Saturday, January 3, 2015

Which People?

This piece is in reply to this

Today's edition of The Hindu carried yet more jargon from the class of leftist sociologists struggling to make a living. It is probably no surprise that it came in The Hindu, as some recent revelations have revealed just how the editorial system there works. Nonetheless, this editorial from Peter DeSouza smacks clearly of unbridled hatred for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and an utter rejection of the mandate that he secured in May 2014.

There are two problems with the editorial. The first and most significant is the absolute disregard for just who voted for Modi. The editorial repeatedly questions Prof. Amartya Sen on who, according to him, have a new ray of hope under Modi. It rhetorically lists out groups that have been disadvantaged since time immemorial on the Indian subcontinent and simply ignores the most important stakeholders today - the millions of young people who struggle to find a job and make a living in an India which, in the last decade under Sonia Gandhi's welfare economics, has gone through a major recession, loss of jobs and most importantly, a loss of hope.

When Mr. DeSourza asks just who are the people who have been given hope by Modi, he should leave the well-funded confines of CSDS and see the legions of young, unemployed people, some with degrees but most without even a basic education. In the welfare state that he proposes, the state has no resources to fund education. Of course, he is entirely against the idea of the state being an enabler to private industry and therefore, it must fund industry and employment too. Unfortunately for leftist sociologists, mathematics makes it impossible to spend negative money. Therefore, unless they find a way to rewrite even ancient Indian mathematics (as they have history) and make this possible, without Modi's economic reforms including the LARR Ordinance, the millions of young people who voted for him will lose hope. These are the people that Prof. Sen refers to, and they are the bulk of the electorate. They are the future.

The second problem is that the editorial was entirely one-sided and explored the issues from a fixed point of view. To paint itself as being nuanced, it goes into overdrive to 'scientifically' analyze Prof. Sen's statements into five parts, each read separately and with an ample dose of sarcasm to justify it too. In reality, the writer said just this much: Modi is evil, he must be stopped and anyone who supports him, even partially, must be vilified (and demonstrates how). Behind the reams of explorations on 'analytic philosophy' and other such jargon lies just that: a singular worldview far removed from reality, based wholly on pre-determined political biases masquerading as scholarly writing.

And of course, it had to be in a newspaper whose high editorial standards have been left out to dry for everyone to see. 

No comments: