Narendra Modi’s
resounding victory at the recent national polls has been generally received
with euphoria, especially in the north of the country, although on the map the entire
country would seem to be virtually saffronised. The opponents have been badly
bashed up and some of the ministers in the outgoing United Progressive Alliance
(UPA) government led by the Indian National Congress have suffered humiliating
defeats.
The overwhelming
mandate, quite clearly, is not as much for the Bharatiya Janata Party as for
Modi, its prime ministerial candidate. The enormous support for a veritable demagogue
has, however, caused misgivings in certain quarters. They feel that this is the
stuff of which fascist dictators are made, who rule not for the wellbeing of
the people but for self-aggrandisement. Modi has been pronounced by the
“pseudo-secular” brigade led by the Congress as the product of a fascist
organisation – the Rashtriya Sevak Sangh (RSS). Over the years both have
collected a reputation of being communal and intolerant of non-Hindus.
The
Congress, the bitter enemy of RSS, and its political face, the BJP, has been branding
Modi as fascist – its accusations
acquiring a stinging and more scornful character before the last General
Elections.
The question,
therefore, arises is whether Modi, his party and its parent organisation are
really fascists. It would need to be critically examined from their current
positions as expounded during the election campaigns in respect of various
issues and not from the traditional views that have been propagated by their
detractors. In order to do so one has to first see what exactly does fascism
stand for.
Fascism has been
defined variously by political philosophers but it is generally understood to
be “radical authoritarian nationalism”. Coming into prominence during World War
I it has been said that it, “Holds right wing positions with left wing
politics”. It is opposed to liberalism, Marxism and traditional conservatism.
Invoking primacy of the state, fascists seek to unify the nation through an
authoritarian dispensation. Veneration of and devotion towards a strong leader,
an extreme form of nationalism and even imperialism are its other features.
Although said to
be a product of the 19th Century, fascism saw a revival in Italy
during World War I. The Great War was cruel to many. It decimated three empires
– German, Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman – and caused utter privations to
most of the European people, especially the Germans and Italians. Widespread
death and destruction took heavy toll of the countries that were at war. While
Germany, under the weight of heavy war-reparations for waging an avoidable war
suffered bankruptcy and destitution, Italy got nothing out of the War except
poverty and misery. It was a war of the absolute monarchs and yet the people
suffered the most, building a fertile soil for emergence of fascism. While in
Germany fascism raised its head in the shape of Nazism led by Adolf Hitler a
strong people’s leader, Benito Mussolini, exploited the discontent among people
and promising pride and respect for Italians, mobilised support of the masses
to become a dictator with absolute power.
If one analyses
the BJP or its mother organisation, the RSS, one does not quite get the
impression they are fascists as defined in the political textbooks. It is true
that the RSS and the BJP have been talking of a “Hindu Rashtra” (Hindu Nation)
and, later, Akhand Bharat (Undivided India) but these were always extreme
positions that they took, perhaps, to protest against India’s partition. Over
time, they have practically given them up, most probably, on realisation that
these are unattainable objectives in the modern world of international politics
where checks and balances generally prevent a country to act in a unilateral
and self-willed manner – unless one has bulging financial and military muscles.
Clearly, India is not such a country.
No wonder, the
BJP has somehow been displaying its ambivalence on these issues. Both the
organisations, however, foster among its adherents love and respect for India,
which, to them, is like their “mother”. Fierce patriotism and intense love of
one’s country and observance of its traditional cultural practices need not
always be harmful for or impinge on other communities or nations. It is only
the ill-advised fringe elements that sometimes move away from the mainstream
and cause avoidable conflicts. Such
elements are not in the Hindu community alone; they are there in numerous other
communities and indulge in such despicable acts.
Rise of Narendra
Modi cannot be seen in terms of the fascist ideology of a strong leader mobilising
masses to bind them into a cohesive entity to pursue authoritarian and
expansionist goals. Modi has worked his way up in the democratic system of the
country and has been elected four times into the Gujarat Legislative Assembly
and later was elected as the chief minister of the state mostly for the good
work done by him. Again, he led his party to an outright win in the national
elections in 2014. His ‘winnability’ prompted BJP to declare him its prime
ministerial candidate. If crowds in huge numbers collected at his election
rallies it was because of reports of his performance in Gujarat. Besides,
frustration and anger of the common man against the corrupt and incompetent outgoing
government swung the people towards a leader who was perceived to be decisive
and capable of delivering a better life to them.
Grabbing the
opportunity offered by the General Elections the BJP, to garner greater
acceptability, brought in unimaginable changes in its earlier positions on its
core political issues, viz. repeal of Article 370 – a provision in the
Constitution that bestows special status to the state of Jammu & Kashmir,
enactment of a uniform civil code (Muslims are currently governed by their
Personal Laws) and construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya on the site where
the demolished Babri Masjid stood.. These have all been put on the backburner
and the main issue before the next government, as declared by Modi, is nothing
but development. His new slogan is “sabka saath, sabka vikas” which, roughly
translated, means “together with everyone and development for all”. This is not
indicative of dictatorial ambitions and takes away the communal tag attached to
the BJP as its revised objectives are to work for progress of all, regardless
of caste or creed.
Fascism is
associated with radical right, i.e. it is ranged against Marxism and socialism.
BJP, backed by the RSS, too held the same position. But, of late, there seems
to have been an abrupt change. Modi has categorically declared that his
government would work for the poor, the youth and security of women (regardless
of caste and creed need hardly be emphasised). Surely, in doing so, one
expects, he would not be unfriendly to business and industry.
In his
inter-actions with the media, Modi has not indicated any expansionist
tendencies. In fact he has clarified that he would pursue friendship and
cooperation with all countries regardless of their size. This became evident
soon enough. He sent invitations for his swearing-in ceremony to all South
Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, including Pakistan. He overlooked
objections of Indian Tamils and went ahead to invite even the Sri Lankan President.
Modi, therefore
is not a fascist. Fascism is something which wouldn’t seem to be in the genes
of Hindus; the question of their organisations – religious or secular – being
fascist, therefore, wouldn’t quite arise. The term, has only been hurled
pejoratively at the BJP by the paranoiac and insecure Congress, fearing all the
time of all that that have since happened to it at the last elections at the
hands of the former.
Photo: from the Internet
No comments:
Post a Comment