The Communist Party of India (Marxist), commonly known as CPI(M), has ignited debate following its recent political resolution concerning the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Instead of designations such as "fascist" or "neo-fascist," the CPI(M) has chosen to describe the Modi-led government as exhibiting characteristics of neo-fascism, without fully committing to those labels. This cautious terminology has drawn criticism and raised eyebrows among political opponents and analysts alike.
During the Central Committee meeting held between January 17 and 19, 2025, the CPI(M) approved the draft resolution intended for their 24th Party Congress, scheduled to take place from April 2 to 6, 2025. Key to this resolution is the acknowledgement of the government's push for authoritarian control and enforcement of Hindutva ideology, framed as displaying “neo-fascist characteristics.”
Echoing this sentiment, party Central Committee member A K Balan stated, “We don’t say the Modi government is a fascist or neo-fascist. We don’t depict the Indian government as a neo-fascist regime.” This comment adds nuance to the CPI(M)'s stance, which recognizes troubling trends without labeling the government categorically as fascist.
This careful distinction has not been well-received by opposition parties. Senior Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala condemned the CPI(M)'s approach, labeling it as part of their strategy to appeal to BJP supporters heading toward upcoming elections. Chennithala noted, “The CPI(M)’s note was part of the party’s ‘tactic’ to garner the votes of the BJP supporters.” His words hint at strategic choices made by CPI(M) to maintain electoral influence against the backdrop of shifting political alliances.
Criticism has continued to mount from various angles. V D Satheesan, Leader of the Opposition within the Kerala Assembly, has gone as far as to argue, “The new CPI(M) document is part of the decision to surrender before the Sangh Parivar.” This claim points to perceived compromises made by CPI(M) leadership, which some believe could jeopardize its historical stand against the BJP's agenda.
The CPI(M) has previously characterized Modi's government as implementing fascist agendas at their earlier Congress sessions. For example, at the 22nd Congress held back in 2018, they suggested governmental actions signified "emerging fascist tendencies." Yet, the latest resolutions seem less confrontational, which has resulted in accusations of ideological inconsistency.
Beyond immediate political strategy and critiques, the situational backdrop reveals broader trends of political discourse surrounding influences of authoritative practices currently shaping Indian governance. With less than two years until the next election season, the CPI(M)'s cautious word choice surrounding such powerful labels like "fascism" has significant ramifications for political engagement and rhetoric.
This pause for thought from the CPI(M) can be viewed as either political prudence or ideological compromise—an internal struggle many major parties encounter when grappling with the realities of contemporary power dynamics. While some party officials maintain their emphasis on collaborative rhetoric, external criticisms indicate varying perceptions of allegiance to or distance from the ruling party’s right-wing ideologies.
The stakes are high, as both allied and oppositional narratives sculpt public opinion. Political analysts suggest the CPI(M) is attempting to strike a balance — appeasing its traditional supporters, addressing the pragmatics of electoral strategy, and still standing firm against growing authoritarian characteristics within the working fabric of governance. The coming months will be pivotal for the party as it navigates these turbulent waters.
Should the CPI(M) succeed, it may consolidate its position as a formidable opposition force, one willing to adapt yet remain loyal to its foundational principles. Conversely, any misstep could lead to alienation from its base or fortification of its opposition’s claims of compromising accountability. Amidst these internal and external pressures, the backdrop of rising authoritative trends remains omnipresent, demanding vigilant scrutiny from every corner of the political spectrum.