 |
 |
|
| Vol. 4, Issue 2 February 2012 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting & Essays |
|
|
Essay |
After the Fall
|
| In the wake of an historic defeat, can India’s communists finally break with the hidebound dogmas of their past? |
|
|
| |
|
|
FRÈDÈRIC SOLTAN / CORBIS |
|
| Bagbazar, in north Kolkata.
|
|
|
|
| T |
HE RECENT DEFEAT of the Communist
Party of India (Marxist) in Kerala and
especially in West Bengal—where it ruled for
34 uninterrupted years—calls for a detached,
dispassionate analysis of the party’s place in
the history of modern India. |
In what manner, and to what extent, did politicians committed
in theory to the construction of a one-party state
reconcile themselves in practice to bourgeois democracy?
What were the sources of the CPI(M)’s electoral appeal in
Kerala and West Bengal? How were its policies constrained
or enabled by its ideology of Marxism-Leninism? How
should this ideology be rethought or reworked in the light
of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the manifest attachment
of the people of India to multiparty democracy? How might
the CPI(M) restore and reinvent itself after these electoral
reversals in Kerala and West Bengal?
In seeking to answer these questions, I shall start with
the analysis of a printed text. This is apposite, since Marxists
are as much in thrall to the printed word, or Word, as
are fundamentalist Muslims or Christians. True, their God
had more than one Messenger, and these messengers wrote
multiple Holy Books. Withal, like Christianity and Islam,
Marxism is a faith whose practice is very heavily determined
by its texts. Thus, communists the world over justify
their actions on the basis of this or that passage in the
works of Marx, Engels, Lenin or Mao.
It was the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre who first
drew attention to the parallels between a professedly secular
belief system and religious doctrine. In a 1968 book
called Marxism and Christianity, MacIntyre observed that
“creedal uniformity, as in religion, often seems to be valued
by Marxists for its own sake”. He added that this secular
creed, like its religious counterpart, endowed its adherents
with an emancipatory role denied to individuals who believed
in more humdrum ideologies. To quote MacIntrye,
“both Marxism and Christianity rescue individual lives
from the insignificance of finitude…by showing the individual
that he has or can have some role in a world-historical
drama.” In this, Marxism and Christianity are akin to one
another, and to Islam, whose devoted or dogmatic adherents
likewise believe that their life and death find meaning
and fulfilment in a pleasure-filled and enemy-free utopia.
| T |
HE TEXT that I shall here subject to scrutiny—the
technical term may be ‘exegesis’—was written not by
Marx or Lenin, but by a desi deity, so to say. One of
the most influential of all Indian Marxists, his name was
Bhalchandra Trimbak Ranadive. He was known as ‘BTR’,
and these initials were whispered with respect, or might
we say reverence, by party members
|
past and present.
The text that I am going to resurrect was written in
1978, a year after a Left Front government dominated by
the CPI(M) came to power in the large and crucial state of West Bengal. It took the shape of an extended review of a
book by the Spanish communist Santiago Carrillo, entitled
Eurocommunism and the State. The review was published
over 33 closely printed pages of Social Scientist, a Marxist
monthly edited by scholars associated with the Jawaharlal
Nehru University. Here, Ranadive attacked Carrillo as
a renegade, the last in a shameful line of ‘revisionists’ who
had abandoned the path of revolution in favour of the softer
option of reform.
The Indian communist charged his erstwhile comrade
with six heresies in particular:
First, Carrillo thought that, at least in Western Europe,
socialists and communists could now come to power via
the ballot box rather than armed revolution. In Ranadive’s
paraphrase, “the central point of Carrillo’s book is that
there is absolutely no need for a revolution in the developed
capitalist countries… According to him socialism can be
achieved peacefully, without violating any of the rules of
bourgeois democracy.”
Second, Carrillo claimed that communist parties did not
necessarily possess a monopoly on the truth. The Spanish
Communist Party, Carrillo wrote, “no longer regards itself
as the only representative of the working class, of the working
people and the forces of culture. It recognises, in theory
and practice, that other parties which are socialist in tendency
can also be representative of particular sections of
the working population.”
Third, Carrillo held that private enterprise had a role to
play in economic growth, albeit in alliance with the State.
As the Spaniard put it, “the democratic road to socialism
presupposes a process of economic transformation different
from what we might regard as the classical model [of
Marxism]. That is to say it presupposes the long-term coexistence
of public and private forms of property.”
Fourth, Carrillo argued that in the Cold War, Europeans
should keep their distance from the Americans and the Soviets
alike. As he wrote, “our aim is a Europe independent
of the USSR and the United States, a Europe of the peoples,
orientated towards socialism, in which our country will
preserve its own individuality.”
Fifth, Carrillo believed that Marx, Engels and Lenin were
not infallible, and that their views were open to correction
with the passage of time and the evidence of history.
| JAMES BURKE / TIME LIFE PICTURES / GETTY IMAGES |
 |
BT Ranadive, whose hard line set the CPI against the state at
the time of Independence, pictured at a meeting in 1958. |
Sixth, Carrillo believed that the Communist Party was
not infallible either, and that—at least in nonpolitical matters—individuals should feel free to follow their own conscience.
In Carrillo’s formulation, “outside collective political
tasks, each [party] member is master of his own fate, as
regards everything affecting his preferences, intellectual
or artistic inclinations, and his personal relations.” Significantly, he added, “In the field of research in the sciences of
every kind, including the humanities, different schools may
co-exist within [the party] and they should all have the possibility
of untrammelled confrontation in its cultural bodies
and publications.”
Reading Carrillo through the quotes provided by Ranadive,
one cannot help but admire the Spanish communist for his honesty, his overdue but nonetheless brave recognition
that the bloody history of his country (and continent)
mandated a radical revision of the communist idea. But BT
Ranadive saw it very differently. He spoke with contempt
of Carrillo’s faith in those “miserable parliamentary elections”,
and with even more disdain toward Carrillo’s independence
with regard to the Cold War. “Can any Communist,”
Ranadive fumed, “put the enemy of mankind, the
gendarme of world reaction, American imperialism, on the
same footing as Soviet Russia?”
Carrillo’s argument that other political parties should exist,
indeed that these parties might even sometimes be correct
in their views, was seen by Ranadive as “giving a permanent
charter of existence to non-Marxist, anti-Marxist
and unscientific ideologies”. In fact, it amounted to nothing
less than a “liquidation of the Leninist concept of party”.
Further, the encouragement of a diversity of thought outside
the sphere of politics was “the final denigration of the
Marxist-Leninist Party in the name of freedom for all its
members to profess any opinion they like on any subject”.
In contrast to the heterodox Spaniard, Ranadive insisted
that “the Party’s outlook and the outlook of its members is
determined by their firm allegiance to Marxism-Leninism
and must be consistent with it”.
| MARGARET BOURKE-WHITE / TIME & LIFE PICTURES / GETTY IMAGES |
 |
PC Joshi, the first general secretary of the Communist Party of
India, at his home in May 1946. |
Ranadive’s own riposte to the renegade Carrillo rested
heavily on quotes from Marx, Engels and Lenin, the Holy
Trinity whose works and words he himself never questioned,
emended or—heaven forbid—challenged. The Indian
communist complained that “Carrillo turns a blind eye to
Lenin’s teachings”; worse yet, “a large part of his argument
is lifted from bourgeois writers and baiters of Marxism”.
Carrillo’s views, in fact, sound akin to those of the authors
of the Indian Constitution. Parliamentary democracy
based on universal adult suffrage, the proliferation of political
parties, a mixed economy with space for both public
and private enterprise, a nonaligned and independent foreign
policy, the freedom of creative expression—these were
the ideals enshrined in the Constitution that came into effect
in 1950, and the ideals embraced by Santiago Carrillo
some three decades later.
These ideals, however, remained anathema to a prominent
Indian communist. It is necessary to point out here that it
was the self-same BT Ranadive who, in 1948, led communists
in an insurrection against the infant Indian state. At
Independence, the general secretary of the then undivided
Communist Party of India was PC Joshi, a cultured, sensitive
man who understood that freedom had come through
the struggle and sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of ordinary
Indians. A statement issued by the CPI thus acknowledged
that the Congress party, led by Jawaharlal Nehru
and Vallabhbhai Patel, was “the main national democratic
organization”. The CPI said it would “fully co-operate with
the national leadership in the proud task of building the Indian
Republic on democratic foundation”.
However, by the end of 1947, PC Joshi found his line challenged
by the radical faction of the CPI. They claimed that
the freedom that India had obtained was false—‘Ye Azaadi
Jhoothi Hai’, the slogan went—and asked that the party declare
an all-out war against the Government of India. The
radicals were led by BT Ranadive, who saw in the imminent
victory of the Chinese communists a model for himself and
his comrades. A peasant struggle was already under way in Hyderabad, against the feudal regime of the Nizam. Why
not use that as a springboard for an Indian revolution?
On 28 February 1948—four weeks after Gandhi’s murder—the CPI leadership met in Calcutta, and confirmed
that the revolutionary line would prevail. Joshi was replaced
as general secretary by Ranadive, who declared that
the Indian government was a lackey of imperialism, and
would be overthrown by armed struggle. Party members
were ordered to foment strikes and protests to further the
cause of the revolution-in-the-making. Bulletins and posters
were issued urging the people to rise up and “Set fire to
the whole of Bengal”, to “Destroy the murderous Congress
government”, and move ‘forward to unprecedented mass
struggles. Forward to storm the Congress Bastilles.”
The government, naturally, came down hard. Some
50,000 party members and sympathisers were arrested.
These arrests forestalled Ranadive’s plans to crystallise
strikes in the major industrial cities of Bombay and Calcutta.
It took some more time to restore order in Hyderabad,
where a recalcitrant Nizam was refusing to join the
Indian Union, egged on by militant Islamists (known as
‘Razakars’) who were making common cause with the local
communists. But in September 1948 the Indian Army
moved into Hyderabad; slowly, over a period of two years,
the areas where the communists were active were brought
back under the control of the state.
In 1950, the Ranadive line was formally abandoned, and
the communists came overground to fight the general elections
of 1952. In 1957, the undivided Communist Party of
India came to power in Kerala, via the ballot box. Seven
years later, the party split into two factions, the newer and
more numerous group calling itself the Communist Part of
India (Marxist). In 1967, the CPI(M) was part of winning
coalitions in both West Bengal and Kerala. Later, in 1977
and 1980 respectively, they came to power in these states
more or less on their own.
Since 1957, then, parties professing a creedal allegiance to
‘Marxism-Leninism’ have been in power for extended periods
of time in several states of the Union. And yet, these
successes could not succeed in reconciling leading communists
to ‘bourgeois’ democracy. For BT Ranadive’s critique
of Santiago Carrillo was really a warning to those among
his comrades who might likewise think of revising the classical
postulates of Marxism-Leninism. It is quite extraordinary,
yet also quite in character, that Ranadive chose,
so soon after his party had come to power by democratic
means in the large and very populous state of West Bengal,
to let loose this fusillade against parliamentary democracy,
the mixed economy, freedom of expression and nonalignment
in foreign policy.
| | | |
| |
|
|
|
|
Readers' Comments |
Total Comments
|
|
abhijit datta bhowmik
21 January 2012
10:43 PM
|
|
communists never change,its true.
|
|
|
|
Vimala
9 December 2011
03:17 PM
|
|
Brilliant Ram.... Your analysis resonate thoughts that I could not express so well. Yes it has been 30 wasted years for the millions of children who have seen the schooling system degenerate into a dysfunctional shell, who have been forced to seek private tuitions given by government school teachers (a form of under hand privatisation) and a university system in shambles. Thanks Ram for this. Enjoyed it very much.
|
|
|
|
Primila Lewis
6 December 2011
12:52 PM
|
|
Ram, this is a superb analysis written with great sensitivity and honesty. How I hope the CPI(M), Naxals, and others of that mind will have the courage to reflect and respond with equal integrity. Thank you for pointing so persuasively to what is needed to create a meaningful Left force in India - which , as you say, is sorely needed.
|
|
|
|
venkitesh
17 November 2011
12:16 AM
|
|
In Kerala from 2007 to 2010 there was no suicides by the farmers , Communists ruled Kerala at this time. And now the suicide has begun, 4 in 2 months ; why ?
|
|
|
|
nirmalya mukherjee
7 November 2011
01:52 PM
|
|
Very repititive, boring with too many comments packed with emotion. Hardly anything new as Mr. Guha only mused over issues that had been discussed for an innumerable times. The article also showed that right from the beginning Mr. Guha had a point to prove against the decaying Marxists and Communists. It could also be that since the Communists were against the Chipko movement it had made Mr.Guha go further wild as it discounts the efficacy of his Doctoral (Ph.D) Theses. If Mr. Guha would have grabbed power of the General Secretary of CPI or CPI(M), he would be worse than Joshi, Ranadive or EMS. So much of malice is also bad for a liberatarian as inwardly everyone would like to be despotic and Mr.Guha is no exception.
Nirmalya Mukherjee
Kolkata
|
|
|
|
RAVI
6 November 2011
12:53 PM
|
|
ARTICLE ON WEST BENGAL
|
|
|
|
k.ravi
28 September 2011
03:47 PM
|
|
GOOD ARTICLE
|
|
|
|
Asit Guin
4 July 2011
06:23 PM
|
|
History of Bengal after independence is divided into two periods; period of famine (1947 - 1977) and the period of delayed success (1977 - till date). There was famine in 1959, 1966, and 1974. Famines were mainly due to non-cultivation of land under jotedar ownership. Agriculture is not much profitable for them. After 1977, due to land reform, food production is up and famine problem is solved. There was one potential famine in 1978 (due to big flood), but panchayat and co-ordination committee avoided a famine like situation. So the new period of delayed success started. Haldia is delayed by 12 yrs, Bakreswar by 8 yrs. Singur will also come one day after some delay like Haldia. DELAYED SUCCESS IS BETTER THAN FAMINE.
|
|
|
|
Pradip
1 July 2011
10:02 AM
|
|
Typical Social-democratic approach made by Dr. Ram Chandra Guha. What is in present situation in India, Leninist party and its activities in mass organisation is necessary to uproot the exploitation made by neo liberal capitalism. We CPI(M) minded people want a disciplined and honest cadrebased party in India. Neo-liberalism and Marxism cannot togetherly paved the way for create economically independent India. The theory of Dr. Guha is to misguide the people.
|
|
|
|
Nithin Joseph
30 June 2011
09:04 PM
|
|
More or less charitable write up on the communist party. But the author seemed to have some unfathomable grouse against BT Ranadive. :-) Nevertheless, most of the analysis looks to be skin deep and would definitely appeal to the apolitical yuppies, whose constituency he serves.
|
|
|
|
Harminder Pal Singh Kailay
23 June 2011
12:48 PM
|
|
This article serves as the only hope, as the only flicker of light, which we...as passionate students of communism..can see at the end of a tunnel.I sincerely hope this issue lands up on the tables of the policy makers(viz. karat,budhadeb..) & their conscience would take a beating. Here in Punjab, I have witnessed this "dogma of anti-westernism & being the only sympathizers of the poor" from the time I'd learned to cognize..and now it has been transcribed in the DNA of every single party worker.A day will come, when they'll acknowledge the fact of them being prejudiced...By then, I fear....it'll be too late.
|
|
|
|
Simranjit Dhaliwal
23 June 2011
12:10 PM
|
|
Its a well written article Mr Ramchandra Guha and i congratulate you for this but one thing i could not phantom in this article is the way you lambast CPI(M) for being ideologically rigid and believing in this Marx, Engels and Lenin as deities of their "religion" and comparing leftist ideology to a religion is even more callous of you. If the CPI(M) was so rigid why did it take into its alliance the Forward Block which has a totally different approach towards socialism and even denounces marxist ideology ?. Well i can go on and on but then i don't have the time for writing a critique on this article . The only thing i would like to say is that you do have a great grip on historical facts being a historian of the stature you are but the inherent bias that you have towards socialism makes you to take things out of perspective. I mean how could you give just 20 percent credit to the communists for the social upliftment of Kerala ? Try reading Dr K Park's analysis of Kerala's health and eduction indices in his Textbook for Preventive and Social Medicine. Why did somebody give go off the line andwrite with such conviction about the contribution of "Political will" of the government a medical textbook read by every Medical student of India ? Ponder on these facts and end this neo liberal bias . I don't say that CPI(M) is a holy cow the only thing i would like to state is that socialism is the only ideology that can lead to a utopian society.
|
|
|
|
Janet
17 June 2011
06:15 PM
|
|
Real brain power on dspilay. Thanks for that answer!
|
|
|
|
Sabyasachi
17 June 2011
02:09 PM
|
|
Indeed a good illustration of the 'Great Fall' . Karl Marx was one of the greatest thinker of all time and made the first ambitious attempt to explain the world we live in. What he couldn't conceive was the shape of Post-capitalism world. To a great dissapointment to us and to a great delight to Capitalism, the World could not produce another Marx since his death. Meanwhile the world plunged into a state of despire and many leaders - notably Stalin, Lenin and Mao - perhaps unwittingly and obliged by the situation - distorted the very idea of Marxism - and aided the TINA syndrome to prolong and wreak havoc. Today, when we preside over the decline of Capitalism around the world, the Left is nowhere in sight. It's indeed a great political Vaccum. In the name of the Democratic Centralism, which is outmoded now, every norms of democracy has been shrugged off, every voice of dissent quelled, even within the party. Partisanship was let loose across the public institution with nepotism, cronyism was rampant. If affiliation to the party can earn everything, why bother reading Marx? - I wonder how many cadres in west bengal has ever read the works of Marx. The left must abandon fanaticism, dogmatism, indoctrination to emerge as a strong political alternative.
By abandoning Democratic Centralism, which indeed ejected many of the Left's own finest leadrs out of the party, the CPI(M) would do a great favour to this country and many of the fello travellers like me
|
|
|
|
Hallie
16 June 2011
08:44 AM
|
|
That's way more clever than I was expecting. Thknas!
|
|
|
|
| 1 2 |
|