The likes of Vir Das live in an India have not recovered from its post-colonial hangover, that is as angry as the West is to see lesser Indians assert themselves in places where ‘brown sahibs’ thrive
Recently, Indians had the opportunity to see Vir Das, a comedian perform at the John F Kennedy Center in Washington, United States. Das had waited his entire life to perform in the famed Kennedy Centre, funded partly by the US government. In disbelief he stood there, elated to have been given this opportunity, repeatedly thanking the gods or whoever they may be that cleared his path and made this dream possible.
His reverence to the Kennedy Center was a tad bit embarrassing to his fellow Indians, but not to Vir Das. Because he belongs to a fraternity that like his monologue lives in another India, that some of his harsher critics may describe as a parallel universe. They live in an India that has not recovered from its post-colonial hangover, that has not shed the baggage of being from a country of the have-nots, that is as angry as the West is to see the lesser mortals, the lesser Indians assert themselves in places and spaces that were only allowed for the proverbial “brown sahibs”.
It took a tea seller and his loyal kurta pajama clad associates sans degrees from Ivy Leagues, armed only with courage and raw ambition to dislodge the Indian elite from their positions of prestige. The angst of losing the black card of entitlement is difficult to recover from. Especially when the chances are that your adversary is here to stay.
Vir Das is not alone in his crusade against the lesser Indians. There are many like him who have built alliances with the white supremacist lens in order to reclaim their influence on the lesser Indian. They play to the audience in the West, never in the East. Their aspirations are limited seeking approval from the white never the black, an Emmy trumps a National Award. They forget that it was the common “lesser” Indian that elected the erstwhile government that they approved of and it is still the same “lesser” Indian that decided to get rid of them. Either way, democracy won, but for the first time, the brown sahibs lost.
Along with the likes of Vir Das who are trained in theatre, there are many who are trained journalists, academics and scholars who have found their voices in the West. Their voices were magnified by their white hosts with an aim to undermine the lesser Indians’ ability to make a democratic choice, to exercise their democratic rights. That is why the Western media exploded when a nationalist government was elected to power, dethroning a legacy party led by a white woman.
Many of these articles redolent of white supremacist behaviour were collated by none other than Huffington Post India in an effort to convince Indians that the West was not happy with us. If these white-dominated news sources denounced Modi and Right-wing politics in India, then somehow we as Indians must follow suit. As a slave that looks up to his master, as a coloured native that looks up to the advanced civilised white man for guidance, we as Indians must feel ashamed for making a choice that we felt was right for us.
One such leading voice, born in India but brought up in the folds of British elitist institutions is Amol Rajan, The Independent‘s Indian-origin former editor. Rajan wrote of Modi: “The charge sheet against Narendra Damodardas Modi is familiar and well-founded: the stench of Hindu nationalism covers him.” Rajan does not take into consideration that he is a self-confessed atheist and does neither evidently understand the nuances of being a Hindu nor what Hindu nationalism stands for, at least not in the same way that the majority of Indians who are direct recipients of their voting choices understand it. The New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, et al have all acceded space for rhetoric that denounces India’s democratic choices.
Nitin Pahwa of the Slate, which is based out of New York with an additional office in Washington DC, authored an article in 2019 claiming that India’s upcoming parliamentary elections would decide whether the world’s largest democracy will continue to deserve the label. Pahwa forgets that democracy is an exercise in itself and its efficacy is not based on the result of the exercise.
In another article, Pahwa says, “If Biden really believes, as he said last week, that the defining struggle of our time is between ‘autocracy and democracy’, he will have to not only confront China’s leaders but India’s as well.” Such equivalence demands scrutiny because let alone being the largest democracy in the world, India is a growing democracy clocking the highest ever turnout of voters in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections at 67.11 percent.
In yet another piece, Pahwa writes: “You can argue about whether India is truly fascist, or autocratic, or oligarchic, or whatever–but no matter how you spin it, India is not a democracy.”
Pahwa’s logic, however, fails to explain how then did the Modi-led government come to power in 2014 for the first time? His apparent prejudice against a democratically-elected government is strengthened by his affinity to Pieter Friedrich, the well-known Hinduphobe, virulent commentator of Mahatma Gandhi and an intolerant activist against anyone that may challenge his vitriol against the RSS or the Modi led government. I would know as I was blocked from his Twitter account within seconds of questioning his claims. Pahwa must be aware not just of Friedrich’s leanings but also his dubious network of associates.
Friedrich in 2013 was identified as the executive director of The Sikh Information Center, founded by Bhajan Singh Bhinder, who is also a director of Friedrich’s organisation for minorities in India, which in itself is reminiscent of a Rachel Dolezal situation. In 2003, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Bhinder had attempted to procure illegal Arms for the Khalistan movement. He sought to purchase automatic weapons, stinger missiles and C-4 plastic explosives from some undercover agents. As per Delhi Police, Friedrich has also been on the radar of the Indian security establishment since 2006, when the UPA government was in power due to his close ties with Bhinder.
Recently Friedrich was in the news for his role in the Greta Thunberg ‘toolkit’ conspiracy aimed at creating unrest in India. However, Pahwa chooses to whitewash Friedrich’s apparent dislike for India, in addition to his dubious connections, addressing the latter as a “Journalist and South Asia Expert” in his article, ‘Why Are Democrats Backing A House Candidate With Reportedly Shady Foreign Ties?’. The “shady foreign ties” that he refers to is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
There are more Indians like Das, Pahwa and Rajan, who play to the galleries in the West, trying to create monsters where there are none. In the process aligning themselves with anyone of the Western origin to give credibility to their crisis journalism aimed at benefiting from the epidemic that is the grievance culture. All of them chose either to study, live or work abroad, because Western values in these “greater Indians” make them the brown sahibs of today different from the “lesser Indians” that have decided to reclaim their own civilisational pride choosing to stay on in India and serve India.
Irrespective of the personal choices made by the likes of Das, Pahwa or Rajan or by members of their ideological clan, what in fact is reprehensible is their utter disregard for the democratic process in India. Their vitriol against India’s choice of government is a matter of their personal intolerance, not a matter of concern for our democratic foundations.
The author is an author, anthropologist and conflict analyst. The views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.