PM Imran Khan "India Is a Fascist State, Inspired by the Nazis" - Interview with Der Speigal

[WhenSultansBowled]

Keep on dreaming! The Afghan Taliban has said that Pakistan and the TTP should sort out their differences by themselves. Big humiliation!

Yep, such humiliation that we have had to pack up and flee... Oh wait!

 

[Itachi]

So is Modi and the BJP fascists?

Fascism, as a generic term, is of course an intellectual construct, and therefore there can be no objective factual definition. Working definitions instead are to be judged on whether they are useful and shed light.

The one I find most useful is from the historian, Roger Griffin, which has proved to be very influential. For Griffin, fascists were populist ultra-nationalists, seeking to lead revolutionary movements that sought to destroy the existing system and inaugurate in its place a new order, involving the creation of a new culture, and the production of a new ‘type of man’. Ultimately, they aimed at the rebirth of the national community. Indeed Ian Kershaw, the justly acclaimed historian of Nazi Germany, wrote, “the quest for national rebirth lay, of course, at the heart of all fascist movements.” Modris Eksteins wrote too in his brilliant book, Rites of Spring, with respect to the Nazi party:

“The intention of the movement was to create a new type of human being from whom would spring a new morality, a new social system, and eventually a new international order…Hitler talked in these terms endlessly. National Socialism was more than a political movement, he said; it was more than a faith; it was a desire to create mankind anew.”

In the case of Modi and the BJP, there is no denying the elements of populist ultra-nationalism and a vision of a regenerated national community. But I don’t see this as enough for them to qualify as fascists when applying Griffin’s definition, because they are not truly revolutionary. They are not seeking to forcibly overthrow and destroy the existing system of government and democracy in order to create a radically different new order.

Of course, this is not to deny that Modi’s regime is a very real threat to liberal democracy. Under Modi, India’s democracy has indeed become more illiberal and more authoritarian as amply demonstrated in Christophe Jaffrelot’s recent work, Modi’s India. That it has been done so subtly illustrates the problem of confusing today’s demons with those of the past.

What is liberal democracy? How is that different from the "Indian democracy"?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

His point was that Imran is not doing what he was elected to do, that is develop the Pakistani economy. Zero progress made in getting FDI from Western multinationals and developing modern industries. If anything, his support for the Taliban ("broken the chains of slavery") has turned the FDI sentiment even worse if that was even possible!

I wasn't disputing his points about Pakistan economy, I pulled him up on his hypocritical praise of Modi. Maybe next time you should let him answer himself instead of going off an another tangent when you weren't the one quoted to begin with.

 

[ChennaiFan]

It is easy to blame India for all his failures. Imran Khan was a successful cricketer. He is an extremist right-wing politician. With his support of Taliban, he loses all the credibility and his comments are nothing but jokes.

 

[KB]

Liberal democracy? In a democracy, the people have the right to decide if they want a liberal or conservative govt. No?

What is liberal democracy? How is that different from the "Indian democracy"?

In this context, I would not counterpose liberal democracy with “conservative democracy,” but rather contrast it with “authoritarian democracy.” I would make three points of distinction.

Firstly, historically liberalism emerged partly as a response to the oppressive exercise of power by the powerful. So a key aspect of liberal democracy is the protection of individual rights against governmental interference and potential tyranny. This requires effective checks that restrain executive power through the constitutional protection of civil liberties, an emphasis on rule of law, and the presence of strong countervailing institutions of power. Power here is not only hedged but also to some extent dispersed. Authoritarians on the other hand aspire (though they may not achieve) power that is untrammelled. They seek to centralise power. They also often work to establish a form of personalist rule.

Secondly, many right-wing authoritarians envision their nations as being fastened together by affective ties of belonging that are rooted in a combination of history, geography, blood, language, culture. The emphasis here is on an ethnically based culture rather than the liberal ideal of citizenship based on legal rights and a more civic form of nationalism.

Thirdly, a key facet of liberalism is the recognition of diversity of individual beliefs and life-styles. Authoritarians on the other hand seek to suppress difference and are more likely to emphasise uniformity. This difference is really brought out by how ‘the people’ are imagined. In a liberal democracy, ‘the people’ is thought of in the plural, and the national assembly as representing diverse and conflicting opinions; the essence of representative democracy being that it is made up of ‘mixtures of sounds’, often discordant. Authoritarians, in contrast, speak of ‘the people’ and the ‘will of the people’ as if it exists in the singular, and identify those that oppose ‘the people’ as ‘enemies of the people’. In addition, the leader is often represented as the symbolic embodiment of the unity of ‘the people’. An attack on the leader is therefore depicted as an attack on the nation.

Liberal democracy is not the only form of democracy. As Roger Griffin, noted that “instead of seeing liberal democracy as a single entity” we should “see it as a binomial. Democracy can exist without liberalism.” And the paradox for those that believe in a liberal democracy is that there is not really a satisfactory answer as to what to do if the majority of people favour an authoritarian style democracy. To stamp on it would be to go against their own principles; to accept authoritarian democracy is to see what they hold as important being diminished.

 

[Napa]

In this context, I would not counterpose liberal democracy with “conservative democracy,” but rather contrast it with “authoritarian democracy.” I would make three points of distinction.

Firstly, historically liberalism emerged partly as a response to the oppressive exercise of power by the powerful. So a key aspect of liberal democracy is the protection of individual rights against governmental interference and potential tyranny. This requires effective checks that restrain executive power through the constitutional protection of civil liberties, an emphasis on rule of law, and the presence of strong countervailing institutions of power. Power here is not only hedged but also to some extent dispersed. Authoritarians on the other hand aspire (though they may not achieve) power that is untrammelled. They seek to centralise power. They also often work to establish a form of personalist rule.

Secondly, many right-wing authoritarians envision their nations as being fastened together by affective ties of belonging that are rooted in a combination of history, geography, blood, language, culture. The emphasis here is on an ethnically based culture rather than the liberal ideal of citizenship based on legal rights and a more civic form of nationalism.

Thirdly, a key facet of liberalism is the recognition of diversity of individual beliefs and life-styles. Authoritarians on the other hand seek to suppress difference and are more likely to emphasise uniformity. This difference is really brought out by how ‘the people’ are imagined. In a liberal democracy, ‘the people’ is thought of in the plural, and the national assembly as representing diverse and conflicting opinions; the essence of representative democracy being that it is made up of ‘mixtures of sounds’, often discordant. Authoritarians, in contrast, speak of ‘the people’ and the ‘will of the people’ as if it exists in the singular, and identify those that oppose ‘the people’ as ‘enemies of the people’. In addition, the leader is often represented as the symbolic embodiment of the unity of ‘the people’. An attack on the leader is therefore depicted as an attack on the nation.

Liberal democracy is not the only form of democracy. As Roger Griffin, noted that “instead of seeing liberal democracy as a single entity” we should “see it as a binomial. Democracy can exist without liberalism.” And the paradox for those that believe in a liberal democracy is that there is not really a satisfactory answer as to what to do if the majority of people favour an authoritarian style democracy. To stamp on it would be to go against their own principles; to accept authoritarian democracy is to see what they hold as important being diminished.

You write these long academic posts about the meaning of words like "fascist", "liberal democracy" etc. and their suitability for being applied to societies etc. But what is your goal?

In the real world you may indeed be correct that countries like Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, the present day India have authoritarian rulers who may be called "fascist", but does it matter?

What exactly is needed in the real world? For countries like Pakistan and India the need is removal of poverty and development of modern industries.

It doesn't matter if you can "prove" a country is "fascist". Lots of countries that had authoritarian rulers stagnated and many others flourished economically. The West very happily invested in countries like Singapore, Taiwan etc. even though they had military backed authoritarian rulers, what mattered is whether an economic environment conducive to investment was provided.

As long as law and order is maintained, the West doesn't care. It is quite happy to do business with China even though it has put millions of Ugyhur Muslims into concentration camps.

All indications are that Modi is doing a good job of providing an environment conducive to investment/FDI.

"India attracts $22.5 bln in foreign direct investment in April-June 2021-govt, 90% higher than last year"

https://www.reuters.com/world/india...t-investment-april-june-2021-govt-2021-08-28/

"Foreign direct investment into India to stay robust - Deloitte survey"

https://www.reuters.com/world/india...india-stay-robust-deloitte-survey-2021-09-14/

 

[Napa]

I pulled him up on his hypocritical praise of Modi.

He may have genuine reasons to believe Modi is good for the Indian economy.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

He may have genuine reasons to believe Modi is good for the Indian economy.

The topic was not about Indian economy, neither was Imran Khan's reference to Modi about Indian economy.

 

[KB]

You write these long academic posts about the meaning of words like "fascist", "liberal democracy" etc. and their suitability for being applied to societies etc. But what is your goal?

In the real world you may indeed be correct that countries like Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, the present day India have authoritarian rulers who may be called "fascist", but does it matter?

What exactly is needed in the real world? For countries like Pakistan and India the need is removal of poverty and development of modern industries.

It doesn't matter if you can "prove" a country is "fascist". Lots of countries that had authoritarian rulers stagnated and many others flourished economically. The West very happily invested in countries like Singapore, Taiwan etc. even though they had military backed authoritarian rulers, what mattered is whether an economic environment conducive to investment was provided.

As long as law and order is maintained, the West doesn't care. It is quite happy to do business with China even though it has put millions of Ugyhur Muslims into concentration camps.

All indications are that Modi is doing a good job of providing an environment conducive to investment/FDI.

"India attracts $22.5 bln in foreign direct investment in April-June 2021-govt, 90% higher than last year"

https://www.reuters.com/world/india...t-investment-april-june-2021-govt-2021-08-28/

"Foreign direct investment into India to stay robust - Deloitte survey"

https://www.reuters.com/world/india...india-stay-robust-deloitte-survey-2021-09-14/

There is a germ of an interesting idea in here. The tremendous economic growth of China, under an authoritarian model, is for some an attractive alternative to the liberal democratic ideal. For many there is a frustration at the pace at which liberal democracies work, which by circumscribing power are slower at getting things done. There is also, in Europe at least, the fading of historical memory as the devastating human impact of fascism becomes more distant.

But rather than develop this interesting point, we instead regrettably get a post written in a characteristically arrogant tone that is glib in content and in implying that economic development is the only thing that really matters - regardless of the human cost - is morally disturbing.

 

[Napa]

There is a germ of an interesting idea in here. The tremendous economic growth of China, under an authoritarian model, is for some an attractive alternative to the liberal democratic ideal. For many there is a frustration at the pace at which liberal democracies work, which by circumscribing power are slower at getting things done. There is also, in Europe at least, the fading of historical memory as the devastating human impact of fascism becomes more distant.

But rather than develop this interesting point, we instead regrettably get a post written in a characteristically arrogant tone that is glib in content and in implying that economic development is the only thing that really matters - regardless of the human cost - is morally disturbing.

Economic development does not preclude the human things which are important in our lives, poverty does.

I find poverty morally disturbing. It kills children while academics quibble over semantics.

"Pakistani doctor who reused syringes busted after 900 children contracted HIV"

https://nypost.com/2019/10/28/pakis...ges-busted-after-900-children-contracted-hiv/



https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?view=map

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Economic development does not preclude the human things which are important in our lives, poverty does.

I find poverty morally disturbing. It kills children while academics quibble over semantics.

"Pakistani doctor who reused syringes busted after 900 children contracted HIV"

https://nypost.com/2019/10/28/pakis...ges-busted-after-900-children-contracted-hiv/

View attachment 111825

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?view=map

Your point might have had more impact if you'd used an Indian example of poverty or sharp practice. By digging up a Pakistani one, you have only confirmed your own bias thus rendering most of your posts of lesser value.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2329811/hindutva-ideology-a-threat-to-region-and-global-security-fm

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said on Tuesday the greatest threat to the region and global security emanated from the Hindutva ideology that drove Indian officialdom, but stressed that the country was pursuing a proactive foreign policy, sensitive to national aspirations and global dynamics.

In his address to the participants of the National Security and War Course at the National Defence University (NDU), the minister said that Pakistan had the resilience and experience to deal with the challenges posed by the unpredictable and rapidly changing international scenario.

The foreign minister’s lecture on the topic of ‘Contours of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy and Challenges’ was attended by the civil and military officers of the country, besides the course participants from several friendly countries.

Foreign Minister Qureshi emphasised that Pakistan’s foreign policy must respond adequately to shifting trends. “We have tried to reinvigorate existing partnerships and establish new ones on the premise of mutuality of interest, transparency and respect for sovereignty,” the minister said.

“Keeping our interests supreme, we must navigate through this external environment to ensure that Pakistan’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence are secured and the development agenda is advanced,” he added.

Qureshi said that the sustainable peace in South Asia was contingent upon the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. But he stressed that onus remained on India to create conducive environment for result-oriented engagement with Pakistan.

He said that after India’s illegal actions of August 5, 2019 the government took up the Kashmir cause worldwide with renewed vigour and determination and highlighted the dire humanitarian and human rights situation in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

Despite provocations from India, the foreign minister said, Pakistan opened the Kartarpur Corridor in November 2019, giving Sikhs from India and the rest of the world, visa-free access to one of their holiest sites.

“Our gesture is a manifestation of Prime Minister Imran Khan’s vision for the region and for Pakistan-India relations, which consists of peaceful co-existence, inter-faith harmony, and peaceful resolution of disputes,” he said.

The foreign minister said Pakistan lies at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, and China. “Better connectivity is, therefore, essential to promoting the country’s economic interests and reinvigorating our cultural and historical ties,” he added.

Terming the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) a flagship undertaking in regard to connectivity, he said Pakistan saw this framework as a game-changer not only for itself but for the region beyond. He added Gwadar Port was one of the vital components of the CPEC framework.

Gwadar Port, he said, was the world’s only natural deep-sea port, that linked the BRI and the Silk Road projects, and the shortest route to Central Asia and Afghanistan. “We see Gwadar as the harbinger of immense possibilities for regional cooperation and common economic benefits,” he added.

He said Pakistan was open to other countries investing in the Special Economic Zones (SEZs) being developed along CPEC. “This will bring to fruition our vision of regional connectivity and common development,” he added.

On Afghanistan, the foreign minister said that Pakistan believed that the biggest opportunity was the convergence of the international community on the need for durable peace and stability in Afghanistan. He also warned against the spoilers in the region.

 

[rhony]

There is a germ of an interesting idea in here. The tremendous economic growth of China, under an authoritarian model, is for some an attractive alternative to the liberal democratic ideal. For many there is a frustration at the pace at which liberal democracies work, which by circumscribing power are slower at getting things done. There is also, in Europe at least, the fading of historical memory as the devastating human impact of fascism becomes more distant.

But rather than develop this interesting point, we instead regrettably get a post written in a characteristically arrogant tone that is glib in content and in implying that economic development is the only thing that really matters - regardless of the human cost - is morally disturbing.

Great point and it's discussed everywhere in hush tones. The slow moving democracy pales in comparison to the breath neck speed of execution in authoritarian regimes. Don't forget that South Korea started it's economic super stardom journey through dictatorship as well.

Liberals realized this and can't counter it. The hard right has become smarter. They are embracing some of the left positions to attract the centrists. For example, Modi a hard right hindutva leader has embraced climate change, a typical left position. His party has started accepting LGBTQ. This is causing tremors in the left wing. Trump swayed between left and right confusing both parties.

Instead of going straight to authoritarianism, we will see majoritarial democracies controlled by authoritarian leaders. That's probably the only way for development in third world countries with fewer obstructions. The left wing is out of ideas and liberal democracies are in decline. Another example is the changes in refugee policies in European countries recently and also restrictions in religious freedoms. Both are typically core left positions.