The term “fascism” is often used carelessly in modern discourse, flattening the complexities it attempts to describe. Historically, fascism has specific meanings that, when applied to different contexts or eras, may seem excessive or imprecise. However, comparing contemporary South Asian politics with fascism, particularly its Nazi variant, serves two key purposes. It highlights a connection between modern Indian majoritarianism and one of its ideological ancestors and also helps identify the core of fascism that has persisted.
India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) serves as the political wing of a Hindu nationalist militia, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Founded in 1925, the same time when Adolf Hitler was beginning to gain political traction in Germany, the RSS defines India as a Hindu nation, excluding non-Hindus from membership. The RSS shares similarities with pre-war fascist paramilitary organizations, including uniformed drills, distinctive salutes, and anxieties about masculinity. At the heart of both movements is an aggressive ethnic nationalism, aiming to mobilize a racial or religious majority against a supposedly threatening minority.
In recent years, violence and discrimination against minority religious groups in India, especially Muslims, have been widely observed under the rule of Narendra Modi’s BJP. Events such as lynchings connected to cattle trading, riots, the bulldozing of Muslim homes, and the criminalization of relationships between Hindu women and Muslim men, under the guise of “love jihad,” have characterized Modi’s tenure as prime minister. Yet, the roots of this BJP hostility towards minorities can be traced back to the 1930s.
In March 1939, MS Golwalkar, the principal ideologue of the RSS, published *We, Or Our Nationhood Defined*, a book that outlined the group’s vision for a Hindu nation. He praised Nazi Germany for its strict preservation of ethnic purity. Golwalkar wrote, “German national pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the nation and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races – the Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here.” He concluded that Germany had demonstrated how difficult it is for different races and cultures to coexist in unity, a lesson he felt India could learn from.
The BJP has internalized this ideology. The party’s leaders and members often refer to Muslims in derogatory terms, likening them to termites. Moreover, the status of medieval mosques has been questioned, and the BJP has systematically worked to marginalize Muslims, attempting to render them politically irrelevant. Among hundreds of BJP-elected representatives in state assemblies and the national parliament, there are no Muslim legislators.
This assault on Muslim communities is further reflected in various policies. Restrictions on cattle trading, stigmatizing the hijab in public institutions, and the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) represent attempts to undermine Muslim livelihoods and destabilize their status as equal citizens. The CAA has been criticized as a religious test for citizenship, further entrenching division between Hindus and Muslims in India.
One of the main lessons modern majoritarians have drawn from Nazism is the efficiency with which it demonized minorities, transforming a nominal majority into a politically aggrieved force. Hitler’s success in turning Europe’s most assimilated minority into an expendable underclass within two decades remains a potent example. In *We, Or Our Nationhood Defined*, Golwalkar echoed this sentiment, asserting that “non-Hindu” people could either completely assimilate into Hindu culture or “…stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment – not even citizen’s rights.”
While Nazism is often considered unique due to its rapid rise from a defeated state to a genocidal regime, and the industrial methods used in the Holocaust, the essential goal of achieving majoritarian supremacy through the subordination of minorities remains a common thread. Nazism can be viewed as majoritarianism at high speed, while contemporary South Asian majoritarianism operates as fascism in slow motion.
The likelihood of a Weimar-like collapse in modern India is improbable. India’s democracy, although flawed, is deeply entrenched. Turning it into a supremacist Hindu nation would be a gradual and prolonged process, as indicated by the last general election. However, this does not mean that majoritarianism must always proceed slowly. In Myanmar, for example, Buddhist majoritarianism resulted in the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim Rohingya population in Rakhine province. Similarly, in Sri Lanka, the state brutally suppressed its Tamil minority to solidify Sinhala Buddhist supremacy.
Whether fast or slow, majoritarian parties such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) or the BJP share a common obsession with minorities, reminiscent of Nazi ideology. Whenever mainstream politicians begin talking about “infiltrators,” “fifth columnists,” or “failed assimilation,” the echoes of fascism become unmistakable.
Ultimately, the BJP’s brand of majoritarianism reflects both local and historical influences. The party’s rise to power has resulted in a sustained focus on undermining the political and social status of Muslims, drawing on a legacy of ethnic nationalism that is deeply rooted in India’s past. Yet, as history has shown, majoritarianism, whether swift or gradual, often leads to the systematic subjugation of minorities. The parallels between modern Indian politics and Nazi ideology serve as a reminder of the enduring dangers of unchecked majoritarianism.
