Hindutva and Fascism have much in common: Dr. R.M. Pal
Interview with Dr. R.M. Pal on Hindutva and Fascism in India
By Yoginder Sikand
http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Religion-communalism/2004/hindutva-pal.htm
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 (PUCL) 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 others, 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 revolutionizing 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.
