The Other Side of Maoism

This article was published in November 2009. I think the issues raised in it remain relevant: 


Symbolism counts for a lot in Indian politics. If the Maoist party is interested in negotiations, I suggest a demand that will expose the hypocritical nature of our polity: ask the government to remove the portrait of VD Savarkar from the Central Hall of Parliament, placed there in 2003. If it cannot do that, ask it to place Charu Mazumdar’s portrait alongside. Why not? Both were extreme patriots. Both believed in political assassination, both hated Gandhi and both insisted that the end justifies the means... the deep link between these two currents of extremism is the unutterable truth of Indian history. Hindutva is the Maoism of the elite - DS

*******

There are crimes of passion and crimes of logic: Albert Camus 

Spokesmen of Maoist extremism have recently expressed regret for beheading a police officer and explained their actions as a defence of the oppressed. Their comrades’ brutality, they say, is an aberration. They cite of state violence to justify actions they claim are undertaken in self-defence. There is more to this than meets the eye. Maoist theory holds that India is a semi-colonial polity with a bogus constitution that must be overthrown by armed force. The comrades view all their actions as part of a revolutionary war. Their foundational documents declare armed struggle to be “the highest and main form of struggle” and the “people’s army” its main organisation. In war, morality is suspended and limits cast aside. War also results in something the Pentagon calls “collateral damage”. Is it true that Naxalite brutality is only an aberration?

On August 15, 2004, the Maoists killed nine persons in Andhra Pradesh, including a legislator, a driver and a municipal worker. On August 14, 2005, Saleema, 52, a cook in a mid-day kitchen in Karimnagar was beaten to death by Maoists for being a “police informer.” This was the second woman killed by them in a fortnight. A former Naxalite, Bhukya Padma, 18, was hacked to death in Marimadla village on July 30. On September 12, 2005, they slit the throats of 17 villagers in Belwadari village in Giridih. Landmine blasts in February 2006 killed 26 tribals and injured 50 in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. The victims were returning from religious festivals, and some from anti-Naxalite rallies. Another blast on March 25 killed 13 persons.

Some of these killings may be incorrectly reported, some carried out by local cadre on their own. But the comrades clearly believe in political assassination. Moreover, the decisions to kill are taken in a shadowy realm wherein the fault of the victim is decided by whim. Truth and falsehood are dispensed with because the Party Is Always Right. Their targets have no chance of appealing for mercy, and no one will be punished for collateral damage. And all this is justified because the Maoists are at war — a circular argument, because whether or not we are at war is another whim.

But there is an elephant in India’s drawing room. Maoists openly defy the Constitution, which they say is a mask for a brutal order. Are not our mainstream parties equally contemptuous of the law? Why did the NDA regime try and do away with Schedule 5 of the Constitution that protects tribal lands from encroachment? Why is it still being violated? Is there not prima-facie evidence of politicians’ involvement in massacres in Delhi and Gujarat in 1984 and 2002? Why haven’t they been brought to justice? In 1987, 40 Muslims of Meerut were killed in custody. Why did the case take 18 years to come to court? The BJP and the Congress both supported the private army named Salwa Judum with disastrous consequences for Chhattisgarh’s population. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court criticised the States’ recklessness. In 2007 the West Bengal government despatched an illegal armed force to crush its opponents in Nandigram. India’s rulers regularly protect criminals, and part of the public is complicit in this. Policemen in dereliction of duty get promoted. Mass murderers are hailed as heroes. Why are we addicted to double-standards?

Those who believe in virtuous murder are today calling upon the democratic conscience. Does democracy include the right to kill? Our left-extremists have changed the world for the worse. Along with right-wing radicals, they ground their arguments on passionate rhetoric and a claim to superior knowledge. Fighters for justice have become judge and executioner rolled into one — in a word, pure tyrants. Every killing launches yet another cycle of trauma and revenge. Will Francis Induvar’s son ever dream of becoming a socialist? Should not socialists hold themselves to a higher standard than the system they oppose?

Symbolism counts for a lot in Indian politics. If the Maoist party is interested in negotiations, I suggest a demand that will expose the hypocritical nature of our polity: ask the government to remove the portrait of VD Savarkar from the Central Hall of Parliament, placed there in 2003. If it cannot do that, ask it to place Charu Mazumdar’s portrait alongside. Why not? Both were extreme patriots. Both believed in political assassination, both hated Gandhi and both insisted that the end justifies the means.

My suggestion will meet with indignation. But the deep link between these two currents of extremism is the unutterable truth of Indian history. Hindutva is the Maoism of the elite. In 1969, an ultra-leftist Hindi writer penned a diatribe titled Gandhi Benakaab that praised Godse as a true son of India. In 42 years of activity, Naxalites hardly ever confronted the communalists; although to be fair, one ultra-left group in Punjab did combat the Khalistanis. The assassination of a VHP Swami in Kandhamal in August 2008 is the only example. The Maoists owned the crime, but the Sangh parivar vented its wrath upon Christian villagers. Thousands were displaced and over 30 were killed. The comrades were unwilling or unable to prevent the carnage.

Savarkar’s acolyte Nathuram Godse murdered Mahatma Gandhi. In 1969, the Justice Kapur Commission concluded that the conspiracy was hatched by Savarkar and his group. Sardar Patel said as much to Nehru in February 1948. If Savarkar deserves to be honoured by the Nation, so does Charu. Since the government is unlikely to accept either option, we may finally come to a debate about why one kind of political murder is anti-national, while the other is patriotic virtue.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/editorials/Maoism-s-other-side/Article1-474600.aspx

The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: Inquiry Commission Report (1969)

Also see:The Savarkarist syntax - by Anil Nauriya:

UNDERLYING THE glorification of Savarkarism by the BJP-RSS-Shiv Sena are changes in the nature and objectives of the major political parties, the cynicism induced by the growing nexus between crime and politics, and the collapse of a compact that had facilitated post-independence politics. The first principle of Savarkarism defines the nation on the basis of religious community. This is reflected in Savarkar's declaration on August 15, 1943: "I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations" (Indian Annual Register1943 vol2 p 10). The second Savarkarist principle condones killing to make religious community-related points. The German versusJew analogy is made in Savarkar's writings when speaking of his notion of the Hindu nation and those outside it. The killer aspect of Savarkarism is noted by Sardar Patel. In his February 27, 1948 letter to Nehru, Patel held the fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha under Savarkar responsible for assassinating Gandhi. The same trigger-happiness was evident in the Gujarat carnage (2002) and its aftermath. Whether a murder may be treated as a crime seems to depend, for Savarkarism, upon the self-perceived religious community interests of the killer.

http://hindu.com/2004/09/18/stories/2004091803791000.htm

The Futility of Common Sense: An Essay on Ahimsa

Maoism and the Philosophy of Insurrection (2010, Seminar # 607)

V.D. Savarkar and Gandhi’s murder

A Hard Rain Falling (on private armies and political violence in India) (EPW, July 2012)

Armies of the Pure:  The Question of Indian Fascism 

An Open Letter to the world on the Bangladesh crisis of 1971

On 'revolution': Closing the Circle (Frontier Vol 45, No. 7, Aug 26 -Sep 1, 2012)

Another time, another mosque

This article is based on a lecture I prepared for university students, named Mahatma Gandhi’s Legacy. It includes the text of the Delhi Declaration on communal harmony, January 18, 1948. 'Volume' citations are from Gandhi's Collected Works.

Gandhi’s Last Fast: January 13-18, 1948

From September 1947, the communal situation in north India became grievous. Massacres were taking place in Punjab and Sindh, sparking off the migration of over ten million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. In September, hundreds of Muslims of Delhi had been killed in Karol Bagh, Subzi Mandi and Paharganj. Tens of thousands of Hindu and Sikh refugees from Punjab were crammed into Diwan Hall, Chandni Chowk and Kingsway Camp; while thousands of Muslims, including Meos from Alwar and Bharatpur, camped in fear in Jamia Millia, Puran Qila and Humayun’s Tomb. The life of Dr Zakir Husain, VC of Jamia Millia and president of the Hindustani Talimi Sangh, was saved by a Sikh army captain and a Hindu railway official. Upon arrival in Delhi on September 9, Gandhi was asked to stay not in the sweepers colony (his prefered residence in the city), but in Birla House. Gandhi plunged into the turmoil around him, travelling to nearby places, talking to refugees and cadres of social organisations. On December 22, he made this announcement at his prayer meeting:

“Some eight or ten miles from here, at Mehrauli, there is a shrine of Qutubuddin Bakhtiyar Chisti. Esteemed as second only to the shrine at Ajmer, it is visited every year not only by Muslims but by thousands of non-Muslims too. Last September this shrine was subjected to the wrath of Hindu mobs. The Muslims living in the vicinity of the shrine for the last 800 years had to leave their  homes. I mention this sad episode to tell you that, though Muslims love the shrine, today no Muslim can be found anywhere near it. It is the duty of the Hindus, Sikhs, the officials and the Government to open the shrine again and wash off this stain on us. The same applies to other shrines and religious places of Muslims in and around Delhi. The time has come when both India and Pakistan must unequivocally declare to the majorities in each country that they will not tolerate desecration of religious places, be they small or big. They should also undertake to repair the places damaged during riots.” (vol 98, p 98-99).

This was the background to his last protest. There was also the matter of the Government’s decision to withhold payment of Pakistan’s share of undivided India’s sterling balance. We may take it that the fast was undertaken both to restore the mosque and to convey to the public his feelings about ongoing events. It began on January 13, 1948 and was announced at his prayer meeting that evening. He said: “Now that I have started my fast many people cannot understand what I am doing, who are the offenders – Hindus or Sikhs or Muslims. How long will the fast last? I say I do not blame anyone. Who am I to accuse others? I have said that we have all sinned.”

He continued: “I shall terminate the fast only when peace has returned to Delhi. If peace is restored to Delhi it will have effect not only on the whole of India but also on Pakistan and when that happens, a Muslim can walk around in the city all by himself. I shall then terminate the fast. Delhi is the capital of India. It has always been the capital of India. So long as things do not return to normal in Delhi, they will not be normal either in India or in Pakistan. Today I cannot bring Suhrawardy here because I fear someone may insult him. Today he cannot walk about in the streets of Delhi. If he did he would be assaulted. What I want is that he should be able to move about here even in the dark. It is true that he made efforts in Calcutta only when Muslims became involved. Still, he could have made the situation worse, if he had wanted, but he did not want to make things worse. He made the Muslims evacuate the places they had forcibly occupied and said that he being the Premier could do so. Although the places occupied by the Muslims belonged to Hindus and Sikhs he did his duty. Even if it takes a whole month to have real peace established in Delhi it does not matter. People should not do anything merely to have me terminate the fast. So my wish is that Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians and Muslims who are in India should continue to live in India and India should become a country where everyone’s life and property are safe. Only then will India progress.”

The People’s Reaction

Delhi was visibly affected by Gandhi’s fast. Addressing a gathering of three hundred thousand people on January 17, Maulana Azad announced seven tests given him by Gandhi to be fulfilled and guaranteed by responsible people. They included freedom of worship to Muslims at the tomb of Khwaja Bakhtiar Chishti, non-interference with the Urs festival due to be held there; the voluntary evacuation by non-Muslims of all mosques in Delhi that were being used as houses or which had been converted into temples; free movement of Muslims in areas where they used to stay; complete safety to Muslims while travelling by train; no economic boycott of Muslims; and freedom to Muslim evacuees to return to Delhi.” That evening a procession of citizens walked to Birla House where Jawaharlal Nehru addressed them. Gandhi’s speech was read out at the prayer meeting, attended by some four thousand people. Among other things, he said:

“My fast should not be considered a political move in any sense of the term. It is in obedience to the peremptory call of conscience and duty. It comes out of felt agony. I call to witness all my numerous Muslim friends in Delhi. Their representatives meet me almost every day to report the day’s events. Neither Rajas and Maharajas nor Hindus and Sikhs or any others would serve themselves or India as a whole, if at this, what is to me a sacred juncture, they mislead me with a view to terminating my fast” (vol 98:248).

On January 18, Gandhi ended his fast. Over a hundred representatives of various groups and organizations including the Hindu Mahasabha, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Jamiat-ul-Ulema who had assembled at Rajendra Prasad’s residence, called on Gandhiji at 11.30 a.m. Those present included Jawaharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad, Rajendra Prasad, INA General Shah Nawaz Khan, Hifzur Rahman and Zaheed Hussain, Pakistan’s High Commissioner. Dr. Rajendra Prasad reported that even those who had some doubts on the previous night were confident that they could ask Gandhiji with a full sense of responsibility to break the fast. As the President of the Congress, Rajendra Prasad said that he had signed the document in view of the guarantee which they had all jointly and severally given. Khurshid, the Chief Commissioner and Randhawa, Deputy Commissioner of Delhi, had signed the document on behalf of the administration. It had been decided to set up a number of committees to implement the pledge. Rajendra Prasad hoped that Gandhiji would now terminate his fast. Deshbandhu Gupta described scenes of fraternization between Hindus and Muslims which he had witnessed when a procession of Muslims was taken out that morning in Subzimandi and was received with ovation and offered fruit and refreshments by the Hindu inhabitants. A seven-point declaration in Hindi was read out solemnly affirming the people’s desire for communal harmony and civic peace. This read as follows:

SEVEN-POINT DELHI DECLARATION OF JANUARY 18, 1948

“We wish to announce that it is our heart-felt desire that the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs and members of the other communities should once again live in Delhi like brothers and in perfect amity and we take the pledge that we shall protect the life, property and faith of Muslims and that the incidents which have taken place in Delhi will not happen again.

“We want to assure Gandhiji that the annual fair at Khwaja Qutub-ud-Din Mazar will be held this year as in the previous years.

“Muslims will be able to move about in Subzimandi, Karol Bagh, Paharganj and other localities just as they could in the past.

“The mosques which have been left by Muslims and which now are in the possession of Hindus and Sikhs will be returned. The areas which have been set apart for Muslims will not be forcibly occupied.

“We shall not object to the return to Delhi of the Muslims who have migrated from here if they choose to come back and Muslims shall be able to carry on their business as before.

“We assure that all these things will be done by our personal effort and not with the help of the police or military.

“We request Mahatmaji to believe us and to give up his fast and continue to lead us as he has done hitherto.” .” (vol 98, p 249, 253).

Gandhi’s Speech on the Delhi Declaration

In his reply, Gandhi said: “I am happy to hear what you have told me, but if you have overlooked one point all this will be worth nothing. If this declaration means that you will safeguard Delhi and whatever happens outside Delhi will be no concern of yours, you will be committing a grave error and it will be sheer foolishness on my part to break my fast. You must have seen the Press reports of the happenings in Allahabad, if not, look them up. I understand that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha are among the signatories to this declaration. It will amount to breach of faith on their part if they hold themselves responsible for peace in Delhi, but not in other places. I have been observing that this sort of deception is being practised in the country these days on a large scale. Delhi is the heart - the capital of India. The leaders from the whole of India have assembled here. Men had become beasts. But if those who have assembled here, who constitute the cream among men cannot make the whole of India understand that  Hindus, Muslims and followers of other religions are like brothers, it bodes ill for both the Dominions. What will be the fate of India if we continue to quarrel with one another?... Let us take no step that may become a cause for repentance later on. The situation demands courage of the highest order from us. We have to consider whether or not we can accomplish what we are going to promise. If you are not confident of fulfilling your pledge, do not ask me to give up my fast. It is for you and the whole of India to translate it into reality. It may not be possible to realize it in a day. I do not possess the requisite strength for it. But I can assure you that till today our face was turned  towards Satan, we have now resolved to turn towards God. If what I have told you fails to find an echo in your hearts or if you are convinced that it is beyond you, tell me so frankly.

What greater folly can there be than to claim that Hindustan is only for Hindus and Pakistan is for Muslims alone? The refugees here should realize that things in Pakistan will be set right by the example set in Delhi. I am not one to be afraid of fasting. Time and again I have gone on fasts and if occasion arises I may again do so. Whatever therefore you do, do after careful thought and consideration. The Muslim friends frequently meet me and assure me that peaceful atmosphere has been restored in Delhi and Hindus and Muslims can live in amity here. If these friends have any misgivings in their hearts and feel that today they have perforce to stay here - as they have nowhere else to go to - but ultimately they will have to part company, let them admit it to me frankly. To set things right in the whole of India and Pakistan is no doubt a Herculean task. But I am an optimist. Once I resolve to do something I refuse to accept defeat. Today you assure me that Hindus and Muslims have become one but if Hindus continue to regard Muslims as Yavans and asuras, incapable of realizing God, and Muslims regard Hindus likewise, it will be the worst kind of blasphemy. A Muslim friend presented me with a book in Patna. Its author is an eminent Muslim. The book says: “God ordains that a kafir - and a Hindu is a kafir - is worse than a poisonous creature. He should be exterminated. It is one’s duty to be treacherous to him. Why should one treat him with any courtesy?” If Muslims still harbouring such thoughts assure Hindus about their good behaviour, they will only be deceiving Hindus. If you betray one you betray all. If I truly worship a stone image I deceive no one. For me God resides in that stone image. I feel that if the hearts of both Hindus and Muslims are full of deceipt and treachery, why need I  continue to live?

“..After listening to all that I have said, if you still ask me to end my fast I shall end it. Afterwards you have to release me. I had taken the vow to do or die in Delhi and now if I am able to achieve success here I shall go to Pakistan and try to make Muslims understand their folly. Whatever happens in other places, people in Delhi should maintain peace. The refugees here should realize that they have to welcome as brothers the Muslims returning from Pakistan to Delhi. The Muslim refugees in Pakistan are suffering acute hardships and so are the Hindu refugees here. Hindus have not learnt all the crafts of Muslim craftsmen. Therefore they had better return to India. There are good men as well as bad men in all the communities. Taking into consideration all these implications, if you ask me to break my fast I shall abide by your wish. India will virtually become a prison if the present conditions continue. It may be better that you allow me to continue my fast and if God wills it He will call me.” (vol 98, p 254-257)

Maulana Azad said that the remarks about non-Muslims to which Gandhiji had referred were abhorrent to Islam. They were symptoms of the insanity that had seized some sections of the people. Maulana Hifzur Rahman insisted that Muslims wanted to remain in India as citizens with self-respect and honour. He welcomed the changed atmosphere in the city as a result of Gandhi’s fast and appealed to Gandhi to break the fast. On behalf of the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS, Ganesh Datt reiterated the appeal. Pakistan’s High Commisioner Zaheed Hussain addressed a few words to Gandhiji. He said he was there to convey the deep concern of the Pakistani people about him and the anxious inquiries they made every day about his health. It was their hearts’ desire that circumstances might soon enable him to break the fast. If there was anything that he could do towards that end he was ready and so were the people of Pakistan. Zaheed Hussain was followed by Khurshid and Randhawa who on behalf of the administration reiterated the assurance that all the conditions mentioned in the citizens’ pledge would be implemented, and no effort would be spared to restore the Indian capital to its traditional harmony and peace. Sardar Harbans Singh endorsed the appeal on behalf of the Sikhs. When Rajendra Prasad said: “I have signed on behalf of the people, please break your fast,” Gandhi replied: “I shall break my fast. Let God’s will prevail. You all be witness today.”

Twelve days later, on January 30, 1948, Gandhi was murdered at his daily prayer meeting.
Read the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the conspiracy:
http://dilipsimeon.blogspot.in/2012/03/report-of-commission-of-inquiry-into.html

********
The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi are available online, at this link:

Gandhi, M.K., Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Online.

http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html

Controversy regarding alterations made by the NDA government in the collected works:

http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg_controversy.html

See also: A White Line and a Mosque:
http://dilipsimeon.blogspot.in/2011/12/white-line-and-mosque.html

Glory Days, or remembering how Indians love(d) China

This article appeared in the India International Centre Quarterly special issue titled 'India and China:Neighbours, Strangers’, edited by Ira Pande (HarperCollins), 2010.

Glory Days
by Dilip Simeon

Many years ago, when some of us argued about the ills of the present and, more to the point, the ills of contemporary India, we would be asked by our elders where such ideals had ever been implemented. ’In China!’ we’d reply without hesitation’ Peoples’ China was our El Dorado, the land of promise. Under the leadership of the Great Helmsman, Chairman Mao, the Chinese Communist Party was looking after the true interests of Chinese peasants and workers, and marching towards the socialist future. Nay, as we were communists and hence internationalists, the Great, Glorious and Correct Chinese Communist Party - GGC-CCP for short - represented the oppressed people of the entire world! China was the future transported into the present. Our elders and betters would point out the totalitarian nature of the regime, the total lack of freedom of speech and political democracy. What freedom, we’d reply. Freedom for whom? India needed to be like China, and we were going to take it in that direction.

More than four decades have passed since then. And - as I learnt in the course of a recent conversation with a friend in the corporate world - today, it is the corporate honchos who regard China with great admiration. This is fairly well-known, for haven’t many of us heard the utterance ’Mumbai will be India’s Shanghai’? Yet it felt different upon personal audition. ’oh, if only India could be like China’, my friend said enviously. Technology was going to solve all the world’s problems, and China was leading the way. Social and political issues were a complete red herring. No troublesome trade unions, no stalling on infrastructural development in the name of displacement. No bloody human-rights walas objecting to piffling hiccups such as forced re-settlement, land-acquisition and special economic zones. A State committed to untrammelled progress’ Into that heaven of bliss, he seemed to say, let my country awake!

Amazing as it is to contemplate the PRC’s transition from the armed camp of the world proletariat to a capitalist utopia, it-is still more wondrous to sit back and reflect on how exactly the Chinese Communist Party manages to remain in the same place (absolute power in China) even through the complications of transferring its magnetic appeal from starry-eyed extremist youth, to equally starry-eyed multi-billionaires.

The original charisma of the PRC was iconoclastic. Maoism burst upon the imagination of radical youth as a rebellion launched against the decrepit ’orthodox marxism’ of the Soviet Union. It appeared as the language of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution - GPCR, in short. In its self-understanding, this was the name for Mao’s final attempt to prevent the chinese Communist Party from abandoning socialism for capitalism. 


ln 1966, the Great Helmsman issued, his famous call to Chinese students and youth: Bombard the Headquarters, as he exhorted them to assist him in cleansing the party of bureaucratic and revisionist tendencies. The GPCR had a ripple effect felt far outside China, for it coincided with a global wave of anticapitalist and anti-imperialist movements, as well as unrest in the socialist camp. Let us not forget that 1968 witnessed the May uprising in France, and the Prague Spring followed by the Soviet invasion (more on this later); the bloody Mexico Olympics, and the Tet offensive by the National Liberation Front in Vietnam. All and these these events served to inspire a new generation of young people the world over, who were politicized via a critique of the dominant Russian-style communism.

We came to revolutionary ideas via a re-assessment of Marxism, and China played a major role in this. I remember the hubbub caused on Delhi University campus when Joan Robinson visited the Delhi School of Economics wearing a Mao cap. She was on her way back from a trip to China, and full of enthusiastic admiration for the GPCR. I didn’t get to see her, but my close friend (the late) Arvind Das did, and told us all about it. She was actually brandishing a copy of the highly prized Little Red Book of Quotations from Chairman Mao-tse Tung, he said. And whenever someone threw her a critical question about China, she would read out an appropriate quotation. For example, when someone asked her: ’Don’t you think Marxism is dogmatic?’, her answer was: 'Chairman Mao says dogma is worse than cowdung!’ And so on.

I first read about the GPCR in Robinson’s slim book on the subject, The Cultural Revolution in China. It was brought out by Penguin books (those days there was no Indian edition), as were several seminal texts considered de rigueur for budding radicals. I wonder now what the Revolution would have done without Penguin Books. Our indoctrination, for one, would have been a non-starter. The Communist Manifesto was among such Penguin titles, although that was being sold for maybe eight annas in PPH (People’s Publishing House) in Connaught Place, along with other necessary readings. However, Penguin gave us Che Guevara, books on Vietnam, African and Latin American liberation struggles. It also provided cult titles, such Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth; Regis Debray’s Revolution in the Revolution?, to mention just a few. Penguin’s contribution to world revolution apart, there were other things we read that formed our first, fresh view of the world’s Red Base. These included Edgar Snow’s Red Star Over China, and Felix Green’s The Wall Has Two Sides. Not to mention Israel Epstein’s From Opium War to Liberation.

As an ideology of newly radicalized youth, Maoism was at its very outset a mix of iconoclastic rebellion and beneficient tyranny. The iconoclasm was more apparent than the tyranny, but with hindsight, the latter was blatant, even if we did not recognize it then as such. The call to murder exploiters, to send recalcitrant leaders and sceptical intellectuals to camps where they could break stones to help them focus their minds, was not exactly a democratic aspiration! Yet this was not how we saw it then. Revolution was, after all, an act simultaneously liberating and repressive: liberating for the poor, repressive for the exploiters. That was why Marxism had described the first phase of socialism as a dictatorship of the proletariat.

So this was how we saw China in our youth. The fascination lasted for years, and had many repercussions, aside from prompting some to take up the Naxalite cause. For others it provided the spark of motivation for a closer study of China. They paid attention to papers on the Far East if they were history students, or to communism and socialism if they studied political science. They tried to see things from the Chinese point of view, as outlined by Felix Greene, and by Neville Maxwell in India’s China War. Some took up the study of the Chinese language. Many sympathized with the Chinese position in its border dispute with the USSR. Even those not inclined to revolutionary politics and the urge to bring about a Chinese-style revolution in India, admired China for its forthright opposition to American imperialism, and its support for liberation movements and popular causes the world over. It is a pity things have turned out as they have, because there was a lot of goodwill for the PRC in India, goodwill that was undermined by the intemperate ultra-left politics of Chairman Mao’s twilight years, and China’s disastrous support for Yahya Khan’s brutal suppression of the Awami League in East Pakistan in 1970-71. It is not an exaggeration to say that China’s alliance with Pakistan and the USA, not to mention its paranoia about granting a greater degree of autonomy to Tibet, has been at the cost of its friendship potential with India.

Until the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, this faith in the radical purity of the CCP remained intact. From then on, there was something that made one less sure about its intentions. The Warsaw Pact invaded Prague to crush the Prague Spring, a term denoting the democratic atmosphere in that socialist republic inculcated by the reformist communist, Alexander Dubcek. This lasted only a few weeks before Soviet tanks went in, arrested all the reformists, and secured Czechoslovakia against the deadly virus of democracy. The experiment named ‘socialism with a human face’ was dead. In India, the CPI was in crisis for some 48 hours before coming out in support of the Soviet line. The CPM hailed the invasion immediately. Maoist students were relieved to find that China opposed it. But did the CCP oppose it on grounds of ‘violated sovereignty’, or of a defence of democracy? It was apparent that their opposition stemmed more from hatred and fear of the Soviets than any other reason. The animus became clearer the following year, with Sino-Soviet clashes over their shared northern border, along the Ussuri River. From then on, the language of doctrinal dispute became vitriolic. It was Soviet ‘social-imperialism’ that became China’s main enemy, leading finally to its opening up to the USA in 1971 and Nixon’s visit to Peking in 1972.

The Naxalite insurgency began in April 1967, with the declaration of a ‘people’s war’ against the Indian state by the extreme faction of Indian communism. The Chinese leadership welcomed the armed clashes between tea-garden labourers and tribal peasants in Naxalbari (north Bengal) with a Peoples’ Dailyeditorial titled ‘Spring Thunder Over India’. Relations between China and India took a plunge, with the CCP openly advocating the violent overthrow of the Indian state. Why didn’t it also call for the revolutionary overthrow of the Burmese, Pakistani, and Ceylonese (Sri Lankan) states, or the Nepali monarchy? Truth to tell, some busybodies did ask such uncomfortable questions, but questioning was never encouraged amongst truly fervent Marxists. We soon quelled our natural curiosity. China and the Chairman knew best.

This deterioration went along with a parallel decline in relations between China and the other major communist party in India, the CPI(M). China and the USSR were at daggers drawn, and several leftists feared this would affect the support for Vietnam’s struggle against the Americans. That did not happen, but when Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, his testament called for the Lao Dong (Vietnamese Workers Party) to strive to overcome the rift. A tall order indeed! In 1979, just four years after Vietnam was re-unified and the Americans driven out, Chinaactually invaded Vietnam. Deng Hsiao Ping wanted to ‘teach them a lesson’ (his words) for sending in the military to overthrow the Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot and his party, the Khmer Rouge, or Cambodian Communists. The Americans also had a soft spot for Pol Pot. Since they were still smarting from their ignominious defeat in 1975, they acquiesced in this punitive exercise and some rumours suggested that Pentagon satellites actually assisted the operations. Ultimately, Deng’s divisions were repulsed by Vietnamese border guards.

The greatest blow to China’s prestige arose out of its stance on the momentous developments in South Asia. From 1971 on, the Manichean formulations of Indian Maoism began shattering on the hard rocks of political reality. Chairman Mao shook hands with the war-criminal Kissinger as Vietnamcontinued to be bombed. A left-wing insurrection in Sri Lankawas smashed by the Bandaranaike government that enjoyed the support of India as well as Pakistan, the US, China and the USSR. Pakistan’s Army refused to honour the results of the November 1970 general election that had given the Awami League an absolute majority, and launched a brutal military crackdown in East Pakistan, with the full logistic and political backing of the Chinese government. Millions of poverty-stricken refugees flowed into West Bengal.

These happenings threw India’s Maoists into confusion. To begin with, loyalty to the Chinese version of events prompted many comrades to blame India and the USSR for the crisis in Pakistan. Some, however, soon became distressed by the cynicism of the CCP. For me personally, the crucial question was the matter of the freedom of speech and information. Did not Chinese workers have the right to know what was being done with the guns and ammunition that their government was exporting to Pakistan? It was shocking to learn that the Chinese press had not even informed the public of what the Pakistani army was up to. Evidently the dictatorship of the proletariat did not trust the proletariat with the truth. We were forcefully reminded of the role of the media in authoritarian hands. There was a famous Russian joke about Pravda and Izvestiya the two main Soviet newspapers: ‘There’s no pravda in izvestiya, and no izvestiya in pravda’. (Pravda means truth, and izvestiya means news in Russian). This was one domain in which the Chinese and Soviet comrades were in complete agreement. Those who imagine that the ‘degeneration’ of Chinese communism happened only after the death of Chairman Mao could enlighten themselves by reading Chou En Lai’s letter to Yahya Khan in April 1971, after he had begun the slaughter of innocents. From this time on, it became difficult to deny the ruthless pragmatism of the Chinese Communist Party. It was clear then, that they were motivated by great-power ambition rather than world revolution. Today, there’s little left to argue about.

The ultra leftists in the CCP were defeated after Mao’s death in 1976, but the thread of continuity between them and their successors derived from their nationalism, bordering on xenophobia. Until then, they had convinced many communists that internationalism was synonymous with Chinese nationalism. Some months ago, at a Sino-Indian conference in New Delhi’s India International Centre, I had the good fortune to meet some Chinese academics of my generation, as well as some old enough to be my children. To the elders -- one of whom had done hard labour during the Cultural Revolution -- I said, ‘Comrade! You did it because you were sent. You had no option – we went out and did hard labour, plus some other things, because we loved Chairman Mao!’ He looked at me as if I were daft. So did the younger Chinese I met there. They couldn’t believe they were hearing right.

As I relate these things, I experience a great sense of loss. The Chinese delegates I met at that conference were so very friendly, even affectionate. Why has it taken over four decades for me to meet and talk to ordinary Chinese people? Why has it not been possible for us to converse normally until very recently? China had such an immense impact upon the lives of so many Indians. Why were we denied the chance to speak to one another about this?

How we loved China and Chairman Mao! Mao was the route to humanity, to die for him was to die for the human race. It was immensely sad to see the death of that faith. Maybe such is the fate of all passionate attachments. Perhaps this could improve if we pruned our expectations. We need to speak again, not just about computer software, turnkey projects and expanding trade, but also about history and philosophy, books and paintings and what we want of life. We need to break the wall of silence and good manners and get back to being ordinary people.

We and the Chinese.

Also available at: http://www.sacw.net/article2455.html
See also: An Open Letter to the world on the Bangladesh crisis of 1971