Whispers of Fascism, Cries of Democracy (Fascism in India)

The buzz surrounding the Indian elections has been building for the past two years. Disenchantment and disillusionment with the United Progressive Alliance’s policies made people impatient to welcome a new government—one that would drive the country towards prudent economic policies, better governance, the enactment of entitlement-based rights, and robust foreign policies. The name that comes to mind almost synonymously with the 2014 election is that of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) poster boy, Narendra Modi.

Narendra Modi has been a long-standing member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and was chosen as the Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2001, following the Bhuj earthquake. During his tenure, Gujarat witnessed a massive anti-muslim communal riot in 2002 after the burning of a train in Godhra. Modi has been named in multiple cases for his alleged involvement in the post-Godhra riots. Some Gujarat government officials also accused him of failing to deploy state machinery effectively to suppress or control the rioters from the majority community. Despite all these, Modi was given a clean chit by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and other courts in Gujarat. Despite carrying the stain of allegations regarding the Gujarat riots, he was re-elected for a third term as Chief Minister in 2013.

I am not particularly interested in Modi’s credentials or failures as the Chief Minister of Gujarat but rather in the narratives constructed against Modi and the BJP in media and literature. The BJP, to which Modi belongs, has often been labeled as ‘fascist’ by many writers. The term "fascism" has a long history in Indian political discourse, but in many instances, its application is both unjustified and inconsistent with its conceptual meaning. Historically, the term was first applied to Mussolini’s regime in Italy and later extended to other regimes, such as those of Hitler (Germany), Franco (Spain), Salazar (Portugal), and Perón (Argentina), each differing significantly from the Italian version of fascism.

Unlike other political ideologies, fascism never produced a definitive theoretical framework outlining its principles. However, historical research on Mussolini’s regime identifies certain fundamental characteristics, including extreme nationalism, a totalitarian government, a one-party state, autarky, militarism, and the use of violence. The role of violence in fascism is poignantly captured in Martin Niemöller’s famous poem about the Jewish Holocaust:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

Mussolini once remarked, “Peace is absurd; fascism does not believe in it.” When he introduced the fascist state in Italy, he suppressed all political parties except his own, restructured local governance, imposed censorship, supervised education, and altered employment policies to maintain absolute control over the state. His government promoted cooperation between employers and workers to eliminate class conflict, establishing what became known as the “corporate state.” Fascist-controlled trade unions were given sole authority to negotiate for workers, while strikes and lockouts were banned. To compensate for these restrictions, workers were provided incentives such as paid holidays, social security, sports, and entertainment facilities. Mussolini eliminated or exiled his political opponents, amended the constitution to grant himself unchecked power, abolished elected town councils, and placed towns under fascist-appointed officials. Education under fascism emphasized absolute obedience to authority and indoctrinated youth with the glories of war and the brilliance of Il Duce.

Through the Lateran Treaty (1929), Mussolini’s regime reached an understanding with the Pope, recognizing Vatican City as a sovereign state and compensating the Papacy for its historical losses. Catholicism was declared Italy’s official state religion. While Mussolini sought to establish a totalitarian system, he was ultimately less successful than Hitler in Nazi Germany.

Initially, Italian fascist policies were not explicitly anti-Semitic. However, from 1938 onward, Mussolini began imitating Hitler’s Nazi practices, leading to an increasing overlap between fascism and Nazism. In The Doctrine of Fascism (1941), Mussolini writes:

"Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all-encompassing; outside of it, no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unity inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and strengthens the whole life of the people.

"Freedom is not absolute, because nothing in life is absolute. Freedom is not a right; it is a duty. It is not a gift; it is a conquest. It is not equality; it is a privilege. The concept of freedom changes with time. There is freedom in times of peace that is not the same as in times of war. There is freedom in times of prosperity that is not the freedom allowed in times of poverty.”

This ideology replaced patriotism with aggressive nationalism, making Italy eager for war, as seen in the invasion of Abyssinia (October 1935). Historians offer two interpretations of the fascist era: one views it as a temporary aberration in Italian history—A. Cassels calls it “a gigantic confidence trick perpetrated on the Italian nation by Benito Mussolini”—while another, now widely accepted, argues that fascism emerged naturally from Italy’s historical, social, and economic circumstances. Renzo De Felice (1977) argues that “the fascist movement was primarily driven by an emerging middle class eager to challenge the traditional liberal elite for power.” However, British historian Martin Blinkhorn critiques De Felice for overlooking fascism’s negative and brutal aspects.

If we analyze the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, particularly between 1998 and 2004, we do not find the essential elements of fascism. The NDA government was not autocratic but a democratically elected coalition that introduced free market economic policies, including privatization of public-sector enterprises, economic liberalization, social sector spending, and efficiency-driven social security schemes. Initiatives such as Special Economic Zones, industrial parks, IT hubs, and the National Highway Authority of India were aimed at boosting economic growth. The NDA also launched the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman to encourage investment by Non-Resident Indians and introduced the Overseas Citizen of India initiative. 

The Vajpayee-led NDA government also pursued diplomatic engagement with Pakistan, despite the Kargil War of 1999, which was a result of General Musharraf’s expansionist policies. The historic Delhi-Lahore bus service and Track II diplomacy were significant steps toward Indo-Pak peace, demonstrating that BJP rule was not characterized by the hyper-nationalistic jingoism typical of fascist regimes.

The 2002 Gujarat riots were a tragic episode that shook the nation, and while the central government condemned the violence, it did not invoke Article 356 to dismiss the state government. However, the delay in deploying the army was distressing, allowing majoritarian violence to persist unchecked. Nevertheless, communal riots and state inaction are not exclusive to Gujarat—similar events have occurred throughout India’s history, including the Hyderabad massacre (1948), Gujarat riots (1969), anti-Sikh riots (1984), Bhagalpur riots (1989), Bombay riots (1992–93), and Muzaffarnagar riots (2013).

If we examine other political parties, we find a similar pattern of personality cults and identity-based politics. Many regional parties revolve around a single leader and emphasize caste or religious identity over ideology, such as the Bahujan Samaj Party (Dalit identity), the Rashtriya Janata Dal (Yadav identity), and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (anti-Brahmin and Dravidian identity). These parties engage in moral policing and extra-constitutional actions, with groups like ‘khap panchayats’ asserting authority in states like Haryana and Rajasthan.

To label the BJP as fascist, one must compare its actual governance practices with those of historical fascist regimes, keeping contextual variables in mind. Such comparisons, if applied without nuance, could equate figures as diverse as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mussolini. BJP’s governance does not align with classical fascism, and indiscriminate use of the term diminishes both India’s democratic traditions and the informed discourse around political ideologies.

Labeling the BJP as a fascist party oversimplifies the complexity of Indian politics. If we analyze other political parties, we find similar personality cults, caste-based mobilization, and extra-constitutional means of asserting power. Many regional parties operate as conservative, identity-based movements rather than ideological entities. Thus, indiscriminately applying the term "fascism" to the BJP not only misrepresents the party but also hides its most powerful weapon--communalisation of the masses.