Akshaya Elizabeth Jose bemoans the “rise of authoritarian nationalism” but fails to tell us what the alternatives are. Has she looked around the neighborhood Indians live in?
To India’s south, just off its coast is Sri Lanka. How many years ago was it that Sri Lanka savagely destroyed the insurgency led by the Tamil Tigers and killed huge numbers of innocent ethnic Tamils in the process?
To India’s west is Pakistan, a country so corrupt, backwards and dangerous that it competes with Iran as the world’s leading state exporter of terrorism. How many attacks on Indian territory have been launched from Pakistan? How many innocent Hindus have been massacred by Islamic extremists with the support, tacit or otherwise, from the Pakistani government?
Not bordering India, but a hop, skip and a jump away is Afghanistan, a nation even more dysfunctional than Pakistan and on the verge of falling to the Taliban.
On India’s east is Bangladesh. The country spent the past several days consumed by riots; Is this what Bangladesh needed given its chronic food shortages, primitive healthcare infrastructure and corrupt military dominated government?
Also on India’s east is that paradise of ethnic peace, Myanmar. How many Rohingya have been murdered and exiled in the past few years? How many protestors did the Government murder last week?
To India’s north is China; home to the Uighur Genocide, the trampling of Hong Kong and the ethnic cleansing of Tibet. Not to mention the periodic incursions made by the Red Army into Indian territory.
India also borders Bhutan and Nepal; I guess they’re nice.
Against this backdrop, the Cosmopolitan Globalists are shocked, just shocked that Prime Minister Modi isn’t living up to the standards set by the American founding fathers, democratic ancient Athens or the preternaturally talented European leaders who talk a good game about tolerance and pluralism but can’t seem to figure out how to distribute simple inoculations.
Respectfully, the Cosmopolitan Globalists need a dose of reality. Compared to every other leader in South Asia, Modi is the region’s Mahatma Gandhi. His Government is as liberal and pluralistic as is possible under the circumstances.
Kvetching that he’s an autocrat just makes the Cosmopolitan Globalists look silly. Instead of telling us how crestfallen you are that he’s no fan of dissent, celebrate the fact that he’s no Xi Jinping.
Just read Anne Applebaum’s Twilight of Democracy. Draws similar conclusions in Hungry and Poland. Illiberal one party states becoming the norm with elected Govts putting incompetent party faithful on all important positions.
Do the Cosmopolitan Globalists realize the the illiberalism they bemoan in India has been raised to an art-form in the United States by “elite” institutions like Harvard?
As just one example, consider the case of former Harvard Professor, Subramanian Swamy. In July, 2011, Swamy, who had taught at Harvard for more than a decade, penned an article in the Indian Daily News and Analysis suggesting ways to “negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India.”
After wails of torment from the usual crowd of bratty students, the university agreed to investigate. Despite the fact that Harvard administrators initially defended Professor Swamy’s right to engage in controversial speech, the faculty, who were even more ignorant than the students (hard as that may be to believe), voted to fire the non-tenured Subramanian Swamy. The Professor was never informed about his dismissal; he learned about it from newspaper accounts.
The case of Subramanian Swamy is eerily similar to the case of Pratap Bhanu Mehta, but the perpetrators were not conservative nationalists as in Mehta’s situation but progressive windbags who aligned against Swamy. Both Mehta and Swamy commented on the religious controversy in Ayodhya, but from different points of view. Like Subramanian Swamy, Mehta’s defender, Arvind Subramanian, worked on economic and financial issues for the Modi Government.
You can learn more about the Subramanian Swamy controversy here,
The nationalists in India may be intolerant of dissent, but when it comes to stamping out dissent at all costs, they’re amateurs compared to the thugs on the faculty at Harvard.
An out-an-out lunatic. Who should be given tenure because ... ? The parallel between the cases does not seem "uncanny" to me. One is a liberal, the other a lunatic; cf. Popper on the paradox of tolerance in "The Open Society and Its Enemies."
He taught economics at Harvard for decades. There was never a complaint lodged against him. He writes one politically incorrect article in the aftermath of a massacre committed by Islamic extremists who entered India from Pakistan and you think that’s enough to justify his dismissal. There’s nothing “liberal” about your point of view, Claire. And there’s nothing liberal about the faculty at Harvard. Universities should be protecting faculty who promote unpopular opinions. That’s what real liberals believe but I guess it’s not what Cosmopolitan Globalists believe.
Thanks for finding the original article, it brought me some shame that I didn't scout it out myself. That man is the sort of politician real thugs can get behind.
"The nationalists in India may be intolerant of dissent, but when it comes to stamping out dissent at all costs, they’re amateurs compared to the thugs on the faculty at Harvard."
Ah yes, when the thugs of Harvard were attacking dissenting students and professors with cricket bats, it showed how they would act at any cost. Or when groups of Harvard alumni were lynching people in the defense of cows in Southie. Or maybe these things were done by Hindu Nationalists and you're completely out of line.
I'm not going to defend Harvard for the decision to fire Swamy, but I'm certainly not going to watch another Dramatic Retelling of the News without comment. If you're so angry at the Ivy Leagues that you're going to spout this sort of absurdity, maybe it's time to step back before you become completely divorced from reality. Either that or we can study Elite Derangement Syndrome from posts that extend beyond hyperbole.
Matt, the article was about an Indian professor being fired for his political beliefs. The reply I shared about Subramanian Swamy was about an Indian Professor being fired for his political beliefs. The parallel could not be more uncanny. The only difference was the political attitude of the perpetrators. Professor Swami never advocated attacking people with cricket bats. He was fired solely because of the intolerant attitudes of the Harvard faculty almost all of whom would self-identify as cosmopolitans and globalists.
The idea that nationalists are particularly intolerant or prone to authoritarianism is simply not supported by the facts.
Subgroups on opposing sides of a political issue can use the same illiberal tactics. There's no doubt. But the aspiring theocracy in India isn't neatly contained in the act of firing a professor. Not even the worst actors at Evergreen State compare to the literal lynch mobs that are being ginned up across the subcontinent. To then compare (specifically) the Harvard faculty with (broadly) Hindu nationalists and call the members of Harvard "thugs" "stamping out dissent at all costs" is ludicrous. Whiny college professors aren't remotely on the same level as Modi's government trying to extend greater control over the education system, let alone your gasp that Harvard is surpassing the Hindutva. Unclutch your pearls. Drawing parallels is not the same as proving equivalency.
I never brought up India’s ethnic and religious conflicts. Surely there’s plenty of blame to go around. Hindu’s have massacred Muslims and Muslims have massacred Hindus. Few atrocities were as heinous as the 2008 Mumbai Massacre that went on for 12 days and killed nearly 200. It was the Mumbai Massacre that inspired Subramanian Swami to write the article that got him fired. There’s no doubt that outrage over the massacre was in part responsible for Modi’s victory a few years later.
Matt, I didn’t compare Harvard Professors to the rampaging mobs of Hindus or Muslims. I did compare the behavior of the thugs at Harvard to the behavior of the powers that be at Ashoka University who acquiesced in the sacking of Mehta.
The Cosmopolitan Globalists are quick to notice authoritarianism of nationalists but reticent to recognize the exact same behavior in the compatriots.
You didn't bring up the ethnic aspects of the conflict specifically, but why would you? You've got your axe to grind, you'll be damned if they're not thugs, and you're not going to let the big picture of Indian politics get in the way.
Modi and the Hindu Nationalist project cannot be separated from its ethnic and religious roots. It's in the damn name. You call the censorious Harvard faculty "thugs," so what the hell kind of language are you going to reserve for the ethnonationalists who are attempting to remake India? I'm sure that kind of name calling plays well in some comment sections, but I think a more discerning audience will sniff out your emotional loading.
I'd be willing to bet I know the positions of at least some of the CG on censors and free expression, but I leave that for them to defend.
Akshaya Elizabeth Jose bemoans the “rise of authoritarian nationalism” but fails to tell us what the alternatives are. Has she looked around the neighborhood Indians live in?
To India’s south, just off its coast is Sri Lanka. How many years ago was it that Sri Lanka savagely destroyed the insurgency led by the Tamil Tigers and killed huge numbers of innocent ethnic Tamils in the process?
To India’s west is Pakistan, a country so corrupt, backwards and dangerous that it competes with Iran as the world’s leading state exporter of terrorism. How many attacks on Indian territory have been launched from Pakistan? How many innocent Hindus have been massacred by Islamic extremists with the support, tacit or otherwise, from the Pakistani government?
Not bordering India, but a hop, skip and a jump away is Afghanistan, a nation even more dysfunctional than Pakistan and on the verge of falling to the Taliban.
On India’s east is Bangladesh. The country spent the past several days consumed by riots; Is this what Bangladesh needed given its chronic food shortages, primitive healthcare infrastructure and corrupt military dominated government?
Also on India’s east is that paradise of ethnic peace, Myanmar. How many Rohingya have been murdered and exiled in the past few years? How many protestors did the Government murder last week?
To India’s north is China; home to the Uighur Genocide, the trampling of Hong Kong and the ethnic cleansing of Tibet. Not to mention the periodic incursions made by the Red Army into Indian territory.
India also borders Bhutan and Nepal; I guess they’re nice.
Against this backdrop, the Cosmopolitan Globalists are shocked, just shocked that Prime Minister Modi isn’t living up to the standards set by the American founding fathers, democratic ancient Athens or the preternaturally talented European leaders who talk a good game about tolerance and pluralism but can’t seem to figure out how to distribute simple inoculations.
Respectfully, the Cosmopolitan Globalists need a dose of reality. Compared to every other leader in South Asia, Modi is the region’s Mahatma Gandhi. His Government is as liberal and pluralistic as is possible under the circumstances.
Kvetching that he’s an autocrat just makes the Cosmopolitan Globalists look silly. Instead of telling us how crestfallen you are that he’s no fan of dissent, celebrate the fact that he’s no Xi Jinping.
Oh come on brother, if he lived up to the standard of Nehru that would be adequate. It’s been done before in India.
Just read Anne Applebaum’s Twilight of Democracy. Draws similar conclusions in Hungry and Poland. Illiberal one party states becoming the norm with elected Govts putting incompetent party faithful on all important positions.
Do the Cosmopolitan Globalists realize the the illiberalism they bemoan in India has been raised to an art-form in the United States by “elite” institutions like Harvard?
As just one example, consider the case of former Harvard Professor, Subramanian Swamy. In July, 2011, Swamy, who had taught at Harvard for more than a decade, penned an article in the Indian Daily News and Analysis suggesting ways to “negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India.”
After wails of torment from the usual crowd of bratty students, the university agreed to investigate. Despite the fact that Harvard administrators initially defended Professor Swamy’s right to engage in controversial speech, the faculty, who were even more ignorant than the students (hard as that may be to believe), voted to fire the non-tenured Subramanian Swamy. The Professor was never informed about his dismissal; he learned about it from newspaper accounts.
The case of Subramanian Swamy is eerily similar to the case of Pratap Bhanu Mehta, but the perpetrators were not conservative nationalists as in Mehta’s situation but progressive windbags who aligned against Swamy. Both Mehta and Swamy commented on the religious controversy in Ayodhya, but from different points of view. Like Subramanian Swamy, Mehta’s defender, Arvind Subramanian, worked on economic and financial issues for the Modi Government.
You can learn more about the Subramanian Swamy controversy here,
https://www.thefire.org/cases/harvard-university-professor-fired-for-newspaper-column/
and here,
http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/01/02/harvard_summer_school_professor_dismissed_by_faculty_after_controversial_column_in_indian_paper_fires_back/
The nationalists in India may be intolerant of dissent, but when it comes to stamping out dissent at all costs, they’re amateurs compared to the thugs on the faculty at Harvard.
Here is the article:
https://tamilbrahmins.wordpress.com/how-to-wipe-out-islamic-terror-dr-subramanian-swamy/
An out-an-out lunatic. Who should be given tenure because ... ? The parallel between the cases does not seem "uncanny" to me. One is a liberal, the other a lunatic; cf. Popper on the paradox of tolerance in "The Open Society and Its Enemies."
He taught economics at Harvard for decades. There was never a complaint lodged against him. He writes one politically incorrect article in the aftermath of a massacre committed by Islamic extremists who entered India from Pakistan and you think that’s enough to justify his dismissal. There’s nothing “liberal” about your point of view, Claire. And there’s nothing liberal about the faculty at Harvard. Universities should be protecting faculty who promote unpopular opinions. That’s what real liberals believe but I guess it’s not what Cosmopolitan Globalists believe.
Thanks for finding the original article, it brought me some shame that I didn't scout it out myself. That man is the sort of politician real thugs can get behind.
"The nationalists in India may be intolerant of dissent, but when it comes to stamping out dissent at all costs, they’re amateurs compared to the thugs on the faculty at Harvard."
Ah yes, when the thugs of Harvard were attacking dissenting students and professors with cricket bats, it showed how they would act at any cost. Or when groups of Harvard alumni were lynching people in the defense of cows in Southie. Or maybe these things were done by Hindu Nationalists and you're completely out of line.
I'm not going to defend Harvard for the decision to fire Swamy, but I'm certainly not going to watch another Dramatic Retelling of the News without comment. If you're so angry at the Ivy Leagues that you're going to spout this sort of absurdity, maybe it's time to step back before you become completely divorced from reality. Either that or we can study Elite Derangement Syndrome from posts that extend beyond hyperbole.
Matt, the article was about an Indian professor being fired for his political beliefs. The reply I shared about Subramanian Swamy was about an Indian Professor being fired for his political beliefs. The parallel could not be more uncanny. The only difference was the political attitude of the perpetrators. Professor Swami never advocated attacking people with cricket bats. He was fired solely because of the intolerant attitudes of the Harvard faculty almost all of whom would self-identify as cosmopolitans and globalists.
The idea that nationalists are particularly intolerant or prone to authoritarianism is simply not supported by the facts.
The difference is the involvement of the state.
Subgroups on opposing sides of a political issue can use the same illiberal tactics. There's no doubt. But the aspiring theocracy in India isn't neatly contained in the act of firing a professor. Not even the worst actors at Evergreen State compare to the literal lynch mobs that are being ginned up across the subcontinent. To then compare (specifically) the Harvard faculty with (broadly) Hindu nationalists and call the members of Harvard "thugs" "stamping out dissent at all costs" is ludicrous. Whiny college professors aren't remotely on the same level as Modi's government trying to extend greater control over the education system, let alone your gasp that Harvard is surpassing the Hindutva. Unclutch your pearls. Drawing parallels is not the same as proving equivalency.
I never brought up India’s ethnic and religious conflicts. Surely there’s plenty of blame to go around. Hindu’s have massacred Muslims and Muslims have massacred Hindus. Few atrocities were as heinous as the 2008 Mumbai Massacre that went on for 12 days and killed nearly 200. It was the Mumbai Massacre that inspired Subramanian Swami to write the article that got him fired. There’s no doubt that outrage over the massacre was in part responsible for Modi’s victory a few years later.
Matt, I didn’t compare Harvard Professors to the rampaging mobs of Hindus or Muslims. I did compare the behavior of the thugs at Harvard to the behavior of the powers that be at Ashoka University who acquiesced in the sacking of Mehta.
The Cosmopolitan Globalists are quick to notice authoritarianism of nationalists but reticent to recognize the exact same behavior in the compatriots.
I wonder why?
You didn't bring up the ethnic aspects of the conflict specifically, but why would you? You've got your axe to grind, you'll be damned if they're not thugs, and you're not going to let the big picture of Indian politics get in the way.
Modi and the Hindu Nationalist project cannot be separated from its ethnic and religious roots. It's in the damn name. You call the censorious Harvard faculty "thugs," so what the hell kind of language are you going to reserve for the ethnonationalists who are attempting to remake India? I'm sure that kind of name calling plays well in some comment sections, but I think a more discerning audience will sniff out your emotional loading.
I'd be willing to bet I know the positions of at least some of the CG on censors and free expression, but I leave that for them to defend.