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 đ ]. 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. Ă¢ĂâŹĂ  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.Ă¢ĂâŹĂ  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.
When the revolution comes PUNK-aj ‘Yes Massah!’ Mishra will be the first to be forced to bow before my saffron balls.
As yet I have not received an answer as to who funds this website. ISI and Anjana Chaterjee isnt it!?!
Observing the comments of the progressive fascists who run this hate site, it is clear that there is an agenda to defame Hindus in America by encouraging homosexuality and miscegenation as well as extreme left wing anti-national cabal. We can only deal with this by extreme means. You have been warned.
Also commie fascist progressive scum who criticise Indian economy, compare the size of Pakistani missile with Indian missile. This is the only comparison that matters, or measure of economy:
Click here.
Look how larger our vedic missiles are. This is because they are not circumcised and have the full foreskin, unlike these sullas who have their nuclear missiles cut at birth.
Now getting back to serious issues, I have also noticed that there are some anti-Hindu bigots who mask their anti-Hindu Nazism with sarcasm and stupidity. Such people are ugly and reprehensible. They must be invited to the New Jersey Spelling Bee camp where my RSS associates will rub oil into their thighs and make sure their khaki shorts are of the right size.
Saffron Balls are growing at an economic rate of 8.7% a year. So shall we in America grow as long as not too many of our women marry Abrahamics or have sex with Greek or men descended from slaves. (For example Jhumpa Lahiri who married Hispanic man, descendent of Abrahamics who oppressed Hindus in Goa for so many millenium, she personally did so to offend me and oppress me)
Be strong! Live Long! Death to faggots and Abrahamics! God Bless America!
Hail MOGAMBO!!!
My apologies to all for my long comment, as well as diverting the focus from Abhi’s post. However, Vivek’s comment deserves a reply, or so I think.
Vivek:
Your reading of Mr. Mishra is entirely too charitable for my taste. The quote from Outlook magazine is the characteristic Mishra shuffle when confronted with counter-arguments: Mr. Mishra is retreating after Mr. Jha pointed out the implausibility of the thesis he bruited in the NYRB.
In his NYRB piece, Mr. Mishra does more than merely raise the question of the possible involvement of Indian security forces or intelligence agencies. The manner in which he frames the issue clearly suggests that he thinks it quite likely that India (at some official level) was responsible for the incident.
Let’s take a closer look at what Mr. Mishra wrote in that NYRB article:
Shri Mishra uvaca: The wariness of these elderly men had much to do with their new sense of vulnerability to both the guerrillas and the Indian soldiers in their isolated setting-a vulnerability that remains.
Shri Mishra uvaca:Just a few days after the killings, almost all of the Sikhs in the village whom I had seen so stridently blaming the Muslim guerrillas on the morning after the massacre had migrated to India. More recently, the Sikh association formed to protect Sikhs after the killings have begun to talk about the possible involvement of Indian security forces.[4]
Shri Mishra uvaca:All the Pakistan-based guerrilla outfits have continued to deny their involvement in the Chitisinghpura killings, and to blame Indian security forces for them.
The massacre is a unique example of an attack on Sikhs. Shri Mishra uvaca:There have been no further attacks on the Sikhs in the valley….
Other than Chattisinghpura, there is no history of attacks on Sikhs.
Shri Mishra uvaca:”…the questions about why Muslim guerrillas should attack civilian members of a community they have not bothered for over a decade, why they should do so hours before Clinton’s arrival in India and thereby invite international opprobrium and discredit their cause, haven’t been satisfactorily answered…”
Shri Mishra uvaca: “…..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.”
It’s true that for Mr. Mishra, it’s ‘Sikhs up front’ sometimes. But sometimes he’s not so careful to hide behind what Sikhs allegedly think about the incident (e.g., points 3, 4 and 5 above are clearly not attributed to Sikhs but are without doubt his own sentiments).
Far from a neutral report of what’s on the minds of the Sikh community, he rather despicably uses the words of a (naturally) frightened community to advance his own agenda: Recall that Barry Bearak (then the NYT reporter on the ground in Chattisinghpura) suggests that the collective decision of the Sikh community to cast blame at the feet of the Indian army was a tactical attempt to protect the community from any further retaliation at the hands of the jihadis. It won’t do to fob off Mr. Mishra’s agenda on the Sikh community of Chattisinghpura.
If this selective presentation of ‘facts’ (more accurately, peddling the talking points of the secessionist faction in J&K) is not an argument that the Indian govt. is responsible for the murder of Sikhs, then I am not sure what would constitute such an argument. Keep in mind that Mr. Mishra does not highlight evidence which points away from Indian agencies. Simply because Mr. Mishra puts his arguments in the mouths of the Sikh community at times, does not mean that he should not be held to account for his ludicrous theories.
You ask “…where Pankaj Mishra says explicitly and with conviction that the Indian government was responsible for the massacre…”. The theses he advances in the NYRB (i.e., points 1-6, in particular) leave no doubt that he thinks it likely that the Indian govt. is responsible. As for how explicit he is in advancing his speculations, I find it difficult to fall for his ‘CYA’ attempts to fob off his speculations on the Sikh community.
Regards, Kumar
Krish —
This is an incredibly facile statement. Like Amardeep, I don’t claim to know the truth either way about Chattisingpura and the reprisal killings — though no one else in this thread (including you) has established any expertise on the subject, so I won’t defer to your perspective on that either. But assuming that Mishra turns out to be wrong, factually speaking, that doesn’t establish that he is lying.
Despite your attempt to draw a sharp line between fact and opinion, what the truth actually is, in fact, can often be highly contested — especially when evidence points in different directions and part of that evidence consists of differing witness accounts. (The use of false evidence is also not an unknown phenomenon, whether in India, the United States, or elsewhere.) If you think that Mishra’s theory is incorrect, then why not just argue what you think the facts are, rather than calling him a “liar” and an “arch-traitor”? If you are not willing to do so, but rather must resort to the much easier/lazier work of name-calling, it makes me wonder whether you actually have a strong argument at all. If you think you do, then just make it.
(Incidentaly, by dismissing Mishra’s NYT op-ed as “opinion,” are you dismissing or conceding the many factual statements in that essay? His opinion doesn’t come from nowhere, it is based on a series of factual statements which, as Amardeep notes, provide a much-needed corrective to the one-sided coverage of India we’ve seen in recent months. It’s interesting to me that you are getting so exercised about Mishra’s writings on Chattisingpura but are perfectly willing to dismiss factual statements in his writings on the Indian economy just because they appear in a piece captioned and labeled as an “op-ed.”)
On that op-ed, Kush Tandon —
Especially since you concede that Mishra’s facts are accurate in that piece, on what basis, exactly, are you reaching the conclusion that Mishra’s op-ed was “not in good faith”? Do you have a secret back channel into his head? On your theory, should we regard the one-sided puff pieces about India in Time, Newsweek, Foreign Affairs to have been written in bad faith? What exactly is your definition of “good faith” and “bad faith” in this context?
One of the ironies of our more inclusive, more diverse society is that the preservation of diversity seems increasingly at odds with a diversity of views. For example:
ĂâYou can accuse us of censorship if youĂâd like but this isnĂât about censorship but about remaining true to belief that communication is more important than simply being heard.Ăâ
If youĂâre in favour of free speech, then youĂâre in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, youĂâre not in favour of free speech. So yes: I am accusing you of censorship. In the Ăâreal worldĂâ, where societies are plural, then it is both inevitable and important that people offend the sensibilities of others. Inevitable, because where different beliefs are deeply held, clashes are unavoidable. And we should deal with those clashes rather than suppress them. Important because any kind of social change or social progress means offending some deeply held emotions, commitments and taboos.
The right to Ăâsubject each othersĂâ fundamental beliefs to criticism is the bedrock of an open, diverse society.
To think otherwise, Abhi, is to invite an Orwell counter-quotation:
ĂâIf liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hearĂâ.
Amir
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.
Abhi, the reason I commented is because I like this site. And I like this site because many of the posts look at things that are not just superficially troublesome (to Indian-Americans) but also underhanded behaviors; slights which are not obvious superficially.
Which is why I’m sad to see you doing the same thing.
But it’s all right, you too should feel free to insist on Indian nationalists being Muslim bashing, intolerant of any criticism of India, and fascist Orwellian nightmares. That is indeed how we roll.
The NY Times had an article a couple of months ago on the nature of human perception. It seems human beings tend to scrutinize unpalatable truths a lot more seriously than ones they are in agreement with. When the results are not what they want to hear, they will recalculate, reassess, re-evaluate, and challenge till kingdom come. If the results are pleasing, they are accepted without much scrutiny. I guess this study is trying to tell us that most people are not as objective as they imagine themselves to be. Your choosing to blog about a particular issue, and peoplesĂâ response to your choice of topic and its contents are both equally open to criticism/praise, imo. Good luck with trying to establish the objective truth of the matter – but it sure makes for interesting discussions.
Can anyone please point out a link to an article by PankajMishra, just one article, which is positive about India?
Folks like Gurcharan Das who write glowing articles about India also include negatives (like lack of infrastucture etc) about India.
Amardeep writes:>>India’s middle class is now 300 million strong — great; 800 million people aren’t in it.
As opposed to early 90’s where India’s middle class was 40 million strong and 1 billion people were not in it.
M. Nam
I wont be surprised at all to find that extrajudicial and attrocious killings were done Indian Army in Punjab during the peak of the Khalistan movement. I remember atleast one proven case when I was in India. I am sure there are lot of others. But that is because the Indian Army was fighting Sikh militia at the time, which is NOT THE CASE in Kashmir.
To posit an explanation that avoids being bogged down in semantics and rhetorical games of what does or does not classify as free speech, I suggest that the source for Indian Jingoism is bourgeois nationalism. A self-manifesting phenomenon that results from rising wages (and expectations) and the formation of a truly politically conscious petite bourgeois. The defining characteristic of this class I would characterize as pure ambition and the acquisition of status. Contrary to the reports about rising nationalism in China fostered by the state, I would argue that the manifestation of nationalism in such conditions is spontaneous and would arrise irrelevant of state intervention or coercion. India is a good example, I have come to realize that a sizable majority of the politically conscious petite bourgeois have already internalized this mind set to a considerable degree. It is a new nationalism that is in some ways similar to Hindutva and draws on similar fonts of national mythos, but one I would argue is ultimately competing against traditional forms Indian nationlism. (Sorry SpoorLam, this isn’t saffron, this is something new) In contrast to the Hindutva narrative, India’s new bourgeois nationalism is a much more contemporary in nature and more importantly draws its sustenance from an entirely separate base of support. Hindutva’s strength lies in its localized abilities and the mass of its members are formed from the lumpen proletariat. Bourgeois nationalism draws its support base from the bourgeois and its flame is sustained by the dream of Indian hegemony. This egoism and sense of entitlement is rather difficult to explain and qualify, but then again the words speak for themselves.
As one article at the Indian economy blog stated regarding Mishra stated,
The 21st century will be IndiaĂâs. But some people simply wonĂât get it
The ultimate reason for the hostility and antagonism towards Mishra has nothing to do with the misrepresentation of facts, which the chauvinist is both perfectly willing to accept even perpetrate if it is in his favour, but rather that Mishra dared to throw a bucket of cold water on Indian power and more significantly, pride. Challenging the individual’s Gramscian hegemonic belief in the supremacy of his collective power is bound to meet with resistance.
Seven times six, with your belligerent rhetoric, you prove Abhi’s point about the intolerance of some Indian nationalists. It’s completely bogus to lump Mishra in with Arundhati Roy. And with your talk of “Marxist cookie number one” and so on, you’re just throwing around slurs: you’re just trying to score crude debating points.
Contrast your behavior to the careful arguments of Kumar above (he might agree with you on many particulars); there is a world of difference.
Amir, very clever. Except you’re ignoring the important problem of context. Abhi’s post is about how Indian nationalism is so strong amongst some readers and commentors at Sepia Mutiny that it threatens to drown out other viewpoints. To then turn around accuse Abhi of being intolerant of hearing other points of view is a debate move that doesn’t address the problem. We hear (and accept) strongly nationalist points of view all the time.
Kumar (comment #52), the quote you pull on your bullet point #6 is the strongest in my view. That does look like unbalanced speculation — irresponsible journalism. And while you’re right that he kind of dances around the question of who he really thinks committed the (original) Chattisinghpura massacre in the follow-up Outlook article, he does make some good points in that article. One of them was the following:
He then goes on to cite the five dead in the reprisal killing — which, I hope you’ll agree, was a pretty disgusting act committed by the military — in support of this line of thought.
Amir, “Important because any kind of social change or social progress means offending some deeply held emotions, commitments and taboos.”
Point taken but do you really think name-calling will result in any social progress? I read Abhi’s post on Chattisinghpura and half the comments seemed to be about one part of the post being taken from a Khalistani website. When the author of the post has to repeatedly make the same point over and over, that’s hardly contributing to dialogue and it’s also a lot annoying. I commented on this issue on pickled politics and yeah, I might not have made myself entirely clear, but the first thing I got hit with was being called a Khalistani, not any answer to the points that I made. That was annoying.It’s not censorship if thought out opinions are represented and the dialogue is made more useful for all involved. And the SM bloggers are spending their own time working on this site; maybe we just need to respect their time a little more, wading through nationalist slogans must be terribly boring for anyone.
Amardeep, you’re right; my previous comments were snarky, perhaps even borderline rude; and I apologize for that. But snarkiness does not imply intolerance, and in particular it doesn’t take away from the substantativeness of what I said.
Sticking to the limited question of the Chattisinghpora massacre: Mr. Mishra indulged in irresponsible reporting based on rumor and hearsay. A few months later, Barry Bearak of the NYTimes was able to identify several of the jihadi militants who participated in the killings. To my knowledge Mr. Mishra has never acknowledged that he was wrong in this instance or that his report was colored by his assumptions about the kashmir conflict.
I agree that this talk of “traitors” and “anti-indian views” is just plain stupid. It is reasonable to classify them as jingoism or forms of hyper-nationalism, similar to variants prevalent in the USA.
WTF?? So this person is anti-gay too … All forgiven because its “fuuny”
Razib the Thin Skinned:
Yes. Only criticism from within should be tolerated.
After reading this thread and having just read the latest Economist that has a review of Misra’s latest book, I am very surprised at the kind of airtime that Misra gets in these two supposedly the most prestigious newspapers in western media. The review in Economist is a real piece of work, let me cite it here in its full Orientalist glory:
This is what concerns me more than anything else : Misra’s Indophobia and Hinduphobia gets repeated, amplified and, more insidiously, gets institutionally legitimised by the Economist and NYT. How much time do you think it’d take before professors of Hinduism and India Studies start prescribing this book as the textbook describing the “reality” of India in American classrooms? IMHO, the Uncle Tom charge on Misra is quite legitimate : it’s people like him that continue to strengthen the purveyors of neo-colinialism. But hey, what do I know : I am just a native savage steeped in the superstitions of a “religion cobbled together from folk beliefs in the 19th century”.
Abhi, please do share what you think of this. Do you think it is jingoist to see Pankaj Misra as a tool of cultural imperialism?
MoorNam,
It’s not Mishra’s job to be “positive” about India. When he’s acting as a journalist, it’s his job to report facts accurately and raise questions. Most of the time he does that, though I tend to agree with people on this thread who say he was wrong to imply that the army was behind Chattisinghpura without offering a fair counter-perspective. (I also think he may have overreacted to William Dalrymple, but that is an argument for another day.)
Have you read Das’s “India Unbound”? It’s hardly balanced — 10 free market pluses to one minus. His kind of thinking is more cheerleading than anything else.
Yes, things are better, and liberalization is largely responsible for that. I believe in the principle of the free market. But that improvement only means we should be less pessimistic, not blusteringly triumphant. If you have $1 at the poker table and you double your money, you still only have $2. You have to keep playing wisely and realistically, especially if your neighbor has a tower of chips.
The main problem I have with Pankaj Mishra’s current article (I was not aware of his whole Chattisinghpura stand) is the same that I have with Ms A. Roy: the semblance of “standing up” for the poor of India.
I don’t understand how they can claim that India’s current economic revolution (nothing less than that) is only benefiting a ‘tiny’ elite. Is a 300-million strong middle class, (=the population of the USA) a ‘tiny elite’? Granted there are hundreds of millions living in poverty while the middle class sells its soul for the blackness of the next-generation Ipod, but the direction is right on the whole.
I’ve always had a problem with the Indian leftist philosophy of the world being a better place when everyone starves equally to death, rather than some people initially making it better than the others.
I just wish they’d say something constructive in all their criticism.
Especially since you concede that Mishra’s facts are accurate in that piece, on what basis, exactly, are you reaching the conclusion that Mishra’s op-ed was “not in good faith”? Do you have a secret back channel into his head?
Please read my comment #. 41 (for a brief paragragraph I quote) or entire NYTimes article. I have no secret channel. If someone goes on a tirade, then what do you expect. Same about him singling out Dalal Street and not comapring to the similar behavior on Wall Street and London exchange: exhubuience and fluctuations.
About facts, I now have serious doubts. India’s major oil and gas buyer is not Iran but Abu Dhabi. The gas deal is on the rocks. Does Pankaj Mishra even check facts. Did he mention India’s voting record in recent IAEA meeting. The guy is a liar. You tell me, why did not mention the recent vote by India.
Please, please tell me what sense criticizing growing trade between India and China make? I am waiting…
He has every right to say this all, can I take him seriously, no. Humor maybe.
Gujjubhai, I’m sure Abhi will have his response to your comment.
But do you really think that citing a review is a good way to attack Mishra’s book? It only tells you about how Mishra’s perspective is received by some western readers, not about the book itself.
It’s beginning to seem clear to me that we’ll have to have a discussion at SM about the book itself.
Kush, I think you’re misrepresenting Mishra’s recent op-ed. Look at what he says again:
He never says that the main supplier for Indian petrol is Iran, only that India is too dependent on Iran to “wholeheartedly support the United States.” That is true, and the widespread criticism of the move at home supports his point.
And Mishra’s broader point in this paragraph has more to do with U.S. policy expectations than with blackening India’s international profile. He’s trying to argue that the U.S. shouldn’t be too quick to count on India as the “anti-China.” I think that’s true too.
I can’t understand how you get from those very reasonable perspectives to calling him a liar.
Someone needs to counter the idea that India is simply “Shining”. India has serious, serious problems with inequality and poverty. It would be great if an author who was legitimately part of the dispossed in India to be able to write in the NY Times. The tone of Mishra’s article is negative, he is fitting facts for a thesis, that there is another side to the story we are hearing now days about India. there should be a balance of negative and positive views of India. Looking at many articles on India today one would think the entire country is working in IT
We’re being raped! And oppressed! And colonised and provoked! I feel so angry I could vandalise an MF Husain painting!
PUNKass Mishra is fast becoming the most dangerous institutionalising oppressor of Hindus and Hindu civilization. His articles will soon be taught in classes, and in league with other ‘progressive’ extremists this naughty Uncle Tom who NEVER writes anything nice is further proof of the horrible cabal that is very nasty and horrible and involved in our oppression which is widespread and overwhelming.
Hindus and Indian Nationalists of America and the Vedic Civilized world WAKE UP! We are in danger! We are being oppressed by Pankaj Mishra! It’s only a matter of time before he links up with Wendy Doniger and then it will be too late!
Quick, we have to act fast, before it’s too late. Before Hinduism is destroyed!
Don’t say I didnt warn you!
Hail Mogambo!
Gujjubhai,
You are using textbook arguments to prove the point in my original post. Look at what you do:
Here you express fear (irrational in my opinion) that a lone voice who has a view and opinion of India different than your own will be annoited India’s official spokesperson. As Amardeep points out you use a REVIEW by the Economist, a magazine that has previously demonstrated that it is skeptical of India’s growth in order to try Mishra.
A thinly veiled Uncle Tom charge. If they criticize India then the must miss colonial times.
Again, here you conflate Mishra’s words with those of the article’s author.
No, but I feel it is jingoism to use the type of arguments that you are making in order to express your opinion of Mishra.
Jing, Excellent comment above. Thanks.
Amardeep,
Why am I calling him liar?
1) India and China have a long history of mistrust, as recent as 1962 humilating war and till today China claims huge tracts of Indian land. Sure, now China is the second largest trading partner of India. But who is #. 1: USA. Amardeep, you know India quite well, and you know how gingerly Indians treat China. Then why should India be anti-China. Is USA anti-China, no? Why his he calling India on growing trade? Why doesn’t he mention the bigger picture, that is why I called him what I did. Even Condi Rice in the recent Senate hearing said that one should not expect India from seeking friendship from China. It is their perogative.
2) India and Iran as oil and gas partners is very shakey. It was quite robust in the days of Shah even though Shah was ready to lease his fighter planes (on Kissinger’s behest) to Pakistan in 1971. Why should India not seek Iran’s gas. Even Japan, France, and China do. France and China are major investors in Iranian gas fields. Has anyone called them on it. American companies are in Iran big time through their European subisdiaries, why does he ignore. I bet Pankaj Mishra does not even know it. Iran is quite upset about India’s recent IAEA vote and now seeking Europe for their gas. Last week, Iranian Minister clearly told that India will get no rebate on energy prices? Why does he ignore mega-$$$$ investments by China and France in Iran? He conveniently fails to mention all the real happenings: IAEA vote, almost every country in the world wanting a piece of Iranian gas, recent pricing discussions, etc.
He is doing very selective/ cherry-picking picking of facts (mis-facts) and events. Very early, I agreed very on this post comments that some of his points are quite valid in his NYT article.
USA is counting India as the only stable country as a strategic and more important a business partner in entire cental and South Asia, finally.
Amardeep,
Thank you for your response. I did not cite the review to attack Misra, I think others have done that much better than I can on this thread. The more substantive question is the one I raised at the end of my comment about why the review considers his book to be “very good”, what the implications of such conferred legitimacy would be on desis – particularly in the academic world, and what the motivations of NYT and Economist are in lionising someone whose knowledge and integrity – judging by the discussion on this thread – are very questionable to say the least. More specifically, I am seeing subtle purveying of Orientalism through the review in the Economist but I am not sure if I am being hyper-sensitive or there’s really something to it so I would like to hear other opinions on that. My question to Abhi was specifically about his opinion on jingoism in this context but obviously I’d like to hear what everyone thinks about this stuff in general. Your own views, given your background as an academic, would be very interesting as well.
Wow… So many comments showing errors in reporting done by Mr. Mishra is not enough for Jing, but a pycho-analysis of all Indians based on his/her personal extreme viewpoint is sufficient.
So the apparent point of Jing is that there is something inherently wrong with feeling pride with achievements of India. I think that drives a knife through the basis of having a South Asia based blog altogather. Why then, be happy with “booker” prize winning Desis?? Why post about it on blog?? Is it just that brown man/woman got recognition from the white world??
Anyone who claims that India’s achievement doesnt help their social and political standing in the west is being dis-honest. We have blog posts on being “offended” about called “Dunkin Donuts worker” … Isnt that hurt on “pride” at display that you so callously disregard ???
RC, pride is okay in the same way the patriotism is ok and should be encouraged. That wasn’t Jing’s point in my read of it.
“Someone needs to counter the idea that India is simply “Shining”. India has serious, serious problems with inequality and poverty. It would be great if an author who was legitimately part of the dispossed in India to be able to write in the NY Times. The tone of Mishra’s article is negative, he is fitting facts for a thesis, that there is another side to the story we are hearing now days about India. there should be a balance of negative and positive views of India. Looking at many articles on India today one would think the entire country is working in IT.”
i think that’s a very perceptive comment. the problem with the nyt is that neither friedman (too rah rah and not really qualifed to speak on all of india’s issues) nor mishra (too doom and gloom and not really qualified to speak on all of india’s issues ) are the best representations of the india shining vs. india’s outlook is gloomy arguments, yet these two appear to be the most frequent commentators in nyt op-ed pieces on india. can they really find no other sources for both sides of the argument, because there is merit to both arguments. yet american readers of the nyt get most of their opinions (outside of the news stories) on india primarily from these two.
op-ed pieces are powerful tools and should be used wisely. why not have more of a point-counterpoint approach to these op-ed pieces on india so that the nyt’s readers get a wider range of opinions on india in one issue instead of dribs and drabs opinion pieces that basically repeat what has already been said? the miami herald does this frequently. why not a mishra vs. gurcharan das/ratan tata or some other person with a more solid economics/business background and/or a social background? why not an eloquent member of the dispossessed vs. an eloquent proponent for india’s reforms making their arguments on the same page? why not have them exchange their columns before it is printed so that each can counter the points made in the other’s column with facts and logical reasoning?
Amardeep. Please, I do not wish to be misunderstoodĂ⌠I empathise wholeheartedly with Abhi. And, whatĂâs more, judging by his allusions to George Orwell, I am sure he is infinitely more tolerant than my dear self! In saying this, however, I do not believe (and never will) that censorship is a correct, or even an appropriate, response. Why? Because most of us are nationalists in one sense or another Ăâ as you, yourself, intimated [note: by ĂânationalismĂâ, Orwell meant not just nationalism in the narrow political sense, but all ideologies that maintain themselves by denial of other realities]. Sober analysis is the surest and most amicable way of de-bunking and de-legitimising a jingoistic patriot Ăâ or, if youĂâre lucky, changing his mind on a few issues.
Sleepy. I agree: People who swear and snipe and abuse [continuously] are setting a bad example. Not just to fellow contributors, but also to impressionable young people who might be reading the blog. Deleting a few vituperative comments is the only way you can stop ad homonym abuse from spiralling out of control and turning into an ugly vortex of nastiness. But stillĂ⌠as I stated beforehand, censorship should not [I repeat: ‘not’] be applied to the type of belief Ăâ no matter how abhorrent. A neo-Nazi, for instance, should not be censored for asserting the ‘superiority’ of his own raceĂâŚ, just so long as I (or anyone else) can come along and expose the falsity of his views.
Clamping down on bad language is not itself an attack on free speech (unless, of course, you intend to extend that rule outside of Sepia Mutiny and into the public sphere!). On the contrary: Showing restraint and acting courteously is a basic prerequisite for an online discourse. Without it (and increasingly we are without it) vital things die: camaraderie, mutual understanding, cognitive dissonance (i.e. being provoked by others viewpoints) and giving a fair-hearing to your ideological counterpart.
Amir
When Abhi posted about the massacre earlier, he should have been ready to accept criticism. These kind of issues are always controversial. Giving space to an opinion of a “useful idiot” that has been legitimately proved wrong by many commentators over the years should invite the kind of criticism he received on his blog post. I do not see what is the reason for his whining. My suggestion – grow up and learn to accept criticism.
If Abhi wanted to pick up an issue to highlight the perils of jingoism, he picked up the wrong issue to get his point across. This is a tactical mistake. The question of the validity of the Indian Army killing 36 Sikhs will always take more prominence in this debate than the perils of jingoism. I believe, Abhi did not do proper research about this issue and decided to write the post. Later on, he invoked the holy grail of the freedom of speech to try to cover this mistake and change the track of the debate to perils of jingoism.
Your welcome Abhi,
To extrapolate further, the broader issue is I think the conflict between two opposing paradigms of thought regarding India. The perceived traditional narrative I have seen affectionately referred to as the Beeb’s liturgy of caste, cow, and curry as opposed to the new India of the 21st century, of India Shining. The objective of the Indian petite bourgeois chauvinist is nothing less than the reconfiguration of Western interpretations and thought processes vis-ĂÂ -vis India. Instead of the general image of India as a poor, superstitious, and backwards nation, the initiative is to rectify a degrading and imposed Western narrative and in its place establish a new positive India-centric consensus of India. A clash of two visions attempting to gain the majority share of the Western mind, to establish itself as the “correct” filter in which to see India. The delicious irony of this is that the Western press is itself an enabler of both visions and that the objective of the petite bourgeois in creating a nativist vision of India is rooted significantly on the Western projections of what is India.
The Economist and other icons of Western bourgeois intellectualism may have published Pankaj Mishra’s article and others like it. However, they are also responsible for the litany of India Shining articles in which the English speaking bourgeois nationalists use to rationalize and augment their own ideologies.
Abhi writes: >>A thinly veiled Uncle Tom charge…
Why veil it? Pankaj Mishra is Uncle Tom. There. In your face. Wait…I even composed a poem saying so…
His claptrap brings all the psecs to the blog But I’m like He’s Uncle Tom Damn Right, he’s Uncle Tom I can show you But you’ve to read along
(Sung to the tune of: Milkshake by Kelis)
Amardeep,
But it’s his job to ensure that the criticism is constructive. Moreover, if someone is writing negatively about an entire country of a billion people for a decade, with never ever having anything good to say, I think he’s either an asshole or an Uncle Tom.
Agreed. I cannot stand this whole business of “This Century belongs to India”. Get the roads right, dammit. Then work on getting reliable electricity and water. Remove all vestiges of Socialism. Eliminate all insurgencies with an iron hand. Then let’s talk.
Jing writes: >>The delicious irony of this is that the Western press is itself an enabler of both visions and that the objective of the petite bourgeois in creating a nativist vision of India is rooted significantly on the Western projections of what is India.
Spoken like a true RSS pracharak. If you notice, when people go into extreme right mode, they eventually bump into the extreme left.
I don’t think Das/Tata should waste their precious time debating rats like Mishra who have nothing substantive to say.
M. Nam
RC, you seem to greatly misunderstand both Biden’s comments and the nature of the discussion in response to them — what most have found offensive about them has nothing to do with Indians being “called ‘Dunkin Donuts worker[s]'” as such, but rather involves a more complex set of concerns about propagation and perpetuation of racial stereotypes. (And in this instance, among other things, positive stereotypes rooted in a false image of Indian Americans as a “model minority,” not negative stereotypes implicating the issues of “pride” that you are concerned about here.) “[B]eing ‘offended’ about called ‘Dunkin Donuts worker'” might be what you are reading into that discussion, but if you read both Biden’s comments themselves and the discussion thread carefully, that doesn’t accurately describe the facts concerning the nature and context of Biden’s actual comment or concerning the nature and context of most of the responses to it.
Krrish and Kush Tandon — hmmm, should I now call RC a “liar” and someone who is not arguing in “good faith”?
Dr. Singh:
My comment (#52) was not an analysis of the strength of Mr. MishraĂâs argument that Indian agencies were responsible for the murder of the Sikhs in Chattisinghpura. Rather, that comment simply aimed to establish that Mr. Mishra indeed peddled such an argument, contrary to the belief of some (i.e., Vivek).
Before proceeding further, I should think you understand my stance on J&K well enough to know that I do not need the likes of Mr. Mishra to instruct me on the dangers (moral and prudential) of conducting a counter-insurgency campaign without respecting fundamental human rights. In any case, I have already given my opinion of Pathribal in comments above (see comment #31, #36), but let me repeat myself: It is indeed a despicable act, and I hope the officers involved are punished to the full extent of the law.
Briefly, on Mr. MishraĂâs attempt to implicate Indian agencies in Chattisinghpura: His argument rests on even more speculation than merely the quote referenced in #6 (in comment #52). For example, elsewhere in his ĂâreportageĂâ on this issue, Mr. Mishra argues that the lack of an immediate response from a ĂânearbyĂâ Rashtriya Rifles camp is evidence of Indian authorship of Sikh murder: In Mr. MishraĂâs lexicon a camp that was over a kilometer from the village is counted as ĂânearbyĂâ! Even if the RR unit heard gunfire, there are many credible reasons the RR unit might not have responded immediately, other than as part of a conspiracy to murder Sikhs.
For example, the Indian army in some rural areas does not dominate at night, with the consequence that some units limit patrols at night. Whether such a policy is wise or not, Mr. Mishra does not bother to investigate and rule out such obvious explanations.
Mr. Mishra also does not bother to substantively deal with evidence which weakens his thesis. For example, is it likely that the Indian army would wear Indian army uniforms, chant Hindu slogans etc. in an effort to implicate jihadis? I take it that Mr. Mishra thinks that the Indian army is dominated by fools as well as knaves.
I certainly agree that he’s not acting as much of a reporter in the Chattisinghpura case. Perhaps his reportage on some issues is impeccable, but on the issue of Chattisinghpura his ĂâreportageĂâ does not rise much above conspiracy-mongering. Far from acting as a reporter, he more closely resembles a lawyer arguing a brief.
I have not read seven times sixĂâs comments so I will refrain from addressing whether I do or do not agree with him on anything in particular. I will note, however, that I am very much a believer in the idea of India (in Sunil KhilnaniĂâs sense; i.e., a secular and democratic India) and think it an idea worth Ăâfighting forĂâ on all fronts, against all its opponents whether jihadi or hindutvavadi. And, yes, I am employing ĂâfightĂâ in a literal as well as metaphorical sense here. And, yes, I do think that if the fight is a literal one, it ought to be conducted in a manner that respects fundamental human rights.
Finally, I hope you do get around to reviewing Mr. MishraĂâs latest book as well as his earlier books. I am less than impressed by his output in an area I know about (e.g., the ĂâinventedĂâ nature of ĂâHinduismĂâ). His writing on this issue in particular is very much less than fully informed, amounting to a second-hand rehash of scholarship in the area. I look forward to your review.
Regards, Kumar
I should be ready to accept people calling me anti-Hindu, anti-India, and a Khalistani sympathizer? No thank you.
No, I picked the perfect issue in fact.
You can believe what you want of course.
Give me a break AK, If Biden would have said … “You cant go into a high tech firm or a Hospital without meeting an Indian” it would not have been a story. period. Now you will deny that and say how we dont like positive stereotype and how we are so blah blah …. Everyone likes a comment that is perceived positive and no one likes a negative comment. Thats the crux of the issue.
How does that make me a liar??? I dont get it. I didnt make any claims, all I did was to interpret Biden’s comments and Jings comments.
MoorNam
Pankaj Mishra is under no obligation to be constructive about india or to be a great human being. He is responsible for being careful, systematic and to the greatest extent possible accurate. Other than that he owes us nothing.
Abhi
I have to say that I was astonished by your previous blog posting which used yet another sloppy comment (from Clinton) about “hindu” militants as the starting point for a discussion of the C-singpura massacre. This had been widely discredited with the publisher agreeing to remove it in future versions of the book. But you seemed unaware of it. On top of it, you also referenced Pankaj Mishra’s unsubstantiated claims about the killings. I would say this indicates very sloppy research on an important topic.
Al beruni, it now apparent to everyone that you never even read my original post. Go back and take a look. You will see how I clearly cite that the publisher HarperCollins has said it will remove Clinton’s comment (it is EVEN HIGHLIGHTED for those that might lack an attention to detail). Your criticism of me comes across as foolish.
Abhi
On re-reading your post, I see now that you did make reference to the publishers retraction. This was not visible in the leadin to the article (the part that is initially displayed). I stand corrected.
I dont see any reference to Barry Bearak’s NYT article in your post. Did you read it? You also make unsubstantiated claims regarding AI’s views and you further conflate the follow-up killings of local youth with the original massacre. The two were quite different and indian press and law did act on the follow-up killings. I dont see any discussion of that either.
So I stand by my statement that your original posting is sloppily researched and mixes up a lot of information.
Number six, I said that existing evidence indicates that he (Mr Mishra) lied because, unlike myself or others on this thread, Mr Mishra has offered an affirmative hypothesis regarding the events of Chattisinghpura. This hypothesis is clearly laid out in the article whose link I posted. It pretty much accuses the Indian government of planning and carrying out the cold blooded murder of 35+ of its citizens. He has never, in that article or in later ones when he was challenged to do so, produced any evidence to back his claims, and has instead resorted to obfuscation and rhetorical dodges. This makes him an untrustworthy person, in my opinion, an opinion which is shared by pretty prominent members of the Indian media establishment. This canard about the orchestration of the killings by Indian government agencies is one that only he and other unsavoury terrorist entities (“sikh organizations” like the Council of Khalistan headed by Mr G.S Aulakh) peddle.
With regard to his opinion on the economy, no one in their right mind would regard him as an authority on it. He seems to be of the view that India did best in the 40 years preceding 1990 and the economic reforms have not helped in Indian progress. As I said before, that he gets space to publish in the NYT speaks a lot for the NYT’s selection of op-ed writers, rather than the contents. It is strange to me that they can get several more informed (and critical) writers who do understand a thing or two about economic matters to write about India, but they choose to go with Mr Mishra. This is why I ignore his Op-Eds on economic matters.
And what a relief it must be, for you to do so.
manju,
<>Yes. Only criticism from within should be tolerated.
informed criticism is the only type worth anything. do you run a blog? if not, you shouldn’t be offering your opinion because it is worthless, i’m sure you don’t seen most of the morons that are being deleted here because the ops are taking time out o clean up the trash.
Hi Abhi and other authors of SM: Jingoism in itself is not the problem. It is dumb or blind jingoism. I would accept a highly intelligent comment or argument favoring an unpopular, or politically incorrect, position anyday over a poorly written blog supporting the good and the right. What makes SM relevant, fresh and highly readable is the quality of thinking behind the topics, and in many cases, the sparkling wit. What SM needs to stamp out is dull thinking and dull writing. Forget about the dictionary definition of jingoism. You are not publishing a college textbook here.
i agree with floridian. everyone has their biases, and i certainly don’t agree with abhi & co. on many issues, but a blog as popular as SM is in danger of devolving into usenet without quality control. and that control needs to come from up top because at the end of the day it is up top where the posts get written, the bandwidth gets paid and technical details get hashed out. the rest of us should shut the fuck up until we are willing to put in our free time to keep this blog going and just accept orders as the price we pay for a free service & passtime.
From his op-ed:
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.
Now why would he associate Bush’s deal with a rich and powerful lobby of Indian-Americans? Isn’t it a bit presumptious on his part to say that they are motivated by greater “politcal influence”? Are American interests so easily “encouraged” by a community of donut shop owners? đ This sounds like the way the American Jewry is thought to control everything through a rich and powerful cabal of financiers in some racist narratives. As far as I can tell, the Indian-American supporters of the deal are a broad-based coalition of immigrants and second genners, many of whom genuinely believe that the deal benefits both countries. There are minority of Indian-Americans who oppose the deal too, incidentally.
In his other writings, he decries the Indian-American community because of its support for Hindutva, so his anti-nationalist agenda just shines though. Hindutvavadi Indian-Americans have aligned with Manifest Desitiny to wreak havoc on the region, nay, the world. đ And what is this “as if on cue” business? He is insinuating that the American press is controlled by the administration and its powerful Indian-American Hindutva supporters. đ The irony is that the nationalists didn’t even help craft the dang deal – it was the Congress Party!
On economics, the less said the better, Salil Tripathi did a good job addressing his assertions. One example: In the artcle he ignorantly uses India’s per capita exchange rate GDP of $768 to make the case for India’s economic weakness when anyone whose taken economics knows to use purchasing power parity (PPP) GDP. India’s purchasing power GDP $3300 per person, and because its population is growing at a slower rate than its annual growth, it has been steadily rising. This compares to, say, Germany’s PPP per capita GDP of 25000. Instead of 35:1 its more like 8:1. Big difference!
Well, RC, my point at the end of the comment actually was that I don’t at all think you’re a liar or arguing in bad faith — though the logic of Krrish’s and Kush Tandon’s comments might require me to assert that you are.
With respect to Biden, I think you really are misinterpreting both his comment itself and the many comments in these pages in response to it. But since that’s not really about the jingoism issue that Abhi has raised here, let’s take that discussion to one of those threads.
Pakistan, ISI and the jihadis are directly responsible for every violent event in India.
India, RAW and the Hinduvta movement is responsible for every violent event in Pakistan.
Thank you and good night.
test