Buddhadeva Bhattacharya
Now to come hack again to the CSP. Jayaprakash Narayan maintained that although the CSP had voted for Bore in the presidential election the Party was now withholding support out of fear of creating a schism' in the Congress. He felt that 'unless the Working Committee was appointed in accordance with the wishes of Mahatma Gandhi it would not be possible to maintain unity.'.1 The CSP, in the words of Limaye, 'tried to effect reconciliation with a view to preserving national.unity.2
But there were differences inside the CSP over its neutralist stand. At the Delhi CP Conference (2 & 3 July 1939) many speakers accused the leaders of 'vacillation' and for betrayal of the whole past of the CSP. The tank and file was in a state of confusion as it had expected the leadership to carry the responsibility of left leadership to logical end by voting against the Pant resolution. But Acharya Narendra Deva and Jayaprakash Narayan insisted that national unity was the prime need of the bout and the national struggle could not be effective without Gandhi's association with it.3
Subhas Chandra Bose maintained that If the Congress Socialist Party had not remained neutral, then in spite of the various handicaps..., we would have had a majority in the open session."4 Madhu Limaye in his mature reflections on the Tripuri stand of the CSP calls it a 'tactical mistake.5
Whatever be one's judgement on the Tripuri stand of the CSP, it requires some explanation. It may be pointed out here that until 1936 the congress socialists had raised the slogan of an alternative leadership which meant that they intended to replace the gandhian 'bourgeois' leadership of the Congress by the left-wing leadership. But after 1936 this seemed to them 'an unrealistic policy' and this policy was abandoned in favour of a composite leadership. The CSP leadership had come to the conclusion that a gradual and, as far as possible, amicable change should be brought about in the composition of its leadership and its programme...'6 This being the perspective the CSP was logically committed to supporting Gandhi's position within the Congress party, even if faced with the necessity, at the expense of the left wing.7 And in fact this neutralist stand aimed to maintain 'national unity' objectively disrupted the growth of the left movement in the country.
1. Quoted in P. L. Lakhanpal, History of the Congress Socialist Party National Publishers & Stationers (India) Ltd. Labor; 1946, p. 60. See also JP Papers, File Nos 214/1935/52 and 218/1936-47,
2. Madhu Limaye. Evolution of Socialist Policy, op. cit., p.6.
3. Nripendra Nath Mitra (ed.), The Indian Annual Register, 1939, vol. II, pp. 360-2.
4. Jawaharlal Nehru. A Bunch of Old Letters, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1958, p. 355. Michael Brecher says 'The key to Bose's defeat was the abstention of the Congress Socialists,' Nehru A Political Biography. Oxford University Press, London, 1959, p. 250.
5. Madiiu Limaye. op. cit.. p. 6. Referring to the consequence of the neutralist stand of his party at Tripuri Jayaprakash records in his private papers '...left unity was disrupted. The correct step would have been to call the entire Left to become neutral, but the latter refusing to do so, the only course was to move with the Left, by voting against the resolution: JP Papers, File No. 218/1936-47. In an interview with Asim Kumar Chaudhuri, Achyut Patwardhan vindicated the CSP stand for the sake of national unity. See Chaudhuti, Socialist Movement lIn India The Congress Socialist Party (1934-47), Progressive Publishers, Calcutta, 1980, pp. 100-1.
6. Madhu Limaye, op. cit., pp. 5-6.
7. John Patrick Haithcox, op. cit., p.284.refusing to do so, the only course was to move with the Left, by voting against the resolution: JP Papers, File No. 218/1936-47. In an interview with Asim Kumar Chaudhuri, Achyut Patwardhan vindicated the CSP stand for the sake of national unity. See Chaudhuti, Socialist Movement lIn India The Congress Socialist Party (1934-47), Progressive Publishers, Calcutta, 1980, pp. 100-1.