Buddhadeva Bhattacharya
With this short synoptic background in view, let us now try to identify the factors responsible for the Anushilanites' delayed conversion to non-conformist marxism or revolu- tionary socialism. To our mind three factors have contributed to this delay : (1) subjective hesitation, (2) constraints of the objective situation, and (3) ideological differences with official communism.
From our talks with a number of Anushjlan veterans we gather that a good many elders who were held in high esteem in the party circle could not accept the materialist philo- sophy of marxism. It was difficult for them to accept the 'atheism' of Marx's philosophy. But this section had no objection to accept the economic programme of marxian socialism.1 Gopen Chakravorty recalls that 'Naren Sen (the then leader of the Anushilan Samiti)…said I support you communists in all points excepts on the score of atheism.2 It is not difficult to presume that national revolutionaries brought up in the traditional cultural back- ground would find it extremely difficult to shake off their long-cherished values and accept a philosophy which to them appeared primarily as denial of the existence of God. But one should not oversimplify this situation by saying that they were Hindu nationalists as they have sometimes been alleged to be by some veteran official communists cherishing 'subjec- tive prejudices against the revolutionary terrorists."'3
It is not true that the ideology of national revolutionism was essentially based on Hindu religion. As has been rightly said by Satyendra Narayan Mazumdar, one of the partici- pants in the revolutionary movement and a leading activist of the Anushilan Samiti and a respected CPI publicist,
those who are really conversant with the history of the national-revolutionary movement know very well that the influence of religion and ICali worship had become almost extinct in the ranks of the national revolutionaries in the second half of the '20s … On the contrary, even those national revolutionaries, who had not all been attracted to communism in that period, had got rid of or were getting rid of the influence of religion, spiritualism and Kali worship4
In support of his contention he cites from Ananta Singh's account of the Chittagong Uprising, wherein Singh says that -from the time of the preparation of the uprising he totally lost all faith in Kali, god, the miraculous powers of Sri Aurobindo or saints.5 Even if it is conceded that religion continued to exercise its influence on a section of national revolutionaries, it should be admitted that it was not religi- ous bigotry, but belief in the existence of religion which lay at the base of their world outlook.6 In a sense, this belief was mixed up with their ethos of life.
It would be too much to expect that during such a period of ideological transition the understanding of these revolu- tionaries would be free from all confusion. The dialectical materialist doctrine was an entirely new system of philosophy to them. It was quite natural that they would hesitate for a long time in accepting the world outlook of marxism. Their acceptance of bolshevism as a socio-economic doctrine and hesitation in accepting marxist philosophy obviously had impact on the inner organizational life of the Anushilan members. Those Anushilanites who were already convinced of marxism and those who were not yet converted were still within the same organizational fold and the bond that existed between them, besides the formal organizational discipline, was that of cordial relationship. Anushilan members who had become inclined to marxist philosophy were 'not ready for a parting of ways with their old and trusted comrades who had brought them to the revolutionary path. Such a step had difficulties objectively too, because it might lead to bifurcation of the potential forces of communism.'7
As we have seen above, revolutionaries including the Anushilanites were subjected to continuous governmental repression. From-September 1923 to the latter part of 1927 most of the revolutionary leaders and workers were kept detained in different jails. In the meantime, revolutionary politics had taken a new turn. Subhas Chandra Bose was accepted as the leader of the united party of Indian revolu- tionaries in 1926.27 in which both Anushilan and Jugantar leaders joined. The negotiations for this unification was completed sometime between 1926-27 in Midnapore Central jail where most of the revolutionary leaders were lodged.8 But unfortunately the process of unification of revolutiona- ries became warped and distorted for a considerable time after 1929 by getting mixed up with power politics and group politics in Congress organization. During the period Anu- shilan and Jugantar worked under a unified command, the Anushilanites had no opportunity of taking any decision unilaterally. By the time the unity broke up, the whole country was agog with excitement and was eagerly looking forward to Gandhi for starting a nation-wide mass movement on the demand of 'complete independence.' Suffice it to mention here that the civil disobedience movement started in March 1930. But just on the eve of the movement the government let loose its engine of repression and many of the revolutionaries were arrested. Those who were spared or could avoid arrest joined the army of 'civil resisters' in the movement which spread throughout the country.
After the armed uprising of Chittagong in April 1930 most of the important revolutionary leaders including senior Anushilan leaders were apprehended.9 Governmental terrorism was let loose again. Conspiracy cases like the Inter-provincial Conspiracy Case 1933.35, the Hilt Station Railway Mail Raid Case 1933 and the Titagarh Conspiracy Case 1935-36 were started and many middle-rung Anushilan leaders and workers found themselves behind prison bars.10 Persons against whom no definite charges could be made were arrested as detenus under B.C.L.A Act providing for detention without trial, The overall picture was that the revolutionaries were detained for about 8 years they were ultimately released about the middle of 1938.11 So we find that the Anushilan revolutionaries found very little time outside where they could meet together to take stock of the whole situation-both political and organizational and arrive at any decision on the question of ideological reorientatation. As has been said by an Anushilan veteran.
Anushilan was not a high priest-centred party. There was no führer in the Anushilan at any time. In policy- making and internal party administration the Party always followed the principles of democratic centralism. It was, therefore, not possible for the Party to take definite decision on matters of fundamental policy in the circumstances…12
Apart from subjective hesitation and objective constraints of the situation the question of the Anushilanites' delayed conversion to marxian socialism and their rejection of official communism has to be viewed from an ideological plane.
1. Tarapada Lahiri, 'The Eventful Decade 1920-29,' in Buddhadeva Bhattacharyya (ed.), op. cit., pp. 208 & 272.
2. Gautam Chattopadhyay, op. cit. Appendix I, p. 123.
3. Satyendra Narayan Mazumdar, op. cit., p. 204.
4. ibid., p. 205.
5. ibid.
6. Tarapada Lahiri, op. cit.. p. 272.
7. ibid., p. 272.
8. Nalini Kishore Guha, op. cit., p. 232 Satish Pakrashi. Agnijuger Katha (in Bengali), Nabajatak Prakashan. Calcutta, 1378 B.S., p. 163; Ganesh Ghosh, Biplabi Suriya Sen (in Bengali), Calcutta University, 1976, p. 58.
9. Nalini Kishore Guha, op, cit., p. 235.
10. Article on 'The Inter-Provincial Conspiracy Case along with Some Documents Exhibited in that Case' by Satyendra Narayan Mazumdar (unpublished),
11. Arun Guha, Aurobindo and Jugantar, Sahitya Samsad, Calcutta, nd., p. 70.
12. Tarapada Lahiri, op. cit., pp. 273-4.