How Soros propagates his anarchical ideas of 'open society' through political manipulation and educative propaganda

This is the part two of the George Soros’ agenda series. Read part one here: How George Soros’ attempts to further his anarchist ideas spawned political instability in post-Soviet states In recent years George Soros’s view on refugees and migration has been subjected to much debate and criticism.   Beyond the post-Soviet space which is the target of Soros for political manipulation as we discussed in part one of the series; of late, he is trying to create a new wedge in European society through his view on refugees.  Europe has been grappling with refugee problems, growing radicalisation, and a deep financial crisis in recent years.   However, Soros gives an alternative perspective on the refugee problems. His prescription that European countries should have accepted more refugees from West Asia in the name of “human rights” is also causing much uneasiness in the European countries. As  Soros, in a controversial article titled “This Is Europe’s Last Chance to Fix Its Refugee Policy” published in   Foreign Policy, suggested that “ It would establish a guaranteed target of at least 300,000 refugees each year who would be securely resettled directly to Europe from the Middle East — a total that hopefully would be matched by countries elsewhere in the world”.    This view of  Soros sparked an outcry in Europe as people started questioning his motive in giving such a view. In his own native country Hungary, slogans appeared stating that  “ Don’t let Soros have the last laugh”.    Because of enormous public outcry, Soros’s office in Hungary was also closed down.    It has been reported that Soros’s view on migration was also  subjected to criticism in other European countries.   Allegations are surfacing over the years that Soros is also involved in influencing the media as well as students of higher education to change their perception.     Soros is not only influencing the political spectrum of many countries, as evident from the above studies but also trying to change the perception of the students of higher education to the beliefs of Soros. For this purpose, Soros has not only opened new Universities but also allocated funds to the Universities and constructing and collaborating with the new Universities. As discussed above , the Soros Foundation, which opened up the  Central European University, Budapest, to propagate Open Society ideology, successfully attracted students from the post-Soviet space. It has been reported that many of the students also occupied high positions in many post-Soviet countries. Studied in this University.  However the  Hungarian government refused permission to operate this University in 2018, citing a violation  of  rules of the country.  Later the University shifted to Vienna as discussed above. Similarly, this foundation has also started a new University collaboration Programme in Higher education known as  Open Society University Network (OSUN) with funding of  $ 1  billion with collaboration with  Universities globally, including the  American University of Central Asia in Kyrgyzstan, BRAC University in Bangladesh, London School of Economics and Chatham House of England to name a few. Though at an official level, this program aims to promote higher education, the primary objective is to spread the ideas of Soros among the University students.  By choosing some of the prestigious Universities and Institutes, it appears that   Soros is more interested in inculcating his ideas and some of his thoughts, as has been observed in the post-Soviet space and Europe in the mind of young students. Matt Palumbo articulated the same view in a book titled The Man Behind the Curtain: Inside the Secret Network of George Soros.   Palumbo writes through his collaboration with   Universities across the globe and heavy funding that Soros tries to influence research and teaching based on his own radical left anarchical and irrational ideology.   Similarly,  Israel Prime Minister  Benjamin Netanyahu’s Son  Yair recently said in Budapest, the capital of Hungary, in January 2023  that  Soros has harmed Israel “ by funding anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian NGOs that destroy Israeli society from within”.     Looking at some of the mischievous ideological frameworks of both the Open Society and its ideologue Soros, the inferences one can draw are as follows:

1. The primary objective of the Soros  Foundation is to weaken a  nation’s capability to govern.  Thus  in the long run will  create a new kind of legitimacy dilemma as one can notice the political development of the post-Soviet countries. In this regard, one can underline here  that in the 1960s, Samuel Huntington, in his book   Political Order in a Changing Societies , advocated the need for a stronger  nation   to checkmate the  “institutional decay”.
2. Soros is relying too much on  Civil Society and its role in political processes  and ignoring the part of  institutional processes may create political instability  in a country . In the longer run there may be frictions within a  political system among different civil society groups having  their own narrower interests. In this regard,  one can cite the example of International Non-Governmental Organisations  (INGO) and their role in weakening the state capacities of the post-Soviet and European countries.  Thus what is required is a   regulated civil society which can play a positive role in the socio-political processes of a country. Attempts should  also be made to harness some aspects of traditional civil societies of each country and can be co-opted in the modern democratic traditions.  
3.   Soros’s approach to migration and refugee issues is going to contribute to a greater anarchy in society. In this regard, it can be stated that Soros, by  advocating open migration and free flow of refugees, is putting a  stress on the political process of different countries. As the European experience has shown, the flow of refugees from West Asia especially to Europe is creating a new form of societal and economic crisis in these countries. The experience of France as well as of Germany is a classic example of this. Soros’s ideas of loose borders as well as free flow of refugees appears to be both utopian as well as anarchic  in nature  and  having considerable impact on the security of nations. Soros’ approach of influencing Universities through funding with a particular ideological leaning may not augur well for the future of higher  education.
4.   Some of  the  social ideas of Soros  are quite anarchic in nature and cannot be acceptable in the societal realms.

 India’s rich democratic traditions and success of democratic processes  Over the years, India’s consistent economic growth amidst global financial crisis along with rising  profile as a global normative power  rooted in civilisational  ethos  have  propelled  it  to play a significant role in  shaping the global democratic discourses.  The democratic traditions reflected in the holy religious scriptures of India like Vedas, Puranas, Upanishad, Mahabharata and  Ramayana. Similarly,   Kautilya’s  Arthasastra,  Sukra Niti, Jataka  Katha  as well as Chola Kingdom’s inscription, etc can also   be attributed  to be  some of the major  sources  for  tracing  out the roots of Indian democratic traditions.     As Binoy Sarkar, much revered Indian Political Scientist,  in an article titled “ The Hindu Theory of the State”  published in   Political Science Quarterly way back in 1921  wrote “State to be an institution ‘ necessary’" to the human race .” (p.90)  He further  highlights “  State as the  means for the furtherance of highest good”.(p.90). In this regard it is essential to mention from the seminal work of  Kautilya’s   Arthashastra    (and translated to English by R. Shamasastry )where he writes “As the duty of a king consists in protecting his subjects with  justice”(p.217) . He further writes, “He [King] who does not protect his people or upsets the social order wields his royal sceptre (danda) in vain” (p.218).   The richness of India’s democratic tradition is also aptly reflected in the writings of K P Jayasawal’s book   Hindu Polity: A Constitutional History of India in Hindu Times   published in 1921, which  brought out the Indian traditions of democracy  and elected ruler  to Sabha and Samiti as mentioned in Vedas. Jayasawal writes “Samiti is the assembly of people”, responsible for “electing and re-electing rajan[The King]”.  Jayasawal further write by quoting Rig Veda that “It was King’s duty to attend Samiti.” It has been further mentioned by Jaysawal in his above book by quoting Rig Veda that “Matters of State were discussed in Samiti.” (p.11-12).  On the other hand,  Sabha means  where the “elders  meet”.  (p.18). Even in the post-Vedic Age, the democratic traditions of  India continued and as reflected in the Chola Administration  structure. Similarly Mahatma  Gandhi  eulogises the Concept of Rama Rajya an “ideal state”, “ruled by the principle of Dharma” (righteousness) . The need to highlight the Indian democratic traditions is to demonstrate  the fact  that  there is vibrant democratic culture and practices existing in the country rooted in  ages.  Even in the post 1947  era one can notice  the  continuity of democratic traditions. The adoption of a parliamentary form of government  and inclusive democratic processes  as enshrined  in   the  Constitution is a reflection of  these traditions.  It is a fact that   India is the “Mother of Democracy”. Explaining the richness of India’s democratic traditions, Honourable  President of India  Smt.  Droupadi  Murmu  in her address  to the Nation  on the 74th    Republic Day stated “We have succeeded as a democratic republic because so many creeds and so many languages have not divided us, they have only united us. That is the essence of India”.    In her speech she also eulogised  rich civilizational glory of India when  Hon’ble  President Murmu   stated “ India is, of course, home to one of the oldest living civilisations” . Civilizational roots of Indian democracy reflect the continuity  as well as resilience of India’s democratic practices.   The above speech of Hon’ble President Murmu is also an answer to critics of Indian democratic traditions as well as practices.   Soros instead of understanding the  richness of democratic traditions of India, incorrectly  should not have  made such  illogical and irrational statements .  By making ludicrous statements Soros  is trying to   disrupt the democratic processes of India.      Conclusion  A closer look at some of the above irrational   ideas of George Soros and his  devil agenda of “democracy promotion” underline  that  he is more interested in spreading instability in different parts of the world. Through his idea of “Open Society”,   Soros is promoting the Hobbesian “State of Nature”.     Internal political stability is paramount for a nation, and there is a need to regulate civil society activities. The ideas of democracy can be nurtured in a given socio-cultural and territorial  context and cannot be imposed from above. This is the final part of the George Soros’ agenda series. Click here to read part-one. The author teaches at the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi. Views expressed are personal. Read all the  Latest News,  Trending News,  Cricket News,  Bollywood News, India News and  Entertainment News here. Follow us on  Facebook,  Twitter and  Instagram.