November 18, 2012
Bal Thackeray’s Poisonous Legacies
Sanyasi over at Chapati Mystery:
The Indian media prides itself on its independence, its critical eye, its ability to speak truth to power. Indian celebrities fancy themselves socially responsible intellectuals. Indian politicians routinely remind the world of the glorious vibrancy and dynamism of the “world’s largest democracy.” But neither the conventions of in-house obituary boilerplate nor the pithy wisdom of the tweets emanating from the finest minds in Indian media, celebrityhood, and politics have spoken today in any honest way about Thackeray’s role in one of most disgraceful episodes in the history of independent India–the pogrom against Bombay’s Muslim communities in 1992 and 1993. When they have pointed to Thackeray’s involvement, they have refused to ask the difficult but obvious questions that follow; questions about justice, rights, accountability, and rule of law, but also about tolerance, coexistence, and our responsibility to our fellow citizens.
The list of those participating in what can only be called a soft-pedaling of Bal Thackeray’s legacy, through this Fox News style “Fair and Balanced” approach, is a veritable who’s who of contemporary Indian political, social, and cultural life. The President and Prime Minister of India; politicians across parties; Sachin Tendulkar, Harbhajan Singh and other cricketers; any number of Bollywood actors, directors, and producers who queued up to meet him as he lay on his deathbed; and reputed journalists like Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt, and Vir Sanghvi.
This is the real legacy of Bal Thackeray. To make political violence so routine that it ceases to outrage. To make the strategy of scapegoating and targeting particular ethnic, religious, or political groups part of the calculus of everyday politics. To make fear and intimidation a legitimate, accepted part of political leadership. And to constantly remind any potential critic, in media or otherwise, of the threat of violent reprisal for saying something that Thackeray and his thugs might not appreciate.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 11:27 AM | Permalink
Comments
Ah yes, another Marxist moaning about political violence. Anyone else find this ironic? (If not, you don't understand Marxism).
What ever one may think of Balasaheb, Indians owe him thanks for one thing: He effectively destroyed Communism in Bombay. Too many Indians have forgotten the dark days of the 60s and 70s when Communism in India seemed unstoppable. They had successfully captured the Congress party, and were Indira Gandhi's key supporters. Bengal had turned communist, Bombay seemed next. Lets not forget the role of the Communists in Indira Gandhi's State of Emergency.
But thankfully, tradition and common sense of the Marathi Manoos (A phrase the English press always uses with a sneer) won the day. And it is hard to imagine that without Balasaheb.
To get a sense of the extent of the Red Menace in 70s Bombay, read this: (never mind that the author is actually nostalgic for the days when Communism seemed like it might prevail in India).
http://www.mid-day.com/news/2011/aug/090811-Rahul-Pandita-recent-book-Hello-Bastar-Maoist-ideologues-mumbai.htm
For saving Bombay (and perhaps India) from Communism, Thank You, Balasaheb!
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 12:16:49 PM
Muslim != Communist. Opponent of Hindutva and Marathi xenophobia != Communist. I am surprised to see a Hindutvadi here at 3QD. It's as if a Klu Klux Klan member had arrived, touting the virtues of lynching blacks.
Posted by: Karen Lofstrom | Nov 18, 2012 1:19:24 PM
@Karen Lofstrom
Good analogy!
Posted by: waqnis | Nov 18, 2012 1:59:40 PM
@Karen: You may find this article interesting. It describes the clashes between the Shiv Sena and Communists in the 60s and 70s. Both sides were not shy about employing violent tactics. The communists lost.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/The-Marathi-manoos-who-took-Mumbai-from-the-Communists/Article1-960847.aspx
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 2:02:32 PM
If a Marxist analysis is more to your liking, I suggest: Worker Politics, Trade Unions and the Shiv Sena's Rise in Central Bombay
Juned Shaikh
Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 40, No. 18 (Apr. 30 - May 6, 2005), pp. 1893-1900
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 2:14:15 PM
When friend and bête noire, Communist leader S A Dange, railed at a workers’ rally organized by the Shiv Sena in 1984 (he was there at Thackeray’s behest) that the party did not have a theory and it was impossible for a political party to survive without a theory, Thackeray riposted with stinging accuracy. “We have survived for 18 years but how is it that despite a theory, your organization is finished?”
http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/15/2012111920121119000955437d3694da4/Mumbai-loses-its-boss.html
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 2:43:57 PM
Sundar, don't hide behind the convenient umbrella of the anti-communist identity of Bal Thackrey. He was much more - a vicious anti-non Marathi, anti-non Hindu and no amount of communist bashing rhetoric will cleanse the blood from the hands of Thackeray and his thugs.
3 QD's publishing policy now includes banning comments that describe heroes as "clowns and buffoons." What about banning comments that refer to murderous fascists as heroes? Charges of censorship be damned!
Posted by: Ruchira | Nov 18, 2012 4:49:15 PM
@Ruchira, I think one of the most interesting and understudied aspects of recent Indian history is the rise and fall of Marxism. I find it very interesting to ponder the counterfactual: What if India had succumbed to Marxism in the 60s/70s? This may seem far fetched today, but was a very real possibility at the time. (I recall reading a 1971 Tariq Aziz essay that hopefully predicted that the Bangladesh conflict combined with Naxalism could lead to a Communist wave in the sub continent).
One of the most consistent themes of Thakre's life was his staunch anti-communism. The textile mill unions of 60s/70s Bombay were strongholds of the Communist party. Imagine a situation where two of India's largest cities went Red (Calcutta and Bombay). The Shiv Sena led by Thakre not only stopped the Communists of Bombay, they dealt them a blow which effectively removed them from Bombay politics to this day! Given that Communism in India would have caused huge suffering, I make the argument that Thakre deserves thanks for this.
Cheers.
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 5:16:05 PM
Correction: Tariq Ali, not Tariq Aziz (Aziz of course was Saddam's chain smoking henchman)
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 5:28:07 PM
My first awareness of Thakre (if he doesn't care for 'Bombay' why does he cling to colonial vanity in rendering his own name) was the Matunga riots he instigated during a water shortage in the 60s.
Besides burning and looting, there were lynchings of the poor with no political pretensions. To see this man as an anti-communist saviour is to be unable to remember history. I say that Thakre's motivations in this early instance were not political but sheer hateful demagoguery.
The Matunga riots targeted South Indians as undeserving aliens and unqualified squanderers of Bombay's resources and opportunities. Somewhere in my family there is an album with a photo of my father and Thakre. The occasion was a wedding where the fellow had to give his niece away to my cousin - the South Indian alien squatter. The irony of this is much appreciated in the family.
Admittedly, I am relying on dubious memory since there is no mention of those riots on the Internet. I wonder if Sundar was in Bombay in the 60s. Unless he is being a Texas Sharpshooter perhaps he can dredge up some reportage of those riots too.
Posted by: narayan | Nov 18, 2012 5:54:43 PM
I personally believe that actual crimes should not be justified by invoking bigger crimes that were supposedly thereby prevented.
Even if Bal Thakre "saved Bombay from Marxism" and you believe that saving Bombay from Marxism was the bigger need, he should still be criticized for the many crimes committed by the Shiv Sainiks that go above and beyond any mission of "stopping the communists".
Maybe part of your intent is to underline the fact that we (as in liberals) tend to pick on some crimes and consistently underplay or underestimate others (e.g., I doubt if most of us immediately nodded in agreement with the notion that the communists were a truly vile threat to humanity), but even in that spirit, let me try some other theories:
Many other parts of India that were not run by the Shiv Sena also ended up "escaping a Marxist takeover" (I wouldnt waste too much time with Tariq bhai's predictions btw; those are standard issue and almost always fail to come true).
Why not assume that if Balasaheb had not unleashed his particular brand of thuggishness, then some less malignant thugishness (one that worked through the instruments of the state for example)could have been arranged by the textile owners. Why assume he was the only way the job could be done?
Thakre's brand of bullying is ultimately expensive for everyone. It tends to become a bad habit and delays the day when the formally democratic state should monopolize such violence. Even when the state is as far from the "ideal" as India, its still preferable to Maoists or Shiv Sainiks usurpiong the state's monopoly of violence.
Some such BS is going to happen in the course of events, given the world we live in, but isnt it preferable not to pay tribute to it or say too many thanks...you dont want to keep encouraging them. Especially when they are no longer needed. http://www.brownpundits.com/2012/11/18/bal-thakre-is-dead-get-over-it-mumbai-2/
Posted by: omar | Nov 18, 2012 6:16:09 PM
Thakre had many identities and reinvented himself many times over the course of his life. His trade union phase (60s/70s), anti-gujarati and anti-south indian phase (1970s-80s), His Hindutva phase 90s, and faded from the scene in 00s.
The violent struggle between the Communists and the Sena (there were no angels in that battle) is not as well known as it should be.
@Narayan, you may have been in Matunga in the 1960s, but it seems that you are unaware of this aspect of Thakre.
If you want to understand the origins of the Sena, you must begin in the Textile Mill unions of 1960s Bombay. I recommend Hansen's book: http://books.google.com/books?id=iRAj9NnMdYgC&pg=PA63
Of course, people can have multiple motivations, overlapping identities. Is this so hard to understand? Judging by the intemperate responses on this thread, it seems to be a very difficult concept to grasp.
Cheers.
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 6:16:39 PM
@Narayan, your family seems to derive much amusement from Thakre having to officiate at a South Indian wedding. This article may be of interest to you. It describes the close, loving life long friendship between Balasaheb and R.K.Laxman. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-cartoonist-and-the-campaigner/article4105880.ece?homepage=true&buffer_share=689e6
People are complex. Thakre could campaign against South Indians (for a while at least) and at the same time be a bosom buddy with one. @Narayan, you and your family might want to ponder on that. The human mind is a mysterious thing. (Something Comrade Dange's theories did not capture),
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 6:22:31 PM
@Omar: "actual crimes being justified"? Rather tiresome, but do I really need to condemn the Shiv Sena's crimes?
As for the debating the counterfactual: Would the Communists have succeeded if the Sena had never existed? I think so. But reasonable people can disagree. Thats what make History interesting.
As for "not encouraging" people, you flatter me. My opinions don't carry that much weight do they? :)
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 6:28:29 PM
What is intemperate about the comments here about the fascist Thackerey? Which of those are untrue? That he murdered many in his Hindu/ Marathi zeal? That he was corrupt and a bully? Don't lecture others about the many layered and nuanced inner lives of thugs. You choose to look at one layer and we pointed to others. What shaped his legacy more? His personal friendship with a South Indian or the murders of South Indians, Muslims and Biharis? How are your tender views more relevant? Your POV is not very different from praising Hitler for painting landscapes, ridding Germany of communists and running trains on time. And no, this is not a Godwins Law type of argument. This one actually fits.
As for counter-factual history, that is as useful as trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. None of us knows whether or not the communists would have taken over Bombay or whether that would have been a good or a bad thing. You and Niall Ferguson should get off that white horse.
Posted by: Ruchira | Nov 18, 2012 7:03:39 PM
@Ruchira, I think you mean "high horse" (not white horse). Unless you meant "White Knight"? No, that doesn't really fit here.... Yes, I am obsessively pedantic.
I don't care for Niall Ferguson very much. Mainly because when he writes about things I know something about (e.g. Economics) I find it appallingly bad. I wouldn't mind his speaking fees though.
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 7:14:12 PM
As for Thakre being a fascist, I can't say. Because I really don't know what people mean by that term. I never tire of quoting Orwell on Fascism. Indulge me please, I know most of you have seen this already.
"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 7:17:38 PM
Actually, your pedantry is of some use. I said White Horse purposely as a ridiculous combination of those two expressions, both of which apply to yours and Ferguson's defense of dead or distressed fascists.
So, you are Orwellian now? Okay, you don't recognize a fascist. But did your hero incite and orchestrate the beating up and murder of anyone other than communists? Say, Muslims, Biharis and South Indians at different times? That should be a pretty unambiguous question that even a pedant can answer with a "yes" or "no."
Posted by: Ruchira | Nov 18, 2012 7:34:58 PM
@Ruchira, is this a trick question? I am suspicious.
This reminds me of the scene in "The Princess Bride" where Vizzini has to choose between two options.
Never go in against a Sicialian when death on the line!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2y40U2LvKY
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 18, 2012 8:02:15 PM
Re: Bal Thackeray
Received following from a former resident of Mumbai:
"It is a sad to see that a person who had thrived on the politics of hate is being lionized and his 'achievements' eulogized. His biggest achievement was shrewdly cultivating the jealousy and a sense of inferiority among the local Marathis and combing it well with religious intolerance. I doubt if there was anything likable about this character or the goons that he commanded. He did have a nuisance value in the sense that he was widely perceived to be a counterpoint to other bad guys like Pawar or Dawood. Suketu Mehta in his book Maximum City wrote of a very interesting meeting with Thackeray. The latter went on rambling about how the Bombay municipal Corporation should flush out rats(!) from the underground sewage. It was a bizarre conversation but that is probably best indicative of his muddled thought process. . Thackeray's legacy will be inherited by his goon nephew Raj who is arguably much worse than his famous uncle."
Posted by: waqnis | Nov 18, 2012 8:25:35 PM
Sundar : No, we didn't live in Matunga. I did not use any derogatory descriptors in my comment. I used the word 'irony' to describe our feelings. Your responses to my comments were petulant and patronising. My Texas Sharpshooter dig stands.
Posted by: narayan | Nov 18, 2012 8:53:36 PM
-> What Omar said basically. Supporting baddies to fight bigger baddies is something one should contemplate only with the greatest reluctance. While Sundar's points on Thackeray's anti-red credentials are interesting (and to be honest, I hadn't thought much about that aspect of things) I am as yet pretty unconvinced that the red threat in Mumbai in the 60s and 70s was such as to condone such a horrible thug. Such people are corrosive in addition to being wicked. Over and above his own direct legacy, the normalization of Thackeray helped create the conditions needed to make a Modi seem not just an "acceptable" politician, but an actual champion of development and industry.
-> I do hope that 3qd's new policy on polite words doesn't translate into a policy on polite thoughts that says Sundar's view is beyond the pale. Last I checked it's not wrong to identify another side to a person's legacy (compare Hitchens and Iraq talk when he died). Fact is I -did- acquire a richer Thackeray calculus than I had.
Posted by: prasad | Nov 19, 2012 2:54:43 AM
@Prasad, Appreciate your comment
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 19, 2012 7:55:41 AM
A timeline of Thakeray's career, from Sunny Singh
http://storify.com/sunnysingh_nw3/inconvenient-truths?utm_campaign=&awesm=sfy.co_iBiC&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&utm_content=storify-pingback
Posted by: omar | Nov 19, 2012 9:48:54 AM
Prasad,
Since you know me pretty well, I wanted to assure you that my comment about banning Sundar-type pro-fascist comments was made in an utterly sarcastic vein. I hate profanity and unnecessary personal name calling among readers but I have no problem with unpalatable opinions being expressed about public figures, good or bad. In fact, if anything, in this case it was not abuse but laudatory words for a horrible thug that constituted the outrage, in my opinion.
Bal Thackeray stood for every democratic principle that India prides itself for upholding. He used scapegoating, son-of-soil, Hindu supremacy style of politics to incite hatred and divisiveness to bully, beat and murder. That is why it is a travesty that Indian elected leaders, sports and media figures are fawning over this man after death.
One other thing. Sundar's views, soft words for the hard legacy of a mostly awful man, did not come as a surprise to me. I know many desis who are for civil rights and equal opportunity in foreign countries where they choose to work and live but lionize parochial and sometimes violent Indian leaders who espouse marginalization and disenfranchisement of minorities in India.
Posted by: Ruchira | Nov 19, 2012 11:31:13 AM
@Ruchira
"I know many desis who are for civil rights and equal opportunity in foreign countries where they choose to work and live but lionize parochial and sometimes violent Indian leaders who espouse marginalization and disenfranchisement of minorities in India."
You hit it on the mark!
Posted by: waqnis | Nov 19, 2012 11:54:59 AM
In my last comment, the sentence,
Bal Thackeray stood for every democratic principle that India prides itself for upholding
should read Bal Thackeray stood "against" every democratic principle that India prides itself for upholding...
Posted by: Ruchira | Nov 19, 2012 12:24:29 PM
The idea that communism was ever a possibility in Bombay is ludicrous. Never mind that there has never been any real communist government anywhere in India. The so called communist parties of India are left-wing parties that fight democratic elections every five years. Compare that to Soviet- or Mao-style communism with single dictatorial parties, lack of private enterprise, state ownership of property and industrial assets, collectivization, a robust surveillance regime, 'disappearances', persecution of religions, and so on. The governments of Kerala and W. Bengal were merely socialist. Post-'47, India had an appetite for socialism but practically zero for communism.
Here is a news report that illustrates Thackeray's real legacy. Indeed it's distressing to see so many media people, politicians, industrialists, and celebrities paying their respects at his funeral.
Posted by: Namit | Nov 19, 2012 1:35:20 PM
@Namit: I think we underestimate the momentum that Marxist parties and ideologies had in India of the 1950s/60s/70s. For example: Nehru attempted to ram through an plan to collectivize Indian agriculture at the 1959 Congress party conference. (At about the same time China's Great Helmsman was orchestrating The Great Leap Forward). Thankfully Nehru's crackpot plan was defeated. The opposition to the plan within the Congress was led by Chaudhary Charan Singh, leader of the proud and ancient Jats.
India had a close shave with full blown communist policies like collectivization of agriculture. What saved the country was people like Charan Singh and the dogged opposition of the Swatantra party.
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 19, 2012 3:32:37 PM
" I know many desis who are for civil rights and equal opportunity in foreign countries where they choose to work and live but lionize parochial and sometimes violent Indian leaders who espouse marginalization and disenfranchisement of minorities in India. "
This is very well put...I can think of many examples of the thing myself. I find in my experience it's not purely or even largely about self-aware cynicism and egoism (support minorities where you are one, oppose where not.) At least when confronted they seem genuinely disconcerted at the sharp disconnects in their own espoused values.
Posted by: prasad | Nov 19, 2012 4:58:15 PM
The "poisonous legacies" continue unabated.
USA Today reported that two Indian women in Pulghar, near Mumbai, became targets of mob fury because of a post in Facebook. And the local police authorities arrested them!
*****
"7:12PM EST November 19. 2012 - Two Indian women were arrested Sunday after one criticized Mumbai authorities on Facebook for shutting down the city for the funeral of a powerful Hindu nationalist politician and her friend clicked "like."
The 21-year-old students from Pulghar, about 40 miles north of Mumbai, made bail Monday for their opinions involving the death of 86-year-old Bal Thackeray, the controversial founder of the Hindu-centric, anti-Muslim Shiv Sena ("Shiva's Army").
Shaheen Dhada wrote as a status update,"Respect is earned, not given and definitely not forced. Today Mumbai shuts down due to fear and not due to respect. People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh [shutdown] for that." Her friend Renu Shrinivas followed with a "like."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/19/india-mumbai-women-arrested-facebook-criticism-bal-thackeray/1715683/
*****
Ya Habibi!
Posted by: waqnis | Nov 19, 2012 7:30:54 PM
The girls being arrested is the pits, but also a good illustration of the weakness of the state and the cynical opportunism of the Congress party; both factors permitting gangs of bullies to not only have their way but to get state assistance in their efforts.
Still, I think India will muddle through. The threat from the left (arundhati roy was on outlookindia recently with her peculiar brand of romantic bullcrap, waiting eagerly for the civil war to reach her house) and the right is real but its a very big country, much can be absorbed. Unfortunately, it will be a butt-ugly muddling through.
btw, i pick on lovely arundhati not because she herself is any danger to anyone (except to sanity in some cases..i hope i dont get banned for saying so) but because her prominence is a sign of the extent to which this brand of crap has sponged up otherwise useful brainy people in the world's largest democracy. Its unhealthy.
Posted by: omar | Nov 19, 2012 9:10:22 PM
For comparison, I present to you 3qd and "The Hindu"'s take on Jyoti Basu: A man who for 30 years kept one of the largest states in the Indian Union in a state of terror. The number of political murders by the CPI in West Bengal easily dwarf anything Thakre did.
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2010/01/jyoti-basu-19142010.html#comments
It seems that y'all subscribe to that mass murderer Lenin's definition of political science: Who? Whom?
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 20, 2012 12:11:57 PM
@Sundar
Basu organized more deaths than the 1992-1993 Bombay pogrom?
I'm certainly open to the idea that political leaders from whatever part of the spectrum can be guilty of crimes. But in the absence of news reports, human rights investigations, government commission reports, that is multiple sources that identify serious crimes (all of which exist for Bal Thackeray), you claims amount to deflection. Moreover, your responses have systematically avoided the question of Thackeray has been responsible for the death of hundreds if not thousands of innocents. You could say "no" and insist that all the documentary evidence are fabrications of Westernized liberal elites collaboration with Communists and Jihads; you could say yes and say they deserved it. But I suspect that would have people just conclude something about your moral compass. I'm responding because if there is a hint of "kto, kovo" here, it seems to come more from your responses suggesting that the Shiv Sena's crimes are excusable and best not even mentioned.
On a wider note (not addressed to Sundar) the defenses of Bal Thackeray remind me a lot of the Historikerstreit, the assessment of Nazism as a response, an understandable one in many ways for many on one side of the debate, to Leninism. The proponents of this view were rightly challenged about Nazism's murder of Jews, Roma, Social Democrats, homosexuals, about which they deflected and dissimulated. Bal Thackeray's admiration of Hitler I think is telling--both see themselves and presented themselves as having saved society from Communism while using Communism for instituting brutality. Some comparative study of the apologists of Nazism and of the Shiv Sena as anti-communism would be fruitful, I think.
Posted by: Robin | Nov 20, 2012 12:55:17 PM
@Robin, I present you one exhibit in Jyoti Basu and the CPI(M)'s macabre dance of death in West Bengal. That you may never have have heard of it tells me a lot about the state of the Indian media.
Exhibit A: The Marichjhapi Massacre of 1979
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marichjhapi_massacre
The Communist government of West Bengal blocked every attempt to investigate this ghastly massacre. Ross Mallicks paper (in the journal of Asian Studies, linked to in the Wikipedia article) estimates that as many as 17,000 people may have been killed!!!!
I'll show you my moral compass if you will show me yours. :)
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 20, 2012 1:12:55 PM
@Robin To understand the difference between the CPI(M)'s reign of terror and the Bombay riots, remember that the total deaths in the Bombay Riots = 900, not counting the 250 that Dawood murdered earlier.
Of course every life is precious, what happened in Bengal is on an industrial scale.
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 20, 2012 1:18:03 PM
Note that the wikipedia page on the Marichjhapi Massacre says "Out of the 14,388 families that had settled in the island 4,128 died of starvation, exhaustion and police firing."
That referes to 4,128 FAMILIES!!! Read Mallick's excellent paper for details.
I hope you understand why I find 3qd and "The Hindu"'s gushing portrait of Basu revolting. In 3qd's case, it is probably ignorance. The same cannot be of the rag "The Hindu"
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 20, 2012 1:24:38 PM
Oh BTW, the 17,000 people massacred in Marichjhapi were Dalits. And this was just ONE episode in the CPI(M)'s 30 year brutal reign. Life in rural Bengal was completely controlled by the party apparatus which had (in true Bolshevik style) establish a parallel government in every village.
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 20, 2012 1:32:07 PM
@Sundar,
I was unaware and stand corrected. Still not gonna think of Thackeray as other than a communalist. Sorry.
Posted by: Robin | Nov 20, 2012 1:34:42 PM
Mallick (in his paper in the Journal of Asian Studies) makes a good case that Jyoti Basu should be brought before the International Criminal Court for just the Marichjhapi massacre.
Very few people are aware of these events. But what is appalling is that people like Amartya Sen, who are VERY FAMILIAR with the CPI(M), Basu and Bengal are great supporters of Basu. Watch this shirt clip of Sen praising Basu and the CPI(M) and try not to barf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGMcAEA6tPs
What do you think Sen's game is?
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 20, 2012 1:51:11 PM
Why people fawn over murders, communalists, hyper nationalist thugs who beat up reporters, encourage the death of people because of their religion and caste, showering them with honorifics, while aware of deaths in pogroms is beyond me.
Posted by: Robin | Nov 20, 2012 2:21:23 PM
I found a copy of Ross Mallick's paper online (Apologies to Mr. Mallick, it looks like an illegal copy, I hope you don't mind).
http://marichjhanpi.blogspot.com/2007/08/ross-mallick-on-marichjhanpi.html
I encourage all of you to read this paper.
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 20, 2012 2:23:12 PM
Some more info that doesn't let the Left off the hook, but looks at some of Mallick's claims:
http://www.pragoti.in/node/4388
Posted by: Robin | Nov 20, 2012 2:54:09 PM
I envy the moral certainty that people on this thread possess.
@Ruchira is on the lookout for "fascists" (and may even want to ban them).
@Prasad gently guides his desi friends by pointing out their mental disconnects.
To @Namit I say, if a merely faux communist party like CPI(M) could wreak such havoc, the mind boggles...
@Narayan muses about the day when he boxed Thakre by forcing? him to officiate at a South Indian wedding.
@Robin wants to examine my moral compass.
@Me? I'm just confused most of the time (must be those mental disconnects that @Prasad referred to).
P.S. @Omar, thank you for for not calling me something horrible.:). And thank you 3qd for giving me a chance to post.
P.P.S. Happy Thanksgiving every one!
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 20, 2012 2:54:33 PM
Robin, Thanks for the article. Further discussion of the Marichjhapi massacre is a very good thing. Mallick's article was published in a peer reviewed journal Journal of Asian Studies (Not trying to pull rank here, I have seen some the crap that gets published:) .
You link (progoti.in)
The article claims (somewhat implausibly) that only 2 people died!! The conclusion reads like a caricature of communist jargon and sounds highly defensive.
"Involvement of the reactionary separatist forces and illegal activities of the UUS, that includes use of force on the refugees to stay back in the island, reveals a nefarious attempt to carry out a rightwing divisive political agenda in the state of West Bengal. For their narrow political goal, such forces took advantage of the pitiful condition of the poor refugees, which caused immense suffering to these people. In a few anti-Left propaganda-narratives, the real story has been glossed over, and the Left is deliberately depicted as an anti-dalit and anti-refugee force. The truth regarding Marichjhhapi reveals an entirely different story."
I trust you will also link to websites like "hindus_are_oppressed_in_india.com" showing that Thakre and Modi really tried to save Muslims. (Just kidding, please do not construe this as an accusation against your moral compass. For whose magnetic properties, I have the utmost respect).
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 20, 2012 3:25:16 PM
The article does seem apologetic, but it raises one issue which does not seem to be refuted by Mallick's piece namely that all measures of the death toll of 17,000 is based on Nilanjana Chatterjee's dissertation. This doesn't mean it's wrong, but normally, multiple sources are usually needed for making accusations for crimes against humanity. If 17,000 people died, it would be one of the most undocumented large scale massacre with the fewest sources in a modern democracy, however flawed.
Look, I have no problems believing that people on the Left are capable of it. (Even Swedish Social Democrats sterilized 60,000 people for being genetically inferior.) But I also do believe in some rigor in estimating deaths.
I suppose the larger issue is that I've allowed myself to become distracted by your changing the subject when you were asked about your love of Thackeray.
I imagine the thing that upsets people is that you seem to have (other than a "of course, is precious") no pause at praising a man and organization which from multiple sources is documented to have been complicit in the deaths of hundreds in ONE (to borrow you format of indignation), without irony ask how some else one can do so, and change the subject whenever asked.
The Stalinists may have killed far, far more people than Mussolini, but praising Mussolini is creepy even in the eyes of people who recognize the scale of Stalin's crimes. Even praising Mussolini for the massacre of Stalinists is creepy.
Posted by: Robin | Nov 20, 2012 4:02:02 PM
Exactly, Robin.
No one here, as best as I can tell, was praising communists, socialists, Naxalites, Congress or anyone else for that matter. The objection was to the tribute paid to Thackeray by prominent Indians in Mumbai and by Sundar on 3QD. So far Sundar has evaded answering the question posed to him repeatedly, at least by me - "Does he approve of the Shiv Sena's methods of intimidation and murder as a political instrument?" It doesn't matter how many Jyoti Basu, Indira Gandhi or anyone else killed. Did Thackeray kill? And if so, was it okay because Dawood and the CPI(M) were also killers? Sundar has not once answered the question. Instead he has used obfuscation and "humorous" non-sequiturs to distract.
I have heard of the Marichjhapi massacre and it was a criminal act. But I have never heard of the number of 17,000 dead. I am going to find out more. However, whatever the truth - 17,000 or 2 - it still does not condone Thackeray's thuggery.
Posted by: Ruchira | Nov 20, 2012 5:05:21 PM
Sundar, when it comes to political violence, it's clear to me that it can occur across the political spectrum. I can also imagine defending an act of violence if it averts greater violence that is clear and imminent. However, I cannot imagine why any reasonable person would praise Thackeray for beating back a socialist party in Bombay. Did Thackeray do that because he was upset as a good samaritan by the havoc the socialists were routinely committing against Dalits and refugees, or was it mainly because he was led by another and unremittingly more toxic brew of political violence, chauvinism, and xenophobia—which, notably, is still alive and well in Indian politics?
Anyway, enough said. Happy T'giving.
Posted by: Namit | Nov 20, 2012 7:51:21 PM
"@Prasad gently guides his desi friends by pointing out their mental disconnects. "
Sundar,
I do think there are 'mental disconnects' aplenty among liberals (for example in differential sensitivity to right and left wing thugs) but that's not what my previous comment was directed to. There I was agreeing with Ruchira that there are far too many Hindu Indians in the US who blend a politically rightwing Indian politics with a leftwing American politics. It's the discrepancy between those positions I was referring to above. I was saying further that it's not (mostly) a *conscious* and self-aware hypocrisy. Rather, it's people seeing the merits of the side that helps them (or just the team they belong to) in each place, and forming two sets of compartmentalized values, overlooking that honesty and consistency call for reappraisals in each set.
Posted by: prasad | Nov 21, 2012 1:29:33 AM
Again, I do think there's a real bullet to bite in your questions about Jyoti Basu. I haven't heard about Marichjhapi before, and want to know more about it. I don't think it's enough to say "why change the topic on Thackeray" though I do think changing the subject *as a way of shielding Thackeray* is bad. But the fact remains that among enlightened Indians Jyoti Basu *isn't* persona non grata. And leaning on the large uncertainty in death toll from this incident isn't enough to explain that. We know too that Rajiv Gandhi isn't seen as someone whose name should immediately make a polite person squirm (much less as comparable to Thackeray) because of the 1984 massacres, and it's not clear to me what moral calculus could excuse that. I tend to think it's basically about being a good team player. (For a completely unrelated example, just skim the comments in response to this article. Yes, it is important to eschew false equivalence for the sake of "balance." But it is also important to recognize when two things are on a continuum and exhibit similar properties...)
Posted by: prasad | Nov 21, 2012 1:54:24 AM
Prasad,
Your "team player" idea is useful. It's true that even the people we consider the most morally alert among us display greater amnesia towards violence from some political quarters vs. others. While this may seem problematic to a moral accountant, it may be partly due to our tendency to obsess more over past violence that's attached to ideologies or people we see as continuing threats to our communities today (which might explain the Left's greater obsession with 2002 Gujarat vs. 1984 Delhi). If today we seem much less worked up by the lives destroyed by Mao's comrades, or by American eugenicists, it may also be because we know that their ideologies have since receded (which is not the same as excusing them) and we simply do not have world enough and time.
In other words, it may be childish petulance to insist on equal outrage for two equally violent past acts by two different perpetrators. Context is important. How central was the act to the perpetrator's ideology? Is it still a clear and present danger? The finite moral outrage most of us can muster may be best directed at those past events and groups that have a real chance of repeating themselves (and to new threats of course). Not perfect, but much more than that may not be achievable.
Posted by: Namit | Nov 21, 2012 5:13:12 AM
Namit,
I agree with what a lot of what you say about outrage. In fact I remember now there was a question here earlier about Mao outrage (and Churchill outrage), where I think I made the same case. For that matter, I think there are two *different* important things here: the malignity of a value system assessed as a system of thought, and how damaging it is in the world. Jyoti Basu's stated ideology can be vastly less (or more) repellant than Thackeray's separately from who caused more death and suffering. So I can think X will accomplish more harm while at the same time thinking Y's beliefs are more abhorrent. And my values find nothing to resonate with in the Shiv Sena, while if I squint right I can see something to the communist view and even regret somewhat that we're the "wrong species" as E.O. Wilson said. At least for me it's not a clear *moral* non-starter (as opposed to an empirical one.)
But I wonder if this attitude slips too easily between -how much outrage you bother with over someone- and -how you rate him overall to begin with-. It's fine to say the CPI-M is impotent and irrelevant (though I wonder...) and so you won't spend time bad-mouthing them. But that still comes after deciding how bad or damaging they are, as a factual and evaluative matter. The national mythos is basically that Rajiv Gandhi was this young and dynamic leader who started modernizing India, together with "side stories" like Bofors or IPKF or Sikh massacre or Shah Bano. And I really do wonder why Narendra Modi isn't entitled to that same self-serving spin. Those riots did kill similar numbers after all, and I am persuaded that Modi probably does make the trains run on time. Let's put it this way: fifty years from now one's chief interest in either Rajiv Gandhi or Modi will be biographical and historical. And unless cultural capital shifts by a lot, one of these people will get much a better encyclopedia article than the other. There is a frickin international airport named after Mr. Gandhi. (Or is it ten?) I can take the lesser of two evils. I wonder if I need to take Rajiv Chowk.
[PS: I also don't think "ability to cause damage" suffices to separate all these cases anyway - I'm pretty sure for example that Obama has directly killed more people with drone strikes than Thackeray ever could, and will continue to do so. And he bloody well knows what he's doing. And yet we are to think he's nice and good, and not just compared to Bal Thackeray. Compared even to Ron Paul, because of something about insurance and contraception and gay marriage. And this is something I actually do think, though I don't know how I could justify it to Glenn Greenwald's satisfaction. Or my own. Ah well.]
Posted by: prasad | Nov 21, 2012 7:14:52 AM
@Namit, @Prasad, Your comments are interesting and give me plenty to think about.
As I get older I grow less sure of my moral intuitions. I wonder if most of us make moral judgements based on vague, irrational and unconscious reasons and then selective assemble facts to justify them.
I find @Namit's comments about "finite outrage" and grading of dangers to be unconvincing.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 21, 2012 7:50:44 AM
@Prasad re "Jyoti Basu's stated ideology can be vastly less (or more) repellant than Thackeray's separately from who caused more death and suffering. So I can think X will accomplish more harm while at the same time thinking Y's beliefs are more abhorrent. And my values find nothing to resonate with in the Shiv Sena, while if I squint right I can see something to the communist view and even regret somewhat that we're the "wrong species" as E.O. Wilson said."
Yes, but this difference also gives a basis for understanding what a movement is trying to achieve and in the achievement what world it promises. Someone once noted that the difference between Nazism and Communism was that, in its own terms, Nazism was a success (save for losing the war). Its ideologically stated goal: the death of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and (not just Communists but also) Social Democrats, imperial conquest, a further subjugation of women, and German chauvinism with a totalitarian state. It achieved almost all of this thoroughly. The Leninists ideological stated goal was the liberation of minorities from oppression, the end of imperialism, the liberation of women, the undoing of national boundaries and identities, and a state that was subject to proletarian democracy, but it delivered instead the death and oppression of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and Social Democrats, imperial conquest, and Russian (or Chinese) chauvinism with a totalitarian state. Having lived in the Soviet Union and among Soviet exiles, I have heard a enormous number of horror stories by people who've spent collectively several decades in labor camps. Of course, this has happened commonly enough that it's hard to argue that it's a fluke of Lenin, Stalin and Mao's rule. The point is that, in its own ideological terms, Communism was a massive failure. (Although, I do think there is much in the Kolakowski critique that totalitarianism was a main current within Marxism, even as I think it also gave birth to Social Democracy.) There is something about having these as explicit goals which is a factor in our judgment.
This is separate from how we judge individuals and leaderships in a political movement. The pogrom against Sikhs isn't part of Congress's ideology; of course, that in no way obviates the need to make restitution and have everyone who was complicit with these murders sent to jail.
Posted by: Robin | Nov 21, 2012 9:47:13 AM
@Robin's comments about the nobility of Marxist ideological goals made my jaw drop.
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 21, 2012 10:18:45 AM
@Robin says: "The Leninists ideological stated goal was the liberation of minorities from oppression, the end of imperialism, the liberation of women, the undoing of national boundaries and identities, and a state that was subject to proletarian democracy"
This reminds me of Dostoyevsky in "The Brothers Karamazov": "The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular."
Full quote:
"It's just the same story as a doctor once told me," observed the elder. "He was a man getting on in years, and undoubtedly clever. He spoke as frankly as you, though in jest, in bitter jest. 'I love humanity,' he said, 'but I wonder at myself. The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular. In my dreams,' he said, 'I have often come to making enthusiastic schemes for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually have faced crucifixion if it had been suddenly necessary; and yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days together, as I know by experience. As soon as anyone is near me, his personality disturbs my self-complacency and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I begin to hate the best of men: one because he's too long over his dinner; another because he has a cold and keeps on blowing his nose. I become hostile to people the moment they come close to me. But it has always happened that the more I detest men individually the more ardent becomes my love for humanity.'
http://www.classicreader.com/book/276/9/
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 21, 2012 10:27:35 AM
@Sundar, No particular argument about that. It's a statement of fact as to what the stated their goals were. Just as it's not contested that the Nazis stated that they wanted a Jew free Europe from the get go. That Leninist goals seemed to be lip-service at best isn't contested either. The issue of bringing up stated goals is meant to raise the question of whether stated goals make any difference in the evaluation of a movement, and if so what weight it has.
Also remember that the Social Democratic Party of Germany, of Sweden of France, and across the continent remained marxist parties for a long time, into the mid-late 20th century for many, having these as stated objectives as well, committing sins and crimes but nothing like their Leninist counterparts. (The German one was founded by Marx among others. Also the first opposition to Leninists came from them,) Now you may think that secretly these Social Democrats were waiting to institute gulags, and you may be right, but there's no evidence to date. It's also weird your trembling with righteous indignation, while treating Thackeray as a hero. That makes my jaw drop, now for the second time.
Posted by: Robin | Nov 21, 2012 11:05:59 AM
@Robin, You say "no particular argument with that" but go on talk about importance of "stated goals".
I fear you have missed the thrust of Dostoyevsky's passage. It is precisely this reliance on abstract concepts like "mankind", "proletariat" etc. that leads men to great evil.
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 21, 2012 11:21:14 AM
@Robin: You seem to think that the issue is one of Leninist hypocrisy (stated goals versus acts). That is not what Dostoyevsky is referring to. His criticism is of the reliance on "theory" and abstract categories.
Posted by: Sundar | Nov 21, 2012 11:29:13 AM
It's an argument I'm well aware of, from Dostoevsky, Popper, Burke.
As for it's validity, it strikes me more as one of those things which is designed to sound deep but any empirical survey doesn't quite support it:
Lots of movements have found great evil without it--Nazism, the Phalang, Suharto's conquest of E. Timor, the Portuguese and Omani slave trade, the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Mongol invasions.
Lots of movements have not come to commit great evil even holding the concepts: social democracy (which held the same concepts and even a theory of history as communism for a century in some cases--it even shared a common root), liberalism (with it's goal of equal rights of and equal respect for man) in most of its variants, anarchism.
Can there be a causal chain between abstract thinking and crimes? Sure, but I doubt that it either necessary or sufficient.
The history of people who were prescient about the trajectory of Leninism seems more instructive. Some actually share the goals and the framework--Kautsky, even Luxemburg. Some didn't. What all of them did look at was how goals interacted with organization and actions, i.e., especially at how thuggish and authoritarian the movements were from the inception.
And sad to say, this is the topic you keep deflecting, the one you won't address, the issue of the post; rather you offer an apologia by saying that earlier or other movements have a killed a lot of people, which is called changing the subject, which then allows you to react with indignation. Look, people saw totalitarian dangers in Lenin and Hitler well before they took power, when they hadn't killed anywhere near as many as the Portuguese or the White hundreds or many they were fighting. We do look at things like stated goals, and organization, at willingness to murder defenseless minorities and journalists and intimidate anyone who is critical, with death threats even, and make judgments about the movement.
Frankly, in all of this, I don't get the sense you care about murder, repression, or human beings in particular at all, but care about Communists committing crimes, which is fine but not the same as a concern for human beings. Well, it's not fine in the sense that the argument is made in bad faith. Every time people have raised the issue of Shiv Sena's criminal actions, you sole response has been "do you admit that Communists have committed crimes against humanity?" The game of infinite repetitions 'do you denounce' every time you, after having valorized Thackeray, have been asked if you support or even believe that he has been complicit in many capital crimes, is actually a game played by creepy movements of all stripes.
Posted by: Robin | Nov 21, 2012 12:19:34 PM
"I fear you have missed the thrust of Dostoyevsky's passage. It is precisely this reliance on abstract concepts like "mankind", "proletariat" etc. that leads men to great evil."
Sundar, do you find "Hindus" "Muslims" and "Biharis" much less abstract than "proletariats"? Would you not agree that "proletariat" refers to something concrete in the world even if quite heterogeneous in the particulars? Fascists are about the business of cleaning up mankind, making it fitter in their minds. An abstract and very deranged love at work, no? It seems that everyone but you gets the point that Thakeray's ideas led to "great evil".
Posted by: Jesse | Nov 21, 2012 12:23:07 PM
Post a comment