I can't take Van seriously anymore, self styled Asia specialist he claims to be. He repeats tropes without doing homework, relying instead on leftist if not marxist authors, who conform to his poliitics and therefore can be trusted on the polities he is commenting on and making policy recommendations about. That is not serious analysis. That is someone living in an echo chamber. If you want to comment on place that is being described as facist which is a serious charge. It might be worth not just reading authors who throw around that term casually and undermine its meaning. It might be worth reading authors outside the echo chamber too, so a more nuanced and credible view can be established, even if it remains criticial, which is fine. Anyone who does do that knows that majoritiarianism is problematic but its not facist and the underlying cause for it are the very people venerated by whom Van trusts as his source of information (something those people either ignore or are in denial over). Imagine having a constitutution written in a language 80% of the population cannot read. India is a large hetrerogenous country, reactionary nationalism and the process of decolonisation is complex and difficult to understand. The BJP not completely innocent by any stretch, nor is it as guilty of the sins it is accused of as made out to be. It is unwise to depend on the god of small things as Van does for his principal point of view.
I can't take Van seriously anymore, self styled Asia specialist he claims to be. He repeats tropes without doing homework, relying instead on leftist if not marxist authors, who conform to his poliitics and therefore can be trusted on the polities he is commenting on and making policy recommendations about. That is not serious analysis. That is someone living in an echo chamber. If you want to comment on place that is being described as facist which is a serious charge. It might be worth not just reading authors who throw around that term casually and undermine its meaning. It might be worth reading authors outside the echo chamber too, so a more nuanced and credible view can be established, even if it remains criticial, which is fine. Anyone who does do that knows that majoritiarianism is problematic but its not facist and the underlying cause for it are the very people venerated by whom Van trusts as his source of information (something those people either ignore or are in denial over). Imagine having a constitutution written in a language 80% of the population cannot read. India is a large hetrerogenous country, reactionary nationalism and the process of decolonisation is complex and difficult to understand. The BJP not completely innocent by any stretch, nor is it as guilty of the sins it is accused of as made out to be. It is unwise to depend on the god of small things as Van does for his principal point of view.