| Of Fascism and Repression |
|
Fascism in its contemporary form is deeply rooted in xenophobic and ethnic-religious nationalism, aggressive militarism, fascination with force, the cult of authority, and the culture of repression, especially sexual repression. THE Gujarat carnage marks a watershed for India in much the same way as other fateful, defining, moments or events such as the Emergency, demolition of the Babri mosque, or Pokharan-II did. The Gujarat violence witnessed the highest level of development of a peculiarly Indian variety of fascism or, if you prefer, neofascism, concentrated in a comprehensively communalised state. The momentous significance of Gujarat must now be reflected at a theoretical level in our understanding of Indian politics and its social dynamics ; no matter what happens in Gujarat itself. Let us begin with three working propositions. First, Gujarat's staggering state-sponsored violence against an already underprivileged minority indicates a major change in the form of rule or governance, specifically in the balance between the coercive and "consensual" aspects of the state. It shows just how far the state can bend in favour of coercion in certain circumstances. This is inseparable from the requirements of today's globalising capitalism and from the political-cultural peculiarities of Gujarat as its social relations are reshaped under capital's impact along brutally dualistic, iniquitous and inequality-enhancing lines. Second, the pogrom was driven by a malign, muscular form of Hindutva, combining visceral Islamophobia, toxic nationalism, revanchism, and the idea of "getting even with" history. And third, it is impossible to understand the power of this Hindutva without seeing it as , which draws upon a series of beliefs, prejudices and repressive ideas, and forges them into a social force through the practice of violence. The first proposition deals with , the specific mix of conditions that give birth to extremist politics and are shaped by it. The second tries to capture the characteristics of the ideology and politics of fascism. The third engages with the perceptions, values and that render possible the ideology and the politics ; and the movement. There is a rich and fairly robust debate in India on the first two, with a range of contributions from historians, political scientists, sociologists, even economists, and not least, anti-communal activists. (This is not the place to comment on the debate, but it deserves serious notice and further development.) This Column deals primarily with the third proposition, and rather summarily with the second. The ascendancy of Hindutva since the mid-1980s is intimately connected with the spread of a bellicose "Mera Bharat Mahan" variety of nationalism which is deeply troubled by, and never at peace with, the idea of equality or harmony, internally or externally. This nationalism seeks shortcuts to glory and power through building a militarily powerful nation on the foundations of mass deprivation, poverty and vicious inequalities of gender, caste and social opportunity ; a nation that will be held in awe and feared, not liked, admired, or respected. This nationalism is driven by revenge, rooted in the paranoid belief that India has always been denie her rightful place in the world, and that Hindu "compassion" and "weakness" permitted "outsiders" to invade and subjugate India. It is time India stood up like a "real man". At work here is a distorted, homogenised notion of India's past as a uniquely great civilisation whose "Vedic achievements" are unmatched. But equally important is the idea of male assertion, , equated with valour, military courage and violence. The rampaging mobs in Gujarat were inspired by this very idea ; much in the way that the precursors to the Nazis were motivated when "avenging" Germany's terrible "humiliation" in the First World War ; a blow to the "honour" and pride of the "German Race" ; through periodic pogroms against the Jews and sensational acts of violence, as well as through nurturing the cult of authority, which ultimately produced the God-like image of the Fuehrer. At work in both cases is an intensely illiberal, hate-filled chauvinism, driven by the compelling desire to dominate and subjugate. Equally important is the authoritarian mindset of Hindutva cult-figures such as Narendra Modi, Praveen Togadia and Acharya Dharmendra, and the worship of militarised caricatures of personalities such as Sardar Vallabhai Patel's (the "authentically" all-Hindu "Iron Man", as opposed to the "effeminate" Gandhi or the "Westernised" Nehru influenced by Macaulay and Marx). Fear, violence and turmoil are back on the streets of the country with the State powerless or unwilling to confront the forces that are determined to package exciting diversity and plurality into a frightening monolith. India gained independence after being partitioned by Muslim separatism. Fear, violence and turmoil are back on the streets of the country with the State powerless or unwilling to confront the forces that are determined to package exciting diversity and plurality into a frightening monolith. Those who opposed the two-nation theory then were attacked and condemned as pseudo-secularists. Those who oppose the fascist doctrine of Hindutva today are attacked and condemned as pseudo-secularists as well. Secularism is the one word that drives the preachers of fanaticism crazy. The Muslim League did not oppose the Hindu Mahasabha with the same vehemence that it did the secularists following Gandhi in opposing the division of the country. The RSS does not oppose the Jamaat-e-Islami with the same fervour as it does the secularists challenging its claim to represent all Hindus of India. Hence, the attack after the Gujarat polls on the English media and on all those who had questioned the attempts by the State to ideologically partition India by seeking to create a second class of citizens based on religious identities.
It is relevant to ask why the authoritarian personality
appeals to so many BJP supporters, why Narendra Modi became
the party's principal crowd-puller during the election
campaign, eclipsing Vajpayee and even that other pseudo-Sardar
(Advani), and why people thronged to his meetings to hear the
vilest of abuse hurled at Muslims, secularists, the
"Italian Lady" and "James Michael Lyngdoh".
A tentative answer to the question might lie in the culture of
repression that exists in society at so many levels ; in the
family, in social institutions such as schools, in personal
and professional relationships, and especially in attitudes to
sexuality. Vajpayee might be a sincere, honest leader meaning every word he says. Although he says different things at different times. Or he might just be a mask. But for the rest of us, it was very surprising to read a long message from the Prime Minister of India that very deliberately sought to replace secularism with Hindutva, no matter how enlightened and visionary he claimed it to be. Jinnah had tried to convince the world about his vision of purist, reformist, progressive, modernist Islam. Look what it did to the sub continent and look where it has taken Pakistan. A State based on religion cannot be saved from extremism. Pakistan is overrun by the fundamentalists who are now, after 50 long years, in the political mainstream and poised to wrest power from the military and the relative moderates sooner than later. Secularism is a political creed, given form and substance in the Constitution of India. This is because those who fought for our freedom and framed our destiny in a book of law were tall leaders and had the vision to realize that a State based on religion could only go one way:down.
|
| by Praful Bidwai and Seema Mustafa |
|
|
|
|