For the CPI (M), the Draft Political Resolution (DPR) now forms the basis for any constructive criticism. Not hypothetical postulations. Hence, for one, the columnist is on wrong wicket when he begins with a foregone conclusion, “Over the long-term, however, allying with the Congress could be a strategic blunder that would only shrink the already dwindling space for progressive politics but also strengthen the purveyors of ultra-nationalist hate politics”. Then he goes on to concede that there might be some merit in allying with the Congress for short-term goals. Now, nowhere in the official document that has been released for public debate, is there even an indirect reference to such a stand. The official document released for the discussion within the Party clearly states unambiguously that the main task is to defeat the BJP and its allies by rallying all secular and democratic forces. However, this objective has to be achieved without forming an understanding or electoral alliance with the Congress party. It is very clear therefore that that the official line that is going to be debated upon in the ongoing conference does not propose at all what the Hindu columnist bases his hypothesis on. Instead of discussing the pros and cons of the propositions in the DPR, the columnist has based his arguments on a different set of propositions that he seems to be privy to.
 
To further his argument, the columnist paraphrases the situation thus, “The largest communist party in post-war Western Europe, the Italian Communist Party (PCI) polled 34.4 % of votes in the national elections of 1976. It then made a ‘ historic compromise’ to ally with the then Italian equivalent of India’s Congress Party, the centrist Christian Democracy (DC), ostensibly to use its mandate to advance a Left-wing agenda. But during the alliance, it was the Communists who shifted rightward. The secular, progressive PCI found itself back-pedaling on issues such as divorce and abortion, so as not to upset the DC’s Catholic middle class voters. Italy’s parliamentary Left never recovered from this alliance.”
 
The columnist thus attempts to find a solution to current issues by reading into the so-called history of PCI. To properly understand this comparison, contextualizing the history of the PCI in its last phase is critical. If we confine our understanding merely to the so called historic compromise, we will be misled about the key factors that played a major role in shaping the Italian polity between 1969 -1979, especially US imperialism.
 
Look at the developments that shaped the alleged historic compromise by PCI. Throughout the Cold War, the most important issue that occupied US diplomats – and especially those attached to the ‘Italian Desk’ within the State Department – was the largest and best organised Communist party in the Western hemisphere, the Italian Communist party whose political and social influence continued to grow during the decades that followed the war.
 
Between 1969 and 1979, strategic choices of the USA — elaborated by the National Security Adviser and the State Department– aimed at sustaining its hegemony over Western Europe, and deterring the expansion of influence of Eastern European Communist block. In line with this strategic aim, the US Embassy in Rome shaped and nudged the Italian centrist party for a tie up with the Communists and thus designed an imperialist strategy coercing the polity of Italy to ally with the US in order to survive. Not mentioning this specific context and merely ridiculing the historical compromise, that too of the centrist party with Communists, only succeeds in suppressing facts that will only help in arriving at out conclusions that are out of context.
 
In the early 1970s the Italian Communist Party’s influence spread across the regions, it became the strongest force in northern belt, which was known as the Red Belt. It won elections to numerous local administrations. Banking on its strength in the Red Belt, that PCI decided to organize a campaign to for direct involvement in national government. In this pursuit, the then general secretary of the Party, Berlinguer felt that it was time to accept the proposal from the Left leaning faction of Christian Democrats aimed at the Left being accepted as ‘a legitimised organisation, qualified eventually to take a place in a coalition government. Significantly, the CPI (M) today simply does not occupy the political space that the PCI did then; neither does the Congress represent what the Christian Democrats then did.
 
To step back in history, it was after the regional elections of 1975, when the National Council met in July, that the left-wing leader among the Christian Democrats, Aldo Moro, along with radical Socialist leaders, Francesco De Martino and Riccardo Lombardi Moro argued in favor of their coming together with the PC. The USA had warned against this arguing that the Communists must be seen as the opposition even though they represented 33 % electorate. Then, after the elections, Aldo Moro formed a coalition government. In the months that followed, US interference in Italian affairs increased ‘in a shameless way’. Ambassador Volpe risked ‘out-performing former US Ambassador Luce’ in his anti-Comunist vehemence.
 
Before this, during the general elections of May 1968, the Italian Communist Party (PCI) won 26.9 percent of the vote. After 1968, with almost a third of the seats in Parliament, the PCI represented ‘extreme danger’ to most US analysts, not only because of Italian governments’ weakness and internal struggles within the ruling Christian Democrats (DC), but above all because the Communists were now projecting the image of a reformist party and had become attractive to those Italians left disaffected by the lack of social reform. Coming forth as the only political opposition within the ‘immobile’ Italian political system, they were seen as a threat that might erode the electoral base of the Christian Democrats.
 
In January 1969, Nixon presidency appointed Henry Kissinger as National Security Adviser and Graham Martin as Ambassador to Italy. Official communications and telegrams of the US Embassy to Washington often expressed grave caution about the fact that, Communists, depicting themselves as a moderate force, would eventually convince Italian voters and enter government, which would be against US’ interests.  Both American and British sources agreed on this perspective and it is with this background that the US embassy, in close coordination with the Vatican, drew out its plan.
 
It was at this time that Aldo Moro, a prominent leader among the Christian Democrats –and several times Prime Minister –who adopted an independent position and advocated a ‘strategy of attention’ towards the Communists. It was also a period during which international politics saw drastic change. After Nixon’s visit to Italy in January and September of 1969, in March 1971, Robert D. Murphy, a former US ambassador, sent a secret document Kissinger which depicted the left-wing leader, Aldo Moro in a bad light.
 
In the wake of Nixon’s resignation due to the Watergate scandal in August 1974, Gerard Ford, former Vice-President, took over the presidency and continued to oppose any ‘opening’ to the PCI, and was happy to continue to deal with conservative Christian Democrats – Rumor, Colombo and Andreotti – as Prime Ministers in Rome. On the other hand, Kissinger considered the PCI an enemy that needed to be destroyed, not a legitimate partner with democratic credentials. In September 1974, during Moro and Giovanni Leone’s visit to the United States, the ‘Communist menace’ was at the centre of all discussions, with Ford insisting that, ‘if NATO is to be strong, we can’t have the Communists participating in the political life of any member party’, while Kissinger was concerned that the PCI’s attempts to appear as a democratic force might bewitch moderate voters.
 
In June 1975, President Ford, visiting Italy, explained that the Atlantic Alliance had been created with the main aim of dealing with a ‘Communist threat’, and that it would be contradictory ‘to belong to the Alliance of a country in which the Communists are in power’. President Leone assured him that all the Italian parties, from the Christian Democrats to the far right, were opposed to the ‘historic compromise’ promoted by Berlinguer, and forecast that ‘the greatest danger of a Communist participation in the government is that it would bring about economic chaos, and even the possibility of a civil war’. Two months later, at the gathering to sign the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, in Helsinki, Moro and Rumor again met Ford and Kissinger and, among other things, discussed the Communist problem in Italy.
 
Ambassador Volpe, in an interview with the Italian weekly, Epoca, on September 20, expressed the same thought: ‘the participation of the Communists in the Italian Government would be in fundamental contradiction with the purposes of the NATO Alliance; and the United States cannot be in favour of a system of government in Italy which would be contrary to Western democratic traditions’ which was considered by, among others, Riccardo Lombardi, a leading member of the PCI left-wing, commented that Volpe’s statement was a ‘threat’ to Italian sovereignty and ‘an act of intimidation’.
 
Meanwhile, a sort of cordon sanitaire was being arranged abroad to deal with a possible Communist-led government in Rome. Immediately after the Italian elections, during the G-7 summit in Puerto Rica, the US, British, French and West German governments agreed to make economic aid for Italy conditional on the exclusion of the Communists from national government Italy had been invited to the previous meeting, at Rambouillet in November 1975, partly to reinforce the Government’s credibility and to confirm that it was an integral part of the Western world. In Puerto Rico, as the US representatives, Alan Greenspan and Brent Scowcroft, reported, Moro ‘was the weakest of all participants at the Summit’ and played a low-key and cautious role, protecting Italian interests, but taking no initiative.
 
Whilst Italy was engaged with its own mess and struggling for stability, Ford immersed in presidential campaign, US foreign policy was dominated by Kissinger, who believed that all the Western European Communist parties were soaked in ‘Leninist dogmas and principles’. It was feared that a ‘NATO without Italy’ would necessitate a reshaping of the Alliance’s southern flank, moving bases to nearby Malta. This international mobilisation of opposition to a Communist share of power may have been the reason Berlinguer gave a celebrated interview to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, in which he acknowledged ‘the positive role played by international alliances for the security and sovereignty of the Western European countries’ and stated that the Atlantic Alliance ‘constituted a shield for the construction of Italian socialism in conditions of freedom’. Such statements suggested that the PCI was now ready to accept Italian membership of NATO.
 
On January 10, 1978, a US document commented on Andreotti’s options, in the light of a PCI threat to end its policy of abstention on crucial votes. The Christian Democrats could only either dissolve Parliament and ask for fresh elections, or try to arrange an accommodation, a ‘compromise’, with the PCI which could have apocalyptic consequences, including ‘further impetus to terrorism as the only effective vehicle for protest against the government’. A day later, at a meeting between Ambassador Gardner and members of the State Department, the CIA, the White House and the NSC, the view prevailed that the PCI had not yet evolved completely towards democracy and was still based on Leninist and Stalinist principles. John Trattner, the spokesman of the State Department, was categorical in stating that Washington would not view with favour the PCI’s participation in government. The declaration echoed one Kissinger had delivered in April 1976, at a press conference in Washington: the United States would not be indifferent to the growth of Communist parties in allied countries, and had the duty to state its political preferences.60
 
For Moro, an alliance between Christian Democrats and Communists appeared inevitable, even if it depended on their eventual transformation ‘into a mildly reforming machine’. In January 1978, Andreotti tried to form a new Cabinet, in a climate dominated by the crucial question of whether or not to involve the PCI. The political impasse was overcome, in the wake of the Moro kidnapping by the Red Brigade, when Andreotti formed a single-party government of the Christian Democrats, a Cabinet of ‘national solidarity’, supported by all the Italian parties, the PCI included, which experimented with a legislative coalition between Christian Democrats and Communists on a limited but essential program: the defense of democratic institutions and the fight against terrorism. With Moro’s murder, an event that shocked the country the Italian Republic rallied in its own defense, without abrogating the civil rights of its citizens and proved to be more stable than many detractors had assumed.
 
The 1970s, a turbulent decade, closed in 1979, when the new President of the Republic, the old Socialist leader Sandro Pertini, was forced to announce new early elections, confirming once again Italy’s domestic instability. At the polls, the PCI faced a sharp setback, by four percentage points, so that its leadership had to reconsider its docility vis-à-vis the Christian democrat-led government and implement new, more confrontational policies. In 1980, Gardner remembered that, when Carter had taken office, the PCI seemed ready to seize power, making Italy an unstable and unreliable ally at best, or a non-aligned country at worse. But the Italian people did not choose that course and, by the time Carter stepped down, the threat from the PCI was past its peak. The Christian Democrats, notwithstanding their strong left wing, experimented with different political alliances to ferry the country to the 1980s without yielding to the temptations of a Communist alliance. They subsequently found a precious domestic ally in Bettino Craxi, a vehement anti-Communist Socialist.
 
If we look at above brief historical facts, comparing the Indian political situation and the Indian Left with that of Italy in those decades, is wholly superfluous.
 
(The writer is an advocate of the High Court)
 

The post Setting the Record Straight on Italian Communists’ Historical Compromise appeared first on SabrangIndia.

‘To be or Not to Be’, is the key question that hangs over the heads of CPI (M) Polit Bureau like a Damocles’ sword when it comes to the question of having any kind of understanding with Congress in order to oust the present dispensation under the leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) supported by its multi headed behemoth, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). Those who have piloted the ‘Not to Be’ stand have argued that the Congress is no less a class enemy than the BJP whereas the rest have made an attempt to distinguish the dangers posed by the Congress vis a vis and BJP.

It is a matter of historical fact that, it was under Congress rule that the Left in India gained some traction among the public and youth as an alternative political option and even galvanized considerable sections of the Indian people which, among other things, helped them to form governments in Tripura, West Bengal and Kerala and also win more than a handful of seats in various state assemblies. For example in Rajasthan, it was under the alliance with the Congress, that the CPI (M) managed to obtain its highest ever assembly presence in 2008. The same is applicable in case of undivided Andhra Pradesh as well.

Significantly, it is also important not to forget that it was the struggles epitomized by the wider Left in India, that shaped real agenda when it came to key questions, be it the slogan for complete independence during the freedom movement, bringing the agenda of land reforms to mainstream policy framework in early 1950s, rallying forces against Indira Gandhi’s authoritarianism in late 1970s, or fighting for national unity and integrity in late 1980s. Even for that matter, championing the cause of the downtrodden burdened by neoliberal economic policies.  The question now before India is, whether the CPI (M), a vocal contingent of the wider Left in India will play the same role in awakening the nation against impending danger to its secular democratic fabric posed by the BJP-RSS.

The Draft Political Resolution released for discussion for the upcoming Congress, has stated that the four years of Modi government, has built the architecture of authoritarianism by curbing parliamentary democracy, subverting constitutional institutions and democratic rights. It has also recorded the attempts by the RSS and its affiliates attempts to advance their communal agenda, which is a step prior to complete authoritarianism.

The architecture of authoritarianism that the BJP under Modi ‘s stewardship exemplifies, is in clear contrast to the authoritarian tendencies adopted by the then Indira Gandhi which culminated in clamping of the Emergency. Unlike now under the hegemonic and majoritarian RSS,  the authoritarian tendencies then took shape under a small coterie of Indira Gandhi’s inner circle. It did not have awide-rangingorganisational architecture with a clear-cut chain of command. It functioned, malevolently, in fits and starts. The architecture of authoritarianism under the present dispensation, with its troll armies that use all means –foul and malignant—to shape public perception and also implement vigorously the mandates that comes either from 7 Race Course Road or from Nagpurare equipped with a far better structured (or semi-structured) organizational mechanism than the one before.

To substantiate my argument: according to documented sources, more than three crore people visits fake news pages created and run through the social media outfits of the RSS – BJP and they are also running Facebook pages with a reach of hundreds of thousands. The statement by the RSS chief on the preparedness of its cadres (to take an army like position) must be seen and understood in this light. Hence, this authoritarianism, even if we agree with the CPI (M) document, which states, is ‘under construction’has the dangerous ‘flesh and blood’ potential to fuel direct action through its multi layered cadres of visceral Kar Sevaks. A manifestation of this we witness now in the tiny state of Tripura where the demolition squads were out on the streets the day after counting of votes came to a close.

Another important difference between two shades of authoritarianism is the vengeance wedded to an ideology instead of simply personal loyalty. The authoritarianism, which gives birth to vengeance wedded to an ideology akin to that of RSS, is far more dangerous than the one wedded to personal loyalty. The authoritarianism of the 1975-76 variety imposed a temporary emergency and is nothing when compared to its 21^st century variant under the present Modi regime that has created the situation of a permanent, undeclared emergency.

The authoritarianism of the earlier phase was rightly termed as a danger to constitutional democracy. Such an understanding paved the way for the widest possible rainbow alliance within which the Left played a crucial role against Indira’s declared emergency. Will the upcoming 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) have a similar appreciation of the ground-situation remains to be seen?Whatever, the outcome, discussions must reflection a historicity and not become self-defeating as they tended to be, before the release of Draft Political Resolution. A look at the historical parallels could provide an insight to overcome the confusion over the strategic goals set forth.

TheNinth Party Congress has already pointed out, “ The Party of ruling classes itself was rapidly and systematically moving towards authoritarianism and a one person rule”. Against this threat to democracy, the Ninth Party Congress, in 1972, called for a united resistance,through the unity of Left and Democratic forces. The Party also critically examined its own approach towards the growing resistance to the authoritarian rule. In its 10^th Congress resolution, the Party recognized its failure to realise the possibilities of the growing resistance to the authoritarian rule of the Congress from the other parties from within the ruling classes themselves. Until then we had this simplistic understanding, which held that in the wake of any developing economic crisis, a resistance to authoritarianism would come only through and from a unity of Left and democratic forces.
 
During the elections of 1977, that were announced after the lifting of the emergency, the CPI(M) did not hesitate to join hands with the Janata Party to put an end to the authoritarian rule of the Congress, headed by Indira Gandhi. The move was aimed towards a dismantling of the authoritarian framework and a restoration of democracy. There was no illusion on the part of the then leadership that the Janata Party represented any class interest that was different from that of the bourgeoisie and landlords as represented by the Congress, today.In it’s Review Report, the party document, stated: “The PB and the CC instead of noting the changing moods of these bourgeois opposition parties continued to emphasise the fundamental class character of these parties and their right reactionary and counter-revolutionary nature as was described in our Party Programme and further explained during the 1969-72 period when these parties were holding the banner of the so-called “grand alliance”.
 
However, despite this historical understanding and the stand that the party then took, when it comes to a response to the current situation, a section of the party has piloted a majority resolution arguing that, since, it is the Congress that has initiated economic reforms, there is no question of allying with it for defeatingthe BJP and its unique brand of authoritarianism. It would not be inappropriate to draw the attention of so called purists to the opening of remarks of B.T. Ranadive, who, whilepiloting the draft political resolution at its 13^th Congress, Trivandrum, said that left parties would have to support the secular bourgeois opposition parties despite their shortcomings and vacillations so that a combination of secular and left parties was able to defeat the Congress (I).

Until the 13^th Congress, the CPI (M) has had theluxury to delineate BJP as only a ‘secondary threat; to Indian democracy and hence all its might was focused against Congress (I). Until 1988, the Party vehemently opposed the Congress (I) and even sailed with all vacillating secular bourgeois opposition parties despite their shortcomings, so that their main enemy could be unseated from power. Today, the draft resolution released on the eve of the party’s 22^nd Congress, such a pragmaticapproach is lacking.

The political tactical line released for discussion is filled with more confusion than clarity. When the DPR says that no alliances will be entertained with Congress but at some times also suggests that it will workout a strategy to ensure that the anti BJP vote pool will be maximized, there is one level of confusion. At another place in the DPR, there is a reference to flexible electoral tactics. This playing around with vocabulary is not going to help the Party in devising a clear-cut strategy to fight its enemy.

Dithering in its fight to oust BJP will also go against the spirit of the Party programme, which clearly states, “The threat to the secular foundations has become menacing with the rise of the communal and fascistic RSS-led combine and its assuming power at the Centre.
Systematic efforts are on to communalise the institutions of the State, the administration, the educational system and the media. The growth of majority communalism will strengthen the forces of minority communalism and endanger national unity. The support of sections of the big bourgeoisie for the BJP and its communal platform is fraught with serious consequences for democracy and secularism in the country.” While the DPR pledges to wage an compromising fight against all forms of intrusion of religion in the economic, political and administrative life of the nation and uphold secular and democratic values in culture, education and society, the strategy if not clear-cut but confused. The danger of fascist trends gaining ground, based on religious communalism must be firmly fought at all levels.

There is more. If it wants to rally all the Left Secular and Democratic forces behind it, CPI (M) will need to survive the ongoing onslaught on its foundations as well as the foundations of Indian constitutional democracy. This is the time to rekindle the examples and experiences of its struggle against the authoritarian framework of Indira Gandhi and learn lessons from that struggle. If it wants to learn lessons from its earlier struggles against authoritarianism, it should opt for a tactical line similar to that of 1977. With clarity and without confusion
 
(The author is an advocate with the high court of Andhra Pradesh and a close sympathizer of the CPI-M)
 

The post Which Way Will CPI (M) Choose to Go, 1977 or 1989? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Both versions carry a strain of historicity and fact. This motivated me to delve deep into the archives and indulge in some additional reading. Original proponents of fascism are the best references. Hence I chose to read the Doctrine of Fascism originally propounded by Mussolini, the architect of original first ever fascist State in Italy, years ahead of Second World War. These are the features of so called Classical Fascism.

Some may doubt the source of the text I am quoting below. For their benefit, I am stating that the text is sourced from a 1935 publication Fascism Doctrine and Institutions, downloaded by an official from the then Fascist Government’s website. None can explain basic ingredients of  Fascism better than this, I believe.

Mussolini arrived at a point where he believed that in order to see that Fascism does not die, it must provide itself with a doctrine. He also credited himself as the one who dictated this small 20 page text, aimed at giving it universality. This he felt, is one of the basic tenets of all doctrines representing a moment in the history of human thought. With this doctrine, he not only wanted to immortalize the concept of Fascism as an action and thought but also called upon it’s followers to use this doctrine as a guide to revise, correct, enlarge, develop Fascism, should the need arise.

Mussolini also holds that Fascism as a spirit is universal in its nature but the institutions are nation specific. That is why he clearly states, “It (Fascism) has a form correlated to contingencies of time and space; but it has also an ideal content which makes it an expression of truth…” The key elements were discussed, deliberated and formulated through School of Fascist Propaganda.

Taking on the doctrinaire approach, prevalent by mid 20^th century as an accepted norm for any idea intended to be transformed into force, Mussolini categorically states, “lack of a forma system as used by the disingenuous adversaries as an argument for proclaiming Fascism incapable of elaborating a doctrine at the very time when the doctrine was being formulated..” Fascism is not the nursling of a doctrine previously drafter at a desk, it was born of the need of action, and was action, it was not a party but in the first few years, an anti-party movement. It is a doctrine of faith. For those who are looking for Classical Fascism, the words, fascism is not a doctrine but action born out of need of the action shall be a chilling reminder.
 
This is in contrast to all other established universal doctrines, theories, postulations beginning with Socrates to Galileo to Darwin, Newton, Marx. These were postulated in their standard form which are available, not only to the followers, but also to critiques for generations. However, doctrines like Fascism preferred to be postulated by the proponents orally as a basis for action to their cadres. This is a structural, and key, difference between egalitarian ideologies and in-egalitarian ideologies. To list one key difference, all egalitarian ideologies with liberative content are well structured theories preserved in texts that can be sourced back to one single person. However,  all in-egalitarian ideologies are structured on grand narratives. This grand narrative keeps metamorphosing into several forms and structures. It is difficult to locate or source these grand narratives to a single authority, person or a source. It is obvious that these propose to chain humans rather than seek to liberate them.

Let us look at the main thrust of Doctrine of Fascism. Under Fascism, the conception of State is fundamentally the conception of life. It is only within this construct that the principle expressions of Fascism such as Party organisation, system of education and discipline can be understood. The concept of man as social animal laid the foundation for understanding individuals as part and parcel of society; in their constant interaction they affect society and getting affected by society, too. In contrast to this, within the fascist doctrine, man appears merely as individual, standing by himself, self centered, subject to natural law, inclined towards selfish momentary pleasure, bound by moral law and common tradition, renounces self interest. Accordingly, “the life as conceived by Fascist is serious, austere and religious, all its manifestations are poised in a world sustained by moral forces and subject to spiritual responsibilities”. Thus Fascism is opposed to all individualistic abstractions of 19^th century materialism and opposed to all utopias and inventions. These lines from Doctrine can help us to assess the style and structure of RSS- BJP organizations as well as the recent statements by Modi’s cabinet colleagues against Darwinism, science and technology, rational approach etc.

There are interesting findings about the State from this doctrine. We are all well aware about the Modi’s 2014 slogan of minimum governance and maximum government. It is only when we look at the fascist conception of state, that we can begin to understand this slogan as a ploy to attract the fund raisers, that is national and international monopoly capitalists. We shall also look at the fact that the State under neoliberalism is synonymous with cronyism and corruption. This will help us to contextualize Modi’s slogan of minimum state, which appears a corruption free administration in the eyes of common man whereas its original intent is corruption unregulated by State. Thus we have our Lalit Modis, Vijay Mallyas and now Nirav Modis and Mehul Choksis are few of them those who understood well Modi’s slogan. Bankruptcy code,  vajrayudh against corruptly piled up non performing assets in the eyes of common man whereas it is flute in the hands of Lord  Sri Krishna, for corporate as the Code can curtail the repayment amount as high as 70% of original of principle plus interest, of course, it will be implemented case by case manner.

The fascist conception of State is primarily anti individualistic. Fascist conception state rebukes the libertarian social contract theory that shaped bourgeoisie state and states that it is not the nation that creates the State … rather it is the State that creates the nation. Thus, State creating a nation through reconfiguring history is key element in fascistic strategy. This leads us to conclude totalitarianism is integral to fascism. For Fascists, the State is not only higher form of expression of personality but also a spiritual to the core. Fascist State is not only law giver and a founder of institutions but an educator and promoter of spiritual life. And we have the well developed concept of Hindu Rashtra which synthesizes unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops and potentiates the whole life of people.

One more important core element of Fascism is its stress on purity, quality of nation rather than its compositeness. When we talks of purity, it could be racial purity, religious purity, or a kind of Plato’s nation governed by enlightened minds of handful few people, or purity in the political thought, which in essence opposes the multi party system and refutes the existence of multiple ideas championed by multiple parties in democracy. We can now understand the fascistic ideological underpinnings of Modi’s slogan and RSS strategy migrating from Congress mukt Bharat to Opposition mukt Bharat.

In the Doctrine of Fascism, a clear role is assigned to peace. It generally does not believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It strongly argues, War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it. Anti peace tendencies of Fascism does not stop here. It “believes now and always in sanctity and heroism, that is to say – an acts in which no economic motive – remote or immediate –is at work. This explains the basis of RSS belief in mob violence and using fear as an important element in increasing its legitimacy.

For fascism, the State is absolute and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. The Fascist loves their neighbor but the neighbor does not stand for a vogue understanding. It will have nothing to do with universal embraces.  Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of theclass trgugles which is the natural outcome of the economic conception of history, above all denies the class struggle as preponderating agent in social transformations. This means that fascism denies liberty, equality and fraternity, the foundations of libertarian philosophy. The libertarian maxim of society which is freedom of individuals, for Fascism, is not in conformity with nature’s plan.

Fascism ridicules democracy as means that degenerates. Fascism eulogises heroic capitalism, which in essence, focuses on the primitive expropriation. In Mussolini’s words, “ (Fascists) have constituted a Corporative and Fascists state, the state of national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby protected in equal measure.” In this formulation, protecting by equal measures is the key word which means, the Rule of Law applies equally to all the subjects, whether  they are expropriated or exploited. Thus the Fascistic state precisely preserves the status quo in property relations. For fascism, the state is fully grown out Corporative state. Fascism stand for a new principle in the word, for sheer, categorical, definitive antethesis to the world of democracy, plutocracy, free-masonry, to which the world still abides by the fundamental principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

From the above contextualized reading, we can conclude as follows. Fascism is backward looking, theocratic, exclusionary, anti liberatarian, anti-equalitarian, anti liberal, anti socialistic, ethno religious, believes in spiritualis, anti-trade union, anti  democractic state persevering the property rights, status quo in economic aspects of life, surrendering individual to State, a nation creating agency, striving for a State building protecting the profit motives and primitive expropriations. In a multi cultural and multi religious society like India, it stands for purity of religion, purity of race, purity of thought, purity of Party, austere, sacrificial, based on postulations of individual leaders instead of well laid out doctrines. These might be the reasons for the Western media to term RSS as Hindu nationalist force instead of indentifying it as fascistic force.

This makes us clear that though today’s BJP ministers vouched by the sovereignty of Indian constitution, they, both in letter and spirit despise Constitution, the Law of the Land and defies and stifles the constitutionally running institutions which are being run based on the egalitarian and libertarian principles which are against the core foundations of fascistic principles. It also makes it clear that merely by looking at their outwardly appearance, we can’t judge and characterize them. There is more in their words and deeds than what is revealed through their postulations. Hence looking for Classical Fascism in 21^st century is a futile attempt.

That is why I am motivated to quote the following, which is religious in nature but secular in practice. No one can take a dip twice in the same waters. Though you may not be changing your feet from the ghats, the water flowing through your feet will keep changing. New water flows. But the river remains the same. Merely because we are standing in the same river, we should not feel content that we are taking dip in the same waters. For example, in the wake of 1929 great depression caused by the finance capital’s imperial hegemony, which is the highest stage of capitalism, the then Fascists opposed and criticised finance capitalism, admonished Capitalism by staying that it served its historical duty. If we come to a conclusion, while endeavoring to see Classical Fascism, unless we won’t name it as fascism unless it opposes Capitalism, it would be foolish on our part.
 

The post Reading Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism in 21st Century India appeared first on SabrangIndia.