‘Modi as Hitler’ rant sparks ‘revenge’ of the ‘trolls’

(Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to put the use of the word ’trolls’ in the headline in context.)  A Twitter storm has been raging for the past two days after a distinguished commentator, whose views on strategic affairs are followed with keen interest, likened Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi to Hitler and his band of faithful supporters to Nazi stormtroopers. In a post on his personal blog ( here), B Raman, who once served in the R&AW, cited the recent ruminations of senior BJP leader LK Advani and a commentary in the RSS journal Panchjanya by an Sangh ideologue that were widely interpreted as mild criticism of Modi. [caption id=“attachment_331911” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Twitter was taken over by a verbal duel after B Raman likened Narendra Modi to Hitler in his blog. “]  [/caption] In particular, Raman noted, the Panchjanya article had said that there were several leaders in the BJP who would qualify as its prime ministerial candidate in the event of the party winning the 2004 election. That was perceived as a sobering call to Modi’s supporters to go easy on the chatter – in media commentaries and on social media platforms – about the inevitability of Modi’s rise as a candidate for PM. Raman used these two critiques as a backdrop to frame his own angst about Modi’s supporters who, he said, conducted themselves like Nazi stormtroopers. “Since the beginning of last year,” Raman wrote, “I have been drawing attention to the Nazi StormTrooper-like methods adopted by many followers of NaMo to impose their will on their party and then the nation. Anyone aware of the methods used by the Nazi Storm Troopers to force the German people to accept Hitler as their leader would be struck by the similarity of the rhetoric and Psywar methods used by these pro-NaMo elements whom I have been referring to as the NaMo Brigade.” Their methods, he claimed, consisted largely of “abuse, vituperation, disinformation, character assassination and psychological pressure.” And unlike the Nazi stormtroopers, Modi’s supporters had the advantage of harnessing the Internet and social media platforms for their “propaganda,” he added. Stretching the Nazi metaphor further, Raman argued that while it was legitimate to yearn for a strong, efficient ruler, India did not need “a Hitler”. The country had reason to be concerned about the way in which the “NaMo Brigade” was enforcing its will on the nation. If they succeeded owing to an inadequate awareness of the implications of their strategy, “the nation may have to pay a heavy price,” he added. As an antidote to these Modi supporters’ campaign, Raman held out a bizarre reason for why it should be opposed. The strategy should focus less on Modi’s past misdeeds, but rather more on the “future misdeeds that are likely to be committed by these elements if their methods succeed.” Raman has in the past expressed anguish over the abusive language employed by some of Modi’s diehard supporters on Twitter and elsewhere; he has even said publicly that Modi should actively dissociate himself from his vituperative followers. Some of Raman’s former professional peers, who were otherwise supporters of the BJP, had in recent times been turned off it by the language of Modi’s followers, he claimed. The Internet is an anonymous world, and that anonymity often becomes a cover for people with extremely partisan views to sound off on social media platforms and on discussion boards. (Even some of Firstpost commentators – across the political spectrum – post extremely feisty and explicit comments, which slip past us, despite our valiant efforts to monitor the comments board.) But is Narendra Modi to blame for his anonymous supporters’ incendiary remarks? Particularly since he probably doesn’t even know they exist? Raman’s post has received two extraordinary and well-articulated responses on the Centre Right India forum. The first, by a commentator who writes under the name of Trishool, took the form of an open letter to Raman ( here). In it, the author pointed to the folly of revising one’s opinion on Modi, which had presumably been formulated over a year or several years (and based on his administrative acumen), based on the intemperate outbursts of a handful of his followers (over whom Modi has no check). “Are you suggesting that bad behavior of 57 people over 1 year is enough reason for learned men like yourself to trash your own assessment made over a much much longer period? That doesn’t reflect the political acumen one would associate with people of your stature.” The author signs off, presumably with tongue firmly in cheek, as “A Humble Troll from NaMo Brigade”.  (The term ’troll’ is usually invoked on the Internet pejoratively to describe those who post inflammatory messages, but Modi’s supporters - who frequently get name-called as ’trolls’ - have in recent times been subversively wearing it as a badge of honour.) The Modi-as-Hitler rant also drew a measured response from Jaideep Prabhu ( here). The author clinically ~dissembles~ disassembles Raman’s argument – starting with the “complete disregard for meaning or context” while throwing about words like “fascist,” “Nazi,” and “storm trooper”. “Perhaps Raman has not heard of Godwin’s Law, but reductio ad Hitlerum is a philosophical fallacy; inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons are not an argument. Unless, of course, Raman wishes to assert that Modi and his supporters believe in eugenics, racial superiority, and genocide.” “Commentators on all points of the political spectrum,” notes Prabhu, “hurl words they simply do not understand as insults – fascist, liberal, Nazi, secular. Usually, it only proves how obtuse the commentator is. It is an exercise in histrionics… It demeans the analyst and lowers the standard of analysis… It is a cheap, populist trick and is indicative of about the same level of IQ, and most importantly, it bores those of us who were actually looking for a meaningful discourse.” As the buzz around Modi’s ascendance increases in intensity, some of his more articulate supporters are evidently squaring up for feisty battles – not on the streets like Nazi stormtroopers (however inappropriate the parallel) – but with measured and sober arguments. [For the back story to the debate, and another layer of embellishment to the narrative, read the Twitter timelines of the principal dramatis personae  Raman; Trishool; and Jaideep Prabhu; for some more side stories, catch Akhilesh Mishra, Vijay, and Amar Govindarajan (editor, Centre Right India)].