HINDU SOCIETY UNDER SIEGE-SITA RAM GOEL The Communist Conspiracy (This article was written in 1981. Now the Soviet Union has disappeared from the scene and the Communist movement in India does not know whom to serve. But its hostility towards Hindu society and culture remains undiminished. It is quite on the cards that this mercenary outfit will be bought over, in due course, by some other power or powers hostile to positive Indian nationalism. A Communist cannot help being a traitor to his country and his people.) We have so far discussed the role of the residues of foreign rule in India vis-a-vis Hindu society. We have characterised Islamism as malevolent, Christianism as mischievous, and Macaulayism as mild, though like a slow poison. Now we shall take up Communism which, though not exactly a residue of foreign rule, is yet a foreign imposition of the most malignant character. Ideologically, Communism in India is, in several respects, a sort of extension of Macaulayism, a residue of the British rule. That is why Communism is strongest today in those areas where Macaulayism had earlier spread its widest spell. That is why Macaulayism has always been on the defensive and apologetic vis-a-vis Communism. Macaulayism has always tried to understand and explain away the misdeeds of Communism in this country. It has sadly deplored, if not condoned, as misguided idealism even the most heinous crimes of the Communists. The long record of our parliamentary debates is a witness of how, after the death of Sardar Patel, die treasury benches have always evinced an awed deference towards utterly unparliamentary and downright demagogic vituperations from Communist members. This ideological affinity between Communism and Macaulayism is ultimately derived from a common source in the modern West-materialistic metaphysics, evolutionistic sociology, utilitarian ethics, hedonistic psychology, etc. In this world-view, man is essentially a homo fabricus, a tool-maker or mechanic. A centralised economy and an urbanised society are a natural follow-up of this world-view. In this larger ideological context, Marxism is a logical culmination of Capitalism. Marx reserved his choicest praise for Capitalism and his choicest abuse for what he denounced as Utopian Socialism. The only crime of this other school of Socialism was that it objected to the relentless drive of Capitalism towards total mechanisation, industrialisation and centralisation, reducing the individual human being to a helpless entity. The difference between Capitalism in the West and Communism in the East of Europe arose because Capitalist societies retained philosophical eclecticism and political pluralism as expressed in parliamentary democracy, a free press and free trade unions. Communist societies, on the other hand, froze Marxist philosophy into a closed system of orthodoxy. This led to heresy-hunting which in due course reduced Marxism to the status of a Semitic creed like Christianity and Islam. Bertrand Russell was not far wrong when he identified Communism as a Christian heresy. It has acquired all the characteristic features of the Christian Church such as the only Saviour, the only Revelation, the only Pope, the only priesthood, the only baptism, and the only sacraments. Communist regimes could not help becoming totalitarian enemies of human freedom. Yet, and in spite of all ideological affinities, Communism is not a variety of Macaulayism, though the former fattens on the latter. The inspiration of Communism did not derive from the West. Its gospel as well guidance emanated from an opposite direction, the Soviet Union, except for a brief period when China also shared the honour of being a hallowed land. This is not the occasion to dwell on the philosophy of Marxism or the strategy and tactics of Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism. Here we are dealing with the problem which Communism poses before Hindu society and culture. In any case, Communism in India, has never had much use for Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism except as an ideological window-dressing to impress the intelligentsia at large and hoodwink the party cadres whenever the Party line has to be shifted swiftly. What, then, is Communism? Scholars and historians of Communism far more competent than the present writer have documented it beyond a shadow of doubt that Communism has been an instrument of Soviet foreign policy in its drive towards world domination, particularly since Stalin emerged as the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union as well as the world Communist movement. The unmasking of Stalin as a mass-murderer by Khruschev has blown up the myth of Soviet Russia as a proletarian paradise. The split with China has splintered the world Communist monolith. But, by and large, the movement has recovered from these shocks, retained its self-righteousness and resumed its role in the service of Soviet foreign policy. It is, therefore, natural and inevitable that Communism should come into conflict with positive nationalism in every country. India cannot be an exception. By positive nationalism we mean a nationalism which draws its inspiration from its own cultural heritage and socio-political traditions. Such a nationalism has its own way of looking at world events and evaluating the alignment of world forces. Such a nationalism is guided by its own past experience in safeguarding its interests and pursuing its goals. These interests and goals may coincide or agree with the interests and goals of Soviet foreign policy at some particular stage of world politics. But it is equally likely that they may not. This basic dissonance between Communism and positive nationalism in India was fully and finally dramatised during the Second World War. The Communist Party of India had, since its inception, opposed British imperialism in India and stood for its immediate and violent overthrow. The Party had also opposed the Muslim League which it had characterised as a collaborationist conspiracy of landed interests. In the eyes of Indian freedom fighters, therefore, the Party represented a revolutionary fringe of the nationalist movement. The Congress Socialist Party even allowed its platform to be used by the Communist Party of India which was working under a British ban. But the curtain was raised suddenly in 1941 when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and the real face of Communism was revealed for all who could see. The Congress leadership had tried to negotiate a settlement with the British for two long years. Finding the British attitude adamant, the Congress decided in August 1942 to launch the Quit India Movement. The Communists in the Congress opposed the Quit India resolution in the AICC Session at Bombay. They propounded that the imperialist war had been transformed into a peoples war simply because the Soviet Union had been invaded by an enemy of Britain. The freedom movement forged ahead under its own inspiration. But the Communist Party of India moved full steam in the opposite direction. British imperialism now became British bureaucracy for the Communists, the Muslim League a spokesman of the Muslim mass upsurge, and the demand for Pakistan a legitimate expression of Muslim nationalism which the Congress should concede immediately. The rest of the story is well-known-the story of how the freedom movement was branded as a movement for collaboration with Fascism, how Subhash Chandra Bose was denounced as a Nazi dog and a Japanese rat, how Communist cadres spied for the British secret police on Socialists and Forward Blocists who had organised an underground movement, and how the Communist intellectuals like Adhikari and Ashraf blueprinted the case for Pakistan with facts, figures, academic arguments and sentimental slogans. The Communist contribution towards the creation of Pakistan was next only to that of the Muslim League. The Soviet Union was in search of a base from which it could operate for capturing the rest of India after the departure of the British. That plan did not succeed and Pakistan became a base for American interventionism instead. Ever since, the Communists in India have been blaming the Partition on those very forces of positive nationalism which had fought the Muslim League tooth and nail. Communist slogans may change but their hostility to positive nationalism is permanent. Continued... #Kushanu_Singh
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 03:15:00 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015