❈ ❈ ❈

Why Karat Lets Modi-RSS Off the Fascism Hook?

Faraz Ahmad

Prakash Karat, the coordinator of the Politburo and Central Committee of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) has circulated the Draft resolution for the 24th party Congress of the CPM scheduled next month in Madurai, Tamil Nadu.

In the section called ‘Political Line’, the draft states that the 11-year-old Modi regime resulted in the “consolidation of the right wing, communal, authoritarian forces with neo fascist characteristics” and that the government represents “the alliance of the Hindutva forces and the big bourgeoisie.”

In a signed “note” issued to all state committees of the CPI-M on February 4, Karat who was chosen to coordinate the CC and PB upon the sudden untimely death of former general secretary of the party, Comrade Sitaram Yechury last September, clarified and explained the term ‘neo-fascist’ by stating that, “We are not saying that the Modi government is fascist or neo fascist. Nor are we characterising the Indian state as a neo-fascist state. What we are pinpointing is that after ten years of continuous rule by the BJP, which is the political wing of the RSS, there has been a consolidation of political power in the hands of the BJP/RSS and this is resulting in the manifestation of ‘neo-fascist characteristics.”

He further elaborated in the note saying, “The word ‘characteristics’ means features or trends, but they have not developed into a neo fascist government or political setup.” The Note admits that this position is different from that of the CPI and the CPI(ML). The CPI, it admits, considers the Modi government as “fascist” and, according to the CP(ML), an Indian fascism has been put in place.” Thus, Karat concedes that the dominant view in the Left is that the Indian state under Narendra Modi’s leadership has become fascist.

Significantly, the RSS organ, Organiser in its February 25 issue, took note of this draft political resolution with a sense of satisfaction and wrote, “CPI-M’s refusal to label BJP-RSS as “fascist” in draft resolution shakes the opposition eco system.”

“In a move that has sent shock waves across India’s political landscape, the resolution notably refrains from labelling the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamswevak Sangh (RSS) as ‘fascist’ organisations.’ The CPI-M’s refusal to use the term ‘fascist’ …has left the Congress, and other opposition parties, reeling and scrambling for a response,” stated the Organiser commentary.

One thing is evident in this draft prepared by former CPM general secretary Prakash Karat. That if it is accepted as it is, it would signify moving considerably away from the party line under the leadership of late Sitaram Yechury who endeavoured hard throughout his tenure to forge a larger secular, democratic anti-fascist alliance against the Modi regime and his alma mater the RSS.

Also that if Karat succeeds in carrying with him the CPM in the impending party Congress, it would mean carrying the one-time main Opposition in Parliament, away from the mainstream Opposition, in effect endorsing much of what Modi and RSS have been doing throughout these 11 years, who wilfully shrank the space for any dissent or criticism of not just Modi, the BJP or even the RSS, the source of strength and consolidation of right wing in India.

The RSS was founded in Nagpur on 27 September, 1925 and on 26 December, 1925, within three months the Communist Party was founded in Kanpur in India.

The guiding force behind the RSS was Dr. B.S. Moonje who went to Italy from March 15 to 24, 1931, where he met Italy’s then Prime Minister Benito Mussolini and was taken on a guided tour of organizations such as Balilla, the Accademia della Farnesina and other military schools and educational institutions to impress upon him how the militarization of society can be achieved through fascism. In this education tour he also visited the Italian Fascist youth organization the Opera Nazionale Balilla, and immensely praised its functioning. The Sangh’s adoption of fascism as a role model to perpetuate the idea and implementation of a Hindu Rashtra through militarisation of Hindu youth was borrowed by Moonje from Italian fascists and implemented by Hedgewar and his team.

In effect, there has never been a confusion in the Sangh and the minds of its followers that India is a Hindu Rashtra, of the Hindus, by the Hindus and for the Hindus. The attempt to bring in the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) to discriminate against the largest minority of the country, the Muslims in this respect, is guided by the ideological framework of the Sangh’s second and longest serving Sarsanghchalak Madhav Sadashivrao Golwalkar whom the Sangh considers the “best son of Bharat Mata and the “biggest gift to Hindu society.’(Shamsul Islam in Golwalkar: A Critique)

Throughout his life Golwalkar stood for the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra where the minorities like Muslims and Christians could exist only as second-class citizens. And Sikhism, Jainism and Budhism could exist only as part of Hinduism and not as independent religions. Under his leadership the RSS rose as a powerful organisation firmly opposed to democratic, secular and egalitarian India. “He remained committed to the concept of Hindutva, which meant inherent faith in casteism, racism and imperialism.” (Shamsul Islam, ibid.)

And what are the Bhakts of Modi the Vishwa guru stating, except that the “non-biological” Modi is an Avtar descended upon this earth to lead the Hindus to rule the entire world. And yet Karat doesn’t consider either Modi or even the RSS as fascists, not even neo-fascists. But let’s see how the world defines or describes Fascism.

For Robert Paxton, ultranationalism, combined with the myth of national rebirth, is a key foundation of fascism. He argues that “a passionate nationalism” is the basis of fascism, combined with “a conspiratorial and Manichean view of history” which holds that “the chosen people have been weakened by political parties, social classes, unassimilable minorities, spoiled rentiers, and rationalist thinkers.”

Roger Griffin identifies the core of fascism as a nation of a single organic entity that binds people together by their ancestry and is a natural unifying force of people. Fascism, says Griffin, seeks to solve economic, political, and social problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth, exalting the nation or race above all else and promoting cults of unity, strength, and purity.

European fascist movements typically espouse a racist conception of non-Europeans being inferior to Europeans. European fascism grew in opposition to Marxism, Democracy, Pluralism, free markets, egalitarianism, Communism, liberalism, and socialism. Thus fascism is at the far right of the traditional left–right spectrum.

It is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. If the present Modi government is not fascist in Karat’s perception, then we rather delete the words fascism and fascists from the Dictionary.

As a matter of fact, this is not the first time Karat has come up with the thesis of letting Modi and his authoritarian regime off the fascism hook. But as long as Yechury was alive Karat’s thesis was not taken seriously because this was not the party line. But now he is pushing this for adoption in the impending party Congress.

He also talked of Left unity which anyway seems in danger if this line is adopted by the CPM party congress. Not just that, at a time when CPM needs a larger alliance of secular, democratic forces not for the Nation alone but for the survival and growth of the party itself, Karat’s line seems to be pushing the CPM into political isolation.

(Faraz Ahmad is a veteran journalist of over four decades. Courtesy: Mainstream Weekly, a current affairs weekly published from New Delhi, was founded in 1962 by the doyen of Indian journalism, Nikhil Chakravartty, who played an exceptional role in defence of press freedom through the columns of this journal. It is now an online weekly edited by Sumit Chakravartty along with Harsh Kapoor, the Executive Editor.)

❈ ❈ ❈

Fascism or Neo-Fascism: Whatever You Call it, Fight It!

K. Srinivas

When Fascism came into power, most people were unprepared, both theoretically and practically. They were unable to believe that man could exhibit such propensities for evil, such lust for power, such disregard for the rights of the weak, or such yearning for submission.

– Erich Fromm, German social psychologist

All I maintain is that on this earth, there are pestilences and victims, and it’s up to us, so far as possible, not to join forces with the pestilences.

– Albert Camus, in the novel ‘Plague’

Doctrines and theosophies are not to be discussed in the crowd on the streets. I am not saying this by demeaning the streets with a sense of class superiority or elitism. It is difficult to have a language understood in the same way by all, where there are many tiers, groups, and communities. Scientists speak in technical language and terminology. Ordinary people speak a language they know the essence of what has come down to them. Sometimes, what intellectuals say seems “made difficult”, whereas what common people say appears as summarised by wisdom. Whatever the expression, all knowledge flourishes in words, small talks, conversations, discussions and sharing.

In today’s social media-driven world, we encounter interpretations devoid of meaning and commentary detached from truth. We witness scholars who can eloquently speak on any topic with their creativity. We also see terminology and technical knowledge being distorted into falsehoods and misinterpretations by those with partial understanding. When disciplines like history and archaeology are reduced to mere rhetoric, experts are left helpless, swallowing their frustration.

One such difficulty has recently come in the case of the document of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The document reviewed the state of affairs in the country and attached certain labels to the Indian government, the ruling party, and its ideological backers. Anticipating potential misinterpretations, the party even added an explanatory note. However, since some of the terminology was contentious, media outlets interpreted the document differently, leading to a widespread debate. Munching on the bone of contention, they exploited it to the tilt and celebrated it with their style of thumbnails. In the end, the general public grasped that there was some issue with the CPI(M)’s stance. Whether the words used by the party matched the interpretations of the media, the commotion created by this issue might have either harmed or benefited the CPI(M). But overall, the party certainly gained a lot of publicity.

In its explanatory note, the CPI(M) clarified that it does not label the Indian government as outright fascist but as one exhibiting neo-fascist tendencies. Instead, it argues that the government exhibits neo-fascist tendencies. CPI(M) also warned that if these tendencies are not countered, there is a danger that full-fledged neo-fascism will emerge. However, media outlets suggested that CPI(M) was hesitating to label the Indian government as outright fascist, shifting its stance and softening its position on Modi. This interpretation created ripples within the party ranks, among its supporters, and across political circles.

In reality, CPI(M) has never referred to Narendra Modi’s government as a fascist government. Since it never did so in the past, there is no question of a shift in stance or softening its position now. The resolution of the party’s 22nd Congress in Hyderabad took an even more cautious approach, stating that the dominance of Hindutva forces and right-wing aggression in the country indicated “developing fascist trends”. The 23rd Congress resolution in Kannur mentioned that the BJP was strengthening itself through an RSS-driven fundamentalist agenda with fascist characteristics. However, the party never labelled the BJP, RSS, or the Indian government as fascist. There is a difference between stating that an entity has “fascist characteristics” and outright calling it “fascist.” This distinction is important to CPI(M), as reflected in its explanatory note.

Thus, there has been no qualitative shift in CPI(M)’s stance. The new draft resolution is simply a continuation of the position taken in previous party congresses. If this consistent stance is now interpreted as “softening on Modi,” that is a different matter. However, there has been no sudden increase or decrease in CPI(M)’s position on this issue. The party has provided a lengthy explanation of the terms “fascism” and “neo-fascism.” It would have been beneficial if the media had also considered that explanation. The problem lies in the phrase “tendencies” or “characteristics” but not in the term “neo-fascism.” Neo-fascism is not the same as the fascism of Hitler’s era—it is a modern form of fascism, hence the qualifier “neo.”

The media has seen the big news story only from the journalistic curiosity of whether the Marxist party changed or watered down its assessment of the Modi government. However, if the Marxist party had officially brought in a policy change, there was nothing to speculate or read between the lines. But the controversy opened up a debate on why the CPI, CPI(ML) and many other communist parties called the BJP government a fascist government, while the CPM was saying otherwise.

A situation cannot be handled without first assessing it. Without a proper evaluation, there can be no appropriate response. In assessing conditions, prior knowledge, experience, and preparedness for response play a role. A political party’s assessment of the situation directly impacts its action. No party can be forced to interpret a situation in a particular way. Even when they analyse external conditions, the subjective orientation influences their perspective.

In a personal conversation, a CPI leader commented that when there are open statements about the elimination of Maoists and branding of left and democratic forces as urban Naxals, there should not be any fuss over whether fascism has come or not. The party is not making an open debate but has been lip-smacking over the CPM’s stance on “characteristics”.

CPIML Liberation leader Dipankar Bhattacharya has raised some questions about this. He made some “friendly” critical comments. Bhattacharya recalled that his party’s top leader, Vinod Mishra and Sitaram Yechury of CPM, through their articles, had warned the Left and democratic forces against the RSS’s fascist machinations in the 1990s. Bhattacharya says that no one is saying that the Indian state has been completely transformed into a fascist state, but the fact that resistance to fascist attacks from constitutional institutions is so weak that efforts to trample it cannot be ignored. “Despite all this, we still don’t have the flexibility to sit and weigh how far fascism has come,” he said. If not now, when will fascism be recognised? He asked directly. Bhattacharya said it is understandable that parties are prioritising their survival, but they should not hesitate to assess the situation in the country.

The CPI(M)’s political resolution contains many points that even those who firmly believe fascism is already present in India can agree with. The document thoroughly describes the conditions in the country over the past eleven years, covering Hindutva-corporate rule, aggressive Hindutva agendas, neoliberal policies favouring corporates, repression of minorities, suppression of media and activists, and economic policies that harm farmers and labourers. However, one notable omission is the mention of security operations in Abujhmarh. Even though the party maintained ideological distance from Maoists, it could have condemned the repression of Adivasis in that region. CPI(M) members have participated in protests against Operation Kagar, suggesting that they do recognise these actions as part of the government’s fascist tendencies. Given CPI(M)’s thorough assessment of India’s conditions, why does it still maintain a cautious distance from outright calling the current regime fascist?

Some suggest that the CPI(M) is hesitant to fully embrace the fascism label to avoid political repercussions, especially in Kerala, where it holds power. Critics point out Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan’s amicable relations with corporate figures like Adani and the CPI(M)’s cautious approach toward the opposition INDIA alliance. The Kerala Congress and the CPI(ML) Red Star, which only exist in Kerala, have mostly made such criticism. Kerala’s political landscape complicates CPI(M)’s national stance, as it competes with the Congress-led UDF while opposing the BJP.

Fascism is not merely a street-level threat but one that infiltrates various societal structures. Antonio Gramsci emphasised that the primary battleground against fascism is ideological and intellectual. While Communist parties actively publish books and engage in discourse, they often remain reactive rather than initiating ideological battles. Recent attacks on book fairs and progressive writings highlight this challenge.

If the fascism of Hitler’s era was traditional, today’s neo-fascism is considered to be in a dangerous stage. The fascism of Germany and Italy thrived between the two world wars, driven by a desire for territorial expansion. Hitler and Mussolini, after coming to power, disregarded all institutions and elections, ruling as dictators. Although the crisis of neoliberal policies drives today’s neo-fascism, it does not have the background of world wars or territorial expansion. Instead, it strengthens itself through electoral systems rather than completely sidelining institutions. Hence, the current situation is different.

Whether the intruder in the house is a small snake or a big snake is linked to subjective assessments. Some may believe that since it is a small snake, it can be struck with a small stick, while others may insist on using a big stick even for a small snake. The consideration of whether the threat is immediate or not and whether preparedness or response should be immediate or postponed varies among parties. This is not limited to just to communist parties – every political party has its understanding of situations and actions. Some parties believe there is no need to do anything and that waiting for favourable times is the only course of action.

The question is not whether the communist parties assess the situation but whether they are truly formulating programs accordingly. Are these assessments merely statements of position? If their stance appears either too soft or too rigid, should we evaluate their militancy and commitment based on that? Should we also determine whether the BJP rule is soft or ruthless based on the communist parties’ stand? Has the CPI(M)’s line somewhat increased the BJP’s rating?

In its draft resolution, the Marxist Party identified several resistances emerging against fascist tendencies in the country. It mentioned the movements of workers, peasants, and minorities. Except for the agitation by trade unions against labour laws, the CPI(M)’s involvement and leadership in the remaining movements have been. Over the past eleven years, people themselves have provided immediate and natural responses to what is being termed fascist policies. The leftist forces, which were supposed to consolidate these responses into a movement and provide ideological leadership, failed in that responsibility.

Apart from sporadic large demonstrations, they have not been able to provide a concrete plan of action that inspires hope among the oppressed and helpless masses. Worse, some communist groups even refused to recognise or acknowledge the spontaneous anti-fascist responses emerging from the people. When Dalits and minorities, lacking a mainstream leadership that stands by them and guides them, tried to assert themselves by holding on to the Constitution as their defence against the fascist threat, some communist streams dismissed it as constitutionalism and illusion as if that condemnation is the immediate task to take up.

The CPI(M) declared that the fight against fascist tendencies should not be confined to elections alone but should be carried out through multiple spheres. Gramsci stated that the main struggle against fascism should take place on ideological, intellectual, and civil society platforms. Various types of communists are publishing books continuously. However, without discussing the methods of expression and articulation, they simply throw their thoughts.

Now, attacks on book fairs are happening nationwide. Many writings on social media are being subjected to obscene and violent attacks. When attacks happen on their publications and bookstores, if communists hesitate even to participate in a protest march by book lovers, what does their assessment of fascism or fascist tendencies even mean? When fundamentalist forces are altering and appropriating the history of all the Telangana armed struggle landmarks, what do the silent parties’ assessments of fascism matter?

Revolutionaries who claim they will liberate India and build a new society, sacrificing their lives, limit themselves to merely nominal public life and ideological platforms while handing over most battlefields to their enemies; what if they are intense in their ideological commitment?

At the very least, what is expected is that each party should act according to its assessment. Those who believe fascism is only at the street’s end should build an action plan accordingly. Those who believe it has already entered their homes should respond accordingly.

Since everyone agrees that fascism is somewhere – either within sight or far away – there should be an appropriate collective action plan. The spontaneous resistances that emerge among the people should be identified, respected and joined.

(K. Srinivas is the former editor of Andhrajyoti. Originally published on The Wire Telugu, this article was translated by I.V. Ramana Rao. Courtesy: The Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia, and M. K. Venu.)