,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Bull. Shit. Curfews, comms blackouts, preventive detentions – none of these are new. Not in India, not in the "liberal democracies" that people see as idols. Thread:
The only difference is that we like to scream "REEE FASCISM!" at the drop of a hat because we see a handful of parallels between the Nazis and Not-People-Like-Us.
Well, guess what. The state has its interests. And those interests often clash with the "wants" of interest groups here and there. Usually, the state gets its way. If it doesn't, it is only because it goes against the demands of a large majority of the citizenry.
If those special interest groups get violent or show signs of potentially turning violent, the state will use force to enforce its will.
Examples: When a communal incident occurs in India, and the state believes that it will lead to riots, it rounds up the usual troublemakers and takes them into custody. It cuts off communications so that would-be rioters cannot co-ordinate.
It imposes a media blackout so that irresponsible reporting does not fan more tensions. And it sends paramilitary forces to show strength and deter rioting. This is is textbook pacification, not "Fascism".
When Lincoln went to war over the ban on slavery and enforced the state's will—quite harshly, if I may add—it wasn't a "creeping embrace of Fascism".
When Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to enforce de-segregation in Arkansas, he was "breaking eggs to make an omelette".
And guess what! Germany wasn't de-nazified through hugs and kisses and empathy either. That was achieved through the use of force, using the same methods that India uses in Kashmir – curfews, propaganda, detentions, and so on and so forth.
The only difference between then and now is that we didn't have a bunch of Wokesters bawl about empathy for the poor, poor Confederacy or poor, poor Arkansas, or the poor, poor Nazis.
So back to Kashmir. You may have issues with the way the Government of India went about watering down Article 370, and that is an issue worthy of debate, even if I disagree with your view.
But if you're going to (a) equate the destruction of an inherently discriminatory (and dare I saym supremacist) piece of legislation to "Fascism"; (b) Demand that we empathise with the architects of a fucking genocide ; and ...
... (c) wail about to use of force to restore the state's authority in a place racked with terrorist violence sponsored by an enemy state; I'm going to suggest that you're in waaay above your head.
“WHAT? You dare disagree? When did you acquire the capacity for independent thought eh? If you are a *real* free thinker, you must think like I do! For that is TrUe LiBeRaLiSm.”
