By Dr Arun Mitra
The unprecedented security arrangements in Delhi, which have virtually turned the capital into a cantonment, are reminiscent of the British Raj, when colonial rulers resorted to brute force to suppress popular movements and crush dissent. The arrests of leaders and activists of CJP, AISF, SFI and AISA, along with students and youth, not only in Delhi but across the country in large number, lay bare the Modi government’s growing panic and insecurity.
The scale and nature of the security deployment make it seem as though Delhi is preparing for an invasion by an enemy army, rather than witnessing a peaceful protest by its own citizens at Jantar Mantar. The cancellation of trains and the tightening of checks on other modes of transport to prevent people from reaching Delhi are further evidence of the government’s attempt to stifle democratic dissent. Far from containing the agitation demanding the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), these repressive measures have only decentralised the movement, spreading it beyond the capital and into different parts of the country.
Governments respond to people’s movements in different ways. Democratic governments generally prefer dialogue and seek to resolve grievances through discussion, whereas authoritarian regimes tend to resort to force and repression. Such responses reflect not strength but weakness, insecurity and a lack of rationality.
History bears witness to the collaboration between the Nazis and corporate interests in Germany. The Nazis demonised Jews, portraying them as enemies of the nation and accusing them of hoarding the nation’s wealth. They deliberately cultivated hatred and mass hysteria against the Jewish community, ultimately perpetrating genocide on an unprecedented scale. While communists, socialists, trade unionists and progressive sections of society resisted fascism, many others remained silent spectators or even supported the Nazis, driven by antisemitic prejudice or paralysed by fear of Nazi brutality. A similar pattern of authoritarian rule and repression emerged in Italy under Mussolini.
Today, we see disturbing parallels in India, where forces exercising state power increasingly display authoritarian and majoritarian tendencies. The transformation of Delhi into a heavily policed city, with paramilitary forces deployed to obstruct young people demanding the restoration of democratic values, is a telling reflection of this approach. There is also a historical context to the ideology behind these developments. The RSS did not participate in the struggle against British imperialism and, according to its critics, accommodated the colonial establishment. Its chief ideologue, M. S. Golwalkar, described revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh as brave but misguided. Golwalkar also advocated the concentration of national wealth in a few hands, leaving the vast majority with little, thereby facilitating the domination of the many by the privileged few.
This ideological orientation helps explain the indifference shown towards the continuing violence in Manipur, even after three and a half years. The pursuit of a state governed through surveillance and coercion is further reflected in India’s deepening defence and security ties with Israel and the reported use of Israeli-developed Pegasus spyware to monitor individuals, including citizens and political opponents.
The government is now on the defensive following the exposure of serious questions surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s conduct in the implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Supreme Court of India has clarified that it did not approve the modifications to Form 6, contrary to the claim attributed to Gyanesh Kumar that these changes had been made with the Court’s consent. This contradiction has raised grave questions about his credibility and integrity as the head of an institution entrusted with conducting free and fair elections in the world’s largest democracy. Even more troubling is the damage these actions have caused to the moral authority and public confidence of the Election Commission. The SIR exercise has raised serious concerns about the exclusion of more than 13 crore Indian citizens from the electoral rolls and the potential denial of their right to vote. Any such large-scale disenfranchisement constitutes a grave threat to democracy, particularly when democratic accountability and the protection of citizens’ rights are already under strain.
For the vast majority of our population, rights such as education, healthcare, employment, a healthy environment and fair remuneration remain distant aspirations. For many, the vote has been one of the few meaningful avenues through which they can express their views on government policies and hold those in power accountable. If this fundamental right is undermined or denied, people are deprived of an essential means of defending their interests and participating in democratic life.
Thousands of young people across India have come forward to defend their dignity and democratic rights following the controversy surrounding the remarks attributed to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Their anger has increasingly found expression in protests against what they perceive as the erosion of democratic values and the repressive measures of the Modi government. The INDIA bloc has also been protesting demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation and alleging that the Election Commission is acting under the influence of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. The movement is thus increasingly directed towards the policies and political leadership of the Modi government itself.
History demonstrates that sustained people’s movements can challenge even the most powerful and repressive establishments. However, such movements must be conducted with careful thought, political clarity, discipline and a clear sense of direction. There is an urgent need to build a strong and broad-based alliance of democratic, secular and progressive forces to counter the advance of fascism. Unity, strategic foresight and sustained mass mobilisation are indispensable to this struggle.
Georgi Dimitrov defined fascism as the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinistic and imperialist elements of finance capital. It represents the direct exercise of power by the most reactionary sections of finance capital. It replaces bourgeois democracy with open violence and repression directed against the working class, the peasantry and the intelligentsia. On the international stage, it manifests itself through extreme chauvinism, expansionism and imperialist war.
Antonio Gramsci’s understanding of the struggle against fascism emphasised that resistance must extend beyond military or economic confrontation to encompass political organisation, cultural engagement and the battle of ideas. Workers and peasants must reject reformist compromises that abandon fundamental principles, as well as political passivity, and build broad alliances capable of defending people against capitalist exploitation and fascist violence. Fascism sustains itself not through coercion alone but also by embedding its values in everyday thinking, popular culture and social institutions. Its defeat therefore requires what Gramsci described as a “war of position”: a sustained struggle within civil society, cultural institutions and the ideological sphere to challenge authoritarian ideas and dismantle the social consent on which they depend.
It is therefore imperative that democratic forces in India set aside their differences and move forward together to defend constitutional values, civil liberties and human rights. At the same time, they must honestly examine their own shortcomings, organisational weaknesses and political strategies. Differences on secondary issues should not be allowed to obstruct unity on the fundamental questions confronting the country. Ideological debate, when conducted constructively, can strengthen movements and deepen political understanding; personal ambitions and factional interests, however, undermine organisational credibility, weaken collective action and erode public confidence. They must never be allowed to take precedence over the larger struggle.
The struggle must be guided by political clarity, organisational unity, a sound strategy and sustained mass participation. Any failure to recognise the gravity of the threat, or any hesitation in building a united and effective resistance, could have devastating consequences—not only for democratic institutions and the rights of working people, but for society as a whole. (IPA Service)
