It was a very good year. It was a very bad year. A year of smart strategising, and half-baked, misplaced thought. Because, what better way to summarize what 2016 has been like for the Indian Right than dig into the good ol’ Adarsh Liberal library.

Charles Dickens’s masterpiece of historical fiction was set before and during the French Revolution. Then, as now, there was talk of a ‘new world order’. Left-Right politics was spawned by this revolution, in a way, because after it, the monarchists sat more to the right of the President in the National Assembly, to be together; and republicans to the left.

But back to India. An ideology can be evaluated on the basis of political success as well as intellectual depth. Let’s do both.

Deft Politicking and a Dangerous Gamble

The year 2015 was not a good one, politically, for the Indian Right Wing. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lost elections in Delhi as well as in Bihar. More significantly, it lost the narrative. It was the year that began with a sly move by the Government— passing a controversial Land Bill as ordinance, thus handing over to the Opposition, on a platter, the opportunity of building a protest that culminated in labelling the Modi government a Suit-Boot ki Sarkaar. Then the Lalit Modi scandal broke. More bludgeoning, in Parliament, ensued. The tone for the year had been set. A protest led by India’s leading writers against the atmosphere of intolerance in the country, following Akhlaq’s brutal lynching and the killing of three prominent Indian intellectuals didn’t help matters any.

So the first half of 2016 was the party’s comeback year, politically. Things seemed set to spiral further downwards for the party with the powerful suicide note left behind by Dalit PhD student Rohith Vemula. Also, with robust protests following the ridiculous arrest of student leaders at Jawaharlal Nehru University, there was a polarising of opinion and as the nation was spellbound by Kanhaiya Kumar’s speech, it seemed the Right was on the backfoot.

But then, surprisingly, the Right recovered. Besides a victory in Assam (a state in whose assembly it had previous held only 27 out of 126 seats) the party, on a national level, changed its approach in two key ways. It seemed to react to criticism with a replacement of leadership. So the criticism of central government was met with a cabinet reshuffle. In Gujarat, which saw strident protests against Una Dalit atrocities coming on the heels of the Patidar agitation of 2015, Anandiben Patel was replaced by Vijay Rupani.

Also, the government decided it would not just own but trumpet possibly controversial moves. No more underhand circumventing of rights-based provisions, ordinances and foolish defensiveness. This year, issues became campaigns; campaigns that polarised narratives. Each narrative was calculated to appeal to the greatest number of voters.

For instance, the JNU protests were interpreted as a loss for the BJP initially (certainly a win for the Communist Party of India and Communist Party of India (Marxist)) but BJP then used the protests to fuel a national-versus-anti-national debate. The intolerance debate had divided India along communal lines and political gains were ambiguous, if any. But nationalism? Step one.

Step two. The Kashmir clampdown, in which again the stress was upon nationalism and presenting the mass movement in Kashmir as one that was trying to weaken the Indian nation.  

Three. Surgical strikes. Yes, there have been surgical strikes before. No, they hadn’t been announced so vigorously. But the rules of the game had changed. The new game is called ‘calling it’. Every battle is won before it’s ever fought. With serious terror attacks on Pathankot and Uri, the surgical strikes were designed to project the image of India as a strong nation, led by a government that isn’t afraid of making a statement.

The BJP hasn’t created narratives this year. It is the narrative. The Opposition has been left reacting to campaigns the government has announced. They have been unable to spot independent issues to build sustainable campaigns of their own.

The final ‘masterstroke’ of this year was the purported “surgical strike” on black money. This time, the government may have overplayed its hand. Reports of initial public support for the move suggest it may benefit in the Uttar Pradesh and perhaps even Punjab state elections in the beginning of 2017. Maybe. Maybe not (once the initial sheen wears off and the pain settles in).

More to the point, if the evaluations of economists are anything to go by, this masterstroke risks damaging the economy. And, if disaster does strike, clever campaigns will turn on their heads, for India will not be shining anymore.

The evolution of an ideology

Events in Right wing publishing this year include the launch of a set of complete works of Deendayal Upadhyaya and special editions of the Organizer and Panchajanya on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangha’s 90th anniversary.

But, of late, seminars and summits have been more visible vehicles for the evolution of an ideology for the Indian Right. Some has been written and said about the India Ideas Conclave in Goa. But a less discussed yet possibly more potent gathering was the Lokmanthan in Bhopal, where most conversations were in Hindi and more connected to the ideas of the Indian Right as they are propagated/practiced on ground. Also, senior RSS pracharaks have been invited to speak at the Jaipur Literature Festival in the beginning of next year, a decision that has met with some resistance since JLF is seen as a Left-liberal bastion.

But rather than resist, it would be interesting to engage with the Indian Right. An ideology is built on fundamentals. Here are two very elementary questions the Indian Right could look to answer at the end of 2016.

Is there an Indian ‘Right Wing’?

Many apparent members of the ‘Indian Right’ disagree with the use of the phrase. Ashok Malik, for example, at the Lokmanthan, cited the example of an individual who had been a part of the RSS, a supporter of public sector spending and a centrist in the sense that he supported the Congress on some issues. He then cited Narendra Modi’s pro-poor policies and asked how they were right of centre.

Think of an ideology as a compass. Just because the needle of points North, it doesn’t mean it’s where you want to get. It’s an indicator. The person Malik referenced, for example, could be economically Left, socio-culturally Right and politically Centrist. In fact, many socio-cultural right wingers in India (including members of the RSS) are economically left of centre. This World Bank infographic from this year shows one in five Indians as poor. To champion laissez-faire capitalism, welfare and public spending cuts in such a scenario would be politically suicidal.

The second reason some right wingers don’t wish to be called, well, right wingers, is because they view ‘right wing ideology’ as a foreign construct. At the Lokmanthan, in a session titled ‘Decolonization of the Indian mind’, Rajiv Malhotra stressed the need for Indians to transcend the Right-Left paradigm to evolve their own. Gautam Sen, President of the World Association of Hindu Academicians, said that he preferred the word ‘dharmic’ to ‘conservative’ or ‘right wing’.

‘Right Wing’ has never meant exactly the same thing in different countries in different points in time. Take nationalism. This was a mainstay of French Leftist ideology. The Right comprised royalists who held the aristocratic order as sacrosanct and above ‘nation’ (it was ‘King, or Queen, and Country’, not ‘Country and King or Queen’). Bloodlines of royalty and nobility were often preserved by marrying similar ranks from other countries. The Left, on the other hand, used a ‘Nation First’ construct to fight for liberty, equality and fraternity within their country. This changed with Georges Boulanger a conservative monarchist who adopted populist nationalism, and the treason trial of Alfred Dreyfus, who was eventually exonerated, but not before dividing the country along a lasting ‘anti’ and ‘pro’ Dreyfus fault-line.   

British political theorist Steven Lukes, in an essay titled ‘The grand dichotomy of the twentieth century’ published in the Cambridge History of Twentieth Century Political Thought outlines five distinct historical stages the Right Wing has gone through across the world: “(i) the reactionary right sought a return to aristocracy and established religion; (ii) the moderate right distrusted intellectuals and sought limited government; (iii) the radical right favored a romantic and aggressive nationalism; (iv) the extreme right proposed anti-immigration policies and implicit racism; and (v) the neo-liberal right sought to combine a market economy and economic deregulation with the traditional Right-wing beliefs in patriotism, élitism, and law and order.”

Put simply, one common thread that joins many right wing ideas is a rooting in tradition. Otherwise it’s each unto its own.

That said, saying you’re a follower of ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Sanatan Dharm’ and not ‘Right Wing’ is like saying Aryabhata was not a mathematician-astronomer because he was homegrown. An argument frequently put forward by Indian Right wingers is: “Hindu traditional thought is very liberal, so how can it be called conservative?” Answer: Because whether it was liberal or not is irrelevant— it is Hindu traditional thought! I could draw inspiration for an ideology from the cult of Dionysius, say, which – replete with wine, wildness and banned bacchanalia – could have libertarian dimensions. But the fact that I’m referring back to a thousand year old tradition, no matter how libertarian, makes me a conservative.

A final word: Indian language has indigenised the Left-Right paradigm too, with vaampanth being the Hindi word for Left Wing and, for Right Wing— dakshinpanth.

What is the ‘Indian’ Right Wing?

Members of the Indian Right Wing often claim to draw their inspiration from ancient Indian traditions and philosophy. However, two worrying features that have plagued the Indian Right Wing for long have become especially pronounced in 2016. Worrying not just from a Leftist lens, mind you, but because they are antithetical to ancient Indian tradition as well.

One, a disrespect for free speech and an adverse attitude to counter-questioning. You can read more about it here, in Newslaundry. This is despite the fact that ancient India boasts of Lokyata and Charvaka traditions, which underscore the importance and need for free expression and questioning.

Second, a tendency to authoritarianism. Observe 2016’s most news-filled day: November 8. Read Newslaundry to get a sense of how leading Right Wing publications feted Donald Trump on his presidency. Organiser called Trump “a political superman”.

But even more intriguing is this story on Modi and Trump, which likens Trump to Modi. Endless tweets from Right wingers played up such comparisons as well. “Several of the top Indian American supporters of Trump are also fans of the Prime Minister,” it says. And, bizarrely: “Both the leaders are strong willed and have endured calumny and hardship in their rise to the top.” (Modi’s humble origins have been widely discussed, but Trump is a billionaire who grew up in a two-storey mock Tudor home in Jamaica Estates, New York.)

But read between the lines. ‘Modi and Trump are alike in that they are authoritarian figures and there’s nothing wrong with it,’ is what the voices are telling us. In fact, the same authoritarian tendencies that were lauded in Trump were approved of in Modi’s demonetization, which came into effect on the day of Trump’s victory. “Clean Sweep, Not a White Wash,” the headlines of Right wing publications read excitedly.

This emphasis on a ‘strong leader’, which implies, in fact, an authoritarian leader, is as opposed to Indian traditional thought as attacks on free expression. Take, for instance, the ideal kings that our best known epics posit: Ram and Yudhishthira. Sister Nivedita, in an article on why democracy is a part of Indian traditional ethos in the Modern Review, emphasizes how Ram’s taking into account the opinion of his subjects to determine the conduct of his personal life (however problematic this may be on feminist grounds) was indicative of a democratic sense. The Shantiparva, Mahabharata’s twelfth book, where Yudhishthira, the ‘dharmaraja (preserver of dharma)’ is counselled by a dying Bhishma and various sages, says: “Take care that the eyes of the weak do not burn thee and thy kinsmen… weakness is more powerful than the greatest power, for that power which is scorched by weakness is completely exterminated.”

While the Vedas and Puranas have reams of prescriptions on governance, Vyasa’s Shantiparvan and Kautilya’s Arthashastra are the two ancient Indian texts most often quoted with regard to present day political science.

“In the happiness of the subjects lies the king’s happiness,” the Arthashastra (LN Rangarajan’s translation) says. “In their welfare, his welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects.”  

On a king needing to confer with and listen to all his ministers (translation by R. Shamasastry): “Sovereignty (Rajatva) is possible only with assistance.” Interestingly, the Arthashastra also lists Lokayata as one of the principal philosophies from which “all that concerns righteousness and wealth is learnt”. Both the Arthashastra and Sister Nivedita’s article refer to democratic tradition in ancient Indian Gana states.

So then why has 2016 been full of Indian Right wingers, cheering on authoritarian and anti-free speech tendencies in the current government? The “new world order” that French far right leader Marine Pen has been hailing may be a hint of sorts. Are our Right wingers actually more aligned to current global trends than they care to admit?

This 2010 conversation between Slavoj Zizeck and Amy Goodman, taking off from – among other disturbing things – a poll that showed 13 per cent of Germans would welcome a new Fuhrer shows us how the rise of the far Right in Europe may be more long-rooted than we think. The ‘brave new world’ we witness today may not be identical to the horrifying Fascist and Nazi governments from the previous century, but it has dangerous underpinnings. The pretend-conservatism we see growing world over today – in Trump, Le Pen and Brexit and Nigel Farage – is, in fact, not conservatism, but rather an bigoted, authoritarian extremism. It is several shades away from what British Conservative Party President Quintin Hogg had defined as “not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself.”

Logic and tradition dictates the Indian Right stand apart and carve out a more appropriate and rooted definition of conservatism for India. Experience, of 2016 too, shows us they’re headed the other way. “The completion of another cycle of a Gregorian calendar does not mean much to us historically and culturally,” reads Organiser’s latest editorial ascribing our attachment with the calendar to “colonial baggage”.

Let’s hope, for its sake, there’s still time.