I am old enough to remember a time when there were some old people who remembered a time when Amnesty International wasn't crap. The same can't be said for Aakar Patel, current head of the Indian branch. He writes in the Deccan Herald-
Why Have We Got So Insecure That Questions Begin To Rattle Us Now?
Any shithead can ask questions. Nobody gives a crap about them. In this case, a young Norwegian journalist- Helle Lyng Svendsen- who is exactly as stupid as her name sounds- says her Facebook & Instagram accounts were suspended. But that was probably because lots of people complained. She simply does not matter to Indian diplomacy. I suppose, since Norway exports oil and India is a big importer, that was the only thing of interest to either country.
For the past 12 years, India’s diplomats have been operating under a Nehruvian carapace.
Fuck off! Nobody gives a shit about Nehru or diplomats. Still, if Modi has a couple of ex-IFS officers in his Cabinet, maybe they weren't all shite.
We have been telling the world, particularly the democratic and developed nations, that we are secular, pluralist and liberal.
No. We have been saying our economy is booming and that we are a great place to invest.
That we respect human rights and individual liberties. This is of course false
Nobody gives a fuck about shite only virtue signalling nutters bang on about.
When Israel is told it is misbehaving in the region, and that its idiotic war has damaged the world, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pointing to the validation of Israel offered by the mother of democracy as his defence. That medal was extremely good value for money.
Bibi is saying 'India is Hindu. We have a strategic partnership with them against a possible Turkey/Pak/Saudi/Iran axis. Even if the Yanks fuck off, the Kaffirs can get the better of the Jihadis. Aakar has shit for brains. He doesn't understand why Modi got the medal. India wants to send the message that, as Modi said, Israel will provide the innovation, while India provides the aspiration- i.e. makes cheap drones or whatever.
Assume for a moment that I am a big and strong fellow who lifts heavy weights easily and is flexible and fit. If someone approached me to comment on what they saw as my being unhealthy and absence of strength, would it affect me?
You'd beat the shit out of him. First he tells you you are a weakling. Then he says you take it up the arse. Then he rapes you. Failure to beat the shit out of the fellow implies not just consent but that you are a cum dumpster.
If the first assumption is true, that I am in fact big and strong, then it should not make any difference. In all likelihood, I will ignore the comments and move on.
He goes around saying 'I'm worried about X. I told him he was looking weak and unhealthy. Does he have cancer? If so, can we really rely on him? Maybe we shouldn't renew his contract.
Assume that I am wealthy and have been for generations. Why would the remark from a stranger pitying the fact that I was poor or that I looked destitute upset me or anger me?
Because it affects your credit rating or the value of shares in your company. Sue the cunt for libel.
It was not a reflection of the truth, which was that I was in fact not only rich but had been so almost forever. The view that someone else holds of me will not affect me negatively if that view is not only wrong but the opposite of what I know to be reality.
But your reputation does matter. If people think you are a coward, people will be more apt to challenge you to a fight. If people think you are poor, they may not want to do business with you. There's a reason laws of libel exist.
The remarks from others about me only bite when they are close to the truth, and when I am insecure about the very things that their words carry.
Aakar's job is to tell stupid lies. Fortunately, he is, by nature, a stupid liar. Thus he doesn't feel insecure at all.
The words of a young woman, a foreign reporter, have caused the mighty ministry of external affairs to lecture her, and the world at large, about the greatness of this nation.
Nobody cared.
Lessons were given about our heritage and our culture and ancient traditions in response to an anodyne question about freedom.
Freedom is a matter of law. If you think your freedom has been wrongly violated take it up with the Bench, not the Foreign Ministry.
Something about constitutional values and fundamental rights, including the right to approach the Supreme Court, was also said. The young woman followed up with a question which will not occur to most Indians. Why, she asked, did Indians have to approach the Supreme Court to claim fundamental rights?
They can approach any court including the Supreme Court. Only the judiciary can grant judicial
The answer from our foreign office grandee was that it was his press conference and therefore presumably she should shut up.
Because she was utterly stupid
The media here then jumped in. Not on the side of its fraternity, mind you, but to close ranks with the government and scream at the reporter for daring to ask things that were so obviously false. What the point of any of it was lost to the dispassionate observer, but it is interesting to examine the pathology here.
Beyonce gives a press conference. A reporter asks 'how do you justify your decision to carpet bomb Cambodia?' Beyonce says 'I'm not Nixon. Fuck is wrong with you?' Other journalists tell the fucker to shut up. You are making the rest of us look bad.
Why do we get angry and upset when questioned about our behaviour and values if we are secure in the truth?
Because telling stupid fuckers to go fuck themselves is a good way to release steam.
The answer to that can only be that we are not in fact secure. And then the next questions must arise: is that because we are insecure despite the truth? Or insecure because what we are claiming is not true?
No fucking questions arise if you beat and chase away shitheads.
Let us assume that the first is the case. That India and its government are insecure despite the truth, and the facts, which are that we are a democratic nation, where individuals have liberty and that the State is not malign.
India, like other nations, isn't going to be lectured on democracy and human rights and sodomy for senior citizens.
We are merely touchy when we are asked about the subject.
We say 'shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt.
If that is so, then the advice to foreign reporters and observers is to engage us as if we were children.
Tough guys. Fuck with us and we will shit in your mouth.
We should be patted on the head, told we are good boys and girls, and given some sort of lollipop.
Aakar gets lollipop & stuffs it up his bum.
Being asked hard questions will provoke a tantrum from us and this should be avoided.
Fuck tantrums. Beat the shithead.
It should be mentioned here that this is how other nations deal with our government. If they want something from us, they will offer us a lollipop (or a medal) and a place to recite our little speech, and then extract from us what they need. When Israel is told it is misbehaving in the region, and that its idiotic war has damaged the world, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pointing to the validation of Israel offered by the mother of democracy as his defence. That medal was extremely good value for money.
This shithead doesn't get that Israel & India are helping each other militarily. Licking the lollipop Aakar extracts from his bum is a job for the head of Amnesty International.
Let us now turn to the other possibility, that we are insecure because we know that what we are claiming is false. That we are not in fact as democratic or liberty-loving as we claim to be, and to be reminded about that begins to upset and anger us.
Other people have real jobs. Aakar gets paid to lick a shit-stained lollipop.
If this is the case, there is an easier solution for it. It does not concern the external world and they do not need to calibrate their behaviour towards us or treat us as children. This solution is to simply speak the truth.
Aakar can do nothing of the sort.
India’s government now speaks with a forked tongue.
No. It speaks with a pragmatic, albeit, upbeat, tongue.
It says things and behaves locally in a different way than it speaks abroad.
It does last mile delivery for its own people. It trades with other countries and has partnerships in specific areas with some of those countries.
It does not brag to the world and their reporters about bulldozers and lynchings and bail-denials and voter-deletions and community-exclusions that are the basis of New India.
Because foreigners don't have votes in India. Thus bragging is restricted to the places where it is happening.
It talks the language of Nehru and inclusion.
Nobody does so. DEI is DOA.
It would be easier for all of us and for the world and its reporters, if we stopped lying about what we are actually all about.
Just say 'I'm a virtue signalling cretin. Ignore me'.
Someone making a clever pun said that diplomats are individuals sent to lie abroad for their country.
Whereas the King lies at home. The pun arises from the fact that the Monarch is sail to lie at such and such place. The Ambassador, as the King's representative, was said to do so as well.
But given the anxiety and anger that lying is producing, we should consider the option that honesty might be the best diplomatic policy.
Diplomacy is about signalling. Indian diplomats are signalling that India is a reliable partner for specific purposes with specific countries. Aakar thinks Indian Ambassadors should be saying 'India is a shithole. Don't visit. Don't invest. Stay the fuck away.'
No comments:
Post a Comment