Hotmail Co-founder says ‘truth=anti-India’, Goenka replies ‘Living in US & lecturing us?’
The recent statement made by Hotmail co-founder Sabeer Bhatia has sparked a heated debate on social media. Bhatia claimed that in India, those who speak the truth are often labeled as “anti-national”. He went on to say, “Then who’s a national? The one who lies to you?”
However, billionaire Harsh Goenka, who is the chairman of RPG Enterprises, had a strong response to Bhatia’s statement. Goenka took to Twitter to express his disagreement, saying, “Living in California and lecturing a billion Indians back home?…India doesn’t need sermons from those who packed up and left.”
Bhatia’s statement seemed to suggest that the term “anti-national” is often used to silence those who speak the truth in India. He implied that those who speak the truth are being labeled as “anti-national” simply because it is convenient for the powers that be to silence them. However, Goenka’s response suggests that Bhatia’s statement is not only misguided but also hypocritical.
Goenka’s point is that Bhatia himself left India and is now living in California, which is a far cry from the reality of life in India. He is essentially lecturing the people of India from a position of comfort and privilege, which is not only condescending but also disingenuous.
It is worth noting that Bhatia has been vocal about his criticism of the Indian government and its policies in the past. He has used his social media platform to express his opinions on various issues, including politics, corruption, and social justice. However, his statement about the term “anti-national” being used to silence those who speak the truth in India has been met with widespread criticism.
Many have pointed out that Bhatia’s statement is not only inaccurate but also tone-deaf. The term “anti-national” is often used to describe those who are opposed to the idea of India as a secular and inclusive democracy. It is not necessarily used to silence those who speak the truth, but rather to describe those who are opposed to the ideals that India is founded upon.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that Bhatia’s own experience of leaving India and living in the United States is not representative of the average Indian. While he may have had his reasons for leaving India, many Indians are forced to leave their country due to circumstances beyond their control. They may not have the same opportunities or resources that Bhatia had, and they may not have the same level of comfort and privilege that he enjoys in the United States.
In conclusion, Bhatia’s statement about the term “anti-national” being used to silence those who speak the truth in India is not only inaccurate but also hypocritical. Goenka’s response is a fitting rebuke to Bhatia’s statement, and it highlights the importance of context and perspective in any discussion about social and political issues.
It is also worth noting that this is not the first time that Bhatia has made headlines for his opinions on India and its politics. He has been vocal about his criticism of the Indian government and its policies in the past, and he has used his social media platform to express his opinions on various issues. However, his statement about the term “anti-national” being used to silence those who speak the truth in India has been met with widespread criticism, and it is clear that he needs to be more thoughtful and nuanced in his approach to these issues.
