Modern equivalents of fascist movements

Are there modern equivalents of the classical fascist movements of the early 20th century in Europe? And if so, how dangerous are they?

Thinking about modern equivalents of historically very specific movements like fascism is always a bit risky. One can be too taken in by superficial similarities and not pay enough attention to important differences, and emotionally loaded categories (like fascism or even dictatorship) can be used simply as smear words. But so long as the comparison is clear about both similarities and differences, it can still be useful to talk about modern fascist movements.

One candidate that is sometimes mentioned as a modern equivalent of the classical fascist movements is the Hindu nationalist movement. Consider, for example, how some people in the Hindu nationalist movement in India view Hitler:

Reverence for Adolf Hitler – who is hailed as a hero in textbooks in the Hindu nationalist-ruled state of Gujarat, while Mein Kampf remains popular at bookstores – is one of the many sinister aspects of “rising” India today. This cult of Hitler as a great “patriot” and “strategist” grew early among middle-class Hindus. MS Golwalkar, the much-revered Hindu leader and ideologue, wrote in 1938 that Nazi Germany had manifested “race pride at its highest” by purging itself of the “Semitic races” – and yet Golwalkar was also an admirer of Zionism.

This simultaneous veneration of Hitler and Israel may appear a monstrous moral contradiction to Europeans or Americans who see Israel as the homeland of Jewish victims of Nazi crimes. However, such distinctions are lost on the Hindu nationalists, who esteem Nazi Germany and Israel for their patriotic effort to cleanse their states of alien and potentially disloyal elements, and for their militaristic ethos. Many Indians and other colonised peoples hoped for Nazi Germany and Japan to at least undermine, if not defeat, the British Empire. My grandfather was among the Indians with a misplaced faith in Germany’s military capacity. He would have been horrified by the facts of the Holocaust if he had encountered them. But like so many Hindu nationalists, his main political anxiety during those years after the Second World War was whether Mother India would be partitioned into two countries; the subsequent creation of Pakistan as a separate state for Indian Muslims pushed all other historical traumas, especially those of distant Europe, out of view.

(The extract is from an article by Pankaj Mishra in The National). Many politicians associated with the movement have mobilized anti-Muslim sentiment to ride to victory in elections; some have done worse. In 2002 in the Northwest Indian state of Gujarat Hindu nationalist politicians essentially organized a "pogrom" that killed more than 2000 mostly Muslim people. (Nationalist parties will point to previous acts of violence committed by Muslim groups, though not on the same scale). Mishra continues:

The names of the politicians, businessmen, officials and policemen who colluded in the anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat in 2002 are widely known in India. Some of them were caught on video, in a sting carried out in 2007 by the weekly magazine Tehelka, proudly recalling how they murdered and raped Muslims. Nevertheless, Narendra Modi [the current chief minister of Gujarat and one of the politicians associated with the pogrom, though I don't know if he was caught on tape - Xavier] won a crushing victory in elections held soon afterwards; Tehelka’s revelations and the ensuing outrage among many liberals only seem to have helped Modi persuade middle class Gujaratis that the whole world had unjustly ganged up against their plucky, entrepreneurial selves.

Modi is now the most successful young face of a Hindu nationalism that showcases a democratic, economically vibrant, and pro-West India to the United States as a reliable bulwark against “Islamo-fascism” and other forms of Asian authoritarianism.

Refused a US visa by the State Department (due to Gujarat), Modi hired Apco Worldwide, an American PR firm specialising in dictators – its client list includes the late Nigerian despot Sani Abacha and Kazakhstan’s president-for-life Nursultan Nazarbayev – to refurbish his image. Far from being a medieval religious ranter, Modi embodies the slick New India of business deals and information technology tycoons. As his website reveals, the overtly religious symbols and crude anti-Muslim rhetoric he employs in his rabble-rousing speeches are carefully omitted from his presentation to middle class Indians and foreigners.

Narendra Modi is sometimes mentioned among potential future prime ministers of India.

Moreover, some people have argued that nationalist organizations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which are organized along paramilitary lines, have a clear "fascist" character:



On the other hand, Hindu nationalists will say, with some justification, that such organizations have merely educational and cultural purposes, and that organizations like the RSS are not tightly associated with any political party.

Do you think these facts justify analyzing parts of the Indian nationalist movement through the prism of fascism? What similarities and differences do you see between the Hindu nationalist movement and classical fascist movements in Europe? What similarities and differences do you see in the context in which they are operating? Does it make a difference that India is an old and well-established democracy, whereas Weimar Germany and the Italy of the 1910s and 20s were not? Should we worry very much about such nationalist movements, especially since not every appeal to nationalism is necessarily wrong? What other potentially worrying movements can you think of?

(cross-posted)