Whose fundamentalism?

That context was set by journalists' questions about the government's attempt to reverse the "saffronisation" of education, and the Savarkar controversy triggered by Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar.

It wasn't the Right, but the Left, that the questioners put in the dock -- as if the Left were somehow guilty of distorting history and corrupting education. "Neutrality" in such an unequal situation, with the dice loaded against one party, doesn't speak of fairness or balance.

Yet, the UPA has given the impression that it wants to please the Right, not the Left. Thus, Dr Singh gave his first exclusive interview to RSS organ Panchajanya, in which he didn't criticise the Sangh.

The UPA has done little to bring justice to the Gujarat victims, barring the Railways' inquiry into Godhra. Gujarat failed to find a mention in Dr Singh's first address to the nation. The UPA has been passive on Ayodhya.

Similarly, the UPA hasn't yet implemented the Common Minimum Programme's promises to the toiling poor, like an Employment Guarantee Scheme, food security, and a doubled health budget.

Its economic agenda is preoccupied with issues outside the NCMP, like raising foreign-investment ceilings in telecom and insurance. It has been soft on the NDA's malfeasance in the Centaur Hotel sell-off and the AK-47 deal --despite damning evidence.

The relationship between the UPA and the Left, its crucial supporter, has become uneasy. Although Dr Singh says he has "great faith" in the Left's "inherent patriotism", he wrongly tried to settle the "foreign experts" controversy over the Plan review by dissolving the consultative committees altogether!

The Left feels the UPA takes it for granted. The Left's support to the UPA isn't based on cynicism. It genuinely wants the UPA to flourish because that will weaken the Hindutva forces. A durable Centre-Left alliance will undermine the BJP's claim to the "natural" leadership of coalitions.

The Left's attempt to give a pro-poor thrust to the UPA's agenda is perfectly legitimate. The Left's 60-odd Lok Sabha MPs are crucial to the UPA's survival. When they press for certain policies, they do not exercise power without responsibility. They act democratically.

Dr Singh has a historic chance to forge an alliance between the Left's radicalism and the Congress' inclusive centrist orientation. This will give the Congress a healthy populist direction. Therefore, it's especially unfortunate that Dr Singh wants equidistance from the Left and the Right.

What's "fundamentalism"? It connotes fanatical, dogmatic belief in the infallibility of the scriptures. Right-wing fundamentalism has many variants. There is religious fanaticism which interprets sacred texts literally and wants to violently reorganise society along their criteria.

There are social ultra-conservatives who make a cult of authority and believe in the "one leader, one people, one nation". Fascists, ultra-nationalists, and Right-wing moral police fall in this group.

Then, there are "market fundamentalists" who have limitless faith in the virtues of greed: the state -- indeed all human agency -- must be kept out of social and economic life; the market will take care of itself. All fundamentalism is parochial and profoundly distrusts openness, inclusion and democracy.

In today's India, the two main avatars of Right-wing fundamentalism are Hindutva and neoliberal market-fundamentalism.

Hindutva rejects India's religious-cultural pluralism. It has visited untold havoc upon us through hate-acts and by ideologically poisoning minds.

Market fundamentalism is equally harmful. It takes a Social-Darwinist view of the world, in which only the fittest may survive; others deserve to die. That's a law of Nature! Fundamentalist policies have worked against the poor, further marginalising them, and further privileging the rich. This has widened social-economic disparities explosively, spreading insecurity.

Under neoliberalism, global inequalities have reached unprecedented proportions. Of the world's 100 largest economies, only 49 are nations; 51 are corporations. The top 200 multinationals' combined turnover exceeds the aggregate income of all countries barring the top 10.

The Top-200's sales are 18 times the combined income of the 1.2 billion people (24 percent of the world) living in "severe" poverty. The Top-200 account for 27.5 percent of world economic activity.

In India too, neoliberal policies have had disastrous effects on employment, regional balances and incomes, and caused agrarian distress.

Now consider Left fundamentalism. The term at worst applies to Stalinism, which forcibly collectivised agriculture, super-exploited workers, destroyed the Soviets (or councils) of workers, solders and peasants -- and hence, killed the seeds of a new kind of democracy sown in 1917. Stalinism turned the USSR into a police-state.

All this was justified by quasi-religious dogma that gave socialism a bad name. Integral to it was the "one-party state" and "dictatorship of the proletariat".

"Fundamentalism" also describes, somewhat less appropriately, Charu Mazumdar-type cults of violence, with Annihilation of the Class Enemy as the sole method of "revolution", and countless groupuscules for whom Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky are the Gospel. They substitute clichés for thought. The slogan, "China's chairman is our chairman" is an example.

In today's India, Left-wing fundamentalism doesn't exist as significant force. Of course, there are some fringe groups like remnants of former Naxalites. But they are marginal. They command no influence or power -- unlike the sangh parivar.

India's organised Left parties have repudiated or freed themselves of the Stalinist legacy. None even remotely believes in the "one-party state" or centralised planning. "Left fundamentalism" is a parody.

The Left, with all its inadequacies, represents responsible, solidly democratic politics, committed to justice and equality. One might disagree with tactics, but not with its moral clarity, openness and commitment to popular emancipation.

It's the Hindutva Right and the "free-market" dogma-peddlers that constitute the real threat to Indian democracy. Dr Singh should systematically combat the threat -- with his Left-wing allies.

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.