Nayantara Sahgal & Jason Stanley

At the age of 92, Nayantara Sahgal still writes more cogently and keeps better abreast of intellectual currents than most elite Indian public intellectuals half her age.

But she is still as deluded and out of touch with Indian reality as her class has always been. Witness this article in the Express-

Now that the dust has settled on India’s most hard-fought national election, and it has been hailed as a spectacular democratic victory, it is possible to take a quiet look at the election result. It was no surprise to me for I had not only expected it but realised it could have gone no other way. I had the help of literature in seeing it as a story with only one possible ending. My favourite novel by Gabriel Garcia Marquez is titled The Chronicle of a Death Foretold. With the ending already known, the novel goes backward to unravel the path that makes it inevitable. The 2019 election has been the same kind of fascinating exercise whose outcome could not have been otherwise, given the precise path that was taken to achieve it.

This is sheer lunacy. Without the Balakot strike Modi would not have got a majority. But there would have been no Balakot without Pulwama. It was the Pakistanis who handed the election to the BJP.

Why mention Marquez's novel? It was about an 'honor killing' which the Police could easily have prevented as could almost everybody else in the village. There was nothing inevitable about it at all.

The other help I had in foreseeing the result came from a philosophy professor. As Marquez’s novel spells out the sequence of events that lead inevitably to the “death foretold” in his story, a philosophy professor at Yale University, Jason Stanley, has made a study of the swing to right-wing extremism and the resulting breakdown of democracy in countries across the world.

Stanley has made no such study. He is not a Social Scientist. He has simply written some garbled nonsense.

Fascism is about using violence against violent Leftists and taking over the State so as to suppress such Leftists. It may, or may not, go on to stigmatize ethnic or religious minorities, but it would kill or lock up opponents. If it feels strong enough to do so, it may ignore the wishes of the majority though, no doubt, there may be periodic sham elections with 99.9 % of all eligible votes going to the Beloved Leader.

The distinguishing feature of both Communism and the Fascism which suppressed the threat of Communism, was the use of physical coercion by a vast military and para-military apparatus.

Even when these conditions were not fully met, it was meaningful to say Pinochet's Chile or Galtieri's Argentina was Fascist. We may certainly speak of Indira Gandhi's rule, during the Emergency, was Fascist. Her defenders might say- 'No! It was Socialist!'- but we can all agree it involved a suspension of the Rule of Law.

It was not meaningful to say any Democratic country under the Rule of Law was Fascist because, there being no violent threat from the Left, the Right could gain no reward for using violent methods. Consider the British General Strike of 1926. The Labor party and the TUC were as anxious to keep the militant Reds out of the conflict as the Government was to restrain British Fascists- at that time led by a drunken ex-Girl Guide and a pair of ex-suffragette lesbian lunatics.

Horror at the antics of such harridans cemented a commitment to Law & Order on both sides which paid off for mainstream politicians. The lunatic fringe inherited the wilderness while Labor got a boost in the Elections and, after it fucked up, the Tories became the natural party of Government with the Liberals nowhere in sight.

Stanley, being wholly ignorant of European history, thinks Fascism is about 'identifying enemies, appealing to the in-group (usually the majority group), and smashing truth and replacing it with power.' Why is he so stupid? The answer is it is because he thinks 'ideology' is a real thing. It isn't. Either there is the Rule of Law or you have a 'Might is Right' type of moral anarchy.

Stanley's definition of Fascism describes the main political parties in a Democracy. Those politicians who wish to smash the truth that they are not in power by getting elected and thus actually being in power have to appeal to the in-group which, under universal suffrage, is the majority group. This is why Modi campaigns in Hindi not English, while Trump campaigns in English not Urdu. Both are trying to appeal to the majority community in their country. In order to get elected they need to 'identify enemies'- e.g. the leader of the other main party- and to say nasty things about that enemy. They should not say 'my rival is very wonderful. Please vote for her.' They must say 'my rival is horrible. She is the enemy of all that is good and decent. Don't vote for her.'

Nayantara, who was never very bright, thinks Stanley is a big genius who has discovered a magical formula-

He has found that there is a standard formula by which democracy is broken down and a climate of intolerance built up in its place in which hatred, violence and criminal behaviour become acceptable to people.

Yet, American democracy hasn't broken down at all. Nor has Indian democracy. The fact that a guy you don't like wins doesn't mean Democracy is dead.

On this prepared ground, an ideology such as fascism, or any other similar doctrine, takes over unopposed. The professor has found this formula common to all breakdowns of democracy wherever they have occurred or are now occurring, and he spells it out in two books: How Propaganda Works and How Fascism Works.

But this formula is also common to all breakdowns of Fascism, Imperialism, Communism or any other sort of political system even if it hasn't broken down at all.

To begin with, the majority community is made to feel threatened and victimised by minority groups.

Criminals are a minority group. We are made to feel threatened and victimised by criminals when they rob or rape us. Thus we support the Rule of Law which catches and locks up members of this minority.

Once this seed is planted, it breeds resentment, anger, and a mood of vengeance mounting to hysteria against those named as offenders.

Very true! After 9/11, America became hysterically angry against Muslims who wanted to blow up Americans.

They are classed as outsiders (to the religion and culture of the majority) and usurpers who are preying upon the rights and privileges of the dominant community.

Nayantara's ancestors whipped up hysterical anger against the British minority which was ruling the country. They were not satisfied till the British handed over power and left the country for good.

The definition of outsider covers socialists, communists and atheists, and all differences of opinion from the ruling view.

This has not happened in Modi's India. Three Muslims are Ministers. Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, who was jailed by Nayantara's cousin, Indira Gandhi, is a senior BJP leader.

Incidentally, Nayantara's mom wanted to marry a Muslim. Her family, along with Mahatma Gandhi, put a stop to it. Her aunty married a Jain and her cousin, Indira, a Parsi. An Uncle married a Hungarian Jewess. But a line had to be drawn somewhere, and that line was at a Muslim son-in-law.

These citizens, branded anti-national, are therefore to be feared as enemies of the state.

The problem here is that some citizens who are branded anti-national are fearsome enemies of Indian people and keep trying to kill them.

Fear is spread by cutting out all rational argument and appealing to the emotions for an emotional arousal.

Which is what Nayantara is doing here.

The next step is then taken.
Step two warns that the nation is in danger from the designs of its internal and external enemies.

This step was taken by the anti-BJP parties in the Nineties. They pretended that Fascism would prevail, Democracy would disappear, the Constitution would be overthrown and free elections would cease to occur if the BJP came to power. They went on crying wolf, but no wolf appeared. The Left committed slow suicide by backing Congress at the Center in the belief that this was the necessary 'Popular Front' strategy necessary to contain Fascism. It was nothing of the sort. Rather it proved that the Leftists lived in a fantasy world and had nothing useful to offer.

Conspiracy theories are manufactured to prove the point.

Nayantara thinks a conspiracy theory can prove things. Nobody else does. Modi won because he did 'last mile delivery'. He also said that the Dynasty was utterly shit. But that wasn't a theory. It was true. Nayantara herself is as stupid as shit. What has been her contribution to Indian politics? Zero. Her cousin kept her from getting an Ambassadorship. Nobody in South Block said 'what a pity! Nayantara is smart. She'd have negotiated a great trade deal for us.' Why? It's coz the woman wrote silly school-girlish novelettes.

Citizens labelled anti-national are accused of conspiring against the state.

Because they wouldn't be anti-national if they were just sitting at home watching Netflix.

The focus is on defending the nation from its enemies.

Why does Nayantara think we shouldn't focus on defending ourselves against enemies? Is it because this leaves us vulnerable to imaginary Fascists? But why stop there? Why should we not scrap the Army and focus instead on defending ourselves against the Spanish Inquisition? 

In this atmosphere, the need of the hour is a “strong” militant leader who alone can protect the country and the people.

Pakistani based terrorists keep attacking India. Modi, unlike his predecessor, retaliated with an Air strike. Now it seems Pakistan is sharing information about planned attacks. The need of every hour is a strong leader who will act in a militant fashion to protect the people. Nayantara may disagree. She may think that the people don't need protection from the country's enemies. Instead they should be protected from Fascism but not the Spanish Inquisition. This is blatant discrimination against Hispanics! No doubt, being denied an Ambassadorship to Italy and neglect by Sonia- who is of Italian origin- has caused Nayantara to get fixated upon Fascism. Still, her failure to show an equal fear of the Spanish Inquisition reveals a prejudice against Hispanics all too common among Wellesley alumni of her class and generation.

The nation’s leader is glorified. The military takes centrestage and pride of place alongside him and shares his glory.

For winning. Not losing. What's wrong with that? Nayantara may well reply- look at what happened when Thatcher won the Falklands War. Like Churchill, after VE day, she became a dictator and introduced Fascism.

In this wholesale absence of facts, the disappearance of truth is complete.

There is not one single fact in Stanley's two books. Nor is there a single fact in this lady's peroration.

Democracy fights for survival and loses.

Very true! British Democracy fought for survival in the Eighties but lost.

Long held values — freedom of expression, equality, fraternity, human rights — are discarded as being of no use.

Nayantara's cousin discarded these things as of no use. That is why people like Modi dreamed of a 'Congress Mukht Bharat'. But the Dynasty was propped up by the Left till its slow motion circular firing squad caused its own annihilation.

In fact, they are seen as a hindrance in dealing with the dangers the nation faces. Authority and hierarchy take their place. The hierarchy can be ethnic, or religious, or gender-based.

For Congress, it was dynastic. The senior branch of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty gets everything. The junior branch has to go into opposition- like Maneka & Varun- even to get seats in Parliament.

One ethnic group gets placed over others, one religion over others, men over women.

And for Congress, one family gets placed over all others.

And the yawning vacuum, where truth used to be, is filled by myth. Fantasy now substitutes as reality. In Stanley’s words, the myth that replaces reality is one “of a glorious bygone era, where the nation was supposedly ethnically or religiously pure, and rural patriarchal values reigned supreme”.

But it was espousing this myth that Nayantara's ancestors rose to prominence. They chased out the British minority and moved into the palaces they had built. They renamed the roads and other landmarks built by the British after their own Mummies and Daddies. Connaught Circus was named for Queen Victoria's son, the Duke of Connaught. It is now called 'Rajiv Gandhi Chowk'.

To this description, I am adding “racially pure” since racial purity has loomed large in right-wing extremism. In a chilling conclusion Stanley adds, “History shows that such propaganda licenses extreme brutality”.

But extreme brutality existed simultaneously in Communist countries with opposite views. Thus History does not show anything at all in this respect.

The standard formula he describes has an uncanny resemblance to the path India has followed since 2014, including the “extreme brutality” the path licenses. Writers, artists, students, teachers and journalists have been punished for their independent views.

Nonsense! These stupid shitheads have been rewarded even though they provoke a larger backlash from which the BJP profits.

Four famous writers have been assassinated.

A couple of deeply provincial writers associated with some arcane intra-caste dispute, which nobody from other parts of the country understand, were killed and it may be that some crazy self-proclaimed godman is implicated in the killings.

On television, we have seen the torture and murder of workers by “gau rakshaks” and other armed vigilante mobs, with the police and public standing by.

No we haven't. We have seen footage of the aftermath of such attacks. The Police don't like being filmed even when they themselves are doing the torture. To be shown idly standing by would dent their reputation and result in a reduction in their ability to extort money.

Still, it must be said, there has been a great deterioration in the standard of Policing since Nayantara's cousin, Indira was murdered. Just think of the Maya Tyagi case. Some drunken cop put his hand through the car window to fondle her breasts and snatch her gold chain. Her husband and other male relative put up a fight. The cop returned with his comrades. They shot the men and then took the woman away to beat and rape her and shove things up her vagina for a few days. Then they charged her with various crimes. Women's rights activists made a big fuss about Maya's plight. She even met Zail Singh and Indira Gandhi. Still, the Government opposed making custodial rape an offense. The result was that agricultural castes, like the Tyagis, stopped supporting the elitist Congress Party which was more concerned with fighting Fascism rather than preventing policemen from raping women, killing their husbands, and then charging those women with 'anti-social' crimes.

We have heard these crimes being justified on the grounds that they were committed by patriots against the nation’s enemies. In some cases, alleged acts of terror have been rewarded, as recently with a seat in Parliament.

India is a country where a rapist can join the elite Civil Service. If he is dismissed for stalking with intent to rape while a probationer, he goes to court and, a dozen years later, is reinstated with accrued seniority.

Such behaviour towards fellow citizens, and brutality against them, doesn’t just happen. It is taught.

Very true! Modi was taught by Congress. So were hundreds of millions of others. That is why they want to see the back of the Dynasty and of silly people like Nayantara who want to fight Fascism rather than, as is right and proper, the Spanish Inquisition.

It is the end result of the indoctrination that has taken place.
The formula has been faithfully followed in other respects. In a democracy the military stays out of politics and out of the public eye, and war is not celebrated.

That is why Churchill should not have celebrated VE day. By doing so, he killed British Democracy and was able to rule over the Empire as a Dictator.

The nation’s leader is not held in awe. He is held accountable.

By the Judiciary and the Legislature.

He is required to face the press and answer questions.

No he isn't. Nor is he required to post videos of himself wanking on Pornhub. Nayantara may believe differently but only because the Spanish Inquisition has brainwashed her.

The leader of a democracy who does not uphold and nurture this democratic tradition, shows himself to be above it, as has been evident here.

Very true! Trump says he hopes his financial statements will be revealed coz they are fantastic and awesome and show how wonderful he is. Similarly, if his golden shower tapes appear on Pornhub, he will be nurturing the democratic tradition in a truly fantastic and awesome manner.

From what we have seen here, it is clear that the formula works and that story-telling takes precedence over reality.

Nayantara told stories. Her cousin, Indira, did not. She must be terribly miffed her story-telling didn't take precedence over the reality that Indira was important while people though her a light-weight.

Unemployment, rural and urban distress, well-documented corruption and whatever ails the nation fade into the background.

Which is easy for Nayantara to say because she has never suffered 'rural and urban distress'. The vast majority of Indian voters, however, have no such luxury.

They are no match for the story-teller’s fine art of invention; no match for the mood of involvement, expectation and enthrallment a story builds up in its readers/listeners as it unfolds; and no match for the ageless allure of “once upon a time”.

But Nayantara's stories are shit. J.K Rowling, yes. R.R Martin, no question. But Nayantara Sahgal? Her oeuvre is Mills & Boons without the hard-hitting socio-economic critique of financialized Capitalism.

Those who master the art of story-telling create the mood of their choice — as music and all forms of art also do in their different artistic mediums.

The mood Nayantara's book create is that of wishing one had picked up something with more intellectual substance- by Enid Blyton.

Could this be why art and literature are deemed dangerous and why they must be controlled to ensure that they create the mood a regime desires and no other?

Poor dotty Nayantara! Her books are so shite nobody wants to kill her. Even her cousin didn't throw her in jail during the Emergency. Yet, so steep has been the decline in the intellectual quality of the Left-Liberal intelligentsia that this very elderly lady, generally regarded as a half-wit in the Seventies, gained prominence during Modi's first term. She even got headlines for returning some prize she had no business winning in the first place.  This was her well deserved reward for courageously battling Fascism- but tactfully ignoring the Spanish Inquisition.