Daily Times

The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly known as NSDAP, or the Nazi Party remained active in Germany during the early 20th century. Run by Adolf Hitler, this party has become synonymous with ideas of fascism, genocide and religious discrimination due to its heinous crimes against the Jewish population of Germany and other parts of Europe. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), on the other hand, was created in the mid-twentieth century and recently rose to power by winning the Indian elections in 2014 and again in 2019 under the leadership of Narendra Modi. This has been the subject of harsh criticism on the basis of its blatant Islamophobic rhetoric and policies since the re-election campaign particularly the illegal occupation of Kashmir which was given special status after India and Pakistan split in 1947, and the amendment of the Indian Citizenship Act which singles out India’s immigrant Muslim population. Under these circumstances, arguments have surfaced deeming this party a modern-day fascist party and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been subsequently compared to Adolf Hitler. Almost 100 years later making a comparison to such a sensitive period in history can seem too far-fetched or simply irrational, however, historians and current affair analysts such as Radhika Desai have made a convincing case to the global community. Looking at Modi’s campaign promises and actions, over the past year in particular, and comparing them to Hitler’s ideas and actions have brought forward a striking similarity particularly in the ideologies and actions towards bringing a socio-economic change in their countries based on isolating a part of the population based on religion. This paper aims to begin by devising a correlation between the foundational similarities of the BJP and the NSDAP by exploring how their rise and solidification of power were similar in the sense of establishing their platform on Islamophobic and Anti-Sematic grounds, a point systematically explored in Radhika Desai’s work A Latter-Day Fascism and can be better understood when looked at in relation to Amrita Basu’s book Violent Conjunctures. This paper will then isolate Hitler and Modi’s economic and social goals, which are both embedded in religious discrimination, by analyzing in depth the 25 points of Adolf Hitler and Modi’s campaign promises and reforms and compare specific instances that have been a result of these reforms with the use of articles from unbiased news agencies and journal articles such as A Critical Study of Hindu Nationalism by Kalim Siddiqui which delves into the psyche of Modi’s nationalistic campaigns and its effect on the people and economy of India.

If we are to compare the Nazi Party and the BJP then we must establish a foundational similarity between the two parties. In doing so we must first look at the rise to power of both these parties. It is important to first understand that while the Nazi Party itself was the German nationalist party of the time, the parent organization of the Bharatiya Janata Party is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu nationalist party. When the Nazi Party came into power in Germany the country was in economic turmoil due to the crippling debts placed on Germany after World War; when the BJP came into power in India the state was undergoing a prolonged economic stress after the 2008 world recession. In both cases the mass of the population, especially the middle class, was faced with enormous unemployment rates and a fall in the standard of living, however, this is true of any country that is under economic stress. What is interesting is the role of capitalism in both these situations which Radhika Deasai writes about in A Latter-day Fascism. Her work makes it important to note that the capitalistic structure in Germany put the discriminated part of the population at the top of the capitalistic structure, but in India the discriminated party of the population was at the bottom. In Germany, the Jews were at the top of the capitalistic ladder and were easy to blame for the problems riddling the rest of the German people. What is true to both these countries, however, is that during this crisis of capitalism there was a vacancy of power was left and both the Nazi Party and the BJP took it to blame a part of the population to create a common enemy and solidify power. The majority populations of both these countries looked for a radical opposite to solve their predicaments and, in both cases, they shunned the liberal opinions which were in power when the turmoil was taking place. Here, as Desai points, is where we begin see the “resurgence of the right forces” which included “traditional conservatives, anti-liberal corporatist right and the religious right.” These are the categories that Hitler’s party and Modi’s party fall under.

Furthermore, the right that took over Germany and the right that took over India shows circumstantial similarity, but the true similarity is in the systematic way in which their campaigns swayed the population into choosing them. Yes, these campaigns both promised radical changes in the social and economic sphere of their countries, but what truly makes them similar is their rhetoric. By using anti-Sematic and Islamophobic rhetoric they captured their audiences with propaganda and demonized particular sectors of their populations. Hitler campaigned based on the 25 points of Hitler which is blatantly anti-sematic and simply demonizes the Jewish population by blaming it for the economic issues of Germany. Hitler brings in societal problems by deeming the Jewish population of impure blood further igniting hate of the rest of the public for the Jewish population. Modi’s campaign too promised a radical transformation of the Indian economy. After his first term Modi lost a sizable amount of support from India’s general population, to regain it and bring the radical transformation he promised Modi fell to islamophobia and religious polarization. Amrita Basu’s book Violent Conjunctures in Democratic India is particularly interesting when looking at this phenomena as she provides a timeline of not only Modi, but Hindu nationalists in general using islamophobia to gain momentum and support. Why this is interesting is the striking resemblance this has to German and European history of anti-Semitism and how that complemented Hitler’s rise to power. What is particularly interesting is her chapter on Gujarat as it perfectly analyses Modi’s seamless use of islamophobia. While for Hitler the Jews was the stated threat to the economy and hostilities were directed towards them, Modi took a different approach. By deeming Pakistan as the enemy to Indian society and economy, he rallied his support and then made Pakistan synonymous to Indian Muslims and extended the war to them. This phenomena has been interestingly looked at in The Rise of Hindu Nationalism by Andrea Malji, written in 2020 in which the rising tensions between India and Pakistan echo the rise of the Hindu Nationalism causing a split in India that will not only change the dynamics of the possible conflict between the two countries, but the dynamic in India as in-fighting will spike. The common enemy is now inside India and not just an existential threat to be fought against. Social issues and violence were blamed on the Muslims with heads of the BJP stating “if Muslims are more than 33 percent of the population in an area, there will be problems in that area.” In both the German and the Indian cases mentioned above what also complemented Hitler and Modi’s efforts was the preexisting bias in both their countries. In India and partition that has been a hatred for Muslims and in Europe the Jews have been the victim to anti-Semitism for centuries.

Consequently, once the enemy of both countries had been established and elections won the ideals on which Hitler and Modi wish to transform the society must be looked into and while they may prove strikingly similar a deeper comparison can only be drawn if the methods that they used to act on these ideals and the results of these methods is looked into. Therefore if we first look into Hitler and see that a common theme in Hitler’s speeches was the idea of space and how the German people needed space to expand the population: “We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.” We can compare this to a similar idea that Modi used when he invaded Kashmir. He no longer wanted the Muslims of Kashmir to live in their own land and believed that it should be a space for Hindus as well. This was protected against in Article 35a of the Indian Constitution after Pakistan and India partitioned in 1947, which granted Kashmir special status which did not allow Hindus to enter that area. That article was revoked by Modi’s government on the basis that Hindus should be allowed that space so that they can benefit economically from the Kashmiri land. While the latter, at face value, may seem different from Hitler’s actions, the general idea behind the two remain the same: Modi and Hitler both wanted more space for what they categorized as their own countrymen at the cost of their non-Jewish and non-Muslim populations and hence they created laws and put mechanisms in place to do so. While the scale of Hitler’s movement of Jews was much larger than that of Modi’s, we must understand that Modi has been in power for one year and fascism today cannot be directly compared to fascism in the time of Hitler.

Additionally, when changing the dynamics of a country there must be a certain amount of attention paid to the language used in doing so and a common target for both Modi and Hitler was the word “nationals” and the idea that that word entails. They both strongly looked into the idea of what constitutes a national of their countries. Since both parties are nationalistic there must be a set definition for both of them to determine who can be called a “citizen” of their countries otherwise their campaigns would fail. If Jews and Muslims were also considered nationals their campaigns would no longer be nationalistic and be termed discriminatory. In doing both parties took a different rationalization of why Jews are not German nationals and why Muslims are not Indian nationals, but both these resulted in permanently changing the dynamic of their societies. In Germany, Hitler made a biological argument on why Jews cannot be German nationals: “Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.” By doing so he excluded the Jews from having equal rights allowing for there to be persecution towards them as they were no longer protected by German law: “those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.” In India, the Citizenship Act before 4th December 2019 allowed citizenship to all those fleeing persecution and entered India before 2014, after Modi came into power this was amended to the CAA and everyone who fled persecution and entered India before 2014 being allowed citizenship except for Muslims. While Modi could not do anything about the rest of the Muslim population in India, he made it a point to legally single out the Muslim immigrants seeking asylum as the only ones who were illegal. This proceeded to change the attitude of people in Indian society towards Muslims and furthered the narrative that they are the enemy and synonymous with Pakistan, the country that Indians are at war with. Existing popular theories in India also include that Muslims were waiting in the wings, reproducing at a frantic pace to outnumber Hindus and “pollute” the Hindu land, which is in direct relation to Hitler’s idea of Jews being of impure blood. Many have deemed this entire situation as un-Indian as India was founded on the basis of a secular state and by providing “preferential treatment” to all citizens except Muslims it is becoming inherently not secular. In the Nazi Party all the members inherently had the same goals hence there was no need for a change in the decision making process. India, on the other hand, was secular in its previous governments, decisions were taken as a whole, but now all decisions are made by Modi as the top of the government and their hate towards Muslims will make India lose its secular nature.

As a result of changes in the anatomy of the two societies, further comparisons between the outcome of the actions made by these two parties must be closely analyzed. When German society transformed and Jews were no longer a welcomed minority, there began instances of independent, mob and police brutality towards the Jews. Individuals began isolating themselves from their Jewish counterparts after listening to Hitler’s anti-Sematic rhetoric. Mobs began to storm Jewish houses and synagogues, even beating up Jews if they saw them in public places. The worst form of all this persecution was arguably the state-sponsored one. With the merging of the right-wing Nazi State and the police along with the SS and the police, which was the most radical organization at the time, hostilities against the Jewish population were at an all-time high. With Hitler strongly monitoring the press and laws stating that Jews were not citizens, the expanded police were able to commit atrocities against the Jewish population with no reparations but instead applause from the government. As Indian society changes, it is striking to see history almost repeat itself. The 25th February 2020 riot in Delhi, India is a good instance for comparison: “mobs tore through Muslim-majority neighborhoods in northeast New Delhi, attacking individuals, burning homes, businesses, and places of worship, and targeting victims on religious lines.” While this is the mob and individual violence that is prompted by the government’s Islamophobic rhetoric and campaigns, an even more vivid comparison to fascist Germany is the state terror against the Muslims that is taking place. Earlier this year in January 7th an Indian university became “the latest battleground between emboldened Hindu nationalists and their opponents” where the opponents stated are the Muslims and when 30 people were assaulted in this attacked the “police stood by” and what is confirmation of the state support of the persecution is that the police “laid charges against a left-wing student leader who was beaten during the rampage, but failed to arrest her actors.” While Hitler, with an iron fist in fascist Germany, could control the press that is out of Modi’s hands at the moment. With the rise of social media and internet accessibility these crimes are seeing the light of day, which was not possible in Germany. However, where Modi is able to exercise power in shutting of access to social media, he is doing like he has in Kashmir. Amid reports of human rights violations, rape, and murder, Modi shut off the internet in Kashmir after the Indian military occupied it in the third quarter of 2019. Modi stated ““I have come to accomplish the task assigned to me by my countrymen. I work selflessly” protecting his actions under a veil of nationalism.

On the other hand, when looking at economic goals, actions and outcomes we must understand the dynamics of each of these countries if we are to draw any similarities. What must be established from the beginning is that with the passing of time came technological advancements and being two different countries the structure of the countries could not be the same. In Germany, Jews were at the head of banks and most of the finance sector. Hitler isolated them by saying that they were not working for their wages and effectively turned the majority against them. In India, however, the Muslims are not at the top of industries as most industries in India are run by the by Hindu families such as the Tata family and the Ambani family. After not following through on his economic promises, Modi could not blame the Muslims for taking advantage of the Hindus as the former are not in a place to do so in India like the Jews were in Germany. This is, at face value, a definitive desynchrony in the argument that Hitler and Modi’s methods to transform their economies were different. However, this argument must be further divulged in as a different century calls for different issues and at the start of a new decade the most potent issue to the economy is the corona virus or COVID-19. A virus by its composition does not discriminate in how it contaminates, but the Indian government blamed its effects on the economy on the Muslims. Modi lives in an India where demonizing the Hindus who run the major banks would not get him re-elected or win him support hence when the economy crashed, he needed another way to not only push aside the blame, but put in on the Muslims. Therefore, the corona virus was blamed on the Muslims. As Al-Jazeera stated, this was an opportunity to push “further their ostracization in Indian society.” With the hashtag corona jihad trending in support of this movement Mamata Banerjee, the chief minister of West Bengal, exposed the government by asking them not to “use this crisis to further its communal agenda.” As hiccups in the Indian economy develop Modi and the rest of the BJP government make it a point to spin the narrative against the Muslims so that the long-term effects can be wound back and blamed on them as well.

In addition to this, in A Critical Study of Hindu Nationalism in India, Kalim Siddiqui argues “that the failure of India’s economic development to remove socio-economic constraints leading to slow and uneven development has intensified rivalry between castes and religious communities. Under such conditions, it became possible for extremist Hindu organizations to target people on the basis of religion.” While this paper argues that the failures of the government have incited violence and rivalry between communities and that economic hardships have allowed a gap to be filled by Hindu extremists, it must be understood that this paper was written in June 2016 before Modi’s re-election and hence fails to mention this is the exact tactic that Modi used to get re-elected. The failure of the previous German liberal government which caused enmity between Jews and other Germans is what also allowed radical ideas such as Hitler’s to sneak in. While Hitler was not trying to get re-elected and simply elected, the general principle of using economic setbacks to gain power remains ultimately the same.

It is interesting to note how the societal and economic changes in India and Germany were and are happening systematically and independently, however, the similarities are difficult to overlook. The economic blame put on the Muslims for the corona virus have ostracized them in society and protests online and in person for Muslim rights in India have died down in the wake of the new blame being put on them. Violence against the Muslims in India has been spun into Muslims instigating violence and causing disruptions to daily wagers which in turn affects the economy. The state is spinning this elaborate web that the Muslims cannot seem to get out of. Islamophobia is on the rise and will continue to rise. With the international community staying silent on behalf of Modi’s Indian government today, like it stayed silent on behalf of Hitler’s German government in the 1930s, though for different reasons, the Muslims in India are destined for a sad fate if the BJP goes unchecked.

The writer is an undergraduate student at Occidental College in Los Angeles, California where she is majoring in Economics and International Relations