Hello NL Team,

I look forward to the podcast every week. I listen to your podcast during the weekend while preparing my lunch. I usually prepare “Kadhi” or as we Kumaoni people call it “Jholi” for lunch. So I was delighted when “Kadhi” got a shoutout in the last two podcasts.

I was relieved to hear other subscribers of Newslaundry echo my concerns about people on the internet bickering about the “Right” and the “Left”. Fortunately, I have never been on Twitter, but I have seen many people, even close friends fighting on Facebook over Modi, religion, economics, etc. Social media nowadays has become a cesspool of hate. I have seen friendships break over Modi and I am really concerned about the mental health of people who spend most of their time online. Even on Newslaundry subscribers’ page, people sometimes have fought over petty issues (see some of the posts there concerning Ranga uncle). Because of such hate online, I have become reluctant to share my views with other people. I want to know from the panel their secret of combating this hate online and still remaining sane.

Thanks,
Ashish Kothyari
Another Postdoc Subscriber.

***

Hi NL team,

In a nod to the running theme of anonymous emails, I’d like to be referred to as HD. I’m one of your graduate-student-in-foreign subscribers. Since I can’t actually vote in this election, I’m voting with my money by contributing to NL Sena.

I wanted to add to the discussion about Julian Assange’s arrest. I’ve struggled with his stand on absolute transparency because to me it sounds like the big brother argument “if you have nothing to hide…” At the same time, he has been a resource for whistleblowers. I was looking for a more responsible alternative to Assange when I rediscovered ICJI’s work with Panama Papers. I’d like to share this piece by Wired that explains the process behind the collaborative investigation.

I hope you’ll include it in this week’s recommendations.

I’m going to save Abhinandan a plug, vote with your money because we need this kind of journalism and an independent media.

Best,
HD

***

Hi Abhinandan and NL team,

My name is Harjant Gill. I’m an anthropology professor based in Washington DC (originally from Chandigarh) and a long time NL listener and subscriber.

I want to commend the entire NL team for some stellar Haftas and Awful & Awesome episodes for the past few weeks. It seems like you guys are really upping your game, and your efforts have not escaped your subscribers’ notice. I am also loving your new podcast the Daily Dose, and hearing Meghnad read out the day’s news is a real treat! Abhinandan: please stop using the leverage of “new host”  to solicit more subscribers, if you leave A&A, I am more likely to rethink my existing subscription. While you are entirely uninformed and unqualified for a pop-culture podcast, your rapport and banter with Rajyasree are invaluable.

Following up on last week’s conversation (Hafta 221) on “Centrism”, I want to echo your position while offering a more productive framework for Madhu’s interpretation.

Politically and ideologically, centrism is devoid of any real currency because, as Anand said, it advocates for “slow and steady” change. In populist times, when politicians like Trump unleash hateful and vitriolic rhetoric and policies against easily scape-goat-able minorities (like American Muslims, undocumented immigrants, and the transgender community) to score cheap political points, being a centrist is like being Switzerland during WWII (Switzerland famously maintained a “neutral” position as Nazis tried to exterminate a whole ethnic group). Maybe this is an extreme example, but we live in extraordinary times.

My point is that while centrism might work for the majority, it doesn’t do much to protect the rights of minorities. If we look at the history of social change, over the last century (gay rights, civil rights, women’s rights, Dalit rights), these advances have been procured through activism and direct action, not patience and slow and steady progress. As Fredrick Douglas once said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did and it never will.”

Picking up on Madhu’s understanding of “Centrism”, which includes taking positions and making decisions based on empirical evidence over ideology, I think what she referring to is what we call in social sciences “Empiricism”. Perhaps “Empiricism” is a more useful category we should all strive for, and it is devoid of the pitfall of “Centrism.”  Although, as any critical anthropologist will warn you, being an “empiricist” can also lead to a very myopic analysis and teleological understanding of culture and history – but that’s a different conversation, for another time.

Lastly, during your panel discussion, Madhu briefly mentioned that the “Indian Right and the Indian Left is not the same as (or perhaps the opposite of) how the Right and Left is understood in America). I was very confused by this statement, can you please elaborate more on this? A cross-cultural analysis and comparison of Indian and American “Right” and “Left” would be incredibly fruitful for your NRI, diasporic and foreign audiences. Can you also shed some light on when categories of “Left” and “Right” entered the Indian political discourse? Growing up in Chandigarh (in the 1990s), I don’t remember encountering these terms, in Indian media or in Indian newspapers. Thanks!

Sorry for the lengthy email. Keep up the good work!

Cheers,
Harjant Gill