The
following is the speech delivered by the CPI-M General Secretary at the EMS
Smrithi, Thrissur, (Kerala) on June 13, 2016.
Mainstream, VOL LIV No 27 New Delhi June 25, 2016
I am,
indeed, very happy to be back at the EMS Smrithi. I am honoured to inaugurate
this 2016 discussions on the ‘Idea of India: A New Agenda for
Reclaiming Secular Democracy’.
‘Idea
of India’ — The Backdrop
The
emergence of Nation-States was integral to the long process of transition of
human civilisation from the stage of feudalism to capitalism. This period also
threw up in Europe, the struggle for the separation of the State from the
Church. The triumph of capitalism over feudalism, at the same time, signified
the separation of the political authority from the myth of a divine sanction to
rule invoked by Kings and Emperors across the civilisations during the high
time of feudalism. The agreements of Westphalia finally signed in 1648 laid the
principles of sovereignty of the Nation- State and the consequent international
laws and is widely believed to establish an international system on the basis
of the principle of sovereignty of States; principle of equality between
States; and the principle of non-intervention of one State in the internal
affairs of another State usually referred to as the Westphalian system.
Westphalian Peace was negotiated between 1644-48 between the major European
powers. These treaties laid the basis for a host of international laws many of
which remain in force today.
During
the course of the defeat of fascism in World War II and the consequent dynamics
of decolonisation, the people’s struggles for freedom from colonialism threw up
many constructs regarding the character of these independent countries. For
sure, such constructs arose out of a long struggle in individual countries
against colonialism, including India, during this period.
‘Idea
of India’ — Evolution
The
concept of the ‘Idea of India’ emerged during the epic people’s struggle for
India’s freedom from British colonialism. What is this ‘Idea of
India’? To put it in simple terms, though conscious of its complex
multiple dimensions, this concept represents the idea that India as a country
moves towards transcending its immense diversities in favour of a substantially
inclusive unity of its people.
Prof
Akeel Bilgrami, in his introduction to a volume of essays containing revised
versions of lectures on the relations between politics and political economy in
India given at a seminar in 2010 at the Heymen Centre for Humanities at
Columbia University, New York (a Centre that he chaired then), says about my
observations on the ‘Idea of India’, then, the following:
“(This)
might be viewed as an ideal of a nation that rejects the entire trajectory in
Europe that emerged after the Westphalian peace. What emerged then (and there)
was a compulsion to seek legitimacy for a new kind of state, one that could no
longer appeal to older notions of the ‘divine right’ of states personified in
their monarchs. It sought this legitimacy in a new form of political psychology
of a new kind of subject, the ‘citizen’, a psychology based on a feeling for a new form of entity that had emerged, the
‘nation’. This feeling, which came to be called ‘nationalism’, had to be
generated in the populace of citizens, and the standard process that was
adopted in Europe for generating it was to find an external enemy within, the outsider, the ‘other’ in one’s midst (the
Irish, the Jews, to name just two), to be despised and subjugated. In a
somewhat later time, with the addition of a more numerical and statistical form
of discourse, these came to be called ‘minorities’ and the method by which this
feeling for the nation was created came to be called ‘majoritarianism’.” (Social Scientist, January-February 2011)
The
RSS/BJP objective of replacing the secular democratic modern Indian Republic
with their concept of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ is, in a sense, athrow back to the Westphalian model where the Hindu
majority subjugates other religious minorities (mainly Muslim: the external enemywithin) to foster ‘Hindu
Nationalism’ as against ‘Indian Nationhood’. This, in fact, represents a throw back to notions of nationalism that dominated
the intellectual discourse prior to the sweep of the Indian people’s struggle
for freedom. Such a State, based on ‘Majoritarianism’—their version of a
rabidly intolerant fascistic ‘Hindu Rashtra’—negates
the core, around which emerged the consciousness of Indian Nationhood contained
in the ‘Idea of India’ as a reflection of the emergence of “a political
psychology of a new kind”.
The
RSS/BJP ideologues dismiss the ‘Idea of India’ as a mere idea—a metaphysical concept.
They reassert as a given reality Indian (Hindu) nationalism, negating the epic
freedom struggle of the Indian people. From this struggle emerged the concept
of Indian Nationhood rising above the Westphalian concept of ‘nationalism’.
The
RSS/BJP today are spearheading the most reactionary ‘throwback’ to Indian
(Hindu) nationalism as against the Indian Nationhood (the ‘Idea of India’)
consciousness that emerged from the epic people’s struggle for freedom from the
British colonial rule. Akeel Bilgrami asserts to this: “The prodigious and
sustained mobilisation of its masses that India witnessed over the last three
crucial decades of the freedom struggle could not have been possible without an
alternative and inclusionary ideal of this kind to
inspire it.” (Social Scientist, Volume 39, Number 1-2, 2011)
India’s
diversity—linguistic, religious, ethnic, cultural etc.—is incomparably vaster
than in any other country that the world knows of. Officially, it has been
recorded that there are at least 1618 languages in India; 6400 castes, six
major religions—four of them originated in these lands; six anthropologically
defined ethnic groups; all this put together being politically administered as
one country. A measure of this diversity is that India celebrates 29 major
religio-cultural festivals and probably has the largest number of religious
holidays amongst all countries of the world.
Those
who argue that it was the British that united this vast diversity ignore the
fact that it was the British which engineered the partition of the subcontinent
leading to over a million deaths and a communal transmigration of a colossal
order. British colonialism has the ignomous history of leaving behind legacies
that continue to fester wounds through the partition of countries they had
colonised— Palestine, Cyprus, in Africa etc. apart from the Indian
subcontinent. It is the Pan-Indian people’s struggle for freedom that united
this diversity and integrated more than 660 feudal princely states into modern
India giving shape to a Pan-Indian consciousness.
Role of the Left
The
Indian Left played an important role in this process of the evolution of this
‘Idea of India’. Indeed, for this very reason, given the Left’s visionary
commitments to the long struggle for freedom, the Left’s role is absolutely
central to the realisation of the ‘Idea of India’ in today’s conditions.
Let me
illustrate this with reference to three issues that continue to constitute the
core of the ‘Idea of India’. The struggles on the land question unleashed by
the Communists in various parts of the country last century—Punnapara Vayalar
in Kerala, the Tebagha movement in Bengal, the Surma Valley struggle in Assam,
the Worli uprising in Maharashtra etc.—the highlight of which was the armed
struggle in Telengana— brought the issue of land reforms to centre-stage. The
consequent abolition of the zamindari system and landed estates drew the vast
mass of India’s peasantry into the project of building the ‘Idea of India’. In
fact, such struggles contributed the most in liberating crores of people from
feudal bondage. This also contributed substantially in creating the ‘Indian
middle class’.
In
today’s conditions, the issue of forcible land acquisition has acquired a very
dangerous dimension. Subverting the Parliament legis-lation, many BJP-led State
governments are implementing schemes which permit the indiscriminate
acquisition of agricultural land forcibly dispossessing lakhs of farmers,
aggra-vating the agrarian distress even further. The question of land, hence,
remains a crucial issue for the Left, the most important political force that
is today focusing on developing the agrarian struggles against the mounting
distress and the neo-liberal policies that are intensifying the process of
primitive accumulation of capital.
Secondly,
the Indian Left spearheaded the massive popular struggles for the linguistic
reorganisation of the States in independent India. It, thus, is chiefly
responsible for creating the political ‘map’ of today’s India on reasonably
scientific and democratic lines. The struggles for Vishalandhra, Aikya Kerala
and Samyukta Maharashtra were led, amongst others, by people who later emerged
as Communist stalwarts in the country. This paved the way for the integration
of many linguistic natio-nalities that inhabit India, on the basis of equality,
into the process of realising the ‘Idea of India’.
Even
after the linguistic reorganisation of States, today, many problems and demands
for smaller States reflect the lack of equality amongst the various ethnic
identities that exist in the country, particularly in the North-East. These can
only be resolved by ensuring that all the linguistic groups and ethnic national
identities are treated equally with concrete plans backed by finances to tackle
the economic backwardness of these areas; and having equal access to all
opportunities. It is only the Left that sincerely champions this cause to
strengthen the unity and integrity of India.
Thirdly,
the Left’s steadfast commitment to secularism was based on the recognition of
India’s reality. The unity of India with its immense diversity can be
maintained only by strengthening the bonds of commonality in this diversity and
not by imposing any uniformity upon this diversity like what the communal
forces seek currently to do. While this is true for all the attributes of
India’s social life, it is of critical importance in relation to religion.
Following
the partition of India and the horrendous communal aftermath, secularism became
an inseparable element for the realisation of the ‘Idea of India’. The Indian
ruling classes, however, went only half-way in meeting the Left’s objective of
defining secularism as the separation of religion from politics. This means
that while the State protects the individual’s choice of faith, it shall not
profess or prefer any one religion. In practice, the Indian ruling classes have
reduced this to define secularism as equality of all religions. Inherent in
this is the in-built bias towards the religious faith of the majority. This, in
fact, contributes to providing sustenance to the communal and fundamentalist
forces today.
On this
score as well, in today’s conditions, it is the Left that remains the most
consistent upholder of secularism, spearheading the efforts to forge the broadest
people’s unity against communalism and the steadfast fighter to defend the
religious minorities; to ensure their security and equality as citizens of our
country.
These
are illustrative of some constituents of the ‘Idea of India’. The drawing in of
the exploited majority of rural India; the drawing in of the socially oppressed
people, especially those who continue to be subjected to obnoxious caste- based
oppression and atrocities; the drawing in of the numerous linguistic
nationalities; and the drawing in of the multi-religious Indian population,
above all, the drawing in of all Indians in an inclusive path of economic and
social justice, constituting the core of the inclusionary ‘Idea of India’,
remains an unful-filled agenda. The struggles for realising these incomplete
tasks constitute the essential agenda of the CPI-M and Indian Left.
Battle
of Visions
The
emergence of the conception of the ‘Idea of India’ was a product of the Indian
people’s struggle. It arose from a continuous battle between three visions that
emerged during the course of India’s struggle for freedom in the 1920s over the
conception of the character of independent India. The mainstream Congress
vision had articulated that independent India should be a secular democratic
Republic. The Left, while agreeing with this objective went further to envision
that the political freedom of the country must be extended to achieve the
socio-economic freedom of every individual, possible only under socialism.
Antagonistic
to both these was the third vision which argued that the character of
independent India should be determined by the religious affiliations of its
people. This vision had a twin expression—the Muslim League championing an
‘Islamic State’ and the RSS championing a ‘Hindu Rashtra’. The
former succeeded in the unfortunate partition of the country, admirably
engineered, aided and abetted by the British colonial rulers, with all its
consequences that continue to fester tensions till date. The latter, having
failed to achieve their objective at the time of independence, continue with
their efforts to transform modern India into their project of a rabidly
intolerant fascistic ‘Hindu Rashtra’. In a sense the
ideological battles and the political conflicts in contemporary India are a
continuation of the battle between these three visions. Needless to add, the
contours of this battle will continue to define the direction and content of
the process of the realisation of the ‘Idea of India’.
Further,
the Indian Left argued then and maintains today that the mainstream Congress
vision of consolidating the secular, democratic foundations of our Republic can
never be sustainable unless independent India frees itself from its bondage
with imperialism and breaks the stranglehold of feudal vestiges. The Congress
party’s inability to take the freedom struggle to this logical culmination
became clear by its serving the interests of the post-independence ruling classes
— bourgeoisie in alliance with the landlords, led by the big bourgeoisie. This,
by itself, weakens the foundations of a secular democratic Republic. First, it
relegates the anti-imperialist social consciousness that forged the unity of
the people during the freedom struggle to the background, thus permitting and
buttre-ssing a social consciousness dominated by caste and communal passions.
Secondly, instead of strengthening an inclusive India, it
progressively excludes the growing majority of
the exploited classes. This is resoundingly vindicated by our experience during
these six decades of independence. This provides the ‘grist to the mill’ of the
communal forces, or the third vision, to strengthen itself exploiting the
growing popular discontent against the policies pursued by the ruling classes.
A mere
declaration of the creation of a secular democratic Republic and its
reassertion by the Congress today, by definition, remains limited in its
ability to realise this inclusive ‘Idea of India’.
There is
another equally important factor that prevents the realisation of the
‘Idea of India’. The path of capitalist development being pursued by the ruling
classes is one where there is an increasing collaboration with international
finance capital and in compromise with feudal landlords. The Indian capitalist
path of development, hence, is not along the classic lines of capitalism rising
from the ruins of feudalism but in compromise with it.
The
inability to eliminate the vestiges of feudalism means, at the level of the
super-structure, the perpetuation of the social conscio-usness associated with
feudalism and other pre-capitalist formations. The domination of religion and
caste, integral to the social consciousness of pre-capitalist formations,
continue to remain powerful in today’s social order. The efforts at
super-imposing capitalism only create a situation where the backwardness of
consciousness associated with feudal vestiges is combined with the degenerative
‘consumerism’ of today’s globalised capitalist consciousness.
The
Caste Factor: The process of class formation in India, as a
consequence of such circumscribed capitalist development is, thus, taking place
within the parameters of historically inherited structures of a caste divided
society. It is taking place not by overthrowing the pre-capitalist social
relations but in compromise with it. This results in the overlapping
commonality between the exploited classes and oppressed castes in contemporary
India. Class struggles in India, therefore, can advance only through
simultaneous struggles against both, economic exploitation and social
oppression.
Thus, at
the level of the superstructure, feudal decadence is combined with capitalist
degene-ration to produce a situation where growing criminalisation of the
society, coexists and grows in the company of such social consciousness
dominated by caste and communal feelings. Instead of overcoming such
consciousness for the realisation of the ‘Idea of India’, precisely these
elements that are sustained and exploited by the ruling classes for their
political-electoral benefits.
Such a
reality provides the fertile ground which engenders the current Rightward shift
in Indian politics buttressing the efforts for the negation of the ‘Idea of
India’ and the erection of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ in its
place.
Fascism? Does
all this mean the emergence of fascism in India? The most authoritative and to
date scientific analysis of the nature and emergence of European fascism was
made by Georgi Dimitrov in his penetrating address to the Seventh Communist
International in 1935. He defined fascism as the “open terroristic dictatorship
of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialistic elements of
finance capital”. The capturing of state power by fascism is not an ordinary
succession of one bourgeois government by another but the substitution of one
form of the ruling class state by another—bourgeois parliamentary democracy by
an open terroristic dictatorship.
This
came as a response, in Europe, of the ruling classes to the actual crisis that
threatened its class domination. This was the case with the German monopoly
capital, as a part of the global capitalist crisis of the ‘Great Depression’
that began in 1929, in the period preceding Hitlerite fascism. This threat emerged
as a response to the crisis generated by the ruling classes’ own rule both from
within its own camp as well as, and often simultaneously, with the challenge to
its class rule by the toiling sections of the working people—the proletariat.
The
situation obtaining in our country today is not similar to the period leading
to the emergence of fascism in Germany. The threat of the immediate seizure of
power by the proletariat is not yet on the agenda. Further, the crisis of the
bourgeois-landlord class rule, notwithstanding the sharply increasing
authoritarian tendencies, recently seen in the Uttarakhand developments and the
undermining of institutions of parliamentary democracy, has not reached a stage
where the jettisoning of parliamentary democracy by the ruling classes is on
the immediate agenda.
Hence,
the assumption of power by the RSS-led BJP does not mean the establishment of
fascism in its classical sense. Undoubtedly, the RSS vision of its ‘Hindu Rashtra’ is a fascistic vision. However, if the
RSS does succeed, then it is a qualitatively different
situation. That, however, isthe situation that
the revolutionary forces must work to render as unrealisable. The present
situation, therefore, can be more appropriately described by the fact that the
crisis of the bourgeois landlord class rule has reached a stage where one
section of the ruling classes, the most reactionary section, represented by the
RSS/BJP and the Saffron Brigade, has succeeded in capturing state power, at the
moment. And, they are vigorously using this to advance their vision of
establishing a fascistic ‘Hindu Rashtra’.
However,
there are striking similarities in the propaganda methods employed by European
fascism and the RSS. The RSS/BJP today adopt fascistic methods of appropriation
of popular symbols, create a false consciousness of deprivation amongst the
majority community and appeal to extreme jingoism as their methods to advance.
Dimitrov had said: “Fascism acts in the interests of extreme imperialists but
presents itself to the masses in the guise of a wronged nation and appeals to
outraged ‘national’ sentiments.” In order to present the RSS as such a
champion, a false consciousness is created that the Hindus had been and
continue to be deprived, while, at the same time, generating hate against the
Muslims (taking the cue from Hitler’s rabid anti-Semitism) to the effect that
they are responsible for such a ‘deprivation’ of the Hindus. To achieve its
goal of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ it has perfected the Goebbelsian
technique of ‘telling big enough lies frequently enough to make them appear as
the truth’.
Georgi
Dimitrov says: “It is in the interests of the most reactionary circles of the
bourgeoisie that fascism intercepts the disappointed masses who desert the old
bourgeois parties. But it impresses these masses by the vehemence of its
attacks on the bourgeois governments and its irreconcilable attitude to the old
bourgeois parties.”
Further,
Dimitrov notes: “Fascism puts the people at the mercy of the most corrupt and
venal elements but comes before them with the demand for ‘an honest and
incorruptible government’ speculating on the profound disillusionment of the
masses...fascism adapts its demagogy to the peculiarities of each country. And
the mass of petty bourgeois and even a section of the workers, reduced to
despair by want, unemployment and insecurity of their existence fall victim to
the social and chauvinist demagogy of fascism.” (Dimitrov, Georgi, Selected Works, Volume 2, Sofia Press, 1972, page 12)
Dimitrov
could well be talking about the RSS/BJP’s current campaigns and the people’s
experiences with its control of the State since the 2014 general elections.
This shows a chilling convergence with fascist methodology. Impor-tantly, this
strengthens the grip of the ruling class hegemony, which requires to be
urgently confronted.
Unless
confronted, the very conception of the ‘Idea of India’ that we are discussing
will be rendered redundant. At the same time, it is clear that the unity and
integrity of our country and the unity of the social fabric of our immensely
diverse society cannot be maintained unless the ‘Idea of India’ is fully
realised. Such a realisation is only possible when the revolutionary forces in
our country advance in order to beat back the current communal offensive that
negates the ‘Idea of India’. This is the only manner in which the process of
the unfolding of the ‘Idea of India’ can advance.
The
Agenda
But then
how can this be achieved? What constitutes the various elements of the agenda
that must engage us in today’s conditions?
First, communalism divides the Indian people on the basis of their
religious identity. This is not only detrimental to the security and livelihood
of the religious minorities, but also undermines the unity and integrity of our
country and people. By doing so, communalism disrupts the very unity of the
most exploited classes in our society on whose strength alone the revolutionary
movement can advance. The communal forces today, therefore, represent a lethal
counter-revolutionary force in our country. This has to be vigorously combated
and defeated by forging the broadest people’s unity.
The
agenda that we are discussing today for reclaiming secular democracy requires,
first and foremost, the strengthening of class and people’s struggles. The
objective of such popular upsurges must be the strengthening of the Left and
democratic forces in our country, which has to be based, in turn, on the basis
of an alternative policy framework to the existing bourgeois-landlord class
rule.
Secondly, there is a need to recognise the class-caste overlap that exists
in our country today. Class struggle in India has essentially two
elements—economic exploitation and social oppression. Class struggle in India,
therefore, stands on these two legs. Unless both these aspects are
simultaneously taken up by the revolutionary forces with equal emphasis, the
class struggle cannot begin its walk forward, leave alone running ahead. Issues
of social oppression centring around the obnoxious caste oppression will have
to be a part of the new agenda as much as the issues against economic
exploitation have traditionally been. This inte-gration of both these aspects
is an important element of this new agenda.
Thirdly, the ‘Idea of India’ can never blossom unless the constitutional
guarantee of equality “irrespective of caste, creed and sex” is scrupulously
respected and implemented. Unless this is done, the confidence of the
minorities in the Indian State cannot be strengthened. It is precisely playing
upon this element of targeting religious minorities that the communal forces
seek to consolidate their grip over State power. Championing the interest of
the minorities is, hence, an important element of our agenda.
Fourthly, there are various popular and social movements that champion
various important issues that need to be integrated in this struggle. Issues
like environmental concerns are assuming a very serious dimension threatening
the future existence of life on our planet. There are many others like the
movements on the issues of children’s rights; for a universal public health
system; for a security net to be guaranteed by the State for the old and
disabled people; the movements against gender oppression and for gender
equality etc. etc. A common ground must be found to integrate such popular
social movements with the larger revolutionary and democratic movement. This is
again an important element of this agenda.
In
addition to this, there are many other aspects that would legitimately be part
of this agenda whose final objective would be to consolidate the unity of our
diverse people into a single force for creating a better India for our people
and for our country by permitting the unfettered unfolding of the ‘Idea of
India’.
