YesRegardless of what’s happening around us these days, from restrictions on what we can eat to laws about ‘acceptable’ comedy to the ongoing campaign of terrorism against Bollywood, it’s the middle ground between authoritarianism and authoritarianism. Might be worth restating the difference.
An authoritarian society has no tolerance for disagreement, no respect for democracy (even if it serves lip service to it), and wants us all to do as we are told.
Most monarchies and dictatorships are authoritarian in nature. For example, there are some democracies in the Middle East, but they are only degrees of authoritarianism. Most countries run by military rule (for example, from time to time Pakistan) are authoritarian in nature. Among our neighbours, Myanmar may be the most authoritarian.
A totalitarian regime is authoritarian by definition. But it goes far beyond that. It doesn’t just crack down on disagreements and demands complete obedience. It wants to control how you think and decide what your lifestyle will be.
Totalitarian regimes are usually associated with regressive ideologies. The Nazis were totalitarian. You had to believe their fake history (about a great Aryan race). The Third Reich was to be glorified. If you were a Jew, you were a non-person (and in the end, you were dead).
In recent times, communism has given rise to the worst kind of totalitarianism. In Mao Zedong’s China, there were no good restaurants (haute cuisine was counter-revolutionary so chefs were sent to the countryside for re-education); You had to wear the same clothes and if you deviated from the party line at all, even in your personal life, you were ‘criticised’ by your local community and subjected to any kind of boycott. had to face. Stalin’s Russia was very similar. And the Taliban have created the world’s worst totalitarian society.
Obviously, the worse totalitarianism is, the worse authoritarianism is. Now that the Chinese and Russians have been freed from authoritarianism and made to withstand only the sanctions of authoritarianism, they act as if the bad times are over. But of course, both countries remain rigid authoritarian societies.
middle class and authoritarianism
In India, though we talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is that many of us do not mind authoritarianism at all. We don’t like to admit it but almost till the end the middle class supported Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. He didn’t care that the opposition was shut down, civil liberties were suspended and the press was censored.
Instead, you heard people talking about how inflation was controlled, how there was less corruption and how the Emergency imposed order on India’s chaos. When Gandhi lost the 1977 election, the defeat was mainly in the north where people were angry about Sanjay Gandhi’s sterilization programme. Indira Gandhi was back when she was less than three years old and the middle class never really fell in love with her.
When people talk about the India of today and point to the suppression of extreme dissent, targeting of opponents, etc., they are surprised to know that it affects the middle class (let alone the rich) or the general public. makes little difference. , Because, and let’s be honest here, the middle class cares about democracy and freedom – but only up to a point. As long as they have a leader who they think has made India strong (as Indira Gandhi did) and imposed some discipline on the country, they are more than happy. They do not necessarily approve of the use of the repressive power of the state against political opponents or critics. But they don’t care too much.
Now, however, I have a feeling that we are moving into a new phase, one that is getting worryingly close to totalitarianism. The signs were always present. Authoritarian societies don’t care what you eat. But in India we are crazy about eating beef unnecessarily. Those in power do not like to be mocked. But authoritarians turn it into an obsession. In Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler had galleries dedicated to ‘exposing’ the evil designs of foreign filmmakers and comedians. Similarly in China where campaigns were launched against ‘derogatory’ Western art and popular culture.
You can, perhaps, attribute the persecution of Indian comedians to simple authoritarianism. It is not just Munawwar Farooqui’s shameful behavior. This is now a generalized attack on anyone who is portrayed as anti-Hindu. Recently, comedian Kunal Kamra, whose show has attracted threats and boycotts, told ndtv“Our constitution clearly mentions how much freedom of expression is there, how much is religious bigotry and what is the amount to incite violence. There is a court to decide. Let them decide whether it is anti-Hindu.”
Of course, as the Munawwar Farooqui case shows, the courts do not always uphold the liberty of comedians.
read also, Absence of Space Force Huge gap in India’s security cover, should be filled on priority basis
Bollywood boycott
Another example is the systematically organized campaign against Bollywood. The Hindi film industry is the biggest example of India’s soft power. Over the years, however, this has been turned into solicitation by boycotts and bogus drug allegations.
As I write this, against an (apparently unsuccessful) campaign brahmastra Trending on social media. Actor Aamir Khan, a favorite target of such campaigns, has faced a boycott of his previous film. And even Akshay Kumar, an actor so famous that he can discuss mangoes with the prime minister, has been struck by the call to boycott some of his films.
You really don’t need to offend Hindus for boycotting. campaign against brahmastra Not associated with the film. The direct reason for this is that years ago its star Ranbir Kapoor had said that he liked beef. The organizers of the boycott are not the people who have been hurt. They are people looking for crime.
It’s easy to see what’s going on here. They want to scare Bollywood into following their line and taking control of its content. Eventually, directors will be afraid to do anything that offends these boycott-advocates and companies will be reluctant to hire actors who can attract controversy as brand ambassadors or endorsers.
It goes beyond politics or mere authoritarianism. The concern is not with the attack on the regime. The intention is to impose a way of thinking on our lives, our arts, and our entertainment.
Two things need to be emphasized. The first is that we are still a long way from totalitarianism. (I wouldn’t have been writing this column if we had already.) But yes, there are signs that we are headed in that direction.
And second, the boycott is not officially sponsored. There is no evidence that the government supports them. But yes, they come from groups sympathetic to the government and at least one minister (late) Manohar Parrikar) approved about them.
There is no doubt an easy way to stop the shift to authoritarianism and to make it clear that the government does not accept the idea-police. All the government has to do is to speak out against what is happening.
but will?
Veer Sanghvi is a print and television journalist and talk show host. He tweeted on @virsanghvi. Thoughts are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)