How stupid do you have to be to think that India in 2020 is similar to Italy in 1920? The answer is Ramachandra Guha level stupid.
He writes in Scroll.in-
I read a lot of biographies, these often set in other countries than my own.
Guha then identifies with the subject of the biography and starts seeing amazing parallels to his own role in contemporary India.
A book I have just finished is Benedetto Croce and Italian Fascism, by the Canadian scholar, Fabio Fernando Rizi. It uses the life of a great philosopher to tell a larger story of the times he passed through.
Croce was an elderly literary dilettante, a bare step above Keyserling, rather than a professional philosopher. Like the Indian Liberals, but a couple of years later, the Italian Liberals were completely eclipsed by an autocrat ruling over a chauvinistic mass organization- Mahatma Gandhi, in the case of India, Mussolini, in the case of Italy. However, after the Allies liberated Italy, Croce and his ilk regained a brief salience. But they were still as shite as they had always been. Catholics and Communists had mass followings. Stupid idealists burbling about 'spiritual philosophy' were de trop. Something similar could be said about Ortega Gasset's trajectory.
Guha, a cretin with no understanding of history, is very pleased with himself for having finished reading a book. Sadly, in typical Huccha Venkat style, he starts getting worked up about it. The same thing happened after he read 'Tin Tin : Prisoners of the Sun'. On that occasion he started babbling about how he himself is the Grand Inca and Professor Calculus is actually Narendra Modi and Snowy the Dog is a mean Fascist bitch wot tried to bite his dick off.
This time, reading about some long dead Italian dude, Guha writes -
Reading Rizi’s book, I found uncanny parallels between the Italy of the 1920s and the India of the 2020s. The myth of Benito Mussolini, like the myth of Narenda Modi, was crafted by writers and propagandists “eager to sing paeans to the genius of the Duce”.
Nonsense! Mussolini was an influential Socialist journalist who supported the War and was attacked by other Socialists for this reason. He came to power because his 'Black Shirts' were willing to beat the shit out of the Reds on the streets.
By contrast, Modi came up within the RSS- a voluntary Social Service organization, not a para-military outfit- before working for the BJP in an organizational capacity. His success as C.M of Gujarat is what elevated him to National prominence. But it was Rahul's reluctance to step up to the plate which gave Modi a walkover. The BJP strategy is to highlight the crap nature of Congress and its Libtard Darbari courtiers.
India long ago realized that 'writers and propagandists' are shite. On the other hand, plenty of film stars have entered politics. Some have done very well, at least at the regional level. Talentless cretins like Guha may now see themselves as 'writers and propagandists'. Everybody else thinks them a laughing stock.
These propagandists had begun to call the leader of fascism “the providential man”, “the man of massive faith”, or simply, “the Man of Providence”.
Mussolini had created his own Party and had projected himself as a Messianic Leader. He wasn't the only man of letters to do this in the Italy of that period. But he prevailed because he had solid Socialist and anti-Clerical credentials but had also served in the War and thus demonstrated his patriotism. Like Hitler, he was his own most successful propagandist. Unlike Hitler, he was a polyglot intellectual who could cast a spell over Gandhi and Tagore and so forth.
Thus was created “the myth of the Duce, the chief who is always right, the leader who dares where others vacillate”.
Mussolini created his own myth with his successful 'march on Rome'. He copied a lot of D'Annunzio's theatrics in his 'Regency of Carnaro' but kept good relations with the Army and thus succeeded where his fellow novelist failed.
Guha may be surprised to learn that the supporters of a political party never say 'The leader is always wrong. The leader likes to vacillate where others are daring and decisive.'
In December 1925, the Italian State passed a new law, which came down hard on the press and its freedoms. The consequences of this law were that “within a few months, the most important papers came under Fascist control, one by one. Some owners were compelled to sell under economic or political pressure. All the liberal editors had to resign and were replaced by more accommodating men.”
This has not happened in India. This should alert Guha to the fundamental difference between Modi and Mussolini. The former is a party man who holds office because he is better in the competition for votes. The latter created his own party and prevailed by strong arm methods. Had there been no Communist threat, there would have been no Mussolini or Hitler or Franco. But, in India, Communism is a spent force. Guha himself, a shite historian, gained prominence only because he wasn't a Red.
In the same year, Benedetto Croce characterised the ideology of the ruling party and of Mussolini as a “bizarre mixture of appeals to authority and to demagoguery, of professed reverence for the laws and of violation of the laws, of ultra-modern concepts and of musty old trash, abhorrence of culture and sterile attempts at producing a new one…” In this regard, the Italian State of the 1920s bears a striking resemblance to Modi’s regime today which speaks respectfully of the Constitution while blatantly violating its spirit and essence,
not in the view of the Bench which alone has authority to decide what is or isn't Constitutional. Guha it turns out isn't a 'Patriot of the Constitution' because he stops supporting it if the Bench decides it means something other than what he ignorantly asserts.
which appeals to ancient wisdom while displaying a contempt for modern science, which claims to exalt ancient culture while manifesting an utter philistinism in practice.
So, the BJP has a Gandhian element. Guha has written a lot about the Mahatma. He should know this. But Gandhi was an autocrat- an incompetent and stupid one. In 1938, Govind Vallabh Pant said 'Italy has its Il Duce, Germany has its Fuehrer, India has its Mahatma'. But, the Mahatma was a shite as the Duce and Fuehrer. Later there was Indira who, Bahaguna said, 'was India'. That is why three people surnamed Gandhi have been assassinated- that being the traditional method by which autocracy is tempered. It is also the most probable reason that Rahul doesn't want the top job. Sooner or later his own side will ensure he gets shot or blown up so that a 'sympathy wave' can allow that bunch of crooks to rob the country for a few more years.
While most independent-minded Italian intellectuals were forced into exile, Benedetto Croce stayed on in his homeland, offering an intellectual and moral opposition to fascism. As his biographer puts it, “[w]hereas the regime employed the mass media and the education system to promote the cult of Mussolini and to inculcate submission to authority, demanding from the new generations, in mystical union with the Duce, without asking questions, ‘to believe, to obey, to fight’, Croce, instead, offered a set of liberal values, preached freedom, defended the dignity of man, as a free agent, and urged individual decision and personal responsibility.”
Okay, okay. We get it. Guha now thinks he is Croce. What's next? Will he read a biography of Anais Nin and commence a torrid affair with Sanjay Subhramaniyan?
Reading further into Rizi’s book, I found this passage: “By the end of 1926, liberal Italy had died. Mussolini had consolidated his power and created the legal instruments for the continuation of his dictatorship. Political parties had been outlawed, and freedom of the press destroyed. The opposition had been disarmed and Parliament reduced to impotence. By 1927 it had become almost impossible to undertake any political action; it was also dangerous to express critical opinions in personal letters or in public places. Civil employees could lose their jobs if they expressed views contrary to government policy.
So Mussolini was a bit like Indira Gandhi but nothing like Modi. One result is that Indira was paranoid about her Cabinet Colleagues- deservedly so because her son Rajiv was toppled by V.P Singh and Arun Nehru- whereas Modi presides over a united, and apparently uncorrupt, Cabinet. Respecting Democracy and the Rule of Law turns out to be a sensible policy for an elected leader.
“Besides a powerful and revitalized police division in the Ministry of the Interior, under the direct responsibility of the chief of police, a new and efficient secret police organization, ominously and mysteriously called OVRA, was created with the aim of repressing any sign of anti-fascism and controlling any expression of dissent.
Interestingly, Sonia Gandhi- daughter of an actual Italian Fascist- was by her Mother in Law's side when the latter used RAW to impose Dictatorship. Later Sonia's UPA would use the CBI to persecute imaginary 'Hindu terrorists'. This pissed off the Hindus.
In a short while, it collected files on more than one hundred thousand people, including Fascist leaders, and built an impressive web of special agents, spies, and informers whose reach extended throughout the country and even abroad."
In India, this practice already existed in a more perfect degree under the Raj. After Independence, expenditure on this increased. It did not fall. Both State Governments as well as the Center, tapped the phones of MLAs and MPs as a matter of course. A friend of mine was an IPS officer in Ramakrishna Hegde's Karnataka. He was taken by surprise when Hegde was forced to resign- just for phone tapping! It turned out Hegde's mistake was to admit this had happened.
India was better than Italy at beating and killing seditious or separatist forces. That's why it could have the appearance of Representative Government and the Rule of Law.
Guha, who has been watching cricket on a different planet all these years, is blissfully unaware of this fact.
As I was transcribing these words from Rizi’s book, news came in of the home ministry demanding, from the Finance Commission, a sum of Rs 50,000 crore to fund what it called “real-time surveillance” of citizens. This at a time when the states are being denied the money owed to them by the Centre; and while the home ministry has already dangerously abused its powers through the foisting of fake cases on independent thinkers, activists, and journalists.
The cases are real enough. Guha means that the evidence is fake. But that is a question for the Courts.
The Home Ministry is saying that whereas the Center has to shoulder the full burden of external defence, the States have to contribute to internal security and deployment of paramilitary forces and the use of high tech surveillance etc. No doubt, the matter will be referred to the Courts.
And here is Rizi’s description of the Italian Parliament, c. 1929: “Parliament had become a rubber stamp of the government’s decisions. Speeches of the few remaining members of the opposition were ignored, or more often shouted down to jeers from the floor and from the public galleries.”
Guha does not mention that, as Rizi himself has confirmed, the Italian parliament in 1929 conducted its deliberations in the Italian language. Currently only Sonia Gandhi, of all the MPs in India, can give speeches in Italian. Only she is the daughter of a Fascist. True she is the head of a dynastic Indian party. But the fact remains that the Fascist voice in Indian Parliament is indeed being silenced by 'Majoritarianism' of a deplorably 'Hindutva type'.
Rizi’s book focuses on one person in one country, and eschews comparative analysis.
Because Rizi is not as stupid as Guha.
However, in passing, the author remarks that “Italian Fascism created an authoritarian regime, ever increasing its reach, but it did not have the time, perhaps did not even possess the strength, to build a totalitarian society.” This must be read as meaning only one thing; however awful Mussolini’s Italy was, it was not nearly as awful as Hitler’s Germany.
No. It means Italy was poorer and had less administrative capacity. That is why it was shit at fighting.
After reading Rizi’s intellectual biography of Benedetto Croce, I turned to David Gilmour’s magnificent book, The Pursuit of Italy, a wide-ranging and compellingly readable history of that country from the beginnings of time. Thirty of the four hundred pages of this book deal with Mussolini’s years in power. As with Rizi, much of what Gilmour said about Italy in the past chillingly resonated with what I am witnessing in my own country at present.
Why? India is nothing like Italy. It remained part of the British Empire till the British decided the game was not worth the candle. By contrast, Italian unification required military opposition to big Armies fielded by Emperors.
The truth is that India could have become a dynastic one party state- or something very close to it.
Where is the Italian equivalent of the Gandhi dynasty? What of caste based parties? Why don't they exist in Italy? Guha, not being a genuine historian- his first couple of degrees were in Econ, but he was too stupid to flourish in that field- thinks there can be a meaningful comparison between Italy- that too when a genuine Communist threat existed- and India in 2020.
Consider thus these remarks: “In the 1930s the regime’s style became more ostentatious. There were more parades, more uniforms, more censorship, more hectoring, more speeches from the leader, more shouting, gesturing and grimacing from a balcony to vast crowds, which greeted Mussolini’s every reference to patria and gloria with chants of ‘Du-ce! Du-ce! Du-ce!’”.
Much the same could be said about FDR and Reagan- both of whom were accused of being Fascists. But it was also true that Kennedy and Obama once generated wild enthusiasm.
In India, Mamta could be compared to Mussolini. By sheer force of will, she prevailed over the Communists. Modi could have remained the Gujerati strongman. He took a gamble on the Prime Ministership. It has paid off because the opposition has gotten progressively crappier.
Much the same could be said about Modi’s rule, especially after he won a second term in 2019, his every utterance greeted with “Mo-di! Mo-di! Mo-di!”.
Guha may not know this but it is usual for guys who win elections to have fans. The same goes for sportsmen or artists who win competitions.
Why did the Italian demagogue enjoy such great popularity among the masses?
The clue is in the word demagogue- which means a guy who says things the masses like and does so in a manner that generates enthusiasm.
Guha, sadly, does not get this.
Here is Gilmour’s answer: “Mussolini survived so long partly because he incarnated certain strands of italianata; he embodied the hopes, fears and generations that believed Italy had been cheated of its due, both by its liberal politicians and by its wartime allies, who had forced it to accept the ‘mutilated peace.’”
The truth is Mussolini survived so long by killing or chasing away people who tried to fuck with him. He fell because he lost a war. Millions of people 'incarnated certain strands of italianata'. But only Mussolini was fucking over his enemies like a boss.
By the same token, Modi has successfully appealed to an alleged Golden Age in the distant past where Hindus were supreme in India and abroad, argued that Hindus had slipped from that pedestal owing to Muslim and British conquerors in the past, and pitted himself against conniving and corrupt Congress politicians who would drag Hindus and India down again.
But hundreds of millions have been doing the same thing for centuries. Modi got elected for good Governance- or better Governance than his rivals could offer.
Reading these books about Italy in the 1920s in the India of the 2020s, I was depressed by the many parallels; but also consoled by the few departures. Unlike Mussolini’s Italy, in Modi’s India, the Bharatiya Janata Party has had to contend with political opposition from other parties; admittedly an Opposition much attenuated at the Centre, but still fairly robust in half-a-dozen major states of the Union. The press has been tamed, but not entirely crushed. And while Mussolini’s Italy had only Benedetto Croce to call it to account, Modi’s India still has many writers and intellectuals speaking out courageously in defence of the founding principles of the Republic, and in all the languages of the Republic too.
Croce was as useless as Guha. Mussolini fell because, unlike Franco, he started a war he was bound to lose.
In The Pursuit of Italy, after describing how Mussolini consolidated his rule, Gilmour remarks: “Fascism’s appeal was blunted, however, by its failure to provide prosperity.
This didn't matter because it could kill those who tried to fuck with it. Shitheads like Gilmour did not understand that dictatorships can last forever just by killing people. Sometimes, if, like Saddam or Gaddaffi, the dictator comes to be seen as a mad-dog who starts unwinnable wars then that dictator may be toppled by thoroughly pissed off Superpowers. But only if they have a shit-ton of petroleum. Otherwise the International Community just holds its nose and gets on with things.
Italians might be deceived into thinking they were well governed but they could not be deceived into thinking they were well off.”
But, by the Thirties, no one was well off. Workers were returning from other European countries, or even America, with tales of mass unemployment and soup kitchens.
Mussolini failed in providing jobs and prosperity; whereas Modi has, in fact, done far worse on the economic front, his ill-thought and quixotic policies annulling much of the progress that the Indian economy had made in the three decades since liberalisation.
Mussolini's economic performance wasn't particularly bad- indeed, Franco's was initially worse- but it could have gotten better as Franco's performance improved as global conditions improved. The reason Mussolini was strung up from a lamp-post while Franco and Salazar died peacefully of old age was that Mussolini lost a war.
Millions of young men today fanatically follow Narendra Modi. The fate that awaits them, and us, is anticipated in what Benedetto Croce said with regard to the millions of young men who fanatically followed Mussolini. After the Italian dictator had died and his regime had finally fallen, Croce wrote sadly of “the treasury of moral energies that the oppressive regime misguided, exploited and at the end had betrayed”.
But only because Mussolini got high on his own supply and thought Italy could get rich through conquest. Franco, be it noted, stopped talking of conquering Portugal once the tide of War turned against the Axis powers.
Benito Mussolini and his fascists thought they would rule Italy forever.
And would have done if they hadn't gone to War.
Narendra Modi and the BJP think likewise.
Says a guy who can't think at all.
These fantasies of eternal rule will not come to fruition; but so long as the present regime remains in power, it will continue to extract a horrendous cost – in economic, political, social, and moral terms. Italy took decades to recover from the ravages of Mussolini and his party; India may take even longer to recover from the ravages of Modi and his party
Or Guha may be talking ignorant bollocks. The sad truth is 'recovery' from Nazism or Fascism was very quick. Mussolini, shithead that he was, did somewhat improve educational outcomes. Fascism was better than the Liberalism that went before. But what came after was a more free market based economy under conditions of rising productivity and improving terms of trade for high value adding manufacturing and services. The Common Market and NATO generated a peace dividend.
In the Fifties, some Communist regimes were actually doing better in terms of raising living standards. But during the Sixties, they fucked up. The decline of Communism meant there was no need for Fascism.
In India, however, Communism was good for the blathershites among the 'bhadralok', especially 'buddhijivis'. Brahmins liked it. They didn't like the declasse Sangh Parivar. This is why Guha is writing this retarded shite. Croce forsooth! Why stop there? Why not Tin Tin?
No comments:
Post a Comment