In the aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, American humourist and television show host Jon Stewart had this to say about the 2^nd amendment fanatics who would not allow any discussion about gun control for the fear of the tyrannical state taking over.

“Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can’t do anything, because the right is too worried about the rise of “imaginary Hitler.”

It is uncanny to see how neatly this ties in to literally hundreds of articles written by Indian liberals whose fear of Modi becoming the next dictator is overcoming their judgement. Ramchandra Guha’s recent op-ed in Hindustan Times is a good case in point.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/why-bhakti-in-politics-is-bad-for-democracy/story-wiZUVhmmY9exCStaATBSqK.html

A line by line analysis of this article gives a fascinating insight into what ails the liberals in India more than the fear of a despotic ruler rising.  Mr. Guha opens with a ‘knowledgeable’ Gujarati journalist commenting in 2005 about how ‘Narendra Modi thinks a detergent named development will wash away the memory of 2002’. Ok, hold it right there! Mr. Guha, this is not 2005. Why you are quoting about ‘memory of 2002’ in that context, now that the Prime Minister has been adequately questioned and found without guilt in the unfortunate riots? I only ask as that opening line tells me that unlike the courts, you have not closed that investigation, and in your eyes the man is guilty. When you start with that jaundiced view, it is difficult to take your subsequent analysis seriously.

Thankfully, Guha provides us with a comic relief right away when he talks about the difference in hero worship in India against that in ‘phoren’.

“Hero-worship is not uncommon in India. Indeed, we tend to excessively venerate high achievers in many fields. Consider the extraordinarily large and devoted fan following of Sachin Tendulkar and Lata Mangeshkar. These fans see their icons as flawless in a way fans in other countries do not. In America, Bob Dylan has many admirers but also more than a few critics. The same is true of the British tennis player Andy Murray. But in public discourse in India, criticism of Sachin and Lata is extremely rare. When offered, it tends to be met with vituperative abuse, not by rational or reasoned rebuttal.

You are a historian, but it seems your study of American music scene ended around Woodstock. Or you would have found plenty of irrational fans with psychopathic behaviour. One such fan shot John Lenon (google him, will ya?) in 1980, and another one put a bullet in then President Ronald Reagan three years later to impress a teenage actress. In more recent cases, fans of One Direction and Justin Bieber routinely indulge into sociopathic behaviour, especially online.

Comparing fans of a relatively costly, more upmarket sports like tennis with cricket is equally funny but I don’t even need to go there. Feast your eyes upon the tweet below by a lunatic who did not like what Andy Murray had to say about Brexit.

The entire paragraph above reminds me of the scene in old B&W Hindi movie, where a handsome young hero, just returned from abroad is telling his awe-struck audience of gaon walas “ Arrey tumhe pata hain, Vilayat mein aise nahi hota hain”, those movies were nice in 1960s, they feel a bit dated now.

To lay the groundwork of his paranoia, Guha then gives an example of the late Balasaheb Thackeray and Ms. Jaylalitha and quotes “In each case, the power of the State was (in Jayalalithaa’s case still is) put in service of this personality cult, with harassment and intimidation of critics being common.”

Being a Maharashtrian, I find reference to Balasaheb more than a little baffling. Just how exactly a state was put into service of a man whose party was in power for a grand total of five years in the state during his lifetime? And if Guha’s contention is Balasaheb did not need to be in power to rule the state, isn’t that a commentary on the weak political will-power of the successive Congress governments in the state (and invariably) at the centre?

At length, Guha arrives at how at national level the only other example of personality cult before Modi was Indira Gandhi. That is the thing with liberals now, they have discovered Emergency suddenly after May 2014. One would be forgiven for treating this sudden criticism (such as it is) of Ms. Gandhi by liberals with some degree of cynicism. This smacks of political expediency. Guha accuses Modi supporters (and even a few journalists, gasp!) of succumbing to hero worship. Here he cites examples of BJP leaders calling Modi- messiah and terming his opponents as anti-national.  There are several problems with this line of argument.

Guha’s depiction of Modi government as a rigidly controlled, leadership worshipping regime is simply not the truth. Just three days ago, Subramanian Swamy, MP from Rajya Sabha went on record to slam the implementation of demonetization, and actually supported the Finance Minister of West Bengal government.

TMC is possibly the bitterest opponent of Modi at the moment. His own MP taking side of a TMC leader over Modi’s own FM doesn’t exactly sound like the kind of tight ship Ms. Gandhi ran in pre-emergency days. A few months ago, we remember another MP, Shatrughan Sinha too supporting JDU/RJD leaders ahead of the Bihar election.  Modi’s social media support base is in constant funk over Union Ministers favouring a television channel in spite of its biased coverage of Modi and his government. If this is a personality cult then surely it is suffering from a split personality disorder.

The other problem with this line of argument is it sounds like that playground taunt “I know you are but what am I?” Mr. Guha , do you realize the irony of you objecting to BJP leaders terming his opponents as anti- nationals, while accusing his followers of dangerous hero worship that you feel will lead to erosion of democracy itself? To me that sounds like you are accusing the Modi supporters of being anti-nationals themselves.

 More irony as Mr. Guha quotes Jawaharlal Nehru writing about himself, to promote his case against hero-worship.

‘Jawaharlal cannot become a fascist. Yet he has all the makings of a dictator in him — a vast popularity, a strong will directed to a well-defined purpose, energy, pride, organisational capacity, ability, hardness, and, with all his love of the crowd, an intolerance of others and a certain contempt for the weak and the inefficient.’

Guha sees this as a warning Nehru gave himself. He goes on to suggest that as a lot of these things apply to Modi too, we better watch out. There are two problems with this

1. In my humble opinion, Mr. Nehru held the fascists in too high an esteem. The whole bit of vast popularity, organizational capacity etc are good qualities in any leader. To suggest that the leader possessing these qualities is a potential fascist is like looking at a man with a twenty inch bicep, and suggesting this man has the potential to be a wife-beater.
2. Even if we were to assume Mr. Nehru was right, when was the last time you heard Narendra Modi saying these things about himself? He is the one who called himself Pradhan sevak instead of Pradhan Mantri. Please understand the quote was about how Mr. Nehru saw himself, not how one of his contemporaries described him. This is a bit of sleight of hand Mr. Guha does, conflating what one leader thought about himself with what Mr. Guha thinks about the other.

Mr. Guha ends with the usual warning of how the personality cult can severely damage India’s democracy. More cleverness as he slyly admits Indian democracy is too robust to be destroyed by a single individual, you know just in case somebody points to the continuing democracy in India as a counter-argument. The most interesting line however is the next one-

“This personality cult of Narendra Modi must be challenged (and checked) before it goes much further.”

Since May 2014, the liberals (I use this term loosely and include Academicians, mainstream media members and intellectuals in it) have realized time and again that their ability to shape narratives and influence important political outcomes is diminishing fast. For all the hysteria created around three important elections ( India’s general election, Brexit referendum and US Presidential elections) , the voters in each case have gone and done exactly opposite of what liberals wanted them to do. In the fast, open architecture kind of world of social media, even mainstream media’s ability to play some stories while downplaying others is under severe pressure. More importantly, people in the right places are realizing that shaping public opinion through social media is far more effective and cheaper. The old guard must be feeling the heat somewhere.

Their real target is not Narendra Modi. Their real target is this obstinate audience they are forced to live with. An audience that refuses to buy their hysteric lies about a dystopian future. The audience is a little more worried about the dystopian present.

In Samuel Beckett’s tragicomedy ‘Waiting for Godot’, the two protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon, upon realizing that Godot is not coming at the end of the second day too, decide to hang themselves. When Estragon tries to fashion a noose out of his belt, the belt breaks and his trousers fall down.

Fascism and dictatorship in India is a bit like Godot in Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’. Godot never arrives but the whole play is about two men talking about his imminent arrival.