Book Review: - Communism and Globalization, offensive of the far right by Ajaz Ahemed

Context:-

The book consists of three essays. The first two essays reflect the communal and fascist aspects of the
Hindu fundamentalism in defiance of the existing secular and democratic feature of the constitution.
The third essay talks about imperial atrocities in the mode of globalization. The essays have been
drafted after the dismantling of the Babri-Masjid mosque in Ayodhya. The riots post that incident
intensified the authoritarian elements of fundamentalist groups, taking from those incidents; Ajhaz
Ahemed has reflected the understanding of fascism in Indian context. The book in a very subtle way has
explained what fascism is and how it can be understood in Indian context by bringing in international
comparisons. Similarly it has provided symmetry between imperialism and RSS in terms of cultural
exploitation and differences that it has created. It has provided the understanding of ideologies of
fundamentalist groups across the world and narrowing it down to India, and then provided the author
understands of the same ideas. The book is a reader’s friendly since it doesn’t assume any prior
knowledge and explain the facts and ideologies.

Summary of the three essays

The first essay termed as “On the ruins of Ayodhya” carefully explain the structure and trajectory of a
Hindu fundamentalist group called RSS. The motive of RSS is explained as to remake India and establish
a Hindu Rashtra on the basis of homogeneity in race and culture which is eventually reflected as an issue
of state power. The state that is envisioned by RSS is in defiance with the secular and democratic
notions of the Indian constitution. The incumbent need of Pan-Indian ideology can be associated to the
growing diversity and emerging capitalism in uneven regions, the demise of a left ideology with respect
to congress gave an opportunity for the RSS to redefine Indian nationalism, claim legitimacy over anti
colonial movements and to take over the political and ideological front. Simultaneously RSS developed
its own front to generate national cultural consensus, and has supported neo-liberalism to garner
support from the bourgeoisies and to avoid opposition from imperialism. As oppose to international
comparisons where fascism is organized over not just based on religion but several other issues. The
author explains how RSS’s fascism is only centered on politics, religion and culture where minorities are
treated as invaders who have to either accept the cultural domination or withdraw from the national
identity. The author ends the first essay by explain his idea of secularism with respect to democracy,
minority rights, individual rights, collective citizenship and equality. The idea of secularism as a means to
obtain equality and equal rights in terms of tolerance of denominationally different communities will
eventually leading to political democracy.

The second essay is termed as “Cultures of Cruelty”, The author describes two idea of citizenship, the
first idea suggest citizenship as based on rights and duties irrespective of the religion and race of an
individual, the other idea suggest citizenship in terms of purification to obtain homogeneity. RSS taking
the second idea has propounded the cultures of cruelty as much wider social sanction in which violence
are tolerated and produced by the state agencies. The right wing practices culture of cruelty in the name
of Hindu tradition and create a brutalizing culture to sustain its projects. The author explains that often
fascist regime begins with anti-imperialism and revolutionary class struggle across the world. The anti-
colonial movements have been based on the idea of religion as oppose to the inclusive, equal and
collective idea of citizenship. Such movements are often anti-liberal conception of nationalism, anti-
material conception of revolutionary and anti-rational critique of modernity. It has an anti-material
conception of revolutionary because working class parties offered a material conception of revolution
understanding history as material production and posited the primacy of class conflict with a vision of
multi- cultural and religion unities, Fascism originated in opposition to it, real history they said has been
of culture, blood and race. It was anti-liberal because of the idea of individual freedom, tolerance of
religion and culture was rejected because the nation required a mass consent for homogeneous culture.
It upholds authoritarian command against parliament democracy to legitimize violence for purification.
And similarly rejects modernity not for its market, science and technology but for the enlightenment left
the values of non- racial. . Every fascist regime of a country depends upon its social, political, economic,
religious and ideological forms. One must engage in this battle to repudiate the ideological expansion of
the far right.

The third essay is termed as “Globalization and culture” in this essay the author explains Globalization is
the later phase of imperialism where it is penetrating the fields of culture, via ideology propagated by
the west. The author explains thirteen conditions globally that has accelerated the process of
globalization. The end of colonization facilitated US to boost the interlocked market system. This led to
emergence of US as a hegemon. US enabled industrialization projects in the third world to stimulate the
integration of the market. The demise of the Soviet Bloc and East Asian socialists as an alternative pole
to capitalism led the decline in economic nationalism and removal of protectionist conditions.
Simultaneously international institutions such as IMF, WTO penetrating the domestic laws to build the
facsimiles of American law, concomitantly the military legitimacy provided by UN to US helped tackling
the enemies to globalization. Globalization has produced a system where the state expounds and
strengthens capitalism and neo-liberalism, but at the same time doesn’t empower the labor. It has
produced a homogeneous culture which is accessible to only few by relating aestheticization with
monetization creating cultural differences. The aesthetic value gets diminished in the market via
exchange value and commodification of culture. Culture understood as a process of generating meaning
for common possession has been manipulated by globalization by creating a common culture for the
elite class via internet, media, and colonial class rooms. As per the author culture is a dynamic element
and can not be restricted to a presupposed dimensions. In the end author explains how RSS and
globalization is in correspondence where it either desires the assimilation of the masses encapsulated in
the version of homogeneity and culture or left to be neglected, exploited and devoid of resources and
rights.

Compare and Contrast:-

In the text “Who is a Hindu” Gowalkar has mentioned the idea of Aryan race being the pure and noble
race which deserves primacy over other identities. . As per “Hindu nationalism of Sawarkar and
Gowalkar” the emergence of the nationalism appeared as an urge of self-rule; as a denial of the alleged
inferiority of the colonized people. As per Gowalkar nationalism cannot be defined via territory but by
the essence of culture, in which minorities should not exist because they divide the society while
demanding separate rights, therefore a society can be in peace only by unity which comes by
homogeneity. The underlying assumptions of all forms of communalism, the author suggests, are based
on a completely distorted understanding of what makes a community. Contrary to all historical and
empirical evidence, ideologues of communal groups see the communities they claim to represent as
monolithic wholes, devoid of caste, class, regional, linguistic, sectarian and other divisions. In Golwakar’s
ideas Muslims and Christians are disloyal and are the product of invaders who are corrupting the
society, whereas Ajaz Ahemad explains that the real exploiters are the imperialist forces from which
fundamentalist like RSS have got inspired. Another text called “Secularism and its discontents” by
Amartya Sen understands secularism as equidistance from the state where it’s neutral or unbiased
among different religions. In this essay Amartya Sen tackles and opposes 5 critiques to Indian
secularism. The first critique is that India doesn’t possess secularism, to which Sen opposed with by
comparing Indian secular features with Pakistan where laws such as blasphemy exists. The second
critique mentions the favoritism aspect where apparently Muslims have been given special treatment in
the name of minority, to this Sen states with reference that state has maintained the sanctity of the
personal laws of Muslims and Hindus without overriding the respective laws. On the 'Prior Identity'
Critique which understands Indian secularism as a prerequisite of a Hindu identity and culture, to which
Sen refutes by talking about the intermingling of diverse culture in terms of art, literature, poetry and
the demographic elements where supposedly India has over I40 million Muslims. And finally the ‘On the
'Muslim Sectarianism: Critique’ where the disloyalty of Muslims has been questioned by Sen in terms of
the services provided by various Muslim scholars in the field of administration, diplomacy etc.
Considering these arguments by Sen with reference to Ajaz Ahemed its given an idea that even though
Indian state may not have regressive laws threatening secularist idea, Ajaz Ahemed has reflected the
role of non-state fundamentalist who propagate the anti-secularist initiative via its fronts among where
it doesn’t need an electoral consensus as it has generated a mass national consensus by reconceiving
history, normalizing violence and manipulating media to convey its message. Similarly the prior identity
concern has also brought by fundamentalist as also reflected by Gowalkar where intermingling must
have happened but at the same time extreme subjugation, violence and suppression as witnessed post
Ayodhya incident of riots. Ajaz Ahemed agrees with Sen in the diverse implication of secularism, but the
facts provided by Ahemed in determining the fascist element and its structure opposes the arguments
provided by Sen.

On the accounts of Globalization and Culture Pranab Bardhan in his essay “Does Globalization Help or
Hurt the World’s Poor?” has conveyed the idea that it’s not particularly globalization which causes the
damage to states and its population, but weak policies, administration and institutions are the cause for
the miseries of poor and exploitation. As per this essay, globalization will create winners or losers
depending upon the existing conditions of a state. Whereas in many cases globalization albeit created
inappropriate conditions of work but has provided a better alternative than a much inferior kinds of
work. Ajaz Ahemed’s essay gives an interpretation where he will relinquish the idea of weak state being
one of the causes of atrocities. Instead he provided 13 conditions for globalization which suffices in
explaining the exploitation as undertaken by US in forms of institutions such as WTO or military
legitimation by UN in where globalization is often forced upon states via military power. Ajaz Ahemed
on the other hand coveys the idea that globalization, the latest stage of capitalism and imperialism,
seeks to impose a new consumerist culture over the rest of the world. It’s not the weak policies of the
state but the hegemonic power used to create industrial elements in third world with pressurization to
alter state laws is the cause of exploitation. Ahemed has also brought in the element of culture as an
unfreedom zone which is orchestrated by capitalist to produce differences as a source of exploitation by
dividing the society into haves and haves not.

Ideology and relevance:-

The author can be understood as a Marxist, who is propelling towards communalism to resolve crises by
the idea of equality and criticizing the majority rule and domination. He desires for a utopia in terms of
equality among different domains such as class, caste and gender, by this convention the logic of
secularism and democracy will eventually lead us to communism for the resolution of conflicts. He is
apprehensive about the class differences which have been created by the cultural propagation of the
fascist/exploitative regimes. The book seems to be in relevance to the present context in the case of
India where incidents like mob lynching is still pertinent in the name of religion, state doesn’t condemn
the violence against minority specially in the case of Aasifa, and globalization continues to pressurize by
violating state laws in reference to privatization of education, abolishing of subsidies in agriculture to
create a mass culture of elite.

References:-

 Arartya Sen’s Secularism and its discontents

Devika Shoree

BA Programme (III)