Preying on insecurities

It would be wrong and cruel to compare Pramod Muthalik, Narendra Modi and Adolf Hitler. Muthalik has never killed anybody, while Modi may be accused of looking the other way while thousands were killed in the 2002 Gujarat violence. As for Hitler, well, six million Jews killed during World War II is as macabre as it gets.

But as Sherlock Holmes says in The Valley of Fear, "Mr Mac, the most practical thing that you ever did in your life would be to shut yourself up for three months and read twelve hours a day at the annals of crime.

Everything comes in circlesu2014even Professor Moriarty." And crime is not the only thing that comes in circles and this is where one finds commonalities between Muthalik, Modi and Hitler.

All three knew how to understand the current scenario and use the insecurities of people to rise. As the Wikipedia entry for Hitler says, "A key element of Hitler's appeal was his ability to evoke a sense of offended national pride caused by the Treaty of Versailles imposed on the defeated German Empire by the Western Allies." Had Germany never been humiliated in World War I, Hitler may never have risen to power. But he was able to use this insecurity to rise.

Modi's case has some similarity. Around the time of the Godhra incident, he worked skilfully and built upon the insecurity of the Hindus to harm the Muslims. And the fact that his move worked is proved by the fact that today he is Gujarat's longest serving chief minister. In fact, I still remember what a senior journalist told me at that time he said that Hindus would be forced to vote Modi back to power because if they didn't, any other party that came to power would make life difficult for the Hindus. And his words came true after Modi submitted his resignation to the Governor and recommended the dissolution of the 10th Gujarat Legislative Assembly, he came back to power by ensuring that the BJP won 127 out of the 182 seats, which is greater than a two-thirds majority.

And Muthalik, in his own small way, is boosting his popularity by targeting women. Some have said that the media has raised him by covering him regularly, but there is more to this than just the Press. The real reason why he has risen from a rather obscure character from Karnataka to somebody who is known in many parts of the country is because he seems to have understood what men fear women who have gained a lot of financial independence and can therefore do what they please.

Of course, this is awfully painful for men, who have long felt that visiting pubs and doing what pleases you is a male bastion. And so I was not surprised when I found men who, while condemning the attacks, have said that it was 'not correct' for women to drink. As a teetotaller, I believe that drinking is a bad habit for everybody, especially when carried to extremes. But saying that drinking is okay for men and not right for women is chauvinism at its worst.

u00a0But just because somebody says that such men are being a trifle silly will not make matters any better. Their insecurities will remain, and there will always be people who will use it for their own advantage.