CPM’s evaluation of BJP reflects its political character and its reluctance to take on battle against neo-fascism
A controversial debate has emerged in the revolutionary camp regarding the Communist Party of India (Marxist)'s categorization of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Many Communists criticize the CPM’s reluctance to label the BJP as a fascist party and India as a fascist state. Various factors must be considered to arrive at an accurate assessment. Understanding the original meaning and historical development of fascism is essential, as well as analyzing how it manifests in the present global and national context.
The Indian Communist movement has not developed a coherent evaluation of the nature of Indian fascism. Some Communists hastily classify India as a fascist state, but India has not yet completely degenerated into full-fledged fascism. While the state exhibits powerful authoritarian tendencies, it still retains bourgeois democratic structures, including social media platforms that allow criticism, opposition parties, and legal avenues for dissent. Unlike Germany and Italy in the past, India is not experiencing a severe economic crisis that might necessitate a turn toward extreme dictatorship. Elements of bourgeois democracy remain too entrenched for the state to be entirely restructured into a fascist apparatus. However, the government has aggressively crushed dissent, violated human rights, and facilitated unchecked foreign capital, displaying significant characteristics of fascism.
The BJP has implemented a fascist program through its adherence to Hindutva, persecution of minorities, and disregard for constitutional principles. The party has introduced colonial-era laws to suppress basic rights, targeted activists with sedition charges, and fostered corporate dominance over the economy. No previous government in India has granted such free rein to corporate plunder. Opposition parties, including left-wing groups, have also incorporated elements of neo-fascist ideology into their political agenda. While India was not a true democracy before the BJP’s rise, previous governments did not follow a distinctly fascist agenda. Policies such as the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir reflect an authoritarian trajectory. Historical events such as the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the Gujarat riots exemplify the BJP’s role in advancing Hindutva fascism. Although the modern Indian state has not disappeared, it has undergone an intensive transformation, with finance capital exerting increasing control. Neo-fascist forces seek to weaponize the state for authoritarian and crony capitalist objectives, yet the state remains a contested space rather than a predetermined reactionary entity.
Neo-fascist regimes distort state functions to serve crony capitalism and authoritarian rule. These governments dismantle social protections, militarize police forces, deploy mass surveillance, and weaponize legal systems to silence dissent. Such strategies create a climate of fear, intensifying wealth accumulation for a narrow elite at the expense of the broader population. Simultaneously, propaganda mechanisms manipulate public opinion to justify economic and political repression.
The debate surrounding the CPM is less about its assessment of fascism and more about its collaborationist stance toward neo-fascist oppression. The CPM has not effectively challenged neo-fascism and, in some cases, has actively enabled it. Similar to the Congress party in previous decades, the CPM has accommodated Hindutva forces, aligned with corporate interests, and suppressed revolutionary movements. In states under its control, it has facilitated capitalist expansion rather than resisting it. The party remained silent on the extermination of Naxalites and has formed opportunistic electoral alliances, including with communal parties in Kerala and separatist forces in Punjab. It has played a minimal role in resisting colonial-era laws, the criminalization of dissent, or state-led repression.
Historically, when fascism emerged in Europe in the 1920s, some self-professed communist parties took positions similar to the CPM’s today. These parties, labeled as social democrats, supported colonial plunder and collaborated with imperialist bourgeoisies. Lenin categorized them as a labor aristocracy that betrayed the working class. As fascism gained momentum in Europe, social democracy often sided with reactionary elements of finance capital. By the late 1920s, the Sixth Congress of the Communist International branded them as "social fascists" due to their complicity in enabling fascism.
The CPM’s evaluation of fascism is hindered by a rigid and mechanical approach to social analysis. It views caste solely as a superstructural phenomenon, ignoring its deep economic and political implications. Without incorporating caste into class analysis, any evaluation of Indian society, including its class structure, remains incomplete. Similarly, the CPM's analysis of fascism lacks a nuanced understanding of how neoliberalism shapes contemporary authoritarianism. Under globalization, corporate capital has become internationalized, and neo-fascism can emerge in various forms worldwide. The role of conglomerates such as Adani and Ambani, who function as junior partners to multinational corporations, demonstrates the global nature of corporate dominance in India. The CPM’s reluctance to classify the Indian regime as fascist stems from its position as a political instrument within the reactionary framework of corporate capitalism.
The Modi government, backed by Hindutva forces, has adopted fascistic policies, and Modi’s leadership shares similarities with historical fascist figures such as Hitler and Mussolini. His campaign slogan, “Achche Din Aayenge,” closely resembles Hitler’s promises upon taking power. However, establishing a fully fascist state in India presents challenges. The Indian capitalist class is not as powerful or independent as its Western counterparts, remaining dependent on imperialist interests. While contradictions exist among Indian monopolists, an acute financial crisis has not yet unfolded. Additionally, the BJP governs at the national level, but many states remain under the control of regional parties, making the dismantling of federal structures difficult.
India's rapid economic growth, relatively stable relations with global powers, and entrenched parliamentary system differentiate its political climate from Germany or Italy before fascism took hold. While democratic institutions face significant threats, legal checks and public resistance persist. The BJP must still operate within the parliamentary framework, preventing an abrupt transition to full-fledged fascism. The complexity and diversity of Indian society further complicate efforts to consolidate fascist rule. Although revolutionary and social movements remain weak, the absence of a militant threat to ruling elites means the state does not yet require totalitarian control. However, a shift toward full fascism could occur if economic crises deepen or if popular movements gain momentum.
If fascist rule is fully established in India, it will differ from historical European and Japanese models while retaining elements of Chinese comprador-feudal fascism. Unlike China’s warlord-driven structure, India maintains a semi-feudal, semi-colonial economic base. Hindutva fascism, led by the RSS, serves the interests of global capital rather than functioning as an anti-imperialist force. India’s ruling classes fuse feudal and capitalist elements, making its potential fascist state distinctive yet comparable to historical examples.
Although India has not yet become a full-fledged fascist state, resistance from within institutional frameworks is weak. Any failure to recognize the fascist threat or an ambiguous stance on its distinction from neoliberal authoritarianism will undermine communist electoral prospects and ideological credibility. However, if communists can revive progressive movements, unite working people and intellectuals, and challenge the Modi government’s alignment with imperialist forces, they may be able to disrupt the fascist agenda. The legacy of anti-fascist struggles, including the united front strategy advocated by Georgi Dimitrov in the 1930s, remains relevant today.
Communist revolutionaries must develop an extra-parliamentary strategy to combat fascism. A narrow focus on “Brahmanical fascism” that ignores class struggle and Marxist perspectives weakens the fight against capitalism. Similarly, excessive reliance on bourgeois democracy and opposition parties risks overlooking the potential transformation of the state into a fascist dictatorship. A principled and militant resistance movement is essential to counter the rising tide of neo-fascism in India.
---
*Feelance journalist
Comments