None in this exchange stop to think if India wd hv really benefited from the brightness of these brightest. Leaching of talent is both a product of deliberate ideological flaws in the Indian state, as well as lack of strong identification with “home”. But there is more to this:
https://twitter.com/suhelseth/status/1465369806518079493
The brightest allowed into influential positions in institutions in seen to be key in financial, ideological dominance of western imperialism follow the same rules as in politics: in addition to talent they must show character flaws that wd make them toe their patron’s interests.
If ppl care to look carefully at the various statements/positions/activities of the “brightest” who hv also been allowed to “rise” to decisive roles, over the years, they will be able to see patterns that match what the colonial occupation regime in India would have appreciated.
Both the power-transferred post-colonial state and the “west” actually fear Indian “talent” and neither wants to allow talent that may challenge their grip on the narrative, to rise to decision making. Thus export of talent is part of the same threat management game.
In India, rebellious talent is a threat to the establishment: so “affirmative action” or other skullduggery can be used to marginalise talent, and the west having greater finesse and knowing the advantages of casting the net wide -allows all talent reasonable opportunities.
But both the post-colonial state and the “west” make sure that only talent that doesn’t strongly and independently identifies with “home” - independent of whichever patron wants them to identify with - gets to rise to decision making.
In the end, such characters wd play a role against the nations interest. Here nation is not necessarily identical to a particular state form of an era. No nation thrives by suffocating its talents in the name of whatever twisted justice its rulers seek to cynically employ.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
