Resources for all concerned with culture of authoritarianism in society, banalisation of communalism, (also chauvinism, parochialism and identity politics) rise of the far right in India (and with occasional information on other countries of South Asia and beyond)
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word
“fringe” as the “outer, marginal, or extreme part of an area, group, or
sphere of activity”. Of late, this word has been pressed into heavy use
by India’s English-language media, specifically to describe the Karni
Sena, a Rajput organisation that has lashed out with violence at the
release of the Hindi film Padmaavat, a work of fiction based in medieval Rajasthan.
Even
as the Sena rioted across several cities, the English media continued
to describe it as part of a mysterious and shadowy “fringe”, though what
it was a fringe to was never really explained. The Hindustan Times, for example, ran an edit asking for “fringe groups, such as Karni Sena” to pay for the destruction caused by their violence, while paradoxically reporting
that “fringe runs riot across country”. (If the “fringe” has such
power, imagine what a mainstream group might be capable of.) The Economic Times and the Mint said “fringe groups” were demanding an ordinance to ban the film. And, of course, the Republic TV channel bellowed: FRINGE GOES ON A RAMPAGE OVER PADMAAVAT RELEASE; ARNAB CONFRONTS KARNI SENA CHIEF LOKENDRA KALVI.
Clearly,
the Indian media loves the term “fringe” when it comes to describing
the violent Rajput group. But just how accurate is the use of this term
given the profile and actions of the Karni Sena?
Centre, not fringe
Is the Karni Sena marginal to Indian politics? Lokendra Kalvi, the group’s chief patron, has
been in both the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party – he even
fought on the saffron party’s ticket in the 2008 Rajasthan Assembly
election. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath met the Karni Sena on Tuesday and patiently listened to their grievances. In November, he had even blamed the filmmakers for the controversy. The film’s content has been looked at by a parliamentary panel, which also questioned its director Sanjay Leela Bhansali.
Giving in to the Sena’s demands, as many as four states, all ruled by the BJP, banned the film’s screening. The bans were scrapped
by the Supreme Court, but the Sena, by unleashing violence with near
impunity, essentially overruled the apex court by scaring multiplex
owners in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Goa enough to “voluntarily decide” against showing the film.
To seal the deal, the Karni Sena drew support not only from the BJP but a large section of the Congress as well.
Clearly
then, the Karni Sena is not a fringe group. In states such as
Rajasthan, with a strong Rajput presence, it is in fact at the heart of
the politics. Why then does the Indian media insist on using this
inaccurate term?
Meaningless words
For an answer, we need to turn to the British writer George Orwell’s masterful 1946 essayPolitics and the English Language. In it, Orwell explains the use of what he calls “meaningless words”.
The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy,
not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is
resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call
a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of
every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they
might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one
meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest
way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition,
but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.
Thus,
like “democracy” or “fascism”, the word “fringe” is not used for its
literal meaning but as a signifier: it serves to soften the image of the
Karni Sena. The Sena has been supported by the ruling establishment.
Yet, by calling it “fringe”, the BJP and its state governments are
sought to be dissociated from the violence that so appalls the consumers
of India’s English-language media.
Not terrorist, not Naxal
This
dissociation is driven strongly by the upper caste character of the
Karni Sena. For evidence, take the case of another “sena” – the
Dalit-led organisation in Western Uttar Pradesh called the Bhim Army. On
May 9, the Bhim Army was involved in violent clashes with the police
Saharanpur town while they were protesting an upper caste attack on Dalit homes. The Bhim Army was immediately tarred
as “Naxal” by the police as well as a pliant media. While the Karni
Sena’s leaders are invited to television studios to debate the finer
points of Rajput honour, the head of the Bhim Army remains under preventative detention, without any charge, in an Uttar Pradesh jail.
This
is a familiar template, often employed for Adivasi mobilisation as
well. Adivasi political activity – even in response to violence – is
often labeled “Naxal” or “Maoist”. This label, in turn, allows for
disproportionate violence to be used against them without inviting much
protest. Since “political speech and writing are largely the defence of
the indefensible”, Orwell writes, “political language has to consist
largely of euphemism”.
In Indian media today, the most common example of such an euphemism is “terrorist”, which is directed
almost exclusively at Muslims. Though its wanton violence would fit
most definitions of “terror”, the media will not use this word for the
Karni Sena. The one exception has been News 18 news channel, which called
the Karni Sena “terrorists” on Thursday. It was not without irony,
though: the terrorist tag was only used when the Sena started to
directly threaten News 18 journalists. Until then, the channel was quite
content with using “fringe” to report on the Karni Sena rampaging through various cities.
This
act of lexical pusillanimity by the Indian media is unfortunate.
Journalists covering this story should be expected to expose the Karni
Sena’s connections to political parties and government. Reporters need
to question power – not blindly reflect what the powerful want to read
and hear by using weasel words like “fringe”.