The post Authoritarianism and the Crisis of Public Ethics in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

All illustrations by ApexInfinityGames & @Juanof9 (CC-BY).

Over the last few years, the potentially damaging impact of the internet, and particularly social media, on democracy has increasingly come to dominate the news. The recently disclosed internal Facebook emails, which revealed that employees discussed allowing developers to harvest user data for a fee, are but the latest in a long line of scandals surrounding social media platforms. Facebook has also been accused, alongside Twitter, of fuelling the spread of false information. In October, the Brazilian newspaper Folha exposed how Jair Bolsonaro’s candidacy benefited from a coordinated disinformation campaign conducted via Whatsapp, which is owned by Facebook. And there are growing concerns that this tactic could be used to skew the Indian general elections in April.

Given these alarming revelations it’s easy perhaps to overlook the ways in which the internet also plays a role in strengthening democracy. It allows citizens to mobilise in authoritarian states and in stable democracies alike. By collapsing physical space and giving access to global communication to the many, it is particularly effective in allowing groups to share their stories, explore their identities and uncover uncomfortable truths about power dynamics. Through the web, disadvantaged groups were able to pierce the media frames that presented their plight as a collection of isolated cases, and unveil the systemic nature of the discrimination they faced.

Understandably, there is considerable disagreement about the net balance, the breadth and the underlying processes that fuel the internet’s impact on society. But broadly, I have identified three competing camps: the ‘denialists’, the ‘narrativists’ and the ‘architecturalists’.

Denialists

The denialists deny the internet is responsible for the problems we see today. They believe that the internet is as neutral as a mirror and that if people do not like what the internet is producing, they should look at the deep inequality that is pervasive across their societies.
They say that in a networked world, where people can easily coordinate, tolerance for injustice is lower and our unjust societies are no longer sustainable. In the same way that the printing press is considered to have fuelled the collapse of feudalism, today’s information highway is simply making injustices apparent. Social tensions are not just warranted but can only be resolved through political reform. The internet allows people to come together and fight injustice. In short, their message is that we should fix injustice, not the internet.
This camp includes many media analysts who covered the Arab Spring. In particular, those who argued that the internet would become a tool for digital coordination that would lead to a more just world. It also seems like a fitting description of how activists on both the left and right have gauged their success in terms of reaching those who have been disenfranchised and forgotten by institutions and traditional media.
 

Narrativists

The narrativists claim social cooperation requires a shared narrative and that the internet – where thousands of voices are juxtaposed in a chaotic fashion – undermines this goal. They point to the way that micro-targeting of political adverts allows political candidates to spread different, and often contradictory, messages to different people.

Narrativists also emphasize that the seamless coordination enabled by the internet has undermined traditional power brokers, such as political parties and trade unions, and nurtured thousands of narrow interest groups. In the past, they argue, traditional power brokers would work towards establishing a platform that could consistently arrange a myriad of ideas and demands.

Today, the internet is fuelling a chaotic system of issue politics, where leaders can promise to cater to a wide range of interest groups without explaining how each promise fits within a broader framework of thought. In short their message is that, far from bringing people together, the internet allows them to isolate themselves into smaller groups of like-minded people.

This camp includes many in the traditional mainstream media and communications scholars who rely on the arguments put forward by experts from top universities in the UK and US alike.
 

Architechturalists

The architecturalists claim that the internet is not a fixed structure and that what is causing today’s anxieties can be traced to relatively recent developments in the architecture of the internet. They argue that the original design of the internet created incentives for people to pay attention to the quality of the content they created and shared. In the early days of the internet, there were no gatekeepers and an open marketplace of ideas organically tended to promote good over bad content.

In contrast, the ad-based revenue model pursued by many modern tech giants incentivizes engagement, and with it, content that is explosive, but not necessarily of good quality. Furthermore, whereas the original system was non-hierarchical, decentralized and required active users, a handful of companies now operate as gatekeepers and they funnel content through algorithms to users who are being pushed into passivity. Whereas before users would click-by-click navigate the open internet, users are now placed behind ‘walled gardens’ where they scroll through reams of content curated for them by proprietary algorithms.

Whereas in the decentralized system problems were local, problems in centralized systems spread like wildfire. Furthermore, the predominant ad-based revenue model makes these problems look more like a feature of the system than a bug. Too much power is in too few hands and the ad-based revenue model is making these gatekeepers terrible managers.

The architecturalist camp often builds upon the thoughts of the original architects of today’s internet, as well as a new generation of leaders, who believe blockchain technologies can help replace many of the intermediaries that are responsible for much of what is problematic with today’s internet.
 

So who is right?

Each of the three camps has a point. At a first glance, one might think these three archetypes are like the fable of the blind men and the elephant: each narrowly focused on a specific aspect, and incapable of grasping the big picture.

Yet, reality could be bleaker. A handful of private companies control the information that is needed to understand how the online ecosystem works. They manage the key infrastructure, and most experts in the field are running this infrastructure after having signed non-disclosure agreements. Thus, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave might be a more fitting metaphor. Control over key data allows these companies to play the role of shadow-masters. They get the chance to reveal only the portions of reality they find convenient, defining how the general public perceives the online space. Information scarcity is therefore not just the natural consequence of the internet’s novelty; it is created artificially and for strategic purposes: To shape public opinion.

Should we break up these big companies? Should we allow them to continue growing, but under strict, utility-type rules? Should we do nothing? Whatever we do should be the result of a robust public debate. One that is based on the best available evidence regarding the effects the internet is having on power relations, and is therefore capable of defining the set of actions that would best serve the public interest. In short, at this point, we need key information to be disclosed and available for public scrutiny. But information is power – and it is unlikely to be disclosed voluntarily. It might require regulation.

When food production became industrialized, the US Government created the Food and Drug Administration, which was tasked with monitoring and disclosing information regarding compliance with quality standards. When government became too complex for the average citizen to navigate, ombuds offices sprouted across the globe. As an independent institution of government, ombuds were given the duty and power to investigate how government units work, and report on matters concerning people’s rights. The current situation requires exploring a similarly bold institutional reform. One focused on ensuring the data needed to inform public debate is made available by the tech industry.

Most people scoffed at the limited understanding of our digital world members of the US Congress revealed when they grilled Mark Zuckerberg. And yet it’s likely Facebook is not the only company behaving recklessly, nor the US Senators the only public representatives that are “ignorant”.

What we have is a growing gap between where power lies and where the institutions that seek to hold it accountable to the people operate. Such institutions are incapable of ensuring that democratically elected leaders can deliver their campaign promises. This is what is ultimately triggering social tensions and undermining trust in our democracies. We need our institutions to interpret these tensions as red flags and a call for a new social contract. And we need institutions to react now. This situation goes far beyond the debate around digitalization. Yet the online space is our future, and is therefore where this gap is most visible and urgent.

If our current institutions of government fail to ensure that the ongoing technological revolution puts people first, these institutions will sooner or later be rendered irrelevant.

A previous version of this article was published at Chatham House.

Juan Ortiz Freuler (@juanof9) is an affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society.

Courtesy: https://www.opendemocracy.net

The post Is the internet to blame for the rise of authoritarianism? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) saddled in power among Left circles discussion has renewed about the emergence of fascism in India. With release of the draft Political Resolution by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) towards its 22^nd Congress, there has been ongoing discussion about Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), BJP and fascism in a developing country.

Prakash Karat, the former general secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist) way back in 2016 initiated discussion by stating that the threat to Indian democracy is from authoritarianism which is semi-fascist in character. He also went on to state that there is no sign of fully developed fascism in India (as of now) and the RSS is set to develop into an authoritarian political entity. By stating this, Karat in effect clearly discounted the possibility of emergence of fascism in India.  

Karat argued: “A correct understanding of the ruling regime and the political movement that it represents is necessary because it has a direct bearing on the political strategy and electoral tactics to be followed in order to fight the BJP and the Modi government.” While stressing the necessity for clarity in defining character of BJP, he added: “The BJP is not an ordinary bourgeois party. Its uniqueness lies in its organic links to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The BJP is a right-wing party with respect to its economic and social agenda, and can be characterized as a right-wing party of majoritarian communalism. Further, given its linkage to the RSS, which has a semi-fascist ideology, it is a party that has the potential to impose an authoritarian state on the people when it believes that circumstances warrant it.”

For the benefit of readers, I am giving the web link from where it can be read in original rather than depending on my selective quotes from the article.

This understanding is a slight deviation from what was arrived at 21^st Congress of the Party which concluded, “This (BJP emerging as single largest party with required majority to form the government on its own)  has set the stage for a rightwing offensive  comprising an aggressive pursuit of neo-liberal policies and a full-scale attempt by the RSS-led Hindutva forces to advance their communal agenda. Such a conjuncture presages growing authoritarianism.” The understanding pronounced by Karat in his article requires certain preconditions warranted to impose authoritarianism whereas the understanding arrived at 21^st Congress is that the conditions are already presages growing authoritarianism.

The argument expounded by Karat not only rules out any possibility of fascism in India. According to him even authoritarianism is not warranted by circumstances. In support of his argument, he goes back to the classic definition of fascism and states that fascism in power is “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.” He further states, “In India today, neither has fascism been established, nor are the conditions present — in political, economic and class terms — for a fascist regime to be established.”

These are the key elements that led Karat to reach above conclusion. “There is no crisis that threatens a collapse of the capitalist system; the ruling classes of India face no threat to their class rule. No section of the ruling class is currently working for the overthrow of the bourgeois parliamentary system. What the ruling classes seek to do is to use forms of authoritarianism to serve their class interests.”

While affirming that so called chauvinist nationalistic Hindutva ideology at work does not constitute the establishment of a fascist order, at the same time he agrees that they pose a danger to democracy and secularism, and concludes that  India today confronts the advance of an authoritarianism that is fuelled by a potent mix of neo-liberalism and communalism.

According to him, there are two components among the major source of authoritarianism at work in India, ie, Hindutva communalism and right-wing neo-liberal drive. The neo-liberal regime acts to constrict democratic space, homogenize all bourgeois parties, hollow out parliamentary democracy and render the people powerless as regards basic policy-making. The impact of neo-liberalism on the political system has led to the narrowing of democracy.

Several questions arise from the understanding advanced by Karat. He brings back the question of classical definition of fascism but goes on looking at its features instead. For any Marxist, the key to observe the developments when they are in motion, when situations are giving them a shape and identity and their characteristic features are under evolution. But Karat’s suggestion is to stick to the classical definition of fascism instead. If we accept his assertion we should stick to the capitalism as was seen and characterized by Marx rather than discussing about the 21^st century variant, the global finance capital and its characteristics. Similarly the emergence of fascism as instrument of state power followed the very same principle pronounced by Lenin and Dimitrov who saw the things while they are taking shape. They changed the strategies and tactics to fight the enemy while it is emerging rather than waiting until it emerges to its fullest strength and adorns its true nature.

Another important limitation of his assertion lies in the linkages that were attempted to establish. That is about threat to rule of capital. He reads no threat to rule of capital and advocates that no section of ruling class is currently working to overthrow the bourgeoisie parliamentary system. It is surprising that the BJP itself hallowing out the bourgeoisie parliamentary institutions, which are key pillars to the parliamentary system, arriving at such a conclusion is surprising one for every one. Coming to the larger question of hegemony of capital, he explicitly feels, there is no crisis that threatens the capitalist system. But after a year since he wrote in the Indian Express, while delivering a lecture in memory of former politbureau member Moturu Hanumantha Rao at Vijayawada in October 2017, he changed his assessment.

He concluded: “But today there is a change. Neo-liberalism is in crisis which got accentuated and we saw the global financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. Today neo-liberalism is not able to overcome that crisis fully. In fact some people have already proclaimed that neo-liberalism is dead. So the contradictions coming out of this neoliberal setup is manifesting itself like emergence of Donald Trump. Nobody expected such a person to come up as USA president. It manifested itself in Brexit where in Britain majority of the people have decided that they don’t want to be part of EU. Because through EU neoliberal policies are imposed. It is the working class that said we don’t want to be part of EU. So it is manifesting itself in different ways. In some places, the right wing forces are utilizing the mass discontent. Many right wing parties have emerged in Europe. But the fact is that the neo-liberalism is on its death bed. Our ruling classes have adopted neo-liberalism because international finance capital everywhere they say this is the way to go but the situation has changed.”

From this it is clear that the working class still has the potential to teach a lesson to the neoliberal hegemony of global finance capital and Brexit is a positive example whereas rise of Trump to presidency is by way of ruling classes response to the working class challenge. In support of his assessment and changed understanding he quotes from an authentic survey in which public at large deplored the neo-liberalism which is basis for Jermyn Corbin’s announcement, “Neo-liberalism is Dead.”

But the draft Political Resolution that is out for debate also distances from shades of his understanding while dealing with the international situation. Confirming its assessment of international situation, DPR states, “1.1 The main features of the international situation since the 21^st Congress are the following: (i) Though there are forecasts of a modest global economic recovery, the systemic crisis of global capitalism that manifested itself in the financial meltdown in 2008 continues. (ii) This is leading to further intensification of economic exploitation of the vast majority of the people and attacks on their democratic rights in all capitalist countries. Protest actions and struggles against these attacks continue to grow in various countries of the world. (iii) This continued economic crisis of global capitalism has resulted in further widening the economic inequalities both globally and in individual countries. (iv) In its efforts to consolidate its global hegemony and to overcome the negative impact of the economic crisis, US imperialism is displaying greater all-round aggressiveness, particularly through political and military interventions. (vi) The period has seen a further political rightward shift in many countries in the world with the rise of extreme rightwing neo-fascist forces in Europe. The ascendancy of Donald Trump as the President of USA, representing the most reactionary sections of the US ruling class, further strengthened this trend.”
 
From the above understanding we can conclude that the emergence of neo-fascist forces in the West and elsewhere is due to continued crisis of global capitalism rather than due to the threat it is facing from its class enemy.
 
Here we should draw our attention towards Samir Amin’s contribution towards understanding of fascism in contemporary capitalism. In his article in Monthly Review in September 2014 Samir Amin defined fascism as “a particular political response to the challenge with which the management of capitalist society may be confronted in specific circumstances.” He further clarifies the key aspects of fascism under contemporary capitalism: “the fascist choice for managing the capitalist society in crisis is always based on –by definition even – on the categorical rejection of democracy. Fascism always replaces the general principles on which the theories and practices of modern democracies are based – recognition of diversity of opinions, recourse to electoral procedures to determine majority, guarantee of the rights of minority etc.”
 
Here it is important to note that the reversal of values is always accompanied by returning to backward looking ideas which are able to provide an apparent legitimacy to the procedures of submission that are implemented. This approach of ruling class is also accompanied by a proclamation of return to the past, subjugation of State to Religion makeup the spectrum of ideological discourses deployed by the fascist forces.
 
The breeding ground for fascism includes real major crisis and collective trauma, authoritarian leader, aggressive defamation used as tactics, or even sometimes strategy, enforced political conformity, pretention to represent the will of the people, which are evident amply in today’s Indian situation. Lastly but not least, it would be educative to look at fourteen common threads derived by  Dr. Lawrence Britt, who studied fascist regimes of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Protugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, Suharto’s Indonesia. They are: powerful and continuing nationalism, disdain for the recognition of human rights, identification of enemies/ scapegoats as a unifying cause, supremacy of military, rampant sexism, controlled mass media, obsession with national security, intertwining religion with state, protected corporate power, suppressed labour power, disdain for intellectuals and arts, obsession with crime and punishment, rampant cronyism and corruption, fraudulent elections.
 
A word of caution is needed. One should not conclude that unless all these fourteen features are explicitly present in any national situation at a time, we won’t agree with the fact that fascism has arrived. We can conclude that fascism at the very minimum takes the form of a mobilizing mythic core of revolutionary ultra nationalist rebirth which is populist in the sense that it is directed towards moblising all authentic members of the national community. The fascist forces did not conveniently end in 1945. It has a protean quality, an almost Darwinian capacity for adaptation to its environment.
 
Unless we realize this quality of the genie called fascism and its ability to adopt new shapes and forms in climates different from each other, we will be failing to read the writing on the wall. While discussing classic fascism, which was referred by Karat, Samir Amin opines that “it was an evanescent in history that emerged as a consequence of specific types of relative deprivation caused by disorder, economic calamity and national humiliation and fascists won the power because of the direct or indirect support of all those who were afraid of expropriation in the event of communist or socialist victory.”
 
This is the specificity which Karat is willing to reject or unwilling to recognize. Surprisingly he dubs all those who argue about the emergence of fascism, or neo-fascism for the sake of discussion, as mere liberals un-rooted in reality!  To remind people such as him, it is appropriate to quote historian, Adrea Mammone who said: “If someone thinks that modern fascism means exact copies of interwar black shirt militias then one is probably looking in the wrong direction.”
 
Thus the discussion inside the leading component of  Left movement in India which is codified in the form of Draft Political Resolution and discussion presages to that, focused on economic struggles by disregarding the balanced approach it arrived at 21^st Congress, that is the dual danger unveiled by the emergence of BJP as single largest ruling class representative. Thus there is an urgent need to read the writing on the wall and realign with the widest possible forces to defeat the emerging fascist forces.
 

The post CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Even as the Modi government brazenly claims in the Supreme Court that there is no threat to security leaks from the Aadhar UID Initiative, the Centre for Internet and Society has released a report that reveals the Information Security Practices of Aadhaar (or lack thereof): A documentation of public availability of Aadhaar Numbers with sensitive personal financial information
 

The post CIS Report: Aadhaar Data of 130 Millions, Bank Account Details Leaked from Govt Websites appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Many signs seem to point to a narrow victory for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in his attempt to establish an executive presidency a la Turca, but the result is not a foregone conclusion.

Should Erdoğan’s suggested reforms be rejected, Turkey’s near future would be defined by its president’s next move. Without a formal shift in constitutional structure, Erdoğan could resort to nefarious means to consolidate his grip on power. Alternatively, given his long-standing ambition to establish what we call a “constitutional Erdoğanistan”, he might simply pause briefly before attempting a second bite at the cherry.
 

Turkey on the brink

Turkey has a strong parliamentary system with a prime minister as its head. The referendum proposes to abolish the role of prime minister and replace it with an executive presidency. A major shift like this is something that has only happened a handful of times since the republic was founded in 1923 according to renowned historian of Turkey, Erik J. Zürcher.

The country’s political system has already undergone significant economic, social, and political changes since the Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish acronym AKP) came to power in 2002. The AKP was an eager champion of legal reforms relating to Turkey’s EU candidacy and accession starting in 2004. And in September 2010, it successfully shepherded changes aimed at bringing the constitution into compliance with EU standards.

Still, were the Turkish people to vote “yes” on April 16, the changes would be fundamental and irreversible. The referendum proposes 18 amendments that will abolish nearly 70 years of multiparty parliamentary government, moving Turkey away from the core norms of a pluralist, parliamentary state of law by reducing the separation of powers and the checks and balances system, among other changes.

Erdoğan’s aim is to transform the country into a majoritarian authoritarian system centred on one man. What Turks are risking is nothing less than “democide” – the scholarly term for voting to abolish democracy itself.
 

A critical juncture

Since the birth of the Turkish Republic in 1923, Turkey’s parliament, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, has been the place where national sovereignty resides.

In the early republican period, it was dominated by the party of modern Turkey’s revered founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938). Since the transition from single-party rule to a multiparty democracy in 1946, the parliament has been the crucial institution in the political life of the country.
 

Elected lawmakers have long shared power with strong guardians of institutions such as the military, the judiciary and Turkey’s government bureaucracy – all Kemalist-dominated – in a kind of hybrid political system not unlike that of contemporary Iran, Thailand, Pakistan and Myanmar.

The parliament has also served as the site where governments have been formed, thrown out of office and restricted.

As the scholar of Turkish constitutional development Ergün Özbudun notes, “even at the height of Atatürk’s prestige, the Assembly rejected a proposal to give the President of the Republic the power to dissolve the Assembly”.

Under Erdoğan, the AKP has worked through the parliament to legitimise its rule. By 2010, it had vanquished the last Kemalist bastions within the state thanks to successive landslide electoral victories and a now-defunct strategic alliance with the Gülenists (members of a Muslim-organised educational community who follow the US-based Islamic cleric Fethullah Gülen).

Since then, Turkey has been a weak electoral democracy, with the power of the National Assembly slowly eroding. A “yes” victory in the April 16 referendum could permanently diminish the authority of this venerable institution.
 

An unbalanced campaign

The authoritarian style Erdoğan has in mind for the future was already on display during the referendum campaign itself.

Erdoğan’s tone has been aggressively nationalistic and populist. He compared European countries’ criticism of the campaign with the attempts of the Allies to dismember Turkey at the end of the first world war, for instance. And he promised to reinstate the death penalty after the referendum.

In the first ten days of March, the government allocated television airtime to various parties to promote their positions on the referendum. The president saw 53.5 hours in newscasts, and the governing AKP was granted 83.

Meanwhile, the Republican People’s Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi), the main opposition, which draws its support primarily from Turkey’s secular and Alevi minorities, was allocated 17 hours, while the less influential Nationalist Movement Party (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi) enjoyed just 14.5 hours. The Peoples’ Democratic Party, (Halkların Demokratik Partisi), a pro-minority party that is advocating a “no” vote, saw only 33 minutes of news coverage.

A March 2017 report from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe confirms that state officials have leaned heavily on the scales to support the “yes” campaign. By occupying the bully pulpit of the presidency, with all the resources of the government along with privileged access to media at its disposal, the “yes” group has had an overwhelming campaign advantage.
 

A ‘yes’ vote means more Erdoğan

If Erdoğan prevails in the April 16 referendum, the plan is to hold presidential and general elections together in 2019. Were he to win these, Erdoğan would be eligible to serve two additional five-year terms, allowing him to stay in office until 2029. His previous terms in office (2003-2014) would not count toward the two-term limit.

As president, by current law, Erdoğan had to resign from his party and officially assume a politically neutral stance.

But under the new rules, he could rejoin the AKP, which, according to opposition parties, will abolish any chance of impartiality. The proposed amendments also make it harder to remove the president from office.

The proposed changes will grant the president wide-ranging powers to issue binding decrees with the force of law. And even though these will be subject to judicial review, the president himself will appoint most of the judiciary.

With his new presidential powers, Erdoğan would also be enabled to indefinitely extend the current state of emergency that was put in to effect following the failed July 2016 coup against him.
 

A ‘no’ vote

Despite the uneven playing field, surveys show that the referendum race is tight, and Erdoğan could be defeated.

Currently, both the opposition Republican People’s Party and pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party are advocating a “no” vote in the referendum. DİSK, a left-wing trade union body, and numerous other NGOs and civil society groups have also come out against the proposed changes.

A narrow loss on April 16 would be a blow to Erdoğan, but it is unlikely to kill his ambition. He is expected to simply regroup and try again, including by renewing the state of emergency that gives him wide-ranging authority to continue bypassing parliament. Such a move would allow for continued purges of those deemed in opposition to the government, including Kurdish groups and Gülenists.
 

This is Erdoğan’s modus operandi: to foment and instrumentalise social crises to centralise power. After the 2013 Gezi park protests against urban development in Istanbul developed into a wider movement against the regime, for example, the government severely clamped down on individual rights, including media freedom. Erdoğan claimed that Gezi protesters and their supporters were a threat to the national will.

The president used a similar argument to banish the Gülen movement, deemed a terrorist organisation since May 2016.

Thus, rather than stabilise the situation, a “no” vote is likely to induce further volatility in Turkey. Erdoğan can be expected to quickly introduce a new package of “constitutional reforms” – a move that would require either a national crisis or a new “enemy of the Turkish people” as a pretext.

Rhetorical attacks on Europe are likely to intensify. Earlier this year, charges of Nazism levelled against Germany, and criticism of interference in campaign rallies by Austria and the Netherlands, were widely cheered in Turkey, giving Erdoğan every incentive to double down on the EU animosity if he loses his referendum.

In a sense, no matter who prevails on April 16, Erdoğan may remain undefeated.

Simon P. Watmough, Postdoctoral research associate, European University Institute and Ahmet Erdi Öztürk, Research Asistant, Université de Strasbourg

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Will Turkey’s referendum mark the end of democracy and the birth of ‘Erdoğanistan’? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Could neo-nationalist leaders join hands across the world? Vladimir Putin (Russia) and Narendra Modi (India) in Goa, 2016. Mikhail Metzel/Kremlin.ru

But it took Brexit and the election of Donald Trump to spark a real conversation about the global rise in neo-nationalism. Western European and North American journalists, intellectuals, and academics are just now getting to grips with the magnitude of this trend.

This is no doubt understandable, given the concrete prospect of profound political change taking place within the world’s leading power, and upcoming elections in founding EU countries. Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders remain the most commonly cited figures in this new nationalist landscape.

Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Poland’s Andrzej Duda and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan often come in for a mention, as do India’s Narendra Modi and the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte. But we are yet to draw up a complete family tree of neo-nationalism worldwide.
 

The West: anxious, yet somewhat removed

Twenty years ago, commentator Fareed Zakaria denounced the rise of “illiberal democracy”. In South America, North Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, South and South-East Asia, democratic elections – sometimes overseen by international observers – had given rise to authoritarian, ultra-nationalist regimes, quick to eviscerate the civil liberties and rights of opponents to their nationalist program.

However, putting aside the Balkan States, the phenomenon did not appear to directly affect Western countries. In the heart of Europe, the fall of the Berlin Wall had given rise to a powerful geopolitical narrative – one that proved lasting, despite early signs of structural weakness.

It told of the destruction of all walls across the globe, and of a joyful and irresistible melding of societies, benefiting the new transnational powers. In this view, favoured by international companies and supported by international NGOs, economic liberalisation would go hand in hand with political liberalisation.

Under the influence of this optimistic outlook, Western public debate saw “illiberal democracy” as a side concern. However, over the years, what was supposed to be peripheral and secondary became surprisingly substantial and overcame the mental barriers meant to contain it.
 

The future of the global far-right

The August 2010 visit by a delegation of far-right European parliamentarians to the Yasukuni shrine, a Mecca for Japanese historical revisionists, was a sign of the coming “globalised nationalism”. While the meaning behind this Japanese-European meeting (a shared disdain for remembrance) was reported by the few media outlets that covered it, this fact in itself did not appear to point to a worldwide political trend.
 

In hindsight, it was telling in more than one way. It was a display not of the past but of the future of the global far-right, and it demonstrated new, improbable, yet highly effective transnational ties between nativists.

With the new generation, the far-right has certainly undergone a makeover, but its core principles remain.

What has really changed is our level of tolerance for a kind of discourse that was barely admissible, let alone heeded, a few years ago. The tiny organisation Issuikai, which played host to the European MPs at the Yasukuni shrine, espouses a rampant nationalism that was clearly relegated to the outskirts of the Japanese political landscape at the time.

Today, the movement is represented within Shinzô Abe’s government, notably by Defense Minister Tomomi Inada.

Similarly in Russia, as Charles Clover notes, pan-Russian hyper-nationalism, still on the far fringes of politics at the beginning of the millennium, has found its way to the Kremlin, and now shapes Vladimir Putin’s official discourse.
 

From the fall of the Berlin Wall to Trump’s Wall

The creation of the BRICS forum, bringing together Brazil, Russia, India, China and later South Africa was initially seen as the assertion of a new non-Western, or even post-Western power. However, its real combining force was a militant nationalism, ill at ease with global governing bodies that were perceived as too intrusive.

This is even more evident today, with the nationalist escalation taking place in Moscow, Bejing, New Delhi and, to a lesser extent, in Brazil, where ultra-nationalist Jair Bolsonaro is fast gaining ground. The alliance between neo-nationalist leaders now cuts through the Western/non-Western divide, as demonstrated by Vladimir Putin’s support for Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen.

Collusion between new nationalists may seem improbable and even antithetical, given that nationalist dogma is, by nature, separatist. Yet it has enabled the development of a remarkably powerful worldwide narrative, in direct opposition to the optimistic globalisation of the post-Cold-War period.
 

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan demanded that Mikhail Gorbachev destroy the Berlin Wall. Thirty years later, Donald Trump proclaims that the world needs more walls between nations. This new vision of a world crisscrossed with walls is easily propagated with the help of globalisation’s ultimate tools: the internet and social media.
 

Hi-tech populism

Without access to mainstream media outlets, those whose neo-nationalist convictions were decidedly on the fringe ten years ago focused their energies on the manifold possibilities for communication, rallying and sharing provided by the internet.

In tune with their supporters, the major figures of nationalist populism are also masters of “hi-tech populism”, as commentator Aditya Chakrabortty described Narendra Modi’s modus operandi. Before being overtaken by Donald Trump, the Indian Prime Minister held the record for the highest number of political tweets. Traditional politicians are simply not as well connected as the new nationalists.

Invited to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, the leader of the pro-Brexit campaign, Nigel Farage, called for a “global revolution” led by nationalists of all countries. Meanwhile, the few remaining advocates for an open, interdependent world appear to show no interest in organising a cross-border movement on such a scale.

Translated from the French by Alice Heathwood for Fast for Word.
 

This article was originally published in French
 

Karoline Postel-Vinay, Directrice de recherche, Sciences Po – USPC
 

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post How neo-nationalism went global appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Vox.com

How do people come to adopt, in such large numbers and so rapidly, extreme political views that seem to coincide with fear of minorities and with the desire for a strongman leader?

To answer that question, these theorists study what they call authoritarianism: not the dictators themselves, but rather the psychological profile of people who, under the right conditions, will desire certain kinds of extreme policies and will seek strongman leaders to implement them.

Click here for the full story published on Vox.com

The post The rise of American authoritarianism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Comrade Prakash Karat's academic piece ('Know Your Enemy', The Indian Express, September 6, 2016)[i] analysing the character of Hindutva/RSS/BJP brand of politics/ideology suffers from confusion which greatly keeps the parliamentary Left incapacitated at the national level against the rising tide of the Hindutva fascism. I am sure that, soon, the Hindutva public relations’ machinery will be circulating certificates from comrade Karat for disseminating the happy news that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is not a fascist organization.
 
Comrade, in order to buttress his position quotes classical definition of the fascism as being 'the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital' and goes to argue that 'India today, neither has fascism been established, nor are the conditions present—in political, economic and class terms—for a fascist regime to be established.
 
There is no crisis that threatens a collapse of the capitalist system; the ruling classes of India face no threat to their class rule. No section of the ruling class is currently working for the overthrow of the bourgeois parliamentary system'. Despite having said this he is unable to decide whether the present regime 'has the potential to impose an authoritarian state' or follow the path of RSS 'which has semi-fascist ideology'.
 
As an academician Karat must be familiar with the fact that history never repeats itself and two similar looking political happenings are not similar in nature. That was the reason that both the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution though guided by the same ideology were immensely different in both happening and outcome. The differences are well-documented in the voluminous 'Great Debate' with which Karat must be familiar as CPM broke with CPI on many issues debated in this discourse. Hindutva Fascism may not be a photocopy of the European variety but has all ingredients specific to the latter.

Karat is not the only one in the Left fraternity who is confused about the character of the ideology as well as goals of the RSS/BJP brigade. They think Hindutva politics is a danger for a section of minorities and liberal intellectuals only and despite 'a determined effort' to re-order society and polity on Hindutva lines 'they do not, by themselves, constitute the establishment of a fascist order'. This group also feels that someday the Hindutva brigade will secularise/democratise itself.

These well-intentioned secularists due to a shallow understanding of the Hindutva phenomena feel that latter despite being antithetical to secular-liberal ethos does not represent a fascist challenge to democratic-secular India. They fail to understand that Hindutva's Bharat Mata is not a democratic-secular India but a Brahmanical Hindu polity modelled after the Peshwa Raj where Sudras and Hindu women will have sub-human existence.

Hindutva is nothing else but fascism in which Hindu nationalism represents superiority of Aryans over the rest.Fascism's integral element Racism is camouflaged as Casteism, anti-Jewish politics is resurrected as anti-Muslim/Christian pogroms and the fascist wish to control the world is expressed in the call for rule over the world by Aryan Hindus.

Hindu Nationalism & Aryan Nationalism
Fascism was based on the superiority and pre-dominance of the Aryan Race. Hindutva ideologues like VD Savarkar (The Hindutva, 1923) and MS Golwalkar (We Or Our Nationhood Defined 1939) both claimed that the white-skinned Hindu Aryans speaking Sanskrit once ruled the globe and are destined to rule the world in future. The Hindusthan was only for Hindu/Aryan nationalists. Hindutva ideology makes a sharp distinction even amongst Hindus so far as being Aryan or non-Aryan is concerned. The Hindutva hatred for non-Aryans is crystal clear. The most prominent Hindutva ideologue, MS Golwalkar went to the extent of glorifying a terribly anti Hindu women and Racist method of improving the 'breed' of Kerala Hindus who were considered as no-Aryans.

Golwalkar was invited to address the students and faculty of the School of Social Science of Gujarat University on December 17, 1960. In this address, while underlying his firm belief in the Race Theory, he touched upon the issue of cross-breeding of human beings in the Indian society in history. According to a report published in the English organ of the RSS (Organizer, January 2, 196) he said:
 
"Today experiments in cross-breeding are made only on animals. But the courage to make such experiments on human beings is not shown even by the so-called modern scientist of today. If some human cross-breeding is seen today it is the result not of scientific experiments but of carnal lust. Now let us see the experiments our ancestors made in this sphere.
 
In an effort to better the human species through cross-breeding the Namboodri Brahamanas of the North were settled in Kerala and a rule was laid down that the eldest son of a Namboodri family could marry only the daughter of Vaishya, Kashtriya or Shudra communities of Kerala. Another still more courageous rule was that the first off-spring of a married woman of any class must be fathered by a Namboodri Brahman and then she could beget children by her husband. Today this experiment will be called adultery but it was not so, as it was limited to the first child."

Thus for the Hindutva gang, Hindu nationalism and Aryan identity are one and same. Our current PM Modi, taking clue from here, when he was CM of Gujarat identified himself as 'Hindu nationalist' (Modi talking to Reuters on July 12, 2013). It was first time in the history of the Indian Republic that a constitutional functionary described himself as such. Leaders like Karat did not take any note of such a serious utterance of a chief minister, who later became PM of India. Being Hindu nationalist means that one is not Indian nationalist and if Modi is Hindu nationalist then there are bound to be Muslim/Sikh/Christian/Buddhist nationalists.

Totalitarianism was part of fascism and the most prominent ideologue of RSS, Golwalkar long before Independence in 1940 declared, “RSS inspired by one flag, one leader and one ideology is lighting the flame of Hindutva in each and every corner of this great land”.

Fascism rejected any concept of all-inclusive democratic state. RSS did not lag behind. The RSS organ Organizer on the very eve of Independence (14 August, 1947) rejected the whole concept of a composite nation and declared that in, "Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must be built on that safe and sound foundation, the nation itself must be built up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations”.
 
Casteism is Racism
If Hitler declared 'all that is not Race in this world is trash' so is the belief of Hindutva practitioners in Casteism. It is declared to be synonymous with Hinduism and Hindu nationalism. Golwalkar in a book published in 1966 declared that "Brahmin is the head, Kshatriya the hands, Vaishya the thighs and Shudra the feet. This means that the people who have this fourfold arrangement, i.e., the Hindu People, is [sic] our God. This supreme vision of Godhead is the very core of our concept of ‘nation’ and has permeated our thinking and given rise to various unique concepts of our cultural heritage.” [Italics as in the original] It is to be noted that Manusmriti in chapter 1 and verse 91 decrees that the only job for Sudras was to serve 'meekly' the other 3 castes. When Constituent Assembly passed Indian Constitution, RSS rejected it and demanded with Savarkar that instead Manusmriti should be promulgated as the constitution. 
 
Comrade Karat fails to understand that Hindutva gang's war-cry that Manusmriti should be promulgated as constitution of India presents a far worse scenario than what fascism did to Jews and Communists in Europe. It prescribes a sub-human life to Sudras as well as Hindu women. I wish Karat had read in detail the Manusmriti which was declared to be the most worshipable Holy Book after the Vedas by Hindutva’s icon, VD Savarkar.
 
Laws of Manu Concerning Shudras
1.  Once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. (VIII/270)
2.   If he mentions the names and castes (jati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth. (VIII/271) 
3.   If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears. (VIII/272)
4.   With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu. (VIII/279)
5.   He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off. (VIII/280)
6.   A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed. (VIII/281)
 
 As per the Code of Manu, if Sudras are to be given most stringent punishments for even petty violations/actions, the same Code of Manu is very lenient towards Brahmins. Shloka 380 in Chapter VIII bestowing profound love on Brahmins decrees:  
      “Let him never slay a Brahmana, though he have committed all (possible) crimes; let him banish such an (offender), leaving all his property (to him) and (his body) 
 
Laws of Manu Concerning Women
1.   Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control. (IX/2)
2.   Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. (IX/3)
3.   Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations, however trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families. (IX/5)
4.   Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives. (IX/6)
5.   No man can completely guard women by force; but they can be guarded by the employment of the (following) expedients:
6.   Let the (husband) employ his (wife) in the collection and expenditure of his wealth, in keeping (everything) clean, in (the fulfilment of) religious duties, in the preparation of his food, and in looking after the household utensils.
 
Both Believe in Violent Cleansing of Minorities
For fascism Jews were the enemy number ONE and Communists enemy number TWO to be killed or thrown out of the country. For Golwalkar, Hindusthan is only for the 'Hindu Race' and 'Hindusthan' must be cleansed of those who 'are either traitors or enemies to the national cause, or to take charitable view, idiots'. The second supremo of the RSS, whose words are considered as holy, Muslims, Christians and Communists are 'Internal Threats' number 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
 
Golwalkar in his 1939 book, We Or Our Nationhood Defined (pages 47-48) settled the status of Muslims & Christians in the following words: “From this stand point, sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations [Nazi Germany & Fascist Italy], the foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment not even citizen’s rights."
 
Karat instead of downplaying the fascist potential of the Hindutva brigade should have been concerned that how such a brazenly inimical ideology has captured power through constitutional means. Now the Hindutva brigade is capable of undoing India both from within (brute majority in Lok Sabha) and its pro-active Hindutva zealots outside. It is the gravest challenge since Independence whatever nomenclature you may give it.
 
For some of S. Islam's writings in English, Hindi, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Urdu & Gujarati see the following link: http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam
 
Facebook: shams shamsul
Twitter: @shamsforjustice

The post Is the Politics of Hindutva Not Fascist? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the Arab world, even the smallest acts of resistance can give a sense of self-worth, encouraging a long-demoralized people to feel that change, after all, is possible.

 
Long before the term was coined, Egyptians had been very proud of their country’s “soft power,” and rightly so. In the Arab world, Egypt is the most populous country and it has the most potent army, a pivotal location and an influential intelligentsia.

If Cairo sneezed, it was commonly said, the whole region would catch a cold. There could be no Arab war against Israel without Egypt, as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said. Indeed, Egypt was the trendsetter of the region, paving the way for war and peace negotiations with Israel in the 1950s and 1970s, respectively.

Furthermore, the manifestations of Egypt’s cultural influence are ubiquitous. Unlike other Arab dialects, colloquial Egyptian is widely understood and quite popular. The presence of Egypt’s arts – music, film, and television series – can be seen in almost every corner of the region.

It is common to hear the songs of the iconic Egyptian singer Oum Kalthoum in the streets of Fez, the souqs of Muscat or the nightclubs of Beirut. And for a long time, Egypt was the birthplace of ideas, the source of knowledge, and the propagator of ideologies; “Cairo writes, Beirut publishes, Baghdad reads,” goes the classic adage.

However, unrivaled in the Arab world as it was, Egypt’s soft power – its political preeminence and cultural appeal – has worn thin in the past few decades. Politically, Egypt lost much of its appeal in the late 1970s when it defected from the anti-Israel camp. In tandem, politics in the Arab world shifted from the hotbeds of ‘thawra’ to the bases of ‘tharwa’, from revolution to wealth. In the decades that followed, moreover, Egypt seemed to be less ambitious and more uncertain of itself.

A population boom, shrinking resources and economic mismanagement have led to protracted socioeconomic crises and the proliferation of poverty. Egypt is now too weighed down by its own troubles to be able to radiate significant influence among its neighbors.

The images of Egypt that come to the minds of fellow Arabs today are that of an exploding population hemmed in by scores of constraints; cities that are impoverished and overly crowded; a society that is nearly falling apart from pressing social, economic and religious divisions; and a state of misery that begets sympathy. Furthermore, there’s the grip of an authoritarian regime that has lost touch with the world, and a fatigued economy that is unable to feed the citizens of the country.

The winds of change have simultaneously been blowing in the region as a new order unfolded in the aftermath of the oil boom of the 1970s. The Arabs of the Gulf states, who had traditionally been in Egypt’s shadow, have changed massively. Great windfall gains transformed them from simple Bedouins who lived by tending camels and sheep to entrepreneurs promoting ideas and investors building skyscrapers. The paths these states have taken have elicited admiration and their success stories have stolen the attention from poverty-stricken Egypt.

Dubai has become a trade and entertainment centre and a symbol of modernity to be emulated. Qatar will be the first Arab country to host the football World Cup, scheduled to take place in 2022. Last February, the UAE has appointed its first minister of happiness, a step taken “to create social good and satisfaction.”

In contrast, Egyptians complain more than anything else. The country’s confidence is shaken, its spirits are low, and its pride is wounded. For Egyptians, the notion of happiness is so distant, so unreal. At best, it is a far-fetched dream; at worst, an impossibility. Indeed, in the face of life’s great hardships, most Egyptians only ask for el-satr, protection and sufficiency.  

Nevertheless, a few lights are still glimmering in the darkness of Egypt’s present. To be sure, great nations do not die or fade away overnight. Its pressing problems notwithstanding, Egypt is still a place that is full of life and activity. Its vibrant soul carries a great appeal, and on several recent occasions, Egypt was able to stir the imagination and captivate the hearts of its neighbors.

For instance, Arabs were awed by the thrilling images of the 2011 revolution. Watching peaceful demonstrators bravely defy police forces; pious prayer on the Kasr al-Nil bridge while they were being showered by water cannons; turning Tahrir Square into a hub of revolution and music and satire; and eventually forcing a despot, who ruled for thirty years, to step down (after less than three weeks of protests) was indeed inspiring. The revolution was young and vigorous and promising. It was nothing short of an earthquake that attempted to shatter the old world–old leaders, old institutions and old mentalities.    

Then there is this aura of fascination about Bassem Youssef, the political satirist who rose to prominence after the 2011 revolution. Dubbed as Egypt’s Jon Stewart, Youssef capitalized on his own sense of humor and charisma to mercilessly lampoon figures of authority: the president, politicians, the top brass and religious leaders. At the time of his weekly show (suspended since June 2014), Arabs from the ocean to the gulf were glued to their television sets.

Despite the show’s peculiar Egyptian character, many Arabs felt they could relate to it. After all, their grievances and aspirations are very similar to Egypt’s. Decades earlier, the sharp political verses of the vernacular poet Ahmed Fouad Negm (1929 – 2013) had a similar impact, giving a voice to the voiceless. Negm was rebellious, outspoken, and humorous. His poems on revolution and love are still popular in the Arab world.

Where the sense of defeat is overwhelming, the spirit of resistance is appealing.

What is the common denominator between these examples? In one word: resistance. Where the sense of defeat is overwhelming, the spirit of resistance is appealing. One generation after another, Arab peoples have come to be deeply frustrated by various realities that seem unchangeable: autocrats that preside over republics and monarchies of fear, Israel’s military superiority in the region and its subjugation of Palestinians, the growing scientific and technological gap between the Arab world and the advanced world.

As a result, helplessness has defined the way they view themselves. They continue to be torn between a culture that idolizes manliness and a reality that is soaked in defeat and humiliation. For any action, as the laws of physics explain, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is not the case in social sciences, especially in the Arab world where people descended into an ocean of despair, lamenting the wretched present and a history of missed opportunities.  

In such a milieu, resistance is a psychological remedy, a cathartic experience. Whether seen as a means to an end or an end in itself, resistance makes defeated people feel human and alive and capable. In the Cairo Trilogy, Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz wrote that sexual instincts were implanted in humans by God only to make them feel the joy of resistance.

Indeed, the courage to resist is “the secret of a man,” as Jean-Paul Sartre put it. Another French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, wrote that resistance “is the most beautiful word in the politics and history” of France. The genesis of philosophy can, in fact, be traced to an act of resistance, that of Socrates challenging Athens and its values and ethos.

It is no exaggeration to say that resistance is an integral part of politics, of life itself. Foucault inverted Clausewitz’s famous line that war is the continuation of politics by other means. For Foucault, politics is necessarily a continuous struggle; “power is war, the continuation of war by other means,” he said. So where there is power, there is resistance. Therefore, resistance is a healthy sign of a vibrant society, not a reckless act of rogue minds, as authoritarian regimes want us to believe.   

In the Arab world, even the smallest – and merely symbolic – acts of resistance, like burning an Israeli flag or quipping about an unjust ruler, can give a sense of self-worth. As it is rooted in practice and possesses the initiative, resistance could make the long-demoralized people feel that change is possible, that their defeat is not final, that even their wildest aspirations can one day be met. Resistance can be a garden of hope in the Arab world’s jungle of anguish.

If Egypt – the nation, not the state, regime or government – wants to rise from the ashes of defeat, its best bid would be to raise the flag of resistance, and not any kind of resistance. In order to avoid the setbacks that befell many endeavors in the past, resistance should not be an act in the void—incognizant of its limits, detached from reality, immersed in folly, and destined to fail.

A better, fruitful kind of resistance is the one that seeks to develop people, enable them to be more educated, conscious, and equipped with a sense of direction and a vision for the future. Standing in the middle, between silence and violence, and coupled with persistence and perseverance, this resistance should be committed to both peacefulness and rejection of the present state of affairs.

Above all, Egypt’s weakness lies in its docility and lazy ignorance. Egypt’s ability to rise above its wounds is hinged upon its capacity to shake the dust off its soul. Egypt the volition, the action, the resistance, not the status quo, is the panacea.
 
This article originally appeared on Open Democracy. The link can be found here

The post The Resistance stays strong in Egypt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The whys and wherefores behind the recent media gag by the state in Kashmir

Note from the author: The ban is off from July 21 but I can safely say that the article remains relevant, looking at the larger picture.

“By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise”
– Adolf Hitler

Hitler’s Nazi regime ruled the German public with two main weapons – propaganda and censorship – ensuring that they had the public in their grip as they bombarded them on a daily basis with the glorification of Hitler, convincing them about the better prospects of their lives but ensured complete and blanket silence over the gory stories of holocaust and concentration camps. The stories eventually did come out – in the form of narratives, fiction, diaries and reports.

There is no way one can keep a lid on facts forever. Narratives tucked away and hidden, will resurrect to be told, re-told and heard.

If that be so, then what is it that the Jammu and Kashmir government was trying to achieve by banning newspapers — and doing so in a brazen and rash manner of clamping down on newspaper offices by conducting raids and arresting staffers in the dead of the night–amidst one of the worst and violent crisis that Kashmir is presently facing?  Was it trying to stop them newspapers from reporting and journalists from commenting? Was it trying to block all channels of information so that people remained ignorant? Few days down after the clampdown, so far, the PDP led coalition government comes across as unsure on the issue.

After newspaper printing presses and offices were visited on July 15 by unwanted midnight guests in uniform who packed the visit with intimidation, abuse, handcuffs even as they walked off with newspapers, printing material and personnel (technical staffers) of at least two of the newspapers (including my own), media persons in Srinagar staged a protest march. Journalists also met the Divisional Commissioner who, while being evasive on the raid and ban, said that he was in no position to provide the media with any curfew relaxation passes to allow them to discharge their duties, nor could he assure journalists any protection.

Two days later, PDP minister Nayeem Akhtar went to the extent of telling a television news channel that the move to stop publication of newspapers was necessitated sensing ‘trouble’. A day after he took charge of the midnight-declared state of Emergency, chief minister Mehbooba Mufti’s political adviser, Amitabh Mattoo maintained that there was no ban and that the chief minister had no idea about it. The government transferred a superintendent of police, blaming him for recklessly cracking down on the press.

Which of these versions is true? The newspapers hit the stands again after six days on Thursday, July 21, following an assurance from chief minister Mehbooba Mufti. This should, however not be treated as the end of the story.

Important questions need to be asked. A week long ban on newspapers, a belated response of the government necessitated probably by the unusual solidarity from sections of Indian journalists and intellectuals, was not without design. It was nothing but ill advised. Who was the brainchild behind the move which may eventually become a footnote, but is no less significant. The move and the motive need elaboration. First things first, why was this done? Who instructed the now out of favour Superintendant of Police?

The logic behind any bans stems from the necessity to hide. All Internet connections and mobile phones have already been partially snapped since July 9. In the worst affected areas, the landline phones have also been disconnected. Newspapers have not been allowed to be circulated freely due to the prevalent curfew restrictions. All this has made the information from the public to media and vice versa filtered and restricted, as it is.

Important questions need to be asked. A week long ban on newspapers, a belated response of the government necessitated probably by the unusual solidarity from sections of Indian journalists and intellectuals, was not without design. It was nothing but ill advised. Who was the brainchild behind the move which may eventually become a footnote, but is no less significant.

The state government’s worry is not that if these filtered bits and pieces of information find their way to print they would provoke more violence than there already exists. In this day and age of internet and gizmos, that job was being managed partially despite the ban on newspapers who continued to maintain and update their websites and circulate whatever they could through digital applications, even though this meant that news was reaching far fewer numbers of people.

The government’s anxiety is with the printed word becoming an authentic piece of documentation with a longer shelf life. The national television channels were switched on 24X7 and national print media was not subjected to any kind of similar ban. The ban, and the need for the ban from the state and government’s point of view, highlights the vast chasm between the perspectives reflected in the regional press and the national press, with respect to Kashmir.

While an ultra-nationalist narrative inspires the former, the latter give ample space to voices of the common Kashmiri and Jammu resident, suffering due a perpetual state of conflict. It is the local newspapers that fill in the gaps left by either the silence or jingoism of the ‘national’ press. In recent days, despite the hurdles of obtaining authentic information amidst curfew bound streets and crackdown on communication systems, it is the local newspapers that have managed to source and publish the narratives that tell the story of the atrocities on the people; chilling stories about how people got killed and about the injured recuperating in the hospitals, about the pellet guns playing havoc with people’s lives, impairing them physically for their life time; of the 130 blindings by pellet guns of mostly children and teenagers.

It is these stories that rarely make it to the pages of major ‘national’ mainstream newspapers, which are a major challenge for the State peddling its lies about what is happening in Kashmir.

This is not the first time that attempts have been made to muzzle the press. Earlier, in 2010 and 2013, the newspapers were unable to publish newspapers and circulate or distribute copies, because of excessive curfew restrictions and the denial of curfew passes to media persons that prevented journalists from stepping out. In striking contrast, while the Valley was forced to remain without newspapers, commercial television crews who flew in from Delhi were provided escorts to move across the Valley and offer a point of view that suited the government.

There is a definite pattern behind this –in how both the commercial media and government relations operate. Through this cynical game of muzzling the media, it is the Central Government that seeks to reap the rich harvest from this demonizing of a people’s resistance, dwarfing their victimization and creating the a hysteria around ultra-nationalism which is the new normal in much of ‘national’ media’s reportage on Kashmir.

That the present gag on the local, regional media, could have been inspired by Delhi cannot be ruled out, nor the fact that it was effected through orders to some of its cronies within the police and administration. The state government, ignorant or otherwise, cannot be condoned either for its ineffectiveness, or for acquiescing without any application of mind, especially on the consequences.

It is the local newspapers that fill in the gaps left by either the silence or jingoism of the ‘national’ press. In recent days, despite the hurdles of obtaining authentic information amidst curfew bound streets and crackdown on communication systems, it is the local newspapers that have managed to source and publish the narratives that tell the story of the atrocities on the people.

It is all about chaining and imprisoning a narrative, controlling it, stifling its telling and super-imposing on the real, local story, a manufactured narrative of ultra-nationalism, of ‘paid agents’, of ‘jihadi terror’, of ‘things under control’, of an enemy called Pakistan and of normalcy and happy pictures of tourism.

What bigger proof does one need of India’s moral defeat with regard to the Kashmir conflict than this reality of employing weaponry of lies and propaganda to hide the ugliness of bullets, blinded children, torture and brutality?

The narrative, as it is, has been controlled. In the history of 26 years of insurgency, the media has been tamed and silenced through the use of many devices. In the beginning of the nineties, caught between the gun of the militants and the security forces, intimidations, physical attacks, even murders and curfews, though newspapers continued to be published, writing more insightful and detailed stories almost amounted to committing suicide. Many newspapers even went without editorial content to play safe.

When media gradually began to evolve, freeing itself from the clutches of ‘anti-movement’ and ‘Indian nationalistic’ discourse, the government cracked down with fresh arm twisting methods – squeezing the financial flow of the newspapers by stopping their government advertisements particularly the central government-controlled DAVP advertisements, the main source of revenue for newspapers in Jammu and Kashmir.

In 2010, the advertisements to several Kashmir based newspapers were stopped following a letter from the union home ministry, which gave no explanations for this withdrawal of financial support. The order was dutifully followed. In subsequent years, while advertisements of most newspapers have been restored (arbitrarily or otherwise), Kashmir Times (of which I am the Executive Editor), printed out of both Jammu and Srinagar has been singled out and kept starved of funds.

Shockingly, the interlocutors appointed by the Indian government after the 2010 killings to look into the grievances of the people in one of their recommendations suggested that there was a need to publish national papers out of Srinagar as the local newspapers were “unreliable”!

In 2010, the state government also banned the local cable television channels in Srinagar from screening news based programmes on the pretext that these channels were not duly registered. However, in Jammu, similarly un-registered channels continue to operate without any hindrance.

The media, thus, has been already in chains. In a near permanent curfew-imposed situation, the media is further imprisoned by the lack of information and the crackdown on communication systems. So what then makes even the present gag order unique? And what purpose was it meant to serve?

In a fashion, it is just another link in the sequence; in another, it reflects the growing and increasing penchant of the government for absolute control, exercised deliberately through power of the brute force of khakhi, in brazen violation of law, ethics and democratic principles itself.

Now, like then, when gory stories of boys dragged out of their homes and shot at point-blank range, tales of random arrests, crackdowns and molestations, of children blinded by pellet guns who have gone missing, abound, yet another unbridgeable chasm has opened, defying resolution of the churning that is Kashmir.

Successive governments, both in the state and at the Centre, have looked upon local media as deadly missiles that need to be kept under check and control, not as sources of information that the government itself can rely on for feedback about both the day to day needs of the people as well as their oppression, anger and political aspiration. The existence of a professional regional media, rooted in Jammu and Kashmir marginalizes rumour mongering, because –notwithstanding crtain biases — media houses are guided by certain professional ethics. A free media can provide a vital link between the public and the government, conveying what a people are feeling and doing, vital to a region mired in conflict. It is worthwhile now recalling Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2015 arrogant snub of then chief minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed who was urging for political dialogue with the Kashmiris. “We don’t need any advice from anybody on Kashmir”, Modi had famously said.   

It is this mindset that inspires men in power to not just crush a population brutally but also crush the voices speaking for them. Their aim is to make the narrative disappear.

But, as history reveals and as human minds are known to work, and remember, sooner or later the narratives will emerge – emerge to haunt, often with a dash of bitterness and sometimes peppered with rumours. Sometimes dangerously so.

In January 1990, during the infamous days of strict curfew and black-outs in the wake of Jagmohan taking over as Governor, the information flow remained very limited making the reportage of both the flight of Kashmiri Pandits and the slew of massacres starting from Gawkadal that Kashmir witnessed, both rather sketchy and flimsy.

In subsequent years, those stories have been told and re-told at individual and community levels with little possibility of authenticating the narrative: sometimes one does not know where to sift fact from fiction as the stories have emerged with such contradicting and contrasting perspectives that just do not match.

It is this huge chasm, the chasm of the missing truth telling of those dark days that continues to play a role in shaping the communal divide within Kashmir. Now, like then, when gory stories of boys dragged out of their homes and shot at point-blank range, tales of random arrests, crackdowns and molestations, of children blinded by pellet guns who have gone missing, abound, yet another unbridgeable chasm has opened, defying resolution of the churning that is Kashmir.

 (The author is Executive Editor, Kashmir Times)
 

The post Kashmir: Chaining the Narrative appeared first on SabrangIndia.