Author: Hari Jaisingh
Publication: The Tribune
Date: November 30, 2000
Where does communism
stand amidst the sweeping thrust of globalisation and liberalisation? How
potent is it in today's changing yearnings and priorities? As an ideological
concept it may still be relevant. But this is not true in the case
of communists and communist parties keeping in view the way they function.
Perhaps, they have played out their role in history. This is sad
but true. Indeed, communism's has been a mixed bag - more of blunders
and less of successes.
Mr Jyoti Basu might be
holding the record of being the longest-serving Chief Minister in India.
But that was not because of his radical achievements, but because of the
tight party structure which never allowed dissidents to challenge the leadership.
The grand old man of Indian Marxism bhadralog has not left a legacy for
which future generations will specially remember him. All the same,
he did provide political stability to his state. This surely is no
mean achievement.
We see the same process
in Kerala, where Mr E.K. Nayanar, with no special achievements to
his credit, continues to be at the helm because the rank and file are unable
to make a proper assessment of his work or worth. In any case, they
are too rule-bound to stir up a revolt.
The history of communism
in India has been a paradox. In a country of abject poverty and sub-human
existence, the communist ideology failed to attract even 10 per cent of
the population. The poor refused to place their faith in it.
In that very paradox lies the answer to why it failed to strike roots in
India. It was a failure because it was led by persons who either
lacked vision or proper understanding of Indian ethos at the grassroots.
India is too complex,
too heterogeneous a nation, endowed with a plural, multi-layered social
philosophy and ethics, to trigger a textbook Marxist-Leninist or Maoist-type
revolution and bring it to a successful conclusion. There is neither
an adequate mass of combustible explosive material nor is there the political
will to enact a bloody upheaval. We are basically a statusquoist
people who readily compromise with circumstances.
With English as the medium
of instruction, Indian communists had no doubt all the advantages to be
the masters of the Marxist theory. They had access to the entire
literature of Europe. China did not have this advantage.
When the Chinese Communist
Party was established, China had only a few booklets on Marxism.
And China knew even less about European thought. Yet the Indian communist
movement was in awe of the Chinese Marxists: The "Red Book" of China became
as much a Bible in China as in India! Similarly, the Indian communist movement
was enamoured of P.N. Aidit (Indonesia) as also of Fidel Castro and
Che Guevera (Cuba).
The Indian communists
failed to produce even one world figure, whereas the Indian "bourgeois"
threw up dozens of great personalities like Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo,
Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and many others. A number of reasons
can be cited for this historical fact.
The Indian communists
were too eager to take orders from Moscow or Beijing. They could
never produce an ideology that was relevant to Indian life, to Indian civilisation,
to Indian ethos, and to Indian experience. And there is one more
significant reason: while the Chinese communists were, first of all, nationalists
and were chauvinistic about the "greatness" of their country and its "great"
civilisation, the Indian communists were willing to forget India's past.
In fact, they often shared
the European views on India - that Indian civilisation is all mumbo-jumbo.
Naturally, the Indian nationalists, grounded broadly in liberal tradition
or the broadbased socialist concept with a human face, grew into giants
on the fertile soil of India's past, whereas the communists grew into pygmies
in the arid soil which they themselves chose.
Ironically, it was often
a matter of pride among the Indian communists that they knew so little
of India's past. So, when S.A. Dange wrote a booklet on India's
traditions, there was surprise among the comrades.
However, the question
that needs to be asked is: were they good at the history, religion and
philosophy of Europe? They were not. For, they dismissed them as
"bourgeois", although no one could understand Marxism fully without a proper
understanding of European history, religion, philosophy and sociology.
So, the ordinary Indian communist was a man with a few slogans, the red
flag and little else. He certainly had no pro- per understanding
of Marxism.
Today Marxist leaders
are courageous enough to admit the great "blunders" they committed throughout
their history. And they are many in believing that
1) an ideology born of
European experience could be transplanted into India without change,
2) in supporting the
Muslim League and its two-nation theory,
3) in opposing the "Quit
India" movement,
4) in accepting Chinese
superiority,
5) in pampering the
public sector trade unions without a sense of commitment to the larger
social good and
6) in failing to make
the public sector a success.
It is not surprising
if there is no change in attitude at the grassroots level even today.
Hardcore Marxists still believe in "revolution" and "violence", knowing
pretty well that these cannot deliver the utopia they hanker after.
Violence produces violent men, who become impatient with reasonings and
arguments.
Revolution is change
in haste. It fails invariably because not much thinking goes into
it. Thus, the Bolsheviks knew practically nothing in 1917 about how
to build a socialist society and economy. The Chinese knew even less.
And when Mikhail Gorbachev
launched his perestroika and glasnost, he knew even less how to unscramble
the communist system, not to speak of reconstructing a free society.
In the process, the Russian people lost a century and 50 million people.
And their suffering was without parallel. Ask a Russian today what
he thinks of the 20th century, his answer will be: we started in hope and
ended up in despair!
Who was at fault? Not
communism, although it was not faultless. The failure was human -
the failure of communists and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
In China, the same story was repeated, but the Chinese being more practical
(they were less given to intellectual quest), saved the situation.
But everywhere else the communist experiments failed. The communists
are getting back today to the only other way the world knows: the capitalist
way. Of course, even capitalism has to have a human face for the
greater good of society.
Part of the blame for
this Soviet failure must go to the bureaucrats. Lenin had apprehensions
about the Russian bureaucracy (one of the worst in the world). But
the Chinese went ahead with their mandarins, with what result we all know.
And when India took to a "socialistic pattern of society" little did the
communists know that the bureaucracy was the enemy of all idealism and
that it was bound to destroy the whole effort.
What was worse, little
did they realise that the worker in the public sector would turn out to
be what he was. Today we are winding up every public sector unit
because its workers did not have the right leadership to take them on the
right path and make it a success.
All this is not a one-sided
exercise to "damn" the communists. There are good communists and
bad communists. We are also familiar with the dark facts of capitalism
as well as of globalisation. Besides, we know in what way private
enterprises have failed the country. But that is another story.
The communist movement
was at one time inspired by ethical concerns for man and his destiny.
That was its major attraction. But it failed to live up to its promises.
The failure was human. "Human errors and failures" are, of course,
part of every civilisation. But while we have laws and prisons to
deal with "human" failures at one level, we have none to deal with the
failures of our rulers. As Gandhi would have said, we need ideologies
to reform men. The failure of the communists has been the most conspicuous
let-down in history. In the circumstances, can they claim to play
a pioneering role in human history?
As elsewhere in Europe,
Indian Marxists have either become "soft" or are unable to adjust themselves
to the new realities. Though they have done well to take to the parliamentary
road, they have yet to discover fully their traditional roots. Perhaps
they are still waiting for a turn in the political tide. But, as
we know, time and tide wait for none.
(The writing on the wall
is clear. Unless they reform themselves and correct their response
system, their political base will continue to shrink in the face of new
challenges of globalisation, liberalisation and the swadeshi mantra.)
