No Fascist State yet? A Rebuttal to the Dangerous Complacency of Prabhat Patnaik
Critical Response to Prabhat Patnaik’s article, “Neoliberalism and Fascism,” published in Agrarian South (2020), challenges the fatalism inherent in Patnaik’s analysis. This response advocates for reclaiming agency in the age of neoliberalism and neo-fascism, offering a more dynamic and transformative perspective on resistance and change.
A chilling wind of authoritarianism is sweeping the globe, manifesting in diverse forms yet united by a disturbingly common core: the resurgence of neo-fascist ideologies. Nowhere is this trend more acutely felt than in India, where Hindutva, entrenched in power for over a decade, poses an existential threat to the Indian republic’s very foundations, its nation-state project, and the secular democratic fabric of its society.
Yet, despite this palpable threat, even within the Indian Left, there is a reluctance to fully characterize the current ruling dispensation as neo-fascist. The Draft Political Resolution for the 24th Congress of the CPI (M) [1], for instance, stops short of labeling the Indian state neo-fascist, stating it only “displays neo-fascist characteristics.” As Vijay Prashad, a prominent public intellectual associated with the CPI(M), clarifies, “Is the Indian state fascist? The CPI(M) makes it clear that the BJP and its coalition have fascistic elements within them, but that the BJP government is not a fascist government and nor is the Indian state a fascist state. In other words, there remains room to contest state power, not only through the elections and the courts… but through other forms of contestation in the institutions of the state bureaucracy.” [2] This cautious stance raises a central and pressing question: are we simply witnessing the emergence of “neofascist characteristics” within fundamentally democratic states, or are we confronting something more profound – the transformation of states into a new form of “neofascist state”?
To navigate these complex questions, our analysis turns to Prabhat Patnaik’s incisive article, “Neoliberalism and Fascism,” published in Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy (2020) [3]. Patnaik offers a stark structural analysis, arguing that neoliberal capitalism, with its tendencies towards globalized finance and weakened nation-states, generates a ‘conjuncture’ that fosters a persistent and dangerous fascist presence. This phenomenon is likely to be ‘lingering,’ a seemingly inevitable ‘gift’ of neoliberalism’s crisis, potentially leading to a gradual ‘fascification’ of societies and polities, and a ‘dead end from which there is no obvious escape.’
While deeply insightful in its structural analysis, this essay argues that Patnaik’s perspective, in its emphasis on a seemingly inescapable ‘dead end,’ and its focus on “fascist movements” or “fascist characteristics” rather than full state fascification, risks a certain fatalism. We contend that by underplaying the enduring potential for class struggle and human agency, by not fully accounting for the potential for neofascist movements to transform the state, and also for the crucial democratic and national dimensions of the anti-fascist struggle, Patnaik’s analysis offers an incomplete picture. Against this backdrop, this article will argue that even within neoliberal capitalism and the rise of neo-fascism, pathways for resistance and transformative change remain. Specifically, in India, the fight against Hindutva neo-fascism must be understood as fundamentally intertwined with the struggle to re-establish and deepen democracy, to reclaim Indian agency on the world stage in a progressive and internationalist spirit, and to revitalize the inclusive and secular vision of the ‘Idea of India’ and the nation-state project inherited from its nationalist movement. Indeed, strategically utilizing contemporary capitalism, while challenging its crony capitalist and authoritarian tendencies, may be crucial for a progressive path forward.
Prabhat Patnaik’s Structural Critique: Neoliberalism and the “Gift” of Fascism
To appreciate the nuances of Prabhat Patnaik’s argument in “Neoliberalism and Fascism” and to effectively position our critique, it is essential to first outline his core analysis. Patnaik’s central thesis is that the rise of neo-fascism is not accidental but structurally rooted in neoliberal capitalism. He argues that neoliberalism, in its mature crisis, creates a “conjuncture” fostering a persistent and dangerous “fascist presence” – a “lingering gift of neoliberalism.” To understand this seemingly paradoxical claim – that a “liberal” economic order generates fascism – we must examine the key elements of his structural analysis.
Patnaik begins by identifying neoliberal capitalism’s inherent tendencies to erode the foundations of the nation-state and undermine democratic processes. He argues that neoliberal globalization, driven by international finance capital, inherently undermines nation-state sovereignty. As capital becomes increasingly mobile and transnational, individual nation-states’ capacity to regulate their economies, pursue independent development, or effectively respond to popular demands diminishes. He states, “Neoliberal economic policies are the outcome of a regime of hegemony of international finance capital; they express the predilections of international finance capital. In a world where capital is globalized, that is, international, and the state remains a nation-state, these predilections are what get imposed on every nation-state, for otherwise, capital would flow out of the country, causing acute financial crisis.” (p. 39-40) This erosion of national economic sovereignty, according to Patnaik, creates “passivity” within working populations. Traditional democratic channels and national-level economic policy-making appear increasingly impotent against global market forces and international finance. This perceived powerlessness, or political “closure”, Patnaik argues, contributes to disillusionment with mainstream politics and creates fertile ground for authoritarian and demagogic appeals.
Furthermore, Patnaik emphasizes that this “fascist presence” is not temporary but a “lingering” feature of the neoliberal conjuncture. He writes, “Fascism is neoliberal capitalism’s ‘gift’ to mankind in the period of its maturity, when it submerges the world economy in a crisis, and reaches a dead end from which there is no obvious escape. The only way of transcending the fascist presence is to transcend neoliberal capitalism. The Left can do this, and proceed toward a socialist alternative, …” Here, he explicitly uses the metaphor of a “gift,” albeit a toxic one, to describe fascism’s relation to neoliberalism: it is a seemingly inevitable and persistent outcome of the contradictions and crises of this phase of capitalism. This is not to say fascism is inevitable in every neoliberal context, but rather that neoliberalism creates the structural conditions for a sustained and pervasive fascist threat. As Patnaik argues, neoliberalism, in its mature crisis, generates a profound societal malaise and political instability for which fascism offers a dangerous, yet structurally generated, “solution.”
Despite identifying this grave and persistent fascist threat, Patnaik also argues that “nowhere as yet do we have a fascist State” (p. 46). He attributes this to the changed nature of global capitalism, particularly the rise of international finance capital which, in his view, reduces the impetus for large-scale inter-imperialist wars that characterized the 1930s and drove classical fascist states. While acknowledging the growing power of neofascist movements, Patnaik suggests that the contemporary global order, dominated by international finance, does not inherently necessitate or produce the same totalitarian, war-mongering state as in the past.
Regarding a way forward, Patnaik advocates for “transcending neoliberal capitalism” (p. 47) as the fundamental solution to overcome the fascist threat. While he does not explicitly detail a comprehensive program of “delinking,” his emphasis on regaining national economic sovereignty and breaking free from global finance implicitly points in this direction. He suggests that overcoming neoliberalism’s inherent tendencies towards crisis and fascism requires a fundamental shift away from its core tenets and towards a more socially just and equitable economic order, though the precise mechanisms for this “transcendence” are not fully elaborated in this article.
Patnaik’s analysis is stark and unflinching in its assessment of the contemporary situation. He sees neoliberal capitalism as hurtling towards a “dead end from which there is no obvious escape” (p. 47). This “dead end” is characterized by the persistent threat of fascism, the erosion of democracy, and deepening social and economic inequalities. While he calls for “transcending neoliberal capitalism” as the ultimate solution, his analysis often conveys a sense of structural determinism, suggesting that neoliberalism’s logic pushes societies ineluctably towards authoritarian outcomes and a protracted period of “fascist presence.” This emphasis on structural constraints and seemingly intractable tendencies towards crisis and fascism defines Patnaik’s critique and forms the crucial backdrop for our arguments. Understanding this emphasis on structural determinism, the “lingering” nature of the “fascist presence,” his argument for the absence of “fascist states” so far, and his implicit call for “delinking” is key to grasping both the power and the potential limitations of Patnaik’s important, yet ultimately, as we will argue, incomplete analysis.
Patnaik on the “Non-Fascist State”
A key element of Prabhat Patnaik’s analysis is his argument that, despite the rise of neofascist forces and the deepening crisis of neoliberalism, “nowhere as yet do we have a fascist State” (p. 46). He states that even where fascist regimes gain power, they may not establish fascist states or perpetuate their rule. This assertion, seemingly paradoxical given his stark warnings about the “fascist presence,” is central to understanding his nuanced position and its implications for political strategy. To grasp Patnaik’s reasoning, we must examine his historical comparison between classical fascism and contemporary neo-fascism, focusing on his analysis of finance capital and global conflict.
Patnaik argues that the emergence of fascist states in the 1930s was linked to intense inter-imperialist rivalry driven by national finance capital, culminating in large-scale wars for territorial re-division. In this context, finance capital was primarily national, intertwined with competing nation-states. The state served as the instrument for advancing national capital accumulation through imperial expansion, military buildup, and territorial control. Classical fascism, for Patnaik, was thus bound to this war-driven, national-capitalist dynamic, providing mobilization for total war and state-directed economic mobilization for military ends.
However, Patnaik contends that global capitalism has fundamentally transformed with the rise of international finance capital in the neoliberal era. Capital has become increasingly deterritorialized, flowing easily across borders and less anchored nationally. While national capitals and inter-state competition persist, global and transnational capital accumulation now dominates. Crucially, in Patnaik’s view, this reduces the systemic pressure towards large-scale inter-state wars of territorial conquest seen in the early 20th century. The focus shifts from territorial control and national autarky to maintaining an open and integrated global capitalist system, despite inequalities.
Therefore, Patnaik reasons that while neoliberal capitalism generates a “fascist presence” – manifesting in right-wing authoritarian movements, xenophobia, ultranationalism, and eroded democratic norms – it does not necessarily recreate the conditions for full-fledged “fascist states” like in the 1930s. He argues that the contemporary state, even when influenced by neofascist forces, remains integrated within international finance capital, which does not inherently require a totalitarian, militarized, and autarkic form of classical fascism. This explains why we see neofascist movements gaining power within nominally democratic states, but not yet fascist states themselves.
This argument, emphasizing the transformation of finance capital and warfare, provides a theoretical foundation for Patnaik’s perspective and potentially the CPI(M)’s cautious stance. It suggests that while neo-fascist dangers are real, the historical pathway to state fascification of the 1930s may not be replicated due to changed global conditions. Building on this analysis, Patnaik outlines a political agenda that some might view as radical, even sectarian. He posits that since a fascist state does not yet exist, the primary struggle should be against neoliberalism itself. In his view, the Left, being the only political force with a vision extending beyond neoliberal capitalism, is uniquely positioned to lead this fight. He argues that combating neo-fascism necessitates “transcending the conjuncture that produces fascism, a conjuncture that is created by neoliberal capitalism and that can be overcome only through a transcendence of neoliberal capitalism itself.” This perspective implies a limited need for broad united action with other democratic forces against neo-fascism, potentially leading to a self-isolationist or even self-defeating approach for the Left.
However, our counter-argument takes shape here. While acknowledging Patnaik’s historical context and the shifts in global capitalism, his framework may underestimate diverse pathways to state fascification in the 21st century. Assuming the absence of 1930s-style inter-imperialist war guarantees the non-emergence of “fascist states” risks overlooking alternative mechanisms through which neofascist movements can transform states today. These include digital authoritarianism, cultural state capture, legal instrumentalization, paramilitary violence with state complicity, and the erosion of federalism. The Indian context, with Hindutva’s rise, is a crucial case study for these 21st-century dynamics, challenging the assumption that no inter-state war means no “fascist states.” Remember, in the 1930s, not all imperialist countries became fascist states, though fascist movements existed everywhere.
Beyond Fatalism: Reclaiming Agency and Class Struggle
Prabhat Patnaik’s emphasis on a seemingly inevitable “dead end” and a “lingering fascist presence” risks fostering fatalism and undermining the crucial role of human agency in historical transformation. To counter this, it is essential to re-assert the enduring relevance of class struggle, popular mobilization, and strategic political action in challenging both neoliberalism and neo-fascism. While acknowledging Patnaik’s identified structural constraints, we argue that history is not predetermined and that pathways for transformative change remain open, contingent upon collective agency.
Patnaik’s analysis, while not explicitly denying agency, often emphasizes structural determinants to the point of downplaying the dynamic and transformative potential of social and political action. His focus on the “passivity” of working populations under neoliberalism, while capturing real demobilization and disempowerment, risks overlooking the persistent and resurgent forms of working-class agency emerging even within neoliberal globalization. Indeed, across the globe, ongoing struggles for economic justice, democratic rights, and social equality, often initiated by working people and marginalized communities, demonstrate that passivity is not permanent but a terrain of ongoing contestation.
Furthermore, the very contradictions and crises inherent within neoliberal capitalism, which Patnaik powerfully illuminates, simultaneously create new openings for agency and resistance. Neoliberal policies, while designed to consolidate capital’s power, also generate widespread social discontent, inequality, and precarity, which can, under certain conditions, fuel social movements and political mobilizations. The erosion of democratic norms and the rise of neo-fascism themselves provoke resistance and counter-mobilizations from democratic forces. Focusing solely on neoliberalism’s deterministic tendencies misses the crucial dialectic of structure and agency – how structural constraints simultaneously limit and create opportunities for transformative action.
Therefore, moving beyond a potentially fatalistic reading of Patnaik, it is crucial to re-emphasize the pathways through which agency can be reclaimed and strategically deployed in the fight against neo-fascism and for a more just social order.
By re-centering agency and highlighting these diverse pathways for action, we can move beyond fatalistic resignation towards a more dynamic and hopeful approach to challenging neo-fascism and building a more just future. The “dead end” of neoliberalism is not predetermined, but a contested terrain where authoritarianism and exploitation can and must be actively resisted and transformed through conscious, collective human agency.
Beyond “Delinking”: Global Solidarity and “Associated Production”
A critical strategic implication of Prabhat Patnaik’s analysis, particularly his emphasis on eroded nation-state sovereignty under neoliberalism and the “dead end” of the current conjuncture, is a clear advocacy for “delinking” from the global capitalist system. While acknowledging the understandable motivations behind Patnaik’s call for “delinking” – a desire for national self-determination and a rejection of exploitative global hierarchies – this essay argues that in the context of 21st-century capitalism and the fight against neo-fascism, “delinking” has significant strategic limitations and may even be counterproductive. Instead, we advocate for a strategic orientation centered on global solidarity and the construction of “associated production” as a more effective and transformative path forward.
Patnaik’s advocacy for “delinking” stems from a diagnosis of neoliberal globalization as inherently undermining national sovereignty and democratic agency. If nation-states are increasingly powerless against global finance, and if global capitalism inevitably generates a “fascist presence,” then the logical conclusion, from this perspective, is to “delink” – minimize integration with the global system, prioritize national self-reliance, and insulate the national economy from global markets’ destabilizing forces. This strategy echoes dependency theory and import-substitution industrialization, seeking autonomous national economies as a bulwark against imperialist exploitation, and is now explicitly advocated by Patnaik as a necessary response to neoliberalism’s crises and the fascist threat.
However, we argue that “delinking,” while perhaps relevant in earlier periods, is increasingly problematic and strategically limiting in today’s era of deeply integrated global value chains and “impersonalized” finance capital. Globalization has not merely created interdependencies but fundamentally reshaped capitalism itself. Finance capital has become increasingly deterritorialized and transnational, shedding its marks of origin nation and operating globally beyond national boundaries.
In today’s world, even large economies rely on international trade and financial flows; pursuing autarky is economically unrealistic and politically undesirable, potentially leading to isolation and reduced access to resources and technologies. “Delinking” as a primarily national strategy risks overlooking the increasingly globalized nature of class struggle. Capital operates transnationally; therefore, effective working-class resistance must also develop transnational solidarity and coordination. “Delinking,” despite its revolutionary rhetoric, can paradoxically reinforce national enclosure and limit working-class agency, suggesting that effective action is mainly confined to the national level, when globalized capital demands globalized responses.
Instead of “delinking,” we propose a strategic orientation focused on global solidarity and the construction of “associated production.” This approach recognizes globalization’s irreversible reality but seeks to transform its terms and direction. We should foster transnational labor networks, supporting international worker organizing, and building cross-border solidarity. This requires moving beyond purely national trade unionism and developing effective mechanisms for international worker cooperation and mutual support.
Instead of retreating from global value chains, progressive movements should strategically engage with them, seeking to exert pressure at key nodes of production, distribution, and consumption. This can involve international campaigns for fair labor standards, ethical sourcing, and corporate accountability, targeting multinational corporations and global brands. Building broad-based international movements for climate justice, global debt cancellation, vaccine equity, and fair trade is crucial to challenge global capitalism’s systemic inequalities and build a more just and sustainable global order. Leveraging digital technologies to build transnational communication networks, facilitate cross-border organizing, share information and resources, and coordinate global campaigns is essential for a truly global progressive movement.
Within this framework of global solidarity, “associated production” becomes particularly relevant. This refers to building alternative economic models based on worker cooperatives, community-controlled enterprises, and democratic ownership structures, connected through global networks of solidarity and mutual support. “Associated production,” operating transnationally and leveraging ethical investment streams and crowdfunding that transcend national borders, can begin to construct a more just and democratic global economy from below, directly challenging corporate-led globalization and offering a concrete alternative to both neoliberal exploitation and “delinking.” By embracing global solidarity and pursuing strategies of “associated production,” we can move beyond the strategic limitations of “delinking” and engage more effectively with the complexities of 21st-century capitalism. The goal is not to retreat from the global stage but to transform it into a terrain of democratic struggle and international working-class power, building a more just and sustainable world through global cooperation and collective agency.
Reclaiming the State: A Contested Instrument in the Age of Neo-Fascism
To move beyond fatalistic interpretations of neoliberalism and the self-defeating cul-de-sac of “delinking,” we must directly confront the central question of the state. The neoliberal orthodoxy’s rhetoric of state withdrawal obscures a crucial reality: the 21st-century state is not disappearing. It exists as a guarantor and repressive machine for global finance capital, undergoing a profound transformation based on finance capital’s penetration into the national economy and its merging with national monopolies. The key question then becomes: who directs this transformation, and for what ends? While neo-fascist forces demonstrably strive to capture and weaponize the state for their authoritarian and crony capitalist projects, it is vital to recognize that the state, even now, remains a contested instrument, a terrain of intense political struggle, not a pre-determined entity destined solely to serve reactionary forces.
Under neo-fascist regimes, we witness an alarming distortion of state functions, a deliberate and aggressive re-orientation designed to serve the intertwined goals of crony capitalism and authoritarian control. The emergent form of the state under neo-fascism actively intervenes in the economy, not to promote social welfare or equitable development, but to orchestrate crony enrichment and primitive accumulation on a grand scale. This distortion is evident across key areas of state action. Privatization becomes state plunder, systematically transferring public assets to politically connected cronies, enriching a select elite while undermining public services. The state apparatus transforms into a rent-seeking machine, dispensing favors based on political loyalty, not merit or public interest, thereby suffocating competition and fostering systemic corruption. Furthermore, the state actively facilitates primitive accumulation, often through violence and dispossession, targeting marginalized communities and dissenters to benefit crony capitalist expansion, turning state power into a direct instrument of wealth extraction for the politically favored.
This distorted state also exhibits a ruthlessly selective approach to its functions. While aggressively dismantling the welfare state, slashing social spending, and undermining labor rights – all in the name of neoliberal austerity – neo-fascist regimes simultaneously invest massively in the repressive state apparatus. Police forces are militarized, surveillance technologies are deployed en masse, and legal systems are weaponized to silence dissent and terrorize opposition. This is not simply about maintaining order; it is about creating a climate of fear and repression conducive to crony capital accumulation and the consolidation of authoritarian power. The dismantling of social protections and democratic rights goes hand-in-hand with building a powerful repressive apparatus, serving a narrow elite at the expense of the majority.
Complementing this distorted state apparatus is the ideological state, a sophisticated propaganda machine designed to manufacture consent for cronyism and suppress critical thought. The rhetoric of “national champions” legitimizes the enrichment of crony corporations, portraying private greed as patriotic virtue. Scapegoating minorities and constructing internal and external enemies divert public anger from systemic corruption and inequality. Crucially, there is a concerted war on truth and critical thought, with independent media, academic freedom, and dissenting voices actively targeted and suppressed, replaced by state-controlled narratives and pervasive self-censorship.
However, despite this alarming picture of state distortion under neo-fascism, we must resist seeing the state as irredeemably captured. Even within neoliberal globalization and the rise of authoritarian forces, the state remains a terrain of struggle, an instrument whose functions and direction are not pre-ordained. Progressive democratic forces must recognize this and actively engage in the political contest to reclaim the state and re-orient its functions towards serving the people’s needs. This requires a multi-faceted strategy: relentlessly exposing and dismantling crony networks; fighting to rebuild and expand robust welfare states; struggling to reclaim the state as a protector of labor and democratic rights; and, crucially, developing a concrete vision for a state that strategically utilizes its power and resources – including engagement with global finance capital for preventing its possible flight and investing them in key areas of national interests – to promote public interest, foster democratic economic alternatives, and build a more just and equitable society. Rejecting both fatalistic resignation and simplistic calls for “delinking,” the urgent task is to engage in the complex and challenging political struggle to reclaim the state as a powerful instrument for democratic and progressive transformation, even in this era of neoliberalism and the rise of neo-fascism.
Reclaiming the “Idea of India” Against Hindutva Neo-Fascism
In India’s specific context, the struggle against Hindutva neo-fascism is particularly urgent and profound. It is not merely a political contestation, but a battle for the nation’s soul, a fight to define “India” itself. For over a decade, Hindutva, with its exclusionary and majoritarian ideology, has risen, capturing state power and actively seeking to transform the Indian state in its image, distorting institutions and undermining the republic’s secular democratic foundations. Understanding this transformation and charting a viable resistance path is the central challenge for progressive forces in India today.
The rise of Hindutva neo-fascism in India is deeply intertwined with Indian neoliberal capitalism’s specific dynamics. Intensified economic inequality, agrarian distress, and social precarity under neoliberal policies have created fertile ground for ethno-nationalist and religious-nationalist movements promising order, stability, and a return to a mythologized “golden age.” Hindutva, promising Hindu majoritarian dominance and scapegoating minorities, has effectively mobilized this discontent, channeling popular anger away from systemic economic issues towards communal polarization. This is not merely cultural or ideological; it is a deeply political project with material roots in Indian neoliberalism’s socio-economic contradictions.
Under the guise of “development” and “nationalism,” the Hindutva regime is actively constructing its distorted state. We see familiar patterns: systematic promotion of crony capitalism, with close links between ruling party elites and favored corporations; ruthless suppression of dissent, with attacks on independent media, academic freedom, and civil society organizations; erosion of democratic institutions, undermining electoral integrity and judicial independence; and targeted violence and dispossession of marginalized communities, particularly Muslims, Dalits, and Adivasis, often facilitated or condoned by the state apparatus.
However, even facing this formidable challenge, fatalism is not an option. The struggle against Hindutva neo-fascism in India must be waged on multiple fronts, with a clear understanding of the stakes and a strategic vision for transformative change. It is not a struggle ‘within’ democracy as an opposition party, but ‘for’ democracy, uniting all democratic and progressive forces. The urgent task is to create united peoples fronts, as Georgi Dimitrov insisted [4]. This struggle is fundamentally a fight to defend and deepen democracy in India, to resist the neo-fascist distortion of the Indian state, and to reclaim its institutions for democratic and progressive purposes. It is a fight to reclaim the secular and inclusive vision of the “Idea of India” – the vision of a diverse, pluralistic, and egalitarian nation-state that inspired the anti-colonial movement and is now under threat from Hindutva’s narrow and exclusionary nationalism.
Conclusion
In revisiting Prabhat Patnaik’s analysis of “Neoliberalism and Fascism,” this essay has critically engaged with his structural insights while challenging a perceived fatalistic undertone. Patnaik’s work powerfully illuminates the systemic connections between neoliberal capitalism and the rise of neo-fascist forces globally, offering a stark warning about contemporary authoritarianism. His emphasis on eroded nation-state sovereignty and the “lingering fascist presence” provides a crucial framework for understanding the structural challenges facing progressive movements.
However, we argued that Patnaik’s focus on a seemingly inevitable “dead end” and implicit advocacy for “delinking” risks underestimating human agency, the relevance of class struggle, and the contested nature of the state. His analysis can inadvertently discourage active engagement in present political struggles, undermining the agency needed to challenge neo-fascism and paradoxically fostering detachment from urgent anti-fascist tasks. While acknowledging neoliberal capitalism’s structural constraints, we contend that history is not predetermined. Succumbing to fatalism disarms us against a real and growing threat.
Against this, we advocated for a dynamic, action-oriented approach: global solidarity and “associated production” instead of “delinking”; recognizing the state as a contested instrument to be reclaimed, not simply captured; and underscoring the urgency of defending and deepening democracy and reclaiming the “Idea of India” against Hindutva neo-fascism.
The Indian path forward, we believe, lies in embracing anti-fascism deeply intertwined with democratic socialism. This demands defending democratic rights and institutions; building broad-based social movements; reclaiming inclusive Indian nationalism; strategically engaging in electoral politics; and forging international solidarity. It requires proactive social and economic transformation, challenging crony capitalism, expanding social justice, and building an egalitarian and democratic society.