"The actions of the BJP today cannot be directly equated with those of Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s. The distinction between the two needs to be made clear to the people. This is why we call it neo-fascism, rather than outright declaring it a fascist regime."
Published Mar 18, 2025 | 5:46 PM ⚊ Updated Mar 26, 2025 | 3:33 PM
P Shanmugam, CPI(M)'s Tamil Nadu state secretary. (Supplied)
Tamil Nadu’s political landscape is at a critical juncture, with debates intensifying over key issues that could shape the state’s future.
The National Education Policy (NEP), 2020, which has been met with strong resistance from regional parties, and the looming delimitation exercise, which could alter political representation, are at the center of these discussions.
P Shanmugam, the Tamil Nadu State Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), is a veteran leader and a key figure in the long struggle for justice for the people of Vachathi.
He has been at the forefront of several battles for social justice and state rights. In this exclusive interview, he shares his views with South First on the challenges posed by NEP 2020, the concerns surrounding delimitation, and the broader political dynamics shaping Tamil Nadu today.
Q: How do you take your role, and what are your plans to strengthen the party at the grassroots level?
A: For the past 45 years, I have served as the President and Secretary of the Students’ Federation of India, Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Hill Tribal People association, and the secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha – TN unit. As a continuation of this long journey, I have now been elected as the Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
I have not come into this position suddenly or by chance. Being appointed as the secretary comes with immense responsibility, and I fully recognise it. I will use this opportunity to strengthen the party and its organisational units. In our party, we believe in teamwork, collective leadership, and joint efforts. My approach will be aligned with these principles and the responsibilities entrusted to me.
Right now, our most important task ahead is organising the party’s 24th All India Conference, which is set to take place in Madurai from 2 to 6 April. Successfully conduct of this conference is our immediate priority. Until then, we cannot focus on other tasks. After the conference, we will take forward the efforts to expand and strengthen the party in Tamil Nadu.
Q: There is an ongoing conflict between the Tamil Nadu government and the Union government regarding NEP 2020 and the three-language policy. What is your stand on this issue? In 1963, Communist leader and MP, Bhupesh Gupta, argued that Hindi should be the national language. Does CPI(M) still hold the same position today?
A: That is a very outdated perspective. The CPI(M) firmly believes that all 22 languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution should be given equal importance and implemented as official languages. We accept English as a communication language, but we do not recognise Hindi as the national language. Our party’s stance has evolved with experience, and we are not against any language, whether globally or within states. Anyone is free to learn any language they wish, and many people have done so.
P Shanmugam. (Supplied)
Right now, lakhs of migrant workers from the North have learned Tamil because it is essential for their livelihood here. Similarly, people from Tamil Nadu who have moved to Maharashtra, Delhi, or Uttar Pradesh learn Hindi out of necessity. They are in need to learn another language for survival, not by force.
Today, countless indigenous languages are disappearing. The reason is that tribal communities are losing their livelihoods, forcing them to migrate elsewhere. As a result, they are compelled to adopt the dominant language of their new surroundings, leading to the gradual extinction of their native tongues.
There are numerous examples of how livelihood and migration determine the rise of new languages while erasing older ones. People are free to learn any language they choose, but the CPI(M) strongly opposes the forced imposition of any language.
Now The BJP’s claim that Tamil Nadu will receive educational funds only if we accept NEP is condemnable. It is a clear act of political vengeance against Tamil Nadu students.
Parliament has already decided how funds should be allocated to each scheme. However, certain ministers act as if they hold unchecked power, dictating that funds will only be released if Tamil Nadu complies with their demands. They have no such authority. The CPI(M) will continue to strongly oppose this unjust approach.
Q: The Union government asserts that all languages are encouraged to be learned, yet for the past 100 years, Tamil Nadu has been the primary state to oppose certain policies, whether it be the NEP or other initiatives. Language has consistently been a focal point of contention. Why do you think language is being used as a tool or weapon in these debates?
A: Recently, even the Vice President of India stated that to destroy a community, one must first erase its language. We do not know why he made such a remark, but it is indeed the truth. The Union government has consistently followed policies that are hostile to the Tamil people, and that is an undeniable fact. Tamil society has continuously resisted such oppressive policies, particularly against Hindi imposition.
This struggle has been ongoing for decades, and as a result, the Indian Parliament itself assured the people of Tamil Nadu and other non-Hindi-speaking states that Hindi would not be forcibly imposed.
A promise made in Parliament cannot be conveniently forgotten or overturned by the ruling government. Such actions go against democratic principles. It is the Union government that must revise its stance, not the people who must accept an imposed language.
Q: On the issue of delimitation, BJP state president K Annamalai dismisses concerns as mere fear-mongering, stating that the Union government has neither announced the census nor provided an official statement on the process. Do you see delimitation as a genuine threat? How do you perceive the DMK’s stance—is it a legitimate concern or a strategic political move?
A: If there was truly nothing to this issue, then why were 848 seats created while constructing the new Parliament building? Where was this decision made? Who was consulted before making such a decision? They must first answer these questions. Was this a Parliamentary resolution? If this was never formally decided anywhere, where exactly did they finalise this? This is a valid question.
On what basis did Union Home Minister Amit Shah, during his visit to Coimbatore, claim that Tamil Nadu and other southern states will not see a reduction in parliamentary seats?
Without any official discussion or consultation, how is he able to make such a statement with certainty?
So, Annamalai is trying to cover up the truth (using the Tamil saying about hiding a pumpkin in a pot of rice, meaning he is lying or concealing facts). If Amit Shah had actually said what Annamalai claims, it wouldn’t have been an issue. But Amit Shah never said what Annamalai is now stating.
If Tamil Nadu’s parliamentary representation is not going to decrease, then does that mean the numbers will decrease in other states? They are not provided any answer to this question. This clearly shows that discussions are taking place behind closed doors on this matter. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be so confident in saying that Tamil Nadu’s seat count will not be affected.
That is exactly why the precautionary step taken by the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is commendable.
Usually, all party meetings in the Legislative Assembly involve only representatives of established political parties. However, this time, the Chief Minister extended invitations to all 63 registered political parties in Tamil Nadu to participate in the discussion. Despite this, five parties did not attend. Even then, he extended another invitation.
This is a matter of Tamil Nadu’s rights. Today, we may be in power, but tomorrow, someone else might be. However, if Tamil Nadu’s parliamentary representation decreases, the state as a whole will suffer. Understanding this, the Chief Minister once again made an appeal to all parties.
Generally, such discussions are handled indifferently, “If you come, fine. If not, that’s your choice.” But this time, the Chief Minister showed genuine concern and took proactive measures. Despite this, five parties still refused to attend, which was their decision. However, to claim that nothing was discussed is simply unacceptable.
As per the constitutional amendment, the current seat distribution will remain unchanged only until 2026.
This means that in 2026, the issue will resurface for debate—there is no doubt about this. So, when a state government takes proactive steps to ensure that Tamil Nadu’s representation does not decline, why are they criticising it?
Isn’t it a positive thing that the government is taking a unified stand and communicating its concerns to both the Union government and the public? What exactly is Annamalai so upset about?
Q: All South Indian state governments are planning to oppose it, but since the CPI(M) party is a national party, what is its stance in the northern states?
A: That is why we emphasised that this is not just a state-specific issue but a national concern. It must be addressed at the national level, adhering to democratic principles. The Union government should make collective decisions, rather than arbitrarily handling this matter.
We urged that all decisions should be made inclusively, but this was not taken into consideration. As the CPI(M), we strongly emphasise that this issue must be approached from a national perspective before any decision is made.
Second, even if the number of parliamentary constituencies is increased beyond the existing 543 based on population, the seats must be distributed fairly among all states. We strongly oppose any approach where one state is given more seats while another is given fewer.
We insisted on these two key points during the discussions.
Q: In UP, it is assumed that the population is around 25 crores. Tamil Nadu government is demanding the Centre pause the delimitation exercise for 30 years. Do you think it will hinder UP’s growth?
A: No, even now, UP has a higher number of seats. They already have 80 MPs, whereas Tamil Nadu has 39 and Kerala has 20. What we are saying is that if the current numbers remain the same, there is no issue for anyone. But if there is an increase, it should be distributed equally among all states. No one should be disadvantaged by this increase.
If population alone is taken as the basis, the southern states, which have strictly implemented population control policies, will face severe disadvantages. Tamil Nadu will not accept being penalised for effectively implementing a Union government policy. We will strongly emphasise this at the national level. Why are you viewing this as just a demand from Tamil Nadu?
Q: As your party heads towards its 24th All India Conference, CPI(M), in its draft resolution for the conference, has described the BJP as having “neo-fascist traits” rather than being a fully fascist force. This contrasts with the CPI and Congress, which openly label the BJP as fascist. Earlier, CPI(M) had also called the BJP fascist. Why the shift in stance now?
A: When we think of fascism, the first names that come to mind are Hitler and Mussolini, whose policies defined the ideology in the early 20th century. This is what history has taught us.
Does the BJP follow a similar approach? No—there are no concentration camps, no systematic extermination of a particular race like Hitler, no outright suppression of democratic movements, or the elimination of all other political forces. This is not the same model.
That is why we use the term “neo-fascism.” The actions of the BJP today cannot be directly equated with those of Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s. The distinction between the two needs to be made clear to the people. This is why we call it neo-fascism, rather than outright declaring it a fascist regime.
Even in the 23rd All India Conference held in Kannur, we categorised the government as one with fascist tendencies, but we never declared it to be a full-fledged fascist regime. However, parties like CPI(ML) refer to it as “Indian-trait fascism,” and CPI outright calls it a fascist government. That is its stance.
Each Leftist party has historically had different perspectives on a government’s class character and nature. This is not a new phenomenon. However, these differences do not weaken Left unity.
The Left remains united in opposing unconstitutional actions, countering pro-corporate neoliberal policies, formulating alternative policies, implementing them, and leading struggles against them. We do not believe that differing views on a government’s character will affect Left unity in any way.
Q: According to your logic, you classify the RSS as a fascist organisation, but you describe its political face as “neo-fascist.” What is the difference between the two?
A: The ruling party today is essentially the political wing of the RSS. The actions of this government exhibit fascist traits and characteristics. However, as I mentioned earlier, they do not operate in the same manner as Hitler and Mussolini did in their time. Through neoliberal policies, they are forcibly taking land from farmers and exacerbating unemployment issues in rural areas. They are engaging in various unconstitutional actions, disregarding established principles and implementing policies as they wish. Since they are in power, they are bound to function within the constitutional framework. However, the BJP does not adhere to these constraints in the same way. This is the key distinction.
Q: So what exactly is the difference? Why is the RSS considered fascist?
A: The BJP is a party led by the RSS, but the RSS itself is not directly in power.
Q: So, does that mean the RSS is fascist while the BJP is neo-fascist?
A: No, we haven’t explicitly called the RSS fascist either.
Q: But your draft resolution contains that statement, doesn’t it?
A: Where have we specifically mentioned that the RSS is fascist?
Q: You have referred to the RSS as fascist and the BJP as neo-fascist, haven’t you?
A: If the organisation leading the BJP is not fascist, then how can the BJP itself be considered fascist?
Q: Doesn’t this position open the CPI(M) to criticism that it is adopting a soft stance towards the BJP in Kerala and other states?
A: Name a single organisation that opposes the BJP more strongly than we do—both on the ground and ideologically. How can anyone claim that we are adopting a soft stance toward them? Whether it is their actions against minorities, their involvement in communal riots, or their attempt to propagate hate politics among the public, we have been at the forefront of an uncompromising struggle—both in practice and ideology. I can confidently say that no other organisation matches our resistance, let alone surpasses it.
Q: For the 2026 Assembly elections, will CPI(M) demand more seats from DMK, or is there a possibility for new alliances?
A: We have outlined our political approach in the draft resolution of our All India Conference. Despite the BJP potentially continuing its rule at the Centre, even with reduced strength in Parliament, there has been no shift in their divisive politics and hate-driven actions. Their activities have intensified further.
In this situation, DMK plays a crucial role in the fight against the BJP in Tamil Nadu. Over the past ten years, DMK has taken the lead in this struggle. Naturally, as the largest party and the ruling party of the state, it is in a position to play a significant role.
Therefore, our struggle against the BJP must continue. The INDIA bloc needs to be strengthened, and it is essential to unite secular parties. Only through such unity can we defeat the BJP and build a broad people’s movement against them. We are clear on this, and we have mentioned it in our political resolution. In this regard, our relationship with the DMK will continue. As for contesting in more seats, every party seeks to expand its presence, and the CPI(M) will also make efforts to contest in additional constituencies.
Q: Is there a possibility of an alliance with Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK)?
A: I don’t understand why everyone is asking about TVK. He (actor Vijay) has only recently started a party, and in my opinion, he hasn’t done anything significant yet. The only notable action I’ve seen from him is visiting Parandur, but beyond that, there’s nothing substantial. Even regarding the Parandur project, he doesn’t seem fully informed.
We still don’t know much about TVK—its resolutions, plans, or overall direction. There’s a complete lack of transparency. So, at this point, we don’t have any thoughts on TVK.
Q: But he has spoken against fascism, hasn’t he?
A: He hasn’t spoken out against fascism; instead, he mentioned both fascism and payasam (a sweet dish) in a way that seemed more like an attempt to group them rather than taking a clear stance. He still doesn’t fully understand the brutal realities of fascism. That’s why he keeps speaking about both in the same manner. He has a lot to learn.
Q: You define the BJP as neo-fascist. One key feature of neo-fascism is non-interference in corporate affairs. By that logic, you have also criticized the DMK government for its handling of the Samsung workers’ protest. The workers had to stage a prolonged struggle just to register their union. Would you then categorise the DMK government as a neo-fascist party?
A: Absolutely not. The DMK is a regional capitalist party. We have always been aware that they lean towards supporting capitalist interests, which is why our electoral agreements are based on this understanding. Just because they sided with the Samsung management does not mean this is a fascist government. That’s an entirely different classification. Supporting capitalists is one thing—it makes them a capitalist party, as that aligns with their ideology. Their stance is shaped by this foundation.
However, Samsung is a multinational corporation. Regardless of which multinational company operates in India, they must adhere to the country’s labour laws and worker welfare regulations. They cannot be allowed to act on their whims. This applies to any state government. We strongly insist that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) should adopt a firm stance in this regard.
Regarding this protest, the primary demand was the registration of the workers’ union. The 37-day-long strike was followed by government intervention, leading to negotiations and acceptance of the court’s decision. Ultimately, the court ordered the registration of the union, which has now been completed. There is no longer an issue with union registration—it has been resolved.
However, after this, Samsung management initiated retaliatory actions against the workers. In response, the employees launched another protest. During this period, the Tamil Nadu government intervened and held 10 rounds of negotiations, leading to an amicable resolution. The proactive role and cooperation of the Tamil Nadu government played a key role in achieving this outcome.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
