Perhaps Macaulay would have understood. I didn’t.The Englishman who got Indians started on the English language is rather more famous in his native country for what was a 19th century bestseller. His five-volume History of England from the Accession of James the Second caught popular and critical imagination for telling a great story in great style and with great authority. But, as later critics noticed, objectivity was not something Macaulay strove for. His politics (he was a Whig) and his Protestantism coloured his narrative to the point where, in today’s terms, he would have perhaps been a good bet as a TV news panelist.I am guessing, because I am trying to be objective and fair, that some of Macaulay’s children may have inherited the great man’s propensity for whopping big biases; so big that when we small-bias types hear their arguments we can’t laugh, we can’t cry, we can’t think.So, it is probably not the NDTV panelist’s fault that in course of the channel’s Thursday evening prime time discussion on the Indians-held-in-Amsterdam story he called for the expansion of Air India’s fleet, saw the ghost of apartheid, pointed us to both the West’s hollow moral core and India’s big, loving heart. Last but not the least he, as troubled children do, pointed an accusing finger at the patriarch: Macaulay laid a trap for us and we walked into it.I will elaborate a bit because I know the preceding paragraph sounds confusing. But I make no claims that elaboration will clear the confusion. The NDTV panelist, brimming with almost-calm indignation at the detention of the Indian passengers, argued that unlike the West, we Indians know how to love one and all. Therefore to allow everyone to fly in peace and dignity, Air India must have more planes (a former civil aviation secretary, also a panelist, was invited to ponder on this strategy). Apartheid was mentioned in dark foreboding tones to remind us of the white man’s prejudice. Macaulay’s fault? We became brown sahibs thanks to his cunning invitation to learn English.Yes, I know, it’s not much clearer. But don’t say I didn’t warn you. And now I have a poser. Who is less perplexing: the NDTV panelist or the ex-cricketer on CNN-IBN’s competing Thursday evening prime time discussion programme, who said there’s no fruit without root. CNN-IBN was talking about minority concerns (the Hitler restaurant in Mumbai, the Sikh boy in Jaipur). I personally would take bad one-liners over grandiloquent history-spanning condemnations any day.While on history, I can’t fathom why the Northwest Airline Dutch passenger interviewed by NDTV said 1940 and expected instant comprehension on the part of his interlocutor. Didn’t this guy know World War II - the Germans invaded the Netherlands in May that year - wasn’t breaking news? I am pretty sure the NDTV panelist would have liked what the Dutch guy was trying to say: the treatment of Indian passengers reminded him of Nazi methods. But the NDTV reporter had my full sympathy. The Dutch guy made up for his presumption, though, by describing the men detained in Amsterdam as Arabs.PS: I am beginning to get rather fond of Times Now exclusives. They are good fun. One this week on “new-age warfare” said the Agni is part of the armed force’s offensive strategy. Don’t tell me you knew that.
