Fascism is a “But…”
Our willingness to put a “but…” to dismiss the existence of others has been encouraged by relentless propaganda, a betrayal by the media, and maybe an uncomfortable truth about being human.
“Why have we become so hateful?” Every day I ask myself this question. You don’t need me to do a recap of the news to tell you why.
A man and a woman in love with each other are arrested by the police. One is a Hindu, another a Muslim. The mob will have you believe that it’s important to know who is a Hindu and who is a Muslim in the couple. It’s not. That’s not logic. That’s hatred oozing out to erode what this country stands for.
Farmers are protesting. For an agriculturally-dependent country like ours, the protests are a crucial intervention. The headlines will have you believe that they are enemies of the country. They are not. This is not politics. This is hatred masquerading as dangerous nationalism.
Where is this hatred coming from?
The easy, and somewhat correct answer is, from fascism in power. There is no point in tip-toeing around it anymore. Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.” I think even the most optimistic believer in Indian democracy will admit that we are at the “tendency” part of the definition. If not, I invite you to take a look at news reports following the enactment of the “love jihad” law in Uttar Pradesh.
But that’s not the hatred that worries me. I understand a group of people espousing an ideology built on hate. As the Constituent Assembly debates helpfully remind us, that isn’t new. It’s the ways in which hate has transformed our everyday that sickens me.
So, here’s my theory: Fascism is a “…but.” The sentence fragment you say when you acknowledge someone’s humanity, but then decide to privilege your existence over it.
“Sure, Muslims are nice people, but…”
“No one is saying farmers are wrong, but…”
“You can have your opinion, but…”
“You are allowed your freedom of expression, but…”
It’s the “but…” that dismisses the existence of others. A dismissal which can be traced to three factors.
One, relentless propaganda. As a film student, I saw Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will.” It was a dazzling film technically. Sitting in the darkened room, I could see how a film like that could have an impact on the Germans who saw it then. The difference was, I had context. I knew what I was watching was Nazi propaganda. It’s the missing context from the relentless disinformation around us, that has strengthened the “but...” We see a WA forward on Hindus being in danger. We see it once, we see it twice, we see it with a video the third time. By the fourth time, we tentatively bring it in our everyday arguments. The “but…” has taken root.
Two, a betrayal by the media. Whose responsibility it is in a functioning democracy to give you context? To tell you that one is a fact and the other is propaganda? The media. And yet, it is this very media that has given up crucial space to explain context to a government that’s only too happy to demonise it according to its convenience. When headlines show you a reality you want, the “but…” becomes an incontrovertible fact.
And three, an inconvenient truth. One of the many pieces of literature I have turned to this year has been a poem by Maggie Smith called “Good Bones.” It speaks of the wretchedness of humanity, but holds on to the hope of a few good people. I love the poem. But what if, inherently, apart from a few exceptions, we are not as kind as we think? What if, when faced with the question of someone who is not like us, our first instinct is to protect ourselves? What if, we inherently believe in the “but…”? Usually, I hate being wrong. But when it comes to the third reasoning of this theory of mine, I hope that I am.
For so many of us, this year has been a reminder of how crucial it is that we fight fascism. Of the capital “F” kind which haunts our corridors of power, yes. But also, the hate we see in our homes, in our families, in our friends. I don’t know what kind of hope it requires to keep resisting against that “but…” However, I do know two things. One, Martin Luther King’s famous arc of the moral universe indicates that justice does triumph in the end.
And two, we must keep going.
(A protester holds a placard during a demonstration against CAA and NRC. Photo courtesy: PTI)
Links of the Week:
Natasha Bardhwar writes the best kind of love story — the one with ourselves on her Medium blog.
Accept the defeat you feel. Go down on the ground and beat it with clenched fists. Let the anger express itself. Feel your grief. You have loved and lost. You were holding something precious but it is now broken forever. You have all the time in the world to find something new to love. Love is a river, it will change its course and find its way again.
We have seen an astonishing moral failure when it comes to leadership around the world, but Angela Merkel has stood strong. This is an old, but a fantastic profile on the leader which delves into Germany’s complex past and the nuances of being a visible woman in politics.
Among German leaders, Merkel is a triple anomaly: a woman (divorced, remarried, no children), a scientist (quantum chemistry), and an Ossi (a product of East Germany). These qualities, though making her an outsider in German politics, also helped to propel her extraordinary rise. Yet some observers, attempting to explain her success, look everywhere but to Merkel herself. “There are some who say what should not be can’t really exist—that a woman from East Germany, who doesn’t have the typical qualities a politician should have, shouldn’t be in this position,” Göring-Eckardt, another woman from East Germany, said. “They don’t want to say she’s just a very good politician.” Throughout her career, Merkel has made older and more powerful politicians, almost all of them men, pay a high price for underestimating her.
What if the great big love story of our life was not A Romance, but A Friendship? What if this idea that our life partner is our best friend, confidante AND lover just flawed? Rhaina Cohen makes a compelling argument in The Atlantic.
A platonic partnership may not feel right for everyone, and as is true with dating, even those who want a mate might not be able to find a suitable one. But these relationships have spillover benefits for those in close proximity to them. Tillotson told me that she thinks all her relationships have been brightened by her closeness with West. Their romantic partners appreciate that the friendship lessens their emotional load; their mutual friends treat Tillotson and West as a reliable unit to turn to when they’re in need; their veteran community has been strengthened by the volunteering they’ve done together.
That’s it from me for this week!
As always, I would love to hear from you. So hit that “Reply” button, if you wish.
Substack newsletters are slowly becoming a Thing People Are Earning From. But as older subscribers would know, I'm a TinyLetter alumni, so I'm still holding out on figuring out a “brand” for this.
If you know someone who would like this in their inbox once-a-week, ask them to subscribe!
You can follow me on Instagram and Twitter, for books, random Bombay cinema musings, my face and some ~ opinions.
I will write again, soon.