Evolution of the Left [CPI (M)] approach towards Hindutva politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 3

Building on the ideological clarity achieved at the 22nd Party Congress, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has consistently characterized the Narendra Modi-led regime in India through a critical Marxist lens, focusing on its economic policies, political authoritarianism and its brazenly communal agenda. To begin with the assessment on political developments by successive Central Committee meetings underpinned the modus operandi of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) and its political endeavours through various frontal organisations including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in transforming the secular, democratic, republic of India into a fascist Hindu Rashtra. Using Indian Parliament to advance this goal towards Hindu Rashtra through the passage of laws, including the dismantling of Jammu and Kashmir state on August 5, 2019 was followed by enacting the anti-Constitutional amendments to the Citizenship Act (CAA, 2019) that December. These majoritarian moves in the legislature proved fears of CPI (M) about the impending dangers to the very existence of India as Constitutional secular democratic republic, right.

To sum up on how CPI(M) evolved it’s understanding about Modi regime which became an effective tool in the hands of Fascistic RSS let us look at the following. This characterisation of the Modi regime based on the party’s public statements, party documents, and broader political strategy:

1. Economic policy critique: Neo-Liberalism vs. Crony Capitalism

• Early Characterisation (2014-2019): Initially, the CPI (M) described the Modi regime as an extension of neo-liberal economic policies that favoured corporate interests over the working class and peasantry. It criticised the government for pursuing privatisation, deregulation, and policies like the National Monetisation Pipeline, which it saw as selling public assets to big business. The emphasis was on the regime’s alignment with global capitalism and its betrayal of the poor.

Further, the CPI (M) characterised the regime as a dangerous blend of neo-liberal economic policies and Hindutva-driven communalism accusing Modi of serving corporate interests—particularly those of crony capitalists—while simultaneously promoting a divisive Hindu nationalist agenda rooted in the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJP’s ideological parent.

Since the 22nd Congress of the Party, this “corporate-communal nexus” was seen as a defining feature, with policies like tax concessions for the wealthy, loan write-offs for big businesses, and the dismantling of labour protections viewed as evidence of a pro-corporate tilt. At the same time, the CPI (M) highlighted incidents like the Gujarat riots of 2002 (under Modi’s watch as Chief Minister) and subsequent communal polarisation as proof of his regime’s anti-minority stance. The CPI(M) also framed Modi’s governance as a betrayal of his 2014 election promises, such as job creation and economic “good times” (achche din). The documents pointed to rising unemployment, agrarian distress, and uncontrolled food prices as failures that disproportionately harmed the working class and peasantry—core constituencies in their ideology.

• Later Emphasis (2019 onwards): While the neo-liberal critique persists, the CPI (M) has increasingly highlighted “crony capitalism” as a defining feature of Modi’s rule. It points to specific instances—like tax concessions for billionaires, loan write-offs for corporate allies, and the concentration of wealth among a tiny elite—as evidence of a regime that serves a select group of capitalists tied to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This shift reflects a growing focus on inequality data (e.g., the top 1% owning 40% of wealth) and a more populist framing to mobilise public discontent.

2. Authoritarianism: from subversion of institutions to full-blown fascism

• Initial Framing (2014-2019): In Modi’s first term, the CPI (M) characterised the regime as authoritarian, pointing to the subversion of democratic institutions like Parliament, the judiciary, and the media. It cited examples such as the refusal to engage with Opposition parties, the misuse of agencies like the Enforcement Directorate, and the suppression of dissent (e.g., arrests of activists). In the document the Party released before 2019 general elections titled ‘In Defence of Secular Democratic Constitution’, the Party gave call to defeat the BJP from centre and considered this goal as part of its larger agenda towards advancing peoples struggles to establish People’s Democracy.
• Escalation (Post-2019): After Modi’s re-election and events like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests –2019-2020-and the 2024 temple inauguration in Ayodhya, the CPI (M) has intensified its rhetoric, at times aligning with broader Left voices that label the regime as “fascist” or “Indian fascism.” While not always using the term explicitly, the party describes a “communal-corporate nexus” and an “authoritarian-repressive regime” that merges state power with Hindutva ideology, drawing parallels to historical fascism tailored to Indian conditions. Almost all the resolutions adopted by CPI (M) Central Committee have thereafter categorised the BJP regime as the one advancing the RSS’s fascist agenda.

In sharp focus, after Modi’s re-election in 2019, the CPI(M)’s characterisation evolved to place greater emphasis on the regime’s authoritarian tendencies and its perceived threat to India’s secular democratic framework. While the corporate-communal critique remained, the party increasingly highlighted the subversion of democratic institutions—such as the misuse of central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation against Opposition leaders, the weakening of parliamentary norms, and the erosion of federalism.[1] The CPI (M) described Modi’s leadership as displaying “contempt for parliamentary norms” and fostering an “authoritarian-repressive regime.” This shift marked a broader framing of Modi as not just an economic or communal threat, but a systemic danger to the Constitution and India’s pluralistic identity.

3. Communalism: Hindutva as a tool vs. state-sponsored majoritarianism

• Early Perspective (2014-2019): The CPI (M) initially framed Modi’s communal agenda as a political tool of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP to consolidate power through Hindu majoritarianism. Armed with the 22nd Congress Political Resolution and Political Tactical line the party evolved it’s assessment of the BJP central government with its ideological moorings in the RSS. The CPI (M) has therefore portrayed communalism under Modi as a state-sponsored project, exemplified by the Ayodhya temple event in January 2024, which it called a “death knell of secularism.” The party argued that the regime has moved beyond using Hindutva as a mere electoral strategy to embedding it into governance, violating constitutional principles for example the explicit separation of religion and state.

4. Electoral and tactical shifts: BJP as the main enemy vs. broader Opposition unity

• Consistent position: Throughout Modi’s tenure, the CPI (M) has identified the BJP as the primary political enemy due to its communal and neo-liberal character. It has called for mass struggles to resist these policies, emphasising the Left’s role as the most consistent opponent.
• Tactical variation: However, the CPI (M)’s approach to opposing Modi has varied. In 2014-2019, it focused on independent Left mobilisation, wary of alliances with “neo-liberal” parties like Congress. In its election review of the 2019 general elections CPI (M) without mincing words took the Congress to task for its unwillingness to come up with broader Opposition unity. Subsequently, after the Covid lockdown and the BJP-led government using the lockdown to advance its political goals compelled all Opposition parties to coordination on public issues. This coordination gradually expanded into political actions and culminated in the formation of INDIA block as the Opposition’s unified attempts to unseat the BJP from the centre.

Post-2019, with the formation of the INDIA bloc (a coalition of Opposition parties), the CPI(M) has softened its stance, advocating for a broader unity to defeat the BJP electorally, even while maintaining its critique of Congress’s historical role with regards to neo-liberalism. This reflects a pragmatic shift in characterising Modi as a threat requiring a wider resistance, not just a Left-led one.

5. Response to specific events: Reactive vs. strategic framing

• Reactive Critique: At times, the CPI (M)’s characterization has been event-driven. For instance, it condemned Modi’s handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots (pre-2014) as evidence of his complicity in violence, and later the 2021 oxygen shortage denial as proof of callousness and authoritarian denialism.
• Strategic Framing: Over time, the party has woven these incidents into a broader narrative of a “post-truth” regime that manipulates facts, undermines democracy, and prioritises Hindutva and corporate interests over people’s lives. This shift shows a move from piecemeal criticism to a cohesive ideological attack.

Post-2024 Election: weakened but unchanged in essence

The 2024 Lok Sabha election results, where the BJP lost its outright majority and formed a coalition government under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), prompted a subtle adjustment in the CPI (M)’s rhetoric. They hailed the outcome as a “setback” for Modi’s “image of invincibility” and a public rejection of his authoritarian-communal agenda. However, the party maintained that the core character of the regime remained unchanged. They argued that despite coalition constraints, Modi’s economic policies would continue to favour  big corporations (e.g., through privatisation initiatives like the National Monetisation Pipeline), and his communal politics would persist, as evidenced by ongoing attacks on minorities in the BJP-ruled states.

The CPI(M) also noted that while Constitutional changes (like those undermining secularism or federalism) might be harder to push through due to the lack of a BJP majority, the regime’s “thrust” toward neo-liberalism and authoritarianism would see “no qualitative change.”

Ideological consistency vs. tactical nuances

Throughout these phases, the CPI (M)’s Marxist lens has remained consistent—viewing the Modi regime as a tool of the bourgeoisie, allied with imperialism and monopoly capital, while exploiting communal divisions to maintain power.

However, tactical differences emerge in how they prioritise these elements. Early on, economic critiques dominated, aligning with their class-based analysis. Later, the focus on authoritarianism and constitutional defence reflected a broader alliance-building strategy within the INDIA bloc, where the CPI (M) sought to unite secular and democratic forces against the BJP. Post-2024, their characterisation balances cautious optimism about electoral setbacks with a warning against underestimating Modi’s resilience.

Key differences over time

Thus, the CPI (M) emphasised Modi’s pro-corporate policies (e.g., labour reforms, tax cuts) as the primary betrayal. Over time, this expanded to include a stronger focus on democratic erosion, reflecting the regime’s growing consolidation of power.

2. Communalism as strategy vs. systemic feature: Early critiques framed communalism as a political tactic to distract from economic failures. Later, it was portrayed as an intrinsic feature of Modi’s governance, tied to a broader Hindutva state-building project.
3. Invincibility vs. vulnerability: Pre-2024, Modi was depicted as an unassailable figure backed by money and media. Post-2024, the CPI (M) highlighted his vulnerability, though without softening their overall condemnation.

Conclusion

The CPI (M)’s characterisation of the Modi regime has evolved from a focus on neo-liberal economics and institutional subversion to a more layered critique that integrates crony capitalism, state-sponsored communalism, and fascist tendencies. While the core Marxist analysis—viewing the state as serving ruling-class interests—remains unchanged, the party has adapted its rhetoric and tactics to address the regime’s growing consolidation of power and the shifting political landscape. These differences reflect both an escalation in the perceived threat posed by Modi and a strategic response to rally the wider Opposition, all while staying rooted in its ideological opposition to capitalism and communalism.

The author, Y Venugopal Reddy, is cultural critic and practicing as advocate at Hyderabad and had contributed a series of articles in the run up to 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) at Hyderabad; the concluding part of this series will appear tomorrow)

[1] The regime’s pursuit of Hindutva politics intensified in this period, with policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 and the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir 9August 2019), both seen as assaults on secularism and minority rights.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Part 1 and 2 can be read here

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 1

Evolution of CPI(M)’s approach towards Hindutva Politics: A Reading of its own documents – Part 2

Related:

Subjective thinking Hazardous for the CPI(M), India

CPI(M) must read the writing on the wall, realign to defeat fascist forces

Steer Clear from Jargon, Look at the Ground Reality: CPI(M) Today