The Modi Question ‘S01 E01 is lazy, malicious and maybe even racist, all at the same time

[ad_1]

As several social media threads have already pointed out, the only episode released so far ignores or casually dismisses what India’s judiciary itself has said not only about CM Modi’s response to the riots, but also on the character and conduct of those who accuse him. with blame for them (Setalvad, Sreekumar etc).

The episode, through its roughly hour-long run, regurgitates the same accusations and motives that have been repeatedly refuted and discredited over the past two decades.

So if this new documentary is repeating more of the “same old”, and if the “same old” has already been debunked, why did the BBC release the series in the first place?

There are two types of racists in the West – right wing racists which you can easily identify. They are self-explanatory and generally not very shiny. Brainless racists who believe in their racial superiority are not only easy to identify but also easy to refute and you know how to keep your distance from them.

Then there are the leftist racists.

They hide their racism well with arguments of their ‘civilizing missions’. “Your society is corrupt. He is morally inferior. It’s full of inequalities and without us you would kill each other and go to hell”.

The right-wing racist being eccentric and headstrong could never taste power. The left racist being suave could gain a significant number of collaborators even among those he hates. Thus, the right-wing racist hates Muslims and Arabs as he also hates Jews and Asians. The left-wing racist never shows his hatred.

Throughout Western history, racists have quietly and steadily crossed the line from right to left. Thus, right-wing anti-Semitism becomes a fashionable pro-Palestinian movement.

Likewise, has right-wing Hinduphobia become, well, the BBC documentary?

Left-wing racism is also monopolistic fundamentalism. While the Christian West can compete and even fight with the Islamic world and Communism, between what it perceives as an idolatrous pagan civilization and Islamist politics, it will prefer to stand with the latter. Between a Eurocentric Marxism and Hinduism, he will stand with the former.

Prime Minister Modi rightly spoke of reaching out to Muslims as equal citizens of Bharat without worrying about them coming back in the votes. It’s a bold statement. It is an approach in the interests of nation building.

And at the same time, it’s not a bed of roses. It is of course a path strewn with thorns and you have to be extra vigilant at all times. Good will does not mean complacency. Good will is not giving up on prudence. Goodwill with adherents of a monopolistic belief does not mean compromise with monopolistic expansionist theologies and ideologies.

But think about it if it succeeds.

Then India would have shown the world how Muslims and Hindus can live together in mutual respect without theological poaching.

Until now, the only “achievement” of Nehruvian secularism has been to have prepared the ground for the sinking of Hinduism and the “final victory” of evangelization and jihadism.

In such a context, if Prime Minister Modi reaches out to Muslims, while ensuring the building of a socially healthy, culturally proud and spiritually knowledgeable India, it would amount to ushering in a new dawn for Hindu and Indian society.

The left-wing racist wouldn’t like that. Because Modi would allow Hindus to achieve something that he (the leftist) doesn’t think they deserve. That’s their problem with Modi.

Is this also the BBC’s problem?

[ad_2]