Despite the fact that the struggle for independence has today mostly become mere pages in our collective history, no one with a right frame of mind, would stand in admiration based on blissful ignorance or selective amnesia of what the British had done here in this country, and certainly, not Dr Manmohan Singh or any Congress (wo)man for that matter! The reason is fairly obvious: The Congress’ claim to Delhi is rooted entirely in its history of struggle for Indian independence from the British! The freedom movement, which had thousands undergoing incarceration and other forms of persecution in their struggle against the British, happened mostly under the Congress flag! And that is a history that the Indian National Congress is proud of!
That is also a history, which troubles the Communist Parties in India. Therefore, such vociferous criticism of the Prime Minister for his statements in Oxford, should merely be seen as attempts by the Left to appropriate a part of the nationalistic spheres of Indian politics for themselves. Whether one likes it or not, economic growth and an apparent change in the status of the Country to one that has arrived in the international scene, has lead to there being an evident sense of pride in being an Indian. While Bharathiya Janatha Party would have wanted to hitchhike to power on such newfound and widespread nationalistic tendencies, they have to live with the fact that the original claimants to nationalism are still around.
As for the Left, while they may not be dreaming of coming to power on their own, in times like these, even they would like to have a piece of the pie, which has the flavour of the times! But, unfortunately for them, documented history stands in their way. Communist participation in freedom struggle was at its best, questionable; at its worst, fit to call them 'anti-nationals'! While Leftist historians have repeatedly pointed out the dubious role of the RSS, most of them would want themselves to skip a few pages here and there when looking at the role of the united Communist Party in the Indian Independence movement. In that sense, it is ironic, to say the least, although not unexpected, to see both the Comrades and the Pariwar now trying to appropriate historic pan-Indian nationalism!
In the course of this fight for political space, we even had one gentleman asking the Prime Minister to get back to basic history and learn about the freedom struggle against the British! If only he had known what he was asking!! And if only he himself had learned that history, he would then have realized that the Prime Minister’s statements put him in the august company of the likes of Gandhi, Tagore, Tilak, Gokhale, Radhakrishnan and Nehru. And these were leaders for whom the freedom struggle wasn't a story that they had heard from their parents. Who knows what Comrade Prabhat Patnaik, former member of the CPI (M) Central Committee might say tomorrow? That by having said good things about the British, they had all been insensitive to the millions of ordinary Indians, who had toiled hard and had even given up their lives to secure precious freedom? That these leaders had failed to see through the game plans of the forces of imperialism? Who really knows?
In the 1920s, when the Communist Party in India was born (CPI says it was born on 26, December, 1925 in India; CPM claims it was born in 1920 in the USSR!!!), it was equally opposed to both British Imperialism and the Congress Party. In response to the growing threat of fascism in the 1930s, the Comintern (which was, for all practical purposes, controlled by Stalin) adopted a policy of forming broad alliances with almost any political party willing to oppose the fascists. This brought about a change in the nature of the Indian communists' relationship with the Indian National Congress. Most communists joined the Congress Socialist Party, and in Kerala, they took control over the Congress Socialist Party. But during the Second World War, USSR sided with the British and the British legalised Communist movement in India. What happened then is interesting: The Communist Party opposed the Quit India movement, characterizing the Congress' call against the British as 'helping the fascists!!!
People's War, the then publication of the Communist Party, called Netaji Bose, 'Tojo's dog' and 'an agent of imperialism'. A series of cartoons in the People's War in 1942 attacked Netaji Bose: On August 8, Netaji was portrayed as a mere mask for the Japanese imperial ogre; on September 13, as a cur held up by Joseph Goebbels, and on November 21, as a Japanese bomb to destroy India. (Recently Budhadeb Bhattacharya and Jyoti Basu have admitted that they were wrong in discrediting Bose.) During Quit India movement, J. P. Narayan was shown in a cartoon as jumping into the pouch of the 'Kangaroo-Gandhi'. Mahatma Gandhi was accused of being merely "the astute leader of the bourgeoisie", being in a "decadent phase", and as one who had reached "the nadir of his bankruptcy".
In 1947, after having considered Gandhi's movement as 'a bourgeoisie struggle to entrench local capitalists', the Communists refused to accept India’s independence. History undoubtedly records that the Communists were the culprits behind the first armed rebellion against the newly independent state of India from Telengana, which Sardar Patel neatly crushed. It is only after the failure of the rebellion that the party abandoned 'armed struggle'! In 1962, when the Sino-Indian war broke-out, the Soviet faction of the Indian communists backed the position of the Indian government, while other sections of the party claimed that it was a conflict between a socialist and a capitalist state, and thus took a pro-Chinese position. (EMS and BTR were imprisoned for their anti-national stand.) By 1964, this split was formalised. The pro-Moscow arm retained the original name of the party, the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the pro-Beijing arm became the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM! Later, the extreme left movement came out of the CPM after the party started tasting success in parliamentary elections and began to go back on revolutionary talk. There is little wonder that these groups call themselves Maoists, and even today talk of Indian aggression against the Chinese in 1962!!! Unfortunately, these groups still cause havoc in regions like Telengana.
Let us cut a long story short. The Communist Party's chameleon role in the freedom struggle, whether they opposed both the British and the Congress, whether they opposed the British and sided with the Congress, or whether they opposed the Congress and sided with the British all depended upon the stand the USSR took vis-a-vis the UK at each point of time and had nothing to do with the interests of the people of this country. The only thing that changed in the post-independence days was that by the Sixties, some communists had new masters: China, instead of the USSR!
That is also a history, which troubles the Communist Parties in India. Therefore, such vociferous criticism of the Prime Minister for his statements in Oxford, should merely be seen as attempts by the Left to appropriate a part of the nationalistic spheres of Indian politics for themselves. Whether one likes it or not, economic growth and an apparent change in the status of the Country to one that has arrived in the international scene, has lead to there being an evident sense of pride in being an Indian. While Bharathiya Janatha Party would have wanted to hitchhike to power on such newfound and widespread nationalistic tendencies, they have to live with the fact that the original claimants to nationalism are still around.
As for the Left, while they may not be dreaming of coming to power on their own, in times like these, even they would like to have a piece of the pie, which has the flavour of the times! But, unfortunately for them, documented history stands in their way. Communist participation in freedom struggle was at its best, questionable; at its worst, fit to call them 'anti-nationals'! While Leftist historians have repeatedly pointed out the dubious role of the RSS, most of them would want themselves to skip a few pages here and there when looking at the role of the united Communist Party in the Indian Independence movement. In that sense, it is ironic, to say the least, although not unexpected, to see both the Comrades and the Pariwar now trying to appropriate historic pan-Indian nationalism!
In the course of this fight for political space, we even had one gentleman asking the Prime Minister to get back to basic history and learn about the freedom struggle against the British! If only he had known what he was asking!! And if only he himself had learned that history, he would then have realized that the Prime Minister’s statements put him in the august company of the likes of Gandhi, Tagore, Tilak, Gokhale, Radhakrishnan and Nehru. And these were leaders for whom the freedom struggle wasn't a story that they had heard from their parents. Who knows what Comrade Prabhat Patnaik, former member of the CPI (M) Central Committee might say tomorrow? That by having said good things about the British, they had all been insensitive to the millions of ordinary Indians, who had toiled hard and had even given up their lives to secure precious freedom? That these leaders had failed to see through the game plans of the forces of imperialism? Who really knows?
In the 1920s, when the Communist Party in India was born (CPI says it was born on 26, December, 1925 in India; CPM claims it was born in 1920 in the USSR!!!), it was equally opposed to both British Imperialism and the Congress Party. In response to the growing threat of fascism in the 1930s, the Comintern (which was, for all practical purposes, controlled by Stalin) adopted a policy of forming broad alliances with almost any political party willing to oppose the fascists. This brought about a change in the nature of the Indian communists' relationship with the Indian National Congress. Most communists joined the Congress Socialist Party, and in Kerala, they took control over the Congress Socialist Party. But during the Second World War, USSR sided with the British and the British legalised Communist movement in India. What happened then is interesting: The Communist Party opposed the Quit India movement, characterizing the Congress' call against the British as 'helping the fascists!!!
People's War, the then publication of the Communist Party, called Netaji Bose, 'Tojo's dog' and 'an agent of imperialism'. A series of cartoons in the People's War in 1942 attacked Netaji Bose: On August 8, Netaji was portrayed as a mere mask for the Japanese imperial ogre; on September 13, as a cur held up by Joseph Goebbels, and on November 21, as a Japanese bomb to destroy India. (Recently Budhadeb Bhattacharya and Jyoti Basu have admitted that they were wrong in discrediting Bose.) During Quit India movement, J. P. Narayan was shown in a cartoon as jumping into the pouch of the 'Kangaroo-Gandhi'. Mahatma Gandhi was accused of being merely "the astute leader of the bourgeoisie", being in a "decadent phase", and as one who had reached "the nadir of his bankruptcy".
In 1947, after having considered Gandhi's movement as 'a bourgeoisie struggle to entrench local capitalists', the Communists refused to accept India’s independence. History undoubtedly records that the Communists were the culprits behind the first armed rebellion against the newly independent state of India from Telengana, which Sardar Patel neatly crushed. It is only after the failure of the rebellion that the party abandoned 'armed struggle'! In 1962, when the Sino-Indian war broke-out, the Soviet faction of the Indian communists backed the position of the Indian government, while other sections of the party claimed that it was a conflict between a socialist and a capitalist state, and thus took a pro-Chinese position. (EMS and BTR were imprisoned for their anti-national stand.) By 1964, this split was formalised. The pro-Moscow arm retained the original name of the party, the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the pro-Beijing arm became the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM! Later, the extreme left movement came out of the CPM after the party started tasting success in parliamentary elections and began to go back on revolutionary talk. There is little wonder that these groups call themselves Maoists, and even today talk of Indian aggression against the Chinese in 1962!!! Unfortunately, these groups still cause havoc in regions like Telengana.
Let us cut a long story short. The Communist Party's chameleon role in the freedom struggle, whether they opposed both the British and the Congress, whether they opposed the British and sided with the Congress, or whether they opposed the Congress and sided with the British all depended upon the stand the USSR took vis-a-vis the UK at each point of time and had nothing to do with the interests of the people of this country. The only thing that changed in the post-independence days was that by the Sixties, some communists had new masters: China, instead of the USSR!
If the RSS finds faults with the Communists for being more Marxists than Indian, can you find fault with that?
This is not to call the entire present generation of Communists anti-nationals or traitors! Yet, it is a little unpalatable to read a write up by Comrade Patnaik in People's Democracy (which is nothing but the CPM successor of People's War, which had discredited the Congress leaders all the time during the freedom struggle), finding fault with a Congress PM for telling the British that despite a history of colonialism, India has moved far too forward to continue to blame Britain for all its ills!
There is no doubt that the role of the RSS in the freedom struggle is dubious! As is being pointed out, Savarkar's letter is a public document. This is not to deny the fact that Savarkar fought the British to deserve imprisonment. But he also gave up at a certain point. In any case, how much ever the Pariwar wants to glorfy its predecessors role in the freedom struggle, documented history would always trouble them. And, this holds true for the Left as well! No wonder, to prove their credentials, People's Democracy has been forced to cite a British despatch, which merely is about the gut feeling of a British officer that "the behaviour of many of CPI's members proves what has always been clear, namely, that it is composed of anti-British revolutionaries". History writing, the Left way!!!
The Left-leaning historians, who've dominated Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR) till recently have come up with an 'official history', which is biased and deliberately ignoring 'other versions'. The worst example to cite? When ICHR decided that history should be available in regional languages as well, and not just in English, much to their ‘embarrassment’, most members of the ICHR 'realised' that they were themselves the leading historians in this country. R. S. Sharma, Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, Muhammad Habib, S. Gopal, Nurul Hasan, D. N. Jha and the rest have got not one, but two or three or four of their books so translated. And guess, who else have got the honour of ICHR publications? Surprise, surprise! EMS, P. C. Joshi, and even R. P. Dutt, the leader of the Communist party during the British period!! But certainly not the works of Sir Jadunath Sarkar or R C Majumdar!!!
Yet, Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1888 - 1980) was in my understanding, one of the greatest historians this country has ever seen. It is no surprise if some haven't heard of him or his three-volume History of the Freedom Movement in India. ICHR, which is supposed to promote historiography and history learning in this country didn't want people to know about him. To know why the Left didn't want people to know much about Majumdar, let me quote Rajaram quoting Majumdar: "During the great national upsurge of 1942, the Communists acted as stooges and spies of the British Government… Mr. Joshi (of the Communist Party) was placing at the disposal of India the services of his Party Members… Joshi had, as General Secretary of the Party, written a letter in which he offered ‘unconditional help’ to the then Government of India and the Army GHQ to fight the 1942 underground workers and the Azad Hind Fauz (INA) of Subhas Chandra Bose… Joshi’s letter revealed that the CPI was receiving financial aid from the British Government, ...had a secret pact with the Muslim League…"
For ages, we've discussed and debated the roles Jinnah and the RSS have played in the partition of this country. People have debated the roles of Gandhi and Nehru even. Have you ever heard the role of the Communist Party in it? Have you ever heard of the EMS thesis, as they called it then? In any case, don’t bother! For a party (CPM), which had called India the aggressors in the Indo-Chinese war and supported the Chinese, for a party, which had lauded the scientists and the people of China for successfully testing their nuclear weapons, but severely criticised the nuclear weapons testing of India, their history couldn't have been any better!
It is important to note that the 'standard history', that the Left cites in the case of Sarvarkar, also comes from Majumdar. To quote from People's Democracy, Vol. XXVI, No. 19, dated May 19, 2002, from the article titled 'Such Attacks Will Not Silence Us : CPI(M)' - "Sitaram (Yechuri) said that historically it is indeed true that V D Sarvarkar was in jail. It is equally true that he sought clemency from the British government, subsequently. These are historical facts. They are mentioned in the History of the Penal Settlement by none other than the nationalist historian, R. C. Majumdar."
Of course, the best line in that article is something else: "Sitaram rubbished the RSS talk that communists had played no role in the freedom struggle saying it is like the pot calling the kettle black."
Should I say Inquilab Zindabad for that?
_______________________________________
I would like to thank my dear friends, Muneera, Rijo and Swapna, for all the debates that happen in E-gops and especially, for the one we had on this issue. A special word of thanks to Rijo for encouraging me to state my case in the form of this write-up.
Posts
