For a while now I have been meaning to write about a topic that has been of great concern to me (I am pretty sure most of my co-bloggers are as disturbed by it as I am). I have noticed that the blogosphere, with its ability to confer an anonymous voice to anyone, is often the venue for ignorant and naked jingoism. A blog like ours, which mostly covers items about, and of interest to North Americans of South Asian origin, offers a particularly unique window into what I am referring to. All of the bloggers who write for SM live in North America. Some were born here and some were not. The resulting mix of loyalties, the perception of mixed loyalties, our readers expectation of mixed loyalties, or our readers anger at a lack of loyalty toward the lands of our “origin,” results in a perfect storm. SM and a few other sites like it are being viewed by some as a sort of virtual ideological battlefield where the hearts and minds of several thousand readers hang in the balance.
Jingo: (n) One who vociferously supports one’s country, especially one who supports a belligerent foreign policy; a chauvinistic patriot. [link]
In its traditional use the word “jingo” (a pejorative term) means something far different than the word “patriot.” A patriot loves their country or geographic region and is ready to defend it…but is not above questioning it or beyond introspection. A true patriot is willing to defend against all enemies both external and internal. A jingo is the worst kind of nationalist (even worse when mixed with religion). They lash out at the tiniest hint of criticism directed at “their own.” A few days ago a reader commented on what he saw transpiring on our News Tab:
Off topic, but also in a strange way, slightly related to this topic, is the way in which the news tab here on Sepia Mutiny is used as a repository for anti Muslim chauvinism. This goes beyond the legitimate posting of stories on Muslim extremism and runs to the extent of posting articles from the RSS newspaper, posting about Little Green Football style documentary screeds about ‘The Truth About Islam’. I have noticed how these posts amazingly get large numbers of ‘Interested’ clicks in a short amount of time. Amazing!Amusingly, someone has now posted a ‘Trouble with Hinduism’ article in response to this bigotry as a means of showing how it works both ways. Good. Chauvinists are using the news tab for their bigoted agenda. You should at least be aware of it. It is so tedious to see these monomaniacs waging their campaign and abusing what is an open and useful facility on SM. [link]
<
p>Yes, we are well aware of this phenomenon and will work to stamp it out as best we can. You can accuse us of censorship if you’d like but this isn’t about censorship but about remaining true to belief that communication is more important than simply being heard. A few weeks ago Anna sent her co-bloggers the following email:
Subject: I find the popularity of this news item a bit disturbingThe article linked reads like a SpoorLam rant…except it’s not funny.
<
p>That was one of the most popular articles in terms of number of votes we had that day…and it was little more than anti-Muslim propoganda. Last week when I posted about Bill Clinton’s foreword in Madeline Albright’s new book, I was accosted by jingoes (not only on this site but on another one). By posting about a newsworthy item, and one of interest to members of the South Asian American community, I was deemed complicit by many in some sort of character assassination of the Indian Army. It didn’t matter that I had quoted in the same post from an article which layed the blame for the incident mentioned therein on Lashkar e Taiyba, or that I had linked to Nitin Pai’s excellent blog posts on the topic (which provided a viewpoint different from Clinton’s). Instead, the very fact that I would provide a mic for Clinton’s beliefs or exhibit curiosity about the motivation behind his thoughts elicited an angry response from many who accused myself and SM of disliking Hindus and Indians (some comments were deleted before I closed down the post). Other readers may have had valid and reasonable points to make, but as someone who blogs on SM as a hobby I don’t have time to spend an entire afternoon moderating comments. None of us do.
<
p>In the same post mentioned above I quoted from author Pankaj Mishra’s new book in which he writes about the same incident that Clinton referred to. That elicited this response:
It is also wonderful that you mention that arch traitor, Pankaj Mishra in this context, since it is he with his wonderful investigative reporting, who first started this canard about the Indian Army’s involvement in the massacre. [Link]
You see, Pankaj Mishra is an arch traitor because he dared to criticize the Indian government or voice his opinion in a reasonable manner. Maybe I am now considered a traitor to many Indians (even though I am American) for even citing him in a post. That commenter was by no means the only one who felt that way. Coincidentally, the same Pankaj Mishra had an op-ed in this week’s NY Times. It is titled “The Myth of the New India.” A reader let us know about this article by posting it to our News Tab. This is how the reader described the article in their own sarcastic words:
India should stop trying to pretend that it’s a success. India should know its true place as the disgusting, third world country it really is! Or so says the article. [link]
I really liked that last sentence, “or so says the article.” For the record, the article said no such thing. Yes, it was critical of India on some points. A jingo however cannot let such an insult pass. How dare Mishra say anything bad about India. Here are some of the critical points Mishra makes:
In recent weeks, India seemed an unlikely capitalist success story as communist parties decisively won elections to state legislatures, and the stock market, which had enjoyed record growth in the last two years, fell nearly 20 percent in two weeks, wiping out some $2.4 billion in investor wealth in just four days. This week India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, made it clear that only a small minority of Indians will enjoy “Western standards of living and high consumption.”
There is, however, no denying many Indians their conviction that the 21st century will be the Indian Century just as the 20th was American. The exuberant self-confidence of a tiny Indian elite now increasingly infects the news media and foreign policy establishment in the United States.
Encouraged by a powerful lobby of rich Indian-Americans who seek to expand their political influence within both their home and adopted countries, President Bush recently agreed to assist India’s nuclear program, even at the risk of undermining his efforts to check the nuclear ambitions of Iran. As if on cue, special reports and covers hailing the rise of India in Time, Foreign Affairs and The Economist have appeared in the last month. [Link]
Even after the hundreds of positive articles about India that have been published this past year, a jingo cannot let such a few critical comments pass without stringing Mishra up. How dare his criticisms reach impressionable readers in a place like the NY Times op-ed page? This is an insult to India!
In this past week’s Newsweek, Christopher Dickey has an article about the rise of American Nationalism that I feel is a must read. He effectively captures what I have been feeling and his article served as the catalyst for me finally sitting down to get this post off my chest [yes, I know it is soapboxy but it is my soapbox 🙂 ]. In it he liberally quotes from Orwell:
Orwell wrote that nationalism is partly “the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects.” He said it’s not to be confused with patriotism, which Orwell defined as “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people…”But American nationalism, unlike American patriotism, is different-and dangerous.
The second part of Orwell’s definition tells you why. Nationalism is the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or an idea, “placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.” Patriotism is essentially about ideas and pride. Nationalism is about emotion and blood. The nationalist’s thoughts “always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. 
Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception.”
One inevitable result, wrote Orwell, is vast and dangerous miscalculation based on the assumption that nationalism makes not only right but might-and invincibility: “Political and military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties.” When Orwell derides “a silly and vulgar glorification of the actual process of war,” well, one wishes Fox News and Al Jazeera would take note…<
p>For Orwell, the evils of nationalism were not unique to nations, but shared by a panoply of “isms” common among the elites of his day: “Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, anti-Semitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism.” Today we could drop the communists and Trotskyites, perhaps, while adding Islamism and neo-conservatism. The same tendencies would apply, especially “indifference to reality.”
“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts,” said Orwell. “Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage-torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians-which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them…” [Link]
That last quote summarizes quite well what many of us are witnessing play out before us in this new anonymous blogosphere. It is jingoistic one-upsmanship. If one guy posts a news article about a crime committed by a Hindu then another will post one about a crime by a Muslim. If one guy puts up an article critical of India then another will follow with one about how evil Musharraf is. Anyone that criticizes what is perceived by some as “their proper side,” is a traitor. And so on and so on. Orwell had it right.
Blogging has definitely caught the attention of the boffins as a research tool on ideogical/political and related issues :
Vikram, you missed the best quote in that article:
Yep, a “terse” entry like this rambling treatise on legal issues… 😉
Abhi, I am the individual who made that comment about Mr Mishra. The reason that I characterized him as such is not because he “dared criticize” the Indian govt, or because he voiced an opinion I did not like. It is because he made a series of as yet unsubstantiated allegations (or should I say, implied) regarding a terrible event that occurred several years ago. He was one of the only people in the Indian media who made such an allegation, which is not substantiated until today. These allegations were not much short of accusing organs of the Indian government of orchestrating the murder of more than 40 of its citizens. Incidentally these allegations were not made in the Indian press, rather he chose to publish them in the NYT and the NYRB, who have continued to carry his articles. I don’t have any qualms about the names I called him, and I am sure many others feel this way. Canards and allegations of the kind that he has made have a very material effect on the credibility and ability of the government to take neccesary measures for its citizens. At the very least, they give ammunition to terrorist propaganda organs and their state sponsors. Making unsubstantiated allegations of the sort he made are at the very least irresponsible, and less charitably, malicious.
This is your blog and it is your right to put up and give space to the writings of whomever you feel like. However, that you have so conveniently overlooked the distinction between critical opinion and factual journalism is not particularly helpful to the credibility of the case you make. Pankaj Mishra’s latest Op-Ed is opinion, and maybe critical opinion, and I have no quarrel with such writings, even though I don’t agree with them. His articles on the Chattisinghpura massacre are not “criticisms of the Govt of India”, they are unsubstantiated (after 6+ years) allegations about the facts of the incident, and are probably lies. This is the same as the difference between being upset over the US Govt’s actions in Iraq and making concrete statements about specific instances of the US Army’s human rights abuses in Iraq. The latter could be proven and specific cases of human rights violations have been documented (with photographic evidence), while the former is a general statement of opinion. Mr Mishra’s statements about the Chattisinghpura massacre are an example of the latter, more specific instance, but without any of the evidence that should go with such allegations.
I am sure you are clever enough to understand this distinction, which is why I believe your previous post in this matter, and to this extent the present one is disingenuous (This is just my opinion, of course).
You see, Pankaj Mishra is an arch traitor because he dared to criticize the Indian government or voice his opinion in a reasonable manner.
Abhi,
There is nothing wrong with criticizing or being the ram rod for India (citizen or not). However, do it with care and rigor.
Naipaul for most of life did that and some people admired him for his stance. Some not. He is an astute observer, no doubt.
Pankaj Mishra is a very sloppy guy. He is scholarship is very shoddy. Please read carefully. He is making career being Uncle T…
His NYT article is not even objective – talking Sergei Birgin, the daily fluctuations of Dalal Street (did he compare to similar fluctuations on Wall Street on the same days) as end of the world and India being a shakey place. He clearly racked all the negatives against India and presented/ packaged them (they were not even original thoughts, for pete sake) – Do you honsety believe he was being objective or being a keen observer? Please let me know, I just came back from India last month. No doubt, India is still a developing country but is moving at the second fastest pace in the world.
Have you read his views on Hinduism, and careless statements he makes.
America Government made lot of mistakes after 9/11 – Does that mean they were complicit for 9/11? British cops killed a innocent man – Does that mean British cops were covering up their role in 7/7> Pankaj Mishra used same analogy and people hailed him as lightening rod, come on. He has back pedaled big time, since then.
Pankaj Mishra has every right to go on and on. Should we take him seriously, I have doubts.
I should add that it is interesting that you use exactly the same rhetorical tools (ignorant, naked jingoism) to attack your critics as they do to attack your posts. As far as I am concerned, I don’t have any expectations of “mixed loyalties” or any such thing from the people on this blog and I understand that this is by American citizens. Which is why I did not comment directly on Mr Clinton’s statement in his book, as I am sure he does not write anything without considering his nation’s agenda. I don’t even agree with most of the other people you accuse of “chauvinism” and the like. But, on the matter of Mr Mishra, treating him as an authority on the Chattisinghpura massacre, is a bit much. If questioning his credibility on the basis of his claims is “naked, ignorant jingoism” to you, then I guess our definitions of these words are different.
First of all I did no such thing. I included a quote from an author whose book dealt with Chattisinghpura and came out at the exact same time that Clinton’s introduction in Albright’s book was written. Two books about the same incident that happened years ago coming out at the same time is very blogworthy. You are making your own wild interpretations beyond that.
But how does telling people about what Mishra wrote in his book make ME sloppy or critical of India? Am I supposed to know who some Indians consider shoddy and who they don’t? Should I care? Do I say anywhere that Mishra had it right? And Kush you should know better then to use an Uncle Tom argument. That is scraping the bottom of the barrel when trying to argue a point.
No. This is where a distinction must be made. Jingoism is questioning MY right to post the opinion of someone who is critical of a view that you hold dear. Mishra is a person who, whether right or wrong, has a book out that many people may end up buying. The fact that I am drawing attention to the opinion contained within his book is what upsets you. “If I draw attention to it then it must mean that I believe it because why else would anyone draw attention to bad things.” Attacking Mishra isn’t necessarily jingoism. Trying to silence opinion is.
I have nothing broadly negative about Pankaj Mishra but his reporting on the Chattingsinghpora massacre in the New York Review of Books (1999?) was really astonishing. He basically said the indian army was responsible. There was no evidence given, no identification, nothing.
It was left to Barry Bearak of NY times to actually trace through all of the connections and get reak identification of the militants. Bearak (in a NY times weekend magazine article) did all the legwork and finally even spoke with the parent of one of the militants in Pakistan. HE wasn’t able to identify the funding source so I cannot say definitively whether it was sponsored by specific groups in Pakistan. I accept that there could be rogue groups within indian J&K that may have had a hand.
When an individual such as Pankaj Mishra has a high profile in the west and elsewhere, this profile does come with some responsibility and need to maintain standards. This is the part that is missing or weak about him. Other than that he is just another guy making a living by some means….
Were SpoorLam’s inane bigoted anti-Hindu rants jingoistic?? But the bigotry hidden under the guise of “sarcasm” was ugly and reprehensible (to me atleast).
Having said the above, I do agree that those posting on the news tab were blatantly anti-Muslim and bigoted. The people who were doing that are just crowding out space with noise.
The problem with the web is that anyone with an extreme agenda can also get a platform. I think that evolution of these revolutionary medium (internet) will be like the MSM’s (newspapers) evolution. By that I mean that sites(or paper) of record will use descretion in deciding what information should be allowed to be diseminated via its medium. (It has already happened)
I dont know much about the Chattisingpura incident, but Indian Army killing Sikhs for no apparent reason doesnt seem to make sense to me. With the Chief of Army Staff being a Sikh…
Abhi:
The irony here is that those who confront Muslim chauvinism are themselves being labeled chauvinists. It’s certainly a legitimate and real concern, as some who confronted white racism here in the US themselves descended into their own form of jingoism—the Nation of Islam and Black Panthers come to mind. But that doesn’t change the fact that white racism, like its Muslim counterpart, was a dangerous, violent, and widespread phenomenon that needed to be addressed.
And IÂ’ve noticed a tendency by some on this site to not even engage in this discussion. On one thread, Tariq RamamdanÂ’s homophobia was deemed unfair to bring up b/c it lent yet another justification for policies the left did not like. On the “terror in the GTA” thread, you scolded mutineers for even discussing terrorism (“it makes me ill”) when there were other issues presumably more convenient to the leftist world view to discuss. And a very interesting discussion on the Chittisinghpura Massacre –on which I have no opinion-was cut short b/c someone dared to call Mishra an “arch traitor.” Harsh rhetoric, no doubt, but would you close a discussion if someone called say Daniel Pipes a racist? It seemed to me you were upset, like in the other threads, that people would even engage in a discussion that made Islam look bad, just like you say some don’t like ansy discussion that makes India or America look bad.
At the end of the day I think you are practicing a form of reverse-jingoism. “How dare Mishra say anything bad about India,” you say in mocking the views of many on this site. Fair enough, but replace India w/ Islam and you see what I mean.
Abhi, “No. This is where a distinction must be made. Jingoism is questioning MY right to post the opinion of someone who is critical of a view that you hold dear. Mishra is a person who, whether right or wrong, has a book out that many people may end up buying. The fact that I am drawing attention to the opinion contained within his book is what upsets you. “If I draw attention to it then it must mean that I believe it because why else would anyone draw attention to bad things.” Attacking Mishra isn’t necessarily jingoism. Trying to silence opinion is.”
In the above paragraph, you claim: 1. Someone questioned your right to post your opinion. Personally, I have not.
“Mishra is a person who, whether right or wrong, has a book out that many people may end up buying. The fact that I am drawing attention to the opinion contained within his book is what upsets you.”
As I mentioned before, the facts regarding who perpetrated the Chattisinghpura massacre are not a matter of opinion. So, this is a fallacious argument. There is evidence to indicate exactly the opposite of what Mr Mishra alleged (e.g the Pakistani terrorist from Sialkot interviewed by the NYT). In simpler words, existing evidence indicates that Mr Mishra lied. Would you be
equally willing to “let people know” of the “opinion” of Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass on some
of topics they wrote made up/plagarized/fake articles about? You are again conflating fact and opinion. What upsets me is that Mr Mishra has very likely lied (or at least been completely
wrong) on the facts of the Chattisinghpora massacre. I don’t care about his opinions. Opinions are a dime a dozen.
“If I draw attention to it then it must mean that I believe it because why else would anyone
draw attention to bad things.” Attacking Mishra isn’t necessarily jingoism. Trying to silence opinion is.”
This is a breathtakingly disingenuous reading of many people’s (at least most of the ones posted to see on your previous blog post) comments. No one objected to posting about the Chattisinghpura massacre. I am not even sure they objected to your posting about Mr Mishra’s opinions. I think the contention(mine definitely) was that he is simply not credible on this matter. I don’t see how this counts as “silencing opinion”? Besides, it is unreasonable to expect people to not criticize your choice of Mr Mishra as an additional viewpoint on Mr Clinton’s “misprint”, when they think he is not credible? Especially when this is not a question of his “opinions” about the massacre? The massacre happened, and either the Govt of India orchestrated it, as he claims, or they did not as the available evidence indicates. He happens to be the first one to have claimed that the Govt of India did it, and never showed any evidence to back his claims. How is this a matter of opinion?
Personally, at least in this case, your statements about attempts to silence your opinion seem a little unfair. I don’t claim to know who are the perpetrators of the massacre. However, Mr Mishra did claim to know, and never produced any evidence, even given the gravity and importance of the allegations that he made. This matter is not a question of viewpoints or opinions but of the facts. If you still believe that I was one of those trying to silence your opinions, I apologize because this was not my intention, which was to point out that Mr Mishra’s pronouncements on this question are not really opinions but factual claims, which don’t have support in available evidence.
This blog entry will give you some insight as to why some things are deemed “unfair”.
The good thing about this post is that it is explicit about its anger, but as for the rest, it is completely underhanded: its script is not unlike that of the eminences; the Pankaj Mishras and Praful Bidwais and the Arundhati Roys.
First, you conflate those with anti-muslim rhetoric and those with Indian-nationalist rhetoric. Clearly those who are jingoistic about India hate Muslims. Indian-Marxist cookie no 1.
Second, you conflate legitimate grievances against known peddlers of confused and misleading anti-Indian rhetoric with “silencing” criticisms against India. Indian-Marxist cookie no 2.
Third, you bring in comparisons with Fascism, complain about people questioning your loyalties, and top it off with a compassionate hand-wringing note on how you find others behavior to be wanting in the ethical and high ground. Indian-Marxist cookie no 3.
Manju your are incorrect on several factual points. Let me go through them:
Wrong. I made it quite clear that in my post that there was one-upsmanship going on over at the News Tab. Both sides are participating. See here:
And I am not sure how leaving anonymous news postings can be considered “confronting.”
With respect to this:
Really? I don’t remember leaving a comment on that post. Can you cite my comment please? If by “you” you meant some sort of collective “you” than you are making the false assumption that all of the bloggers at SM fall under the same political and idealogical banner. If you point out the comment then we can discuss it.
This is incorrect. It says in the post that I closed comments because people were accusing us of being anti-hindu/India right there in the comments. In addition, we were being spammed in the comments with links to articles about Pakistani terrorist groups without any commentary attached and completely tangent to the post. The post was not closed for the reason you choose to believe. I could have just deleted that comment if that were the case.
No, I’m sorry but I don’t see what you mean.
Let me understand this. Something that actually happened to me, a real life occurence and my thoughts as it was happening, is “unfair?”
Nope, the experience and the post give one an insight as to why criticism/counter views of some subjects is deemed “unfair”
And the others? Have all my co-bloggers shared a similar experience that makes them as disgusted by certain comments and attitudes as I am?
It’s okay dude. I wrote this post so that you didn’t have to email me again. If you want to compare me to Roy and Mishra then feel free. Unlike some others on this post I don’t think a discussion between us would be very productive at this point.
Vikram, thanks for posting a link to what is probably one of my fave Abhi-posts ever. It was nice to re-read it. A hearty “no, thank you”, however, to your motives for mentioning it.
We don’t play favorites with religions or anything else on this blog.
We deal with assholes of every stripe here– anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-Christian…ad infinitum– which is why the Chittisinghpora post was closed. It was NOT closed to persecute the anti-Mishra types or to punish people who disagreed with what you think our “party line” is…it was closed because we are people with full-time jobs who don’t have the time to ban and delete morons every other second.
Hey everyone, read a bit more carefully:
Pankaj Mishra didn’t say that the Indian Army had carried out the attacks in Chattisinghpora. Following the attacks, 5 alleged militants were shot by the Indian Security Forces. It is THIS incident, NOT the actual massacre, about which Mishra writes in his book. The bodies were exhumed, DNA tests conducted, and the five were in fact found to be locals who had nothing to do with the massacre:
Deep breath, everyone.
Abhi:
OK. Fair enough. I never read the news tab until you pointed out the bigotry on it. I was referring to some of your posts, especially this.
And that link should answer this question:
OK. I didn’t know about the spamming. But there’s all sorts of unfair name-calling going on at SM. I think the blog is served better by having a thick skin. I mean, if Pankaj Mishra is really lying I can see how passions could get inflamed. There seems to be a serious issue in regards to his truthfulness that could have been explored despite the jingoism on the thread.
You believe that Mishra lied but Clinton believes the same thing Mishra does. That makes Mishra’s opinion VERY relevant and not a dime a dozen. If you are so angry why not write the NY Times and ask them why they would give voice to someone like Mishra on their op-ed page or why a publisher would give him a book deal. What bothers me is that you conflate my opinion about the massacre with that of Mishras simply because I point out his opinion.
Abhi:
I did not participate in the to-and-fro in your earlier post about Mr. Mishra. Certainly I don’t question your right to comment about whatever subject pleases you, not least because it’s your blog! Furthermore, I take your point that drawing attention to Mr. Mishra’s opinion does not entail that you support his thesis (Perhaps you do or don’t; or, perhaps, you have no considered opinion on the matter).
However, criticism of your post on Mr. Mishra is not necessarily due to jingoism. Your earlier post on Mr. Mishra is vulnerable to the criticism of its incomplete nature since it did not include adequate background (both pro and, especially, contra Mishra) about the controversy. Again, I don’t think it was malice on your part–that’s the nature of blogging after all (blogs aren’t meant to be monographs).
Well, in this case at least, yes. I take it that you seek to exercise due diligence when writing your posts: Attention to the opinions of Indians critcial of Mr. Mishra’s speculations, and a consequent link or two to such opinions, might have added depth to your post.
Regards, Kumar
Okay I’m confused. What was it about that comment that you didn’t appreciate? My “Evil” persona is when I am blunt, and sometimes evil 🙂
In that particular case I thought the person I was addressing was being far too leftist in his statement and so I was using sarcasm to imply that. Seeing as how you are obviously right of center I though you would appreciate a comment like that, no?
Is it really THAT difficult to tell when Abhi is being facetious? What, the “Evil” in front of his name didn’t tip you off?
And what do you assume my motives were ? I drew attention to what obviously was a significant emotional/spiritual experience and the reader can draw their interpretation from there. If the post had been about attending midnight mass at the Vatican, that would have been significant too. Or participating in the Kumbh Mela.
Glad to know no favorites are played.
On the question of Chattisingpura and the reprisal killings, I have no idea what is the truth. This type of event will breed a thousand conspiracy theories and probably never be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. Note that similar kinds of questions regarding violence in the Punjab from the late 1980s and early 1990s are still slowly churning in the Indian courts. In that case it’s fairly widely accepted that the military did regularly do the kinds of thing they are accused of here — namely, commit extrajudicial killings. (Rather like the U.S. in Iraq currently!)
But on the particular question of Mishra’s Op-Ed in the Times this week, it is a necessary correction to the bloated, baseless optimism of people like Gurcharan Das. India’s middle class is now 300 million strong — great; 800 million people aren’t in it. What’s that old Public Enemy line? Don’t believe the hype Say that to yourself 50 times after reading Foreign Affairs or Time.
It is true that we need to think of better solutions to that problem than what the Communist party wants — and it’s too bad that the UPA government hasn’t been able to further the reform project because of the communists in the government. Folks who say they want to hear new solutions from Mishra and company have a point. But you can’t really blame Mishra for wanting to debunk the easy, repetitive rhetoric of the free-market triumphalists.
Besides the chronic (but not insoluble) problem of poverty, there are lots of worrying economic warning signs in India right now, from the Sensex to the real estate bubble to, yes, even the high price of Dal! We would do well to heed those, and stop worrying about “whether India will catch China” or other such rubbish.
Abhi:
Sorry to post so soon again, but I am not certain what Mr. Clinton’s believes on this matter. On the whole, taking into account his various pronouncements on this issue over the years (as well as the HarperCollins ‘mea culpa’ on this issue), I would argue that Mr. Clinton has maintained (or tried to maintain) a studied neutrality on this question, very much unlike Mr. Mishra.
Regards, Kumar
Kumar, Thank you for the thoughtful response. Yes, you are correct in that I do care about properly researching a post. At the same time however I take great pains to not offer a strong opinion on things that I admittedly do not know enough about. The Clinton post was an example of this. I used Nitin Pai’s post at the Acorn, which was critical of Clinton, to supplement what I did not know. If you read the post and then read the comments (and unfortunately you can’t read the deleted ones) then you would see what I mean. Some readers believed that by citing Mishra you are committing a crime.
But some of it was. When you combine it with my larger argument regarding the News Tab and read some of the comments that we have to delete from time to time you will see that this trend that I am describing is very real.
Abhi:
Seeing that you’ve knocked back my 3 examples of your “reverse jingoism;” as far as this statement goes:
…I formally reverse my opinion and take it all back. Please accept my apologies.
Dr. Singh:
Well, no, the controversy does not revolve around whether the Indian security forces commit extrajudicial killings. Rather, the controversy revolves around whether the murder of innocent Sikhs in J&K was done by, or at the instigation of, the Indian security forces. The parallel in Punjab is the claim by Khalistanis that the Indian govt. arranged the destruction of the Air India flight out of Canada.
It’s clear, as the CBI investigation revealed in the case of Pathribal, that there are some reprehensible people in the Indian Army. But does that mean that the Indian security forces were responsible in some way for the murder of Sikhs in Chattisinghpura? On the whole, I would argue that the evidence simply doesn’t point that way, and Mr. Mishra’s speculations were simply not well-grounded in the facts.
Regards, Kumar
You believe that Mishra lied but Clinton believes the same thing Mishra does.
Abhi,
I read that preface on Amazon. First, I seriously doubt that Clinton wrote himself. Then even if he did, he made a mistake. He is not above approach. His knowledge about Sudan milk factory, and for that matter India and Pakistan nuclear tests (US administration had no clue) are well known. That is why publishers very smartly pulled back.
Steve Talbot only said that Pakistan Government does not seem involved. That does not mean Indian army or anything else you (you by giving mike to Pankaj Mishra) seem to have implied is involved. That did not exclude local jihadi units and Laksher-e-Toba. They wanted to General Musharraf a clean chit, and that is fine.
I think what you inadvertdly did is 2 + 1 = 5, I do not know how you gave credence to all Pankaj Mishra’s numbo jumbo. At forst pass, you should have seen it. Amnesty International was parroting Pankaj Mishra. Saying that Rajaputani rifles did nothing is like wondering why US air force planes did not shoot down hijacked planes hindsight 20/ 20. Do you know how chaotic and communication challenged India is.
9/11 commission was initially stonewalled by US Government, did any sane person implied that US Government was involved in 9/ 11. Why such honor reserved for India being complicit of murdering her citizens in 2000 by a South Asian American blog without an iota of real proof and then expect nobody will object. You have write to blog about it but expect vehement reaction for such nonsense by Pankaj Mishra. I am still at loss. If I were you I would let Pankaj Mishra go and get a hot date for next weekend, unless he is your buddy or relative. The guy is pretty slimey.
Kumar (#31):
PLEEEEEEEEEEEASE read my #20 and tell me if I have it completely wrong, or if in fact Pankaj Mishra didn’t say that the Indian Security Forces had carried out the attacks in Chattisinghpora!
But Kush, this is the critical sentence. How is quoting from a review of Mishra’s new book which refers to Chattisinghpura and is in the news at the same time as Clinton’s words, translate to me giving Mishra credence? It is a very interesting coincidence and worth mentioning to a blog audience in my opinion.
In that case it’s fairly widely accepted that the military did regularly do the kinds of thing they are accused of here — namely, commit extrajudicial killings. (Rather like the U.S. in Iraq currently!)
Amardeep,
Sure, I am not denying that. Why would Army do this in their own uniforms and shouting hindu slogan (from all the reports). Can we please clearly think about it or we have to look for Pankaj Mishra for all cues.
NYT Op-ed by Pankaj Mishra was accurate in facts but one-sided and not in good faith. Hell, he seems to have an axe to grid, or have a golden goose.
Vivek:
I have read Mr. Mishra’s various articles on the issure (in the NYRB, as well as his response in Outlook magazine to Mr. Prem Shankar Jha’s shredding his NYRB article on Chattisinghpura). In those articles, he explicitly bruited the notion that the Indian security forces were responsible for the massacre of Sikhs. Please note that I am quite well informed about the despicable actions at Pathribal, but that does not make it more probable that the Indian army murdered Sikhs in Chattisinghpura.
I have not read Mr. Mishra’s book on the matter, but I am told that Mr. Mishra may have backed off on his allegation somewhat. I can’t, however, vouch for the reliability of that opinion about Mr. Mishra’s latest views on the matter.
Regards, Kumar
but I am told that Mr. Mishra may have backed off on his allegation somewhat. I can’t, however, vouch for the reliability of that opinion about Mr. Mishra’s latest views on the matter.
He has. Please register on Outlook and search for his articles.
I do agree that Indian army and Indian Government should be more accoutable and transparent but I am not going to give some looney tune a free pass.
I submit to you that there have been WAY more one-sided positive articles about India in the past year.
Dr. Singh:
Even if you think Mr. Das needs correction, surely you can find someone literate in basic economics. Mr. Mishra’s op-ed is a classic of selective citation of (poorly understood) facts about the Indian economy. I would urge you to read Mr. Salil Tripathi’s rebuttal of Mr. Mishra in the Guardian newspaper. And while you’re there, do read Mr. Mishra’s ‘rebuttal’ of Mr. Tripathi–as usual, he does the Mishra shuffle when confronted with a few elementary facts and basic undergrad econ.
Regards, Kumar
Vivek, I agree with both Kumar and Amardeep. Kumar has put the matter more cogently than I could have done. As for your statement, Pankaj Mishra’s NYRB article makes the explicit claim about the involvement of Indian intelligence agencies. The relevant paragraph is quoted below:
“The Indian failure to identify or arrest even a single person connected to the killings or the killers, and the hastiness and brutality of the Indian attempt to stick the blame on “foreign mercenaries” while Clinton was still in India, only lends weight to the new and growing suspicion among Sikhs that the massacre in Chitisinghpura was organized by Indian intelligence agencies in order to influence Clinton, and the large contingent of influential American journalists accompanying him, into taking a much more sympathetic view of India as a helpless victim of Islamic terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan: a view of India that some very hectic Indian diplomacy in the West had previously failed to achieve.”
Note that he conveniently diverts the origin of the allegation to unknown and anonymous “Sikhs”. Earlier he says:
“But the secular guerrilla outfits that were fighting for independence in the early years of the insurgency have long been overwhelmed by such Pakistan-based Islamic guerrilla groups as Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Toiba, which also recruit jihad-inspired citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight in Kashmir. India, which has fought two wars with Pakistan over Kashmir in 1948 and 1965 and almost came close to a nuclear war in 1990, sees itself as fighting a “proxy war” with Pakistan in Kashmir, and the present Indian government in Delhi, which is dominated by Hindu nationalists, has sent close to half a million soldiers to Kashmir to suppress the insurgency.
This makes the Hindus in the valley very vulnerable, and approximately 130,000 Hindus, almost the entire Hindu population of the valley, migrated to India after a few hundred of them were killed by Muslim guerrillas in 1990. More recently, in early August, unidentified gunmen, alleged by the Indian government to be Pakistan-backed guerrillas, massacred over a hundred Hindus. But Chitisinghpura is populated mostly by Sikhs, who form just over 2 percent of the population of Kashmir, and have managed to maintain their neutrality all through the last ten years.
This explains why the community has never before been targeted at any time by either the Indian army or the Muslim guerrillas; it also explains why the Sikhs of Chitisinghpura were, before this spring, equally, if uneasily, cordial with both the guerrillas, who often visited the village looking for food, and the soldiers from nearby Indian army camps, who came on routine patrols.”
These excerpts are quite revealing of Mr Mishra’s thinking. A few points should be noted. The moving out of Kashmiri Hindu families in significant numbers began during the days of the insurgency when it was run by what he calls “secular guerilla outfits”. Secondly, the policy of the government of India towards terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir has been largely consistent across the years, irrespective of the type of party(ies) in power.
The relevant link to his NYRB article is at:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/13813
Abhi, I have felt sufficiently strongly about this that I wrote indignant letters to both the NYT and NYRB when his articles about the Chattisinghpura massacre were published. They did not get published. As for his writing Op-Eds in the NYT, I have come to believe that writing letters about him to the editor is not going to make a difference. And as I said before, I don’t really care what his opinion on the Indian economy or many other things Indian is, so I simply don’t read him. Unfortunately, it is hard to completely ignore him, since he is the originator of the chattisinghpura massacre=perpetrated by Indian Govt agencies meme. And with regard to him and Clinton, I think others on the thread have cleared that point adequately.
Finally, as far as I am concerned, I don’t have much problems with most of the stuff posted on this blog (if I did, I would not be reading it) and I do enjoy quite a few of them. I don’t even have any issues with any opinions you may have, even if I did disagree with some of them. However, in my view the issue of Mishra+Chittisinghpura massacre is not simply a matter of opinion, and hence my (very) strong words on this matter.
I submit to you that there have been WAY more one-sided positive articles about India in the past year.
Sure, there is a lot hype around India. Some of it is set up by MNCs (multinational corporations) and even US administration. A lot by Indians themselves, why not?
Perception is key my friend. It is a way to build India as counter weight to China 20-30 years from now. Also, for MNC to justify to their share holders for all the investments.
I (we) do not mind reminding the ground realities. I did that myself last month on my blog. Anyone will tell you in a eye-blink.
But our pal, Pankaj Mishra had nothing postive to say about India in a 2 page article. This is about a country that registered 9% growth rate. He was moaning about everything. Why his bitching about India trading with Chine, please tell me. Is that in good faith? His quotes from NYT article:
But trade and cooperation between India and China is growing; and, though grateful for American generosity on the nuclear issue, India is too dependent on Iran for oil (it is also exploring developing a gas pipeline to Iran) to wholeheartedly support the United States in its efforts to prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The world, more interdependent now than during the cold war, may no longer be divided up into strategic blocs and alliances.
Remember, Pankaj Mishra is not American or English. Why is all this coming from? He is a bhayia from Allahabad.
Abhi:
I have to ‘fess up that I only read your post and some of the comments. My excuse is legit. however–I was preparing for my qualifying exam.
I don’t doubt you on this point; the ‘internets’ do tend to encourage people to post before thinking (or, posting without thinking at all).
Regards, Kumar
I think the blog is served better by having a thick skin.
LOL. i don’t see a link to a blog on your handle manju, so you would say that wouldn’t you? how about leaving it to abhi et. al. to run their blog however they feel like. anyway, i’m anti-muslim, and i’ve been posting on and off for almost 2 years. there are PC-kommissar’s who hang around the message boards making sure that a good muslim man can beat his wife according to hanbali dictates in peace (and yes, they express curiosity and open mindedness to narrow peddlars of perverse and gross superstition), but none of the ops exhibit this sort of behavior. as a matter of principles i tend to agree with a lot of the hindus who assail muslims on the generalities, but they often bring a dumb-as-rock & proudly-ignorant jingo stink to the blog, and they always have.
anyway, keep up the good work. don’t listen to anyone except yourselves…though i guess that’s a paradise since i’m advising you….
paradise
paradox 🙂
First you drop the atheist tag and now there’s a Freudian slip with paradox/paradise?… me thinks there’s something afoot in razib-land…
Kush Tandon: I love the way you write. LOVE it 🙂 You should write a book! I second Abhi though with scraping the barrel by bringing up Uncle Tom, since you seem to think that me bringing up ‘class issues’ is the same thing… still though, if you’d just write that book all would be forgiven.
Vivek: I second that deep breath.
Pankaj Mishra-haters:
what’s with all the hatred against him? He discovered Arundhati 🙂 shouldn’t that be enough to keep him immune from Brown-Sahib-ing him forever?
Kumar:
you don’t have to keep signing off with your name, since people can see it at the top of your comment. V polite comments though, if only others could keep it the same.
I think it is very important that we try to stop randomly dividing people into ‘Jingoism supporters/SpoorLams’ vs ‘Jingoism Haters/Marxist cookie eaters’. Ugh. Commie/Capitalist is soooo 20th century.
Great post 🙂 Made me think about how powerful blogs can be in reflecting and shaping people’s opinions. I for one would like to leave propaganda behind in the 20th century too.
Tashie:
Really Tashie? People can see my name on top of my comment too? Gosh, the internets are jes’ wunnerful. I like my screen-name so much, I just like to see it twice.
On a more substantive matter: Before seconding Vivek’s plea for a “deep breath”, keep in mind that Mr. Mishra has indeed argued–contra Vivek–that the Indian security forces were responsible for the murder of Sikhs in Chattisinghpura.
Politely (as ever), Kumar
Kumar: alright, don’t need to get your knickers in a twist.
Was just saying that since you said you didn’t have time to read posts properly maybe you could save some of your v precious seconds by not writing your name again.
Krish and Kumar:
Krish, thank you for the quotation and for the link. Kumar, since you didn’t provide a link, I didn’t know exactly which Outlook article you were referring to, but the closest I could find was this from Pankaj Mishra:
This seems to sum up his point clearly and simply and is consistent with the first passage Krish quoted in his #40. I’m still left wondering where Pankaj Mishra says explicitly and with conviction that the Indian government was responsible for the massacre. Certainly, he raises the question – a question he seems to have perceived was on the minds of some of the people he talked to immediately after the attack.
Krish (#40):
Shortly before the paragraph you quoted, Mishra states the following:
He then cites a Kashmir Times article from June 28, 2000. Unfortunately the online archives for the Kashmir Times only date back to Jan. 1, 2004, but perhaps these Sikhs are quoted in that article…
I need to catch a flight now to go home, where I haven’t been for the past 2 months; I only mention this because I’m not sure if I still have an internet connection there, so I might not get back to you for a few days…
Tashie:
Your admiration for polite manners doesn’t run quite so deep as to actually employ it in your own posts: Just another irrelevant comment from you, not addressing the substance of the discussion.
For the record: I read the original post and some of the commentary, as I wrote earlier. I did not read all of the now-deleted comments, given that I do have a life outside of SepiaMutiny. Enough, however, to get an idea of what Abhi had in mind when he talked of jingoism. My comments directed at Abhi simply sought to underline that some non-jingos might well take issue with his original post, something to which he graciously agreed.
Your point is what, exactly?
(Somewhat) politely, Kumar
LOL.. you are funny..