In case anyone here has doubts, I am happy to provide the latest receipts for the same. Consider this recent event of political indoctrination at IITD << https://hss.iitd.ac.in/event/architectures-inequality-social-aesthetic-and-philosophical-perspectives >>. Just observe the kind of “perspectives” being shared and normalised: “The Case for Dalit Reparations”? Check. “Pax Brahminica”? Check. Nothing to do with actual academic research, of course. Pure instance of hate speech being openly and proudly done (and justified as social justice) in the national capital. The entire event was completely homogeneous and riddled with the hateful dichotomy of oppressor-oppressed. There was no actual diversity of thought. Events like these are motivated by reasons of ideology and partisanship while being disguised in the word salad of social justice. By the way, this is the same IITD which also has an Office of Diversity and Inclusion, another opaque and powerful body that has been recently created to further contribute towards balkanisation of the student society at the institute.

Now look at NLSIU where recently one of their teachers who is also doing their PhD tries to normalise and justify the real fact of discrimination as practised by the Indian state on the basis of caste as some kind of perverse justice through his so-called “moral reading” << https://www.nls.ac.in/news-events/faculty-seminar-presentations-by-sidharth-chauhan-and-rahul-hemrajani/ >>. Consider his own words here: “This dissertation argues that these special provisions [relating to electoral reservation on the basis of caste] for enabling the political representation of historically marginalised communities should not be narrowly viewed as methods for redistributing material resources . . . With respect to explanations for democratic authority, the key idea is that electoral quotas incrementally contribute to ‘recognitional legitimacy’, a concept that transcends the immediate pursuit of political integration and the pragmatic accommodation of group differences.”

Please see through the abstraction of language and concepts here to observe the real argument: that India is not a nation of individual citizens with inalienable rights but a community of communities engaged in the process of bartering interests. Everything is relative. No inherent values exist that Indians share with each other. They are all mutual enemies of each other and tied in delicate balance. For the author, in the name of “recognitional legitimacy”, it is perfectly reasonable to discriminate against people by calling them and their forefathers oppressors! And, of course, what is “pragmatic accomodation” if not a happy declaration that not only is India not a nation but that the only way to govern it is by managing groups and communities in their respective ghetto-like existence.

And then we wonder why our institutions do not stand for our fundamental rights. How can they when they are already committed to an ideological project that is anti-individual and sees Indians as not a people but a bunch of groups who can only interact with other in a zero-sum game.

This is my sincere case. I am happy to be corrected.