What's new

Congratulations liberals, for another self-goal in forcing Bloomsbury on Delhi riots book

Joe Shearer

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 19, 2009
24,278
144
40,232
Country
India
Location
India
Congratulations liberals, for another self-goal in forcing Bloomsbury on Delhi riots book

Rama Lakshmi

There were other options before liberals. But they have just emboldened Hindu fundamentalists to justify future calls for banning Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock and Isabel Wilkerson.





Liberal gang-shaming is a thing now. Just like Hindutva army onslaught has been for some time. The manner in which Bloomsbury India was pressured to withdraw the book titled Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story by RSS-sympathetic lawyer Monika Arora, Sonali Chitalkar and Prerna Malhotra is an instance of this. The manner in which big ticket authors like William Dalrymple weighed in makes it clear that liberals and progressives have entered a rabbit hole from which we won’t be able to extricate ourselves easily.


For someone who has always held close the idea that book bans and calls for book bans are inherently fascist acts, this moment of de-platforming of Monika Arora’s book is a deeply conflicting one for me. I intensely disagree with the premise and politics of the book — blame the victim ‘Kapil Mishra style’ — at least from what I gather from social media. But this is when our long-held Voltairean values are tested severely, when books you don’t agree with are denied the space to breathe. I agree it was easier to defend Salman Rushdie than Monika Arora.


I am convinced that the book will find a new home, a new publisher and a new platform. It is inconceivable that under Narendra Modi and Amit Shah’s government, this kind of a book would simply disappear. In fact, it will now become larger-than-life, which it most probably doesn’t deserve.


But my larger point is this — it is not a celebratory chest-thumping moment for liberals, no matter how you twist your arguments with legal sophistry and do all kinds of ideological gymnastics to make your peace with this moment.



Can’t do a volte face now

I am not a millennial woke. My politics was shaped in the 1980s, when I was a teenager. That was when Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses was banned by the Rajiv Gandhi government.


If I disapproved of the ban on The Satanic Verses, if I disapproved of Dinanath Batra (whom I called “Ban Man” in my article in The Washington Post), if I disapproved of how Taslima Nasreen was hounded and attacked in Hyderabad by Asaduddin Owaisi’s AIMIM, then I can’t suddenly do a volte face and chest-thump today.


When you ban a book, it acquires a kind of cult status because the market fuels curiosity. That is what happened with other banned books. In fact, there are books chronicling banned books by different regimes in history.


We don’t need Hindutva libraries of Alexandria — let them breathe, be ignored, challenged, die, and be forgotten over the ground.




De-platforming isn’t the way

There are many who argue that this is not a ban, that the government did not force Bloomsbury India to withdraw, that this is just public outrage. And that public outrage is different from State action. But public outrage often leads to State action. That’s what happened in Rushdie’s case. In painter M.F. Husain’s case, it began with public outrage, with Hindu fundamentalist hoodlums going into galleries and protesting against Husain displays and protesting outside his house naked. Then the countless legal challenges in court followed.


To be clear, I am not elevating Monika Arora’s propaganda to the level of high art and high literature. I am not indulging in false equivalence either, like many of my friends would accuse me of. All I am saying is that forcing Bloomsbury India to withdraw the book is counter-productive – both politically and in the pure sense of how market forces work.



I was against the bringing down of the Confederate statues and colonial statues after George Floyd murder and Black Lives Matter protests, even though the anger was understandable. Instead, if our 21st Century politics of rights does not allow us to tolerate a Confederate statue at the city centre, there are better ways of dealing with it than throwing it in the river. Put it in a museum or erect plaques around it to give it context and history, explaining how it is an anathema today. Shame the statue, instead of erasing it.


This is not how you stop a thought. If you find that WhatsApp narratives are being turned into books, they should be countered with different books. Bloomsbury tweeted that they are running a book called Shaheen Bagh: From a protest to a Movement by Zia us Salam and Uzma Ausaf.


Yes it would be called ‘both-sideism’, a dirty word today. Many would ask, would you advocate freedom of thought and speech under Nazi Germany? The answer to these questions are both easy and complicated. No, I wouldn’t advocate ‘both-sideism’ under Adolf Hitler. That’s the easy answer. But there is a larger nuanced issue at hand here. One of how liberals and progressives are digging themselves into a bottomless hole in today’s politics with a series of self-goals.


But whichever way you answer that question, de-platforming and bans are not the way to go.


To quote Shahab Jafari’s famous Urdu couplet: Tu idhar udhar ki na baat kar, yeh bata ke kaafila kyon luta/mujhe rehjano se gila nahin, teri rahbari pe sawaal hai. (Don’t beat around the bush saying this or that, just tell me how did our caravan get plundered/I have no grudge with the bandits, but am asking questions on your leadership).


Where do you draw the line? Today, many are relieved that this book will not find a publisher in Bloomsbury. But what will you do if Swarajya or OpIndia launches a publishing house of its own in the future?




Powering up Hindu fundamentalists

There were other options liberals could have exercised. They could have questioned Bloomsbury India’s editorial judgement in accepting Monika Arora’s book for publication. That decision was driven by greed and fear probably, as is the one of withdrawal. Liberals could have even boycotted writing for Bloomsbury. But to rejoice the de-platforming is the latest in a long list of liberal self goals, not unique to India. This is happening around the world in the name of freedom of speech and expression. But all good values are tested in adversity and that is where we demonstrate the robustness of that principle.


If you celebrate this moment, it is going to be really difficult to come back from this. If you chest-thump right now, it defeats your politics long term and will be quoted ad nauseam for decades to come and labelled as pseudo. It will just embolden Hindu fundamentalists in India and abroad to justify demands for banning and de-platforming Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock and Isabel Wilkerson.


Views are personal.

 

pikkuboss

FULL MEMBER
Jan 28, 2016
445
-10
417
Country
India
Location
India
Pseudo liberals are outdated bunches of morons. Joe Biden will hide behind Kamala Harris's pallu when Americans show them middle fingers.
 

meghdut

FULL MEMBER
Jan 24, 2012
253
0
244
Country
India
Location
India
I think you pasted it twice. Same thing is written one below another. Should edit it.

[Edit: Formatted it]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

KAL-EL

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Jun 2, 2013
6,005
7
8,842
Country
United States
Location
United States
Pseudo liberals are outdated bunches of morons. Joe Biden will hide behind Kamala Harris's pallu when Americans show them middle fingers.
But Joe Biden is no match for Mr. trumps Burger King and KFC consumption
 

jamahir

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 9, 2014
21,540
17
19,464
Country
India
Location
India
@Joe Shearer, the brazen manner in which this book was to be released is the same as unchallenged way in which Sambit Patra and Rohit Sardana carry on despite being the direct cause of Rajiv Tyagi's death.

But good that it has been withdrawn.

Again. Don't ban a book, counter it with your own book, if you have issue with it.
Well, as Joe Shearer said a few days ago there are millions of decent people in India. The challenge for the progressives would be to get these millions organized. All the centrist and leftist groups should get organized in an umbrella movement.

Your mention of a book... There is one progressive publisher in India - LeftWord Books - which is affiliated to the Communist Party of India ( Marxist ). It will take some effort for this publisher to bring out a book that will not only give the progressive-idea-friendly masses something to rally around but also can invite the curiosity of the current fence-sitting masses.
 
Mar 17, 2015
2,823
-52
3,025
Country
India
Location
India
@Joe Shearer, the brazen manner in which this book was to be released is the same as unchallenged way in which Sambit Patra and Rohit Sardana carry on despite being the direct cause of Rajiv Tyagi's death.

But good that it has been withdrawn.



Well, as Joe Shearer said a few days ago there are millions of decent people in India. The challenge for the progressives would be to get these millions organized. All the centrist and leftist groups should get organized in an umbrella movement.

Your mention of a book... There is one progressive publisher in India - LeftWord Books - which is affiliated to the Communist Party of India ( Marxist ). It will take some effort for this publisher to bring out a book that will not only give the progressive-idea-friendly masses something to rally around but also can invite the curiosity of the current fence-sitting masses.
Left, liberals or centric, they don't exist in real. All are politicized and communal.
Real liberals are right wingers who don't have connection with politics. Take example of me, I support BJP but liberal in real life, I don't have issue with anyone while working with them. I don't ask anyone's religion or cast in real life. I celebrate each n every festival , be it Eid, Diwali or Christmas. I never got threatened by my right wing fellows, and never hit me or beheaded me for celebrating Eid or doing prayer in Mosque or Church.
But fake liberals threatening women for chanting "Jai Shree Ram".
 

Joe Shearer

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 19, 2009
24,278
144
40,232
Country
India
Location
India
I support BJP but liberal in real life
Unfortunately, and with the greatest personal regards for you, knowing you to be different from the usual unkempt oaf who backs the BJP, this is a contradiction. Once you support the BJP, you no longer have control over the direction in which the party leadership will take the party. You are then part of their bigotry, and their exclusionary views; it is not possible to support them and not support their actions.
 

ps3linux

FULL MEMBER
Mar 4, 2019
906
32
2,770
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Congratulations liberals, for another self-goal in forcing Bloomsbury on Delhi riots book
There were other options before liberals. But they have just emboldened Hindu fundamentalists to justify future calls for banning Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock and Isabel Wilkerson.



Liberal gang-shaming is a thing now. Just like Hindutva army onslaught has been for some time. The manner in which Bloomsbury India was pressured to withdraw the book titled Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story by RSS-sympathetic lawyer Monika Arora, Sonali Chitalkar and Prerna Malhotra is an instance of this. The manner in which big ticket authors like William Dalrymple weighed in makes it clear that liberals and progressives have entered a rabbit hole from which we won’t be able to extricate ourselves easily.

For someone who has always held close the idea that book bans and calls for book bans are inherently fascist acts, this moment of de-platforming of Monika Arora’s book is a deeply conflicting one for me. I intensely disagree with the premise and politics of the book — blame the victim ‘Kapil Mishra style’ — at least from what I gather from social media. But this is when our long-held Voltairean values are tested severely, when books you don’t agree with are denied the space to breathe. I agree it was easier to defend Salman Rushdie than Monika Arora.


I am convinced that the book will find a new home, a new publisher and a new platform. It is inconceivable that under Narendra Modi and Amit Shah’s government, this kind of a book would simply disappear. In fact, it will now become larger-than-life, which it most probably doesn’t deserve.


But my larger point is this — it is not a celebratory chest-thumping moment for liberals, no matter how you twist your arguments with legal sophistry and do all kinds of ideological gymnastics to make your peace with this moment.

Also read: The idea of ‘safe spaces’ has turned on itself to exclude everyone who dares to diffeR


Can’t do a volte face now
I am not a millennial woke. My politics was shaped in the 1980s, when I was a teenager. That was when Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses was banned by the Rajiv Gandhi government.

If I disapproved of the ban on The Satanic Verses, if I disapproved of Dinanath Batra (whom I called “Ban Man” in my article in The Washington Post), if I disapproved of how Taslima Nasreen was hounded and attacked in Hyderabad by Asaduddin Owaisi’s AIMIM, then I can’t suddenly do a volte face and chest-thump today.


When you ban a book, it acquires a kind of cult status because the market fuels curiosity. That is what happened with other banned books. In fact, there are books chronicling banned books by different regimes in history.


We don’t need Hindutva libraries of Alexandria — let them breathe, be ignored, challenged, die, and be forgotten over the ground.

Also read: ‘This is fascism’ — Flak for Bloomsbury on social media as it withdraws book on Delhi riots

De-platforming isn’t the way
There are many who argue that this is not a ban, that the government did not force Bloomsbury India to withdraw, that this is just public outrage. And that public outrage is different from State action. But public outrage often leads to State action. That’s what happened in Rushdie’s case. In painter M.F. Husain’s case, it began with public outrage, with Hindu fundamentalist hoodlums going into galleries and protesting against Husain displays and protesting outside his house naked. Then the countless legal challenges in court followed.


To be clear, I am not elevating Monika Arora’s propaganda to the level of high art and high literature. I am not indulging in false equivalence either, like many of my friends would accuse me of. All I am saying is that forcing Bloomsbury India to withdraw the book is counter-productive – both politically and in the pure sense of how market forces work.

I was against the bringing down of the Confederate statues and colonial statues after George Floyd murder and Black Lives Matter protests, even though the anger was understandable. Instead, if our 21st Century politics of rights does not allow us to tolerate a Confederate statue at the city centre, there are better ways of dealing with it than throwing it in the river. Put it in a museum or erect plaques around it to give it context and history, explaining how it is an anathema today. Shame the statue, instead of erasing it.

This is not how you stop a thought. If you find that WhatsApp narratives are being turned into books, they should be countered with different books. Bloomsbury tweeted that they are running a book called Shaheen Bagh: From a protest to a Movement by Zia us Salam and Uzma Ausaf.


Yes it would be called ‘both-sideism’, a dirty word today. Many would ask, would you advocate freedom of thought and speech under Nazi Germany? The answer to these questions are both easy and complicated. No, I wouldn’t advocate ‘both-sideism’ under Adolf Hitler. That’s the easy answer. But there is a larger nuanced issue at hand here. One of how liberals and progressives are digging themselves into a bottomless hole in today’s politics with a series of self-goals.

But whichever way you answer that question, de-platforming and bans are not the way to go.

To quote Shahab Jafari’s famous Urdu couplet: Tu idhar udhar ki na baat kar, yeh bata ke kaafila kyon luta/mujhe rehjano se gila nahin, teri rahbari pe sawaal hai. (Don’t beat around the bush saying this or that, just tell me how did our caravan get plundered/I have no grudge with the bandits, but am asking questions on your leadership).

Where do you draw the line? Today, many are relieved that this book will not find a publisher in Bloomsbury. But what will you do if Swarajya or OpIndia launches a publishing house of its own in the future?

Also read: Those who abused Hindu gods scared book on Delhi riots will expose them, Kapil Mishra says

Powering up Hindu fundamentalists
There were other options liberals could have exercised. They could have questioned Bloomsbury India’s editorial judgement in accepting Monika Arora’s book for publication. That decision was driven by greed and fear probably, as is the one of withdrawal. Liberals could have even boycotted writing for Bloomsbury. But to rejoice the de-platforming is the latest in a long list of liberal self goals, not unique to India. This is happening around the world in the name of freedom of speech and expression. But all good values are tested in adversity and that is where we demonstrate the robustness of that principle.

If you celebrate this moment, it is going to be really difficult to come back from this. If you chest-thump right now, it defeats your politics long term and will be quoted ad nauseam for decades to come and labelled as pseudo. It will just embolden Hindu fundamentalists in India and abroad to justify demands for banning and de-platforming Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock and Isabel Wilkerson.


Liberal gang-shaming is a thing now. Just like Hindutva army onslaught has been for some time. The manner in which Bloomsbury India was pressured to withdraw the book titled Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story by RSS-sympathetic lawyer Monika Arora, Sonali Chitalkar and Prerna Malhotra is an instance of this. The manner in which big ticket authors like William Dalrymple weighed in makes it clear that liberals and progressives have entered a rabbit hole from which we won’t be able to extricate ourselves easily.

For someone who has always held close the idea that book bans and calls for book bans are inherently fascist acts, this moment of de-platforming of Monika Arora’s book is a deeply conflicting one for me. I intensely disagree with the premise and politics of the book — blame the victim ‘Kapil Mishra style’ — at least from what I gather from social media. But this is when our long-held Voltairean values are tested severely, when books you don’t agree with are denied the space to breathe. I agree it was easier to defend Salman Rushdie than Monika Arora.


I am convinced that the book will find a new home, a new publisher and a new platform. It is inconceivable that under Narendra Modi and Amit Shah’s government, this kind of a book would simply disappear. In fact, it will now become larger-than-life, which it most probably doesn’t deserve.


But my larger point is this — it is not a celebratory chest-thumping moment for liberals, no matter how you twist your arguments with legal sophistry and do all kinds of ideological gymnastics to make your peace with this moment.

Also read: The idea of ‘safe spaces’ has turned on itself to exclude everyone who dares to diffeR



Can’t do a volte face now
I am not a millennial woke. My politics was shaped in the 1980s, when I was a teenager. That was when Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses was banned by the Rajiv Gandhi government.

If I disapproved of the ban on The Satanic Verses, if I disapproved of Dinanath Batra (whom I called “Ban Man” in my article in The Washington Post), if I disapproved of how Taslima Nasreen was hounded and attacked in Hyderabad by Asaduddin Owaisi’s AIMIM, then I can’t suddenly do a volte face and chest-thump today.


When you ban a book, it acquires a kind of cult status because the market fuels curiosity. That is what happened with other banned books. In fact, there are books chronicling banned books by different regimes in history.


We don’t need Hindutva libraries of Alexandria — let them breathe, be ignored, challenged, die, and be forgotten over the ground.

Also read: ‘This is fascism’ — Flak for Bloomsbury on social media as it withdraws book on Delhi riots

De-platforming isn’t the way
There are many who argue that this is not a ban, that the government did not force Bloomsbury India to withdraw, that this is just public outrage. And that public outrage is different from State action. But public outrage often leads to State action. That’s what happened in Rushdie’s case. In painter M.F. Husain’s case, it began with public outrage, with Hindu fundamentalist hoodlums going into galleries and protesting against Husain displays and protesting outside his house naked. Then the countless legal challenges in court followed.


To be clear, I am not elevating Monika Arora’s propaganda to the level of high art and high literature. I am not indulging in false equivalence either, like many of my friends would accuse me of. All I am saying is that forcing Bloomsbury India to withdraw the book is counter-productive – both politically and in the pure sense of how market forces work.

I was against the bringing down of the Confederate statues and colonial statues after George Floyd murder and Black Lives Matter protests, even though the anger was understandable. Instead, if our 21st Century politics of rights does not allow us to tolerate a Confederate statue at the city centre, there are better ways of dealing with it than throwing it in the river. Put it in a museum or erect plaques around it to give it context and history, explaining how it is an anathema today. Shame the statue, instead of erasing it.

This is not how you stop a thought. If you find that WhatsApp narratives are being turned into books, they should be countered with different books. Bloomsbury tweeted that they are running a book called Shaheen Bagh: From a protest to a Movement by Zia us Salam and Uzma Ausaf.


Yes it would be called ‘both-sideism’, a dirty word today. Many would ask, would you advocate freedom of thought and speech under Nazi Germany? The answer to these questions are both easy and complicated. No, I wouldn’t advocate ‘both-sideism’ under Adolf Hitler. That’s the easy answer. But there is a larger nuanced issue at hand here. One of how liberals and progressives are digging themselves into a bottomless hole in today’s politics with a series of self-goals.

But whichever way you answer that question, de-platforming and bans are not the way to go.

To quote Shahab Jafari’s famous Urdu couplet: Tu idhar udhar ki na baat kar, yeh bata ke kaafila kyon luta/mujhe rehjano se gila nahin, teri rahbari pe sawaal hai. (Don’t beat around the bush saying this or that, just tell me how did our caravan get plundered/I have no grudge with the bandits, but am asking questions on your leadership).

Where do you draw the line? Today, many are relieved that this book will not find a publisher in Bloomsbury. But what will you do if Swarajya or OpIndia launches a publishing house of its own in the future?

Also read: Those who abused Hindu gods scared book on Delhi riots will expose them, Kapil Mishra says

Powering up Hindu fundamentalists
There were other options liberals could have exercised. They could have questioned Bloomsbury India’s editorial judgement in accepting Monika Arora’s book for publication. That decision was driven by greed and fear probably, as is the one of withdrawal. Liberals could have even boycotted writing for Bloomsbury. But to rejoice the de-platforming is the latest in a long list of liberal self goals, not unique to India. This is happening around the world in the name of freedom of speech and expression. But all good values are tested in adversity and that is where we demonstrate the robustness of that principle.

If you celebrate this moment, it is going to be really difficult to come back from this. If you chest-thump right now, it defeats your politics long term and will be quoted ad nauseam for decades to come and labelled as pseudo. It will just embolden Hindu fundamentalists in India and abroad to justify demands for banning and de-platforming Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock and Isabel Wilkerson.

Liberal gang-shaming is a thing now. Just like Hindutva army onslaught has been for some time. The manner in which Bloomsbury India was pressured to withdraw the book titled Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story by RSS-sympathetic lawyer Monika Arora, Sonali Chitalkar and Prerna Malhotra is an instance of this. The manner in which big ticket authors like William Dalrymple weighed in makes it clear that liberals and progressives have entered a rabbit hole from which we won’t be able to extricate ourselves easily.

For someone who has always held close the idea that book bans and calls for book bans are inherently fascist acts, this moment of de-platforming of Monika Arora’s book is a deeply conflicting one for me. I intensely disagree with the premise and politics of the book — blame the victim ‘Kapil Mishra style’ — at least from what I gather from social media. But this is when our long-held Voltairean values are tested severely, when books you don’t agree with are denied the space to breathe. I agree it was easier to defend Salman Rushdie than Monika Arora.


I am convinced that the book will find a new home, a new publisher and a new platform. It is inconceivable that under Narendra Modi and Amit Shah’s government, this kind of a book would simply disappear. In fact, it will now become larger-than-life, which it most probably doesn’t deserve.


But my larger point is this — it is not a celebratory chest-thumping moment for liberals, no matter how you twist your arguments with legal sophistry and do all kinds of ideological gymnastics to make your peace with this moment.

Also read: The idea of ‘safe spaces’ has turned on itself to exclude everyone who dares to differ

Can’t do a volte face now
I am not a millennial woke. My politics was shaped in the 1980s, when I was a teenager. That was when Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses was banned by the Rajiv Gandhi government.

If I disapproved of the ban on The Satanic Verses, if I disapproved of Dinanath Batra (whom I called “Ban Man” in my article in The Washington Post), if I disapproved of how Taslima Nasreen was hounded and attacked in Hyderabad by Asaduddin Owaisi’s AIMIM, then I can’t suddenly do a volte face and chest-thump today.

When you ban a book, it acquires a kind of cult status because the market fuels curiosity. That is what happened with other banned books. In fact, there are books chronicling banned books by different regimes in history.

We don’t need Hindutva libraries of Alexandria — let them breathe, be ignored, challenged, die, and be forgotten over the ground.

Also read: ‘This is fascism’ — Flak for Bloomsbury on social media as it withdraws book on Delhi riots

De-platforming isn’t the way
There are many who argue that this is not a ban, that the government did not force Bloomsbury India to withdraw, that this is just public outrage. And that public outrage is different from State action. But public outrage often leads to State action. That’s what happened in Rushdie’s case. In painter M.F. Husain’s case, it began with public outrage, with Hindu fundamentalist hoodlums going into galleries and protesting against Husain displays and protesting outside his house naked. Then the countless legal challenges in court followed.


To be clear, I am not elevating Monika Arora’s propaganda to the level of high art and high literature. I am not indulging in false equivalence either, like many of my friends would accuse me of. All I am saying is that forcing Bloomsbury India to withdraw the book is counter-productive – both politically and in the pure sense of how market forces work.

I was against the bringing down of the Confederate statues and colonial statues after George Floyd murder and Black Lives Matter protests, even though the anger was understandable. Instead, if our 21st Century politics of rights does not allow us to tolerate a Confederate statue at the city centre, there are better ways of dealing with it than throwing it in the river. Put it in a museum or erect plaques around it to give it context and history, explaining how it is an anathema today. Shame the statue, instead of erasing it.

This is not how you stop a thought. If you find that WhatsApp narratives are being turned into books, they should be countered with different books. Bloomsbury tweeted that they are running a book called Shaheen Bagh: From a protest to a Movement by Zia us Salam and Uzma Ausaf.


Yes it would be called ‘both-sideism’, a dirty word today. Many would ask, would you advocate freedom of thought and speech under Nazi Germany? The answer to these questions are both easy and complicated. No, I wouldn’t advocate ‘both-sideism’ under Adolf Hitler. That’s the easy answer. But there is a larger nuanced issue at hand here. One of how liberals and progressives are digging themselves into a bottomless hole in today’s politics with a series of self-goals.

But whichever way you answer that question, de-platforming and bans are not the way to go.

To quote Shahab Jafari’s famous Urdu couplet: Tu idhar udhar ki na baat kar, yeh bata ke kaafila kyon luta/mujhe rehjano se gila nahin, teri rahbari pe sawaal hai. (Don’t beat around the bush saying this or that, just tell me how did our caravan get plundered/I have no grudge with the bandits, but am asking questions on your leadership).

Where do you draw the line? Today, many are relieved that this book will not find a publisher in Bloomsbury. But what will you do if Swarajya or OpIndia launches a publishing house of its own in the future?

Also read: Those who abused Hindu gods scared book on Delhi riots will expose them, Kapil Mishra says

Powering up Hindu fundamentalists
There were other options liberals could have exercised. They could have questioned Bloomsbury India’s editorial judgement in accepting Monika Arora’s book for publication. That decision was driven by greed and fear probably, as is the one of withdrawal. Liberals could have even boycotted writing for Bloomsbury. But to rejoice the de-platforming is the latest in a long list of liberal self goals, not unique to India. This is happening around the world in the name of freedom of speech and expression. But all good values are tested in adversity and that is where we demonstrate the robustness of that principle.

If you celebrate this moment, it is going to be really difficult to come back from this. If you chest-thump right now, it defeats your politics long term and will be quoted ad nauseam for decades to come and labelled as pseudo. It will just embolden Hindu fundamentalists in India and abroad to justify demands for banning and de-platforming Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock and Isabel Wilkerson.

@Joe Shearer you are a learned guy and I am another desi but we both know violence starts where reason ends, and ban on literature/research material starts when the position cannot be defended through reason and logic.

We know what is wrong with the liberals in Pakistan, and why they didn't get a larger following. But please for my learning how come liberals in India are no more heard/tolerated?

Our liberals stupid as they are, have been blatantly against religion, religious values, anti forces, anti Pakistan.

Find me one liberal, Mullah in Pakistan who as much as given a single statement against Arabs on recognizing Israel???

But you guys I mean Ghalib, you, @Shantanu_Left , @jamahir and many other Indians Muslims and otherwise whom I interacted abroad, they have their issues with BJP but I never found them to be anti India, Anti BJP-RSS yes but never Anti India unless someone had created a new certificate that BJP-RSS and India are the same and if you say something about BJP-RSS you are anti India.

@Joe Shearer thought I should put in my two cents before kiddies start doing what they do best; poop!
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom