Power, Fear, and Control: The Politics of Manufactured Threats
The use of fear and external threats by those in power to maintain their dominance is an age-old strategy employed by many authoritarian rulers throughout history. This tactic serves to divert the public’s attention away from the ruler’s true intentions and the reality of their governance, ensuring that the masses remain subservient and unchallenging. Such leaders often manufacture or exaggerate fears, whether they be internal dissent or external dangers, to keep the populace in a constant state of anxiety. This fear mongering makes the people reliant on the ruler, viewing them as the only safeguard against the perceived threats. The true character of the ruler, the corruption, and the actual issues plaguing society—such as poverty, inequality, and oppression—are overshadowed by the artificially created fear.
One of the most prominent examples of this strategy in modern history is the Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in India from 1975 to 1977. This period is often cited as one of the darkest chapters in Indian democracy, where civil liberties were suspended, political opponents were jailed, and the press was heavily censored. Indira Gandhi justified the Emergency by citing threats to the nation’s security, both from within and outside its borders. She claimed that internal disturbances, largely driven by opposition parties and their protests, had reached a level that threatened the very existence of the nation. To further solidify her position, there were assertions that international forces, particularly the United States and its intelligence agencies like the CIA, were involved in destabilizing India.
The idea that America was conspiring against India was not entirely unfounded in the context of the Cold War, where India’s non-aligned stance and its close relations with the Soviet Union often put it at odds with Western powers. However, the narrative of an imminent American threat was also a convenient tool for Indira Gandhi to suppress dissent and consolidate her power. By projecting an external threat, she was able to justify draconian measures that would otherwise have been unacceptable in a democratic society. The real motive, as many historians and political analysts argue, was to protect her political career in the wake of a court ruling that invalidated her 1971 election due to electoral malpractices. The fear of losing power and the rise of a strong opposition movement led her to impose the Emergency, using the pretext of national security to quell any opposition.
Similarly, in Bangladesh, the political landscape has often been shaped by the narrative of external threats, particularly involving the United States. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s tenure has seen various allegations and conspiracy theories suggesting that the United States, through its agencies like the CIA, has been involved in attempts to destabilize her government. These theories often emerge in the context of Bangladesh’s strategic importance in South Asia, its relationship with India, and its complex interactions with global powers. The notion that Western powers are conspiring to influence the politics of smaller nations is a recurring theme in global geopolitics, and in the case of Bangladesh, it serves as a way to rally nationalistic sentiments and discredit political opposition.
Sheikh Hasina, like Indira Gandhi, has been accused of using the specter of external threats to justify authoritarian measures. Critics argue that by portraying herself as a protector of national sovereignty against foreign conspiracies, she has been able to legitimize actions that undermine democratic processes. This includes the suppression of political rivals, restrictions on the media, and the use of state machinery to maintain her grip on power. The narrative of foreign interference allows her to cast any opposition as unpatriotic or as agents of external powers, thereby diminishing their credibility in the eyes of the public.
In a similar vein, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India has also brought up concerns about foreign interference in Indian elections. Recently, Modi claimed that there are attempts by "foreign powers" to influence India's elections, suggesting that these external forces are not merely offering opinions but are actively trying to meddle in India's electoral process. His remarks echo a familiar pattern where external threats are used to rally domestic support and discredit critics. Modi's statements have been supported by India's External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar, who pointed to the Western media as being part of this alleged interference. Jaishankar argued that the criticism coming from Western press outlets is not due to a lack of information but because these media entities see themselves as political players in India's elections.
This narrative is further complicated by the ongoing geopolitical tensions and the role of Western nations in commenting on or interfering with the internal politics of other countries. For instance, Western media has often been critical of Modi's policies, particularly regarding India's treatment of its Muslim population and the erosion of civil liberties under his leadership. Such criticism, especially during election periods, is seen by Modi's government as an attempt to influence public opinion and the election outcome. The government's response to these criticisms is to portray them as part of a broader conspiracy by foreign powers to undermine India's democracy, thereby justifying stricter controls and rallying nationalist sentiments.
Adding another layer to this narrative are reports of U.S. diplomats meeting with key Indian opposition leaders and activists, a development that has raised further suspicions about foreign interference in India's domestic affairs. For instance, ahead of the Assembly Elections in Jammu and Kashmir, U.S. diplomats, including Minister-Counsellor for Political Affairs Graham Mayer and First Secretary Gary Applegarth, met with National Conference Vice President Omar Abdullah at his residence in Srinagar. During this meeting, they reportedly discussed a wide range of issues related to Jammu and Kashmir. Similar meetings have also taken place with other Indian political figures, such as AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi. These diplomatic engagements, especially in the context of ongoing political tensions in regions like Jammu and Kashmir, have been perceived by some as attempts by the United States to exert influence over India’s internal matters.
Arnab Goswami, in his debate, delves into the covert operations allegedly conducted by U.S. diplomats in South Asia. He raises serious questions about whether there is a hidden agenda behind these diplomatic meetings, particularly in light of the timing—occurring just as critical elections are approaching. Goswami's analysis suggests that these actions could be part of a broader strategy by the United States to influence political outcomes in South Asia, echoing concerns that have been voiced by Indian leaders like Modi. These developments align with a pattern of Western interference that has been observed in other parts of the world, where diplomatic engagements are often followed by significant political shifts, sometimes in favor of Western interests.
These allegations are not entirely without precedent, as the global landscape is rife with accusations of foreign meddling in domestic affairs. Countries like the United States have long accused other nations, particularly Russia and China, of interfering in their elections. Similarly, Canada has accused both India and China of meddling in its political processes. The Western media's portrayal of Modi and his government can be seen as part of this larger pattern of international interference, where powerful nations attempt to influence the political outcomes in other countries to serve their strategic interests.
However, as Palki Sharma points out in her analysis, while these allegations of foreign interference are serious, they also need to be substantiated with clear evidence. Without concrete proof, such claims can easily be dismissed as mere political rhetoric aimed at discrediting opponents or justifying authoritarian measures. In India's case, the government has not provided specific evidence of foreign meddling, making it difficult to ascertain the veracity of these claims. Nonetheless, the narrative of foreign interference serves to bolster the government's position by framing it as a defender of national sovereignty against external threats.
The use of conspiracy theories and fear of external threats is not limited to these two examples. It is a common strategy used by authoritarian regimes around the world. Leaders in countries like Russia, North Korea, and even Turkey have often invoked the threat of foreign intervention or conspiracies to justify repressive measures. Vladimir Putin’s Russia, for instance, frequently cites the danger posed by NATO and Western intelligence agencies to justify crackdowns on political dissent and the suppression of civil liberties. In North Korea, the regime constantly portrays itself as being under siege from hostile foreign forces, particularly the United States, to maintain strict control over its population. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has used the failed coup attempt in 2016 as a pretext to purge political opponents, restrict the media, and centralize power, all while claiming to protect the nation from foreign-backed subversion.
This strategy is effective because it taps into a basic human instinct—the need for security. When people feel threatened, they are more likely to support strong, decisive leadership, even at the cost of their own freedoms. By creating a sense of fear, rulers can justify their actions as necessary for the protection of the nation, turning any criticism of their policies into a challenge to national security. This not only silences opposition but also unites the populace under the leader’s banner, making it difficult for any alternative voices to gain traction.
In conclusion, the use of fear and the narrative of external threats as tools of political control is a deeply ingrained tactic in the playbook of authoritarian leaders. Whether it is Indira Gandhi’s Emergency in India, Sheikh Hasina’s political maneuvers in Bangladesh, or similar actions by other leaders around the world, the goal remains the same—to maintain power by keeping the population in a state of fear and dependence. This strategy not only undermines democratic institutions and civil liberties but also perpetuates a cycle of repression and mistrust that can have long-lasting consequences for a nation’s political and social fabric. The challenge for any society facing such tactics is to remain vigilant, questioning the narratives being presented and recognizing when fear is being used as a tool of manipulation rather than as a genuine concern for national security.
अरनब गोस्वामी रिपब्लिक टीवी के इस वीडियो _ विचार को इस तरह समझे _______
शासक, खासकर निरंकुश या तानाशाह, जनता पर अपनी सत्ता बनाए रखने के लिए उन्हें डर में रखते हैं। यह एक प्राचीन रणनीति है जिसे कई तानाशाहों ने अपनाया है।
ऐसे शासक अक्सर किसी बाहरी या आंतरिक खतरे का डर दिखाकर जनता को नियंत्रित करते हैं। वे इस डर को प्रचारित करते हैं, ताकि जनता उनकी सत्ता को एकमात्र सुरक्षा का साधन समझे और विरोध करने की बजाय उनकी शरण में रहे।
इस प्रक्रिया में, जनता का ध्यान वास्तविक मुद्दों से हट जाता है। जैसे गरीबी, भ्रष्टाचार, या अन्य सामाजिक और आर्थिक समस्याएं। लोग शासक की वास्तविक मंशाओं को समझने की बजाय दिखाए गए डर से प्रभावित होते हैं।
तानाशाहों का मुख्य उद्देश्य यह होता है कि लोग उनके असली चरित्र या उनके गलत कार्यों को न समझ पाएं। भय के माहौल में लोग सोचने और सवाल उठाने की शक्ति खो देते हैं, और इस तरह शासक अपनी सत्ता को कायम रखता है।
ऐतिहासिक दृष्टि से, हिटलर जैसे कई तानाशाहों ने इस रणनीति का उपयोग किया है, जहां उन्होंने अपने विरोधियों या एक खास समूह को जनता के लिए खतरे के रूप में पेश किया और इसी बहाने अपने कठोर नियमों और अत्याचारों को जायज ठहराया।
अतः यह एक रणनीति है जिसमें शासक जनता को भयभीत करके, उनकी स्वतंत्रता और सोचने की क्षमता को दबाकर अपनी सत्ता को लंबी अवधि तक कायम रखने का प्रयास करता है।
अरनब गोस्वामी के वीडियो की बाते नई नही है। इंदिरा गांधी द्वारा भारत में लगाई गई इमरजेंसी और शेख हसीना को देश छोड़ने के पीछे अमेरिका की डीप स्टेट (जैसे सीआईए, एफबीआई) से संबंधित षड्यंत्र सिद्धांतों का जिक्र किया जाता है। इन घटनाओं में शासकों ने अपनी सत्ता को बनाए रखने या अपने विरोधियों को दबाने के लिए अंतर्राष्ट्रीय खतरे का इस्तेमाल किया।
इंदिरा गांधी और इमरजेंसी (1975-1977)
इंदिरा गांधी ने 1975 में इमरजेंसी लागू की, जो भारतीय लोकतंत्र के इतिहास में एक विवादास्पद घटना मानी जाती है। इमरजेंसी के दौरान इंदिरा गांधी ने संसद और नागरिक अधिकारों पर नियंत्रण कर लिया। इंदिरा गांधी ने इमरजेंसी लगाने के पीछे विभिन्न कारण बताए, जिनमें देश में आंतरिक गड़बड़ी और बाहरी खतरे की संभावना शामिल थी।
इमरजेंसी का औचित्य साबित करने के लिए, इंदिरा गांधी और उनके सहयोगियों ने दावा किया कि भारत के खिलाफ एक अंतर्राष्ट्रीय षड्यंत्र चल रहा है, विशेष रूप से अमेरिका द्वारा। यह कहा गया कि अमेरिका और उसकी एजेंसियां, जैसे सीआईए, भारत में अस्थिरता फैलाने और सरकार को कमजोर करने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं। इस प्रकार, इंदिरा गांधी ने इमरजेंसी को देश की सुरक्षा के लिए आवश्यक कदम के रूप में प्रस्तुत किया।
लेकिन कई विद्वानों और आलोचकों का मानना है कि इमरजेंसी का असली उद्देश्य इंदिरा गांधी की राजनीतिक सत्ता को बनाए रखना और विरोधी दलों को कुचलना था। इस दौरान हजारों राजनीतिक कार्यकर्ताओं और पत्रकारों को गिरफ्तार किया गया, प्रेस पर सेंसरशिप लागू की गई, और नागरिक स्वतंत्रताओं को सीमित कर दिया गया।
शेख हसीना और अमेरिका का प्रभाव
शेख हसीना के संदर्भ में भी अमेरिका और उसकी एजेंसियों का उल्लेख किया जाता है। बांग्लादेश की राजनीति में अमेरिका का प्रभाव अक्सर चर्चा का विषय रहा है। शेख हसीना की सरकार पर भी कई बार आरोप लगे कि उन्हें सत्ता से हटाने या उनके खिलाफ षड्यंत्र रचने में अमेरिका की भूमिका हो सकती है।
इन षड्यंत्र सिद्धांतों के अनुसार, अमेरिका और उसकी एजेंसियां जैसे सीआईए, बांग्लादेश की राजनीति में हस्तक्षेप करने और शेख हसीना को कमजोर करने की कोशिश कर सकती हैं, खासकर जब उनकी नीतियां अमेरिका के हितों के खिलाफ जाती हैं।
निष्कर्ष
इन दोनों उदाहरणों में, शासकों ने अपनी सत्ता बनाए रखने के लिए अंतर्राष्ट्रीय षड्यंत्र सिद्धांतों का इस्तेमाल किया। इंदिरा गांधी ने इमरजेंसी लगाने के पीछे अमेरिका से खतरा बताया, जबकि शेख हसीना के मामले में भी अमेरिका की भूमिका के बारे में षड्यंत्र सिद्धांत चलाए जाते हैं।
इस तरह की रणनीतियों का उद्देश्य जनता को डर में रखना और अपने राजनीतिक विरोधियों को कमजोर करना होता है। जनता के सामने बाहरी खतरे का डर दिखाकर शासक अपनी सत्ता को मजबूत करने की कोशिश करते हैं, जिससे जनता उनके असली मकसद को न समझ सके और उनकी सत्ता बनी रहे।
