|
|
|
 |
The e-mail response has been corrected for the more visible typos. The article, in response to which this e-mail was written can be accessed at Regarding Fascism.
From merchant.kushagra@gmail.com Fri Apr 11 18:52:57 2014
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:52:57 +0530
From: Kushagra
To: editpage@expressindia.com
Subject: Comment: "Regarding Fascism", Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Dear Editor,
This is with reference to the article mentioned in the subject line.
The article outlines that
a) In some sections of academia, intelligentia, and possibly other segments of attributing a fascist tendency to the communal undertones and overtones being played out in the political discourse and actions on the ground.
b) That there is a basis to not dismiss this equation too lightly but that this equation maybe exaggerated and may even hide contradictions within it.
c) With reference to the BJP, the article admits of visible existence of such a communal tendency and,
d) that the way out of this is actually to focus on economic development, and particularly on a growth that, one assumes leads to more employment opportunities as well as improved incomes and containing inflation.
Based on the above, the article exhorts those prone to using the fascist term to be a little cautious and probe deeper. Further, the article says that those who call out fascism seem to characterize it as a macro-level tendency. If this is indeed true then the article is right in its observation that "..if this growth story continues to falter, we will create the conditions for the kind of reactionary politics that we have not seen. They may be mis-judging the economic down-sides of any non-BJP alternative. But to think that the social democrats of 2009 have now created a fascist surge is besides the point."
However, in the mainstream media today, one comes across specific charges with regard to BJP and specifically Mr. Modi that seem to broaden the definition and understanding of fascism. Some that I have come across are:
1. The supposed style/personality of Mr. Modi being characterized as authoritarian, impatience with the established norms and procedures, a strong sense of "I/me/mine", dicatorial etc. (The interview with Sharad Pawar in today's edition plays out some of these concerns, though in a reasonably muted form).
2. The increasing (or some say the usual) usage of communal rhetoric, politics and in case of UP even actions on the ground that speak of visible communal messaging and polarisation of voters.
3. And in some quarters, extending the notion of fascism to even economic issues. In this respect, the article "Marketing Politicians" in Frontline (April 4, 2014) is instructive wherein it is highlighted that Mr. Modi's coming to power is symbolic not only of communalism but also of a mass acceptance of neo-liberal path of economic development.
In this context, one is led to observe that the present article may be hiding a very basic (and possibly erroneous) assumption: that of equating fascism with communalism. Those who shout "fascism" are shouting from many different perspectives and the communal card may be the one that is easiest to latch onto. The article too seems to focus on this particular "aspect" or attribution of fascism. However, its remedy of bringing economic growth in the forefront seems not to follow from its own arguments that relate fascism with purely communalism. There is indeed a lot of discontent in the minds of voters translating into immediate anxiety especially around their own material well-being in the near future. However, how is a fascist discourse directly connected to anxiety in the minds of voters is not immediately obvious.
Indeed, if one really wishes to tie these threads together and at the same time "accomodate" the "F" word then it is necessary to understand fascism for what it really is: reductionism. Now, reductionism in itself is not bad. Every great discovery in science, mathematics, philosophy and even arts claims its greatness on the basis of discovery of a very powerful and abstract principle that reduces mental anxiety and agony of the discoverer around a particular problem or issue. And by doing this it opens up the doors for ever greater heights.
However, there is a sense in which reductionism is dangerous: when it aims to over-simplify, over-generalize, supplant, suppress, obliterate, re-right and/or erase the underlying phenomenon. In the case of a political discourse, any discourse which simplifies and substitutes reality is a fascist discourse. It is in this context that there is room to allow the "F" word to occupy its own rightful space of signifiance today. And a reductionist, over-simplified and packaged discourse is not confined to communalism. It may (and some would say even should) include the economic program and its principles. Even if we assume that all parties some how become chaste and drop the communal and identity-based politics of yesteryears, the tendency to fascism may still persist in a new garb, that of an unquestioned and uncritical pursuit of current program of economic development.
In a complex polity like ours, is an overtly reductionist discourse (manufactured with the consent of a somewhat compliant media, whether consciously by choice or unconsciously) really suitable? This is the real question at hand and thus, the article would have been more profitable if it had asked the question: is the discourse preceeding and following the election this time around is (and likely to be) more reductionist than at any point in the recent past? If yes, why and what could be the longer-term implications of it? Those who shout the "F" word may be over-doing it like the rhetoric of our politicians but it should be remembered that that very over-doing may also be a reaction to what is distrubingly visible while opening the front page of a newspaper everyday. A series of mud-slinging of personalities with minimum possible space allocated to debate of serious ideas and issues. To that extent, one may sympathise with those who shout the "F" word very ardently.
Interestingly, the author is absolutely write in his conclusion "We are not on the high tide of fascism. It is more about a complicated country feelings it way through difficult times, fed up with old power structures. The "F" word has become a substitute for real thinking. We will need to think anew about what incentives and pressures will work in this context. We are on a wing and a prayer". Here one can only remark that not only has the "F" word become a substitute for real thinking so has the phrase "Mr. Modi" and "economic development." One does not know what either of them means today. One could not agree more about a "complicated country". But try as one might one has to indeed try very hard to really feel that complicated country in the main-stream writings and visuals of today.
The article ends on a note of "we need to show more intelligence than screaming the "F" word". Agreed. But what is the path to that intelligence? Is it by saying what is in the voter's mind is the ultimate reality? Or is there a discourse possibly informed by serious academic reflection that can contribute to re-constructing this reality? It is easy to dismiss academia. But at the end of the day we all end up using "categories" generated within academia. Fascism is one such category. So as a first step of being intelligent is about really understanding what fascism really is. One can drop the "F" word but in its lieu we would need to invent one more. Either way, the tendency in mind of the voter to simplify his own predicament is real and today's political discourse offers the easy way out. One can only hope against hope that this is a one-time phenomenon and latch on to the belief that this is only a "complicated country feelings its way through"
Regards,
Kushagra Merchant
| |
|