The Free Voice

by Ravish Kumar

  Someone at the condolence meeting for Gauri Lankesh asked me, ‘What are you here for?’

  We hadn’t gathered there for ourselves. We were there because the message that was being sent out to everyone by killing Gauri Lankesh was that we should all keep quiet or we would meet the same fate as her. We gathered to condemn a society which will look upon a corpse laid out before it and laugh. We gathered to assert that this is not our way, it is not the way of the India we know. We gathered to resolve that we send this message clearly, to whichever government is in power up there. And to tell ourselves that this is something they must listen to, and understand. We gathered to find ways so that we do not have to come together time and again to offer condolences and tributes. We had gathered to share our deep concerns and fears. We had also gathered to examine the many ways we were drifting away and see the harm that would come with disunity. We were there to understand that to cast a veil upon the doings of the government, from a sense of political and ideological loyalties, is not a good thing. We were there also to hold guilty those who protest only for the sake of protesting and those who support only for the sake of supporting. We were there to remind ourselves that despite the best efforts of that National Project for Instilling Fear, we should not give in.

  For a few days after Gauri was murdered, I walked around terrified. It felt as if someone had riddled me with bullets and people were shuffling past my corpse. Numerous well-wishers, readers and viewers from all over the country called me, telling me to stop being a lone voice. ‘You will meet the same fate. Write to the home minister, the prime minister, ask for security.’ I wanted to tell them, arre bhai, when they haven’t been able to provide security even to their own toadies, how will I receive any?

  A particular kind of political atmosphere has been created, through the National Project for Instilling Fear, which offers divisive forces all kinds of support. All of those who were laughing at the killing of Gauri Lankesh are a product of that atmosphere. This is a shameful development. Which face, which facet of Hindutva is this? That a brave, idealistic and peaceful person is killed and we laugh, and say that she was a bitch who deserved to die? This is that same section of society which said nothing in support of the two women who spoke up against Gurmeet Ram Rahim. Can we name any secretary of any Women’s Commission who supported those two women? Do we know of any minister, soldier, general secretary, secretary who tweeted about those two women? It was thanks to the battles waged by them that the empire of such a powerful baba was destroyed. But our society, and the responsible people within it, support the sentiment of ‘beti bachao, beti padhao’—save daughters, educate daughters—only at the level of a slogan.

  We must also never forget that the journalist who was murdered was a woman. In this country, it is with great difficulty that a few women reach that position from where they, with the keenness of their views, can show a mirror to society and to the government. For Gauri to reach that point after a long battle, and for her to be cut down at that point was naturally an immense waste of a talent.

  When even those who follow and support the Prime Minister—and who are in turn endorsed by him—do not heed his dignity, know that a mob of lunatics, armed with manufactured opinions and primed by fake news, has risen amongst us. That mob will surround us and kill us—whether we are alone, or we number in the thousands.

  The question is not one of personal survival—that is there, obviously—but of the citizens out there, who fight a daily battle to get themselves heard on prime time, who want their questions to be raised, their ideals reinforced. Whose voices are being drowned in the din of fake news and spurious issues, whose questions are being ignored and whose restlessness is being quelled. People’s desires and aspirations are being constantly murdered. Fake news, incidentally, was what Gauri Lankesh’s final editorial spoke of. About how fake news is not only a Delhi-centric phenomenon, but is creating havoc in the states too, where it is steadily dividing people into the binary of Hindu and Muslim.

  We must understand the deadly patterns of fear and violence and hate that are being woven around all of us; for they are what Gauri Lankesh fell prey to, a brave journalist.

  Wherever a Mob Gathers Is Hitler’s Germany

  I wrote this essay soon after 4 July 2017, the day Prime Minister Modi visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial on his official tour of Israel. We should be grateful that he did. With his visit, the Prime Minister not only offered tributes to the Jews who were massacred during that fateful time, he also dismissed the legacy of that murderer, Hitler.

  When the heads of state visit other countries, the visit is not only for their own sakes, Citizens also have a chance to learn much. I myself was particularly grateful because, after his visit, I found the opportunity to read extensively about this important chapter in modern history, especially one specific episode within it, and understand its significance as a cautionary tale, both for contemporary India and the world. To read and understand this chapter is important particularly for the young, I think, for these events happened much before they were born and they must—we all must—realize that those of us who do not learn lessons from history will become assassins for the history that is yet to be recorded.

  Of all the nights in Germany, the one between 9 and 10 November 1938 was one of the ghastliest—the ‘Crystal Night’ or the ‘Night of Broken Glass’. That was the night when the fully planned campaign to persecute Jews was put into motion on the ground; to massacre them, to take away everything that they owned, to force them out from the country.

  In the years leading up to 1938, concerted programmes had been set up to drive Jewish businessmen and traders out of Germany. Jewish doctors and lawyers were financially boycotted. Jews were ordered to write the letter ‘J’ on their passports. Men were ordered to add ‘Israel’ to their names and women ‘Sarah’ so that they could be easily identified as being Jewish. The professors of the universities of Germany also played an active role in the spreading of hatred. In their classrooms they taught character and psychological analyses of Jews which painted them in an evil light. The bureaucracy kept busy issuing Bills which would identify Jews, or wipe out their fundamental rights. Police would arrest anyone who spoke in favour of the Jews. Jews were forbidden from entering public parks in the city. People stopped patronizing stores owned by Jews. Shopfronts were marked to identify their owners as Jews. Coaches in trains were segregated. Germany had always been an integrated community in which Jews lived along with everyone else. Plans were made to pluck them out and send them into ghettoes outside the city, ghettoes which, in a cruel irony, wealthy Jews would eventually be made to pay for. Insurance companies were ordered not to compensate Jews for damage to their houses, shops and stores. Efforts were made to isolate Jews in every which way so that the mob which was out to get them would find it easy.

  These were the many grave but scattered and diverse incidents of violence which had been taking place in the years leading up to 1938. Some people supported these incidents, others opposed them, and, in the acts of support and protest, the populace was being numbed to violence, and being prepared mentally to become the murderers of the future and fulfil the propaganda that was being fed them. By then, many Germans had started taking pride in becoming a part of different armies and organizations and shouting ‘Heil Hitler!’ They had become bhakts of Hitler, and he had injected the poison of violence in their minds. Hitler’s own obsession had become the people’s obsession. And Hitler himself had to do nothing; the German people would do everything. All that Hitler and his government needed to do was to allow people to act as they pleased.

  ‘We should be very clear that, in the next decade, we are going to face an extremely sensitive clash. One which has not been ever heard about. This is not a clash only of nations but also a struggle with the ideologies of the Jews, Freemasons, Marxists and the churches. I believe that the soul of these powers resides in the Jews, who are the root of all negativity. The Jews believe that if Germany and I
taly are not destroyed, they will themselves be annihilated. This is a question that has remained before us for many years. We will force the Jews out of Germany. We will inflict such cruelty upon them as has never ever been imagined by anyone.’ Heinrich Himmler, one of the leaders of the SS, proclaimed this in a speech to other leaders of the organization a few days before the events of 9−10 November 1938 so that they too could be primed for violence against the Jews.

  Hitler’s whip-smart and murderous propaganda manager, Joseph Goebbels was to relay the news about the violence back to Hitler. Hitler’s silence, and the occasional verbal order to intensify the campaign were to serve as directions to the governmental machinery that the massacre should be allowed to continue. The executors of this campaign were the mob and the SS—Schutzstaffel—an army whose youthful members had been shown, along with everyone else, dreams of a Grand Germany, a Superpower Germany, Germany, the Emperor of Europe.

  On the night of 7 November 1938, the third legation secretary of Germany, Ernst vom Rath was murdered in Paris. The assassin was Herschel Grynszpan, a Jew of Polish origin. For Goebbels it was as if the gods in the heavens had accepted his prayers. The fuse had long been smoldering, all that was needed was a wind to fan it to life and they had found it.

  Goebbels wrote in his diary that night: ‘I attend a party programme in the old town hall. There is a large crowd. I explain all of Hitler’s thoughts to them. He decides that demonstrations against the Jews should carry on, says that police should be ordered to back down; let the Jews face the people’s rage. I urgently issue orders to the police and the party. I then speak for a little while at the party programme. There is much applause. I then immediately pick up the phone. Now the people will go to work.’

  The mob was let loose. Not only was the police ordered to step aside—while being made the nodal agency of the massacre—in cases where Jewish-owned stores were to be burned down, they were to take owners into ‘protective custody’ so that the arson could be carried out properly. The fire services were ordered to ignore the burning houses belonging to Jews and to douse the houses next door to them with water so that property belonging to people of Aryan origins could be preserved.

  Everything was arranged in such a manner that it would seem as if this was a natural, spontaneous anger on the part of the people. So that no blame could be laid at the government’s or at the police force’s doorsteps. The game which was played in the name of the ‘people’s anger’ smeared blood on the face of history which yet hasn’t washed off. And this happened in an age when modernism was in its vibrant youth in Europe and the idea of democracy was being feted and paraded.

  Hundreds of Jews were murdered that night. Women and children were grievously injured. Nearly a hundred places of worship were destroyed. On the night of 9 November the Munich synagogue was burnt down by the Nazi army. The excuse given was that the synagogue was obstructing traffic. Fifteen synagogues were burnt down in Berlin alone. Cemeteries were attacked. Thousands of shops and stores were burned down. Countless apartments were reduced to rubble. The pavements of large cities in Germany were strewn with shattered glass. So were the streets in front of shops. Every thing, every object associated with the memory of Jews was destroyed, even their private photographs. Many men and women committed suicide. Many were injured who later died. The police forcibly pushed 30,000 Jew men out of the country and into concentration camps. Since there wasn’t enough space, only men and wealthy Jews were picked up. That night, when Goebbels returned to his hotel room, the sound of shattering windows could be heard. He wrote in his diary: ‘Excellent work! Excellent work!’ He also wrote: ‘The German people will forever remember what it means to assassinate a German diplomat.’

  That which had not been ordered by the authorities was also carried out and nothing was said about that which was carried out. There was a silence which lay over the land like a suffocating blanket. This was done by managing the press. There was a binding agreement that wherever Hitler went, the press would not ask him questions about the violence that had been unleashed against the Jews. Hitler was to remain silent so that his image in the world would not be tarnished.

  Hitler had become enamoured by the German mob. For the mob had been tailored to his needs. And, inspired by the mob, Hitler passed a unique new law—Jews would have to themselves pay for the damage caused to them. As if they had themselves set their shops and houses on fire. When the mob creates its own empire, evil principles begin to rule hearts and minds.

  The success of the Nazi regime in its murderous campaign was largely because of propaganda. Only one singular narrative was stated and promoted in every which way. Any other narrative was allowed no existence at all. People were steadily moulded by the propaganda and they did not realize that they had been transformed into a weapon. Propaganda has only one purpose—the construction of a mob. It is the mob which carries out the killings and blood splatters the clothes of only those who make up the mob. The government and the leaders all appear blameless. No one questions the role of propaganda in bringing mobs together. And no one investigates the kind of poison that fills the minds of the people in those mobs.

  ‘The radicalization encountered no opposition of any weight.’ I found this profound and chilling sentence in one of the books I read to understand the story of the Crystal Night. Chilling because I realized that it was yet another way in which history keeps repeating itself. No one protested against Hitler’s mob army in any way. The common people kept expressing their shame and regret about all that had happened but also kept describing themselves as having been helpless. Those who could speak, kept quiet. The church, which teaches ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour’, was quiet too. Many countries of the world refused to give shelter to fleeing Jews. Isn’t that what happens everywhere even today?

  It is thus my fervent prayer that we stop to think about the nature of violence. We must understand that the world is still culpable for what happened to the Jews, whatever image Israel presently has: as a country which Palestine accuses of cruelty and of being a perpetrator of massacres. And perhaps, as we think carefully, we will find out why it is that a society which has endured severe violence seeks to inflict as severe or even worse violence upon others. And we will also see, more clearly than ever, why Mahatma Gandhi laid such stress upon ahimsa. Non-violence is the only way out of the black cycle of hatred. It is the only way in which we can look out into the world and find it coloured in the singular hue of love.

  We must also strive to understand the nature of mobs. A mob has its own constitution. It has its own country. It drafts its own orders and directives, and identifies its own prey. And knowing the nature of mobs, we must resolve to allow institutions to complete their duties of investigation and accountability. We must accept, with patience and conviction, that they who are accused will be investigated and punished. To become a mob, at any place, at any time, is to become Hitler’s Germany.

  Being the People

  In 2014, a new national curriculum was launched, and the lapdog media has been working overtime to help implement it. Although the overall theme remains the same, the chapters vary. Every evening is devoted to one or the other: khichdi-biryani, Taj Mahal-mandir, Nehru versus Patel, Bose versus Nehru, triple talaq, Akbar, Aurangzeb, Shah Jahan, Ashok, Tipu Sultan, Rani Padmavati, the tallest statue in the world, and a variety of great men who are brought into and taken out of the curriculum when the imagination fails.

  It feels as if the entire nation is sitting in a history class and all of us are studying history for the very first time. The troll, the ‘bhakt’ and the news anchor are our historians—the news anchor above all. The national-level ‘lectures’ of the news anchors have one basic idea—all of them have latched on to the notion that some ‘great man’ or the other has been ignored, wiped out of history, and we must ensure that he—almost always a ‘he’—gets the recognition he has been denied. His aspirations will finally be fulfilled; but he is long gone, he is just a pretext for fulfill
ing the aspirations of those who have set the curriculum and those who disseminate it.

  The moment we start wondering what is going on, pat comes a mention of Chankaya on WhatsApp. He’s the showstopper, the benchmark of professorship in our new national curriculum. Anything goes in his name. Especially on issues pertaining to history, war, statecraft and politics. If you want to say something that has no basis in fact, attribute it to Chanakya. People will fall for it hook, line and sinker. Be sure to add a sprinkling of catchwords like the nation and, yes, valour—catchwords that are connected to the idea of physical bravery and sundry things that go with it. Then start sharing your nugget.

  The entire political debate taking place in our midst is built around this national curriculum. We are under the impression that by means of this curriculum we are being connected to history, when in fact we are being deviously cut off from it. We are being stripped of history. The process of writing history does not proceed in a single, straight line. This process does not end at any specific point; it is always a work in progress—one book prompts ten more publications; one piece of research is challenged by newer ones. There is no one Marxist or Left history that comes straight out of the party headquarters as a clear line in bold letters. In contrast, right-wing history clearly seems to emerge from one source. If you want me to come with you to a library to prove what I have just said, I’m prepared to do so.

  History-writing is marked by constant change and churn. It has stepped out of the lives of kings and queens and great men to grasp the nuances of our regular lives and our everyday achievements. It has tried to understand history in the context of how we live, how we view the times we live in. The attempt has been to make history-writing a well-rounded exercise, to the extent it is supported by documentary and other archival material.