Much ado about Fascism

Fascism, according to Merriam-Webster, is a way of organising a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government. It is also a “political philosophy, movement, or regime” that exalts nation above the individual. Going strictly by this description, former CPM general secretary Prakash Karat is partly correct in his premise that BJP is authoritarian and right-wing but not a fascist force. Karat’s observation has rekindled the debate whether Modi regime is fascist or not. Ironically, some of his party colleagues disagree. Speaking at the CPM central committee meeting last week, general secretary Sitaram Yechury, quoting party documents, asserted that the BJP government is not fascist in the classical sense but acts as the political arm of the RSS which has a “fascistic agenda”.

Has Karat overstepped party line or erred in his assessment of the Modi regime? Former Kerala chief minister V. S. Achuthanandan, who also spoke at the CC meet, accused Karat of diluting the “fight against Modi regime” by his avoidable comments. The CPI too differed. In its 22nd Congress at Puducherry, the party concluded that the present BJP government is “fascistic, but not fascist yet”. The word “yet” is forewarning.

A series of unsavoury incidents such as attacks on people consuming or storing beef, savaging of those who disagree with the nationalism narrative of the BJP/RSS as anti-nationals, (murder of left, liberal, progressive thinkers and rationalists like Malleshappa Kalburgi, Govind Pansare, Narendra Dabholkar by persons belonging to organisations rooting for a particular ideology), have understandably rung alarm bells among the right-thinking people who fear that the country could slip into radical authoritarian nationalism in the absence of credible counter mobilisation of progressive, secular and democratic forces.

In a recent article in the Indian Express, Karat suggested that the BJP and RSS have to be fought in the political, social and cultural spheres and the fight against them should be by combining the struggle against communalism with the struggle against neo-liberalism. Betraying a “class” obsession, Karat said: “Since the two major parties – the BJP and the Congress – are alternately managing the neo-liberal order for the ruling classes, the political struggle against BJP cannot be conducted in alliance with the other major party of the ruling classes.” In short, the Congress should be kept out of the nebulous coalition against the BJP.

He said the people can be mobilised to oppose the BJP and the Modi government on latter’s economic policies and “subservience” to big business and not by the slogan of fascism. True, but partly. The UPA II was voted back to power in 2009 despite Manmohan Singh government’s neo-liberal economic policies and “subservience” to India Inc. In 2009, Singh was lauded as a “middle class icon”. The voters, per se, are not bothered whether a government is Left-of-Centre, neo-liberal or pro-business -- as long as it delivers. The UPA got a renewed mandate because it was able to marry neo-liberal policies and mega welfare schemes, attracting a sizeable chunk of aspirational class as well as the aam admi. In 2004 the CPM, as part of the UPA, had played a seminal role in this balancing act. The Congress lost in 2014 mainly due to the unprecedented scams and a leadership vacuum vis-à-vis Modi.

Karat says that the situation obtaining in the country cries out for the broadest mobilisation of all democratic and secular forces against communalism while also building a political alliance of Left and democratic forces based on an alternative programme – “Only such a dual approach can check and roll back India’s right- wing forces.” While his diagnosis is correct, his prescription is faulty. Electoral victory is imperative to roll back the right wing forces. The alternative programme could appear vague to many non-BJP parties if neo-liberal order is not delinked from the fight against communalism. While he has ruled out the inclusion of Congress in this bloc, it is not clear who are the others who can be partners of this “broadest” mobilisation?

Barring the Left, Congress and the RJD, most regional parties have directly or indirectly backed BJP-led governments from time to time. Many of them are subservient to the big business too. Expecting them to toe the CPM line on approach to ruling classes does not reflect correct understanding of the electoral reality. Can a small grouping like the Left Front, comprising the CPM, CPI, RSP and Forward Bloc, carry the burden of fighting both communalism and neoliberal order simultaneously on its fragile shoulders and take on a deeply entrenched BJP/RSS sans a broader, pan-India coalition?

The BJP lost Delhi elections within a year of Modi government assuming power at the Centre not because of its fledgling neo-liberal economic policies but because the Left, liberal, progressive sections closed ranks against its divisive agenda and the Aam Admi Party reaped the benefits. In Bihar, the BJP lost not because of Centre’s neo-liberal agenda but because of the grand alliance of JDU, RJD and the Congress offering a solid electoral alternative to the people. Clubbing the battle against communalism with neo-liberalism will only weaken the fight against the bigger enemy.

Karat also said that “no section” of the ruling class is currently working for the overthrow of the bourgeois parliamentary system (that may be because the BJP does not have the numbers in the Rajya Sabha) and at the same time, he said the neo-liberal regime is trying to “hollow out parliamentary democracy.” During Vajpayee reign, there was a controversial attempt to review the Constitution. The BJP is not exactly beholden to parliamentary democracy and many in the party are admirers of presidential form of government. Some right wing intellectuals even favour abolition of the Upper House, ill-advised and pernicious. Eternal vigilance, no doubt, is the price of democracy.