A Closer Look At “The Enemy of the People”

Foreword by Prof. Jared Ball
With so much recent mainstream press evocation of Joseph Stalin and claims of “enemy of the people” comparisons to Donald Trump we thought it timely to share some recent thoughts on the subject from journalist, professor and writer Saswat Pattanayak. As an additional side note, and given what Pattanayak exposes about the nature and history of the association of a phrase, rather than with Stalin some of us would be more familiar with the play by Henrik Ibsen and further note that this is also where the late Dr. John Henrik Clarke got the inspiration for the spelling of his own middle name.

By Saswat Pattanayak
American liberals love to compare Donald Trump to Joseph Stalin because liberals are generationally brainwashed, historically ignorant, and repugnantly clueless. They outdo the conservatives in their irrational belief in American exceptionalism and in their irrevocable faith in their corporate media which they grandiosely exhibit as some sort of a “free press”.

It does not have to take a Stalin to characterize corporate press of the USA as an “enemy of the people” (which he never did anyway). The warmongering media like CNN, Fox, New York Times and Washington Post – all of which accord significant space to, and act as conduits for racist, xenophobic views of Trump at present, and for militarist war cries of Obama and Clinton in the past – indeed, are the enemy of the people – if, by people, we mean human beings with capacities to revolt against an unjust racist capitalist status quo.

Every time the peace-loving American people have organized themselves against any war, it is the corporate media led by CNN which has twisted the narrative and projected a need for the war. Only the most grotesque form of journalism could have successfully normalized war cries even during the tenure of a president who was already awarded Nobel Prize for Peace.

After rejoicing Libya’s fall and Syria’s, CNN and New York Times have been rabidly crying for North Korea’s blood and for Iran to be attacked. It is almost as if they are losing patience at how slow is Trump in declaring wars against one country or another. Because these media empires have nothing but profits on sight, for them, nothing sells like war stories emanating from xenophobic rants. Till now Trump has been more a man of words and less of action, and the liberal press simply cannot wait any longer. The corporate greed that funds these channels must continue to provoke Trump and caricature his lack of a concrete war plan. Trump had no courage to wage a war with Russia and so he had to be depicted as a puppet of Vladimir Putin. And now he has still not bombed the heck out of North Korea and so his fingers are too little for the nuclear buttons. Trump is not being presidential enough for the American people vying for some red blood, believes the liberal press. And certainly, he is not anti-communist enough. In fact, Trump is a communist himself. He is the Stalin of America. This is the kind of utter garbage being published by the likes of Washington Post.

The ghost of Stalin continues to haunt the American liberals, some of whom are even Trotskyists. They are desperately twisting the statements of Stalin and at times entirely manufacturing words never uttered by him, in an attempt to discredit Trump. Since Stalin is the epitome of evil for decades in American textbooks, it is quite effective to portray Trump as an incarnation of Stalin. Trump must demand war with Russia and North Korea, because that is what Stalin would have wanted with America anyway, goes their pitch.

The reality is, the average American is hopelessly misinformed about Stalin’s contributions and efforts towards restoring global peace, let alone about Stalin’s assessment of the United States and its people. Ignorance unfortunately is the ground for propagandists, and it is the corporate media outlets which use this ignorance to their benefit. And the reality is, Stalin never wanted a war with the USA. Nikita Khrushchev (who is now being glorified by liberal media for banning “enemy of the people” phrase they are readily but inaccurately crediting to Stalin) was at the center of the cold war crisis. Stalin was not. Not even before the Second World War before the alliance was formed. In fact, when in 1932, Stalin was asked by Ralph B. Barnes if possible armed clashes could occur between the USSR and the USA, Stalin had this to say to the American people –

There can be nothing easier than to convince the peoples of both countries of the harm and criminal character of mutual extermination. But, unfortunately, questions of war and peace are not always decided by the peoples. I have no doubt that the masses of the people of the USA did not want war with the peoples of the USSR in 1918-19. This, however, did not prevent the USA Government from attacking the USSR in 1918 (in conjunction with Japan, Britain and France) and from continuing its military intervention against the USSR right up to 1919. As for the USSR, proof is hardly required to show that what its peoples as well as its government want is that “no armed clash between the two countries should ever under any circumstances” be able to occur.

What Washington Post’s Foreign Assignment Editor Will Englund described as “Stalin’s savage rule” today in order to unfavorably compare him with Trump, is a reflection of the pathetic state of the propaganda press of this country, which is yet to get out of its Red Scare tactics. If the journalists must aspire to represent the people and be their sincere friends, and not enemies, they need to take a cue from this present crisis, and indeed spend time researching and revisiting cold war rhetorics, and fix their understanding of history in order to locate who was on the side of the so-called “savages”, and who was on the side of the peace. They need to get out of their war fetish zone and support any president who can delay any war to any extent possible. Because no working people of any society wants a war. If American journalists truly aspire to be friends of those people, and not only of the wealthy parasites, it is imperative that they recognized their will and what is in their best interests.

(Published in iMixWhatILike!)


Brahminism, Patriarchy, Supreme Court And The Justice

By Saswat Pattanayak

(Published in CounterCurrents)

It is the patriarchal fixation with fathers and husbands as feudal heads of indian households where sanctities are attached to family units, that leads to normalization of corruption in a judicial system that is unsurprisingly spearheaded by the brahminical chiefs. No matter what the chief of the family does, it has to be a hush-hush affair and not be made public. Family becomes sacrosanct and the head of family remains above reproach. Brahminism which governs Indian society is founded upon the philosophy of unquestioned belief in the supreme authority, the highest caste, the sacred book. No one messes with the head of the family. If there is child sexual abuse, the child must have provoked it. If there is a marital rape, it is the fault of the wife. Under no circumstances are the patriarchs responsible for anything wrong. They simply need the credits for the (inevitably evolutionary) progresses that are made.

Indian judiciary is not outside Brahminism’s sphere of influence. On the contrary, it is a byproduct of that. The court system is oppressively hierarchical. It is infused with archaic and feudal laws that routinely punishes dissenters and serves the ruling classes. It is a system that awards nepotism (the longest serving Supreme Court Chief Justice’s son will become the CJI in a few years), and instead sentences Dr. Binayak Sen for his association with “banned activities”, and sends a paraplegic Prof. Saibaba to life imprisonment on grounds of “waging war against India.”

This is the same feudal patriarchal court system which does not consider marital rape a cognizable offense so long as the wife is above 18 years of age. This is the same court system which spends time and resources to prohibit reservations/affirmative action for oppressed social classes in the private sector. This is the same court system which allows gay marriage to remain illegal. This is the same court system which upholds death penalty verdicts as acceptable form of punishment. This is the same court system which rejects a plea that questions clean chits given to communal and criminal politicians like Modi and Shah. This is the same court system which permits judicial killing of Afzal Guru without the due process in the middle of the night, without informing his families. This is the same judiciary which is more concerned about its own sacrosanct nature than the rights of farmers, dalits, muslims, women to seek justice in a country where 27 million court cases are still awaiting verdicts.

Chief Justice Misra as the patriarch of this same judicial system predictably had in the past sentenced Yakub Memon to death in an unprecedented middle-of-night hearing. The move was very similar to Afzal Guru killing which was critiqued by AG Noorani who invoked the words of Judge Tendulkar (referring to Morarji Desai misrule), “One would have thought that the dark hours of the night are reserved for the perpetration of dark deeds, not for the execution of lawful orders.” Noorani rightfully remarked “Secrecy is antithetical to the rule of law as it is to decency.” And Justice Misra has been an epitome of secrecy, unsurprisingly, considering his rulings have consistently claimed to have protected “reputation” more than “freedom”. In Indian context, reputation is synonymous with wealthy people, and freedom is the cry of the oppressed.

It was Justice Misra who delivered the judgment in Devkidas Ramchandra Tuljapurkar vs State of Maharashtra case where he outlawed and criminalized the freedom of speech of citizens, whereby “historically respected personalities” could not be written about in a way that may offend their followers.

Similarly he upheld the archaic 499 to 502 of IPC whereby “criminal defamation” would ensure that freedom of speech could not be extended to cause disrepute of anyone. Such emphasis of “reputation” and “respect” are cornerstone of conservative figureheads of any society. In his words that are strikingly similar to actions of Pahalaj Nihalani’s: “Reputations cannot be allowed to be sullied on the anvils of free speech as free speech is not absolute.”

This is the same man who decided for the entire country what constituted patriotism. In a bizarre ruling (which is now under scrutiny) Misra and Roy bench decided “to instill committed patriotism and nationalism” by mandating that “all the cinema halls in India shall play the national anthem before the feature film starts and all present in the hall are obliged to stand up to show respect to the national anthem (as a part of their) sacred obligation.” While dismissing “any different notion or the perception of individual rights”, the bench of Misra and Roy declared that the movie screens shall have the image of the national flag when the anthem is being played and that doors of the halls will remain shut during the anthem so that no disturbance is caused.

Not only is enforcement of such mindless patriotism strictures against the spirit of Indian Constitution, even the brazen manner in which Justice Misra has in the past ruled against reservations in employment (across private and public sectors alike), is. Misra contends that there should not be reservations in promotions, and not even in jobs when there is a single vacancy. In fact, Misra and Pant went on to call affirmative action itself a privilege and almost mocked the spirit of the constitution which included reservations for the oppressed, with the following words, “The fond hope has remained in the sphere of hope… The said privilege remains unchanged, as if (it is) to compete with eternity.” So that the “national interest can become paramount”, they said “there should really be no reservation” in higher education.

Such judgements that dismiss the social realities in the name of so-called “national interest”, where people are oppressed precisely because they belong to certain caste/religions/communities, should be the reasons not for immediate removal of reservations from society (ironically following the observations of a person who is brahmin himself), but it calls for immediate and elaborate judicial reforms, so the judges are constantly exposed to troubling realities of a caste society and learn from anti-caste activists.

The case of corruption against Justice Misra in the land allotment matter in Odisha should have been reason enough for condemnation. His brother demanding huge amount money from Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Kalikho Pul whose suicide note mentions of the fact, should have resulted in further action against the judge. And yet in the name of protecting the “honor” and “respect” and “repute” of national flag, anthem, and of chief justice himself – our Indian patriarchy continues protecting the male figureheads without a pause. And instead of treating the dissenters and activists and whistleblowers as heroes, many of us now attack the four judges as antinationals.

This is not just about Dipak Misra or Amit Shah or Narendra Modi. This fixation with complete submission to authority is a problem fostered within our places of worship where we are indoctrinated to believe that our gods can do no evil, within our own schools where our teachers can tell no lies, within our law and order system where our police and military and judges can do nothing wrong, and within own families where our elders cannot even be talked back to. This refusal to dissent and this inability to support those who do, constitute the terminal disease we are afflicted by, and the one we refuse to treat. It did not begin yesterday when the TV channels went berserk with breaking news over how many experts are now so sad that a press conference had made our supreme court so vulnerable. It is necessary, instead, to acknowledge the disease in order to cure it. Not to mention, the treatment is long overdue.

(Discussion on Facebook)

Donald Trump and the ritual of shock and awe in American duopoly

(Written for Kindle Magazine)

By Saswat Pattanayak

The shock and clamor surrounding Donald Trump’s ascension to power is entirely unwarranted. The sentimental protests, tearful mournings and fearful disbelief about how to make sense of Trump are self-serving exaggerations. Self-serving, because taking such positions merely distinguishes us from the nastiness that defines Trump. To the mortified, he is the indecency that is impossible to explain and he is the vice we have apparently fought all along. Trump is the worst of humanity, the enemy of the marginalized, the maniac who cannot be trusted with a nuclear button, the groper-in-chief who must not have become the commander-in-chief of the most consequential country in this planet. There is an inversely proportional relationship we share with his moralism. He is the anti-mirror, he is the nightmare personified, he is the friend of Putin, he is the American Modi. He is the enemy of the Muslims. He is the enemy of the women. He is the enemy of the poor. And no wonder, he even dashed our hope of having the first female president in American history. Where do we go from here now? Will our world not end now?

More ridiculous than Trump’s victory is the collective grief prevailing in its aftermath. More irksome than the erratic ignorance of Trump is the irresponsibility of our political memories. More culminating blow is landed to us from our hunky-dory imaginings of the American states of affairs preceding this poll than from the Canadian immigration website crash. It is our luxuriously privileged indulgence in our botoxed worldviews that allows our imagined future tragedies to surpass the reality of our past indifference. We are eager to lament an unseen tomorrow while justifying the legacies that have been harrowing for decades. In fact, keeping with that adulation of our rectitude, we are hoping for our noble old behaviors to be emulated in coming years. Have no fear, Obama assures us, we are all now the cheerleaders for Trump. No matter how disqualified he was, no matter the sexual predator that he was, no matter the tax evader that he was, no matter the racist, Islamophobe, misogynist untrustworthy xenophobe that he was, long live our democracy, which we shall continue to introduce in every land of this world under his leadership.

Lest the energy of dissonance and dissent is channelized differently, Hillary Clinton reminds us that peaceful transition of power is what we not only believe in, but cherish. All our banking institutions and corporations and bosses of both the big parties are not going to be overthrown. We are going to accept the results gracefully like we always have because we have unequivocal faith in the system they own. We must continue to work together with them to relish the American greatness that we have defined in all its past, present and future tense. Hallelujah!

Trump is not a miracle. Trump is culmination of American exceptionalism which has been preached by every president preceding him. Trump is the logical apotheosis of humanized capitalism, where the winners take all, where executive decisions are sacrosanct, where we feel it right to sponsor deaths and tortures and waterboarding and drones and assassinations and weaponization of regions that we consider inferior.

Today liberal America is shaking with moralist rage, in fear and anger. There are protests outside the Trump Tower. There are letters school children are writing to Trump. There are celebrities urging their fans to continue the fight. An unprecedented climate of uncertainty hovers over America. Apprehensive of what the first 100 days of Trump can result in. Will illegals be deported? Will there be wars? Will other countries now be scared of our hooliganism? Will there be visa restrictions on people? Will there now be assaults on women’s rights, gay rights, immigrant rights? Will black people be safe any longer? Will hardworking people flourish anymore? Will a few elites enjoy concentrated wealth? Will our healthcare industry fail? Will our education become unaffordable? Will there be public protests and police atrocities? Will the rich now manipulate taxation system? Will we ever have a female president? Will we be able to explain our children about what our president should do and what he actually does?

All these and many more questions plague the well-meaning liberals. They are finding everything surreal with Trump’s triumph. The world is no longer the same. The good old days of freedom, respect, dignity, decency, morality, virtues and values are past us. Trump has forced us to wake up from our American dreams.

Maybe it is high time that we did and maybe we owe that to Donald Trump. After all, it is not Trump who stands exposed today. It is the sheer hypocrisy of American liberals that stands exposed. Liberals conveniently forget that it is not Trump who had deported the largest number of people and separated family members in millions within past eight years. It is not Trump that built secret chambers of tortures to round up human beings that have been called “illegals”. It is not Trump that ordered the wars and interventions all around the world that resulted in assassinations of world leaders. It is not Trump who won the Nobel Peace Prize and launched the industry of drones resulting in deaths of thousands of innocent civilians – women and children – in faraway lands. It is not Trump that has made America the biggest rogue nation in history. It is not Trump who privatized healthcare and education and forced people to debt. It is not Trump who bailed out the Wall Street or launched attacks on protesters at Occupy movement and Black Lives Matter. It is not Trump who caused the new Jim Crow and massive incarceration of Blacks and Latinos. It is not Trump who refused to recognize same-sex marriage for decades, or who prevented women candidates from becoming nominees of major political parties. It is not Trump who prevented Shirley Chisholm a nomination, it is not he who stopped Cynthia McKinney’s dream, it is not he who halted Hillary Clinton’s journey to White House when she aimed at it for the first time.

Indeed, Trump shall also be held accountable in coming days. But unlike Modi who had bossed over riots and massacres before being elected head of India, Trump has had no impacts on political landscape of the United States. He is no American Modi. Unlike Putin of Russia, Trump did not have any bureaucratic experience or political support for him to rise to unchecked power. He is no American Putin. Unlike any other president in American history, Trump had no sway over politics or military prior to this. He is no typical American president either.

He is a result of a democracy that the United States takes pride in. It is existential to American identity. This is the democracy that understands only one language – a language of money and competition. And both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump used this language to their best abilities and only one of them won by a slight margin. To be especially afraid of the newest master of this language is to be afraid of this system itself.

The values that have emboldened this system lie at the foundation of this country. From celebration of Columbus and observation of Thanksgiving to colonization of numerous lands – whether Puerto Rico or Hawaii or dozens more such annexations; from erasure of the indigenous Americans from every stream of public life to judicial killings and systematic disfranchisement of black people, America’s strength has always been its excesses. And this might of American state has constantly been met with resistance of freedom fighters throughout – from Frederick Douglass to Oscar Lopez Rivera, from Paul Robeson to the Black Panthers.

To suddenly lose the good old days flavor, now that a certain Donald Trump has risen to power is to insult the rich histories of struggles that have duly acknowledged and battled against American excesses, one president at a time. This placement of anger on Trump is at the same time an undermining of decades-long organizing efforts by the working class against the ruling elites. United States has never been great, and as long as its plutocracy exists – with support of both the major parties, probably never will become great. Indeed, no country is great because of its ruling class; its greatness is measured by the dignity it amasses despite its ruling class. Whether it be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, their taste of success is not a yardstick to evaluate how much Americans have been liberated. In fact, the ceremony of voting and electoral theatrics are necessary exercises to keep the power-hungry relevant, and more importantly acceptable.

The filthy rich Clintons who run dubious charitable organizations and charge millions of dollars via their political double-speak should ideally be despised. Bill “I-don’t-know-that-woman” Clinton’s assaults on women and his wife’s steadfast support for his misogyny should ideally be abhorred. Hillary Clinton’s views on black youths and gay marriage that took opportunist turns for political gains should have been grounds enough for her disqualification. As the biggest receiver of Big Pharma concerns and Wall Street interests, Hillary Clinton should ideally have been rejected by liberals who espouse progressive values. The manner in which Democratic Party bosses manipulated Bernie Sanders campaign should have distanced every conscientious liberal from her. And yet, under this obligation to hold voting as a sacrosanct exercise, and to elect that candidate who has more probability of winning, regardless of the content of character (which ensured the silencing of Jill Stein from the discourse), the liberals find a pressing need to forgive everything that is wrong about Hillary Clinton. And yet magically, they reserve the same yardstick exclusively for assessment of the Republican candidate. Likewise, Donald Trump should ideally have been disqualified from addressing any nation, considering his history of hate speeches, his admittance of being an assaulter, his tax evasions, and his fear-mongering pleas. And yet, the Republican voters feel compelled to make their candidate win at all cost and pass the yardstick unto Hillary’s.

This is the sort of democracy that Fidel Castro had long ago dismissed as phony. A system which justifies a status quo by means of validation from those it aims to oppress. It nullifies all possibilities of revolutions by using a mandate to justify continuation of a duopoly. The domination of two wealthiest parties is such that not only the presidential debates do not have provisions for third parties, but even the media at large ignore the views of political leaders that challenge both parties at the same time. People who vote for third parties are ridiculed for being spoilsports, and even blamed for all the political mishaps. This year too, it was no different – the Democrats blamed third party voters for the victory of Trump, while over 10% of Obama voters and 9% of registered Democrats did end up voting for Trump this poll – which is way more significant a number than the entire voter population that supported third parties.

The capacity to imagine beyond duopoly is systematically discouraged. In effect, every couple of terms, each party gets a chance to enjoy power with tacit understanding. The outgoing president graciously makes space for the incoming one. The same rogue policies continue to appease big businesses, they further prison-industrial complex, and the presidents outdo each other in aggressions abroad. Whether it be Kennedy or Reagan, Clinton or Bush, Obama or Trump, foreign policies of this hawkish nation rests on the idea of a few enemy states to engage with militarily. Hillary Clinton’s win wouldn’t have changed the course in any way whatsoever. Russia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan and North Korea were among many enemy states directly envisaged by her. Trump will end up substituting a couple at best. But the same game shall go on without interruptions.

The illusion of freedom to choose a candidate, the desire to elect a winner, the urge to submit to ruling class whims – elections are festivals to celebrate our collective surrender to our exploiters. And in these times of intense inequality, poverty, homelessness, wars and displacements, euphoria surrounding Trump’s victory is an act of political masochism. And more crucially, getting all depressed owing to Clinton’s defeat amounts to political complacency. This was indeed the nastiest battle in recent history – but only a battle between two power-hungry, egotist rich individuals. Both had irreparable flaws and neither exhibited leadership traits that could provide a vision for a better world. If Trump’s pet peeve was China, Clinton’s was Russia. If Trump did not disclose tax returns, Clinton hid her transcripts on corporations. If Trump had a history of assaulting women, Clinton had a history of standing by an assaulter. If Trump was threatening to make America “great” again, Clinton had already aided in making America “great” many times in the past. No matter who among them would have won, the world would still be dreading American intervention and drone strikes and unilateral declarations against regions it deemed helpless.

That said, there are a few critical lessons from this election. Especially for the young people and children who are failing to understand how to look upto a sexual assaulter and a bully as their role model. The answer is, it is not possible to treat Trump as a role model. But it so happens that our children are not told the whole story by the liberals. In the entire history of the United States, there was hardly a single President who had the accomplishments to be a role model. The lesson number one is that winning is not everything and often times, people do not win because they are correct. A president is basically a winner in a race to power, just as there are winners in various other fields. Simply because most people believe in a faith, a party, a person does not mean that makes it alright to unquestioningly adopt the same. Simply because there are authorities in law, politics, academics, religions does not mean the authorities are to be held inviolable. Just because plutocratic systems have been shoved down to us disguised as democracy does not mean this is the system we must protect at all costs even if the victors are assaulters. Secondly, there is no such thing as Karma. Feel-good liberals and conservatives alike tend to believe in such fatalistic theories and pass them on to next generations. If Trump/Clinton are the type of people who dominate the political stage while Stein/Baraka kind of candidates receive less than 2% of votes, it is not because of good/bad karma, but because of our comfortable indifference towards capitalism and willful ignorance of ongoing movements against it.

Finally, the lesson is not in expecting hope to be trickled down from politicians whose source of power is private capital interests, rather to painstakingly gather all the hope that we can, trace its foundations in centuries old aspirations to free the lands and people of greed and monopolies; in not allowing these corporate czars from defining what is a people’s revolution, rather to collect the scattered leaves on the paths of revolutions scarred by the martyrs bloods. The lesson is to use Trump’s rise as an opportunity to look beyond the hype of the two-party system and to reimagine the political landscape. Instead of waiting for any messiah who will “fix” everything for the working class, it is the working poor themselves whose organized efforts need to bring down the power corridors.

Capitalism is inherently ableist, sexist, racist and individualist. Trump is its outcome and White House is its upholder. The eyes need not be set on the prize that devours us all, but on the one that liberates us all. Communism alone can offer that alternative. If we can imagine. As the capitalistic contradictions reach zenith in the citadel following Trump’s rise, the good news is, it is not going to be as difficult to reimagine. It is only inevitable.