Elections in Bihar (one of the eastern states in Northern India) conducted earlier in November saw the sweeping victory of BJP led alliance bagging 202 seats out of 247. Such a mandate is important as it yet again establishes BJP as politically the most dominant party surpassing any other political force. Lok Sabha (Parliament) elections conducted last year saw BJP loosing as many as 70 seats in parliament. Though it managed to form the government under coalition, its prestige was significantly undermined. But that was only for a brief period. 3 major state elections have taken place since then and in all these states viz. Maharashtra, Hariyana and now Bihar, BJP managed to win convincingly.
Clamors of Fascism back –
This has led to many of Left and liberals raising the clamor of fascism yet again. CPI (ML) Red Star, published an article titled ‘Bihar Election Results: Neofascism Gains as Opposition is in Disarray’ citing this victory as victory of neofascism. CPI (ML) Liberation, one of the major left parties in Bihar has long been describing BJP as fascist. Others too joined the chorus. The general proposition is that sweeping victory of BJP in Bihar would strengthen the fascist regime at the center. In fact they already characterize the current period as fascism which has received shot in the arm with the results. But is it so?
BJP : The Election Machine –
BJP has in a way mastered the game of elections. Be it money power or muscle power, the party has never shied away from indiscriminately using it to curtain any chances of opposition parties to even canvass effectively. Last year in Maharashtra, well before beginning of elections, the party had most of helicopters fully booked for election season; thus depriving opposition parties of such facilities. Weaponising investigating agencies to threaten prominent leaders of opposition parties and engineering defections to splits has become the norm in the past decade. Election Commission has been reduced to a party organ which has been grossly manipulating voter lists to suit the interests of the ruling party. In SIR (Special Intensive Revision) exercise carried out in the run up to elections, around 6.5 million voters were deleted from the roll and most of them were allegedly Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis. Also few hundred thousand duplicate records were added as per reports. With microplanning, it could carry out booth level maneuvers. All the vices of bourgeois democratic elections that have evolved in India over past many decades are now championed by BJP and its authoritarian control over whole state apparatus including prominent constitutional bodies like election commission has turned it into the formidable election machine.
Opposition parties seem to have been paralyzed with such tactics. Though both Congress and RJD (Rashtriya Janata Dal) as coalition partners had carried out a widespread campaign, it failed to reach out seat sharing agreement in time resulting in their candidates contesting against each other in few constituencies. Apart from vote chori (theft of votes) campaign, it didn’t bring up any concrete class issues or program to address ground level grievances of joblessness, stagnated economy and migrations.
Political but not social domination –
Does the political domination of BJP means the social domination of the party? No. If one looks at voting percentage, the picture becomes clearer. RJD, the main opposition party had gained 23.11% votes in 2020 state elections and this time it was around 23%, almost intact. Congress did lose out its voting share but only marginally from 9.49% in 2020 to 8.72% this year. BJP on the other hand, increased its voting base but that too only marginally from 19.46% to 20.08%. JD(U), the alliance partner of BJP was perhaps the only party to gain significantly more votes than earlier elections. Of course, the way Indian elections system works, such marginal changes at times make significant changes in seats won by party. However such a strong sweep by BJP alliance winning 202 of 243 seats is not explained by these marginal voting percentage changes. How BJP managed to manipulate the results may not fully come to the surface.
But what is sure is the political domination of BJP does not represent the social domination or any mass movement in favor of it. JD(U), the alliance partner of BJP has also been the major factor. Nitish Kumar, the leader of the party has been the Chief Minister of state for past consecutive 20 years since 2005 (except for a brief period of few months). In last elections in 2020, it fought against BJP and in alliance with RJD resulting in conclusive defeat of BJP. In 2024, just before Lok Sabha elections, he switched side joining BJP. It was not the first time, the party moved from one alliance to another.
The mechanical interpretation of Marxism leads to many on Left loosely using Fascism for any authoritarian regimes irrespective of its class basis or social character. Fascism while completely centralizes the state apparatus, is not just about the political domination. It is essentially a mass movement backed up by the big bourgeoisie. In India, BJP or Modi regime does not even remotely represent any mass movement. Perhaps it was so for a brief period in years following 2014 rise of Modi. But not anymore. And hence, sweeping victory of BJP in Bihar does not represent Fascist movement. Of course, this further strengthens the grip of BJP’s rule and political domination. But that cannot be equated with social one.
The peculiar class power –
Loose usage of fascism has prevented the Left from carrying out genuine and deeper analysis of class basis of the BJP, RSS or the right wing in India as a whole. Of course, this stems from much profound lacuna of mechanically interpreting the complexities of Indian society. These complexities could be grasped by Trotsky’s theory of ‘Uneven and combined development’. What is called as India was not even historically a homogenous mass of society at the same level of development comprising a homogenous social structure. While capitalism brought it under a single administrative control and the capitalist process carried out significant amount of levelling, by no means it was uni-linear process. As Trotsky, pointed out that at the same time the capitalism carves out many class spaces contradicting others. While it won’t be possible to provide the full fledged analysis of Indian society using Trotsky’s theory, one particular aspect of it is crucial. And that is the contradiction between National bourgeoisie and Regional bourgeoisie. India has scores of different regions (states), each with its specific socio-economic structure. The ownership of land and the organization of labour were both along caste lines and caste structure was organized differently in different regions before advent of capitalism. The colonial period and implementation of different land revenue systems across different regions led to early rise of regional bourgeoisie. The process expedited significantly and the class acquired firm clout in post-independence period. The national bourgeoisie class had developed in the decades of 1920s and it acquired firm grip over the national politics through Congress.
Congress party emerged as the main party of national bourgeoisie. However this dominance was carefully crafted by balancing the regional bourgeoisie. Considering the stage of capitalism and dependence of national bourgeois on State, sharing of the power with regional bourgeoisie was well accepted. The neoliberal period following 1990s slowly changed this. The national bourgeoisie that had thrived on public sector resources following so called ‘mixed economy’ (the period from 1950s through 1980s) grabbed the momentum. The influx of global finance capital and opening up of multiple sectors of economy to private capital saw the rapid growth of the bourgeoisie. The animal instincts of the bourgeoisie was let loose and the period proceeding the global capitalist crisis of 2008, Indian economy recorded the highest growth rates. Of course, this stumbled following the crisis and the emboldened bourgeoisie turned to BJP under Modi to further neoliberal agenda.
The political domination of BJP over past decade signifies the aggressive aspirations of national bourgeoisie especially the most reckless elements among it to further expand its power and thus requiring decisive control over regional resources as well. A case in point would be Dharavi redevelopment project in Mumbai that was bagged by Adani, thanks to the BJP government at state level. The project covers around 600 acres of premium land at the heart of Mumbai and with redevelopment of residential, commercial space, Adani looks forward to sell 10-12 mn sq.ft. annually. The project would see Adani investing around Rs. 3 lakh crore into it which is around 33 bn USD. The project would require not just multiple approval, sanction but bend and manipulate rules so that Adani could rip off profit in billions. This would not be possible without BJP exercising control across all rungs of political power. Modi government has been pushing hard for investment in infrastructure projects that have attracted billions of dollars of investment. These infrastructure projects including highways spanning multiple districts if not state or construction of metro projects in multiple cities (many of which are economically unviable) require a centralized control which is what it aspires to gain through BJP. Thus, BJP is a not a fascist but a peculiar formation of class power.
There are of course yet other aspects of complex class structure of Indian society that have bearing upon it. We would be producing an elaborate series of articles dealing with it and its correlation with the rise of Hindutva forces in India in the coming period.
Youvraj
New Socialist Alternative, Pune
27th Nov. 2025