The op-ed by Pankaj Mishra, "The Religion of Whiteness Becomes a Suicide Cult," is just an erudite-sounding rant against white people. It's arguable that much of Mishra's erudition is due to the British colonial empire which brought India into the modern world, despite whatever racial prejudices the British may have held.
While his article portrays a deep-seated hatred of all Anglo white men, he ignores what has happened in his native India. The existence of Pakistan and Bangladesh testify to the racism of India's Hindus, who mistreated Muslims to such an extent that they left India and formed their own countries. Does Mishra really believe that Indians are morally superior to Anglos?
Who does Mishra find morally superior to Anglos? The Chinese, who have recently been found to be creating camps for the mass detention of their Uiger minority? The Russians or the Japanese, who have maintained ethnically homogeneous populations? Latin Americans, who have brown populations of varying colors, but who also have violent societies? Would he want to live in El Salvador, Guatemala or Venezuela? Would he want to live in Israel, which as declared itself a Jewish state and built walls to divide itself from non-Jewish neighbors? Would he want to go to Africa, where despite a fairly uniform skin color there is and has been frequent genocide in the Congo and Rwanda, for example?
Anglos are the objects of such hatred because it has been effective in the past, because Anglos are generally moderate and caring about all kinds of people and thus are more susceptible to accusations of bias. Anglos are among the most enlightened people when it comes to acceptance of other races. While blacks in America may still experience discrimination, they are better off than blacks in almost every other country on earth. Most African-Americans would choose to stay in America, rather than move to Africa, because their life is much better here.
Unfortunately, Mishra is smart to vilify Anglos, because they are more likely to respond than any other race. He would be wasting his time criticizing his fellow Indians, who are much more racist than Anglos.
I see this article as part of a racist attack by the Jews at the New York Times on American whites. Trump may be a racist, but so is Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, the half-Jewish publisher of the New York Times, who published this article. Sulzberger's other ancestral half is apparently Episcopalian, and thus he also represents the Anglo Biblical tradition of acceptance of other races. I don't know which side predominates in the decision to publish such an inflammatory article.