Akhilendra Pratap Singh
Fascism and Nazism is of European origin.
Benito Mussolini was founder of Fascism in Italy who rose to power in 1922 and Adolf Hitler, leader of Nazism in Germany rose to power there in 1933.
Fascism in Italy and National Socialism in Germany had never been coherent body of thought. It has cynical indifference to intellectual honesty and truth. It had broad emotional appeal to people.
Fascism is known as open terrorist dictatorship of corporate political rule.
It glorifies the RACE, Nation and represents the chauvinistic nationalism. It makes left appeal to people but serve the interest of corporate and imperialist elements of finance capital.
It nurchers corporate economy and destroys the economy of petty producers. Fascism in Europe tried to secure a mass base for monopoly capital among the lower classes, petty producers, peasantry, artisan, office employees, civil servants etc.
Fascism in Europe neglected entire heritage of eighteenth century Enlightenment. It rejected not only Marx but Voltaire and John Stuart Mill too. It rejected not only communism but all forms of liberalism.
Popular front of liberals, socialist, communists, academicians, individuals fought back the fascism.
Soviet Union and western allies gave crushing defeat to fascist, though United Nations archives released recently holds that there was a systematic collusion between American and British governments and Nazis during second world war.
After defeat in war Hitler committed suicide and Mussolini was executed by partisans. .
In India from RSS to a section of indigenist social scientist views that fascism is a western origin and there is no scope of fascist political rule in India.
Recently among the communists circle a debate surfaced whether in India authoritarian political rule or fascism is creeping. Miliband is quoted as saying after universal revulsion at the horror of fascism in Nazi Germany, it is difficult for bourgeoisie to consider fascism as an option even in situation of extreme crisis. It is said that authoritarianism thrust emanating from the neo-liberal process has found expression in the demand to change the features of political system by amending constitution. ‘Stability and strong government’ have become major pre occupations.
Turkey is quoted where in for political Islam executive presidency has taken the place of parliamentary system.
According to this view in India it is not fascism but authoritarianism is creeping. It is said that Rastriya Swayam Sevak Sangh(RSS) believes in an authoritarian Hindu Rashtra.
The matter of fact is the political idea of Hindutva is contending in India from national movement to this date and RSS aspires and continuously working for a Hindu Rashtra which is nothing else but Indian version of fascism. Fascism is more than politics. Political ideology no doubt operates on terrain of economy but it has its own autonomy.
Aijaz Ahmad has rightly said that experience of Itlay, the classic home of fascism, shows that big bourgeoisie neither created fascism nor played any significant role in its capture or consolidation of power meant that Musolini regime remained relatively autonomous of the bourgeoisie even after it made common cause with it.
Hindutva got theoretical clarification by Savarkar in his book ‘‘ Hindutva or who is Hindu,’’ Sarvarkar coined the term ‘Hindutva’ with certain specific purposes.
He said ‘‘ The Aryans who settled in India at the dawn of the history already formed a nation, now embodied in the Hindus.’’
On this theorization ‘Two Nation theory’ was propounded by Sarvarkar. Hindutva has been guiding principle of RSS. Theory of RSS is based on the superiority and predominance of the Aryan Race.
Golwalkar ideologue and second sar sangh sanchalak of RSS makes distinction between cultural nationalism and territorial nationalism of congress led by Gandhi.
Golwalkar wrote in ‘We or nationhood defined’ ‘from this stand point sanctioned by shrewd old Nations(Nazi Germany and Fascist Itlay). The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language must learn to respect and hold reverence to Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of glorification of Hindu race and culture i.e, of Hindu Nation, must loose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu Race or may stay in the country wholly subordinated to Hindu Nation clamming nothing, deserving no privileges, for less any preferential treatment not even citizen’s rights’. He advanced the theory of PITRIBHUMI (father land), PUNYA BHUMI (spiritual land). For him Hindu Race is only entitled to be Indian because India for them is both PITRIBHUMI and PUNYA BHUMI.
The BJP take over of the national government allowed Sangh Pariwar to entrenche itself in all institutions of state power.
The institution is being defined, difference and dissent is treated as anti national. Street violence is being organized against minorities, Dalits and Adivasi.
Any one who speaks against government, corruption faces violence. Like Sarvarkar and Golwalkar, Mohan Bhagvat openly affirmed that ‘India is a Hindu state and citizens of Hindustan shoud be known as Hindu.’ Modi succeeded to project himself as pro-poor, strong and a leader of world stature. This manufactured image of him has percolated at the grass root level.
In absence of any credible political opposition and national movement, Modi influence is spreading. Otherwise there is nothing concrete which Modi government has given to the people of the country in these three years of his governance.
Neo-liberal and post modernist prescriptions of opposition is giving space to forces of Hindutva to flourish. The matter of the fact is informal sector economy is suffering badly, unemployment is rising, suicide of peasanty is developing, Kashmir and border issues are still unresolved. Objective assessment of Indian polity indicates that ruling establishment is in serious crisis, crisis is not only economic and political, it is moral too. Suitable policy and program is needed to combat his march to India as Hindu Rastra.
To meet the challenge posed by the Modi government, possible coalition of the forces of movements, ideas, sectors, individuals, should be made. A popular front is the need of the hour. This united front will not only meet challenge of impending majoritarian corporate fascism but will also work for complete democratization of Indian society and polity. Front should arouse patriotism of 1857 nationalism and will show parochial nature of nationalism of Hindutva. What to say about commitment of secularism of atheist Bhagat Singh, Gandhi ji was a great secularist even as orthodox Hindu. Front should concentrate to expose Modi government-corporate nexus and it should link itself with movement like ‘Bhrastachar se Azadi’ which is going on.
Front should also intervene day to day problem of youth, peasant and on issues of informal sector. To meet the street violence of Sangh Parivar goons, criminals and lumpens, front will develop militant mass resistance at all level. This should be most important ingredient part of movement.
The relation of united front to ruling opposition is a matter of tactics. In accordance of situation we can decide which party can and can not be the part of the front. It is a tactical question and it should be dealt at tactical level.
A Paper Presented in Workshop Organized by Swaraj Abhiyan in New Delhi
(Akhilendra Pratap Singh
Ex. President Allahabad University Student Union
Member, National Working Committee, Swaraj Abhiyan)