Header: Analyzing the recent tiff between the Amnesty International and the ABVP Bengaluru, this article shows how the functioning of Western Ideologies end up instituting totalitarian regimes in contrast to the oft decried (by secularists) majoritarianism of the Hindutva creed.
In a recent incident (at “Broken Families”, event held on Aug. 13, 2016 at Bengaluru), Amnesty International was charged with sedition by ABVP activists and an FIR to that effect has been filed in a Bengaluru police station. Reason? The Amnesty International India (AII) called for a Government of India probe into Human Rights abuses, since 1989, by the Indian Army in J&K under AFSPA act. And this is significantly followed by azadi slogans, according to the organization itself, by some “attendees” of the program (www.amnesty.org.in, 16 Aug., 2016).
The Kashmiri echo of Amnesty’s action is thus patent. At a time when India is struggling to quell Pak-sponsored unrest in Kashmir following the death of Burhan Wani, the enlightened global organization raises the issue of human rights abuse by the Indian Army! And its Indian Executive Director, Mr. Aakar Patel, claims this to be an event conducted to defend constitutional values‟ of India and counters that filing a case against AII represents lack of belief in fundamental rights and freedoms in India (cf. amnesty.org.in) But then, however completely one tends to agree with Amnesty’s defense, how can such an event showcasing Rights violation by the Indian Army as cause for Kashmir’s broken families be totally unconnected with what is going on in Kashmir at the moment? Doesn’t it at least amount to saying Indian Army as much as the terrorists and Pakistan is equally responsible for the miserable plight of Kashmiris and thereby cause disaffection among non-radicalized Kashmiris. And is it so unfathomable to surmise that such assertions, coming from prestigious Western agencies, can only lead to strengthening of the azadi clamor. Note this subtle modus operandi.
Raise a sensitive issue inimical to Indian interests, substantiate the same with meticulously researched evidence, justify the same in the name of upholding the lofty ideal of human rights, make it public in the name of demanding Government action, claim its fall-out, in terms of what is happening actually in the country, to be wholly unintended! In short, the conclusion is inescapable that AII is simply handing over a stick to beat India (to both agitators and Pakistan) disguising the same as a fight for human rights!!
It is no wonder then that the ABVP activists saw in this a seditious design. Worse, the way Mr, Aakar Patel defended the organization goes only to buttress such an impression. The AII’s Executive Director, in an interview with The Hindu Newspaper (Perspective, p.09, 24/August/2016) produced a legal argument stating that his demand does not incite violence and hence does not fall within the legal definition of sedition! How derisory it is! Do legal shortcomings stop the word from having its effect? Is it because the Congress and the Left dubbed the JNU sloganeering as freedom of speech that such sloganeering ceases to be antinational? That the AII was set to exploit legal lacuna in itself testifies to the organization’s awareness of the effect that its speech and action are susceptible to produce!
In fact, anyone or any organization that has the true Indian interests at heart does not go by the immunity afforded by legal loopholes. Such persons and organizations go by the substantiality of the effect produced by their speech and action vis-à-vis the country’s interests, especially security interests. In the event, a high-profile NGO asserting, with meticulously substantiated evidence, human rights violations by the Kashmir-based Indian Army could very well cause skepticism and disaffection among even non-radicalized Kashmiri youth – a development that in effect strengthens Kashmiri cause against India. When the event can prompt the “attendees‟ of the event at a place far-removed from Kashmir to raise ‘azadi’ slogans, imagine the devastating effect such development can have on the Kashmiris actually bearing the brunt!.
Worse, given the foremost place that Amnesty International occupies among Western humanitarian and altruistic International organizations, it could also serve as signal to knowledgeable people about availability of more substantial and tangible help to the movement through allied sources! What in fact the Amnesty (and should be the case with other West-sponsored International Organizations as well) doing is to calculate the effect that a ‘legitimate’ issue is apt to generate and time its activation upon the obtention of propitious circumstances. This way, they are able to dismiss the effect (the ulterior motive) and argue in terms of apparent respectable intentions (probing human rights violations).
Let me cite a couple of instances from my own experience with the French so that those alien to Western ways find such despicable co-ordinations surpassing all norms of human decency and civil behavior do not find them to be exceptional nor a product of imagination. For, those privy to inside information pertaining to transnational relations, studiedly avoid engaging in such matters. For after all, a reply, a refutation, not to speak of a discussion, is apt to endow such matters with existential status. That is, it may lead to establishing a view, a belief that such things are possible or actually practiced (thereby letting the cat out of the bag). That is the reason why these enlightened transnationals strictly avoid defending against such critical indictments preferring the common, lay and inexperienced readers to judge such strident criticism within their simplistic moral confines of civility and moderation – a way to decently cloth the naked inhumanity and fascist character innate to the functioning of the West-sponsored transnational entities.
A doctoral degree holder from the University of Nancy (now renamed, University of Lorraine), Nancy, France, I was a victim of a protracted gang-stalking operation. This consisted in collective psycho-verbal persecution, many times more injurious than simple collegiate ragging as it is a virtual act of excommunication by heaping hedged humiliation and disorientation, and it lasted for 2 ½ years. All this is undertaken in an effort to compel the individual to internalize French values and subserve their interests, and to sabotage the doctoral research in the alternative. For all this, I had been in France as a beneficiary of IndoFrench Cultural Cooperation Program! The first point to note therefore is that the West pays scant respect – and not substantial commitment – to international treaties signed especially with the developing world.
Call it my grit, call it God’s grace, despite this sustained hostile environment, I could not only finish my doctoral thesis but could come up with a new Discourse Theory (forms part of Pragmatics field within the discipline of Linguistics). While the Oxford philosophers developed a Discourse theory, the Illocutionary Theory, based on recognition of speaker intention, I argued, in my Non-conflictual Theory, that discourse revolves around speaker‟s endeavor to invest his talk with legitimacy, recognition of intentions being dubious, nonintegral and ineffective (unconvincing) bereft of legitimacy. Such a view has not only contested the fundamental and time-tested Oxford tenets but also opened up an altogether new insight in the discourse conception.
Any honest dispensation would proudly celebrate such a development as the fruit of Indo-French Bilateral Cooperation Program. But the French authorities devised ways to suppress and pirate those findings. Even as they conferred me the doctoral degree with High Honors, they scrupulously avoided appointing specialist External Rapporteurs (experts) on the viva-voce jury. In other words, just as the AII conveyed its anti-national sympathies packaged within human rights concerns, so did the academicians of University of Nancy embed the message of officious non-recognition of my work (which amounts to announcing, to knowledgeable people, their intention to suppress and pirate the same) within the tantalizing shroud of High Honors. And true to the form, my research findings did not find any echo whatsoever in India even though every high point in my academic-biography is to be shared by the French, by protocol, with the University Grants Commission in India!
A small note here. The French could very well have rejected my draft thesis and thereby avoided going through the hassles of awarding the inconvenient doctoral degree at all. But while that may very well send me back to India without doctorate, it would however fail to deny academic status to my findings. For, coming back to India, I may rejoin my old post of Lecturer, register with some Indian University for doctorate with the same topic and in the meanwhile continue to write articles and present papers at conferences… and worse, lodge official complaints at the despicable manner in which I was treated in France and how it is demeaning to India‟s dignity. Instead, they planned a complete academic expulsion in collusion with the Indian academic community. The total surrender displayed by various Indian authorities constitutes an abject lesson in understanding the treasonous rules by which transnational outfits and individuals go by undermining, in the process, country’s interests.
It is a standard practice with the academic institutions to make offers of commensurate faculty positions to meritorious candidates in order to attract and retain talent in India. Notwithstanding the fact that I was an alumnus both of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi and the Central Institute of English & Foreign Languages (CIE&FL, but now EFLU, English and Foreign Language University), Hyderabad, no such offer came my
way despite pioneering a new Discourse Theory! Significantly, the CIE&FL advertizes a post of Reader in French coinciding with my return to India! Notice therefore that it is not non-availability of faculty positions that deterred Indian academic institutions from according collateral recognition to my work by way of offering a higher faculty position.
The thinking that went into advertising that post coinciding with my return could be further understood if it is known that only two candidates were applicants to it, the other being an internal candidate not even fully qualified! That the second best institution, after JNU, for Foreign Languages did just attract a lone internal candidate, but none else from across the country, to a higher-level faculty position in itself points to the coordinated nature of the entire process. The fact of the matter is to wean me away from my post of Lecturer in French, rejoining of which was already held up since 6 months given the delays induced by the Nancy University authorities in holding the doctoral viva-voce.
The CIE&FL has taken the French motive to the term by enticing me further away by dangling the position of a Reader. After all, it is natural for one who pioneered a new Discourse theory (besides having a cumulative 12-year experience – 8-yr teaching and 4-year research – where as the post called for just 5-year teaching experience, a doctorate with good academic record) to aspire for a higher faculty position, but only to be ultimately denied the same! That the selection committee itself consisted of two retired, non-specialist professors as external experts tells it all! The institution is not genuinely interested in evaluating the candidate and his pioneering work at all!! Motivated nature of the move need not be further emphasized.
It is not as if Indian academic institutions lacked specialists in discourse analysis who may not have propounded new theories but surely have in-depth knowledge of the field. Thus, it is open both to JNU and CIE&FL/EFLU to verify my “tall” claims, if they had any genuine professional commitment. But to say this would also mean that these prestigious institutions are barred from drawing academic data from the University Grants Commission (UGC) concerning beneficiaries of Cultural Exchange Programs or that the French instances deliberately withheld furnishing comprehensive information to UGC regarding the rare academic break-through (a major conceptual revision) achieved by my research work.
The subsequent studied apathy shown to my innovative findings by the totality of the academic community goes only to confirm this attitude of coordinated indifference to be in fact an unstated policy followed by the community as a whole. Papers presented at All India Linguists Conferences, articles sent to/published in Indian research journals did not evoke any response whatsoever whereas an innovative work is expected to be either hotly contested or warmly welcomed, in any case seriously discussed. In short, the academic community has collectively denied my work an existential status, for, taking cognizance of the same would have the effect of conferring on it at least a modicum of collateral recognition.
Not just this. No complaints were acted upon by the All-India professional bodies of both French and Linguistics streams. Even the UGC remained indifferent to my appeals to take up the issue with the French as their action amounted to breach of the Bilateral Cultural Cooperation Agreement, and to reign in the academic community in the interest not only of human justice but also to uphold country‟s dignity (Note that the Chairman of UGC enjoys Cabinet rank). Worse, the judiciary was also of no help. My case against the CIE&FL (now, EFLU) was buried in the High Court of Undivided AP for 11-long years and another senior High Court lawyer deceived me into believing in the filing of a Review Petition as do lowly criminals. Worse, neither the judgment, nor the Chief Justices of the then AP High Court, following my appeals, took note neither of the transnational overlay of the case nor did they direct the CIE&FL to furnish an evaluation of the academic merit I claimed. My appeals to Chief Justice of India (CJI) as well as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) hardly brought me any better response!
Notice the modus operandi. None of the instances beginning from the humble academic institution to the exalted CJI & NHRC took cognizance of the transnational dimension of the issue. That is, none of the instances took cognizance that France was in fact violating the terms and spirit of Bilateral Cultural Cooperation Agreement signed with India. This means, by instinct or by calculation, they have all turned a blind-eye to the Western intents and maneuvers intended to induce loyalty transfer in favor of the West. Secondly, this is testified by the absence of any official attempt whatsoever to professionally ascertain veracity of my claims of propounding a new discourse theory. Even the academicians across the country studiedly held back emitting any opinion whatsoever on the academic quality of my work. This would only mean that the entire academic community and a significant part of judiciary (that includes the CJI & NHRC) besides the Cabinet rank holding Chairmen of UGC were only abetting the French fraud and thereby tacitly imposing Western subservience as a condition for attaining commensurate socio-professional status as if such a privilege accrues to the West as a right. This amounts to nothing less than being anti-national and committing treason against the country concealed only through coordinated complicity.
Again, the all-round apathy and the induced protracted delays brought upon the individual are only meant to impress and indoctrinate him of the civil society‟s tacit condition of an Anthropological Conversion in favor of the West, for gaining a place in the socio-professional sphere and serving the country in that capacity. That is, one is asked to be a life-long traitor if one wants to be in the mainstream of the country’s affairs and earn a decent living!
A cursory look is all that is needed to understand that transnational interests are at work even with other sensitive issues. Earlier this year, the New York based Ms. Lantos Scott, the Chief of the United States Commission on Religious Freedom (USRCRF) could manipulate a visa for India even though her name was on the banned list!
It is well-known to Indians that Ms. Leslee Udwin, the maker of India’s Daughter, secured permission to interview the Nirbhaya accused in Tihar Jail without ever meeting the then Union Home Minister. My own appeals to the then Prime Minister fetched just the postal acknowledgement dues, not a word from the PMO nor from the PM himself or on his behalf. In so far as media is concerned, my appeals to the TimesNow channel to project the plight of Indian couple in Oregon harassed by the US state authorities by first confiscating their child and then imprisoning the child‟s father on charges of cruelty (the child had a fall while playing with father and suffered a hairline fracture) only responded to by their legal advisor,
Mr. Vivek with tacit inquiries to know who I am what my locus standi in this matter is instead of turning the attention to salvage country‟s dignity by helping the beleaguered couple and exposing the West‟s double standards. Then we also have High Court and Supreme Court judges who spread secularist creed in contemptuous disregard of India‟s cultural subtlety and legitimacy.Such examples can be multiplied. Indeed, the tiff with NGOs on financial matters is just the tip of the iceberg. But the point to be noted is seamless cohesion of the transnational entities, their double-layered dealings by abusing discretionary powers and their covert forms of communication. What is to be noted is that such communications incorporated an internal incongruity as they need to disguise non-legitimate data. This can be in relation to other verbal material (other statements) or in relation to the context. Thus, in the French case, incongruity comes from appointing a single, non-specialist external expert on the viva-voce jury.
In the case of AII, the timing and context of the event (that is, when India is at loggerheads with Kashmir unrest) rule out any action against Indian Army as it is fundamentally inimical to the very purpose for which India is fighting the agitators. The purpose of the covert message is thus calculated, not in terms of the purportedly noble intentions, as that does not serve to advance transnational goals in anyway, but in terms of the debasing and illegitimate alluded objectives.
This kind of action would, needless to say, goes only to deliver death-blow to country‟s dignity and sovereignty even as such coordinated action insulates them from serious judicial sanctions/cognizance. It must be understood that the West‟s secularist ideology operates within such an international perspective wherein the natives are forced to internalize and work for Western interests within their own spheres, if they are to socio-professionally survive and enjoy a decent living. Thus, freedom, equality and secularism will have a modicum of meaning only within these parameters. Outside of Western-subservience, they are just tactical tools to extort servility.
Against this, the Hindutva, with all its excesses (though this is not to exonerate these latter) looks many a time more preferable if only because it is honest and straight forward. Better, this kind of ‘majoritarianism’ does not carry the component of perpetual tyranny perpetrated through covert violence to ensure perfidiously self-serving ends. Would organizations like Amnesty International be willing to take into consideration such perpetual covert manipulations and violence that collective and coordinated discretionary abuse institutes while defining Human Rights Violations so that they can fully respect Indian Constitutional values as well as the UN Charter of Human Rights? My own experience is a case in point of silently divesting one of his rights, for decades on, without ever raising a finger in physical violence and overt breaking of law.
By Dr.Codadu Pratap