Indian Communists are copycat revolutionaries

Does Vladimir Lenin hold relevance in the Marxist world view? Recently, the farmers protest in Mumbai witnessed Lenin’s photographs in the hands of the Communists. It was an assertion of their faith in Lenin whose statue was pulled down in Tripura after the assembly elections as a protest against the Marxist coercive rule for more than two-and-a-half decades. 

The vandalisation is unjustifiable since it involves a rage against history. But sometimes symbols are targeted to express wrath against the system and its rulers. The Communist movement believes in internationalism and, accordingly, the Indian Communists have a great affinity for Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara etc. They had played their roles in their respective countries to change the system and establish Communist dispensations. The Indian Communist movement is more than 100 years old. Although the Communist Party was formed in 1924, the Communists had initiated activities after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia led by Lenin. They could not produce a single theoretician or ‘revolutionary’ who could be added to the galaxy of their international heroes. Cuba, Indonesia, Poland, Vietnam, and African and Latin countries could produce Marxist scholars or leaders of eminence. Italian Antonio Gramsci’s prison’s notebook is worthy literature even for non-Marxists. His concept of hegemony gives insight into the nonviolent class wars. 

There was only one Marxist hero who could be part of this galaxy. He was MN Roy, who was initially a nationalist revolutionary in India, but later led a revolution in Spain. Roy had also gone to Russia where he was held in high esteem. But he was a victim of Lenin’s intolerance. He differed with Lenin on the understanding of the colonial world and the nature of revolutionary activities there. Roy was subsequently thrown out of the Communist movement. He was derided as an agent of the bourgeoisie class and was considered a threat to the Communist world. He returned to India where he wrote volumes on Radical Humanism. Roy was also instrumental in the formation of the Communist Party of India. Lenin’s regime witnessed killings of thousands of people who differed with the revolution or suspected to be ‘counter-revolutionaries’. But the death toll was much less in comparison to the killings in his successor Stalin’s era. The Black Book of Communists unravels merciless killings of workers and leaders at that time. 

The downfall of the Communist regimes led to the vandalisation of symbols and statues of the Communist leaders. In Ukraine, 1320 Lenin statues were removed; in Germany, Poland, Russia and other countries, the statues suffered the same fate. But when you coerce people by robbing their freedom to choose a political party and cultural heroes and prevent them from expressing free and frank opinion, anger accumulates and symbols and statues become easy targets. However, the Indian tradition does not legitimise any such act. India is a land of great discourse and things are settled through logic and discussions.

However, the larger question that needs to be answered is why did Indian Communists possess a slave mentality which failed them not only politically but also in asserting their distinct identity? Two incidents concerning their history and psychology help to understand the declining movement. In 1948, Indian Communists were divided over the strategy to lead a revolution. There were two camps: one led by BT Ranadive and the by C Rajeshwar Rao. The in-fighting led Stalin to intervene and three members from each group travelled to Moscow. Indradeep Sinha’s oral transcript in Nehru Memorial Museum Library, Teen Murti Bhawan, New Delhi, gives an interesting picture. 

When Stalin approached the delegation, the members became nervous. He asked the reasons for their differences and Vasapunnaiah, a veteran Communist, quoted Lenin but could not find the volume. But Stalin could. He said that Lenin’s argument was in the Russian context, which had nothing to do with India. He advised them to stop dreaming about a violent revolution in India as the situation was not ripe. Stalin also enquired why they had not joined the Quit India movement? When they said that it was not feasible since Russia was an ally of Britain in World War II, the Russian dictator mocked them, saying: “You think Russia could not have won the war had you not supported?” 

He gave examples of the independent line adopted by the Indonesian Communist party during the war. The Indian Communists disagreed with him. The reason is obvious. It was not Lenin and Stalin who subjugated them but they themselves were born into the Communist movement as super slaves. They read Communist literature and blindly followed. They are bookish Marxists. Today, in India, there are no less than 36 Communist groups/parties having allegiance to foreign leaders and revolutions. Their destiny is to finally recede into the archives of history.

The author is founding Honorary Director of India Policy Foundation, a Delhi-based think tank. Views expressed are personal.