Ideologically, the Muslim communalists and Godless Communists are
poles apart in their worldview. It is however said that Muslim
communalists often used the cadres of the Communist Party of India (CPI)
as their point men in furtherance of their communal grievances. Who
used whom may be a debatable question but the experience of their
political game in this country shows that they fought jointly against
the nationalist forces, which were their common target.
Communists are known for speaking in many voices if it suits their
interest. Contrary to the Marxian dictum -'religion is the opium of
people' their softness towards the religious obscurantism of the Muslims
exposed their intellectual hypocrisy and puzzled the people of India.
Gradually both of the Communists and Muslim communalists became strange
allies perhaps due to some under mentioned resemblance in their
character, which served as common link to bring them together:
Both the Communists and the Muslim communalists are internationalists
in character. The Communists attempt to 'ape Russia and China' for
everything. It is said, if there is rain in Moscow or China, Indian
Communists open their umbrellas. The Muslim Communalists on the other
hand are emotionally attached to Perso-Arabic socio-culture with Saudi
Arabia as their international centre.
None of them ever opposed collaborative relation between China and
Pakistan, which was basically to precipitate chaotic conditions in
secular India.
None of them believe in the concept of common nationalism. ). For
Communists Indian nationalism is bourgeois nationalism but
Russian/Chinese nationalism for them is proletarian nationalism. "Once
the Marxist bug bites a person, he dumps nationalism and cuts himself
off from his civilisational heritage" (Dina Nath Mishra in Pioneer dated
August 22, 2004. For Muslim communalists Indian nationalism denotes
religious nationalism of Hindus but Arab nationalism is Islamic
nationalism for them. The Communists called the nationalist leaders of
freedom movement as Hindu bourgeois whereas the Muslims called them
Hindu leaders.
The Communists believe only in state that is the legal and
geographical association of people. Being the limbs of international
Communist movement they do not recognise national boundary of India. The
Muslim communalists too believe in pan-Islamism in which there is no
place for motherland. As supranationalists they do not have faith in
nationalism.
Patriotic association that constitutes a nation with common heritage
and culture in which hearts and minds move in one direction is not
acceptable to either of them.
For both of them the concept of nationalism is synonymous to Hinduism
and therefore they opposed the efforts of nationalist forces to promote
its spirit among the countrymen during freedom movement. Hate-Hindu
campaign became a common link between them and they jointly targeted the
nationalist forces as their common enemy.
The Communists described the nationalist movement for freedom as
collaboration of National Bourgeoisie with 'fascism' and therefore
supported the war efforts of 'British Bureaucracy' ', which they had
earlier called 'British Imperialist'. The Muslim League too supported
the war efforts of the British.
The Communists floated multi-national theory in support of two-nation theory propagated by the Muslim League.
Theoretically both of them believe in social equality but in practice
they purge their opponents once they are in political power. Both
believe in social equality but consider their own concept on this issue
perfect. "Both Muslims and Communists regard their own concept of social
structure perfect" (Dalwai in Muslim politics in India).
Both claim themselves to be democratic in character but do not allow freedom of thought.
Both of them justify use of violence to propagate their doctrine.
While the Muslims are supposed to work for a united 'Ummat' (Muslim
community) for whole world, the Communists' slogan is to 'unite the
workers of the world'.
The political objective of the Communists is to establish the
'dictatorship of proletariat' even though they have hardly produced any
leader of proletariat origin in last over seven decades of existence in
this country. For them, dictatorship of proletariat meant dictatorship
of Russia or China. The political objective of the Muslim communalists
on the other hand is to establish 'Dar-ul-Islam' which is possible only
with religious dictatorship of Muslim world.
Communists' leadership continued to remain confined to English
educated minority group, who remained unconscious of the pre-medieval
glorious history of India. The Muslim communalists too remained captive
of their medieval mindset with obsession to the ascendancy of Islamic
power as the only glorious history of India.
To run down the pre-medieval heritage and culture of this ancient land emerged as their common programme.
Communism failed everywhere in the world, but its followers in India
are still hoping against hope to revive it by entrenching the Indian
polity with their divisive tactics. Similarly the Islamic revivalists in
India also believe that only Muslims are capable to govern this country
and are hopeful of the revival of Muslim era. Late Dr.Sayed Mahmood,
being projected by Muslim intelligentsia as a nationalist Muslim had
said, "It is quite well known that Hindus are incapable of ruling a
country. This is what history has proved adequately. We are going down
the drain as a nation because Muslims in this country have no share in
power. Only Muslims can save this nation from doom"(Muslim Politics in
India by Hamid Dalwai, page 63)
It was a historical coincidence that the Communist movement followed
the Muslim communalists' movement for separatism launched during the
freedom struggle against British colonialism.
Ever since the Communist Party of India (CPI) was born in mid 1920s
it had been trying to keep the Muslim mind confused over pre-Islamic
past of this country. The Communists equated the controversial Aryan
invasion theory as well as forceful eviction of Dravidians to the South
that was propounded by the historians of the West with the Muslim
invaders and persecution of the Hindus. Banking on the European account
of Indian History the Communists argue that if Muslim invaders like
Arabs, Turks, Central Asians, Afghans or Persians were outsiders, Hindus
too were not the indigenous people of this land as they were also the
descendants of Aryan invaders from outside? They rationalised the
violent entry of Islam in India at the point of sword justifying the
peace even with violent means. Their understanding of Indian history is
that Islam gave new life to the broken antiques of Indian civilisation
by providing social equality to oppressed masses (Selected Works of
M.N.Roy edited by Sibnarayan Ray, Oxford, 2000, Volume IV).
Controversial historical accounts worked as lifeline for Muslim
communalists in their movement for a separate national and political
identity. Running down the pre-medieval past of Hindu civilisation the
Communists also wrote unrealistic history in favour of beef eating in
Vedic period. Such anti-Hindu thesis encouraged the Muslims to maintain
an uncompromising attitude towards the sentiments of the Hindu majority.
Known for their strong opposition to the civilisational ethos of
Bharat, both of them worked with common goal to dilute the collective
consciousness of the Indian people of their glorious heritage, culture
and thousands of years of traditions.
M.N.Roy, one of the founder members of Communist Party of India (CPI)
said that Indian masses oppressed under Brahmanical orthodoxy
facilitated the Islamic invaders and "readily rallied under the banner
of Islam which offered them social equality if not political equality"
(Selected Works of M.N.Roy edited by Sibnarayan Ray, Oxford, 2000,
Volume IV, page 398). He added, "the Mohammedan power was consolidated
in India not so much by the valour of invaders' arms as owing to the
propagation of the Islamic faith and the progressive significance of
Islamic laws" (Ibid. Page 400). He accused the Hindus for allegedly
being contumelious towards Islam. He said, "Hindus superciliousness
towards the religion and culture of Muslims is absurd. It insults
history and injures the political future of the country … Learning from
the Muslims, Europe became the leader of modern civilisation …
Unfortunately India could not fully benefit by the heritage of Islamic
culture because she did not deserve the distinction … Knowledge of
Islam's contribution would shock the Hindus out of their arrogant
self-satisfaction" (Selected Works of M.N.Roy edited by Sibnarayan Ray,
Oxford, 2000, Volume IV, page 401).
Historically, Stalin formulated the strategy to spread the hegemony
of communists over West Asia to neutralise the influence of America in
the region and wanted the support of Israel but the latter did not
respond to him favourably. The followers of Stalin in India therefore
started supporting the Muslim world against Israel. Had Israel accepted
Stalin's proposal the CPI might have taken a different stand on this
issue. They opposed Israel's occupation of West Bank and Gaza but never
raised any voice against Chinese occupation to Tibet or Russian
occupation. Baltic countries. Similarly, they never raised the issue of
Russian presence in Afghanistan.
Communists wanted to convert the freedom movement into 'people's war'
in alliance with the Muslim League against the nationalist forces. In
1940 the CPI came closer to All India Muslim League (AIML), when the
latter emerged as a mass organisation of the second largest religious
community in India. With hate-Hindu campaign as a common link they
targeted the nationalist forces, as common enemy on the dictum of
enemy's enemy is friend. "Since 1940 the CPI had tried to 'placate' the
Muslim League, equating it with the Congress party as India's two mass
political organisations" (Communism in Indian Politics by Bhabani Sen
Gupta, Columbia University Press, 1972). The nationalist forces led by
the Congress on the other hand evaluated the Communists as
"anti-nationalist foreign agents" (Ibid), who followed the "just" demand
of Muslim League for Pakistan.
Contrary to their strong reservation against religion based State the
Communists supported the communal demand of AIML for creation of
Pakistan. They provided intellectual support to the two-nation theory of
AIML by floating multi-national theory.
The CPI's resolution adopted in its central committee meeting in
September 1942 suggests the conviction of the party on communal division
of India. The resolution said: "Every section of the Indian people
which has its contiguous territory as its homeland, common historical
tradition, common language, culture, psychological make-up, and common
economic life would be recognised as a distinct nationality with the
right to exist as an autonomous state within the free Indian Union or
federation and will have the right to secede from it if it may so
desire" (Selected Works of M.N.Roy 1932-1936, Volume IV).
Non-participation of the Communists in Quit India Movement against the
colonial oppression was the opportunism of the worst kind. It was
apparently their tactical alliance with Muslim League to "precipitate
nation-wide disintegration". Their desired objective was not only to
break India into Hindu India and Muslim India but also into various
linguistic and ethnic nations with sovereign political entity.
The main obstacle of the CPI against its movement was the Indian
National Congress, a nationalist party that had a strong mass following
during freedom movement. Therefore, it described the Congress as party
of Indian National Bourgeoisie and preferred a tactical alliance with
AIML, which it had also described a party of Indian Muslim Bourgeoisie.
The CPI infiltrated its Muslim members into AIML with a view to weaken
the greater bourgeois Congress by supporting smaller bourgeois. The All
India Student Federation members of Aligarh Muslim University also
joined All India Muslim Students Federation (Legacy of a Divided Nation
by Mushirul Hasan, 1997, page 113). The Aligarh School of Muslim
orthodoxy that supported the British imperialism against the forces of
Indian nationalists got a natural political ally in CPI, which had also
supported the war efforts of the colonial power. The experience of
Muslim politics in India therefore, suggests that the modernist Muslims
of Aligarh School were more prone to Muslim orthodoxy and communal
politics than of Deoband School.
"The most grotesque decision was to send its (CPI) Muslim members to
enter the ranks of Muslim League"(Pakistan: Military Rule or People's
Power by Tariq Ali, London 1970, page 31)". " The CPI had entered the
Muslim League in order to strengthen the bourgeois faction in the League
against the feudal landlords, a plan perfectly in keeping with Stalin's
theory of revolution by stages" (Ibid. Page 32). "The manifesto of the
Punjab Muslim League was written by a well known Indian Communist
lawyer, Daniyal Latifi"(Ibid.).
The CPI while supporting the division of India even appreciated the
Muslim League's co-operative attitude towards the British war efforts
against Hitler, which it had earlier termed as 'Imperialist War'. Its
support to Pakistan movement therefore was a support to Muslim
separatism. For the CPI loyalty to Soviet Russia was more important than
to free the country from the British. Their support to British war
efforts was factually a response to the call of Soviet Russia to the
Communists all over the world following Hitler's attack on it.
The CPI leaders supported Pakistan movement by organising processions
and demonstrations in its favour. "In mid forties E.M.S. Namboodaripad
led processions of Muslims along with A.K.Gopalan (both of them were
leaders of the CPI) shouting 'Pakistan Zindabad' and 'Mophlastan
Zindabad'. No wonder, therefore, that Khwaja Ahmed Abbas, himself a
leftist, had to say that India was killed by the CPI which provided the
Muslim separatists with an ideological basis" (Pakistan: From Jinnah to
Jehad by S.K.Datta and Rajeev Sharma, 2002, Page 18).
India was partitioned but the CPI did not get any dividend to
establish dictatorship of proletariat. The party cadres were badly
treated by Muslim League Government in Pakistan and were uprooted from
there. "Pakistan dealt with Communists very sternly.
Dr.Ashraf and Mr. Sajjad Zahir who went to Pakistan from India to
give a momentum to communist movement there landed up directly in jail.
It took ten years to get out of jail and they chose to return to India"
(Muslim Politics in India by Hamid Dalwai, Hind Pocket Books, page 58).
The CPI did not take any lesson from the treatment its cadres
received in Pakistan. Instead they adopted a new strategy to reiterate
the dangers of Hindu nationalists in post-partition India and induced a
fear psychosis in the Muslim masses, who stayed back in India. They
carried forward the legacy of their alignment with AIML and launched a
systematic campaign to mould national opinion to justify the communal
grievances of the Muslims by maintaining a hard attitude against the
cultural tradition of India. They continued supporting the historical
violence perpetrated by Islamic invaders and subsequent Muslim rulers on
the Hindu natives as a part of policy to placate the Muslim
communalists. They never raised any voice against the obsessed mindset
of feudal and elite section of Muslims for political domination over the
Hindus rather preferred to glorify the Islamic rule in the country.
The Congress exploited the so-called fear of Hindu Rashtra induced in
Muslim masses and used them as their vote bank to remain in power. The
Communists were however rewarded by Jawahar Lal Nehru the first Prime
Minister of the country by accommodating them in various academic power
plants as main operators. He took their help to uproot the concept of
integrated nationalism for unity and integrity of the country and
floated a concept of composite culture. Taking advantage of Nehru's
benevolence and shelter in his 'secular' umbrella the Communists
infiltrated their red cardholders into Congress to help the Muslim
orthodoxy for reviving their movement for communal separatism in the
name of religious identity. This attitude of the Communists also helped
in obstructing the assimilation of Muslim masses in national mainstream.
Marxist historians, who maintained their hegemony in authoring the
school textbooks during long period of Congress rule, masked the
barbaric role of Muslim invaders in India and were reticent to portray
their bigotry against the Hindus. They preferred to paint destruction of
Hindu temples more for economic motivation than iconoclasm. Portraying
the exclusivist and totalitarian ideology of communalist Muslims as
ideology for social equality they feel proud in tarnishing the cultural
tradition of this country. It became a ritual for them to denounce
Hindu nationalists as major cause behind any communal riot. They
however, closed their eyes when there was a nation level war cry against
Supreme Court verdict in Shahbano case.
In post-colonial India too the aspiration of the Muslim communalists
for distinct and sovereign political identity remained intact. Both the
CPI and the CPIM supported such mindset of Muslim communalists by giving
substantial share of political power to Indian Union Muslim League
(IUML), the post-partition incarnation of AIML in coalition Government
in Kerala. They also "worked together with IUML to create a new Muslim
majority district in Malabar and named it Malapuram"(Communism in Indian
Politics by Bhabani Sen Gupta, Columbia University Press, 1972,Page
188). In 1980s Indian Muslims gave moral support to U.S.A. in its
military adventure against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan but the CPI
and the CPIM remained indifferent on this issue. They however, fully
supported the Indian Muslims in their war cry against American attack on
Taliban Government in Afghanistan in the new millenium
The Muslims of West Bengal aligned with Communists particularly the
CPIM since the decline of Congress in mid 1960s. On the eve of 1969
midterm Assembly election, the state secretariat of the party received
reports from all of its district units, which "revealed one common
feature - that the agriculture labour and poor peasants, non-Bengali
workers, and Muslim masses have in a big way swung towards the United
Front especially to the CPI (M)"(Communism in Indian Politics by Bhabani
Sen Gupta, Columbia University Press, 1972,Page 247).
The secret of Marxist Government in West Bengal lies with the
electoral support of the Muslims, who constitute about twentyfive
percent of the electorate. It recommended deletion of certain
discussions about medieval period. "In 1989 the West Bengal Secondary
Board under a Marxist Government issued a circular dated 28 April 1989
(Number Syl/89/1) which recommended the deletion of most discussions
about the medieval period because it was too controversial"
(Islamisation of Pakistan by Y.C.Ross, 2003, New Delhi, page 16-17). Its
silence over unabated Muslim infiltration from Bangladesh is only to
improve its votes even at the cost of national interest. Communist
regime in West Bengal and Tripura allowed infiltration of Muslims from
Bangladesh. Even today the Marxists are behaving like a proxy government
and forcing the UPA Government for 'detoxification' of Indian history
only to please the Muslims.
The cozy relation of Communists with Muslim/Christians shows their
preference to the authoritarian concept of religious exclusivism than
the democratic concept of Hinduism that believes in the concept of
religious inclusivism. "In an interview to the Hindu (Hindu dated 15
August, 2004) Communist Party of India (Marxist) Polit Bureau member
Prakash Karat said, there was a national trend of various Christian
denominations to talk to the CPIM and invites its leaders to forums of
the Church". Even today the UPA Government under the pressure of
Communists stopped the publication of a book on the contribution of
primary teachers in freedom movement, which was to be published by the
H.R.D. Ministry of previous NDA Government (Pioneer dated August 17,
2004).
The agenda of the Leftists is seemingly not only to placate the
communalist Muslims but also to provide uninterrupted lifeline to them
for pursuing their movement for separatism. Their confrontation with
nationalist historians on this issue still continues. Muslim historians
of Pakistan on the other hand re-wrote the history textbooks for school
with hate-Hindu actions of Muslims as triumph of Islam over Kafirs
(Non-believers).
The experience of over last 57 years of Independence shows that the
Communists in alliance with Muslim communalists constantly believed "the
medieval period of Islamic ascendancy in south Asia as part of their
historical legacy". They did not like to understand the reality that
Indian sub-continent had to pay heavy price of losing the lives of its
1.5 million population for it. They did not realise that creation of
modern political nationality in India could be possible only due to
preservation of the thousands of years of collective consciousness
towards spiritual and cultural unity of this country which was a remote
possibility in Islamic India. Instead of strengthening this reality they
preferred to amalgamate the power hungry forces together as 'liberal
bourgeois', who are popularly known as 'secularists'. As a part of power
politics the forces of liberal 'bourgeois' encouraged the movement for
Muslim communalism which provoked the traditionally tolerant Indian
society to revive the movement for Hindutva.
Sameer Gupta
Director
IUFE
