The Swing Back - Tridib Chaudhuri
The present brochure seeks, in the main, to pass a critical review on the devious zig-zags in the fundamental political line of the Communist Party of India since 1947 from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism (as distinguished from Stalinism), and to understand in that background the trend of the changes that have been taking place in CPI strategy and tactics from sometimes past consequent on the well-known Cominform directive of January 27. The Party does not seem to have completed the process of its assimilation of the said directive, at the moment of writing these prefatory remarks. Nor have all sections of the party, or at least its dominant factions, as yet been able to adjust themselves psychologically to its obvious political and tactical implications. Different sections of the CPI leadership are still far from having made up their minds finally and the decisions of to-day may not be the last words of the party in the process of the working out of the new line. A few words of explanation are, therefore, called for.
One of the main conclusions that I have sought to draw from my examination of the international policy-line of Stalinism, and the foreign-policy manoeuvres of the USSR, round which all changes in the tactical line of the CPI (as well as that of every other Stalinist Communist Party in the world) invariably revolve, has been that the CPI will be compelled, step by step, to go back to a policy of open alliance and class-collaboration with the Indian bourgeoisie—at least with those sections of the bourgeoisie who may for the present be outside the ruling circles. Even the possibility of a return to the pre 1948 policy of all-out support to the Nehru Government as in the days of P.C. Joshi's leadership, and an united-front with the ruling Congress bourgeoisie also cannot, in my view, be totally ruled out. The latest developments
in connection with the Korean War, Pandit Nehru's peace- proposals to Stalin and Truman and the official and non-official reactions of Communist leaders to these proposals reflecting a new friendliness to Nehru would go to confirm my conclusions in part at least.
From a critical analysis of the pointers contained in the Cominform Editorial article of January 27, and authoritative documents relating to the China-way which the CPI has been asked to follow I came to the further conclusion that any form of armed insurrectionary struggle directed against the Nehru Government would surely come to be disavowed in the present political context of India, by the dictates of practical expediency of the new policy of wooing the national bourgeoisie.
But the latest statement of Sardar Patel, Home-Minister in the Congress Government, seems to indicate that the 'national bourgeoisie' or its ruling circles at least, do not feel properly courted or wooed (the CPI might retort that they are not seeking to woo the aged Sardar at all, for they are not at all keen about hardened big-bourgeois representatives like Patel).
"Whatever shift may have taken place in the tactics of the Communist Party", told the Sardar the Indian Parliament the other day, "there has been absolutely no change in their fundamental strategy of seizing power through violent revolt." He has cited certain remarks by Dange and excerpts from official CPI documents, to prove his contention. Without entering into any discussion, about Sardar Patel's topsy-turvy notions about 'strategy' and 'tactics', it may safely be presumed that while the India Government has taken note of the shift in party's policy towards a sudden friendliness towards national bourgeoisie, middle classes, rich peasantry etc. on the plea of anti-imperialism, (only a change of 'tactics' in the Sardar' view) he was not at all satisfied and did not think that the CPI would really be inclined to abandon the armed form of struggle against his government altogether — at least in outlying rural areas where it has yet some nuisance- value from Patel's point of view. Mr. Jaiprakash Narain, the Socialist Party leader, is also chary of favourably considering the question of forming a united-front with the CPI, after the 'latest' reorientation of their policy on the same ground. Some sections in the dominant group in CPI leadership in the reconstituted Central Committee of the party also seem to be keen upon salvaging some part of the lingering romantic revolutionary miasma of the Ranadive period by seeking to suggest sometimes, that the China- way line of Cominform do actually involve the formation of liberation armies and fighting the Government of the imperialist- feudal-big bourgeois combine from outlying rural areas. Mr. Dange has however clearly stated, "We do not hold the view that in the present conditions armed insurrection is the only step to overthrow the Nehru Government and establish a People's Democratic State in India. That definitely is not on the agenda of the Party to-day" (Cross Roads, July 28, 1950). The CPI, CC has since announced that Mr. Dange's views were entirely his personal, and did not represent the Party's stand in all respects, but there are others besides Dange, who accept in toto the implications of Cominform directive, and agree with him that the Cominform directive definitely rules out tactics of armed action in any form in the present political context of India. The armed action, of which the Cominform directive spoke, refers in their opinion, to other Asian and South East Asian countries where proper conditions for such action had matured, but not in India. The decisive point in this respect is, however not what this or that stalinist leader feels but what the expediency-considerations of Soviet foreign-policy line with regard to India and the Nehru Patel Government, dictate.
What however I have been concerned to prove in this book, is not that the CPI, or the international Stalinist leadership, has actually gone over to a policy of all-out support to the Congress Government.
That certainly is neither my contention, nor would be a correct representation of the present-day Stalinist policy in India. But the swing-back from a policy of all-out opposition to the national bourgeoisie, and the conception of a People's Democratic Revolution directed against the entire Indian capitalist class and the simultaneous building up of Socialism, to the old social- democratic Joshi-ite position of a united-front with the 'national' bourgeoisie (barring the top-notch section who stand for collaboration with Anglo-American imperialism) does certainly in my view open up the possibility, under certain circumstances, of the CPI coming out in the open in unconditional support of Nehru Government. In the present international context of a closer understanding between the Nehru Government and the Sino-Soviet bloc the likelihood of such a change in CPI policy should not seem so very improbable.
The apparent confusion that seems to reign over the leading sections of party today arises out of the dizziness of the swing. back from left to right, and the incidental competition amongst rival marionette leaders of Indian Stalinism jockeying for vantage position against each other.
In seeking to trace the international back-ground of the zigzags of CPI policy, the writer has been inevitably compelled to relate these to changes in Soviet foreign-policy manoeuvres. The reasons for this have been explained fully in the text itself. To avoid all misunderstanding it is necessary to briefly reiterate my attitude, and that of the party to which I have the honour to belong, to the whole question clearly, As Marxist-Leninists we believe that despite inevitable historical limitations imposed by conditions of an imperialist-capitalist encirclement, the Soviet Union represents the revolutionary Socialist traditions of October 1917. It has preserved, within the frame-work of its basic Socialist property relations, in the continually rising standard of living secured for the masses through a system of planned economy, and its remarkably successful achievements in the concrete work of Socialist construction, those higher Socialist and human values which October Revolution won for all progressive mankind.
It is the sacred task of all Marxist-Leninists and toiling peoples all over the world, to rally to the defence of Soviet Union against all forms of external capitalist intervention and internal counter revolutionary attacks.
In the face of the gathering offensive of the imperialist- capitalist world against Soviet Union, the sympathy and solidarity of all Revolutionary Socialists, and the toiling masses, must be unhesitatingly and unconditionally mobilised on the side of Soviet Union against Anglo-American imperialism. The same attitude to a certain extent holds good mutahis mutandis with regard to the People's Republic of China (not a Socialist but a democratic Social-Reformist country though) vis-á-vis Anglo-America.
Defence of the Socialist Soviet Union cannot in the Marxist- Leninist view, be however interpreted as blind toeing of the diplomatic line of the Soviet State at any particular moment vis- a-vis imperialist-capitalist states surrounding it, and determining the fundamental line of strategy and tactics in any country, vis-á- vis the capitalist ruling classes in mimic pursuance of that line. We believe that international revolution against the forces of imperialism-capitalism-the marshalling and mobilising of the forces of revolution in different countries taking into full account the concrete realities of class-correlationship of forces in each country—is the best defence of the Soviet Union and the Soviet peoples.
By making theories of "Socialism and Communism in a single country" and "the collaboration and peaceful co-existence of Socialism and capitalism side by side" the fulcrum of their world policy, the present leaders of CPSU have however transformed the Leninist conception of defence of Soviet Union into an instrument of Soviet power politics vis-á-vis Anglo- America, totally divorced from the perspective of international Socialist Revolution. The meaning of the latest changes in the CPI line could be properly appreciated only in this context.
August 10, 1950
Tridib Chaudhuri