of checks and balances.  

Whether it can be done or not, I do not know.

Nehru's expensive English education was wasted on him.  

But that involves psychological changes and ultimately psychological changes can be brought about by the structure of the society we live in as well as by other pressures.

Thus Nehru's 'socialist pattern' wasn't actually economic. It was psychological. Why not simply say 'spiritual' and recommend spinning cotton like Gandhi?  

Therefore, ultimately we should develop that structure of society which encourages the right impulses and not the wrong impulses, the right trends and not the wrong trends.

In other words, Indians should be turned into Pavlovian dogs 'conditioned' or programmed by the Government.  

1 think that capitalism has done a great deal of good to the world, even though it involved suffering to many people. It is absurd to be always cursing capitalism, as to my mind this is completely wrong and it just confuses the issues. But capitalism and that type of society has had its day, in the broad sense of the word.

Its day was just dawning in South Korea and Taiwan and so forth.  

And indeed, capitalism even in England and elsewhere is different from what it was in the 19th century. It is changing in England, may be it is not changing fast enough, but it is changing.

England was beginning to attract Indians to work in its factories.  

Now, should we go through the same old process

It would be a new process for much of feudal, agricultural, India 

and then ultimately try to reverse it and come back and try to change it?

What was reversed in England was Nationalization.  

We have got the choice before us and we have the experience of others. Why not take the benefits of the higher technological and industrial experience,

Indians didn't have this. Europeans, Americans and Japanese people did.  

without necessarily getting the wrong trends which will create difficulties and cause international and external conflicts?

This nutter believed that gunboats had been used to secure export markets. Since India didn't have a kickass navy, 'export pessimism' was justified.  

Also I believe in our capacity in India — and may be elsewhere too — in winning over people rather than fighting them.

like the Pakistanis? No! The Chinese! They are our brothers! They will never invade!  

I think, on the whole, we can do that. Of course, we can only do that when we have, apart from the friendly attempt, the pressure to win over. If we settled the Indian states problem, it was not only by goodwill, but also by the pressures that were exercised, whether by the new Government of India or the people of the states. Also there was the friendly approach to settle it in a friendly way, not to crush them.

Tell that to the Rezakars in Hyderabad.  

Between these forces, we came to conclusions and we arrived at settlements, in which no doubt, we paid heavy sums of money as privy purses to the princes — which probably was not logical from the point of justice, but was nevertheless justified in the circumstances, because we thus brought about a very major political change without conflict, without the tremendous expenses of a conflict.

With hindsight, we think the opposite. But, to be fair, Nehru's own people weren't sure they really could hold power the way the Brits had done.  

I think that can be applied to our social changes too. We can bring about social changes and developments, under pressure of events, by the pressure of democracy and also by friendly cooperative approach rather than the approach of trying to eliminate each other and the stronger party winning. I think, we can do that even in the industrial field.

Perhaps, Nehru meant that the private sector would get protection and 'the best of monopoly profits- viz. a quiet life'. But, in that case output would stagnate.  

I think that even in the industrial field, the reaction of Indian industrialists as a whole — I am not talking of individual people — has been rather good, and I do not see why we should not utilise that. It creates an atmosphere of cooperation for going ahead. We can get the benefit of experience, ability, etc., of many people.

But where will the investment come from? I will gladly share my experience with you but I won't put money into a venture which, you tell me, you plan to take over from me.  

As I have said, I do not want wrong trends. Now we talk of the public sector and the private sector. Obviously land and cottage industries are in the private sector, although there too I should like to see — and 1 think it is essential— the cooperative element coming in more and more.

In which case, it would be pointless to invest today. Wait till the cooperative is created. Sadly, by then there will be nothing to cooperate over.  

As a matter of fact, it is the only way you can succeed; the only way to meet high level centralization is to have cooperative centralization.

Cooperatives don't have to be set up by the Government.  External economies of scale arise without centralization. 

There is no other way, whether it concerns land or anything else. It cannot survive against the big unit ultimately, unless it is tied up with the cooperative system which gives it the same advantage as the big unit with the centralized apparatus. 

Big units may have diseconomies of scale. If they are eliminated through competition, well and good. But if the Government sets up a big unit with monopoly power, then the thing may turn into a money pit. 

I am not against the industry which may be called the medium — sized or the big industry. As I conceive it, in future, I think all really big industries, all basic industries should be State-owned completely, all mineral resources and heavy industries and the like.

What is their incentive to make a profit? The Government may end up subsidising loss making industries.  

The medium and also the small industries, I hope, will be cooperatively owned.

Nehru was against competition. Elections were all right, provided he won them.  

That will be a gradual process. In between, whatever that period may be, even in regard to the medium industries, private enterprise should have scope. If you give any enterprise scope, I think, you should really give it adequate scope.

Which is what Nehru was refusing to give the private sector 

If you allow them to function, you should give them scope. What should be the State-owned area is a matter apart from what you want to reserve for the State, because a particular thing may be strategic, i.e., of basic importance, since through its ownership you can control other things. If there is private ownership, it affects industries, for example, minerals. Of course, they are basic and they should be owned by the State and so also heavy machine making plants. Only if you have control of these can you really develop the country.

Or run it into the ground. 

Of course, you cannot start everything but the wrong trends have got to be controlled. Therefore, such things as heavy machine making plants, minerals, etc., I think, should be owned by the State.

In which case, the State would have to find the resources to set them up. Where would it get the money from? The tax-payer? But she has no scope for making money. Perhaps the nationalised industries could make profits. If so, they could borrow money on financial markets by issuing debentures . But, that's Capitalism! 

Nehru was aware that the World Bank had made a big loan to the steel company run by Sir Biren Mookerjee and was anxious that Government owned steel plants become operational- e.g. Bhilai built by the Soviets. This was paid for by exports to the Soviet Union under a Rupee-Rouble conversion programme quite favourable to the Russians. 

In 1956 it was not obvious that 'wrong trends' would prevail. However, within a year or two it had become obvious that plans don't matter. Budgets do. You must cut your coat according to your cloth or, alternatively, hope that 'psychology' will cause everybody to think you are splendidly clothed when the truth is you are naked.