Guilty by Suspicion

 

The other day I was idly surfing television channels when I chanced upon a Hollywood movie called “Guilty by suspicion” which depicts the McCarthyist era in early-fifties in the United States of America. The movie features Robert De Niro in the leading role of a persecuted Hollywood director. McCarthyism (after Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, a rabid right wing anti- communist rabble rouser) represents one of the darkest eras in modern American history that saw a campaign launched and led by the government to hound and brutally suppress all political dissension by creating an atmosphere of fear about liberal, leftist viewpoint in general and communism in particular (the so called “Red Scare”). This was on the backdrop of cold war of the 1950s and the US government made every effort, including banning the US Communist Party,  to whip up anti-Soviet and anti-Communist sentiments that led to a veritable witch-hunt of Communists, communist sympathizers, liberals and indeed all those who had the slightest left-leaning and liberal opinions and who were critical of government policies . They were publicly named, shamed and accused of conspiracies to infiltrate public and government institutions to carry out subversive anti-national (so called “un-American”) activities. Mere suspicion of holding opinions that were deemed as leftist was enough to intimidate, blacklist and sometimes arrest. Even those who had done nothing more than attending some public or private meetings and gatherings where views against the government policies (such as opposition to nuclear weapons) were expressed was regarded as evidence of being anti-state and un-American. The FBI, with its full might, was deployed in questioning, hounding and harassing individuals deemed to be “anti-national”. The accused were hauled before a “House Committee” of the senate that was specially constituted to investigate “Un-American” activities. Down the line, there were several such committees set up by the states and industrial units to investigate un-American activity. Many newspapers and TV channels contributed to the hysteria of “red Scare” by biased reporting, providing national audience to politicians like McCarthy. There was media boycott of actors and others connected with cinema, authors , columnists suspected of communist sympathies.   Apart from the FBI under Edgar Hoover which played the leading role in hounding of “ the Reds” , voluntary vigilante “citizen-committees” sprang up everywhere that took upon themselves the task ferreting out individuals, questioning them about their political views and their antecedents and subjecting them to “loyalty test”. The whole campaign was based on insinuations and virtual un-official black-listing that led to loss of reputation, loss of jobs and social boycotts for several thousands. What was even sinister was that the accused were often offered reprieve if they were prepared to turn “informants “- naming names from amongst their friends and relatives who had communist leanings. The main targets were the Trade Unions and individuals in the media and the Hollywood film industry for their ability to influence public opinions. Actors and directors were spurned by their colleagues, they lost assignments and advertisement sponsorships due to boycott calls.  Some of the prominent public figures who had to face the onslaught of government persecution included Charlie Chaplin, Arthur Miller (author), Lucy Ball, scientist and peace activist Lanus Pauline and a host of others.

The case of Charlie Chaplin is quite illustrative of the feverish pitch and paranoia of “red scare” in 1950s in the USA . A British citizen, he made his career as a filmmaker in Hollywood from the silent film era in 1920s. In early 1950 he was accused of being a communist subverter (and even a Russian spy) simply because of his left- leaning anti cold-war and general liberal views. When he was on a brief European visit in connection with promotion of his films , he was banned from re-entering the US. Sometime later permission was granted to return back on the conditions that he subjects himself to investigating agencies and Senate committee hearings which he flatly refused and decided not to go back . His case file in FBI was still open as late as 1970s. Although he had vowed never to enter US again, he relented only when invited without any preconditions to receive lifetime Oscar award in 1972.  When went on the stage he got the longest ever standing ovation from his own fraternity which once had shunned him. There was also a “case file” on Albert Eisenstein for his avowed socialist views although he was not called for questioning or deposition. Incidentally, homosexuals were also targeted during this frenzy. It was insinuated that communist views led to homosexuality (or the other way round)!!.  

The movie “Guilty by suspicion” which is based on true incidents vividly brings out the atmosphere of fear and intimidation of that era. The protagonist, a successful and rich Hollywood director of some repute is hounded for having attended “ban the bomb” rallies in the past. He is not really political but merely has a broad liberal outlook. He is nevertheless virtually blacklisted with pressure and threats on the producers and other colleagues to shun him professionally and socially. He finds himself spurned by the industry, by colleagues and by friends. Directing assignments start slipping away. There is an atmosphere of unease and suspicion pervading Hollywood. One of his actress friends, in a similar predicament is driven to suicide. Depressed and desperate to find a job to support his family he is offered a reprieve if he is ready to testify against one of his colleagues of known left- liberal views. His producers also hint at getting his career back if he is to commit perjury in the Senate by falsely implicating his colleague. He realizes that his hounding was mainly to force him to implicate his friend. His conscience does not allow him to do so and in the committee hearing despite  persistent prompting by Senators, to refuses to lie.

While watching the movie I perceived unmistakable parallels of the that period in American history here in India. It is of course not my case that we are having a full-blown McCarthyism era like situation in India as yet. And there are Indian variations in the modus operandi of the Indian state compared to that adopted by the US state then. But one can clearly see trends and instances of it with increasing frequency and intensity. And in some respect the situation here in India is more drastic. The “red scare” equivalent of Indian version is the “Urban Naxal” scare” and “Tukde-Tukde gang” scare. However the “scare” here is not limited to anti left-wing groups or individuals alone. The Indian right-wing and anti- Muslim rulers and their ideologues have innovatively invented and promoted other scares such as “Love Jihad”, “Land Jihad”, “population Jihad” and more recently “Vote Jihad”.  Vigilante groups have sporadically sprung up indulging in persecution of inter-faith young couples, “Loyalty tests” are demanded with forced chanting of “Bharat Mata ki Jia”, “Vande Mataram” and “ jai Shriram:.  Social activists promoting anti-superstition and rationalist outlook have even been murdered. Boycott calls have been issued against film actors who have made some critical statements. The term Urban Naxal first came into the political lexicon around the now (in)famous 2018 Bheema-Koregaon case wherein some activists and intellectuals were charged with inciting violence and a conspiracy to assassinate the Prime Minister. They have been imprisoned since 2018. One of them died in prison and only recently some have released on bail on medical or similar grounds. The trial has not even begun. Indian Government (and the Pariwar) nave been claiming seditious, anti-national and anti Hindu conspiracies everywhere- in colleges and universities, in non-governmental civil society groups like NGOs, amongst intellectuals and authors, in YouTube portals. Street protests against government policies such as Anti-CAA and farmers protests were dubbed anti national and accused of being aided and abetted by foreign based separatists and terrorists. The existing sedition law first imposed by the British and remaining unchanged ever since comes very handy in suppressing genuine protests which are essentially an exercise of democratic rights (irrespective of whether one agrees with protestors’ viewpoint or not). This law was designed by the colonial rulers to suppress even expression of anti-government views and the Indian Nationalists leaders were often charged with sedition. It has absolutely no place in a sovereign and independent state. There are some other special laws (enacted earlier but recently amended by the present regime using brute force of majority to give wider powers to the investigating authorities) — such as PMLA, UAPA, the Narcotic Act etc which have virtually placed the onus of proof of innocence on the accused rather than the onus of proof of guilt on the accuser, a reversal of fundamental basis of modern-day jurisprudence. This has resulted in the grant of bail being an exception rather than a rule. It may be true that these special laws have limited the court's discretion to grant bail. These laws have been challenged in the supreme court on the basis of being against the principles of personal freedom. Sadly, SC has not found time to take up the case. However, many legal experts opine that even within the scope of present laws the courts can use discretion to award bail but in most cases and particularly in lower courts the judges simply refuse to give relief to the accused. All this has resulted in the laws initially meant to counter activities of terrorists and money laundering by arms and narcotics smugglers now being used by the ruling regime to put political opponents, including opposition Chief Ministers, under lockup for long periods without trials.

During the McCarthyism era in the USA, while there were insinuations of being seditious that led to questioning by Senate committees and consequent social and professional boycott, loss of jobs and reputation, there were relatively few cases filed and few incarcerations. The press which initially was complicit is promoting red scare soon exposed people like Senator McCarthy. The US Supreme Court struck down some draconian laws and many of the victims of McCarthyism were later exonerated and America returned to sanity after about a decade.   And it is in respect of these aspects that the situation in India that is Bharat is different and more worrying than in the USA then.

Here raids, arrests and incarcerations are wide-spread with multiple agencies booking “offenders”. An overwhelmingly large part of the mainstream media, aptly named “lapdog media” not only acts like a PR arm of the government, it conducts media trials of those accused pronouncing them guilty and go after them with hammer and tongs. The social media (a new phenomenon that did not exist in 50s) has emerged and in a short time erupted in way never imagined before. WhatsApp has become most trusted and ever ready source of information and facts that one can carry in one’s pocket. “WhatsApp university” is now seen as a veritable short-cut to learn “history” and other subjects with nuggets of wisdom offered by “experts”. With its virtually unlimited potential, the Social media has become a source  for dispersion of  false and fake news, doctored videos, twisted history that spread like a virus . (How systematically the ruling party has used the social media to spread false news, bigotry,  and hatred is detailed in a book called “I was a troll” by an investigative journalist).

However, the social media is turning out to be two-edged weapon. It has provided avenues for expression of dissenting voices and views, outside  of the sphere of influence of the main-stream media and state-control. Judging by popularity, some independent YouTube channels run by journalists and “influencers” are weaning away a good number of viewers from “godi media” (except of course still a large number of those addicted to the daily dose of staged verbal fights in abusive language) and providing them with alternate narratives and views. It is no surprise that present regime is toying with idea “regulatory legislation” to control social media. How far it will succeed is a moot question.