JNU row lays bare the ugly truth of ultra-nationalism
The alleged anti-national slogans shouted within the premises of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on February 9 have become the justification for creating a climate of systematic hatred against the institution. This is a hatred that is thriving in the name of nationalism. It is the same nationalism that perhaps allowed Hitler to kill six million Jews as the people of Germany cheered and watched.
The Holocaust, as it is called, happened not because Hitler ordered it. It happened because the German public allowed it to happen. Germany had fallen prey to the poisonous ideology of ultra-nationalism that made even the most heinous crimes seem justifiable, all in the name of the nation.
What is ultra-nationalism?
Firstly, I believe distinguishing ultra-nationalism from nationalism can be paradoxical because nationalism itself is an ideology that has often found itself taken to the extreme. Sure, it is an ideology that invokes loyalty and devotion for the nation state and is significant in maintaining the nation as a unified entity.
But an uncritical exercise of such loyalties and devotions may lead to many pitfalls, some of which have been articulated by Rabindranath Tagore himself.
In early 20th century, Tagore noted that it is the "logic of the nation" that it will "never heed the voice of truth and goodness" and will continue to go "on in its ring dance... trampling under its tread all the sweet flowers of simple faith and the living ideals of man". The ring dance of nationalism, much like a vicious circle, knows no end or beginning; it revels in its own self-proclaimed prophecies and excludes anyone who questions its ethos.
Today it is only ironic that we, as Indians, while gallantly adopting Tagore's composition as the national anthem of our country have failed to understand, if not embrace, his views on nationalism. The history of the 20th century has shown quite clearly the extent to which political ideologies commanding indisputable loyalty to one's country can be misused to give rise to authoritarian dictatorships.
Also, in all of these trajectories, there is a particular pattern in which the ideology mutates to reveal its catastrophic dynamics. Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany (seen as a variety of fascism) thrived as political ideologies because they had mass appeal and there was a particular way in which this appeal was manufactured.
British political theorist Roger Griffin described fascism as "a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism". The term "palingenetic" referred to the rebirth of the nation from an earlier period of decadence; an idea that instantly struck a cord with the masses and gave a populist base for the rise of totalitarian regimes in the name of national prosperity.
This is an idea that is evident in the Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini's speech in 1932, during the decennale celebrations of his march on Rome, where he said, "For in this dark world, tormented and already shaky, salvation cannot but come from the truth of Rome. And from Rome it shall."
Palingenesis can also be seen in Hitler's vision of "The Third Reich" as he hailed Nazi Germans as the new master race of the world. On May Day, in 1933, Hitler said, "The German people have become strong again in spirit, strong in will, strong in endurance, strong to bear all sacrifices".
The reason behind presenting these quotes from Mussolini and Hitler is this that palingenetic statements formed a central part of the Narendra Modi-led BJP's election campaign as well, before the Lok Sabha polls in 2014.
The BJP's campaign slogan "acche din aane wale hain", meaning "good days are about to come", attempts to create an impression of a sharp break from the previous period of "bure din", or "bad days", hinting as much of a cultural revolution as of a new-era economic development.
Now the question is, does the mere projection of palingenetic or new-era stories make the BJP government similar to a fascist state? The answer is no. Palingenetic ideas in themselves do not create a fascist state but infused with an aggressive Hindu nationalist agenda, they make the exercise of democratic ethos quite difficult. Nationalism then becomes the nationalism of the right-wing who uses the cultural ethos of the majority population as a shield for its political agenda. It becomes the term used for crushing any form of dissent. Nationalism then becomes ultra-nationalism.
Bharat Mata and JNU
The JNU row, which resulted in the arrest of the JNU Students' Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar, and JNU students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, on the charges of sedition, indicates exactly how the ideology of ultra-nationalism seeps into public imagination and gains mass appeal.
The way in which the alleged anti-national slogans at the JNU have been converted into a national dispute warranting national wrath, has today provided the context for a debate that includes not just the education institution and the Indian government but also the Indian public.
Right after the reportage of the slogans by news channels, Union human resources development minister Smriti Irani jumped into the fray, and said, "Bharat Ma ki jaigan ho, jaighosh ho, Bharat Ma ki apman yeh rashtra kabhi sahen nahi kar sakta." (Let's hail Mother India. The nation will never tolerate the motherland's insult.)
Similar remarks were made by Union home minister Rajnath Singh, who said, "Anti-India acts won't be spared." These provocative remarks evoked an emotive image of the motherland, which warranted an instant retribution for any "wrongs" done to her, setting the stage for what is to be perhaps the most blatant condemnation of any education institution in India till date.
The language of this condemnation has elements that echo, Victor Klemperer's description of the language of the Third Reich. As Klemperer argued, Nazi Germany was not only about the authoritarian policies of Hitler, it was also about the "Nazi cast of mind", a way of thinking that was instilled into the minds of the German people to garner support.
The role of the media in developing the Nazi frame of mind cannot be overemphasised. As propaganda films like the Triumph of the Will hailed the Nazi ideology, nurturing tremendous support amongst the German middle class, there simultaneously evolved a zeal to cleanse Germany of those who did not fit the "ideal Nazi" type.
People who considered themselves Germans suddenly found themselves sent to concentration camps, branded as Jews and communists. Germany became the land of a violent and exclusionary form of nationalism. It became the land of the Nazis.
In India at present, if one cares to look at the neutrality quotient of certain media houses like Times Now or Zee News, he will find that these have become sites of a particular kind of nationalist propaganda. Here, anchors evoke the emotive image of the motherland, much like Hitler's speeches, to provide not an inclusive, but an exclusive idea of Hindu nationalism, one propounded by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) - the parent organisation of the right-wing BJP.
It is an extreme form of nationalism that thrives by categorising more and more people as "anti-nationals". For instance, if one consumes beef, then one is seen as opposed to Hinduism and as an anti-national. If one subscribes to a leftist ideology, then one is seen as a Naxalite or Maoist insurgent, and hence an anti-national.
The role of the Indian media in propagating this kind of categorisation comes out loud and clear as Arnab Goswami, the editor-in-chief of Times Now, addressing a left-leaning Khalid declares on national television, "You are more dangerous to this country than Maoist terrorists."
What happened next is a known story. Doctored videos of Kanhaiya shouting anti-national slogans littered the news channels. Reports of Khalid's association with Islamist terrorist groups started trending on social media. The rule was an old one, advocated by Hitler himself: "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
And they did believe it. The Indian public opinion became so hostile and violent that even lawyers turned into "lynch mobs" within the Patiala House Court premises, as Kanhaiya was taken for hearing on February 15.
"VandeMataram," shouted the lawyers as they waved the Indian flag while attempting to lynch Kanhaiya. In a subsequent interview, Vikram Chauhan, a lawyer from the mob said with pride, "We beat up that boy for three hours... he said Bharat Mata ki jai... we made him say it." Yashpal Singh, another lawyer said, "We beat up journalists. We thrashed JNU professors."
These comments bring out the ugly truth of the ultra-nationalist ideology, spreading like plague in the Indian society today, giving rise to a state and a public opinion that is getting fascist every hour. At the Patiala House Court, the fact that lawyers took to explicit violence in the name of the nation, and not members of the RSS or other right-wing organisations, should not be surprising. Theories of fascism are fast gaining a social base among the middle classes in India.
Seymore Martin Lipset, a leading theorist of democracy, for instance, has argued that in Nazi Germany, "fascism was particularly attractive to the middle classes, and among them, primarily to those in liberal professions." It is significant when not the just the state or right-wing organisations, but large groups of people in a country together start adopting the language of this violent ideology.
Criminalisation of dissent
What actually happened on February 9, at JNU? What did the students charged under sedition actually do? From what is known, there was an event questioning the fairness of trail against Afzal Guru, convicted and hanged in 2013 for his role in the attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001.
Can this event be outrightly called anti-India or anti national? Shouldn't questions of fair judicial proceedings be of concern to every Indian? Yes, there were certain slogans raised on the occasion that may have been objectionable. But did that require a police crackdown on the university and its national defamation at the hands of political and media groups? To engage with these questions is to realise the extent to which the incident has been blown out of proportion, mainly to turn the event into an ugly media spectacle. What is the motive behind the targeting of the JNU? Why is the state and its propagandist media taking such a interest in defaming the education institution?
The answer is quite simple. India, presently is at a point where the ruling BJP has no real political opposition. The Congress, the main opposition party, has lost considerable respect in the eyes of the public, thanks to the incompetent leadership of its vice-president Rahul Gandhi. This is projected quite prominently in the media. In this situation, right-wing organisations, like the RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Hindu Mahasabha, propounding aggressive Hindu nationalism, have managed to make their presence felt through their intimate ties with the BJP.
The beef ban and the amount of police power invested to oversee the execution of the ban is an instance of the hold that these organisations have over the ruling party. At this time, the only credible opposition and critique to state policies have come from the prominent education institutions of India. First, it was the students of the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) who went on an indefinite strike against the saffronisation of education institutions, following the arbitrary appointment of Gajendra Chauhan as FTII chairman.
Then there were protests at the Hyderabad Central University (HCU) following Dalit scholar Rohith Vemula's suicide, which was termed as "institutional murder" by the students, owing to caste discrimination at the campus.
Thirdly, it was the JNU whose vibrant student politics has time and again criticised various state policies, as seen during the Occupy UGC protests, against the scrapping of non-Net fellowships by the government.
In this context, the prevailing defamation of the JNU has been termed quite aptly by the director of the humanities center at the Harvard University, Homi K Bhabha, as "criminalisation of dissent".
In fact, it is not just the JNU, almost anyone who expresses disagreement with the ways of the government is called anti-national and branded as seditious today. This is evident from the number of opposition leaders who got booked for sedition on February 28 for their support to the JNU students.
These include, Rahul Gandhi, Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, Communist Party of India (CPI) MP D Raja, Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Sitaram Yechury, Janata Dal (United) MP KC Tyagi and Congress leaders Ajay Maken and Anand Sharma.
Nationalism thus has become the alibi for crushing any form of dissent and criticism against the Indian state, and section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an archaic colonial era law formulated in 1860 on sedition, has become the legal instrument for doing so.
The section says, "Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, 102 [***] the government established by law in 103 [India], [***] shall be punished with 104 [imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine."
Even the most elementary reading of section 124A gives an idea that it is a legal code that condemns and criminalises dissent, not against the nation, but the government. In fact, the term nationalism or anti-nationalism does not appear anywhere in the legal code.
The question then is, from where is the government developing the rhetoric of anti-nationalism as the basis for sedition? Moreover, there is very little about this section that can be called either Indian or democratic. It is a section introduced by the British colonial state to crush political as well as ideological opposition in the aftermath of the revolt of 1857. That this particular section still remains in the Indian legal system and has been invoked today to systematically exterminate any form of criticism, is an indicator of the extent to which the state is turning authoritarian.
What makes the Indian state, however, very close to a fascist state is the mass appeal that the authoritarian policies of the state have started garnering. The propagandist news channels, newspapers and journals have successfully manufactured what I call an "anti-critical" public opinion by either evoking the image of insult to Bharat Mata or by a conniving comparison of the sacrifices of the Indian soldiers with the "anti-nationalism" of the JNU students.
In the past weeks, these allegations have adversely affected the life of every JNUite. Mobs have gathered outside the gate of the JNU demanding a shutdown of the institution. Local landlords have threatened to throw the JNU students out of their rented apartments.
Cartoons depicting the JNU as "Jihadi Naxal University" have been circulated on social media. Some have even tried to portray the education institution as a space of debauchery. In all of this, the message is clear. The majoritarian politics of ultra-nationalism is running full swing in India. Starting with the JNU, the list of anti-nationalism is only going to grow, ostracising anyone who did not fit the "ideal type".
The recent police action at the JNU campus and sedition charges imposed on opposition leaders have reminded many of the Emergency days of 1975-'77. However, it is my ardent belief that the present situation is very different from the Emergency, when fundamental rights of every citizen stood suspended to make the state all-powerful.
My lessons in history tell me that this is the rise of a new kind of political ideology in India where fundamental rights will not be suspended, just applied selectively to those who fit the bill of a Hindu nationalist. If not resisted today, it is my fear that the idea of the democratic nation of India will be lost forever.