Unity and struggle: Ideological legacy of Comrade Dange

by Shubham Shinde.

Introduction

We are witnessing historic changes. The US, which emerged as the successor of imperialist Britain and France, is undergoing a deep crisis. These events impact our country, and we must understand them independently, on our own terms, with an epistemology rooted in our working people. Such times require a new ideology, and for this, we cannot solely rely on passive information coming from US universities and popular media.

To understand our own freedom struggle, we have to study Comrade Dange’s life and interpret his ideology for our times. Dange’s motto ‘Unity and Struggle’ has to be understood in broader philosophical terms, not just in terms of shallow political alliances. Unity has to be forged through shared revolutionary consciousness, and struggle is a process of refining, correcting, and ultimately realizing that ideology in practice. The Indian freedom struggle shaped this ideology.

Shripad Amrit Dange (10 October 1899 – 22 May 1991) was a freedom fighter, one of the founders of the Communist Party of India (CPI), and a prominent leader of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC). In 1922, he started ‘Socialist’ – a weekly magazine in English to propagate ideas of a program for socialism. According to his daughter, Roza Deshpande, Dange was deeply influenced by Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi and considered them his gurus [1, p. 394]. Dange was committed to uniting farmers and workers in the fight against British imperialism. He devoted his whole life to the betterment of working people and sought a theoretical understanding of our society to guide the party. Dange’s motto ‘Unity and Struggle’, which emphasises the dialectical nature of the two, later became known as the ‘two pillars policy’ in the party. This meant that unity with other forces was important. For example, he wanted the communists to participate in the 1942’s ‘Quit India movement’. Later, when the CIA attempted to destabilize Indira Gandhi’s government, he urged the party to unite with the Congress to struggle against imperialism.

This article is a summary of key events from Roza Deshpande’s biography of Dange. As someone close to Dange during all his political life, we have to see Roza Deshpande as a witness to all these events. The biography serves as a valuable historical account, as Dange was involved in nearly every major political development of the 20th century. I will discuss Dange’s ideological position on some of the important political developments, like our freedom struggle, the split within the communist party, and the Emergency, all of which have shaped our country.

‘Ye Aazadi jhuthi hai’
In the founding meeting of the Cominform in 1947, Andrei Zhadnov had stated that the world was divided into two, and in every country, class struggle had to be intensified to achieve real freedom. For Indian communists, Jawaharlal Nehru’s government did not represent a narrowly defined communist revolution, and they concluded that India’s hard-fought independence was not true independence [1, p. 391]. Nehru’s leadership was equated to the leadership of the bourgeois class, whereas in reality, it could be argued that Nehru’s government was striving to be truly Gandhian. Nehru always thought in the spirit of the continuity of our civilization, and the newly independent state was not a break from our non-violent freedom struggle [2]. The communists had failed to understand our freedom struggle when it was a truly democratic movement, and party chairman B. T. Ranadive started creating strategies for achieving ‘people’s democracy’. With a final fight with the capitalist state, party members were getting ready to achieve true independence [1, p. 395]. Ranadive wanted to take control of the state in a similar manner to the Russian Revolution. This was to be done via general strikes and an armed struggle. Railway strikes were crucial to this, and Jayaprakash Narayan (chairman, All India Railwaymen’s Federation) had also announced a similar strike. However, Narayan did not like Ranadive’s policies and decided not to participate in the strike [1, p. 396]. Without the mass support of the workers, the strike eventually failed.

When asked about why Dange didn’t oppose Ranadive’s policies, he would always say, “But who is going to listen to me?” Finally, in 1980, he told Roza, “Since 1935, when I escaped from jail, PC Joshi, Dr Adhikari, and Ranadive isolated and tortured me a lot. They never accepted my stance on cooperating with Congress. In 1939, when the Soviet Union was attacked, a people's war was declared. At that time, Congress had decided to unconditionally support the war. As soon as the government declined, a fight began. This time, too, my stand was to participate in the fight. My opinion was that even by supporting the war, we could stay on the side of the fight”. He continued, “I was opposed to 1947’s ‘ye aazadi jhuti hai’ campaign as well. My stance was that we should struggle with Congress. But I did not agree with the policy of overthrowing this government through an armed uprising, and it was not possible as well [1, p. 398].”

Sino-Indian War and split within the party

After independence, the leadership of India and China were close, which resulted in slogans like "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai" and the ‘Panchsheel’ principles. Nehru’s international policy was applauded by China in ‘People’s Daily’ (official newspaper of the Communist Party of China), which stated that Nehru’s policies reflected the views of the people advocating for peace. But soon, citing border issues – particularly the McMahon line – China took an opposite position and accused Nehru’s government of continuing the legacy of British colonial rule, and of increasingly allowing capital from Britain and the US in India [1, p. 493]. China was also breaking away from the Soviet Union. China believed that as long as capitalism existed, world war was inevitable, and that capitalism and socialism could not coexist peacefully. They also believed that socialism could not be achieved through peaceful means, as Nehru was attempting to do. No communist party in the world openly supported China’s policy, such was the moral authority of our freedom struggle and Nehru’s international policy.

Dange had criticized China’s latter stance, and this was not well received within the party. The party was getting divided based on its position towards China. Dange and PC Joshi thought that CPI should be a party that takes independent decisions and should unite with Congress, and simultaneously struggle against those policies of the Congress that were against the people. Ajay Ghosh, who was General Secretary at the time, asked the party to take an independent position and did not agree with China’s assessment of Nehru. However, he died soon after, and E.M.S. Namboodiripad, who was elected General Secretary, maintained that China had not attacked India. Leaders like P. Sundarayya went as far as to say, “China's claim on the land is correct, and they won’t be aggressive. But the Indian bourgeois government can attack to make capitalists happy [1, p. 501].” The left faction of the party was ideologically united with China on the topic of Nehru and the Congress.

Nehru wanted Dange to visit socialist countries and convince them of India's policy. Dange met leaders of socialist countries and also other European countries and got their support. Later, an essay in ‘Pravda’ (Soviet newspaper) became famous, which criticized China and praised Nehru’s position against capitalism and as a champion of international peace [1, p. 511]. Eventually, in 1964, the CPI split on the basis of ideological differences. A faction of the CPI always opposed Nehru and tried to bring the government down. The split within the CPI was not an isolated event; similar splits occurred in communist parties in many other countries as well. It is interesting to note that international events can have such profound effects on politics, and rigid ideological interpretations of such events can break political unity.

Emergency

The year 1969 was important in Indian politics, and the Congress party was split into two. During this time, the CPI under Dange’s leadership had helped sustain Indira Gandhi’s government. At the same time, the CPI played an important role in the formation of the United Front government in Kerala. The United Front government’s program was revolutionary and democratic, with an emphasis on land reforms. Congress leader A. K. Anthony was one of the architects of this unity between the Congress and the CPI. He had earlier criticized the Communist Party but later said, “I was opposed to communism, and it's true that I had demonstrated the black marks as mentioned by Namboodiripad; but under the leadership of Achyut Menon, having worked with the Communist Party of India, I have understood that what I had done before was a mistake [1, p. 554].”

After the general elections of 1970 in Pakistan, amid the rising tension between East and West Pakistan, and with the influx of refugees from East Pakistan to India, the question of how to help the uprising in East Pakistan was before India. Simultaneously, the relationship between India and the Soviet Union changed. This led to the formation of the ‘Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation’ on 9th August 1971. The CPI was ideologically aligned with Indira Gandhi’s government on its anti-imperialist position. After the end of the Indo-Pak war, cooperation between Indira Gandhi’s government and the CPI increased.

After the formation of Bangladesh, a delegation of AITUC visited Bangladesh. According to Roza, Mujibur Rehman, who was the president of Bangladesh, upon meeting Dange, touched his feet and told her, “He is my guru. I was a member of the Communist Party. It’s because of the teachings of Dange sahab that I could liberate Bangladesh. People of this country have given me immense love [1, p. 557].”

In 1973, various movements emerged across the country, taking up the cause of addressing inflation. Jayaprakash decided to step into the growing wave of public unrest. He urged people to participate in movements against corruption and appealed for the creation of a ‘people’s democracy’ instead of a parliamentary democracy. His ‘total revolution’ was to be achieved by general strikes, and on 23 April 1974, the National Co-ordination Committee of Railwaymen’s Struggle (NCCRS) declared a strike from 8th May [1, p. 567]. George Fernandes (convener, NCCRS) was a supporter of the ‘total revolution’ and intended to weaken the railways to weaken the economy. Soon, B. T. Ranadive declared that a class war had started, with the anti-inflation and anti-corruption movement representing the working classes. All of this was very similar to the political situation in Chile in 1973, which led to the assassination of their president, Salvador Allende, and Chile’s road to socialism came to a halt. Transportation workers had gone on strike, which was supported by the CIA. Later in 1975, Mujibur Rahman, who was taking Bangladesh towards socialism, was assassinated under similar conditions. Dange identified the role of imperial powers in the unrest in the country, and he created another trade union to fight the situation. Both Dange and Indira Gandhi identified that the strikes were not just limited to trade union agitations but had political backing from Western powers. Jayaprakash’s total revolution meant strikes, hartal, and arson were going on everywhere. The CPI started organizing people against the total revolution, and the party understood that it had to work with the Congress for this. Dange convinced people that Jayaprakash, knowingly or unknowingly, was representing such national and international forces that wanted Indira Gandhi’s fall and to undermine the democratic system and international policy. The CPI had called Jayaprakash’s movement ‘fascist’ [1, p. 570].

Dange was also close to Nirmala Deshpande, who was a Gandhian leader. She had worked with Vinoba Bhave on the ‘Bhudan movement’ and was also chairman of Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘Bharat Seva Sangh’ and ‘Harijan Seva Sangha’. During the total revolution of Jayaprakash, Vinoba had asked her to be with Indira Gandhi in Delhi. During this time, she stood by Indira Gandhi and protected her from all the attacks. Dange would remain in touch with Indira Gandhi through Nirmala Deshpande.

Indira Gandhi declared an Emergency on 26 June 1975, after discussing alternative options with political leaders, including Bhupesh Gupta of the CPI. In light of the shifting political landscape following the emergency, Dange threw himself deeper into political work. Party chairman Rajeshwar Rao also supported the emergency. Farmers and working people were not opposed to the emergency, as during the emergency period, 17 lakh acres of government land were distributed, and 40 lakh farmers without any land were given a place to stay. The imperialist powers such as the US, England, and France opposed this decision. On the other hand, the Soviet Union, Eastern European countries, Cuba, and Vietnam did not oppose it. During the emergency, the CPI wanted Indira Gandhi to work on the ‘Garibi hatao’ programs and nationalize textile mills.

The CPI was the only major political party to stand with Congress during the 1977 elections. Congress lost this election, and this had a deeper impact on both Congress and the CPI. Various leaders in the CPI concluded that it was a huge mistake to support the emergency and critiqued Indira Gandhi. However, Dange maintained that the emergency was an unpleasant necessity and the policy to be with the Congress was correct and should continue that way. CPI was sure that Congress wouldn't win, and they liked Charan Singh more than Indira Gandhi. According to Rajeshwar Rao, “a less powerful capitalist government in power is better than a powerful capitalist government. It would be easier to oppose that government. Also, Indira Gandhi has little support, so unity with her would be foolish [1, p. 589].”

In 1980, the party's national council had decided to remove Dange from the chairman position. In a long speech, Dange defended his policies and asserted that his policy was in the interest of the country, the working class, and the balance of power in his country and in the world.

Conclusion

The preceding events show the lack of understanding of sectarian sections in the CPI leadership of the role of the Congress. Further, the party abandoned its work towards new ideas and revolutionary struggle to focus on limited electoral politics. Dange's Unity and Struggle' motto was understood in a very superficial way of strategic political alliance. It needs to be understood as unity among the people, and struggle against systems of exploitation, not as an electoral strategy. We must understand Dange's assessment of this period of Indian history to understand our task today.

References

[1]    Roza Deshpande, S.A.Dange, Ek Itihas. 
[2]    Russi Karanjia, The Mind of Mr. Nehru, An Interview by R.K. Karanjia. ​

​Shubham Shinde is a PhD student based in Bangalore.