CPM’s evaluation of the BJP

Harsh Thakor

Acontroversial debate has emerged in the left camp regarding the Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s categorisation of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Many Communists criticise the CPM’s reluctance to label the BJP as a fascist party and India as a fascist state.

The Indian Communist movement has not developed a coherent evaluation of the nature of Indian fascism. Some Communists hastily classify India as a fascist state, but India has not yet completely degenerated into full-fledged fascism. While the state exhibits powerful authoritarian tendencies, it still retains bourgeois democratic structures, including social media platforms that allow some legal avenues for dissent. Unlike Germany and Italy in the past, India is not experiencing a severe economic crisis that might necessitate a turn toward extreme dictatorship.

 The Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] has introduced colonial-era laws to suppress basic rights, targeted activists with sedition charges, and fostered corporate dominance over the economy. No previous government in India has granted such free rein to corporate plunder. Opposition parties, including left-wing groups, have also incorporated elements of neo-fascist ideology into their political agenda. While India was not a true democracy before the BJP’s rise, previous governments did not follow a distinctly fascist agenda. Policies such as the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir reflect an authoritarian trajectory. Historical events such as the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the Gujarat riots exemplify the BJP’s role in advancing Hindutva fascism.

Neo-fascist regimes distort state functions to serve crony capitalism and authoritarian rule. These governments dismantle social protections, militarise police forces, deploy mass surveillance, and weaponise legal systems to silence dissent. Such strategies create a climate of fear, intensifying wealth accumulation for a narrow elite section at the expense of the broader population. Simultaneously, propaganda mechanisms manipulate public opinion to justify economic and political repression.

The debate surrounding the CPM is less about its assessment of fascism and more about its collaborationist stance toward neo-fascist oppression. The CPM has not effectively challenged neo-fascism and, in some cases, has actively enabled it. Similar to the Congress party in previous decades, the CPM has accommodated Hindutva forces, aligned with corporate interests, and suppressed revolutionary movements. In states under its control, it has facilitated capitalist expansion rather than resisting it. The party remained silent on the extermination of Naxalites and has formed opportunistic electoral alliances, including with communal parties in Kerala and separatist forces in Punjab. It has played a minimal role in resisting colonial-era laws, the criminalisation of dissent, or state-led repression.

Historically, when fascism emerged in Europe in the 1920s, some self-professed communist parties took positions similar to the CPM’s today. These parties, labelled as social democrats, supported colonial plunder and collaborated with imperialist bourgeoisies. Lenin categorised them as labour aristocracy that betrayed the working class. As fascism gained momentum in Europe, social democracy often sided with reactionary elements of finance capital. By the late 1920s, the Sixth Congress of the Communist International branded them as “social fascists” due to their complicity in enabling fascism.

The CPM’s evaluation of fascism is hindered by a rigid and mechanical approach to social analysis. It views caste solely as a super-structural phenomenon, ignoring its deep economic and political implications. Without incorporating caste into class analysis, any evaluation of Indian society, including its class structure, remains incomplete. Similarly, the CPM’s analysis of fascism lacks a nuanced understanding of how neoliberalism shapes contemporary authoritarianism. Under globalisation, corporate capital has become internationalised, and neo-fascism can emerge in various forms worldwide. The CPM’s reluctance to classify the Indian regime as fascist stems from its position as a political instrument within the reactionary framework of corporate capitalism.

Communist revolutionaries must develop an extra-parliamentary strategy to combat fascism. A narrow focus on “Brahmanical fascism” that ignores class struggle and Marxist perspectives weakens the fight against capitalism and strengthens identity politics.

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 44, Apr 27 - May 3, 2025