The Sturggle
Against Hindutwa
And Fascism
By Dr Dr. Rai
Mohan Pal and Yoginder Sikand
India Thinkersnet
Yahoo Groups
10 January, 2004
Dr. 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.