Constitutionalism
in Indian Communist Movement
Ish
N. Mishra
Unlike
other political parties, a Communist Party lays more emphasis on theory, a theoretical system of ideas which defines
and analyses the evolutionary and the revolutionary progress of the political
processes with a historical perspective in terms of economic development at
various times and spaces. The guiding principles of such a theory are derived
from the principles of historical materialism, known to be the science of
Marxism. The philosophical basis and the derivative of this theoretical system,
founded by Karl Marx and F. Engels, is called as the dialectical materialism by
subsequent Marxists after Marx’s death. are based on an empirical understanding
of society, within which lies the roots of social and economic change. Change
is necessary in class divided systems, the Marxists believe, which is
‘exploitative’, ‘unjust’ and clearly based on the domination of the majority by
a few who not only control the means of production, but also ‘power’ in all its
institutional dimensions. “The state is the instrument of the ruling classes”.
However, the evolution of theoretical and pragmatic Marxism has gone through
immense internal stress, encountered multiple contradictions and faced various
questions, the answers of which it has failed to provide, or it has simply
reduced them into black and white categories, in a way, the international
Communist movement witnessed many tragic situations when history overtook them
with an unimaginable pace and “official” revolutionaries sought immediate, and
almost stupid answers to highly complex
situations.
The
more complex political contests became, the more they turned to simplistic
reductionism. The fear of confusion tormented the Communist leadership, the fear
of innovation of looking beyond the foundations of set, structured laws – an
insecurity symbolic of the Freudian ‘daughter-father’, ‘son-mother’
relationship the acceptance of the “objective reality” that the world had
changed, and so has the equations of the power and social relations, came very
hesitantly, while contradictions diversified, multiplied and acquired more
complex possibilities. Marxism remained reduced within the parameters of the
basic contradiction – ‘Labour – Capital’, ‘Proletariat– Bourgeoisie,
The world, thereby, became a
matter of easy comprehension.
Though
various streams of analytical, unconventional Marxism have entered the realm of
social sciences especially after the 2nd world war – the dominant
section of the International Communist movement is led by the Central Committee
of C.P.S.U. The Central Committee Remained happily submerged in the dogmatic
theoretical structures of early Marxism, later reinforced by Lenin in the
precarious conditions of Russia, the revolution and the aftermath. .
The
Indian Communist movement also constituted a part of the same political
attitude. Since its birth in 1925, after the initial commitment to
revolutionary politics, especially in the 1930’s when as part of the Congress
Socialist Party, it consolidated its mass base in trade unions, student
movements, and grass root politics in Kerala, West Bengal, Tripura, Bihar, and
Marginally in Punjab, Andhra and other states, the post-colonial Communist
Movement has gradually, and steadily moved towards unilineal political
passivity and degeneration.
The
Marxist- Leninist emphasis on mass based politics no more troubled their
conscience. The “mistakes” (which were quite a few) of the past revolutionary
years were “regretted” and conveniently sidetracked. Blatant pragmatism became
the fundamental premise of the bankrupt politics – ornamented with the liberal
use of jargons and slogans. (Karl Marx is in heaven and everything is alright
with the world)
100 years ago Marx turned Hegel upside down.
over 100 year after, the Indian
Communist movement has certainly succeeded in turning Marx upside down.
Since
then, it has pragmatically rejected the “violent overthrow of state and ruling
class power” line and opted instead for the “peaceful transition” of power,
through constitutional, electoral politics. And though the conceptions of the
“dictatorship of proletariat”, and “classless society” remained the ideal of
its socialism and Utopia – it entered the constitutionalism of
“bourgeois–parliamentary democracy” with initial hesitation and gradually with
greater scientific deliberation. Passive Constitutionalism has come to dominate
the communist parties of this nation, though; at least apparently, its inherent
political indecisiveness and guilt conscience has been haunting them from time
to time.
Theory
and Strategy - The Dichotomy of ‘No Return’
One
of the fundamental problems which the Indian Communist Movement has been facing
is evolving a correct, analytical explanation of the Indian State, the
Congress, or, the “bourgeoisie” or the political elite. Unable to place the
European context of Marxism directly in the Indian situation, the dilemma of a
plausible definition, and thereby a strategic attitude towards it, continued to
plague its theoretical ideologues. The Indian bourgeoisie and its leadership
practiced policies which could not be explained in straight forward Marxist
postulates – even in its most generalized form.
In
fact, the Congress determined the articulation of political decisions and
channelization during periods of crisis and otherwise, whereas the Communist
leadership was forced to a position where it could only react or adapt, or
adopt counter positions. While they participated in the mainstream of the
struggle – the leadership and strategy of the movement was firmly entrenched in
the hands of the Congress. It was believed that the congress, though a mass
umbrella organization with various shades of political philosophies, was
essentially led by big business, feudal interest groups – who will further
reinforce the class divided exploitative structure of the polity if able to
acquire political power. The successive debates of Comintern Congresses further
reinforced this belief. As late as,
February 1984, this doctrine reappeared in the Congress of the CPI.
Therefore,
one has witnessed the intense Love-hate fluctuations in the
relationship-between the CPI - and the “bourgeois democratic national
liberation movement” (as the 2nd Congress of the Comintern termed it
after the famous debate between MN Roy and V. Lenin).
All
future categories of the CPI are derived from this premise. And the
contradictions increased many fold. Confused and pushed into the wall, the
movement immersed in repeated exercises of self-introspection – but mostly,
emerged, with a deeper sense of confusion. Thereby the need for reductionism
and pragmatism became stronger. Rigorous
analysis was discarded. Jargons, slogans and orthodox Marxism was grasped with
a drowning man’s delight, the second theoretical dilemma was related to the
first. It was difficult for the Indian Communist to understand the “relative
autonomy” of the political apparatus i.e. the superstructure which Nehru
professed to adopt and pursue under the conception of a “mixed economy”
Nehru,
despite the inherent problems of this framework, made an effort to transcend
the stereotypes of existing societal models. His was a search for an
alternative in a country where indigenous capitalism had immense potential to
grow as a subsidiary force to the public Sector which comprised the core of the
economy, Nehru’s alternative was borne out of a compromise between his
socialism and the right wing, extremely powerful section of the Congress.
“The
transfer of power:, therefore, from the ‘white to the Brown Masters’, as the Communist
preferred to call it, resulted in the further strengthening of the indigenous
bourgeoisie which had a knack for innovation and experimentation in the
accumulation of private profit. The terrain was now wide open.
However,
Nehru’s domestic and foreign policy could not be placed in the same context as
that of banana republics or puppet regimes within the strait jacket to general
Marxist laws. The Communists were not
able to clearly analyze the polarizations of the Nehruvian notion of a
“mixed-economy based welfare state”. In its analysis of the nation-state, the
CPI was partially right and partially wrong. While on the one hand its
understanding seemed correct, but on the other this correctness could not be
assumed as a political finality. When stereotypes change, especially in liberal
bourgeoisie democracies, the deviations are much more difficult to perceive and
analyses, so multifarious they are in quality and approach. What is visible
might be an “objective reality” but the hidden “”invisibility” can also be a
major propellant for its concrete determinations. The subtleties of such
political processes are more intricate and intertwined, the balance of forces
more indirect and subject to change, the fluctuations more sharp and
unexpected. Here, the trap which pushes logic on either side of the cobweb, and
thereby escapes the fluctuations, becomes more authentic and vicious. Theory
manages to rationalize, if it does not innovate, to reject or accept, condemn
or hail.
The
1949 February CPI Central Committee resolution saw a turnabout from the 1947,
June (P.C. Joshi) resolution which welcomed the Mountbatten plan as a
“Compromise” that the imperialists had been forced to make to the “urgent
demands of national liberation movement”. However it pointed out that the
forces of imperialism and feudalism were still strong. It called for a united
anti-imperialist front – “unity of all from Gandhi to the Communists”.
Later,
within a span of eight months it came round to the view that the Mountbatten
plan was a natural “culmination of the betrayal of the revolutionary struggle”.
This line continues to be reinforced even in the present state, although in
certain crisis situations as in the 1962 war and 1975 emergency era a section
of the CPI turned pro-congress.
Similar
was the crisis of political strategy during the “people’s war” line, when
Congress declared that the CPI has betrayed the movement and allied with
Britain, a country which was an ally or Russia in the war against Fascism. If
Russia lost the war, they believed, the world communist movement will be pushed
back or even destroyed.
The
second Congress of the CPI marked the stage for post war national independence,
which was an integral part of the overall war against colonialism. Tactics,
especially that of P.C. Joshi and the “rightists” within the CPI started
governing revolutionary Commitment – armed struggle, et al. Though armed
resistance or the violent overthrow of state was not ruled out, it was believed
that the leadership structure of the nation should not be disturbed. Communists
should mobilize grassroots opinion so as to create “pressure from below”. This
was a dual policy, but an important starting point of constitutional
pragmatism. This was the line taken by the Comintern from 1947 to 1953, and
followed by most communist parties of the world in the postwar era.
The
Bombay workers strike, the Telangana, Tibhaga movements, resulted again in the
sharp polarization between the state and CPI. It was no longer General Dyer
Killing people in Jalianwala Bagh but Indian Generals, commanded by Nehru and
Patel themselves. An isolated Telangana movement was lost over the dead bodies
of thousands of workers and peasants. The “historical blunder”, as Telangana
movement was later called, is perhaps the last battle the communists have
fought in their quest for socialism. The line changed rapidly after that and
led to lesser optimism in the later years. Thus started the great debate -- Is
armed struggle by mass mobilization and
as undertaken by the Bolsheviks and later by Mao’s Red Army, applicable in the
Indian context? The polarization within the CPI sharpened. The left, center and
right were clearly divided.
By
the mid-fifties, in the aftermath of Talangana, the polarization within the CPI
on political approach towards the Indian State became distinct. One stream of
thought discarded the “adventurist” and hasty characterization of the Nehru
regime. Led by PC Joshi, SA Dange and others, this line dictated a softer
approach towards Nehru –the national bourgeoisie has a strong progressive
element. It stated and suggested that questions of armed struggle, or direct
confrontation and hostility with the government should be discarded. Instead,
it argued that the “pressure from below” vis a vis cooperation theory should be
applied. This line came to be known as that of the “rightists” line within the
party. The other major deviation comprised a militant position led by Ranadive,
Basavapunnaia, P. Sundarayia and others, which stuck to the old position that
is was a neocolonial state controlled by monopoly business allied to the West
and feudal interests.
Therefore,
during this period one saw the party take up a position which was neither of
the left nor of the right variety but that of the center – a “minority line” which
was ambiguous and took no strong position on any issue.
The
factionalism and power game inside the party, however, continued. Which line will overwhelm? How long can this
“false truce” sustain itself”? The
crucial questions became more pronounced, though, at a subterranean level.
However, the more distinct the “internal crisis” turned, the more “left unity”
became an issue. With Khrushchev, there again followed a break in the
international theoretical line, which the Indian Communists had followed. The
Zhdanovist’s “tow-camp” theory was discarded by Khrushchev and a period of
“peaceful co-existence (even with the imperialist USA) followed.
In
the Indian context, the state sprung another major surprise. Under the 2nd
Plan, where emphasis was laid on heavy industry, large scale soviet
collaboration was realized, both with the public and private sector. This
further strengthened the “National bourgeoisie is progressive” thesis.
Meanwhile, the first elected Communist Government in Kerala (1957) was toppled
by the Congress Government at the Centre. The ideological confusion, now with
the absence of the ‘two camp’ theory deepened. The 1962 China – India War was
the final nail in the coffin of a United Indian Communist Movement based on
Marxist – Leninist revolutionary principles.
While
the rightists declared it as an aggression on Indian territorial independence,
the left were hesitant to call it in such blatant terminology. ‘It is a border
dispute, which should be resolved through negotiations’ they believed. The
polarizations, having accumulated over the last two decades – between
“revisionist” and “revolutionary”
ideology – clearly acquired objective conditions for the split. The split was
inevitable – and its roots could be traced back to the historical evolution of
global and national politics Vis a Vis the left movement. It was once again a
replica of the Menshevik-Bolshevik conflict. If time is a great healer, the
left movement has been certainly a beneficiary. The formation of the CPI and
the CPI (M) in 1964 and their gradual internalization of bourgeois politics
over the years, helped them accomplish themselves. While the rhetoric remained,
as usual, more as a self-rationalization of militant nostalgia, the application
of Marxism as a theory acquired new dimensions. Constitutional electoral
politics requires different calculations, slogans, intrigues, conspiracies and
power games. The connotations are certainly in absolute contrast to the
militancy of the communist manifesto or the 1951 tactical document (circulated
in secrecy and to a select few but later widely known), which did not rule out
the inevitability of an armed overthrow of bourgeois state power.
For
the CPI (M), the line, even now continues to remain, but both the left parties
have been overtaken by the power game of parliamentarianism, with such
remarkable consistency that despite the last semblances of revolutionary
rhetoric, the Khrushchev thesis of capturing power through peaceful transitions
– overpowered the political motivations and emotional sensibilities. Marxian
humanism was discarded in Toto and what followed was a Comte-humanism reflected
on the Congress Culture – with all its share of cold calculations, and blind
miscalculations, which have since then, backfired on the movement.
The
Love-hate relationship continued to flourish between the two left varieties and
the Congress The premises for people’s struggle, democratic rights &
consciousness, mobilizations of workers – peasants youth, women, intelligentsia
and left unity, etc., automatically got geared towards one goal – electoral
power.
Parliamentary
politics sucked in the left so deep that the value systems practiced by
bourgeois power games slowly got incorporated into it. Passivity, opportunism,
and strategic silence dominated the political conscience of the left.
While
history moved with its share of misfortune, brutality, and the state repression
and private profit flourished famines and floods, mass killings and holocausts,
even Fascism in its most blatant and naked reality, entered the polity with
regular consistency, the logic of “Parliamentary Marxism” was maintained,
legitimized and sustained.
Summing
up in a few lines, the degenerations of Marxist Praxis, A. K. Gopalan the
veteran Communist leader from Kerala wrote:
“A
new life, a new environment, a new alliance – I found myself in an environment
calculated to ruin a man. First class travel, comfortable chambers in the
parliament, a surfeit of money, magnificent quarters – and a life devoid of
heavy responsibility. All circumstances favorable to a life of pleasure. The
overall framework was such that we did not feel hopeful about this much
eulogized parliamentary democracy.” (In
the Cause of the People, 1972, pg. 181-182; Orient Longman, New Delhi)
The
Naxalbari movement in the late sixties was an inevitable outcome of this
stagnation. Mainly, a split from the local leaderships of West Bengal, Andhra
and Bihar supported and provided leadership to the revolutionary flame ignited
by the spontaneous peasants’ uprising at Naxalbari formed the core of the
movement. After an initial burst of intense idealism and honesty, the movement
fizzled out into disorganized, scattered realms of political anarchy;
Arter
Telengana, this was the second major shock to the left moment, a shock, which
their ideologues had not perceived even in their most militant logic of
historical materialism and protest. Looking back into the dialectics of its
growth, the Naxalbari movement and the further splits in the left ideology can
be clearly traced back to the organizational and ideological crisis in the
party formally recognized in 1950. The crisis remained in the depths of its
structure, in undercurrents which grew stronger over an accumulated period of
stagnation. ‘Constitutional Freedom”, even in the divided CPI continued to be
viewed by a large section as illusions, a farce and a pseudo rationalization.
The crisis of constitutionalism in the left remained unresolved. The choices
now remained limited within the paradigm of bourgeois politics. Mass
participation became directly proportional to the number of votes required.
Caste-clan calculations no longer were purely bourgeois – communal gains but
also that of secular, communist forces. The state might still be the
“instrument of the ruling class” – but it certainly has a “progressive foreign
policy”. The CPI went so far as to declare its support for Mrs. Gandhi’s
Emergency at the behest of the Kremlin.
The
cycle of degeneration and perversions, as it seems, has ripened to a state –
where even rhetoric is not used, nor the pretentions of raising “mass
consciousness” or the workers – peasants’ unity in the democratic movement for
equality, justice and freedom. While the Indian state violates the constitution
as a matter of attitude the communists dip into it, with a ‘holier than the
Ganga belief.
Theoretically,
the left variety of parliamentary Marxism is trapped in the quagmire of no
return. Its methodology needs an “epistemological break” if it wishes to
restore and consolidate the essential doctrines of Marxism. A new tradition has
to be built, based on the changing forces of societal complex and state power,
and existential experiences directly linked to new modes of production, of
class alienation, of organization and strategy. This tradition needs to respect
the various streams of Marxist analysis which has flooded the theoretical
market, find the reasons for its origin, its deviations from the established
current, and seek more practical solutions based on humanism.
Reductionism,
in a constitutional stagnation, is inevitable; it is the comfort of political
hypocrisy clothed in mechanical, simplistic assessment of reality. Reductionism
is categorical. It cannot transcend its own wall, its own fortress of pseudo
rationalization, divorced from genuine self – introspection.
The
communist movement in India, however, is not in a mood or position to enter
into the trauma of self-realization
Conclusion
Both the official communist parties (CPI
& CPI (M) are at their peak of passivity, theoretically bankrupt, divorced
from revolutionary praxis. The cobweb, in which it has entered, can now only
expand further, till the point of Hegelian totality, when the cobweb, itself
would transcend the dichotomy, break apart, and create, perhaps, another Telangana
or Naxalbari. Till that time. There can be only a further elongation of
postponement. The sky is the limit.
15.09.1985
