The Sturggle Against Hindutwa
And FascismBy Dr Dr. Rai Mohan Pal and Yoginder Sikand
India Thinkersnet Yahoo Groups
10 January, 2004Dr. Rai Mohan Pal, a noted Indian human rights activist, used to teach English at Delhi University. He has edited the Bulletin of the People's Union for Civil Liberties and the monthly Radical Humanist founded by M.N. Roy. Here he speaks to Yoginder Sikand about the human rights' movement and the struggle against Hindutva and fascism in India.
Q: You have been quite active in speaking out against Hindutva. How do you link the movement against Hindutva with the wider human rights movement in India?
A: Hindutva, as I see it, is the modern form of Brahminism. I believe that Brahminism and fascism share much in common, and just as the philosophy of fascism is based on the negation of human rights, so, too, is the philosophy of Brahminism. In fact, Brahminism is a philosophy based on the gross violation of the fundamental rights of entire social groups-women, Shudras, Dalits and tribals, as well as groups such as Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and Sikhs, who, when added up, form the vast majority of the Indian population. The violation of the rights of so many millions of people because of the caste system upon which the Brahminical religion is based is as important a concern for us as the violation of rights by individuals or the state. Unfortunately, not many groups in India today, even within the human rights movement, are giving due importance to this societal violation of human rights.
Fascism is a major source of human rights' violations the world over. It has its own philosophy which takes different forms and adopts different methods in different contexts, but the philosophy remains the same. M.N. Roy, the founder of the Radical Humanist movement, was the first to point out the fact that the roots of fascism lie in the ancient Brahminical religion, and he showed how European, particularly German, fascist philosophers borrowed concepts from Brahminical scholars and scriptures, concepts such as the Aryan race theory, the supremacy of the strong over the weak, the concept of the tyrannical superman and so on.
In fact, M.N. Roy issued a' sharp warning to Indians not to fall prey to Hindu revivalism because he saw that it was nothing but fascism in a different garb. You can see that for yourself. What was the destruction of the Babri Masjid and the mass slaughter of the Muslims but naked fascism? Goebbels, Hitler's chief propagandist, wrote in one of his books, 'The state must have the power to break its own laws'. That is precisely what happened on 6 December, 1992. The state was actively involved in the breaking of the mosque. Goebbels also remarked, 'Repeat a lie- a hundred times and it becomes a truth'. You can see this Chanakyan tactic in all the false Hindutva propaganda about Muslims, Christians and Communists. See what horrendous and baseless things they are writing about Muslims in the school textbooks now. They have attributed all the ills of India to the Muslims, painting all of them as immoral.
Q: Could you elaborate further about your claim of the Brahminical roots of fascism?
A: The social basis of Brahminism has historically always been the caste or varna system, and so it remains till this very day. And what is the ideology of varna but a reflection of fascism? The Nazis divided humanity into five categories: the so-called 'pure' Aryans, such as blonde, blue-eyed Germans; other Europeans; the Slavs; the Asiatic peoples; and, lastly, the Africans, whom they hardly considered human beings at all. Likewise, in the varna system, which is described and prescribed in all the texts of the Brahminical religion, starting from the Rig Veda, humankind is divided into five groups or varnas, which are placed in a steeply hierarchical order-the Brahmins; the Kshatriyas; the Vaishyas; the Shudras; and others like the so-called 'untouchables' and other non-Hindus, derisively called Mlecchas, who are described as 'unclean', because they refuse to recognise Brahminical hegemony, and so are considered almost beyond the pale of humanity. You can see from this why so many top RSS leaders so highly extolled Hitler.
Q: How do you view the link between what you call Brahminical fascism and Hindutva nationalism?
A: M.N. Roy had studied this matter in great detail and dealt with it in many of his writings. Unfortunately, as events have unfolded over time, there appears to be a very thin dividing line between fascism, Brahminism and the dominant form of nationalism in India today. We need to reject this straight-jacketed nationalism, this enforced homogeneity, and instead allow for the expression of pluralism, tolerance and secularism. India has always been a very plural society, but frankly, given the horrors of the caste system and the way women here have been treated, who can say that India has been a tolerant society, despite all that Hindutva propagandists claim to the contrary? You just have to see how the Dalits were and still are treated in the most unimaginably cruel way, how women were forced to jump into the funeral pyres of their husbands, and how Buddhism was driven out of the land of its birth by Brahminical revivalism, to realise the hollowness of the claim that India has been
the very epitome of tolerance. And this ugly intolerance is not just a thing of the past. I believe that the mass killings of the Sikhs in 1984 was basically due to the fact that the Sikhs had started refusing to be considered as Hindus, stressing that they were a separate community. This could not be tolerated by the advocates of Brahminical supremacy, who felt that the Sikhs should be taught a 'lesson' to bring them 'in line'. What is this if not naked fascism?
Q: Could you elaborate further on your point regarding the relation between dominant forms of nationalism and fascism?
A: As I see it, the dominant notion of nationalism constitutes as divisive an ideology as communalism or fascism. It is based on hatred of the other', so that today the test of being a ,'true' Indian has become the intensity of one's hatred for Pakistan or China or whatever. In a country like India, such a form of nationalism becomes a dangerous cult. India, to reiterate a point I made earlier, has no option but to be secular and pluralist and tolerant. This means that we must be guided by a philosophy of humanism. We just cannot attempt to be a nation-state in the sense of nineteenth century political science theory. We have to recognise that although we have been a highly pluralist society, we have never been tolerant, so the task before us is to retain our pluralism and seek to develop a climate of tolerance. Now both of these-tolerance and pluralism-are directly threatened by nationalism as it is articulated and especially by the ideology of Hindutva. The advocates of Hindutva talk about protecting pluralism, but that is not a pluralism based on equality. Their brand of pluralism demands that Dalits and Muslims and other marginalised and oppressed groups must remain under the Brahminical umbrella as wholly subordinate. This is sheer intolerance.
Q: How do you think the struggle against Brahminism can be carried forward?
A: Unfortunately, we who are struggling for a tolerant and secular society do not seem very clear about our own philosophical and ideological postulates. Hindutva fascism has to be fought at the ideological level, by a superior ideology based on rationalism, and not just on the political plane. A political party challenging the forces of Hindutva can very soon be accommodated by Brahminism, as we learn from the events of recent history. There is no other way out but a philosophical and cultural revolution. Unfortunately, we have never had a total philosophical revolution in this country. Buddhism tried to do this 2500 years ago, but then it was driven out by the Brahminical revivalism led by Shankaracharya, who himself used Buddhist tools and concepts for this purpose.
Reformers like Kabir and Nanak tried to do it by challenging Brahminism, but soon their followers converted themselves into cultic or caste-like groups or separate communities. Kabir and Nanak were converted into cult figures and their radical message of social revolution was forgotten. Instead of revolutionising the entire society, the Kabirpanthis and the Nanakpanthis emerged as new communities, thus adding to the already bewildering number of castes. I am of the firm opinion that unless we have a philosophical revolution in India today, real and meaningful social change in India is impossible.