The Unwitting Allies: How Western Liberals Fuel India’s Right-Wing Ascendancy

 

The Unwitting Allies: How Western Liberals Fuel India’s Right-Wing Ascendancy

In the glittering diaspora hubs of Silicon Valley, New York, and London, upper-caste Indian immigrants — often Savarnas — project an image of cultural vibrancy and progressive assimilation. They light up Diwali lamps on public streets, advocate for diversity in boardrooms, and decry Western racism with fervent op-eds. Yet, back home in India, many of these same individuals and their families champion policies that entrench caste hierarchies, vilify inter-caste unions, and stoke xenophobia against Bangladeshi migrants. This chasm isn’t mere personal inconsistency; it’s a systemic hypocrisy that Western liberals, in their earnest embrace of multiculturalism, unwittingly amplify. By shielding these voices from scrutiny, they provide ideological cover and material support to India’s right-wing ecosystem, allowing it to flourish unchecked.

The Mask of the Model Minority

At the heart of this dynamic lies the Indian diaspora’s selective identity politics. Upper-caste Indians, who dominate the skilled migration pipelines to the US and Europe, arrive as “model minorities” — highly educated, economically successful, and culturally “exotic” enough to fit neatly into progressive narratives. They leverage affirmative action critiques in the West while opposing India’s reservation system that uplifts Dalits and Adivasis, revealing a profound double standard rooted in caste privilege. 

In Silicon Valley, these “tech bros” rail against American xenophobia, yet fund campaigns in India that demonize Muslim “infiltrators” from Bangladesh, echoing the BJP’s anti-migrant rhetoric.This isn’t abstract ideology; it’s lived duplicity. 

Consider the everyday: In India, a Savarna household might maintain separate utensils for their lower-caste domestic help, enforcing untouchability under the guise of tradition. Abroad, that same family sues employers for discrimination, invoking the very civil rights frameworks they undermine at home.

As one observer notes, Indian Americans often lean left domestically — supporting Democrats and social justice causes — but pivot rightward on India, backing Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist agenda without a hint of irony.

This paradox isn’t accidental; it’s a survival strategy in a globalized world where caste networks provide economic lifelines, from H-1B visas to venture capital.

Cultural Celebrations as Cultural Imperialism

The hypocrisy sharpens during cultural displays. In the US, Diwali has evolved into a spectacle of fireworks, street block parties, and corporate sponsorships — often with little regard for noise complaints or environmental impact. If a neighbor objects, cries of “cultural erasure” ring out, bolstered by allies in city councils and media. Yet, in India, the same diaspora remits funds to families and organizations that protest public namaz (Muslim prayers) as “public nuisance,” filing petitions to ban them from streets and parks. God forbid a Hindu festival faces similar curbs; it’s decried as “appeasement politics.”This selective outrage isn’t isolated. South Asian feminists in the West, many upper-caste, amplify Palestinian solidarity or Black Lives Matter while ignoring caste atrocities or anti-Muslim pogroms in India.

Priyanka Chopra, a Bollywood icon and diaspora darling, embodies this: She headlines global women’s rights panels yet remains silent on the Gujarat riots that killed over 1,000 Muslims in 2002, under Modi’s watch as chief minister — a silence that shields right-wing narratives abroad

Western Liberals: Enablers in Progressive Clothing

Enter Western liberals, whose well-intentioned multiculturalism becomes a Trojan horse. Eager to atone for colonial sins, they celebrate Indian “diversity” without interrogating its caste-infused underbelly. Invitations to TED Talks, university panels, and Democratic fundraisers flow to these diaspora figures, who frame themselves as authentic voices of the subcontinent. In doing so, liberals launder right-wing ideas: Modi’s “digital India” gets applause as innovation, not surveillance; yoga retreats ignore the erasure of Muslim heritage sites.This support isn’t benign. Diaspora remittances — $100 billion annually to India — often channel into BJP coffers, funding campaigns that suppress Dalit activism and queer rights.

Tech CEOs of Indian origin lobby against H-1B reforms in the US, citing their own immigrant struggles, while their Indian counterparts push “citizenship amendments” that sideline Muslim refugees. Western liberals, by amplifying these stories without context, normalize the narrative that India’s right-wing is merely “cultural conservatism,” not ethnonationalist authoritarianism.

The irony peaks in minority protections. These immigrants demand safeguards against Islamophobia in the West — rightfully so — yet fund groups that lobby against caste discrimination bills in California, arguing it “stereotypes Hindus.”

Abroad, they play the “garib” (poor immigrant) card for sympathy; in India, they embody the elite, ensuring lower castes remain outsiders. As one X user laments, this is the diaspora “bending backwards to find redeeming values in Hindu fascists,” all while Western enablers applaud the performance.

The Ripple Effect: Thriving at Home, Empowered Abroad

The consequences for India are dire. Emboldened by uncritical Western acclaim, the right-wing doubles down: Reservations are branded “reverse discrimination,” inter-caste marriages face “love jihad” laws, and migrants are scapegoated amid economic woes. The diaspora, safe in their suburban enclaves, exports this toxicity via WhatsApp forwards and Zoom fundraisers, eroding secular fabrics without personal risk.Yet, cracks appear. Younger, intersectional South Asians — Dalit activists and queer Muslims in the diaspora — are challenging this hegemony, demanding accountability.

Western liberals must listen to them, not the high priests of hypocrisy

In the end, true allyship demands discomfort: Scrutinize the Savarna abroad as rigorously as the migrant at the border. Only then can progressivism dismantle the very hierarchies it claims to oppose — before India’s right-wing, fattened on Western goodwill, consumes the pluralism both sides purport to cherish.

Everyone Knows George Soros. But Who Knows Charles Koch?

 

Everyone Knows George Soros. But Who Knows Charles Koch?

The world recognizes the name George Soros as the emblem of left-wing billionaire philanthropy, but far fewer know about Charles Koch and his massive political influence. Yet, when it comes to political funding and shaping policy agendas, Koch’s impact is equally — if not more — transformative on the right.

The Soros Name: Global Symbol of Left-Wing Philanthropy

George Soros, the Hungarian-American financier, is internationally infamous and celebrated for his support of democratic causes, liberal advocacy, and progressive movements. His Open Society Foundations have disbursed hundreds of millions every year. In 2021 alone, Soros donated at least $140 million through advocacy networks, and contributed nearly $170 million to electoral campaigns in the 2022 U.S. midterms. His advocacy for transparency, minority rights, and democratic freedoms has made him a hero to some and a bogeyman to others, often fueling conspiracy theories and political attacks.

The Koch Network: The Silent Giant of the Right

But while Soros receives the lion’s share of media attention, the Koch network quietly channels staggering sums into conservative, libertarian, and right-wing causes around the world. Charles Koch, CEO of Koch Industries, oversees a network that moved at least $176 million in 2022 alone into policy, advocacy, litigation, higher education, and media groups. This flows through a constellation of nonprofits such as Stand Together Trust, with total annual expenditures in recent years often exceeding $650 million and net assets amounting to hundreds of millions.

In fact, Koch’s influence reaches academic institutions (over $52 million in 2022 higher ed grants), drives state-level policy through think tanks, spearheads school privatization, funds litigation opposing progressive change, and bankrolls right-leaning media voices. Americans for Prosperity (AFP), his flagship operation, received $60 million in one year — several times more than many entire political advocacy organizations operate on annually.

Why Does Everyone Know Soros, But Not Koch?

The disparity in public recognition stems from several factors:

• Narrative Framing: Soros is routinely attacked in political rhetoric, especially by right-wing media. Koch has often preferred the shadows, leveraging multiple layers of nonprofits and donor conduits.
• Media Focus: Liberal mega-donors like Soros are covered by global outlets and conspiracy-minded channels; Koch’s operations, despite being as consequential, rarely spark the same headlines.
• Transparency and Disclosure: Much of Koch’s operation flows through so-called “dark money” channels, which reduces public scrutiny compared to Soros’s philanthropy that is largely public and documented.

The Real Numbers: Comparative Political Funding

Charles Koch’s network, on the right, donated between $176 million and $650 million per year in recent cycles, at times setting spending goals as high as $889 million for a single election season. These funds went into policy advocacy, litigation, higher education, state-level organizations, and media. On the left, George Soros contributed about $140 million in a typical year through his advocacy groups and up to $170 million directly in 2022 U.S. elections, with his total political giving since January 2020 exceeding $500 million. Both donor empires support not just direct campaign spending but also fund think tanks, legal initiatives, and media aligned with their ideological goals

The Stakes

Charles Koch’s empire is vast and quietly productive, supporting hundreds of policy groups, legal causes, and academic institutions with a focus on deregulation, libertarian economics, and conservative causes. Meanwhile, George Soros remains a visible lightning rod — his politics might be a household debate, but the pipelines and scale of someone like Koch rarely reach everyday discussion.

As public debates rage about the power of money in politics, it’s crucial to ask not only about the biggest names but also about those whose money shapes policy from the shadows. To understand the true nature of political influence, comparing high-profile philanthropists like Soros with equally impactful figures like Koch paints a far more complete — if unsettling — picture of modern democracy

The Conspiracy Theories Around Mother Teresa — And Why They Don’t Hold Up to Scrutiny

 

---

The Conspiracy Theories Around Mother Teresa — And Why They Don’t Hold Up to Scrutiny

Mother Teresa, canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church in 2016, is globally recognized for her humanitarian work with the poor and dying in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta). Yet in India — particularly among right-wing circles — she is also the subject of persistent conspiracy theories. These range from allegations of forced religious conversions to accusations of child trafficking and misusing donations.

Despite the lack of verifiable evidence, these narratives continue to circulate, fueled by social media, political rhetoric, and ideological hostility toward missionaries and NGOs. This article examines the most common claims made against Mother Teresa and contrasts them with facts, data, and independent investigations.

---

1. Claim: Mother Teresa Was Running a Massive Conversion Racket

The Theory:

Mother Teresa’s work with the poor was merely a façade for mass conversions to Christianity. Some claim that the Missionaries of Charity (MoC), the organization she founded, exploited vulnerable people — especially Hindus — by converting them on their deathbeds.

The Facts:

• No credible evidence exists that the Missionaries of Charity engaged in forced or coercive conversions.
• The MoC’s facilities did not require patients to convert or adopt Christian practices. In fact, many people served by the MoC remained Hindu or Muslim.
• Prominent Indian figures such as Khushwant Singh, a Sikh agnostic and critic of religion, praised her work and never mentioned any evidence of conversion pressure.
• Indian government records and multiple court cases have never proven any systematic conversion activity by MoC.
• In a 2011 statement, the MoC said:
• “Our rule forbids us to convert anyone. Mother herself said: ‘Our job is not to convert. Our job is to love.’”

---

2. Claim: She Was Glorifying Suffering Instead of Alleviating It

The Theory:

Mother Teresa allegedly believed that suffering brought people closer to God and, therefore, did not provide adequate medical care or pain relief to patients. Some critics argue that she was more interested in martyrdom than modern healthcare.

The Facts:

• This criticism originated from Christopher Hitchens’ book The Missionary Position, which portrayed her work as deeply flawed and ideologically rigid.
• While Hitchens raised concerns about hygiene and medical standards in MoC homes, independent journalists and investigators found no malice or agenda — rather, a lack of resources and medical training.
• The facilities were not meant to be hospitals. They were hospices for the dying, offering dignity and basic care to people who were otherwise abandoned by families or hospitals.
• In her time, Kolkata had limited infrastructure for terminal care. Her model filled a massive gap in public health, especially for the most marginalized.

---

3. Claim: She Misused Foreign Donations

The Theory:

Critics argue that Mother Teresa received millions in donations but did not use them to improve healthcare facilities or expand her operations transparently.

The Facts:

• The Missionaries of Charity maintain a vow of poverty, and the organization is audited annually in accordance with Indian laws for NGOs.
• The money was reportedly used across 130+ countries, supporting homes for leprosy patients, orphans, AIDS patients, and the elderly.
• Indian government agencies, including the Income Tax Department and Home Ministry, have not found financial misappropriation in public audits of MoC.
• The organization does not hoard money; funds are deployed modestly to maintain a frugal model of service.

---

4. Claim: She Was Involved in Child Trafficking

The Theory:

One of the most inflammatory conspiracy theories accuses Mother Teresa’s order of engaging in illegal adoptions or child trafficking.

The Facts:

• The 2018 adoption controversy involving Missionaries of Charity in Jharkhand involved two individuals, not the organization as a whole. MoC immediately distanced itself from the employees involved and cooperated with police.
• The case was used politically to attack Christian charities in India, but no link to Mother Teresa or her leadership was ever established.
• The MoC ceased all adoptions in 2015, citing bureaucratic red tape and ideological differences with India’s changing adoption laws, particularly those that mandated non-discrimination toward single or divorced individuals.

---

Why These Myths Persist

• Religious Polarization: In a climate of rising Hindu nationalism, Christian missionaries are often painted as a threat to Indian culture, regardless of their actual activities.
• Political Rhetoric: Politicians like Yogi Adityanath and Subramanian Swamy have made public remarks alleging conversion motives, lending legitimacy to fringe theories.
• Social Media Echo Chambers: WhatsApp forwards and YouTube videos from pseudo-historical influencers often repeat the same falsehoods without citations.
• Western Critiques Misused: Valid criticisms from Western writers like Hitchens have been selectively misquoted or decontextualized by Indian right-wing groups.

---

Conclusion: A Legacy Larger Than Rumors

Mother Teresa’s legacy, like that of any global religious figure, is not without complexity. But most of the conspiracy theories that surround her are based on ideological discomfort with her faith, not evidence of wrongdoing. Her life’s work — serving the dying, lepers, orphans, and abandoned — filled a vacuum left by the state and society.

Criticism is healthy. But distortion is dangerous. It’s time we examine her legacy with clarity, not conspiracy.

Navigating India’s Right-Wing Wave: A Survival Guide for 2025 and Beyond

Dealing with right-wing perspectives in India—whether in the present (2025) or the future—can feel like navigating a minefield if you’re left-leaning, especially given the right’s current dominance (40-50% of the politically engaged population, per earlier analysis). The BJP’s grip on power, media, and public discourse makes it a daily reality, and the trend suggests it’ll stick around through at least the 2030s. Here’s a practical, no-nonsense guide to cope, grounded in understanding the dynamics and keeping your sanity intact.

In the Present (2025)

The right’s strength today—rooted in Hindu nationalism, economic promises, and a slick media machine—means you’re often outnumbered in conversations, online, or even at family gatherings. Here’s how to handle it:

1. Pick Your Battles
   • Not every “right-wing idiot” needs a debate. If your uncle’s ranting about Modi’s genius at dinner, weigh the stakes—is it worth the energy? Save your breath for moments that matter, like policy discussions with someone open to reason or when misinformation’s spreading unchecked (e.g., WhatsApp forwards claiming India’s inequality is a “leftist lie”).
   • Data Point: X posts show right-wing narratives dominate Indian social media—think #BharatMataKiJai trending weekly. Engaging every troll burns you out fast.
2. Know Their Playbook
   • The right leans on emotional triggers: nationalism (“You’re anti-India!”), religion (“You hate Hindus!”), or cherry-picked stats (“Economy’s booming!”). Counter with facts—Oxfam’s 40% wealth concentration in the top 1% or 8.1% unemployment (CMIE 2023)—but keep it calm. They thrive on your frustration.
   • Example: If they brag about GDP growth, nod and ask, “Why’s the Gini coefficient at 0.410 then?” It’s a quiet jab that forces them to think (or Google).
3. Build Your Bubble—But Not Too Tight
   • Find like-minded folks—left-leaning X communities, local activist groups, or even Kerala/Tamil Nadu expats if you’re stuck in a BJP stronghold. It’s a sanity lifeline. But don’t isolate completely; echo chambers make you lazy, not sharp.
   • Reality Check: The Left’s down to 20-30% nationally. You’re not alone, but you’re not the majority either—connect strategically.
4. Stay Subtle Online
   • X is a right-wing echo chamber in India—trolls pounce on “libtards” fast. Share your views through questions (“Why do 63 million fall into poverty yearly from healthcare costs?”) or retweet data-driven posts (e.g., Oxfam reports) instead of preaching. It’s less likely to trigger a pile-on.
   • Tip: Mute, don’t block—keeps your feed clean without escalating feuds.
5. Focus on What You Can Change
   • National politics feel rigged, but local action—volunteering for education drives, supporting labor unions, or pushing caste equity—aligns with left values and sidesteps endless Modi debates. It’s tangible, not theoretical.

In the Future (2030s–2040s)

Looking ahead, the right might hold 40-50% through 2040, per earlier projections, but cracks could emerge—inequality, youth unrest, or a weak BJP successor. Here’s how to prep and cope long-term:

1. Adapt to the Long Game
   • If the right dominates, as seems likely, outright resistance might stay futile. Shift to subtle influence—educate quietly, back grassroots movements, or infiltrate centrist spaces (projected to hit 30-40%). The BJP’s peak could soften by 2040 if inequality festers (Gini potentially hitting 0.5+).
   • Scenario: A 2035 economic dip could revive left ideas—be ready to amplify them without gloating.
2. Leverage Crises
   • Climate change (50% of farmland unirrigated) or urban poverty could expose right-wing market-first flaws. Push left-leaning solutions—state healthcare, rural jobs—when the moment’s ripe. People listen when they’re desperate, not smug.
   • Example: If water riots hit by 2035, pitch public infrastructure over privatization—data like 63 million healthcare poverties yearly backs you up.
3. Outlast the Noise
   • The right’s emotional pitch—Hindutva, “strong India”—might fade post-big wins (e.g., Ram Temple’s done). Exhaustion could set in; your steady, fact-based case (e.g., 40% of girls out of school) might age better. Don’t expect a flip soon, but plant seeds for 2040.
   • Tactic: Share long-term stats—child stunting at 40%—that hit harder as nationalism’s buzz wears off.
4. Build Resilience
   • The future might mean more right-wing noise—AI-driven propaganda, louder media. Train yourself to tune out idiocy (e.g., “Leftists ruined India” revisionism) and focus on your lane. Meditation, offline hobbies, or a solid friend group keep you grounded.
   • Prediction: If the right holds 45% by 2040, the other 55% (left + centrists) is your playing field—nurture it.
5. Hope for a Pivot
   • A centrist surge (30-40% by 2040) or left revival (15-25%) isn’t impossible if the BJP overreaches—say, pushing divisive laws too far. Stay sharp, not bitter; a coalition could pull some of those “idiots” your way if they tire of dogma.

Core Mindset

• Don’t Hate, Outsmart: Calling them “idiots” feels good but wins nothing. They’re not all dumb—many are just sold a different story. Dismantle it with data (e.g., Hazra’s crime-inequality link) or questions they can’t dodge.
• Play Defense and Offense: Protect your peace now—limit X doomscrolling—but prep for openings later (e.g., 2030s unrest). The right’s not invincible; it’s just loud.
• Accept the Odds: You’re outnumbered today (20-30% vs. 40-50%). That’s not failure—it’s context. Work within it, not against it.

Bottom Line

In 2025, cope by dodging pointless fights, hitting with facts, and carving your space—think local wins over national shouting matches. By 2040, the right might still lead, but cracks could widen—stay ready with solutions (healthcare, equity) when they do. You won’t convert every “idiot,” but you can outlast them. India’s messy—always has been. Lean into that, not away.