ORIGIN OF RADICALISM

ORIGIN OF RADICALISM IN THE CONGRESS

M. N. Roy

Renaissance Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 15, Bankim Chatterjee Street Calcutta-700073

Published by Saroj Kumar Mitra on behalf of Renaissance Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 15, Bankim Chatterjee Street, Calcutta-700073.

First Edition, Lucknow, 1942 Second Impression, Calcutta, 1984 Indian Renaissance Institute, Dehradun

Price Rs. 3.00

Printed by Jagarani Press, 40/1B, Sreegopal Mullick Lane, Calcutta-700012

EDITORIAL NOTE In June 1940 an All India Study Camp of the League of Radical Congressmen was held in Dehradun under M, N. Roy's direction. One of the topics discussed in the study camp was "the Origin of Radicalism in the Congress". A summary of lectures and discussions on this topic was published in 1942 as a pamphlet. In, view of the historic importance of M. N. Roy's speech on this occasion and current interest in the topic, the summary is reprinted here. Besides M. N. Roy's main speech, summaries of speeches by V. G. Kulkarni and V. B. Karnik are also included as appendices. Karnik has written a full-length biography of M. N. Roy. After Roy's break with the Congress, the radicals formed the Radical Democratic Party in December, 1940. The party was dissolved in 1948 at the Conference of the Radical Democratic Party at Calcutta, and in its place the Radical Humanist Movement was initiated in consonance with the ideals formulated in the 22 Theses of Radical Democracy.

Sibnarayan Ray

CONTENTS

Page

1. Speech by M. N. Roy

5

2. Appendices (i) Speech by V. G. Kulkarni

19

(ii) Speech by V. B. Karnik

26

SPEECH BY M. N. ROY The discussion has strayed away from the subject proper. We should exercise mental discipline. We have come here not to prove how clever we are, or that we are skilful debaters. The subject" under discussion is a study of an historical process.

In reviewing the history and the origin of leftism, many other questions may arise. Some of them may be of importance.

They will come within the purview of other items of our programme of discussions. We shall have to isolate subjects, if we wish to clear them one by one. I shall bring you back strictly to the subject of discussion, and leave aside all other questions raised, which are irrelevant for the present discussion. It has been asked why we begin the study of the origin of leftism in 1919. The answer is that, before that time, there did not exist any mass movement. Leftism, as we understand it, can develop only on the basis of a mass movement. Let us start from an elementary point. What is leftism? The term itself is very confusing, and I would suggest its rejection. Nevertheless, it may be useful to know how the term originated. That may enable us to read in it a sensible content. The term .originated at the time of the Great French Revolution. When the Estates General first assembled, by accident as it were, the most intransigent revolutionary group occupied seats at the left hand of the Chairman of the Assembly, The people with contrary interests, the upper classes, went farthest away from their opponents, and seated themselves on the right side. Thus originated the terms 'right' and 'left' in politics. The political ideas advocated by the two groups came to be known respectively as 'leftism' and 'rightism'. If the gentleman who presided over the Estates General called these seated at his left band 'leftists' and those seated at his right hand 'rightists', why should those terms dominate our thoughts even to-day? By an accident, the opposing groups might have sat differently, and the meaning of the terms would be reversed. Similarly, mechanical terms were also coined in the history of the Indian nationalist

movement. There were the extremists and moderates. If we identify extremism with leftism then the origin of leftism in the Indian National Congress cannot be traced in 1919. In that sense, Tilak and Aurobindo Ghosh were leftists. But the political ideas of Tilak, for example, were hardly revolutionary. He differed from the older Congress leaders, but the difference was very slight. Ideologically, both were reactionaries. As a matter of fact, in the case of Tilak, the position was very curious. His political ideas might have been slightly more advanced than those of the older Congress leaders . But socially and culturally, men like Gokhale were certainly more advanced than Tilak.

For us, leftism means acceptance of the principles of revolution. A really revolutionary ideology of the nationalist movement was first formulated about 1919-20. Before that time, there was a revolutionary movement, but the conception of that movement was entirely different from ours. However,, inside the Congress before 1920, there was no differentiation between revolutionaries and anti-revolutionaries. The extremists wanted a little more than the moderates. Tilak also was prepared to accept even one anna in a rupee, and strive for more. That was not a revolutionary spirit. It was reformism par excellence. That distinction between extremism and moderatism has no place in our discussion. We want to trace the development of a revolutionary ideology in the struggle. for national freedom. Therefore, we begin with the year 1919, when the movement became a mass movement.

Some questions have been asked about Gandhi's role. It has been maintained by one comrade that, since Gandhi launched the first mass movement, he is to be appreciated as the originator of leftism in the Congress. That is a wrong point of view. No single individual ever creates a movement. Gandhi did not create the movement of 1920. On the contrary, he himself was the creation of that movement. His merit was that he allowed himself to be so created. We must appreciate that merit en his part. The mass movement was the basis of leftism. But a mass movement does not always necessarily

create a revolutionary ideology and revolutionary leaders. On the contrary, it often comes under the domination of reactionary leaders. That was the case with the mass movement of 1920, and Gandhi's subjective role was to degenerate the movement in that way.

Some important ideas have been suggested by Comrade Ramanlal. It is very correct to say that, in these days, there can be no absolute standard for leftism. What is leftism today may become rightism tomorrow. A product of a revolution may become an enemy of the revolution. That is usually the case with the products of primitive, immature, elemental forces of revolution. Jesus Christ, the Prophet of Islam, Buddha, were all products of revolutions. But their names in course of time became symbols of counterrevolution.

If there was ever any creator of the struggle for Indian freedom, the credit must go to imperialism. A revolutionary movement primarily is the product of objective conditions.The objective conditions for the growth of a revolutionary movement in India are the products of imperialist exploitation.

Even those who do not regard Gandhi as the creator of the movement hold that he gave expression to the revolutionary urge of the masses, and therefore played a revolutionary role.

That also is not a correct view. Facts do not bear out that contention, As a matter of fact, Gandhi did his best to check the movement already in the beginning. He suspended the Satyagraha movement against the Rowlett Act, immediately upon its being declared, because he had to rush to Ahmedabad to control a strike, which had broken out there as a part of the mass movement which constituted the background of the Satyagraha campaign. He busied himself with the object of controlling the strike at Ahmedabad on the ground that the masses should not be used for political purposes. Judged by that first act, Gandhi can be hardly credited with the role of the leader of a mass movement. He has all along been rather a controller of the mass movement.

If he was not there, the movement most probably would have developed more powerfully. As a matter of fact, it did develop in spite of him, notwithstanding all his efforts to check it. Why, then, was he installed in the leadership of the movement? That is a puzzling phenomenon we have to explain. For us, the explanation is dear. A movement gets the kind of leadership it deserves.

The mass movement of 1919-20 developed in the background of extreme political backwardness and general ignorance.

Gandhi became the leader of the movement, because he was the personification of the ignorance and prejudices of the masses which created the movement. Gandhi occupied the centre of the scene not as a political leader, but as a Mahatma.

That fact explains the whole puzzle.

We are back to a question we discussed yesterday, namely, the influence of religion on a movement of backward masses.

The first expression of the mass movement in India took a religious form. It created a Mahatma. That was the expression of mass awakening. How did that happen? In the absence of the conviction that man can remake the world in which he lives, the belief in some super-natural power is inevitable.

With all their dissatisfaction, the masses were not yet conscious of their power. They must rely on a superior power. The Mahatma is the agent of God on earth. Gandhi stabilised his position by exploiting the weakness of the movement. Instead of making the masses conscious of their objectively revolutionary urge, he tried to make them forget it altogether.

Therefore, the question is not whether the movement in 191920 was leftist or rightist. It is, whether the movement was revolutionary or not. If the question is put in that form, the answer is decidedly in the affirmative. Only then can the historical role of Gandhi be correctly appreciated. As the product of a revolutionary movement, he has a place in history.

But it is a different matter to talk about his role. One cannot play a role unconsciously. A role is always performed consciously. Therefore, Gandhi's role in a revolutionary

movement beginning.

was

counter-revolutionary

from

the

very

Again, it will be useful to be accurate about terms. He was not actually counter-revolutionary but anti-revolutionary.

Counter-revolution is an active function of social forces. Only a class in power can be counter-revolutionary. The anxiety to prevent a revolutionary outbreak is only anti-revolutionary.

Therefore, strictly speaking, Gandhi's role was antirevolutionary. Gandhism was an anti-revolutionary ideology.

But later on, it came to a position to become counterrevolutionary. That was particularly so, when a number of Gandhists were in office in seven provinces. Through their instrumentality, Gandhism became a force of counterrevolution. , In so far as he was the product of a revolutionary movement, Gandhi was certainly a factor in that movement. But, as himself, he was not a product of a revolutionary movement, but of feudal-patriarchal reaction. Until 1919, he was purely that. Upon his becoming a faetor in the revolutionary movement, the contradiction in him became acute. His being hailed as a Mahatma enabled him to impose his reactionary ideas, on an objectively revolutionary movement composed of backward masses. His contribution has indeed been the imposition of an anti-revolutionary, reformist, reactionary ideology on an objectively revolutionary movement.

My difference with Lenin regarding Gandhi and his role was on this point, Lenin thought that, using a creation of a revolutionary movement, Gandhi would be pushed by it to a position where he must play a revolutionary role. Lenin thought so because he was not aware of the solidity of Indian reaction which had been galvanised by imperialism, although, in the beginning, the latter did have disruptive significance. He was also mistaken about the role of the nationalist bourgeoisie. He failed to see that the role of a class may not be the same in different periods of history.

Capitalism was once a revolutionary force. But it does not necessarily follow from that, that the bourgeoisie must

always remain a revolutionary factor, even if it wants to establish capitalism, Lenin thought that the leadership of the revolution might well be taken over by the bourgeoisie. He thought that, like in other revolutions, taking place in backward social conditions, a religious man like the Mahatma could be utilised by the bourgeoisie to promote its purposes, I explained to him that in India and other relatively advanced colonial countries, the bourgeoisie could not be a revolutionary force, and therefore the situation was not such as might make a revolutionary weapon out of a religious man. In the Indian situation, the traditions of his own class were bound to assert themselves ultimately, and his actions would be determined by them.

Soon after the appearance of Gandhi, the bourgeoisie did make a feeble attempt to assert its domination over the nationalist movement. That attempt expressed itself through the use of the Swaraj Party. It should be conceded a place in the process of the development of leftism in the Congress.

The founder and leader of the Swaraj Party, C. R. Das, was the first Congress leader to speak .of Swaraj for the ninety per cent. He also declared that he did not want to replace the white bureaucracy by brown bureaucracy, and that Swaraj must be for the masses, and won by the masses. In 1922, those were revolutionary ideas. The Mahatma had stolen the masses. The bourgeoisie wanted to capture them from him.

But they failed. Because, they could not advocate 'a revolutionary ideology as against the reactionary ideas represented by the Mahatma, which appealed to the prejudices of the ignorant masses.

With the rise of the Swaraj Party, yet another thing happened.

That was a very significant incident, although it was largely confined to Bengal. The Swaraj Party established contact between the nationalist revolutionaries of a previous epoch and the mass movement in the postwar years. My appreciation of the old revolutionary movement is already recorded. As far back as in 1921, I expressed the opinion that it was a politically revolutionary movement with a

reactionary social outlook. That may help the solution of the problem about the present attitude of the Forward Group in Bengal. Why is the one-time Jugantar Party playing such a dubious role today, confusing issues between right and .left, and sabotaging the crystallisation of the left wing in Bengal? I was once connected with that group. From abroad I reestablished contact, and I urged them to join the Congress when it was still in a flux. If conscious revolutionaries came in the movement, they might capture its leadership. But they were not very welcome. Gandhi demanded that they must publicly declare that their former activities had been bad and mistaken, and that they were joining the Congress to atone for their past sins. The revolt against Gandhism, raised by C. R. Das, enabled the old revolutionaries to penetrate the Congress. They supported Das. He accepted the programme of transforming the Congress into a political party with a democratic republican programme. All that preceded the Gaya Congress, on which occasion the programme of a National Democratic Revolution was formulated for the first time. A draft of that document had reached C. R. Das before the Gaya Congress.

After Bardoli, Gandhi called the nonco-operation movement off. But for the agitation of the pro-changers, the movement would have completely collapsed. The agitation for parliamentary action kept up the political life. From, that point of view, the Swaraj Party can be regarded as an expression of the growth of leftism in-the Congress. In so far as it expressed the ambition of the bourgeoisie as a class, it was more progressive than the no-changers, representing the feudalpatriarchal ideology of Gandhi. Just as, compared with the older moderates and liberals, the nonco-operators of 1920-21 were leftists, so was the Swaraj Party, in so far as it opposed Gandhism, for a time, the left wing of the Congress. But that leftism does not fit into the development of leftism as we conceive it to-day. The . organisation of the Swaraj Party was the first attempt in the . direction of converting the Congress into a political party. The. attempt failed, because the nationalist bourgeoisie was incapable of leading a

revolutionary struggle. It turned out to be an abortion of leftism, just as the Congress Socialist Party and the Forward Bloc were to be abortions of leftism half a generation later.

The Swaraj Party was an abortion ; the Forward Bloc a posthumous monster.

The purpose of to-day's discussion is to -cure some of our comrades of the feeling of a sham apology for our own existence. They are always on the defensive, as if it is a mistake for us to exist at all. Having committed the mistake, we must justify it somehow. There is a Communist Party, a Congress Socialist Patty, a Forward Bloc, and now the Forward Group in Bengal. Nobody asks why they exist. Some of our comrades are anxious to measure up to their standards. Yet an investigation into the antecedents and history of those groups shows that they came into existence after we had laid the foundation of leftism, and done considerable spade-work in propaganda and organisation.

We exist by our own merit. We are the creation : of "the movement, just as the Mahatma also was ; Our self-confidence must result from that fact. We must know something of our own history and origin. This group is not the creation of any individual. It does not require any authority, protection or patronage. It is a creation of the movement. It is the best that the movement in India has produced. It is the positive outcome of the developments during the last twenty years. If there is any future for this country, it belongs to our group.

This realisation should be the outcome of our to-day's discussion.

A number of other questions has been interjected into this discussion. One is about proletarian hegemony. Only about ten years ago, this much talked-of but little understood phrase came to be heard in India. Those who talk the most about it, may know very little about it. Nevertheless, proletarian hegemony has been actually exercised in Indian politics ever since 1921. And that has been done through the instrumentality of our group has all along been the organ of proletarian hegemony in Indian politics. We cannot belittle

the proletariat. But, it asserts itself on the Indian national life only through our intermediacy. But for us, there is no expression in India of the revolutionary significance of the proletariat. We must be self-critical. We must know our defects and shortcomings in order to remove them. We are not satisfied with whatever we have achieved until now. We want to accomplish much more. But the history of our group since 1921 should make you proud in spite of everything.

Every constructive idea introduced in the political life of this country originated with us. Everything sensible that the Congress leaders or the Congress Socialist Party or the socalled Communist Patty may do or say to-day, was initiated by us, at least ten years earlier. But ours is the fate of pioneers. We say a thing . when people are not yet capable of understanding it, because they cannot see beyond their nose.

The situation develops, and eventually things become so very clear, that others too can also see them at last. They take up the ideas, for which we had been ridiculed and castigated.

Plagiarists and vulgarisers are hailed as prophets by the public with a memory even shorter than the proverbial. But recognition or no recognition, that is completely immaterial.

We must ourselves know what we are contributing, so that we may not be discouraged when the fate of pioneers weighs heavily on us. That is hegemony. Hegemony is intellectual leadership, leadership without acknowledgement. Hegemony cannot be exercised by shouting from the housetops. It can be exercised only by men who can make the supreme sacrifice. It means that you actually supply the revolutionary inspiration of a movement but do not get the credit for it, though you may get all the blame.

We have been doing that. How could we? Because we have learned our Marxism. Marxist hegemony is already established in the Indian movement. All, including the Gandhists, are under its influence, in some way or other.

Therefore, in so far as Marxism is the ideology of the proletariat, proletarian hegemony in the struggle for Indian freedom is already a partially accomplished fact—thanks to our efforts. But in order to exercise hegemony effectively, one

must have patience. If you administer a large dose of a strong medicine to a man with a weak heart, he may die instead of being cured. In the given situation, only small doses of revolutionary ideas can be helpfully administered. That is not reformism. To do otherwise would defeat our purpose.

Apart from us, the so-called Communist Party is the only factor of leftism with any significance. All the others are abortions. The C. P, also is a monster It claims to do what we are actually doing. Only, there is a great difference. They try to do it in a wrong way, and at the wrong time—either too early or too late. That is because they cannot think for themselves. In answer to the question, whether we still expect to cure the Communist Party, I should say that as long as a group of people call themselves Communists and profess Marxism, there is some hope. They may not be altogether dishonest, but only mistaken and stubborn. All their mistakes result from the inability to appreciate Marxism. Marxism is the ideology not only of the proletariat. To regard it as the ideology of the proletariat, and nothing more, is wrong. It is a woeful under-estimation of the historical significance of Marxism. We are living in an age, in which the guiding principle of all human progress is Marxism. Otherwise, it cannot influence the development of the Indian struggle for freedom, which is not identical with the struggle between labour and capital. Marxism cannot be effectively applied to the Indian situation by those who have narrow, superficial, pedantic,, mechanical ideas about it. Intellectual subservience is the misfortune of the so-called Communist Party of India; it is so-called, because it is not guided by a correct understanding of Marxism.

At one time, differences arose between ourselves and the socalled C.P. The process of radicalisation was beginning in the Congress. The experience of the movement of 1930-32 was fervent. Many young Congressmen looked for something new. Some of them were attracted by us. The creation of the Congress Socialist Party was an expression of that process.

Not a few of those responsible for' the formation of the

C. S. P. are to be found among ourselves. Originally, the tendency represented the reaction to the stupidities of the socalled Communists. It was the tendency towards an organisational crystallisation of all revolutionaries influenced

by Marxism. The idea was that the C.P. had gone, wrong j. a really Communist or Socialist Party must be created anew.

But there is more than one way of deviating from Marxism.

Together with ourselves, there were others associated with the; process of crystallisation of the revolutionary elements inside the Congress. They failed to have a correct understanding; about the social character of those elements, and consequently adopted an inappropriate organisational method. They vulgarised Marxism to suit their mistaken course. We had to part company, and keep the flag of leftism flying high.

The main points to be made from to-day's discussion are the following : 1. In the Indian situation, the cardinal principle of leftism,, that is, of revolution, is the acceptance of Marxism as an ideology, but not in the sense as is being done by the so-called Communists, namely, as the ideology only> , of the working class ; it has to be accepted as the ideology of all human progress in our age. Therefore the instrument for its application must have a specific form, the like of which may not have been found in any other country.

2. The application of Marxism, conceived in this, broader sense, to the Indian situation, is the t ask of leftists. We have not been able to apply it fully. But we formulated the fundamental principles of its application, and to some extent have also forced the application. The application of Marxism to the Indian situation is the realisation of the programme of a bourgeois democratic revolution taking place in the twentieth century in a colonial country, in the period of the decline of capitalism, in the period of wars and revolutions. Whatever may be the actual position of

the working class in India, that cannot affect the fact that in our days, it is the working class which is coming forward as the propagator of a new human ideolology—Marxism ; and that new ideology must affect the social life of the entire human race. It cannot leave India untouched. Our group has been the vehicle for introducing these new revolutionary ideas and ideals, this new spirit, into India.

Finally, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the history of the development of our group is characterised by a remarkable consistency.' That is because we have clearly understood the implications of our philosophy, and have learned to read the Indian situation in its light. This fact must be borne in mind, because some of our comrades are often tormented by doubts. Sometimes they feel that, what we are doing to-day is different from the line we followed yesterday.

It may have been useful to devote another day exclusively to the study of the history of our group. But that cannot be done this time. Therefore, I have suggested the publication of all the documents emanating from us ever since 1920, proposing in every critical moment the correct policy for the movement to follow. In ^the light of those documents, all doubts will disappear. You will find a remarkable consistency underlying everything we have ever said and done. But consistency is also relative. I go my way ; others around me are jumping from my right to my left, and the other way round. From their point of view, I am changing my position. But that is not our fault. If we look at ourselves and our path, we find ourselves still straight on our way. Others have come and gone, and moved from one side to another. Take the so-called Communist Party for example. It has changed its line any number of times, and may repeat the feat many more times.

The changes are admitted by themselves. We have gone straight along our correct line.

Some remarks on what is called our isolation. Apparently we are isolated. But there is more than one aspect to the idea of isolation. From whom are we isolated? We are isolated from

the politically backward ranks of the Congress. But on the other hand, we have won the recognition of all the intelligent, thinking, politically-minded people in the country. They recognise us to-day as the only factor in the Indian life that counts besides the Gandhists. Even many of these latter are convinced that ours is the correct line, and sooner or latter they will have to come to us, if they are honest in their professions. But they are afraid of it yet. Our isolation, therefore, is the isolation of pioneers. It may not be pleasant to be isolated even in that way. But pioneers are historically necessary. We should have only the courage of pioneering.

During the Ramgarh Congress Session, many rightwingers congratulated me on my speech and the amendment moved. I asked, why then did they not support us? Answers given in different words all amounted to : "Sooner or later, in two years or in three years, we may have to come to you : but the time has not yet come. We must give still another chance to the Old Man." To my saying : why then should I bother? Why should I not give it up and take to some other kind of work which appeals to me more than politics? they all protested : "No, no ; you must keep on J Because who else will be there when the time will come?" One of the most prominent men in the Congress High Command is reported to have remarked to a distinguished visitor sitting by him when I was speaking: "Look at these people? The majority of them sympathise with him and may even agree with him ; but none of them will have the courage to vote for him."

Apart from fear, there are many other things which make it difficult for people to join us. We have nothing to offer ; no money, no positions. That makes our work very hard. But if it were otherwise, we would not be revolutionaries. If it was all an easy sailing, I should feel that there was something wrong with us. Revolutionaries must swim against the current. Revolutionary parties throughout history have always been isolated, until the very eve of the revolutionary upheaval. Isolation results from differentiation. The movement must have its experience. Having had made some

bitter experience, it is in the midst of a crisis. Things are in a flux. New things are crystallising. There is a search for a new way—the right way. Eventually, it will be found. In the beginning; it is found only by a few. But all who are earnestly engaged in the search will ultimately fall in line. Others only talk about revolution and a New Order. They do not mean serious business. They will be back in the Gandhian fold. By alienating the sympathy of such elements, we may appear to be " isolated. But what do we lose in them? Only the necessary differentiation is taking place ; and we are keeping the right kind of people with us.

In the middle of 1917, Kerenski was the most popular man in Russia. Whenever he spoke, people went into a frenzy. He was heralded as the man of destiny. Few only had heard of Lenin, who was an isolated figure. But in" October, he was the leader of the revolution. Even in 1917, there were not many in Russia itself who knew Lenin's name. But there was a small band of revolutionaries with a clear vision and a firm determination. A correct understanding of the situation enabled them to anticipate the possible lines of development, and equipped them with the power to mould events when the opportunity came. That is the kind of brotherhood of revolutionaries we want to create in our country. For such people, revolution is not a dream. They know what is coming, and what is to be done when it comes. Revolutions always take place rather fortuitously. Of course it is caused, but no timetable can be fixed. Favourable combinations of circumstances may occur in any crisis. You cannot awaken the revolutionary consciousness of the entire masses. Only the subjective factor of the revolution can be organised. We have to organise the leadership of the revolution. That means, organisation of our own thought, training of our mind, and co-ordination of our collective thinking. This camp is expected to serve that purpose. Let us accomplish that much.

Then you can be 2 pages missing

the eve of the Congress Session at Gaya. On the basis of a searching analysis of the structure of cotemporary Indian society, and the tendencies expressed through the political movement represented by the Congress, Comrade Roy came to the following conclusions :— "The inevitable consequence of these tendencies is the eventual divorce of the mass movement from bourgeois leadership. In that case, bourgeois nationalism will end in a compromise with imperial supremacy, and the liberation of India will be left to the political movement of workers and peasants..."

On the eve of the Gaya Congress he wrote t "The organisation of the third factor, the leadership of the future, the standardbearer of revolutionary nationalism, is our task...But the struggle for national liberation cannot-be carried on through successive stages, unless it is freed from the confused ideology and hesitating direction of a class so much connected with the most reactionary social forces."

A year later he again wrote : "What a gulf separates a programme with such tendencies from the revolutionary struggle for national liberation I The rank and file of the Congress membership should go to the Special Session ( of the Congress at Delhi, in 1924 ) with open eyes. One eventful period of the national struggle is on the eve of its close. A lesson should be drawn from it for the future. A revolutionary movement under a non-revolutionary leadership ends in such a pass. Let the rank and file nationalists .develop a revolutionary leadership commensurate with the historical significance of the movement."

Those words appear as if they had been written to-day I Yet, they were said nearly twenty years ago, and that was the origin of leftism in the Indian National Congress.

Since then, Comrade Roy directed the potentially revolutionary elements in the Indian struggle for freedom in such a

way as would enable them to come to their own. But the process was disturbed by the ultra-left policy recommended by the Sixth World Congress of the Communist International in 1928. The resolution of the Sixth Congress brought about the following changes in the activities of those in India who, parading as ‘Communists', accepted that resolution uncritically. They declared war on the Indian National Congress as the counterrevolutionary organisation of the Indian bourgeoisie, although, at the same time they maintained that the Indian bourgeoisie was 'in particular exploited by imperialism'. The split in the trade-union movement had started everywhere paper organisations called Red Unions. They condemned the radical nationalists and independent Marxists as lackeys of the Indian bourgeoisie.

They criticised the slogan of the Constituent Assembly as counter-revolutionary. They would not be satisfied with anything less than proletarian dictatorship and the establishment of the Indian Soviet Republic. A political general I strike was to be the medium to attain this end, The Congress was to be destroyed, and an Anti-Imperialist League was to be formed in its place. Communism was -to be the ideology of the Indian national movement, as the alternative to Gandhism.

It is now a matter of common knowledge what havoc that policy played in our movement for national freedom.

Fortunately, there were communists who did not approve of that policy. In 1930, there appeared a small group in the political field which - applied itself to the task of building up a left wing inside the Congress. It operated under the guidance of Comrade Roy, who was still in Europe. That was the origin of what we see to-day as the League of Radical Congressmen. , Correctly speaking, the ideas propagated as early as 1922, expressing the objective urge of the national liberation movement, assumed an organisational shape in what came to be known as the 'Roy Group'. The Roy Group of 1930 has developed into the L. R,C. of to-day.

The failure of the civil disobedience movement of 1930-32 caused some disillusionment about the Gandhian leadership.

The objectively revolutionary forces in the Indian National Congress began to smart under the restrictions Inherent in the Gandhian leadership. Attempts were made to strike out a new path. The continuous plodding of those who could look ahead as regards the potentialities and requirements of the movement began to produce fruitful results. A growing number of political workers began to'think independently.

But the vicious atmosphere created by the activities of the socalled Communist Party of India interfered with the forces ofÂťradical nationalism, crystallising in a proper organisational form. At that juncture, the Congress Socialist Party was formed. Elements dissatisfied with the Gandhian leadership went into the making of the C. S. P. It was rather a gesture of protest. They were very vague regarding the real nature of the problem. In the absence of a scientific outlook they were very largely swayed by emotional and humanitarian appeals which appeared to them as socialism.

The danger inherent in that step was immediately pointed out. Again the credit goes to Comrade Roy who, from-behi: the prison bars, advised the pioneers of the Congress Socialist Party against a line of action which was bound to be stultified. He pointed out that, instead of mobilising the leftist elements, or developing into a genuinely revolutionary socialist party, the Congress Socialist Party would rather be an obstacle to the achievement of that laudable object. The ignoble end of the C.S.P. as a factor in the political life of our country is too well known to need any comment. Yet, it may be said that few people have an idea of the incalculable harm the C.S.P. caused to the development of real leftism in the national movement. It only proved to be a safety valve against the danger of the consolidation of radical forces, the danger to the dominating anti-revolutionary right-wing leadership. If our advice to liquidate the C.S.P., in order to function as a left 'wing of the Congress, on the basis of the programme of a National Democratic Revolution was accepted, the history of our struggle for freedom might, have

been different. The forces mobilised under the banner of ofthe C.S.P., with the object of finding a path different from Gandhism, have either dissipated themselves or have returned to the Gandhian fold. To-day, Congress Socialism is hardly distinguishable from Gandhism. This miscarriage of an effort for building up a, left wing inside the Congress was again a direct result of the perverse activities of the so-called Communist Party of India.

In my opinion, the latter has been solely responsible for preventing a robust growth of the forces of radical nationalism. After six years of ruinous experience, the ultraleft line was to be abandoned according to the resolution of the Seventh World Congress of the Third International held in 1933. The Red Unions were liquidated. People formerly denounced as social fascists became good enough to be allies.

All talk of united front from below disappeared. The Congress was suddenly recognised as the anti-imperialist platform. The slogan of Constituent Assembly was recognised as the central slogan of the nationalist movement.

It appeared that the efforts of Comrade Roy had not been in vain. But the so-called Communist Party rushed from one extreme to the other. They regarded the Gandhian leadership as inevitable : struggle was possible only under that leadership. The former advocates of proletarian ^dictatorship appeared as apologists of Gandhism, only with a red label.

The bourgeoisie came to as a factor to be relied upon as an ally in the anti-imperialist struggle. There is a wrong notion that the difference between us and the so-called Communist Party is only tactical, as both of us profess to be Marxists. The latter may profess Marxism, but our difference with them is more than tactical. It is a fundamental difference, it is a difference of objective. They are not Marxists. They vulgarise Marxism by reducing it to a bunch of mechanical formulas.

That is why they swing from one extreme to the other. Once upon a time, they did not believe that there could be a revolution in India except under the leadership of the proletariat. Later on, they discovered a revolutionary role for the bourgeoisie, and wanted to make a united front under the

Gandhian leadership. Lately, they have reverted to their original position, and again talk about the proletarian leadership. Such vacillations and confusion result only from a wrong and mechanical understanding of Marxism. According to their idea of Marxism, the Indian Revolution must be led either by the bourgeoisie or by the prolertariat. If the bourgeoisie is found to be reactionary, the Indian Revolution must be a proletarian revolution. This mechanical vulgarisation of Marxism leads to monkey-like tricks which are galled "revolutionary politics". From a method of thought, Marxism has been reduced by them to a set of dogmatic beliefs.

The Forward Bloc is the latest apparition of leftism in the nationalist movement. Nothing much need really be said about it, as its real character has already been thoroughly exposed. With no basic difference, it pretends to be a rival of the Gandhian group for the leadership of the Congress.

Except the politically ignorant, none regards it as a leftist "group. It was again Comrade Roy, who, in the First Conference of the Forward Bloc, pointed out that) in order to be successful, a leftist group cannot represent merely a negative attitude to the Gandhian leadership, but must advocate an alternative positive programme for the struggle for national freedom. The Forward Bloc never couldformulate such a positive programme, and consequently it has ceased to be a factor of any importance in the leftist movement.

From this short review of history, it is clear that the pioneer and founder of the leftist movemet was Comrade Roy. His pioneering work continued undisturbed until 1928. After a disturbance for a couple of years, the work was resumed and has been carried on since then not with a negligible result, although in the face of great difficulties. The League of Radical Congressmen is the organised expression of these activities. Convinced that there cannot be a revolution without a revolutionary theory, we have heralded the rise of Radical Nationalism as the ideology of the democratic

revolution which will not certainly be of the classical bourgeois type, but will be influenced by the historical period in which it is taking place, and the social forces participating in it. We regard the Indian; bourgeoisie as an antirevolutionary force, going over to the: camp of imperialism.

The social orientation-of the Gandhian: leadership is even more reactionary. Therefore, we have declared that the fundamental principle of leftism is the unconditional rejection of Gandhism in all its aspects, and the acceptance of the ideology of radical nationalism and the programme of a democratic revolution. It is gratifying to not in conclusion that the ideas propagated by us are gaining ground. It can be asserted without the least exaggeration that our contribution to the development of the political ideology of the Congress has not been negligible. Due to our efforts, a number of ideas of far-reaching implications have been incorporated in the Congress programme. But they will not be properly acted upon before a sufficiently large section of the rank and file of the political movement is influenced by the ideology of Radicalism.

2 pages missing

That conference passed a resolution unanimously endorsing Comrade Roy's views, according to which a National Democratic Revolution was the immediate objective, and the Congress was — to be captured and transformed into a people's party for leading that revolution. Comrade Roy had reaffirmed those , views, held ever since 1920, even after the Sixth World Congress of the Communist luieraaiional, ancrthe Commuaisis—-injndia still followed him, But suddenly, while the Workers' and Peasants' Conference was still sitting, instructions arrived from Moscow, and the resolution passed in the first day's session was quietly set aside, and a new programme was adopted in the last day's session. Comrade Kulkarni has already outlined that programme. Since then, differences arose in the camp of the left wing in India.

We have been accused of disturbing left unity. But history proves that disorganisation of the left forces was caused precisely by those who to-day sail under the false colour of Communism and talk loudly about left unity. Under wrong instructions, they abandoned a line which had been quite successful, We refused to travel with them in the .wrong way.

Naturally, differences arose. It is not generally known to what length those so-called Communists went, to disorganise and weaken the left wing. In 1929 Randive was a member of the A.I.C.C. He resigned his membership and participated in a meeting in Bombay where the national flag was pulled down and the red flag was hoisted. Then he went to jail. After ten years, we found the same Communists practising, all sorts of meanest opportunism in order to get some minor positions in the Congress here and there.

Returning to the programme of the left-wing movement, let us see what the differences are. After 1929, the so-called Communist Party started working for a proletarian revolution. They maintained that in India, only the working class is revolutionary. With that estimate of the situation, they followed a line of tactics which ended in smoke, and disorganised the left wing movement in the Congress,

causing a , setback to the nationalist movement as a whole.

As against the 'official' Communist line, we maintained, that the immediate task was the accomplishment of the National Democratic Revolution, and therefore the party to lead the struggle must be based upon nearly eighty-five per cent of the population. The State to be established by the revolution was to represent the interests of that majority. For maintaining this point of view, until 1935, were condemned as enemies of the Indian Revolution. But in 1936, all our heresies became gospel truths. In its Seventh World Congress, the Communist International adopted practically everything we had been advocating since 1929. and actually since 1921.

But before Communist politics took a new turn in 1935, a tremendous confusion had been created in the name of leftism. Generally, as soon as one got disgusted or disillusioned with Gandhism, he was to run to the other extreme, and one-time Gandhi worshippers became equally fanatic Marx-worshippers. They thought that independence itself was a wrong ideal, and nothing less than Socialism should be the ideal of a revolutionary. However, after so many years of bitter experience, it is generally recognised today by all revolutionaries and left-wing Congressmen that there must be a programme between Gandhism and Socialism. What will that programme be? On that point there is still a good deal of disagreement. We are of the opinion that subject to the conditions of the age and peculiarities of the Indian situation, it will be essentially a programme of the bourgeois revolution. Politically, the task is national independence ; socially, it is the agrarian revolution.

Moreover, the programme should also include the nationalisation of key industries and other measures necessary for democratising the economic life of the country..

Right from 1921 we have been propagating this programme.

Since 1930, a great confusion arose, because there were some Communists who wanted to establish Socialism in India immediately. We insisted on the point of view that, before we can establish Socialism, the country must make the experience of a National t Democratic Revolution. When, on

coming out of jail, Comrade ; Roy joined the Congress, and said that Communism was a far cry in India, there was a tremendous commotian among the ; so-called leftists. But today every Socialist or Communist recognises the correctness of that attitude. ; || There was difference also about the organ of the National Democratic Revolution. The official Communists wanted an Anti-Imperialist League as against the Congress. They conspired to destroy the Congress.

Curiously, now the one-time scoffers have become more royalist than the king himself. The situation may change again before long. It is just possible that the Congress as a potentially revolutionary mass organisation will be destroyed by its own leaders. In that case, it win cease to be an instrument for the mobilisation and organisatioa . of the masses. But even then, there will be room for a broadbased political party. The official Communists believed previously that the proleteriat would lead the Indian Revolution. Since the Sixth World Congress, a multi-class party was an anathema. In 1936, they changed their mind suddenly and accepted the idea of a multi-class party which was to include" even the big bourgeoisie. They maintained that the Indian bourgeoisie was a revolutionary class because it was also exploited by Imperialism. The theory of united leadership was the new fashion. The fight for national independence and the democratic revolution must have a united leadership, including Gandhi, Patel as well as P. C. Joshi and Acharya Narendra Deo. We opposed that strange idea and pointed out that the Gandhist group represented a mixed block of feudal lords and Indian bourgeoisie,' who were opposed to any revolution. Recently, the Communist Party tended towards our point of view. But again they will most probably swing to the other extreme, from working class leadership to united leadership. And before long they may be back to their ultraleft notion and proclaim the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Thus, regarding the leadership of the anti-imperialist struggle and the democratic revolution, there still remain fundamental differences among the left-wing groups.

The differences about the leadership of the struggle -for national freedom are bound to create differences regarding the tactics and strategy of the struggle. Previously, the official Communists advocated a political general strike as against the Gandhist method. We opposed it on the ground that India being an agrarian country, a general strike could have no place of decisive importance in the scheme of the Indian Revolution. Even in the history of the Russian Revolution, a general strike played a minor role. The emphasis laid by the official Communists on the importance of general strikes only represents an anarcho-syndicalist deviation. Marxists should not lay such an exaggerated emphasis on general strikes in a predominantly agrarian country. Liter on, the official Communists became converts to the Gandhian method of Satyagraha. We are also opposed to that. The possibilities of Satyagraha as a method of revolutionary struggle will be discussed on a different occasion. Therefore, I shall not go into it now.

Ever since 1921, more particularly since 1930, we have been following a definite and consistent policy of left-wing action.

We have not yet succeeded in capturing the Congress. But we have certainly succeeded in placing before the country the revolutionary ideology of radical nationalism and a clear-cut programme of democratic revolution. Our ideology and programme have been receiving increasing support from the rank and file of the Congress, and all the intelligent people in the country. The real test of leftism has become the acceptance of that programme and ideology. Whoever still believes in a united leadership or in the possibility of forcing Gandhi to lead a revolution, is not a leftist. The real test of leftism is rejection of Gandhism and the determination to replace the Gandhian leadership by a consciously revolutionary leadership. Only we have stood that test.

Therefore, ours is the only leftist group in the country.

It is not our business to redeem the lost souls of the official Communists. Indeed, their part in the political life of the country is so insignificant that we could altogether ignore

them. But as long as there exists a group professing Marxism, we have to define our attitude towards them. The movement of 1919-20 as well as of 1930-32-was objectively and potentially revolutionary, because the masses were involved in both the occasions. But the ideology of the movement was anti-revolutionary. Nevertheless, as the creation of a mass movement, and driven by the objectively revolutionary masses, at that time, Gandhi, in spite of his anti-revolutionary ideology, did play an objectively revolutionary role.

Therefore, in the past, we participated in the Gandhist movement. The situation has entirely changed now. For one thing, it is not at all likely that the Gandhists will again lead a real mass movement. On the other hand, the antirevolutionary ideology of Gandhism has become so pronounced that Gandhi can no longer serve as an unconscious instrument for developing a revolutionary struggle. Therefore, I said that in the future our attitude towards the Gandhist method of struggle will change, although the official Communists may now abandon the idea of a political general strike in favour of the developing Gandhist Satyagraha into an armed insurrection.