Author: Balbir K. Punj
Publication: The Asian Age
Date: April 1, 2003
The most subversive role of the
communist movement and its unforgivable sin has its support to various
separatist and fissiparous tendencies in Indian polity by providing philosophical
and intellectual underpinning to all such antinational movements. Scant
is known about the Indian communists' assiduous support to the creation
of theocratic state, Pakistan, based on religion.
There is no doubt, however, that
the CPI did what it did because of its belief that priority had to be given
to support the Soviet Union for the sake of communism and Indian freedom
even if it meant swimming against the national current. This instinctive
loyalty, first to the class and only then to the nation, the CPI shared
with most communist panics, except the Chinese and Yugoslavs." (p. 27)
This is Comrade Mohit Sen in is
recently published autobiography A Traveller and the Road - 'he Journey
of an Indian Communist (Rupa & Co). Autobiographies at times do give
a rare peep into personalities that pen them and the times they have lived
in.)Occasionally, they narrate history a greater depth and detail than
lifeless facts recorded by faceless .historians usually far removed, both
in time and space, from the scene of action. An autobiographer does not
have to hunt for facts; he has lived them. A sensitive soul soaks an era
and can reflect it to he world in all its three dimensions. A candid and
honest autobiography is revealing, and interesting to read. Sen.'s autobiography
surely falls in this category.
Sen's "journey" is a first hand
racy narrative of emergence of an alien creed (communism) on the Indian
political scene and political voyage of its followers; alienated from the
land and culture of their birth. The above mentioned quote is just one
of the hundreds that punctuate Sen's over 500-page autobiography that seeks
to explain "why the communist movement succeeded... why in the end (it)
did not win", particularly in the Indian context and covers the entire
life span of the communist movement from its birth till date.
Most of those who joined the communist
movement in its infancy in the Twenties and Thirties came from families
which were generally westernised. "Ours was one of the few Brahmo Samaj
families that were in westernized the J and anglicised that we spoke in
English at home. ... I never, found out why we and also the family of Indrajit
Gupta were so anglicised." "The westernisation," admits Sen, "had its limitations,
above all a certain alienation from the common people." (p. 3 &. 4)
"In India, as elsewhere, the communists
were patriots and champions of the working people of the country. But they
were not nationalists. They did not know India. In my own case, I became
a communist and worked as a communist for decades before I accepted India.
I was not an exceotion." (p. 505)
Given their total severance from
the land and the mases they claimed to be working for, no wonder the communists
ended up committing blunders virtually at the all important milestones
of India's history in the 20th century. They called all national heroes
name- Mahatma Gandhi, Subhas Bose, Jaya Prakash Narain. Sabataged the quit
movement, refused to accept India's freedom (After independence on August
15, 1947), started an armed rebellion against the Indian state, sided with
China in the Sino-Indian conflict in 1962, supported the Emergency and
press censorship in 1975, criticised Pokharan-II and have since led the
pack opposing the Ramjanmabhumi movement.
However, the most subversive role
of the communist movement and its unforgivable sin has been its support
to various separatist and fissiparous tendencies in Indian polity by providing
philosophical and intellectual underpinning to all such anti-national movements.
Scant is known about the Indian communists' (who say, "Religion is the
opium of the masses") assiduous support to the creation of a theocratic
state - Pakistan - based on religion.
Mrs Raj Thapar (1926-1987_ of the
former communists "Thapar couple"' in her memoir All These Years (Penguin,
1991) observes: "To this day I cannot fathom what lay behind the communist
support for the idea of Pakistan, what vested interests possessed them
to waste their cadres, their energy, to help what obviously the most reactionary
trend in our political life. And of all people, (Mohan Kumaramangalam),
who I then thought had devoured all the basic writings of Marxism, how
could he hold, support, back and supply Jana was with the intellectual
arguments he so urgently needed."
In this context, Mohit says, "A
more serious error committed by the CPI leadership was its virtual support
to the Pakistan demand of the Muslim league... Religious and geographical
or regional concentration at the ..basis of a nation or nationality was
also the reason that led the CPI to accept the Sikhs as a nation and plead
the case for a Sikh homeland in those districts of the Punjab where in
majority. The Naxalites and the Khalistanis in the Eighties used Dr Adhikari's
thesis to Justify their stand." (p. 27 & 28)
What these communists forgot, that
they might have read Marx, but Das Kapital was not taught in madras as,
which to one-third of India meant all that was meant by education. Speaking
of his days in Calcutta in the Ponies, Mohit Sen says, "There was also
a perceptible growth of communalism, to begin with among the Muslim intelligentsia,
lower middle classes and slum dwellers in Calcutta. Personally, I found
my Muslim friends in Presidency College withdrawing from general company
and displaying emblems of orthodoxy like wearing a fez cap and insisting
on leave on Friday afternoon which they had never done before... My own
experience was that the Great Calcutta Killings of August 1946 was a one-sided
affair with the Muslim communalists and criminals going ahead to do what
they did with practical immunity and little resistance. It was Muslim communal-ism
that took the offensive and blighted Calcutta, at least." (p. 33)
Communism holds that "religion is
the opium of the masses." In turn, however, communism, itself a proselytizing
ideology, became an "opium for the classes." Though the communist of India
drew their inspiration from the "Only Fatherland" Soviet Union, at one
place they failed it abjectly. The Thirties or Forties in the Soviet Union
were marked by Stalin's Russification drive. True, it was a draconian move
aimed at ruthlessly "Russifying" all republics of the Union. Bot the same
move also "secularised" the Muslim republics of Central Asia like Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan et al.
This was probably because Stalin
himself was a product of the Semitic race (like Putin today), and not an
apologetic Hindu like the Indian communists who would give into demands
of Islamic fundamentalism. In India however, "Hindu" communism has implied
the denigration of Hinduism, the strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism.
Mohit Sen's observations focus a
candid camera on the communist approach to nationalism: "In India, this
meant that the independence won was not genuine since the new state and
government certainly did not align with the socialist, anti-imperialist
camp. There was no question, therefore, the communists of India supporting
this state and government." (p. 38).
And further: "The second party Congress
had begun in Calcutta in February, 1948, and a stream of calls had already
started coming to prepare the masses to overthrow the government by armed
insurrection." (p. 40)
Since communists knew so little
about India, they naturally lacked national pride. It is no blessing that
our Indian communists who invested time and energy on hair-splitting debates
on communism lacked national favour as China. On its inception on December
26, 1926 (ironically Mao s birthday) it was named Communist Party of India
instead of Indian Communist Party, where ideology took precedence over
nationalism.
Communist Party of India, was actually
the Indian Chapter of Communist International, till the latter was dissolved
in 1943. More than a decade after the end of the Cold War, it can be said
in hindsight, that being pro-USSR or pro-China or more internationalist
than nationalist, hasn't really helped it at all. They now seem to speak
from another era.
There is little doubt that in its
first draw in India, Marxism was able to attract scions of the elite of
the Ran. Most of the early communists had the benefit of the English education,
exposure top the western civilization , networking in the power structure
and capacity to present their creed to others in an articulate manner.
"Still despite all the great talent and uplifting dedication of the communists,
despite all luminaries they attracted, they were isolated" (p. 26), admits
Sen. Why?
Sen confesses, "Where the Gandhians
failed to be consistent, the communists failed because of their consistency...
For us there can be only mistakes but no crimes. This, of course blew up
in our faces. What crimes did we not commit! Our cruelty was no less than
that of imperialists and fascists! We can never be forgiven for this! Nor
should we forgive and excuse ourselves. That we believed this was the need
of the cause is no justification. The cruel irony is that our cruelty was
directed more against our fellow- fighters, our comrades than anybody".
(p.493)
Sen has also made a successful use
of anecdotes to bring home certain facts. How the party sought to control
the minds of its cadres is revealed here. P.C. Joshi, the then general
secretary of the CPI, told a young Mohit, "Marx wrote for Lenin, Lenin
wrote for Stalin, Stalin wrote for me. I write for you just read me!" (p.
19& 20)
To my mind, communism failed in
India because it was an atheist outcome of deeply Semitic minds - where
there is no grey between white and black, no twilight between dark and
light. In fact. there was nothing much to choose between the white aliens
and the alienated reds. There is no Hindu view of accommodation, integration
and synthesis. But the irony is that communism in application actually
split into so many warring groups that it blew out of wind for a whistle.
Make a point to read this political travelongue of Mohit Sen.
