[This is Part I of a two-part series. Part II will be published in the next issue]

A couple of years ago, on Vijaya Dashami, the Sarsanghchalak (Chief) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Mohan Bhagwat, mentioned a new phrase at the organisation's Headquarters in Nagpur — ‘Cultural Marxist’.

But this phrase is not at all ‘Indian’. It was imported from the foreign lands. As Ram Madhav, the RSS's ideological leader, had admitted: ‘In his criticism of cultural Marxism and wokeism, Bhagwat will find many supporters in the West’ (Indian Express, October 28, 2023).

Ram Madhav was correct. The phrase ‘Cultural Marxism’ may sound ‘post-modern’, but it carries a long and toxic legacy (New York Times, November 13, 2018). For the past century, the far-right has wielded this term with the neo-fascists employing it with alarming consistency. Fascism has consistently targeted Marxism — initially branding it as ‘Jewish Bolshevism’, and subsequently as ‘Cultural Marxism’. Norway's far-right extremist Anders Breivik, who perpetrated the heinous crime of killing 77 innocent individuals at a summer camp in Oslo in July 2011, invoked this phrase 600 times in his 1,500-page manifesto.

It is widely recognised that identifying enemies, both within and outside national borders, is a strategy often used by authoritarian leaders to consolidate power. In India, Mohan Bhagwat has adopted this rhetoric to stir up a backlash against left-wing and progressive forces, who have been resisting the RSS's fascist ideology and the Modi government's authoritarian actions that are eroding India's tradition of diversity. By appropriating discourse from the Western far-right groups, Bhagwat aims to depict leftists as outside the pale of ‘Indian culture’. It is a way of Othering them.  

This vilification campaign is a deliberate attempt to suppress left-wing students’ movements and progressive intellectuals, including writers, researchers, and academics. The underlying narrative posits that Communism is inherently alien, with its philosophical underpinnings, ideological tenets, symbolic figures, and revered locales all originating from outside India's borders, thereby rendering its adherents as outsiders.

As far-right politics gains traction, this propaganda intensifies. Labelling individuals as ‘Outsiders’ has become a perfunctory exercise. However, this phenomenon is not unique to India. Globally, far-right entities employ a familiar tactic: xenophobia, cultivating an irrational fear and panic about foreigners. This approach is evident in Trump's America, Marine Le Pen's neo-fascist National Rally in France, the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's Brothers of Italy— the ideological successors to Mussolini— and Spain's neo-Francoist Vox Party, all of which adhere to a similar narrative.

In India, the RSS has long been engaged in identifying ‘Enemies’. Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, the second Sarsanghchalak and paramount ideological authority of the Sangh, delineated three ‘internal threats’ to the purported ‘Hindu Rashtra’ in his book Bunch of Thoughts: Muslims, Christians, and Communists. In his profoundly anti-Muslim writings, ‘Guruji’ Golwalkar argued that for Muslims to coexist in this country, they must acquiesce to a status of second-class citizenship, submitting to the dominance of the majority and tolerating their oppression.

Modi and Mohan Bhagwat are echoing similar sentiments today. There is nothing novel about this narrative. According to them, everything about Communists is foreign— ranging from the influential figures of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, to the foundational text of the Communist Manifesto itself.

Two

The world's greatest discoveries, timeless ideas, unique ways of thinking, beautiful literature and philosophy, and breathtaking art and sculpture have a universal appeal. Does Leonardo da Vinci's immortal Mona Lisa belong only to Italy? Then why does her iconic smile resonate in almost every neighborhood of distant Bengal? Michelangelo's Renaissance masterpiece, David, stands in Florence, Italy. What about Van Gogh and Picasso's extraordinary works? Do they belong only to the Netherlands, Spain, or France? Is Shakespeare's Othello a play solely for the British? Then why is it still performed on stages in Bengal? Or consider Bertolt Brecht's play Die Mutter (The Mother), adapted from Gorky's novel— Utpal Dutt's Bengali translation captures the poignant scene where Pavel's mother, grief-stricken over her son's death, listens to workers singing in his memory. Gorky, Brecht, and Utpal Dutt— separated by continents, yet blended into one voice. 

Should Einstein's Theory of Relativity be dismissed from our curriculum simply because he was German? If we forgo its study, how will we grasp that virtually every mathematical prediction he made a century ago has been vindicated, and that the universe itself operates according to the laws he elucidated? Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman once claimed: “A scientist's discoveries and a scientist's life are each an epic. The sad part is, there is no Homer to write them”. And indeed— is the Iliad or the Odyssey exclusively for the Greeks? Are the Ramayana and the Mahabharata solely Indian? Does the sublime music of Mozart and Beethoven belong only to Austria?

Ecuador is a small Latin American country far from Russia with fewer than two crore people. Between 1950 and 2015 in Ecuador, a remarkable 18,464 individuals were named Lenin. Even more, 18,728 were named Stalin (Miami Herald, April 3, 2017).

But a basic understanding of history reveals that the term ‘Hindu’ was actually coined by the Persians. Derived from the river Sindhu, with ‘Stan’ meaning ‘Place’, the term's origin is geographical. Swami Vivekananda echoed this in his Jaffna lecture after returning from America, noting the ancient Persians' pronunciation of ‘Sindhu’ as ‘Hindu’, referring to those who lived on the other side of the river.

Modi's own ‘Idol’, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, drew a clear line between Hindutva and Hindu dharma, stating, ‘Hindutva is a political project. It has nothing to do with Hindu religion.’ The question then arises: what does Golwalkar's vision of ‘Hindutva’ entail? He provided insight into this in his book We, or Our Nationhood Defined, where his concept of ‘cultural nationalism’ was explicitly modelled after Hitler's ideology— ‘German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.’ So who did the second Sarsanghchalak of the Sangh ask us to learn from? From Hitler. The Sangh is, ideologically, a follower of Mussolini and Hitler.

B S Munje, a founding figure of the Sangh, spent ten days in Italy in March 1931, during which he visited the fascist headquarters in Rome on March 19, and engaged in an extensive discussion with Benito Mussolini. With evident admiration, Munje toured the National Fascist Academy, the Military College, and the Central Military School, also witnessing the Blackshirts in action. Subsequently, he declared that India, particularly ‘Hindu India’, required a similar organization to foster the military re-awakening of the Hindus. At the time, Munje served as president of the Hindu Mahasabha and later became a key political mentor for Hedgewar, the Sangh's inaugural Sarsanghchalak.

The walls of Ajanta and Ellora, nestled in this very India, are replete with history. Ancient artists, with boundless love and unrelenting effort, painted the elemental lessons of art upon them. The magnificent cave sculptures narrate the Jataka tales with eloquence. Similarly, in Afghanistan's Bamiyan province, two colossal Buddha statues – 115 feet and 174 feet tall, and 1,500 years old – once stood sentinel. In March 2001, the Taliban reduced them to rubble. UNESCO had tried to salvage them; the Museum of Modern Art in New York, Buddhist-majority countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka, and even Iran had offered to procure the statues. All efforts were in vain. And yet, history, religion, and art slumbered on in those stone folds, only to be ravaged in the name of religion – over twenty-five days, using rockets, tanks, and ultimately dynamite, all of foreign provenance! Ironically here, Modi preaches Swadeshi, yet wears Italian glasses, sports a Swiss watch, uses an American phone, and travels in a German car – a striking contrast to the self-reliance he advocates.

The Taj Mahal. One of the Seven Wonders of the World. Does anyone say the Taj Mahal belongs to Agra, or to Uttar Pradesh? No — we all say it belongs to India. The whole world says the same. Just as we say the Great Wall of China, the Pyramids of Egypt, the Colosseum of Italy, Christ the Redeemer of Brazil, Easter Island statues of Chile, or Petra of Jordan.

Three

Certain creations, certain works of art, possess a universal resonance that transcends the boundaries of time, geography, nation, creed, and language. Yet, right-wingers and fundamentalists seek to stifle them within suffocating confines

On the eve of his execution, Bhagat Singh was not immersed in the Gita or the Guru Granth Sahib – instead, he was engrossed in Lenin. Did this diminish his love for India? When Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt hurled a harmless bomb in the Central Assembly (today's Parliament), intent on "making the deaf hear," they also scattered pamphlets bearing the slogans "Inquilab Zindabad" (Long live the revolution) and "Down with Imperialism." A shift from "Vande Mataram" to "Inquilab Zindabad" – does this render the ‘Che Guevara of South Asia’ any less a patriot?

On the other side, in July 1908, Bal Gangadhar Tilak was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on charges of "sedition." Historian Bipan Chandra notes: in protest, workers from all cotton mills and railways staged a total strike, bringing Bombay to a grinding halt. The army was deployed. Sixteen workers were killed on the streets, fifty more wounded. Observing the workers' strike in India, Vladimir Lenin wrote in his essay ‘Inflammable Material in World Politics’: ‘In India, too, the proletariat has already developed to conscious political mass struggle – and, that being the case, the Russian-style British regime in India is doomed!’

Karl Marx. Born in Trier, one of Germany's oldest cities, nestled by the river Moselle. Educated in Trier, then Bonn, then Berlin, followed by Paris. Then Brussels. Finally, London. Where does one situate him? To Trier? To Bonn? To Paris? To London? Has The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital ever been bound by geographical constraints?

Marx also wrote extensively on India, yet for a considerable period, Marxists worldwide remained largely unacquainted with these works. Between 1853 and 1861, he authored a succession of essays on India and China for the New York Daily Tribune. During this Tribune phase, he immersed himself in Indian studies. Even in his final days, he was engrossed in accounts of Bengal's village society, annotating texts, and inserting marginal notes to spark future reflection.

What constitutes Marxism? It is a lens through which to view the world, a tool for deciphering events. When applied to a specific country, it draws upon that nation's unique history, culture, social fabric, and conditions to dissect particular situations. Hence, revolutionary models vary from one country to another. Our party, CPI (M), is not a mere replica of Russia or China; rather, we have assimilated their experiences and adapted them to our own context, forging our own distinct path.

The Earth has completed 207 orbits around the Sun since Marx's birth. It has been 157 years since the publication of Capital's first volume, his comprehensive critique of capitalism. Yet, he and his work remain undiminished in their relevance. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz now speaks of the dichotomy between the ‘1% and 99%.’ Marx articulated this very disparity in 1848 – the stark contrast between one-tenth and nine-tenths. When Marx was born, the world was yet to witness a railway; radio was non-existent, and the telephone had been invented merely seven years prior to his death. Despite the advent of the iPhone era, his ideas continue to resonate. Marx may not have foreseen Facebook, but his insights had already encompassed Zuckerberg's business model.

That is why The Economist – a publication Lenin once described as ‘the paper that speaks for British millionaires’ – recommended (May 2018): "Rulers of the World: Read Karl Marx!" The New York Times ran an op-ed proclaiming: "Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!" At the Oscars, director Julia Reichert concluded her acceptance speech for the documentary American Factory with the Communist Manifesto's stirring rallying cry: ‘Workers of the world, unite.’ Meanwhile, The Washington Post, in an article titled ‘Why the Specter of Marx Still Haunts the World’ (May 8, 2018), openly acknowledged: ‘Whatever you think of him, Marx still matters.’

Four

Does Rabindranath belong solely to undivided Bengal, or is he a figure of global significance? Rabindranath's writings were first translated into Chinese by Chen Duxiu, a founding member and the inaugural General Secretary of the Communist Party of China. Chinese readers were introduced to Tagore's work even before the announcement of his Nobel Prize. Fast-forward to today, and the landscape has drastically changed: singing Rabindra Sangeet is now deemed seditious! ‘Amar Shonar Bangla" is verboten— singing it renders one a ‘Traitor’! If Rabindranath were alive today, he'd likely face imprisonment or be pushed back across the border. It is striking how Tagore has become the target of two distinct forms of fundamentalism in two separate countries!

This phenomenon is hardly surprising. The character of far-right politics is uniformly xenophobic, a trait that manifests uniformly across the globe. In stark contrast, Rabindranath's patriotism was deeply rooted in his profound love for humanity, encompassing a genuine and inclusive affection for the people of his country, one that transcended divisions and differences. Simultaneously, his love extended to all people across the world, embodying a universal empathy. This duality made him both a passionate patriot and a committed internationalist – a harmonious blend of the two. He eloquently articulated this vision in his poem ‘Chitto Jetha Bhayshunyo’ ("Where the Mind is Without Fear") from Naivedya:

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;

Where knowledge is free;

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls...

But the far-right has consistently thrived on sowing discord and division – exploiting fault lines of caste, religion, and race to fracture societies. They are, in essence, the quintessential ‘Tukde Tukde gang’ (the group that breaks things apart), for it is through perpetuating such divisions that they effectively distract from their own agenda of exploiting natural resources and looting land, forests, and water – while keeping the populace preoccupied with internecine conflicts rooted in identity politics.

The Sangh family defines the notion of "Indian" through the prism of their "Hindutva" project, imposing a rigid and narrow definition. In stark contrast, the Bengali tradition of thought is marked by a laudable propensity for absorption and synthesis – a willingness to engage with, assimilate, and integrate diverse cultures and ideas, all while preserving its own rich heritage and historical identity. This very ethos was poignantly encapsulated by Tagore, who articulated it thus:

Now the door has opened to the West

and gifts in hand they beckon and come--

they will give and take, meet and bring together,

none shall be turned away

from the shore of this vast sea of humanity

that is India.

The right wing incessantly champions uniformity, advocating for a monolithic narrative of "one nation, one language; one nation, one law; one nation, one election". Yet, the lived realities of East India, West India, North India, the Northeast, and South India starkly belie this notion – each region boasts a distinct tapestry of cultures, languages, culinary traditions, and attire. This raises a pertinent question: which of these diverse identities gets to claim the label ‘Indian’? Is it Mizoram, or is it Gujarat? Isn't it the unity of this diversity that makes India truly Mahan Bharat?

Uniformity and equality are not the same thing.

On the other hand, the leftist ideology advocates equality and fairness, acknowledging and honoring the distinct identities of disparate communities, languages, and groups, undifferentiated by caste, religion, gender, or race. This idea of diversity must not be denied. It is our core. Our civilization has always embodied the great unity transcending all the differences. This concept of unity-in-diversity defines us. This land is breathtakingly diverse, having, over the ages, intricately woven together thousands of castes, religions, communities, languages, cultures, foods, and clothes in an extraordinary tapestry of coexistence.

The Aryans and non-Aryans, Dravidians and Chinese,

Scythians, Huns, Pathans and Moghuls—

All are mixed, merged and lost in one body

This diversity is our true identity. An identity we take immense pride in, and one that has accorded India a singular stature on the global stage.  

The right wing, however, seeks division, repudiating the very diversity that defines us. Under the guise of unity, it advocates for uniformity, designating certain groups as ‘outsiders’ and scapegoating them for societal problems by distorting historical  facts and conjuring imagined grievances. It fuels anger with narratives such as, ‘Your poverty, your unemployment, your problems— it's not a consequence of the failure of capitalist policies, but their presence.’ This malleable ‘Them’ can be Black people in one context, Muslims in another, Hindus elsewhere, immigrants in some narratives, or Dalits benefiting from reservations— the far-right deploys this divisive tactic universally.

It is here that the real conflict lies— between the left and the Sangh's ideology.

— To be continued in the next issue

Original Source: Apan Hote Bahir Hoye, Marxbadi Path (marxbadipath.org), 1 April 2026