Communist Parties in India: A Gramscian Interpretation

Communist Parties in India: Lessons from Gramsci’s ModernPrince

Arun Kumar Patnaik

The present paper proposes to examine Gramsci’s conceptof modern Prince, mythical prince, the Communist Party.It seeks to re-examine a proposition in Gramsci - `theparty tends to become universal and total’ - in the lightof history of Communist Parties in India. Gramsci remindsthat the CP must primarily draw its world-view in andthrough own history rather than look up to outside,outwards for building itself. One is reminded of D DKosambi’s criticism of the (united) Communist Party ofIndia’s ideology as Official Marxism (= OM, a powerfulHindu mantra): the united CPI fought many heroic battlesbut its worldview was ill-informed being derived fromoutside or from parallel movements in Russia/China/Europerather than national-popular history in India. Itsubstituted an immanent critique of history with borrowedmodels of class struggle and recited these models as meremantra (s) or formulae. The CPI imitated European modelsof class struggle as Dange, Damodaran and many others(from the CPI) imitated Engels’ model in 1950s. The CPIoscillated between the Soviet model of class struggle(insurrections) and the Chinese path of the partial armedstruggle (guerilla warfare) during the heyday of theCommunist-led Telengana movement in the 1950s. Yearslater, they imitated Chinese model of struggle in the CP(ML) movement in 1960s as the CPI (ML) parties latelyadmitted in an international conference in 1995:‘Communists missed specificities in India’s history’.

The Communist Parties (henceforth CPs) in India todaysymbolize certain rigidities like mass isolationism,domineering attitude towards alliance partners or non-party intellectuals or non-party people - what Gramscicalls Piedmontese tendencies or sectarianism. Where fromsuch rigidities come within the Party? The CPs alsoappear to be dogmatic in the face of new social movements

1

and have a tendency to parrot their party principles, ina doctrinaire fashion, against these new forms ofpolitical movements. What is this inexplicable dogmatismin the party? When did dogmatism begin to grip the CPs?Why and how such dogmas are sustained within the Party?How does the party, for example, explain the loss ofsupport from a small mass of people who ultimately go onto constitute part of “oceanic communities”? Does theParty, for example, feel sad for losing the support ofthe Gorkha voters for sometime to come? Is thisphenomenon global or local? Why do CPs take nosedive: itdemanded small state for the tribals in 1956 and tookquite opposite position in 1987 when it opposed the samedemand of the Gorkhas, thus leaving the field wide openfor the BJP to appropriate the CP’s original position onthe small state in the 1990s? If we follow dialectics inour analysis, it also demands an exploration of theopposite tendencies within the Party. Do you witness anycritical reflections of such dogmatic positions withinthe party? Do we have a history of critical traditionswithin the Communist parties? Are these tendencies ableto survive within the party? Who are these activists?What are their contributions? Or, are these criticaltendencies ultimately purged by the Party over a periodof time?

Marx, Lenin and Gramsci:

Before I start with Gramsci’s party building, let meissue a caution in the beginning.1 We must conceptualizeGramsci’s concept in relation to not merely his socio-intellectual context (that means in relation to Marx,Lenin and European history) but also try to see how farthey are relevant in Indian history, in relation to theIndian communist party history and so on. While doing sowe will be failing in our intellectual duty if we do notfollow dialectics as well as historical materialism. Thatmeans we should be following the same kind of principlesthat Gramsci advises all Marxists everywhere to follow:certain universal principles of Marxist method. Second,we should be aware that all principles of Marxist methodare not universal. For the simple reason that Marx was

2

good because he was a good historian. Always he waswilling to learn from history and revise his ownprinciples. That this attitude – all principles must bederived from history - is central in Marx’s thought. LikeMarx, Gramsci is acutely aware of supra-historical idealsgetting popular in communist camp, holding back itsfurther progress and thus remains a keen student ofMarx’s historical sensitivity.2

I wish India’s communist parties had learned veryimportant ideological and political lessons from thissignificant historical and methodological truth in Marx.The CPI factions refused to learn this point from Marx;that is to say, it refused to learn from India’s history,by repeatedly falling back on European labour standardsnow, or by following Soviet model now or by using Chinesemodel of feudalism or anti-feudal struggles now. Despitethis towering figure of our history D D Kosambi passingseveral strictures against the then undivided CPI’sreflection of Indian history, the party refused to debatewith his historiography. That this story in the historyof the CPI is a very important account in thispresentation, we shall return to this point a littlewhile from now.

But Gramsci’s “eagle’s eyes” (that is actually Lenin’sobituary phrase for Rosa Luxemburg) did not fail tonotice this very sharp methodological turn in Marxtowards an immanent view of history. Summarizing Marx,Gramsci writes: “Two points must orient the discussion:1. that no society sets itself tasks for whoseaccomplishment the necessary and sufficient conditions donot either already exist or not at least beginning toemerge and develop; 2. that no society breaks down andcan be replaced until it has developed all the forms oflife which are implicit in its internal relations”.3 Thereis still a third dimension in Gramsci’s theory. He goeson: “From a reflection on these two principles, one canmove on to develop a whole series of further principlesof historical methodology. Meanwhile, while studyingstructure, it is necessary to distinguish organicmovements (relatively permanent) from movements which may

3

be termed “conjectural” (which appear as occasional,immediate, and almost accidental)”.3

First and the foremost lesson from above discussions isas follows. All principles of Marxism so far includingthat of Gramsci or Lenin or Marx must be derived from andassessed in relation to the actual and living history.They are great minds. But these minds put together lookeven subordinate and secondary before historical truths.As historical discoveries are made from time to time,theirs as well as our theories, depending on thehistorical periods under discussion, will have to berelooked, rethought, revised and made up-to-date. Not asingle principle should be imposed from above by theCommunist party just as Marx refused to impose his ownprinciples on the world.4 That the party’s truth(s) mustkeep pace with history and historical truth (s).Otherwise, the Party would be sooner or later outdatedand outmoded by history. To do so, the party mustcontinuously learn from history. To do so, the Party mustcontinuously listen. Listen to whom? Remember Lenin’sadvice scattered over here and there.1 That is the way suggested to me to read Gramsci by Y V Krishna Rao but that is also a correct way everybody in India should look at Gramsci or Marx or Lenin: the question of relevance of models/concepts borrowed from these thinkers must be critically discussed in relation to India and cannot be simply assumed away as demonstrative truth or worse still, self-evident truths. 2 Marx’s warning to Vera Zasulich on her attempt to create a supra-historical scientific model of capitalism in his theory that can be followed anywhere in the globe. As against this effort by his Russianfollowers, Marx argues that his analysis of capitalism is valid for Western Europe only as of now. K Marx, “Pathways of Social Development: A Brief Against Supra-historical Theory”, in Hamza Alvi and T. Shanin (ed.), Introduction to the Sociology of `Developing Societies’, Macmillan, London, 1982, pp. 109-110. 3 A. Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, International Publishers, New York, 1971, p. 177.

3 Ibid. 4 See an interpretation of Marx as provided in my essay on “Theological Marxism” ( in the present volume).

4

Lenin himself was a very intent listener. His ideas canbe summarized as follows. The party must listen to aplural group of people: 1. listen to inner-partydemocracy; 2. attentive to all no-party leftintellectuals; 3. listen to common people outside partyfold; 4. the last but not the least, the Party must learnfrom advances made by science and by the liberal or evenright-wing philosophers or scientists (e.g. learn workdiscipline from Taylorism; learn many empirical truthsfrom positivism and so on). The party should evolve itsprinciples of organisation only after summing up allthese experiences. The Party should not forget any ofthese four groups and exclude any of them from thisprocess of dialogue with some while engaged in aconfrontation with others. The party must not collapseinto Bakunin-type voluntarism; that is to say, it mustnot evolve party principles purely out of its own will.Also, the Party must not fall back upon sectarianism;that is to say, it must not derive party principles fromone of the above sections excluding the other groups andthen impose these principles on the whole society. Itwould be travesty of truth to forget Lenin when we aretalking about party building. Gramsci comes back to someof these points of Lenin again and again or sometime onhis own without knowing Lenin’s similar positions in hisreflections in Prison Notebooks.

Gramsci’s Uniform Methodology to understand Politics ofthe CPAnd the Ruling Classes:

Gramsci argues that passive revolution is a very harmfulstrategy, if the CP should follow it. Passive revolutionis essentially a process whereby the ruling classes aimto capture the minds of the masses – a process where warof position is present but war of movement or war ofmanouvre or frontal attack is somewhat missing in thislong and protracted war against European feudalism forthe birth of new nation state founded upon liberaldemocratic principles. This process began after 1848 and

5

lasted up to the time of the rise of Fascism. What is thesignificance of 1848 for Antonio Gramsci? The birth ofthe Communist Manifesto? The authors of the Manifesto atthe same time and at once summed up the spirit of thattime: the specter of communism had begun to haunt thewhole of Europe. How true and up-to-date Marx and Engelswere in their understanding of contemporary Europe! Sincethe birth of communism rather than its Manifesto, to putit more accurately, the European bourgoisie had adopted awar against feudalism through passive revolution ratherthan active revolution as in the cases of France orEngland. They were anxious to avoid anti-feudal struggleof Cromwellian type or Jacobin type. The specter ofcommunism - not even real communism but, I repeat, a merespecter of it - was haunting them for creating a societybetter than capitalist society which they themselves werestriving to achieve – a task not even half completed bythe European bourgoisie by 1848. In this long period of passive revolutionary strategy,there were various tendencies predominant and Gramscicomes out with a long chain of concepts sometime withItalian names and sometime with European names tounderstand this process: Caesarism (precarious balance)or stable coalition of compromise or unstableequilibrium, Piedmontese tendency (trying to dominate analliance), the Napoleonic export of nation state or civilcodes, molecular transformism, appropriation, hegemonicor hegemony, presence/absence of war of position(intellectual and moral critiques)/war of movement(political movement)/war of maneuver (military attack),economism, corporatism, educator state, bureaucraticcentralism, nation state without popular will, theleading role of traditional intellectuals, and many more.More important for us is to understand that all theseconcepts can be applied to not merely to understand thenature of ruling class coalitions but also the nature ofpopular coalitions of which Gramsci’s CP is a centralpillar. That is how Gramsci understands the role of theCP by following certain uniform standards. He does notfollow one set of criteria for assessing the role of theruling classes and another set for the CP or popular

6

alliances. The fact that Gramsci gave forewarning to theCP to desist from following a passive revolutionstrategy, which is very harmful for the popular elementsspeaks volumes of sincerity, frankness and independentthinking associated with him. He saw, anticipated andunderstood the need to correct these mistakes in the CP.That is why the early warning, from one of its founders,for the CP or the party of `the future state’. The CP isvariously described by Gramsci as `the embryonic state’,`integral state’, `ethical state’, `the party ofdemocratic centralism’, `the party of organicintellectual’, `the party of cultural and politicalleadership, and intellectual and moral leadership’, `theparty as the unity of theory and praxis’, `the party asunity of common sense, religion and philosophy’, `theparty that should unite state with factory councils’ and`the party of philosophy of praxis’ and so on. To repeatmy point regarding the uniform methodology followed byGramsci, I would say that passive revolution is definedas a process of absences of these elements of the futurestate that must evolve in the present party. This shouldconclusively prove that Gramsci shows contempt for doublestandards in methodology that are being followed bycontemporary Marxist or post-Marxist intellectuals caughtup with the mentality of political correctness.5

I have just begun to say something of Gramsci’s conceptof party. These, as above, are various descriptions ofthe party. But I have so far talked about at length somany important clues or outlines that we must keep inmind to understand the CP and to understand all thesedimensions of the party. These methodological guidelinesare to be kept in mind to avoid many slippery oropportunistic reflections on the CP or on nature of theruling classes. We must be sincere to the body ofarguments or even hints that are offered by Gramsci.

These various descriptions of the party should be seen as`categorical imperatives’ that need to be done ratherthan `empirical imperatives’ that are already done.Strictly speaking, the Party should be derived from adialectical mix of both these imperatives: partly

7

positive empirical imperatives or partly many good thingsof today but it should be based on an unfolding reality.That means, factually, the party might look somethingdifferent but must try to base on many good things thatare already happening within the party today and yet musttry to be different from what it is today and becomesomething else: the party of the future state, integralstate; the party of a historical bloc; the party of abloc dialectic; the party of dual perspectives or two-line struggles; the party of organic intellectual; theparty of philosophy of praxis and many more. Now let usdiscuss these various descriptions of the CP in somedetails. These imperatives should be seen as part of aprocess of becoming that includes being rather than beingthat excludes becoming of the CP.

To put it in simple terms, the Party should not only beengaged in transforming an unequal society but also aimat transforming its very being – a kind of dual

5 A few very influential essays have been written about “Nehru and Passive Revolution” by Partha Chatterjee, “A Critique of Passive Revolution” by S. Kaviraj, “Gramsci in Hindutva Times” by Aijaj Ahmedand so on. But the authors have shown exemplary opportunism in following Gramsci’s concepts. Both Chatterjee and Kaviraj define passive revolution as a sign of precarious class coalitions, which isactually a part of the Gramscian concept. Both of them are silent on the birth of socialism, at least its specter, at the moment of genesis of passive revolution. I do not intend to probe into the authors’ silence but I have difficulties in accepting an inadequate definition attributed to Gramsci. Similarly, Ahmed’s otherwise very eloquent essay on Hindutva does not try to say anything on the political and ideological weaknesses of the Left secularists, e.g., its electoral compromises with the Jana Sangh, its refusal to articulate cultural principles of syncretism, its proclivities to economic reductionism and so on, which went a long way in facilitating the rise of Hindutva forces. Such opportunistic interpretations clearly go against Gramsci’s attempt to evolve uniform methodology to scrutinize the politics of the ruling class orthe Communist Party. However, a recent genuine application of Gramscian concept is to be found in A Biography of the Indian Nation by Ranabir Samaddar, (Sage, 2002) who argues how passive revolution, apart from a strategy of precarious class coalition , is actually a counter to various forms of class struggle waged by subaltern classes.

8

transformation - so that both society and the partyshould become something else as expected or planned. TheParty must follow a dual struggle – one against societyon the basis of society and the other against itself onthe basis of itself. What are these plans for the CP?What are these expectations of CP from none other thanone of its founders and a critical, a very independentminded activist intellectual?

The Communist Party and Universals

First, let us begin with the Party’s universals. Gramscisays that the Party is a universal or totalizing categoryand it has also universal principles. The Party is a“collective will tending to become universal and total.”6

Recollect whatever I said about Lenin. The party or themodern prince or mythical prince must pick up itself as acollective entity rather than as an individual. Thisindividual probably is not a person. What Gramsciprobably means is what Lenin says. The Party should notderive principles from the individual experiences, fromexperience of one of the four individual sections asdescribed above. It is a collective entity. It must,without fail, derive principles from a summary ofindividual experiences of all the relevant sections asalready outlined by Lenin. We have seen this aspectbefore. So I need not elaborate again and again. That ishow the CP can aspire to be truly `universal and total’.People – all these four sections (try to add to Lenin’sindividual sections if you can but I could not) -constitute the whole of society. When each section seessome of its own principles in the whole of the CP, theywould feel elated, recognized and absorbed. Every sectionwill start telling another section: `Lo and behold! TheCP’s principles are our own’ but they will also find thatthe Party says much more. Then each individual sectionwill start wondering where from these extra principles ofthe Party do come. Then they will discover that allParty’s own principles are derived and summarized from

6 Gramsci, Op. Cit, p.129.

9

entire society in a dialectical way as stated before.That is how the Party becomes `universal and total’.Having seen their own sectional principles in the wholeof the Party, having realized that the Party hasborrowed, summarized and synthesized all its principlesfrom different sections of society, each section willstart to learn from the Party and know about the extraprinciples of the Party and then will become lesssectarian and more broad minded as the Party is. Theparty which is initially a good listener or learner nowbecomes, on public demand, good educator.

The CPs world over have become very sectarian and narrow-minded. Let alone owning some universal truth, they arenow afraid of even partial truth. They are the harbingersof political correctness which has now spread tentacleswithin new social movements for the most of leaders ofnew social movements are actually ex-comrades of the CPs.They have nurtured identities, class labels, party labelsand negative mind sets, rejectionist outlook so much sothat Ramachandraiah calls this entire process as `siegementalities’ of the CPs.7 That is to say, the Partiestend to think that if they say something positive ofcontemporary bourgeois science or philosophy andsomething positive of new social movements orpostmodernism or something positive of globalisation orcontemporary capitalism, the CPs would be further splitup and fragmented and their cadres might join these`enemy’ forces. Thus, the CPs might ultimately cease tobe communist parties. Why this fear? Why this alarmisttrend or siege mentality in the CPs?

In their joint work, Monopoly Capital, Paul Baran and PaulSweezy argued how with birth of communism in 1848, theWestern capitalism lost its world outlook to communism.While that is true for 19th century, they forgot to addthat by the time of their write-up in the late 1960s, thewestern capitalism regained its world outlook from theCommunist parties by ideologically encircling them. To

7 C Ramachandraiah (CESS, Hyderabad) in a personal conversation with the author.

10

draw an analogy from Fidel Castro, infiltrate the enemycamps with comrades and weaken from inside and help themdisintegrate. What Castro did to his enemies in a smallisland, the much more willy and intelligent rulers ofEurope have now done the same thing by encircling andthen forcing the CPs to fall in love with its worldviewand thereby failing to appeal to new and neweruniversals. Since then the CPs are caught up with siegementalities and are behaving now like encircled tigersfretting and fuming inside their cages or now lookingdown upon on other social movements with utter contemptfrom their self-imposed cocoons or now behaving with afrog-in-well syndrome.

Look at the dynamism of capital after 1950s and comparethat with those of the CPs world over. What lessonscapitalism has learned from the birth of the OctoberRevolution onwards or its own failings in the subsequentdecades following 1917? What lessons the CPs have learnedfrom the collapse of socialism in 1989? Commenting on theformer tendency in Western capitalism, Gramsci makes afew brilliant observations. This new tendency was justbeginning in Western capital when Gramsci observed but, Idare say, this conjectural moment has grown into an`organic trend’ in the movements of contemporary capital.After every seizure of state power by communism since1917 or the failure of capitalism to counter communistinfluences over 20th century, the capitalist class haslearned every bit of positive things from the communisthistory. I think this is one of the most original pointsmade by Gramsci.8

8 Gramsci cites a liberal journalist’s views: “…… it would be interesting to know whether in their heart of hearts the more intelligent industrialists were not convinced that `critical economy’(Marx’s Capital) contained very good insights into their affairs, and whether they do not take advantage of the lessons thus acquired.” See, Gramsci, op. cit., 391-392. In fact, recently in a Ministerial conference held in Davos to promote globalisation, a Korean industrialist said that he learned a lot from a frequent reading of Marx’s work, “Profits, Wages and Capital”.

11

Gramsci argues that since the success of the OctoberRevolution in 1917, the European ruling classes havestarted to listen to Marx very seriously and startedisolating essential features from non-essential aspectsin Marx – a procedure Paul Sweezy, a long-standingMarxist economist, invites and advises non-Marxists tofollow and test Marxian ideas many years later. One veryimportant lesson the European rulers have learned is fromthe following maxim of Marx: in so long as there is roomfor productive forces to grow under the existingproduction relations, people would not preferrevolutionary tasks. This historical principle that Marxdiscovered has become essential lesson for Europeanruling classes despite two imperialist wars in between1917 to 1950 and fascist assaults on democracy. Duringthe post-war period, the Western capitalist classes haveachieved a kind of social and political equilibrium allover. This could happen due to the fact that the rulingclasses learned objective lessons Marx’s doctrines. I amreferring to the experiments carried out in the field ofproductive forces especially technological, scientificrevolutions and the consequent rise of scientificmanpower. These experiments in productive forces havethwarted the possibility of political revolution in theWest and also have thwarted the possibility of a genuineglobalisation.

In the absence of political revolution, a new wave ofsocial movements and their NGOs pressing for a series ofreforms have caught the minds of common people. There aretherefore no revolutionary conditions created by anorganic contradiction between productive forces and theproduction relations. When there are no organiccontradictions in society, society is not willing toundertake revolutionary tasks. What should the Communistparties do? Are they redundant now? Who is responsiblefor this fate? They themselves. Their old agenda ofrevolution is postponed for a long time to come. Also,the associated concepts like the dictatorship ofproletariat, the seizure of the state power, thedestruction of the old state machinery and so on are kept

12

inside the trouser pockets of CP workers just as Nehrusaid that the CPI was inside his trouser pocket!

And I dare say that the World Bank has not given up thefamous slogan of CPs since Marx’s times: the dictatorshipof proletariat. Making further inroads into the frontierareas of the CPs, the Bank argues, very selectivelythough but significant enough, for a policy of`empowerment’ of the Dalits, Blacks, Women, following thepressures from these new movements. I propose that theBank’s policy of empowerment is similar to Marx’s conceptof the dictatorship of proletariat provided we all agreewith my other submission that new social movements are onthe `frontier areas’ of CPs. In my defense, I submit thefollowing.

I have borrowed this term `frontier area’ from PierreBordeau, a very influential French thinker. But itseffective use here is somewhat different from whatBordeau intends in the cultural field. A frontier area isnot a main area. It is essentially a border area withimmense possibilities which are not available in themainland. The main site of the CPs is working class andits struggle. Dalits, women and adivasis are in itsborder areas of struggle. Just as people in the frontierareas are interconnected with the mainlanders in culturalfield, so also these new subaltern groups are interlockedwith the working class. Eighty percent of Dalitsconstitute rural working class in India. What aboutwomen? Women’s oppression is more universal than classoppression at least in time and space. As Marx says in theGerman Ideology, women do suffer from the most `original’form of oppression: sexual division of labour in familyand field. And Marx continues, sexual division of labouris `the first stage’ in the social division of labour. Soin terms of time, women’s oppression precedes classexploitation. Yet, in terms of space too its presence isfelt in more areas than class exploitation. At least, inmany tribal areas where classes are not formed yet or inthe process of formation, women’s oppression is felt dueto elaborate norms of sexual division of labour.

13

What is the attitude of the CPs towards non-classcategories? Especially gender which is more universalthan class? The Parties are following the policy offrog-in-well syndrome. It has looked down upon the newsocial movements. With a mindset of a mainlander’sprejudice, the CPs look down upon the frontier areas ofstruggle where there are many areas of interests whichare common between working class, Dalits, and women. Forall these new social movements, on the other hand, due tohumiliations meted out by the mainlander’s prejudice,frog-like arrogance heaped on them by the CPs, theGramsci’s CPs today will not be considered as `tendingtowards universal and total’. Thus, Gramsci’s party isprobably one of the many universals today but it does notrepresent `total society’ any more. In order to be`tending to total’, as Gramsci argues, the CPs must shredof their intemperate language towards each other, towardsnew social movements, carry on dialogue rather than tryto dominate them. To do so, they must carry out classstruggle but come out of its cocoons. Without classstruggle, the CPs will cease to be communist party butwith class struggle alone, they will be forced by theirown agenda to retreat into cocoons.

To aid and abet this process of retreat by the CPs andmore and more retreat into cocoons of class struggle, sothat the alliances of working class-Dalit-women would notmateralise to challenge capitalism, the World Bank hasnow taken up the policy of empowerment of Dalits, Womenand Adivasis. I submit that the Bank has learned this newpolicy from the weak, fragmented, severally split, andthereby encircled and outdated and discredited CommunistParties. After years of research, they have found a newmantra for the ever persisting and ever demanding newsocial movements. What proof we have to say? Now let usnow turn our attention towards this point.

The Bank’s concept of empowerment is deeply linked withtwo or three arguments in Marx which have been aptlyhighlighted by many liberal democratic thinkers who aresympathetic to Marx sans his political commitment. Thereare people like Amartya Sen and his research team; there

14

are people like Gabriel Almond and his research team andso on. They are the 20th century followers of Descarteswho give `enlightenment advice’ to any body and everybody for a hefty fee. They have also worked very closelywith the Bank. These people are so well-read about Marxthat many Marxists in Third World will feel ashamed totalk to them as we are without their creativeimagination. I will reflect on this body of literaturewhich has probably gone into the Bank’s policy making.This body of literature has learned two most importantthings from Marx which are actually closely associatedwith the policy of empowerment: capacity building andpeople’s aspirations to govern themselves. But the Bank’spolicy of empowerment is limited and restricted to localgovernance or micro processes and not beyond them inrelation to national or even regional political economy.

Needless to say that Marx’s concept of the dictatorshipof proletariat represents both these tendencies: theworking class must develop own capacity as this is themost under-capacitated class among all modern classes andit can do so only by a process of self-governance. Theseare two most positive points in Marx for liberaldemocratic thinkers like Sen and Almond and everythingelse associated with the said concept is non-essential:like transformation of the state machinery at nationallevel and international level or equitable distributionof property.

What are the important lessons that the communist partieshave learned from the collapse of socialism in 1989?They have retreated more and more into cocoons and cages.Some of them are afraid of calling themselves asCommunist parties and are now busy in frequently renamingthemselves. They have learned nothing from any bodyliving or dead except defending the same old socialistsystem, opposing globalization for conspiring thecollapse of socialism or blaming the reformers forconspiracy. If they had learned any important lesson,then they should have reformed themselves first. Sincethat has not happened, any other change may be a minor.Who then is afraid of the specter of communism? Who has

15

kept Marxian concepts in their trouser pockets? Who iscaught up with a siege mentality? While the World Bankhas come up with a policy of co-option for the new socialmovements, the CPs are blaming everybody including newsocial movements for playing into the hands of the Bankor foreign funds, thus leading to the collapse ofsocialism or resulting in the weakening of socialistforces. Notice that cause is blaming effect. This siegementality is so much so that both party and non-partyintellectuals are afraid of talking about the Partycritically. Blame globalisation and the Bank for everyother problem faced by the CP?

The Communist Party and Indian History

There are specific historical problems that areassociated with the CPs in India. We shall now return ourattention to this borrowing mentality of the CPs in Indiawhich we have already hinted in this text in relation toKosambi’s polemics with the official Marxism or what hecalls as `OM’. Kosambi argues that the undivided CPI hada bankrupt understanding of Indian history. Kosambi tookexception to comrade Dange’s approach to our historypublished by PPH then. By comparing Dange’s book `FromPrimitive Communism to Slavery in Ancient India’ withNehru’s Discovery of India, Kosambi argues that hisadmiration of Dange’s political cause is undying. Dangehad stood by the working class in Mumbai; Dange hadsuffered `police hospitality’ (Kosambi’s euphemism forpolice brutality) under Nehru’s government. Dange was theleader of the undivided CPI with unflinching loyalty tothe Indian working class. But the immaturity Dange haddisplayed in simply following Engel’s book `Family,Private Property and the State’, super-imposing thatmodel of history of Europe on Indian history, Dange hadcommitted a huge inexcusable crime on India’s heritage.Now, compare Dange’s book with that of Nehru. We willrealize how Gramsci is correct in saying that after 1917,the matured ruling classes fall back on Marx whereverpossible. Nehru did exactly that.

16

Nehru, now the leader of the Indian bourgeoisie, wasabsolutely correct in saying that Marx’s method ofhistory is superior to anybody else. While the leader ofIndian ruling classes did follow Marx the historian, theCP leaders here spoiled our understanding Indian historyby certain blind imitations of everything European orRussian or Chinese, being enamoured by the successfulparallel experiments in these countries.

I would like to add one more point raised by Kosambi:with Nehru’s book Indian bourgoisie had come off itschildhood and become more matured, whereas in Dange’shistory, Marx’s method of inquiry has been substitutedfor a shoddy and blind imitation of Engels’s model ofclass analysis. Kosambi argues, “The outstandingcharacteristic of a backward bourgoisie, the desire toprofit without labour or grasp of technique (read R&D),is reflected in the superficial `research’ so common inIndia; it would be pathetic to find it also in thewritings of one who has suffered for his belief inMarxism”.9 Dange’s official Marxism (OM) is so `anxious toidentify’ in Indian history with the general stages offamily and classes set out by Engels that one can findatrocious statements made by Dange on almost every page.Broadly speaking, Dange tried to identify chattel slaveryin India by equating with the formation of Dasa (inEnglish slaves). But what is known as the Sudra caste,Dasyus, formed by the aid of the state, actuallyprevented real slavery in India. Lower castes cannot beequated with slaves as Dange does. Thus, Dange’s verytitle is wrong, for his sources contain neither primitivecommunism nor slavery. As Kosambi argues, Marxism is not`substitute for thinking’. It is rather a guide for newthinking and action. Dange’s OM, however, is not troubledto read his own sources and proper materials on historyof India as he tends to superimpose Engels’s classanalysis on our history. Kosambi said but for the fact

17

that Dange was a very key leader of the undivided CPI, hewould have not cared to comment on his book.10

I do not want to say anything about how the communistmovement led by the CPI, immediately after independence,followed the Soviet model of class struggle under B TRanadive’s leadership at the national level which was atvariance with the call by the Andhra Committee for theChinese path of struggle under C Rajewara Rao’sleadership especially at the height of the Telenganaarmed struggle.11

I would like to add how the communists followed theChinese model of struggle, misread Indian feudalism interms of the Chinese feudalism, followed and still dofollow especially within CPI (ML) factions and theCPI(M), the method of partial strategic warfare (inparliamentary mode) or the Yenan model of armed struggle.In 1995 in an international workshop held in Hyderabad on`The Specificities of Indian Revolution’, all the MLgroups confessed that they have not so far understood thespecificity of Indian feudalism or put it more sharply,the specificities of Indian history. They argued, for thefirst time, how they did not understand Indian feudalismand were misled to think that Indian feudalism was likeChinese feudalism and asked Indian masses to follow theChinese path of class struggle. And what are then thespecificities of Indian Revolution? According to thedocument prepared by one comrade Appa Rao of the PWG fromjail, the following are specifities of Indian feudalism

9 See D D Kosambi, “Marxism and Ancient Indian Culture” (1948) in author, History and Society: Problems of Interpretation , Universityof Bumbay, Bombay, 1989, pp. 73-74.

10 Kosambi, Op. Cit., p.78. and also his major book, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1975, (especially the last two chapters)1

11 Refer Y V Krishna Rao’s biography in this connection in I Mallikarjuna Sarma (ed.), In Retrospect, V0L 5 – Part II, Ravi Enterprises, 2003; See also Javeed Alam’s essay, “Communist Politics in Search of Hegemony”, in Partha Chatterjee (ed.), Wages of Freedom,Oxford, New Delhi, 1995, pp. 188-190.

18

ignored by the CP. The party ignored that Indianfeudalism is built from above. There is centralized statemachinery in India unlike in China. The centralized stateunites and defends the ruling classes through politico-military strategy. It also disorganizes the toilingmasses. In China, however, the state was `decentred’. TheChinese rulers were factions of landlords who weredisorganized rather than united. They were defendingthemselves by their respective armies. So the CPC adoptedpartial strategic warfare and liberated one zone afteranother, and this too after fully studying thepreparedness of the local mass movements against thedecentered landlords and their history of armed conflictwith the common people. Thus, Appa Rao goes on.

How these are few remarkable advances made in the Party’sunderstanding or probably turning points in itsideological positions? What the PWG in 1995, just as theundivided CPI, however, missed is that these aspects werealso part of Kosambi’s understanding in the 1940s and1950s. Therefore, there is nothing new about them. If theCPI had debated with Kosambi, the undivided CP would haveprobably learned all these things in 1950s itself.

These ideological positions are now very comforting. Thatwas in 1995. And what is still disturbing for me is thatthe PWG is saying only 10 per cent of what Kosambi says.Kosambi argues that there is a Chanakya tendency andthere is a Manu tendency in Indian feudalism. These weregreat institutional builders of Ancient India. What thePWG in the above document referred was to the Chanakyatendency – feudalism from above, though in a veryincipient way. What it missed however was the so-calledManu tendency – feudalism from below. That meansfeudalism was well organised from below through the castesystem built by Manu and so many traditionalintellectuals later on. By so doing so the Indian rulersavoided the need to build chattel slavery as in Europe oreven the need to frequently rely on local or nationalarmy to suppress the aspirations of common people, unlikethe ruling classes in China. This point was missed by thePWG in 1995. Moreover, the Appa Rao document hesitates to

19

draw all necessary political inferences from certainideological advances that the same document achieves.This is another form of siege mentality of the Group. Asa result, the Group is still engaged in many adventuredramas inspired by the Chinese model of partial strategicwarfare in Indian conditions, instead of discarding it asthe said document politically anticipates but refuses tosay so.12

And, to repeat, what the undivided CPI missed in 1948,the PWG missed in 1995 - all these points and many moreinsights from Kosambi by excommunicating hishistoriography. So, it was falling back on Engels’ modelof class analysis now or on a Soviet model of classstruggle now or years later, after splits in 1967, on aCPC’s model of class struggle now. In all thesetendencies there lies a feverish zeal to blindly borrowsuccessful models from abroad and a stubborn refusal tolearn from Indian history. That provoked D D Kosambi tocriticize the CPI for substituting historical truth withreceived wisdom of Marxism. This would have provoked Marxto say the same thing to his Indian followers what hetold his Russian admirer in 1878: “He absolutely insistson transforming my historical sketch of the genesis ofthe capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general course fatallyimposed on all peoples, whatever the historicalcircumstances in which they find themselves placed, ….. Ibeg his pardon. (It does me both too much honor and toomuch discredit.)”13 Superimposing external historicalmodels on India’s history is indeed a major failing inthe history of CPs in India. Should I dare say that when12 When I asked Vara Vara Rao what are the political inferences of this remarkable ideological shift of the PWG? And why the CP is silent about drawing political conclusions from these significant ideological shifts? Why are these political inferences missing in this document and so on? VV said that the Party should ponder over and come to definite political conclusions soon. How soon since 1995 as the CP has moved ahead with more of insurrection after renaming itself as Maoist party? Meanwhile, the CP faction has set up caste-based mass organisations, it is wary of recognising ‘autonomy’-seeking anti-caste groups. That is true for all CP factions in India today.

20

you borrow models from abroad and super-impose on apeople, you tend to quarrel more which might have been avery important reason for several splits in CPs in Indiaand has also probably prevented the CPs uniting togethereven now? Only further research can tell us more and showthe conditions that divide the CPs then and now, and alsoshow new conditions for their unity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I must confess how inadequate and limitedmy account of Gramsci’s concept of Party is. I havespoken about two aspects of the party in Gramsci in somedetails: the party as a universal category, `tending tobe total’; and the party as immanent critique of history.There are many more aspects of Gramsci’s theory of Party:the party of organic intellectuals, the party of war ofposition/war of movement/war of frontal attack, the partyas historic bloc, the party as union of the state andfactory councils, the party as union of common sense,religion and philosophy, the party as unity of theory andpractice and so on. As I said, there are however too manyaspects of the party to be covered in any paper.

Lastly, I would like to avoid possible misunderstandingsof my paper. First, a likely criticism may arise: it isan academic or intellectual criticism of the CPs, thatthe present critic has no grass-roots knowledge of theparties, implying thus this critic is not to be takennote of having any worth. I dismiss this off-hand as aparty apologia, for the very same people are likely tosing praises if I do not criticize the party at all andwork within the party’s premises as a `tailistintellectual’ (to borrow this expression from Mao).Second, it is possible that some people are likely tocriticize it on the ground that it is a cynical accountof the communist parties and there is no solid concreteappreciation of the parties and that many good thingsthey have contributed in past and present, despite many

13 K Marx, Op. Cit., in Hamza Alvi and T. Shanin (ed.), Introduction to the Sociology of `Developing Societies’, Macmillan, London, 1982, pp. 109-110.

21

repressions. I take this criticism seriously. Third, on ahigher plane, a few comrades may still criticize that thepaper proposes a dialectical analysis of the parties butmoves in a very one-sided way to criticize the movement.It proposes an immanent critique of the movement but tofails to live up to it. Thus, the author’s position is aparadoxical one. I take this criticism even moreseriously. But I have two options in my reply. Either Iadopt the same position as that of the communist parties:adopt `blame it on Rio’ syndrome or follow the frog-in-well syndrome. Then, I lose moral rights to criticize themovements just as many CPs have lost moral high groundsto criticize globalisation. I cannot criticize with thesame seized mentalities of the CPs, yet remain fair in myassessment of them. The CPs fail more often to note manystrengths of contemporary capitalism - its resilience;its ability to co-opt the exploited and resistance alike;its ability to innovate new science; new technology; itsgospel of hard work and work discipline etc; the positivetendencies within finance capital (remember Marx’sdefinition of financial capital: `it is capital withoutprivate property’); its ability to learn from Marx,Gramsci and the CP history to manage its recurrent crisesfaced by globalisation; its ability to encircle communistmovements - its principal enemy – for a long time tocome; its ability to stomach contradictions withoutresolving them for a longer period like a pythondevouring its preys; and so on and so forth.

I will be failing in my duty, if I argue here with asiege mentality. I will be adopting the attitude ofBakunin, if I denounce communist parties and capitalismin the same way Bakunin did denounce capitalism and Marxor I will be adopting the same Bakunin-like attitude ofthe CPs today if I denounce globalisation or CPs withmuch more fury and fretting. Any sober analysis demandsdialectical or immanent critique. If I have not been ableto identify the positives or strengths in the CPs and itsmovements in India from its past or present and that tooin any elaborate fashion, it is only due to constraintsof space and time in this paper. That demands probably amuch longer work.

22

_____________________________________________________________________I dedicate this paper in the memory of comrade PrananathPatnaik, one of the founding fathers of the CPI (Odishaunit). Many of his Communist comrades would haveforgotten his words today. But a socialist leader ofRourkela recounted them in 1990, many years after he haddied, “If Prananathbabu were alive I would have probablyjoined the CPI, because he was a good listener and usedto insist that all his comrades should learn from non-party people – both intellectuals and commoners. Thiscapacity vanished in the CPI in Orissa after his death.”

This paper was originally presented and published in Y VKrishna Rao and A K Patnaik (ed.), Gramsci Today, C RFoundation and Vishalaandhra, Hyderabad, 2006.

Endnotes

23