|
Book Review
Left before Independence
K. N. PANIKKAR
|
Overview of the Left during the anti-colonial struggle, and origin and development of Left movements
|
LEFTISM IN INDIA, 1917-1947: Satyabrata Rai Chowdhuri; Palgrave Macmillan, 175, Fifth Avenue, New York-10010.
As Stephen Cohen observes in his brief foreword this book is an overview of the Left — communism and democratic socialism — during the anti-colonial struggle. It traces the origin and development of Left movements and discusses their ideologies and orientations, and how they interacted with the mainstream national movement. Much of what the book covers is familiar ground and is available in standard works on the subject, despite the claim of the author that thi
s work breaks new ground. Yet, it is a welcome addition to the existing literature, both for its comprehensiveness and the discussion its critical conclusions could generate.
Anti-colonial struggle
Why the Left failed to seize the initiative in the anti-colonial struggle in the 20th century has been an endemic question in Indian historiography. Both the nature of the narrative and the critical appraisal of the book are informed by the same intent. By the time the Left appeared on the national scene Gandhian politics had already struck roots, establishing its hegemony so firmly that it was not an easy task for the Left to carve a niche for itself. How the Left tried to do that forms the theme of the longest chapter in the book, in which the author goes over all the critical moments in the history of the Party. The Roy-Lenin Debate over the national and colonial question, the relevance of Workers and Peasants Party, the importance of Meerat and Kanpur conspiracy cases, attitude towards the Second World War, and views on Partition have received particular attention. The author suggests, as many others have done before him, that the Left was found wanting in creatively orienting the anti-colonial politics to its advantage. Nevertheless, the author prefaces his critique by acknowledging the positive contribution of the Left to the anti-colonial movement. The Left, he accepts, “imparted a new dimension to the freedom movement, gave a new substance to the political task of emancipating the nation from foreign domination and invested the idea of political freedom with a revolutionary socio-economic content.” This ideological contribution, the author claims, was not matched by its political achievement. According to him the Left was a marginal force and was unable to “gain a foothold in India during the nationalist movement.” For this failure several reasons are attributed. The first is the irrelevance of “Marxist scriptures to Asian developments” and second, the inability of communism to “identify with the ethos of Indian nationalism.”
Obstacles
Yet another reason advanced by the author is the movement’s dependence on foreign advice. Unlike China and Vietnam, it is contended that the Indian communist parties drew their strength from abroad, closely following the directions of the International. “Most of their policy guidelines had been formulated either in Moscow or in London, with little or no Indian participation. This was a major obstacle to the success of communism in India as its lifeblood depended on frequent transfusions from abroad,” obviating the possibility of “communism’s identification with Indian nationalism.”
However, the author observes that this was against the advice of Lenin who had counselled the leaders of the communist parties of colonial countries to adapt themselves to the conditions of their countries and “to evolve specific forms of revolutionary struggle against imperialism.” For doing that the movement needed a charismatic leader, which the author points out, was missing.
In practice
The focus of the chapter on the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) is primarily on its relationship, on the one hand with the Indian National Congress and with the communist party, on the other. With both the CSP maintained a love-hate relationship, claiming in the process to be the true nationalist and Marxist party. Their inability to delineate such a space in actual practice made them increasingly irrelevant in politics. In the process the Congress Socialists could not succeed in their professed aim of giving Marxism an Indian character. They tried to reconcile Marxism and democratic socialism without at the same time shaking off the influence of Gandhism. As the author rightly observes, they were as a result always in a dilemma to find their proper place in Indian political development.
The main concern of the author is the ideological imperatives and theoretical considerations of the Left parties. The simultaneous development of the practice of these parties has not been part of the analysis. Even the chapter on labour and peasant movements is an account of the policy rather than of the movements. During the colonial period the Communist Party was engaged in the organisation and mobilisation of the peasants and working class in which they strove to combine, unlike other parties, anti-imperialism with anti-landlordism and anti-capitalism. As a result in regions like Kerala, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh communists emerged as a powerful force by the end of the colonial rule. Without a study of its actual practice any assessment of the Communist Party is likely to be incomplete and misleading. One of the major weaknesses of this book is that the actual politics of the Left parties is missing from it. But then that is outside the scope of this work.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Book Review
|
