Forgotten Brethren

I sometimes wonder how I would describe today’s India if I were a historian writing a hundred years from now. I would write, first, that the paramount marker of the first decade of 21st century India was the extraordinary indifference that people of privilege had for the intense and pervasive levels of human suffering all around them.

There is indeed a startling absence of compassion among a majority of well-to-do Indians towards the millions who have no advantages of birth to shield them from hunger, oppression, violence, squalor and humiliation. A dispassionate external observer would be bewildered by middle-class India’s capacity to look away when confronted with enormous injustice and suffering; by our society’s cultural comfort with inequality. That the accident of where a child is born still determines her chances in life almost irrevocably—whether and how long she would be able to study, and with what quality, the vocations open to her, the limits of her wealth and social standing, even her most basic well-being and dignity—is widely considered unproblematic, even legitimate. Many people of wealth and privilege are convin­ced that they have what they do because they deserve it, and that those who are in want and need also deserve their lot—because of laziness, addiction to drink, lack of education, lack of ambition, low capabilities in general, and the profligate breeding of large families.

The second-most striking marker of this age that I would record, looking back on India a century later, would be the legitimisation of prejudice and discrimination against people of minority faiths and cultures and people whose life choices differ from those of the majority. Since the early 1990s, there has been an erosion, among significant sections of the middle class, of our traditions of pluralism and the lived acceptance—however imperfect—of diversity. People of minority communities are subjected to bigotry, intolerance and open hostility. Large sections of the elite and middle classes are also unapo­logetically prejudiced against people of ‘lower’ castes, residents of urban slums, people from ethnically distinct regions like the Northeast, working class mig­rants from poor states like Bihar, coloured people, sexual minorities and many others who differ in whichever way from the ‘mainstream’.

When the dust settled after the general elections of 2014, it was apparent that this had been no ordinary poll. What had been waged was no less than a battle for India’s soul. No election in free India’s nearly seven-decade history has left the moral, social and political landscape of India so profoundly divided.

The real story of the 2014 elections is of the social, and not merely the political, winners and losers—one segment of people who felt that Modi’s victory signified the glorious consolidation of their own economic and social ascendancy, and another segment who felt devastated by the result, seeing in it a crushing of their dreams for themselves, their communities and their country. For the latter, it was not the parties they supported—which many recognised to have floundered and failed them spectacularly and unforgivably—but they themselves who had been vanquished.

Who are the social winners of the 2014 elections, the people who voted for the BJP and who celebrate its conquests as their own? They include not just large numbers of India’s urban, overwhelmingly caste-Hindu middle and upper classes—the most influential cheerleaders—but also people Modi himself describes as the ‘neo-middle class’—the new entrants to the middle class—and the aspirational class, those who have not yet entered the middle class but are hopeful and impatient to benefit from India’s growth. Many among these are first-time voters between 18 and 22 years of age. In addition, the BJP benefited hugely from a unified anti-minority Hindu votebank—there was a striking blurring of most caste lines and a significant recruitment even from among the subaltern castes, including that of Dalits in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, against the religious minorities, especially Muslims but also of people in tribal areas, many of whom are Christians.

Who are those who perceive themselves to be the social losers of this election, many among the three out of five voters who opposed the victorious party and its allies? There is first the mass of secular Indians. This secular electorate comprises not only people from the numerically small upper-class liberal elite, but millions of ordinary Indians in the small towns and villages of the country who—in the ways they live their lives—oppose ideologies of difference and divisiveness and uphold an intensely pluralist though, simultaneously, a highly unequal civilisation. The second set of losers are India’s minorities, especially Muslims but also Christians, who are stunned and frightened by the scale of majoritarian consolida­tion, unmatched even by the aftermath of Partition and the demolition of the Babri Masjid, which would count as the two lowest points in communal relations in independent India. Many Muslim friends confessed to having wept when they heard the results. Also in dread of backlash and persecution are India’s sexual minorities.

The third and the largest set of social losers are India’s very poor people—migrant workers, landless farm labourers, displaced forest-dwellers, farmers driven to despair and suicide, weavers and artisans threatened by extinction, women in unpaid or underpaid work, over 200 million people who still sleep hungry, over 100 million people condemned to the squalor of slums, young people who have never had the chance to enter school or continue beyond primary school, and people whom each health emergency pushes further into catastrophic penury or kills outright. They are the 21st century Indians, who cannot even dream of one day entering the golden middle class, people exiled from aspiration. One of India’s greatest living writers, Mahasweta Devi, once remarked that the first fundamental right of all is the right to dream. These are people in permanent exile from dreaming.

confuzzled dude wrote:

I sometimes wonder how I would describe today’s India if I were a historian writing a hundred years from now. I would write, first, that the paramount marker of the first decade of 21st century India was the extraordinary indifference that people of privilege had for the intense and pervasive levels of human suffering all around them.

There is indeed a startling absence of compassion among a majority of well-to-do Indians towards the millions who have no advantages of birth to shield them from hunger, oppression, violence, squalor and humiliation. A dispassionate external observer would be bewildered by middle-class India’s capacity to look away when confronted with enormous injustice and suffering; by our society’s cultural comfort with inequality. That the accident of where a child is born still determines her chances in life almost irrevocably—whether and how long she would be able to study, and with what quality, the vocations open to her, the limits of her wealth and social standing, even her most basic well-being and dignity—is widely considered unproblematic, even legitimate. Many people of wealth and privilege are convin­ced that they have what they do because they deserve it, and that those who are in want and need also deserve their lot—because of laziness, addiction to drink, lack of education, lack of ambition, low capabilities in general, and the profligate breeding of large families.

The second-most striking marker of this age that I would record, looking back on India a century later, would be the legitimisation of prejudice and discrimination against people of minority faiths and cultures and people whose life choices differ from those of the majority. Since the early 1990s, there has been an erosion, among significant sections of the middle class, of our traditions of pluralism and the lived acceptance—however imperfect—of diversity. People of minority communities are subjected to bigotry, intolerance and open hostility. Large sections of the elite and middle classes are also unapo­logetically prejudiced against people of ‘lower’ castes, residents of urban slums, people from ethnically distinct regions like the Northeast, working class mig­rants from poor states like Bihar, coloured people, sexual minorities and many others who differ in whichever way from the ‘mainstream’.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Forgotten-Brethren/293980

NRI patriots would say.. too bad! those losers couldn't capitalize on the capitalism.

confuzzled dude wrote:

When the dust settled after the general elections of 2014, it was apparent that this had been no ordinary poll. What had been waged was no less than a battle for India’s soul. No election in free India’s nearly seven-decade history has left the moral, social and political landscape of India so profoundly divided.

The real story of the 2014 elections is of the social, and not merely the political, winners and losers—one segment of people who felt that Modi’s victory signified the glorious consolidation of their own economic and social ascendancy, and another segment who felt devastated by the result, seeing in it a crushing of their dreams for themselves, their communities and their country. For the latter, it was not the parties they supported—which many recognised to have floundered and failed them spectacularly and unforgivably—but they themselves who had been vanquished.

Who are the social winners of the 2014 elections, the people who voted for the BJP and who celebrate its conquests as their own? They include not just large numbers of India’s urban, overwhelmingly caste-Hindu middle and upper classes—the most influential cheerleaders—but also people Modi himself describes as the ‘neo-middle class’—the new entrants to the middle class—and the aspirational class, those who have not yet entered the middle class but are hopeful and impatient to benefit from India’s growth. Many among these are first-time voters between 18 and 22 years of age. In addition, the BJP benefited hugely from a unified anti-minority Hindu votebank—there was a striking blurring of most caste lines and a significant recruitment even from among the subaltern castes, including that of Dalits in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, against the religious minorities, especially Muslims but also of people in tribal areas, many of whom are Christians.

Who are those who perceive themselves to be the social losers of this election, many among the three out of five voters who opposed the victorious party and its allies? There is first the mass of secular Indians. This secular electorate comprises not only people from the numerically small upper-class liberal elite, but millions of ordinary Indians in the small towns and villages of the country who—in the ways they live their lives—oppose ideologies of difference and divisiveness and uphold an intensely pluralist though, simultaneously, a highly unequal civilisation. The second set of losers are India’s minorities, especially Muslims but also Christians, who are stunned and frightened by the scale of majoritarian consolida­tion, unmatched even by the aftermath of Partition and the demolition of the Babri Masjid, which would count as the two lowest points in communal relations in independent India. Many Muslim friends confessed to having wept when they heard the results. Also in dread of backlash and persecution are India’s sexual minorities.

The third and the largest set of social losers are India’s very poor people—migrant workers, landless farm labourers, displaced forest-dwellers, farmers driven to despair and suicide, weavers and artisans threatened by extinction, women in unpaid or underpaid work, over 200 million people who still sleep hungry, over 100 million people condemned to the squalor of slums, young people who have never had the chance to enter school or continue beyond primary school, and people whom each health emergency pushes further into catastrophic penury or kills outright. They are the 21st century Indians, who cannot even dream of one day entering the golden middle class, people exiled from aspiration. One of India’s greatest living writers, Mahasweta Devi, once remarked that the first fundamental right of all is the right to dream. These are people in permanent exile from dreaming.

confuzzled dude wrote:

When the dust settled after the general elections of 2014, it was apparent that this had been no ordinary poll. What had been waged was no less than a battle for India’s soul. No election in free India’s nearly seven-decade history has left the moral, social and political landscape of India so profoundly divided.

The real story of the 2014 elections is of the social, and not merely the political, winners and losers—one segment of people who felt that Modi’s victory signified the glorious consolidation of their own economic and social ascendancy, and another segment who felt devastated by the result, seeing in it a crushing of their dreams for themselves, their communities and their country. For the latter, it was not the parties they supported—which many recognised to have floundered and failed them spectacularly and unforgivably—but they themselves who had been vanquished.

Who are the social winners of the 2014 elections, the people who voted for the BJP and who celebrate its conquests as their own? They include not just large numbers of India’s urban, overwhelmingly caste-Hindu middle and upper classes—the most influential cheerleaders—but also people Modi himself describes as the ‘neo-middle class’—the new entrants to the middle class—and the aspirational class, those who have not yet entered the middle class but are hopeful and impatient to benefit from India’s growth. Many among these are first-time voters between 18 and 22 years of age. In addition, the BJP benefited hugely from a unified anti-minority Hindu votebank—there was a striking blurring of most caste lines and a significant recruitment even from among the subaltern castes, including that of Dalits in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, against the religious minorities, especially Muslims but also of people in tribal areas, many of whom are Christians.

Who are those who perceive themselves to be the social losers of this election, many among the three out of five voters who opposed the victorious party and its allies? There is first the mass of secular Indians. This secular electorate comprises not only people from the numerically small upper-class liberal elite, but millions of ordinary Indians in the small towns and villages of the country who—in the ways they live their lives—oppose ideologies of difference and divisiveness and uphold an intensely pluralist though, simultaneously, a highly unequal civilisation. The second set of losers are India’s minorities, especially Muslims but also Christians, who are stunned and frightened by the scale of majoritarian consolida­tion, unmatched even by the aftermath of Partition and the demolition of the Babri Masjid, which would count as the two lowest points in communal relations in independent India. Many Muslim friends confessed to having wept when they heard the results. Also in dread of backlash and persecution are India’s sexual minorities.

The third and the largest set of social losers are India’s very poor people—migrant workers, landless farm labourers, displaced forest-dwellers, farmers driven to despair and suicide, weavers and artisans threatened by extinction, women in unpaid or underpaid work, over 200 million people who still sleep hungry, over 100 million people condemned to the squalor of slums, young people who have never had the chance to enter school or continue beyond primary school, and people whom each health emergency pushes further into catastrophic penury or kills outright. They are the 21st century Indians, who cannot even dream of one day entering the golden middle class, people exiled from aspiration. One of India’s greatest living writers, Mahasweta Devi, once remarked that the first fundamental right of all is the right to dream. These are people in permanent exile from dreaming.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Those are the views of a biased individual.

Simply put 60 years of great Dharma of Congress - if it was truly a Dharmic rule and strong - would not be so easily destroyed by Modi in 1 year.  So it must be a rot set in 1947 and the rotting must have been hidden for 60 years by UPA...At best Modi might have taken the covers off the rot, and that does not mean he caused the rot..

Kris wrote:
>>>I tried to read this but came away very confused as to what this is about. Is he saying poverty and squalor and discrimination or the rich/poor divide didn't exist prior to 2014? If the results of the election are nullified today, would these then go away? The article also says the other party failed its supporters spectacularly. So, what is his solution?

truthbetold wrote:what a load of crap.  This is the story of human race.  Has this writer ever read history of southern america, Jamaica, Africa, Arab countries.  These idiots write some immature nonsense but what is worse is that some sucher finds that intellectually illuminating to post it here. 

Find something original and authentic.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>I tried to read this but came away very confused as to what this is about. Is he saying poverty and squalor and discrimination or the rich/poor divide didn't exist prior to 2014? If the results of the election are nullified today, would these then go away? The article also says the other party failed its supporters spectacularly. So, what is his solution?

There is nothing to confuse about, he was clear as to how this govt. chose the path to divide the country along the lines of rich vs poor & majority vs minority.

But perhaps more fundamental is the problem of mindsets. In his thought-provoking book Being Indian, former diplomat, politician, author and thought leader Pavan Varma stresses that in the Indian elite “there is a remarkable tolerance of inequity, filth and human suffering”. He adds that “concern for the deprived and the suffering is not a prominent feature of the Indian personality. The rich in India have always lived a life quite oblivious to the ocean of poverty around them”. Less than ten minutes from the slums on the outskirts of Jaipur there are very nice upper income (heavily guarded) residential areas. One city: two universes.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>I tried to read this but came away very confused as to what this is about. Is he saying poverty and squalor and discrimination or the rich/poor divide didn't exist prior to 2014? If the results of the election are nullified today, would these then go away? The article also says the other party failed its supporters spectacularly. So, what is his solution?

There is nothing to confuse about, he was clear as to how this govt. chose the path to divide the country along the lines of rich vs poor & majority vs minority.

>>>> So these divisions did not exist before in India? Or is the point that this was not evident until the new party highlighted them , if that is the claim being made? The simple fact is that the previous party's performance was abysmal and they got booted out. If these guys don't perform, the same will happen to them.

confuzzled dude wrote:

But perhaps more fundamental is the problem of mindsets. In his thought-provoking book Being Indian, former diplomat, politician, author and thought leader Pavan Varma stresses that in the Indian elite “there is a remarkable tolerance of inequity, filth and human suffering”. He adds that “concern for the deprived and the suffering is not a prominent feature of the Indian personality. The rich in India have always lived a life quite oblivious to the ocean of poverty around them”. Less than ten minutes from the slums on the outskirts of Jaipur there are very nice upper income (heavily guarded) residential areas. One city: two universes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jplehmann/2015/04/12/indias-wrong-priorities-as-children-go-hungry-pm-modi-buys-fighter-jets-in-france/2/

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

But perhaps more fundamental is the problem of mindsets. In his thought-provoking book Being Indian, former diplomat, politician, author and thought leader Pavan Varma stresses that in the Indian elite “there is a remarkable tolerance of inequity, filth and human suffering”. He adds that “concern for the deprived and the suffering is not a prominent feature of the Indian personality. The rich in India have always lived a life quite oblivious to the ocean of poverty around them”. Less than ten minutes from the slums on the outskirts of Jaipur there are very nice upper income (heavily guarded) residential areas. One city: two universes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jplehmann/2015/04/12/indias-wrong-priorities-as-children-go-hungry-pm-modi-buys-fighter-jets-in-france/2/

And America is in $16 trillion in debt and the 15% if its children go hungry daily but the US Govt is spending 500 billion on its military.

Perhaps you should write to Forbes.

The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>I tried to read this but came away very confused as to what this is about. Is he saying poverty and squalor and discrimination or the rich/poor divide didn't exist prior to 2014? If the results of the election are nullified today, would these then go away? The article also says the other party failed its supporters spectacularly. So, what is his solution?

There is nothing to confuse about, he was clear as to how this govt. chose the path to divide the country along the lines of rich vs poor & majority vs minority.

>>>> So these divisions did not exist before in India? Or is the point that this was not evident until the new party highlighted them , if that is the claim being made? The simple fact is that the previous party's performance was abysmal and they got booted out. If these guys don't perform, the same will happen to them.

Of course, they did but minorities and poor never feared of their safety or felt they didn't belong/not Indian enough.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>I tried to read this but came away very confused as to what this is about. Is he saying poverty and squalor and discrimination or the rich/poor divide didn't exist prior to 2014? If the results of the election are nullified today, would these then go away? The article also says the other party failed its supporters spectacularly. So, what is his solution?

There is nothing to confuse about, he was clear as to how this govt. chose the path to divide the country along the lines of rich vs poor & majority vs minority.

>>>> So these divisions did not exist before in India? Or is the point that this was not evident until the new party highlighted them , if that is the claim being made? The simple fact is that the previous party's performance was abysmal and they got booted out. If these guys don't perform, the same will happen to them.

Of course, they did but minorities and poor never feared of their safety or felt they didn't belong/not Indian enough.

>>>I think this minority fear is a bogeyman that the press won't let go of. In the meantime, there are muslims working in this administration. That doesn't make any sense, if they are in that much fear. The poor being afraid is not a new thing. That fear stems from economic insecurity and it is not as though everything was hunky dory before this government took power. The article is a partisan tirade and is all over the map.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
There is nothing to confuse about, he was clear as to how this govt. chose the path to divide the country along the lines of rich vs poor & majority vs minority.

>>>> So these divisions did not exist before in India? Or is the point that this was not evident until the new party highlighted them , if that is the claim being made? The simple fact is that the previous party's performance was abysmal and they got booted out. If these guys don't perform, the same will happen to them.

Of course, they did but minorities and poor never feared of their safety or felt they didn't belong/not Indian enough.

>>>I think this minority fear is a bogeyman that the press won't let go of. In the meantime, there are muslims working in this administration. That doesn't make any sense, if they are in that much fear. The poor being afraid is not a new thing. That fear stems from economic insecurity and it is not as though everything was hunky dory before this government took power. The article is a partisan tirade and is all over the map.

Really! It is easy for a person that belongs to majority to brush that (church vandalism, beef ban etc.,) off as a minor inconvenience but when the shoe is on the other foot the same crowd make a big fuss about nothing e.g. 140 point differential in Ivy league admissions.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>> So these divisions did not exist before in India? Or is the point that this was not evident until the new party highlighted them , if that is the claim being made? The simple fact is that the previous party's performance was abysmal and they got booted out. If these guys don't perform, the same will happen to them.

Of course, they did but minorities and poor never feared of their safety or felt they didn't belong/not Indian enough.

>>>I think this minority fear is a bogeyman that the press won't let go of. In the meantime, there are muslims working in this administration. That doesn't make any sense, if they are in that much fear. The poor being afraid is not a new thing. That fear stems from economic insecurity and it is not as though everything was hunky dory before this government took power. The article is a partisan tirade and is all over the map.

Really! It is easy for a person that belongs to majority to brush that (church vandalism, beef ban etc.,) off as a minor inconvenience but when the shoe is on the other foot the same crowd make a big fuss about nothing e.g. 140 point differential in Ivy league admissions.

>>>Do you see me cowering in the corner because someone is coming to beat me up over this 140 point differential? Neither is anyone exhibiting any fear over the beef ban. Incidentally, I think that is a stupid issue. People disagree over things, but that does not translate to fear. By laying all this at the doorstep of this administration, you make it sound as though these animosities are all new in India. Weren't Sikhs harassed post Indira Gandhi?

This came after news on Tuesday that police in Andhra Pradesh murdered 20 men, most of them Tamils, for stealing trees. The same day police in Telangana murdered five men who were in their custody, handcuffed and being driven to court. Neither of these stories was lead-worthy for the editors of India's two largest English papers, and perhaps rightly so.

The truth is that middle class and Anglicised India doesn't care about either blue collar workers (tree choppers) or Muslims (encounter victims) being dealt with outside the framework of the law.

It doesn't concern us, and indeed if we were to read the comments under these stories online — the encounter did not even make the front pages as a single column in print — the majority agree with the police's action. And they are full of hatred for the victims who are judged to have deserved being punished without trial.

If 25 black men had been executed illegally in the US in one day, the government would have fallen and the population would have rallied to the victims.​​ ​​In India, those of us who did not applaud the police only yawned.

truthbetold wrote:Cd
Another idiotic argument. Does a person have to live in a country to know about it?  How many states of India did you visit in India and how many cities did the author know in India?  Try harder. Hollow words do not solve problems. 
The truth in India is economic liberalism unleashed growth forces like never before. Author's and your economic philosophy failed miserably before that. 
Introspect and then answer.

Kris wrote:
>>>Do you see me cowering in the corner because someone is coming to beat me up over this 140 point differential? Neither is anyone exhibiting any fear over the beef ban. Incidentally, I think that is a stupid issue. People disagree over things, but that does not translate to fear. By laying all this at the doorstep of this administration, you make it sound as though these animosities are all new in India. Weren't Sikhs harassed post Indira Gandhi?

Hannover, Germany:  As Prime Minister Narendra Modi pushes for foreign investment on his maiden trip to Europe, Sanjay Kirloskar, top Indian industrialist Sanjay Kirloskar said that it is especially important for the government to make clear that "we are a secular nation... we are a tolerant nation."

Referring to a series of attacks on churches and other Christian buildings over the last few months in India, Mr Kirloskar, who is currently in Germany, said, "Most investors in foreign countries are Christians." Mr Kirloskar's words are the first words of caution from a top Indian industrialist about the church attacks at home. The head of the Kirloskar Brothers Limited said that "a slight concern" was visible among foreign investors; he pointed to a protest by a small group demanding "protect India's minorities" outside the massive fair in Hannover that was inaugurated by the PM and has drawn top leaders of India Inc.

truthbetold wrote:Cd
The problem of exploitation and discrimination against minority is neither uniquely Indian nor did it appear for the first time in May of 2014. History of the world is full of examples. 
History also tell us subsidy model to buy votes fails sooner or later and leads to economic catastrophe such 1990 crisis. 
Pvn, mms. Vajpayee and modi are moving this marooned Indian economy around to go to a better future by changing pre 1990 subsidy raj.

Hellsangel wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cd
The problem of exploitation and discrimination against minority is neither uniquely Indian nor did it appear for the first time in May of 2014. History of the world is full of examples. 
History also tell us subsidy model to buy votes fails sooner or later and leads to economic catastrophe such 1990 crisis. 
Pvn, mms. Vajpayee and modi are moving this marooned Indian economy around to go to a better future by changing pre 1990 subsidy raj.

Just like the Jehovah's witnesses go around every Saturday dropping off their literature, Comrade goes around every day dropping whines about Modi.