This week, India went through another rape-related convulsion that really was not about rape. A British BBC filmmaker produced a film about the heinous 2013 rape-murder of a 23-year old Delhi woman. An Indian TV network, NDTV, was going to air it in India. Fearing violence, the Delhi police obtained a court order prohibiting the airing of this film. The Indian TV network, NDTV, obeyed the court order. The British BBC network refused to obey and aired the film, produced in India & shot in India, in Britain.
This created an uproar in India and in the typical Indian manner, Indians went on attack against other Indians about the film, Indian attitudes to rape & women. Cries of shame, shame erupted on both sides. But very few saw the BBC action for what it really represented.
Let us be clear. We firmly believe in freedom of expression. Our firm position is that the BBC film should have been aired in India. But we are equally firm in our absolute adherence to the laws of the land. BBC should have gone to Court and asked for the prohibition to be set aside. If unsuccessful, BBC could have and should have filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of India. BBC did no such thing, They simply went ahead and aired the film.
A foreign network that operates in India under Indian Law willfully, deliberately & contemptuously violated an order from an Indian Court and a directive from India’s Government. In our opinion, no sovereign nation can tolerate such behavior. We think it is absolutely incumbent on the Indian Government to ban BBC from India and expel all non-Indian employees of BBC from India. In addition, the Indian Government must levy a massive fine that must be paid before BBC can be allowed back into India.
That is what a self-respecting Sovereign Government would do and that is what a self-respecting society would demand from its sovereign Government. But the Indian Government will not mainly because Indian society would not support that decision.
Why? Mainly because BBC is White British and therefore considered above Indian law by many Indians, especially the English-educated Indians who have been programmed to believe that Indians are backward & British are progressive.
Let us be clearer. What BBC did would not have been tolerated by Indians had BBC been a Black African network, a Brown Asian network or even, we think, a White Continental European network. Indian society would have been incensed at the violation of India’s sovereignty and demanded the expulsion of such a network from India.
But BBC is different because they are White British. And so when BBC does or says something, the majority of English-educated Indians respond with shame rather than with anger. Indians still think of the White British as their old masters. So Indians still defer to White BBC and do not mind White BBC’s decision to defy Indian Courts & the Indian Government.
We use the terms White British & White BBC with deliberation. Indians don’t consider non-Whites in Britain as really British and had the BBC filmmaker been of Asian or African origin, the reaction in India might have been different. One, they would not have cared and two, that filmmaker would have been treated with indifferent contempt.
But when a White BBC filmmaker says “This [India] is really a sick society“, Indians react with shame. Look at us, they think, even after 67 years of Independence, we are not worthy of respect from the British – shame on us. This is why the concept that BBC willfully & contemptuously violated an Indian court order doesn’t penetrate Indian psyche. Just the shame that their colonial masters still think of them as a “sick society” debilitates Indians to the point that nothing else matters.
1. Who is really sick? The White BBC filmmaker or Indian Society?
Every society has its share of utterly heinous people, men & women, that commit truly evil acts. That is a human & statistical reality. India is no different from America or any other country in that sad human reality. American commentators like Bill O’Reilly are open in admitting that a small number of Americans are evil and equally open in stating that American society is essentially fair and good. This simple wisdom & reality eludes Indian commentators who take criticism from White British as proof that Indian society (not including themselves, of course) is so bad.
The man interviewed by the White BBC filmmaker is clearly an evil man. No one else would commit the horrific act he committed. But he has been sentenced to death, for his actions, by an Indian court and will be put to death in due course. Case closed.
Now what did the White BBC filmmaker expect this heinous convict to say? Does it surprise anyone that he believes what he did is justified on whatever perverted grounds he has? Didn’t the White BBC filmmaker expect him to say that?
We think she did and that was the point. That is why she allegedly paid this convict 40,000 Rupees for his interview. Her objective was, we believe, to paint all of Indian society as “really sick“. This filmmaker also said “I think Bollywood movies are pornography. I think that women are objectified. It’s all part of this disease, this culture“. Has this BBC filmmaker ever seen a James Bond film?
But asking such questions is pointless. Because this White BBC filmmaker is mouthing the same sick venom that was attributed a year or so ago to a Libby Purves of the Times of London:
- “India’s “patriarchal culture,” where Indian men are characterized, as Libby Purves put
it recently in the Times of London, by a “murderous, hyena-like male contempt” towards women.”
The White BBC filmmaker and this Libby Purves are the really sick ones (assuming the quote attributed to her is correct) and not Indian society. It is not as if Britain is 100% pure without its share of the sick & evil. Some Brits pointed out that Britain has more rapes per capita than India and argued every Britisher should be deeply ashamed of what British police tolerated in the recent rape jihad cases.
2. British remain British.
This White BBC filmmaker and British journalists like Libby Purves demonstrate that the British remain British in their feelings about Indians. And how have the British, especially British “scholars” spoken & written about Indians? A few choice quotes should suffice:
- James Mill – “the Hindu, like the eunuch, excels in the qualities of a slave“
- Rudyard Kipling – “It was the Bengali male’s “extraordinary effeminacy“, as evinced by his diminutive physique, his flowing clothes, and his worship of goddesses, that best illustrated why he, and by extension India, had to be guided by the firm, benevolent hand of a supremely masculine race.”
- Macaulay – “All those arts which are the natural defence of the weak are more familiar to this subtle race than to…the Jew of the dark ages,”
- Churchill – “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
- Churchill writing of an 1898 Indian plague:” a philosopher may watch unmoved the destruction of some of the superfluous millions, whose life must of necessity be destitute of pleasure.”
If this isn’t enough, get introduced to Lord Cherwell, the man Churchill appointed as Head of Britain’s scientific divisions including the S branch and the man who Churchill said had a “beautiful brain”. This Cherwell was “repelled by blacks, but he took along his English valet and did not have to be touched by native hands“. What thoughts did this “beautiful brain” produce?
- “At the lower end of the race and class spectrum, one would remove from “helots“ (the Greek word for slaves) the ability to suffer or to feel ambition. Science could yield a race of humans blessed with “the mental make-up of the worker bee.” This subclass would do all the unpleasant work and not once think of revolution or of voting rights. … The outcome would be a perfectly peaceable and stable society, “led by supermen and served by helots”. … To consolidate the rule of supermen – to perpetuate the British Empire – one need only to remove the ability of slaves to see themselves as slaves“
These thoughts from a wide section of “respected” British establishment are as bad as the thoughts of German Nazis and in some cases worse. And the British committed greater level of genocide in India than what German Nazis did in Europe.
The difference is that today’s Germans reject what the German Nazis did in the past while today’s British view with pride what British did in the past. As a result of this pride, the horribly evil attitudes of Mill/Macaulay/Churchill/Cherwell still pervade British society. As we can see from the words of Libby Purves of the Times of London and this White BBC filmmaker.
3. Indians Remain Indian
Today, the above attitudes would be described as evil & anti-humanity by every civilized human being. Yet, these evil attitudes of the British establishment are still deeply embedded within Indian psyche – especially the psyche of Indians who get educated in English in India. Because today’s English-based education programs teach Indians to think of the White British as their superiors and their fellow Indians as backward. This is why criticism from the White British deeply scars Indians while even a little pat on the head from the White British makes them so happy.
That is why so many Indians reacted to the sick descriptions of the White BBC filmmaker not with anger or disdain but with a debilitating sense of shame. That is why such Indians cannot even understand what willful contemptuous violation of an Indian Court order signifies. Because the White British are still above the Indian Government to such Indians.
Send your feedback to firstname.lastname@example.org OR @MacroViewpoints on Twitter