Rebuttal to paper by Dipankar Bhattacharya on Centenary of the Communist Movement in India

Recently, CPI-ML (Liberation) unveiled a paper celebrating the centenary of the Communist Movement in India. Originally presented at the International Seminar on The Future of Marxism, Democracy & Socialism (18-20 December 2024), organised by the EMS Chair for Marxian Studies and Research at the University of Calicut, this paper supposedly delves into the historical triumphs and contemporary challenges faced by communist movements.

Our brief rebuttal underscores and criticises the viewpoint presented by the general secretary of CPIML (Liberation), one of India's largest 'communist' parties. While numerous points in the paper highlight the true character of the electoral left, we will focus solely on the major themes that underpin the entire paper.

The majority of the words in the paper hails the constitution as a remarkable document, saying that it provides a vision for a secular democratic and India .

May we ask that if the Constitution is indeed so remarkably democratic and secular, then why exactly is there has always been a need for extra-legal struggles including fierce class struggles to achieve these democratic aims that the Constitution is supposed to champion? Why a democratic revolution at all? It is argued that it is for a complete rupture with feudal baggage, but in fact, it amounts to hailing a constitution born out of compromises. If the constitution is so remarkable how was it enacted by the bourgeois-landlord state which tolerated the feudal landlords and endeavoured to help them gradually transition into capitalism. The fact that the Constituent Assembly itself was elected on the basis of limited franchise and not universal adult franchise should open our eyes to the composition of the Constituent Assembly and the resultant truncated nature of our democracy. Let us remember that this same constitution has provisions for draconian laws like UAPA (draconian preventive detention laws). It had enshrined the right to property as a fundamental right (which caused difficulties in the enactment and implementation of the Zamindari Abolition Act later), and reduced many democratic rights to mere directive principles of state policy which were not justiciable. Any attempt to overstate the democratic character of such a constitution thus only undermines democratic struggle itself as it limits the scope of democratic struggle merely to the implementation of this constitution rather than furthering the struggle to go beyond it. And calling such a struggle a "democratic revolution" doesn't change this fact. While we fight any attack on democratic constitutional rights we cannot remain content with that only in the name of this so-called remarkable document called the Constitution.

While the paper overlooks the inherent issues within Ambedkarite politics, which merely seeks relief within the existing system and lacks a comprehensive plan to abolish the caste system as such, it is evident here that there is complete subservience to Ambedkarism and a lapse into identity politics associated with it. Ambedkarism which is based on the philosophy of pragmatism confines activists at best to the role of democratic social reformers. Ambedkar himself was categorically not an advocate of revolutionary change; his political boundaries were clearly defined.

The paper quotes a warning by Ambedkar that "however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad (if) those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot."

Rather than examining the class nature of the state and the foundational principles upon which it was established and continues to exist, the paper examines its failure by the character (whether good or bad) of the individuals operating it, as if it is based on the whims and wishes of a select few. Does Marxism categorize ideas or individuals in that way? Even a cursory reading of Marx's 'Poverty of Philosophy' would show how wrong it is to pose questions in such "good or bad" terms. In light of the current surge in identity politics within the left and its growing appeal among progressive circles, it has become common and fashionable for many communist groups to leverage Ambedkarite ideology to attract crowds and gain electoral advantages. What remains perplexing, however, is how a proletarian party that espouses Marxism-Leninism reconciles these principles with Ambedkarism.

The veneration of the Constitution and subservience to Ambedkarite ideology can only result in blatant electoral politics. The entire revolutionary movement is reduced in the paper to a few lines—a single paragraph, to be precise—while the glorification of the bourgeois constitution, and the electoral victories and losses of the left, dominate the main body. This shows the parliamentary cretinism of this party.

In a paper discussing a century of revolutionary struggle, authored by the general secretary of a self-professed Marxist-Leninist party, revolution receives barely a passing mention, and even then, it is in the context of democratic struggles rather than the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry or the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The paper's commentary on the Soviet bloc only perpetuates imperialist propaganda by attributing its failures to a lack of internal democracy, bureaucracy, and other factors, without acknowledging the internal party struggle and the greater class struggle including the international class struggle (let us remind our readers it is the imperialist era and as such it must be taken into account). The entire Soviet period is portrayed as one with a "bureaucratic system, economic stagnation, foreign policy distortions, and a great lack of internal democracy and dynamism, all of which led to the loss of legitimacy of communists as the ruling power." The paper completely overlooks the revisionist era following Stalin's death and the rise of Khrushchevite policies and revisionism and the policies of oxymoronically termed "market socialism" which contributed to the much-discussed economic stagnation.

The paper fails to offer anything appealing from the rich legacy of the revolutionary communist movement, something that could serve to inspire communists or even something to learn lessons from the past in addressing contemporary challenges. It limits itself to bourgeois democratic tendencies. The fetishisation of the Constitution is particularly evident in its purportedly anti-fascist tenor. Rather than presenting the Constitution as a reflection of the gains from past class struggles and framing the current fascist offensive as an attack on those gains, they absolutise the Constitution as a document which enshrines the ultimate in democracy. The call for the "fullest utilization of United Front Strategy" to combat the fascist onslaught overlooks the fact that communists draw their strength from robust working-class and peasant organizations and struggles. Currently, the communist movement is at its weakest point in history. While advocating for a united front against fascist forces, he forgets that communists today are not as formidable as they were in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. This partly explains the subservience of the parliamentary left to bourgeois parties. Until we bring labour and working-class issues to the forefront of the political debate and our agitprop, these revisionists calling themselves communists will continue with their tailism, following the bourgeois parties. The paper neglects to address the question of the significant attack on working class rights, such as the consolidation of the labor laws into four anti-worker labour codes. The proletariat is hardly a significant political factor in our polity thanks to revisionism though the task of the communists is to further its interests. This lack of concern for working class politics comes from a self-professed communist party calling itself the party of the working class. Instead, it merely extols the Indian Constitution and social democracy. It is crucial to recognize its political posturing as a working class party as it fails to delineate the tasks of the moment. While negotiating the zig-zags of history it is mandatory for us not to lose sight of the thread of development which guides our mission, the establishment of working class power and socialism.