After reading the recent article in the New York Times on corruption in the IPL, I went over to Amit Varma’s blog, India Uncut, to see if he had any comments on Lalit Modi et al. I didn’t find anything right off, but instead a reference to yet another Twitter controversy that I’d missed, in this post.
A journalist with IBN Live, Sagarika Ghose, had posted a few Tweets (for example) lamenting that a group of what she called “Internet Hindus” had attacked her for comments she had made: “Internet Hindus are like swarms of bees. they come swarming after you at any mention of Modi Muslims or Pakistan!”
Other journalists have also picked up on the phrase. Here is an interesting column by Ashok Malik in the Hindustan Times that picks up on the critique. Amit also linked to a column by Kanchan Gupta defending the “Internet Hindus” here, along the lines of “screw the pseudo-secular MSM,” though I personally wasn’t all that impressed by the overblown rhetoric. (Call me an Internet Skeptic.)
Actually, Amit Varma’s own comments on the phenomenon of extremism on the internet seemed wisest to me:
If Ghose was, indeed, bothered by trolls, she would have done well to keep in mind the old jungle saying, ‘Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it.’ The internet empowers loonies of all kinds by giving them a megaphone–but no one is forced to listen to them. The noise-to-signal ratio is way out of whack on the net (Sturgeon’s Law), and any smart internet veteran will tell you that to keep your sanity, you need to ignore the noise. Ghose, poor thing, had tried to engage with it.
We all know that people are more extreme on the net than they are in real life. The radical Hindutva dude who wants to nuke Pakistan on the net will, in the real world, sit meekly at Cafe Coffee Day arguing the relative merits of Atif Aslam and Rahat Fateh Ali Khan. (link)
Yes, exactly. Varma goes on to discuss Cass Sunstein’s recent study on “group polarization,” and has some thoughts on what that might mean for India-Pakistan relations. It’s worth reading the whole thing.
Meanwhile, here is my own humble contribution. There is indeed such a thing as an “Internet Hindu” — by which I mean, someone who expresses extreme views online while living a very moderate or even secular lifestyle in the real world. But there are also Internet Muslims, Internet Sikhs, Internet Christians, and Internet Marxsts — all of them potentially irksome if you say something they don’t like. Hindus do not have a monopoly on saying extremist things online.
I’m really not interested in having a discussion along the lines of “who are the worst offenders?” if it’s at all possible not to go down that route. (Pretty please?)
Rather, I would be curious as to whether we could use this as an opportunity to reflect on the issue of “group polarization” Varma mentions, and how and whether the habit of talking to people on the internet is a factor in magnifying differences. How have your own views and habits changed as a result of being on the internet, talking about issues related to the Indian subcontinent? What are some positive effects, and what are some negatives?
I think my main experience has, yes, been one of political radicalization. At first, exposure to lots of different views was a real learning experience for me. I picked up on a lot of nuances and issues that I hadn’t linked together before. But with time, I started to realize that there was a real “agenda” out there directed against me and my views. So my views hardened. And got called extreme. And then I started to take even more extreme positions, in order to make my “real” views seem moderate. And gradually I got comfortable with the more extreme views. And then I started attending actual political meetings with the more extreme groups, even though I had to travel. And I socialized and bonded with these people, who are now my friends. And now I’ve abandoned my other hobbies and spend my time and money supporting groups in India that are widely considered on, say, this blog, to be extreme. So, yeah, with a few years of internet exposure I went from moderate to “fascist.”
Part of the issue is disconnection from consequences, of what it means to advocate something. Who is affected and how. To fail to account for the humanity of those who are being referred to in the rhetoric is key. Also you forgot there is also the group advocating for the status quo of broadly secular liberalism
With respect to comment #2, yes, I have become a bit “numb” to the humanity of my opponents. When I reflect on this, it bothers me sometimes. But on the other hand I don’t want to be paralyzed by it, and just give in to the opposition’s agenda. And I get a real adrenalin rush when our side accomplishes something (which isn’t often enough). Probably if I lived in India I would be more moderate. But then again, maybe not. I mean, when I go there and distribute money, the people I give it too are in some ways much more radical than me. There is a real lack of intellect on the Indian right, though. Sometimes I think about quitting my job, moving to India (which would be tough for me, as an ABD), and becoming the “brain trust” of the Sangh.
These are all just various subspecies of Idealogue and occasionally Issues.
That said, political or religious discussions are mere skirmishes. If you want a truly vicious battle, spark a debate about Windows vs. Mac OS.
The best thing about the Net is that it allows you to somewhat safely express your real views. While at a liberal US college, in order to ensure that I got my A in South Asian studies, I often had to toe the professors’ (remarkably non-nuanced btw) line on India. The professors, found it surprisingly easy to incorporate the buzzwords of Modi, Gujarat, RSS, Hindutva in virtually every course about South Asia- be it ancient or medieval history, visual cultures, indian films and what not – and convenientely forgot or professed ignorance about other equally important factors affecting our contemporary understanding of all these issues. Heck, we even had Romila Thapar come in and lecture about contemporary methods of history teaching. It took another brave fellow student to gently remind her that the travesty that is her 6th grade NCERT history book on Ancient India has been responsible for generations of Indian middle class students thinking of History as boring subject and tuning out and not caring about learning more about the heritage of our motherland. That student of course, got an D from our lovely professor later on.
Prema, thanks for taking the prompt seriously. I appreciate your comment. (I could well be one of “those” profs., but it’s helpful to hear your perspective).
Internet discussions do not always have to be a race to the intellectual bottom. A few simple guidelines are: (1) Actually read whatever it is you are responding to. (2) Write in complete sentences and even in complete paragraphs, but do not write more than you yourself would be willing to read if it was coming from someone you disagree with. (3) Try to express your opinions with simple declarative statements that do not involve characterizing other people or their opinions. (4) Approach your own ideas and opinions with more skepticism than those you disagree with. In particular, always try to find weaknesses in your own arguments. If you cannot logically defend your position without a lot of qualifiers to address these weaknesses, seek a simpler more defensible position, or, alternatively, keep your mouth shut for now. (5) Swarm like bees any time you see mention of “Gujarat” and “genocide” in the same sentence. 😉
Positive effects: discovering commonalities and seeing my sentiments echoed by others. Because I am not religious and have a consistent moral standard including the 1st amendment and am against the perils of barbarism, I am heartened to see others sharing the same sentiments. Negative effects: Ad hominem attacks which I have never experienced in real life and I have been involved in numerous debates in real life involving religion and politics. My views have probably hardened against Jihadi apologists and Hindu BJP supporters and my views have become less flexible. I blame my upbringing for sheltering me in a cocoon from these views. In real life, I never encounter those two among friends, only some recent immigrants from the desh in my family have surprisingly anti-Muslim sentiments. Prerna, I similarly hated my South Asian professor. It was one of the most biased class that I have ever taken and the basic point in the class was that the British are evil and Indians are children (and literature was selected to prove that one point). The Indians covered had no agency and were reactionaries who merely reacted against the evil Brits. Before that, Indians were living supposedly in Paradise.
The dark side of the safety of the internet is the encapsulation we acquire when we shop around for opinions that match only our own. That rapidly leads to meta-xenophobia, galvanized intolerance when you face the issues in real life, and self-righteousness. In short, ideology (specious or not) reigns at a rabid level and that’s good for no one.
Trolls aren’t really part of it. They’re just sh!t-stirrers who don’t really care about the issues, just about evoking anger in any scenario (online or not).
Changed views and habits: The most profound one I’ve encountered is that no one really knows sh!t unless you’re living it on the ground, in real life. Lofty philosophizing and Vicarious “experience” are ultimately worthless no matter how many links you can produce to justify your argument. This includes scientific research…a study is a study and its results are far from dogma.
Amardeep, what’s the problem? Slow day at the office? Looks like this discussion is going to be around for some time. I will drop by later tonight after I am done with homework and all that.
Yeah It has changed my views. I used to think of Pakistanis’ as people who might be irritating but still loved brothers. It was like Indians and Pakistanis were caught up in a long drawn family feud. But now that I have access to more extreme comments on Indians and Hindus I have become more and more hardened. But at the same time the positive effect is that I no longer see everything from my point of view alone. Sometimes there seems to be extremely opposing views to the same issues.
Amardeep: The internet, aside from bringing me swathes of music, has made me much more aware of the privileges I have as a cissexual, cisgendered, middle class person in a Western country. It has also made me aware of the privileges I don’t possess. I realised because of the many writings on the internet that we are far from having a post-racial, post-sexist world. It also reinforced to me how much India itself is rife with similar prejudices as exist in the West and how much work needs to be done on that front.
In fact, if anything, the internet has made me much less comfortable with and tolerant of what I perceive to be extremist ideologies.
Anyone who uses the term “cissexual” or “cisgendered” without bursting into laughter is so far into identity politics and bad philosophy (i.e., PoMo/PoCo) that it is difficult for 99% of the world to take them seriously.
PoMo= Postmodernism?
I would like to buy you a beer good sir.
Yes, and PoCo = Postcolonialism. “real” philosophy would be what’s taught in philosophy departments.
Absolutely!
Positives: Relief that the history that I was taught in high school is largely someone’s interpretation of truth, relief that when “Hussain Sir” compared Hitler’s rise and his acceptance by masses in Germany to Zia’s rise to power in Pakistan, he was probably a more than a little off target. Revelation that there are other sources of information, that there are many others who are skeptical of pseudo-secularists.
Revelation that people who have accumulated multiple degrees are not really enlightened individuals – they may carry more ammo in a debate but deep down they are just as petty, narrow minded and insecure as any other human.
Negatives: None, other than the fact that I spend too much time on internet.
Prerna’s reference to Romila Thapar in Post 5, and Amardeep’s admission in Post 6 got me to realize that I now doubt whether liberal arts is really a scholarly subject, or merely an op-ed article in disguise. What is the dividing line between liberal arts and op-ed articles? Should I treat Amardeep or to Romila Thapar on par with professors of science?
In Post 5, SusanjP, you lament that our side has accomplished little. In fact, by planting this doubt in my mind, your side has accomplished a lot.
To be clear, my acknowledgment above wasn’t that I treat students with opposing views in a biased way. I judge students’ work based on merits, not on my own personal agreement. My acknowledgment was strictly that my personal political views — which I try and keep out of the classroom — tend to the secular center-left, presumably in contrast to Prerna (or Prema?).
That’s a little harsh. Sometimes the bursting into laughter takes a while. In fact, that heightens the effect in the end.
And anyone who, with a straight-face (I’m assuming), refers to “what is taught in philosophy departments” as “‘real’ philosophy”, really needs to work on that and not worry so much about anyone else.
I went to a liberal arts college in the US too, and took South Asia classes in history and religion, and my professors – no matter their personal political views – held my feet to the fire until I’d articulated and backed up my thesis.
It’s possible that some students have to deal with professorial bias. It’s also possible that their argument just doesn’t cut it.
Have you ever tried negotiating over email? Try it and you will be amazed at how quickly the conversation can become nasty. This will happen even if you have had face to face contact with the other party. I think the medium is a big part of the problem.
I also want to disagree with an earlier comment about speaking freely in a classroom setting. I think American classrooms can be powerful spaces to express your ideas so long as you use the accepted norms of communication. And every academic culture has its own norm. I have studied in two Indian universities with diametrically different cultures of dissent.
I think it is the obviously unbalanced take that the mainstream “South Asianists” take that is causally-related to my radicalization/saffronization. The constant harping on Gujarat while downplaying, say, the much, much bigger anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh in 1971, etc. Also the unbalanced take on Indian history–attempting to “brownwash” the Muslim conquests. All this makes it feel, to a Hindu, as if South Asian history is being built around a narrative of covering up the bad aspects of other groups, and harping on the bad aspects of (particularly forward-caste) Hindus. If the other side wants to staunch the flood of $$ and supporters to the Sangh Parivar, they would do well to listen to voices such as myself and to integrate a less biased take on history and current affairs into their endeavors.
If you want another example, consider how an unbalanced telling of the history of the Americas, which portrayed the Europeans as evil and the Native Americans as noble savages, would be. This would unfairly ignore, for example, the Aztec’s enslavement and sacrifice of other Native tribes. In fact, the Spanish were able to convince these other tribes to rise up against the Aztecs, and their aid was critical to the conquest of the Aztecs. But you are going to get a backlash from whites if you keep distorting history that way in an anti-white bias.
Oh wow! They actually gave you a chance to articulate and back up your thesis?
Prof. Amardeep: Comment @ 5 was by “Prerna” and not “Prema”. Huge difference 😉
That’s great Amardeep and I most certainly think I would have enjoyed your class if I had taken it. But I assure you – I am not harping on the professor’s personal (political) views but 1the literature presented in class that were biased and off putting, especially if you tend to read history books about particular parts of South Asia so you know when they are talking BS. The bias was systematic, pervaded the whole classroom and was detrimental to studying history. A few white classmates in my class complained about it (if South Asians other than myself had misgivings of the curriculum, they did not show it or articulate it in private) but they were good little students and regurgitated what the professor wanted them to say. To those, who say that they did not experience any sort of indoctrination in any of the South Asian History classes. Great! May I have been as lucky as you! I assume Prerna is talking about a similar thing.
Prof. Amardeep: Comment @ 5 was by “Prerna” and not “Prema”. Huge difference 😉
Yo Dad, thanks — I finally noticed that a little while ago. They appear to be two different people, writing from different parts of the world.
Nyx — if the problem is systemic, how might it be fixed?
And to the other commenters on this thread — if you aren’t fond of Romila Thapar, what should college students of South Asian history read instead to get what you would call an unbiased account? (Hint: don’t say Arun Shourie!)
The most important suggestion is, of course, to read broadly. A great start is Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. 1: Our Oriental Heritage (1935). The coverage of India is broad and excellent.
Here are some of my suggestions: Highlight the history of different parts of India, not just that of Bengal and North India and quit stating that the Mughals were the epitome of tolerance before Aurangazeb (Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of India proper before the British but it would be good to also talk also about their history). Talk about the influence of regionalism and Hindu reform movements (especially bhakti) that led to many religious texts written in regional languages (like in Punjab and Tamil Nadu). Highlight contributions of different kingdoms before the arrival of the British. Highlight writings by figures such as Ambedkar, not just Vivekananda. More primary sources, less secondary sources (especially theories by other academics). I would state that highlighting primary sources would cure most of the biases. If anyone has any others, feel free to share them.
You forgot the Internet Jews. And the Internet Hin-Jews, who are a breed by themselves, though in some cases related to the Internet Hindus.
On #20, philosophy, as taught in philosophy departments, is a well-defined discipline. It addresses three major questions: Metaphysics (What things exist?), Epistemology (What counts as knowledge?) and Ethics (What is right action?). Philosophy tries to develop systematic accounts of conditions for existence, conditions for knowledge, conditions for right action. This is why you don’t see literary criticism or Marxism taught in philosophy departments, because these thought streams do not contribute to the three central questions philosophy is concerned with. The first does fancy parsing of text, so is closer to linguistics, the second pushes a bone-headed view of how resources should be allocated and by whom, so is closer to economics.
Also, in the process of developing the accounts of existence, knowledge and right-action, philosophy has developed a formal methodology for judging statements (logic) which is accepted and used widely within the academy and outside. Incidentally, one version of logic also helps us have this conversation. The methods of literary criticism and Marxism (not to mention the psychedelic mixture of the two) do not have such wider acceptance. And this is another reason why those things are not taught in philosophy.
There are problems with the way philosophy is practiced in philosophy departments, but that is different from saying that what is taught there is not philosophy. To make that argument, you need to come up with: 1) an alternate definition of philosophy, 2) alternate methods 3) equivalent acceptance for those methods, and 4) convince a majority of people that the combination of 1 to 3 deserves the title of “philosophy” more than what is currently taught in philosophy departments. I wish you good luck with this enterprise. Especially given this.
What an edifying article. Thanks for that.
How about this book? it is written by Manmohan Singh’s daughter.
Oh! Is that all?
Hm, $90 is a little on the pricey side. Luckily, some of her other books are at libraries close to me.
Anyone read a comparable book by Burjor Avari?
Greater coverage on the day-to-day life of ordinary people. What food did they eat in those days? What sort of clothes did they wear? What sort of games did they play? Artists’s rendering of roads, towns, villages.
@SusanjP’ side :
Footnotes, dear SusanjP, footnotes. Lots of them.
Given that the thing is over 700 pages long it seems pretty reasonable for such a specialized topic. Especially considering that most of your supplementary reading prior to the pre-modern era can be gotten for free or for dirt cheap.
Your average McGraw-Hill text on American or World History would run maybe $60 not including supplementary reading.
I posted a review of that book, but it hasn’t appeared yet.
Here goes the review again.
Regarding what Susanj has written about Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) and the anti-Hindu violence perpetrated by both Bengali Muslims and the Pakistani military, the internet has been of immense importance in making access to information regarding history and modern political events of South Asia possible which hitherto was incredibly difficult to get my hands on. For instance in 1972 the highly renowned and well-respected human rights organization the International Commission of Jurists did a report on what had occurred in then East Pakistan, today Bangladesh and all the texts and books that I read on those events previous to my access to internet cited that report and investigation done and I had great difficulty in recovering it. However,due to do some person feeling the need to share the report, it has been put online and I am immensely grateful that that information is able to be utilized. I would exhort everyone if they can to read the full report about the events in East Pakistan/Bangladesh in 1971.
Here is the link to the report put online:http://www.globalwebpost.com/genocide1971/docs/jurists/1_preface.htm
If I may quote what is probably the most important conclusion and finding of the Commission, it is this:
“As far as the other three groups are concerned, namely members of the Awami League, students and Hindus, only Hindus would seem to fall within the definition of’ a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'[in the definition of genocide]. There is overwhelming evidence that Hindus were slaughtered and their houses and villages destroyed simply because they were Hindus. The oft repeated phrase ‘Hindus are enemies of the state’ as a justification for the killing does not gainsay the intent to commit genocide; rather does it confirm the intention. The Nazis regarded the Jews as enemies of the state and killed them as such. In our view there is a strong prima facie case that the crime of genocide was committed against the group comprising the Hindu population of East Bengal.”
“The Events in East Pakistan, 1971”, International Commission of Jurists June 1972
Philomena, it was marked as spam. I think the problem was that the whole comment was inside a link, which looks suspicious to our automatic spam filter. I do not check this very consistently, so if you (or anyone) has problems with comments appearing, the thing to do is to send us a quick email.
I think some of Habib’s criticisms might fall under the category of “nit-picking.” Overall, the book looks really good.
Thanks for the review, Philomena. It’s rather harsh, but then again it’s Irfan Habib the Marxist. I have been told that the latter’s co-edited Cambridge Economic History of India is actually not bad, though I haven’t dipped into it yet. Your post #30 is quite accurate re: academic philosophy. I am a philosopher (in ethics, and no, any $$ I give the Sangh is not from my “over-generous” professor’s salary, but other sources–mainly my wife’s income as a physician, truth be told (she is also a supporter), and a modest inheritance. I generally keep my involvement quiet, although I have had interesting discussions with Jewish colleagues who in similar fashion support the right in Israel. But I’m careful to ‘sound people out’ before I talk too openly.) The reason I like Durant’s book is because of its scope. It helps to set some baselines, so is useful even though far, far from the last word on anything. That is, if one is reading a monograph or academic article on a particular, narrower topic, one might start to notice what’s being ignored, downplayed, etc. by reference to the much broader Durant book. But, that said, I am only a hobbyist in terms of Indian history.
In my experience, the most positive aspect of talking about South Asian issues on the net has been coming across people who relate to each other as South Asian Americans not just as “Indians”, “Pakistanis” et al.
The negative aspects have been the frustration experienced debating people who are not honestly interested in hearing alternative points of view, but simply in pushing their own agenda, whatever it may be. Also people who take every opportunity to go off on an anti-Pakistan or anti-Muslim tangent.
Anyway, to address Amardeep’s question, being on the Internet hasn’t polarised me, mostly because I have a rather bizarre view of Hindu politics. I think the parivar organisations are useful to counter the fundamentalist trends in the Abrahamic religions, but that is in the short-term. In the long-run, the parivar should turn into some kind of Green Peace type organisation, given the centrality of nature and its worship in “Hinduism”, and the environmental disaster that is following India’s economic growth. And this cause could bring the “real” Marxists (defined as the non-power-focused ones) closer to the parivar. (This is close to the “red-saffron” idea pushed by Sudheendra Kulkarni.)
I have interacted closely with both (good/non-violent) parivar people and (good/non-violent) Marxists, and there is a lot more common to their humanity than you would infer from the yelling on the Internet. Both keep their distance from the institutionalized versions of their worldviews. There is a streak of idealism that runs through both groups, and I wish it could come together to produce something useful, I am hoping that the environment would be this unifying cause.
It is so great to be a Liberal in America, accepting, loving, understanding, caring of all people. Until the 1st time you get called a ‘paki’ or subtle denial of access to what you took for granted, and then the ghettonization of South Asians occur. But wait, we are Americans, those things do not happen here, only in backward places like England.
Mahavira #40 thanks for the links. Philomena #44 You make some good points. I am lazy sometimes and call Sangh Parivar “right”[wing] but it doesn’t map onto a US right wing in a 1:1 way, of course. Environmental problems in India aren’t due only to economic growth, though! Fouled rivers are due to underdevelopment too–such as not enough sewage treatment, continued open defecation, etc. But the environment needs to be a much higher priority, and I think that, hopefully, there still may be time. But not much. Which scares me.
the usenet era prefigured the whole debates about etiquette. anyway, different fora have different standards. if you give the animals license, they will proliferate. additionally, all fora have implicit boundaries and organizing norms. there’s no point when you lay outside of those boundaries and organizing norms throwing temper tantrums that their own side isn’t getting a fair shake. for example, there tends to be a bias to a moderate liberal perspective on SM in regards to american politics. this has been evident from the beginning. that’s fine, that shapes how the principals and the community views things. people who wanted a more hardcore lefty environment can create their own, and those who want a non-liberal one can do so as well. similarly, i think that the principals tend to be a bit prejudiced against hindutva and the like. so? who is really neutral. create your own fora.
SusanjP, good to see a philosopher here. I am not one, but I read quite a bit of philosophy, mostly epistemology, and also some Indian philosophy. One of the tragedies of Hinduism (and to a lesser extent, Buddhism) is that academic discussion about these traditions was somehow appropriated by religion, history and oriental studies departments. The deep philosophical debates in these traditions have not got the attention they deserve, and to some extent this is a problem with the philosophy departments. More later…machine rebooting…
I doubt if one part of the view is as offbeat as you think it is. The Parivar moved into politics specifically as a counter, and is very uncomfortable with its role, as can be seen often by the RSS pronouncements from time to time. I would guest most “Internet hindus” are deeply distressed by the damage the Abrahamic religions are doing to Hinduism, and want to push back in some way.
There is a green component to the parivar. “One earth, green earth: Creating the right environment” was part of the BJP manifesto and a low carbon economy is one of its main stated goals for India.
But the parivar has well as completely opposed components, industrialists and unions, for instance.. (Try telling a BMS union worker that his factory will be closed due to environmental concerns .. I doubt if he will go along)
Commies and the the Parivar though … that’s a laugh. Both may be idealistic, but the commie idealists have a history of being blatantly anti-nationalistic traitors (their support of China against India in the 1962 war comes to mind immediately).
Sorry, some kind of patch installation thing going on there….
Anyway, I just wanted to say that one way to counter the “bad press” from the religion/history/oriental studies folks would be to focus on the philosophical ideas of Indian traditions. By the definition of philosophy I used above, Indian traditions really are philosophical traditions, with clear positions on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, and formal methods for judging arguments. A lot of the unhappiness among ordinary Hindus come from the “swamping” of Indian thought by detailed accounts of historical and cultural baggage, which have nothing to do with the philosophical ideas themselves. An analogy would be German philosophical ideas being overshadowed by details of Germany’s wars and politics. So while Upinder’s book maybe a counterweight to Romila’s book, a better counterweight is learning/teaching Indian philosophy.
Dizzydesi, I think you should hang out with some sensible Marxians, who are usually the disillusioned ones. There is a difference between the abstract “party line” and actual people’s thoughts. There are Marxians who can tell you more about the Gita and Soundarya Lahiri (citing verse by verse from memory) than can most of the BJP leaders. It may also be instructive to remember that some of the senior leaders of the Sangh, including Vajpayee and Advani, have “commie” backgrounds. Also, many of the former naxalities are now environmental activists. There is a very strong connection between the environment and religious traditions, and also folk knowledge. Monsanto’s BT-Brinjal is very much a “Hindu” problem, not just a lefty one, because it seeks to undermine a way of life.