Incarnations: In the age of toxic Hindu nationalism

India is an industry, a cult and a virus. The dominion of this India industry is wide, thriving at cosy, corporate-sponsored literary festivals as well as within the interrogation cells and courtrooms of the Indian state, where the “anti-Indian” is ruthlessly defined; manifesting itself daily in the homilies uttered by suited, suave India experts at western thinktanks and in the Dr Strangelovian, foaming-at-the-mouth, ultra-nationalist rants delivered by Indian TV hosts.

The lives chosen show the same rather anodyne selection principle. There is no room for Tipu Sultan, the 18th-century Muslim king who was as interested in the ideals of the French Revolution as in fighting the English, although it is hard to tell if this is a deference to British sensibilities or to Hindu nationalist ones. None of the 50 lives come from India’s north-eastern territories, reinforcing their colony status in the mainstream Indian imagination. The lives that have been chosen, meanwhile, are filtered through the lens of presentism, with deft touches to show that the subject matter should not be considered too alien, and that the Buddha and Akbar and Indira Gandhi are all well within the ambit of the unending contemporary.

So the singers at a Sufi shrine in Delhi have “their fingers bejewelled with bling”. A discussion of the 10th-century king Rajaraja Chola slides smoothly into a comparison with the current chief minister of Tamil Nadu – both representative, perhaps, of the “cult of the leader in the Tamil lands”, regardless of the millennia separating these two figures. The 15th-century poet and preacher Kabir, meanwhile, reminds Khilnani of how dissenting voices are suppressed in contemporary India. “Celebrity voices such as Salman Rushdie’s have been silenced – even, famously, at liberal havens like the Jaipur festival. Meanwhile, other writers and thinkers, less well known, are being muffled all over the country,” he writes, seemingly unaware that there might be a connection, historical and ideological, between his own liberal-nationalist celebration of India and the Hindu nationalist assault on all those who fail to celebrate India and its glory in the correct manner.

Similarly, as the rise of India during the first decade of the 21st century fuelled rightwing Hindu nationalism, reaching its current, brutal apex under the present prime minister Narendra Modi, liberal voices of the India industry were careful to critique such ultra-nationalism only in career-sustaining moderation, or to remain tactfully silent.

Incarnations does attempt, on occasion, to offer critiques of the cruder versions of Hindu nationalism. Writing about the discoveries of early subcontinental medical traditions by Charaka, in the second century, Khilnani chides Modi for giving “the example of the god Ganesh as a pioneering instance of plastic surgery”. It also occasionally points out the excesses of Indian crony capitalism, including the displacement of indigenous people from their land by resource-hungry corporations or the “gift for maximising and monetising inequality” possessed by the industrialist Dhirubhai Ambani. Yet these are passing moments in a boosterish narrative of India, a matter of degree rather than substance.

Hellsangel wrote:Comrade is backkkk! And back to quoting lefties!

A discussion of the 10th-century king Rajaraja Chola slides smoothly into a comparison with the current chief minister of Tamil Nadu – both representative, perhaps, of the “cult of the leader in the Tamil lands”

confuzzled dude wrote:

India is an industry, a cult and a virus. The dominion of this India industry is wide, thriving at cosy, corporate-sponsored literary festivals as well as within the interrogation cells and courtrooms of the Indian state, where the “anti-Indian” is ruthlessly defined; manifesting itself daily in the homilies uttered by suited, suave India experts at western thinktanks and in the Dr Strangelovian, foaming-at-the-mouth, ultra-nationalist rants delivered by Indian TV hosts.

The lives chosen show the same rather anodyne selection principle. There is no room for Tipu Sultan, the 18th-century Muslim king who was as interested in the ideals of the French Revolution as in fighting the English, although it is hard to tell if this is a deference to British sensibilities or to Hindu nationalist ones. None of the 50 lives come from India’s north-eastern territories, reinforcing their colony status in the mainstream Indian imagination. The lives that have been chosen, meanwhile, are filtered through the lens of presentism, with deft touches to show that the subject matter should not be considered too alien, and that the Buddha and Akbar and Indira Gandhi are all well within the ambit of the unending contemporary.

So the singers at a Sufi shrine in Delhi have “their fingers bejewelled with bling”. A discussion of the 10th-century king Rajaraja Chola slides smoothly into a comparison with the current chief minister of Tamil Nadu – both representative, perhaps, of the “cult of the leader in the Tamil lands”, regardless of the millennia separating these two figures. The 15th-century poet and preacher Kabir, meanwhile, reminds Khilnani of how dissenting voices are suppressed in contemporary India. “Celebrity voices such as Salman Rushdie’s have been silenced – even, famously, at liberal havens like the Jaipur festival. Meanwhile, other writers and thinkers, less well known, are being muffled all over the country,” he writes, seemingly unaware that there might be a connection, historical and ideological, between his own liberal-nationalist celebration of India and the Hindu nationalist assault on all those who fail to celebrate India and its glory in the correct manner.

Similarly, as the rise of India during the first decade of the 21st century fuelled rightwing Hindu nationalism, reaching its current, brutal apex under the present prime minister Narendra Modi, liberal voices of the India industry were careful to critique such ultra-nationalism only in career-sustaining moderation, or to remain tactfully silent.

Incarnations does attempt, on occasion, to offer critiques of the cruder versions of Hindu nationalism. Writing about the discoveries of early subcontinental medical traditions by Charaka, in the second century, Khilnani chides Modi for giving “the example of the god Ganesh as a pioneering instance of plastic surgery”. It also occasionally points out the excesses of Indian crony capitalism, including the displacement of indigenous people from their land by resource-hungry corporations or the “gift for maximising and monetising inequality” possessed by the industrialist Dhirubhai Ambani. Yet these are passing moments in a boosterish narrative of India, a matter of degree rather than substance.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/mar/26/incarnations-india-50-lives-sunil-khilnani-review-boosterism

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

India is an industry, a cult and a virus. The dominion of this India industry is wide, thriving at cosy, corporate-sponsored literary festivals as well as within the interrogation cells and courtrooms of the Indian state, where the “anti-Indian” is ruthlessly defined; manifesting itself daily in the homilies uttered by suited, suave India experts at western thinktanks and in the Dr Strangelovian, foaming-at-the-mouth, ultra-nationalist rants delivered by Indian TV hosts.

The lives chosen show the same rather anodyne selection principle. There is no room for Tipu Sultan, the 18th-century Muslim king who was as interested in the ideals of the French Revolution as in fighting the English, although it is hard to tell if this is a deference to British sensibilities or to Hindu nationalist ones. None of the 50 lives come from India’s north-eastern territories, reinforcing their colony status in the mainstream Indian imagination. The lives that have been chosen, meanwhile, are filtered through the lens of presentism, with deft touches to show that the subject matter should not be considered too alien, and that the Buddha and Akbar and Indira Gandhi are all well within the ambit of the unending contemporary.

So the singers at a Sufi shrine in Delhi have “their fingers bejewelled with bling”. A discussion of the 10th-century king Rajaraja Chola slides smoothly into a comparison with the current chief minister of Tamil Nadu – both representative, perhaps, of the “cult of the leader in the Tamil lands”, regardless of the millennia separating these two figures. The 15th-century poet and preacher Kabir, meanwhile, reminds Khilnani of how dissenting voices are suppressed in contemporary India. “Celebrity voices such as Salman Rushdie’s have been silenced – even, famously, at liberal havens like the Jaipur festival. Meanwhile, other writers and thinkers, less well known, are being muffled all over the country,” he writes, seemingly unaware that there might be a connection, historical and ideological, between his own liberal-nationalist celebration of India and the Hindu nationalist assault on all those who fail to celebrate India and its glory in the correct manner.

Similarly, as the rise of India during the first decade of the 21st century fuelled rightwing Hindu nationalism, reaching its current, brutal apex under the present prime minister Narendra Modi, liberal voices of the India industry were careful to critique such ultra-nationalism only in career-sustaining moderation, or to remain tactfully silent.

Incarnations does attempt, on occasion, to offer critiques of the cruder versions of Hindu nationalism. Writing about the discoveries of early subcontinental medical traditions by Charaka, in the second century, Khilnani chides Modi for giving “the example of the god Ganesh as a pioneering instance of plastic surgery”. It also occasionally points out the excesses of Indian crony capitalism, including the displacement of indigenous people from their land by resource-hungry corporations or the “gift for maximising and monetising inequality” possessed by the industrialist Dhirubhai Ambani. Yet these are passing moments in a boosterish narrative of India, a matter of degree rather than substance.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/mar/26/incarnations-india-50-lives-sunil-khilnani-review-boosterism

As a fair minded unbias poster shouldn't you be focusing on the present Toxic iSlamic terror EVERYWHERE?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

India is an industry, a cult and a virus. The dominion of this India industry is wide, thriving at cosy, corporate-sponsored literary festivals as well as within the interrogation cells and courtrooms of the Indian state, where the “anti-Indian” is ruthlessly defined; manifesting itself daily in the homilies uttered by suited, suave India experts at western thinktanks and in the Dr Strangelovian, foaming-at-the-mouth, ultra-nationalist rants delivered by Indian TV hosts.

The lives chosen show the same rather anodyne selection principle. There is no room for Tipu Sultan, the 18th-century Muslim king who was as interested in the ideals of the French Revolution as in fighting the English, although it is hard to tell if this is a deference to British sensibilities or to Hindu nationalist ones. None of the 50 lives come from India’s north-eastern territories, reinforcing their colony status in the mainstream Indian imagination. The lives that have been chosen, meanwhile, are filtered through the lens of presentism, with deft touches to show that the subject matter should not be considered too alien, and that the Buddha and Akbar and Indira Gandhi are all well within the ambit of the unending contemporary.

So the singers at a Sufi shrine in Delhi have “their fingers bejewelled with bling”. A discussion of the 10th-century king Rajaraja Chola slides smoothly into a comparison with the current chief minister of Tamil Nadu – both representative, perhaps, of the “cult of the leader in the Tamil lands”, regardless of the millennia separating these two figures. The 15th-century poet and preacher Kabir, meanwhile, reminds Khilnani of how dissenting voices are suppressed in contemporary India. “Celebrity voices such as Salman Rushdie’s have been silenced – even, famously, at liberal havens like the Jaipur festival. Meanwhile, other writers and thinkers, less well known, are being muffled all over the country,” he writes, seemingly unaware that there might be a connection, historical and ideological, between his own liberal-nationalist celebration of India and the Hindu nationalist assault on all those who fail to celebrate India and its glory in the correct manner.

Similarly, as the rise of India during the first decade of the 21st century fuelled rightwing Hindu nationalism, reaching its current, brutal apex under the present prime minister Narendra Modi, liberal voices of the India industry were careful to critique such ultra-nationalism only in career-sustaining moderation, or to remain tactfully silent.

Incarnations does attempt, on occasion, to offer critiques of the cruder versions of Hindu nationalism. Writing about the discoveries of early subcontinental medical traditions by Charaka, in the second century, Khilnani chides Modi for giving “the example of the god Ganesh as a pioneering instance of plastic surgery”. It also occasionally points out the excesses of Indian crony capitalism, including the displacement of indigenous people from their land by resource-hungry corporations or the “gift for maximising and monetising inequality” possessed by the industrialist Dhirubhai Ambani. Yet these are passing moments in a boosterish narrative of India, a matter of degree rather than substance.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/mar/26/incarnations-india-50-lives-sunil-khilnani-review-boosterism

As a fair minded unbias poster shouldn't you be focusing on the present Toxic iSlamic terror EVERYWHERE?

I've; many a time.

The promise of the “global war on terror” was that “it was better to fight them there than here.” That promise brought mass violence to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Yemen and Somalia — in the name of peace in the West.

That formula has clearly failed. Tuesday’s bombings in Brussels come on the heels of similar incidents in Grand-Bassam, Ivory Coast; Maiduguri, Nigeria; Istanbul; Beirut; Paris; and Bamako, Mali, all in the last six months. Rather than containing violence, the war on terror turned the whole world into a battlefield.

We should not be surprised. Violence inflicted abroad always comes home in some form. Last year, the U.S. military dropped 22,110 bombs on Iraq and Syria. The Pentagon says these bombs “likely” killed only six civilians, along with “at least” 25,000 Islamic State fighters. The true number of civilian deaths, though, is likely to be in the thousands as well.

Indeed, we know that the war on terror kills more civilians than terrorism does. But we tolerate this because it is “their” civilians being killed in places we imagine to be too far away to matter. There is no social media hashtag to commemorate these deaths; no news channel tells their stories.

Because we pay little attention to the effects of our violence in the places we bomb, it appears that terrorism comes out of the blue. When it does happen, then, the only way we can make sense of it is by laying the blame on Islamic culture.

When opinion polls find that most Muslims think Westerners are selfish, immoral and violent, we have no idea of the real causes. And so we assume such opinions must be an expression of their culture rather than our politics.

After 14 years of the “war on terror,” we are no closer to achieving peace. The fault does not lie with any one administration but with the assumption that war can defeat terrorism. The lesson of the Islamic State is that war creates terrorism.

With our airstrikes, we continue the cycle of violence and reinforce the militants’ narrative of a war by the West against Islam. Then, to top it all off, we turn away the refugees, whom we should be empowering to help transform the region. If we want to avoid another 14 years of failure, we need to try something else — and first, we need to radically rethink what we’ve been doing.

Hellsangel wrote:Your lungs must be very tired, Comrade. Il Professore might disagree with you. Only yesterday he was doing an ecstatic fanboy gig about winning the war on terror.

The promise of the “global war on terror” was that “it was better to fight them there than here.” That promise brought mass violence to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Yemen and Somalia — in
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/23/the-wests-islamophobia-is-only-helping-the-islamic-state/

The last paragraph is essentially, what I've always been screaming my lungs out.

Kinnera wrote:

the Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

The promise of the “global war on terror” was that “it was better to fight them there than here.” That promise brought mass violence to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Yemen and Somalia — in
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/23/the-wests-islamophobia-is-only-helping-the-islamic-state/

The last paragraph is essentially, what I've always been screaming my lungs out.

by the same token your paranoia about the Chaddis and BJP will actually turn hindus more hardcore..especially when deshdrohis like PC hide terrorists and accuse hindus of fundamentalism...dont u agree?

Yeah! All these accusations of intolerance, islamophobia, etc against the societies which were open, accepting and tolerant towards the muslims and pampered them are going to turn their people away from being so truly liberal and have them actually detest the libbies and muslims. It happened in India and started to happen in Europe (just read the comments. You'll get the pulse) 

Will the paranoias/phobias of the libbies and muslims towards them turn the chuddies and hindus into something like the isis guys? It's so laughable to even think about that. The mere phobias of others don't drive one to kill oneself (or kill other innocents). One needs to blindly, strongly and insanely believe in some kind of warped up idealogy to do so.