"The Communist Party's Support to Pakistan"

[p. 369] It ought not to surprise any one if the leaders of the Communist Party in India should seek to find justification for their support to the Pakistan demand of the All-India Muslim League in the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. and the writings of M. Stalin. But it is really surprising that Dr Radha Kumud Mukherji, the President of the Akhand Hindustan Conference, should also find inspiration in the same sources and base his suggestions on the same model. It is therefore necessary to consider in some detail the view-point of M. Stalin which has been endorsed by the Communist Party and embodied in the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. as it has developed since the October Revolution of 1917.

M. Stalin defines : 'A nation is a historically evolved stable community of language, territory, economic life and psychological [p. 370] make-up manifested in a community of culture.’ Like every other historical phenomenon it is 'subject to the law of change, has its history, its beginning and end. It must be emphasized that none of the above characteristics is by itself sufficient to define a nation. On the other hand it is sufficient for a single one of these characteristics to be absent and the nation ceases to be a nation.’ ‘Modern nations are a product of a definite epoch—the epoch of rising capitalism. The process of the abolition of feudalism and the development of capitalism was also the process of formation of people into nations. The British, French, Germans, and Italians formed into nations during the victorious march of capitalism and its triumph over feudal disunity.

‘Where the formation of nations on the whole coincided in time with the formation of centralized states, the nations naturally became invested in a state integument and developed into independent bourgeois national states. Such was the case with Great Britain (without Ireland), France and Italy. In Eastern Europe, on the other hand, the formation of centralized states, accelerated by the exigencies of self-defence (against the invasions of the Turks, Mongols and others), took place prior to the break-up of feudalism and therefore prior to the formation of nations. Here, as a result, the nations did not, and could not, develop into national states, but formed into several mixed, multinational, bourgeois states, consisting of one powerful, dominant nation and several weak, subject nations. Such are Austria, Hungary and Russia.

'National states, such as France and Italy, depending mainly on their own national forces, were generally speaking unacquainted with national oppression. In contradistinction, the multinational states, based as they are on the domination of one nation—or rather of its ruling class—over the other nations, were the original home and the chief scene of national oppression and national movements. The contradictions between the interests of the ruling nations and the interests of the subject nations are such that unless they are solved the stable existence of multinational states becomes impossible. The tragedy of the multinational bourgeois state is that it is unable to overcome these contradictions and that every attempt it makes to “level” the nations and “protect” the national minorities while preserving private property and class inequality usually ends in a new failure and a further intensification of national hostilities.

'The subsequent growth of capitalism in Europe, the need for new markets, the search for raw materials and fuel, and finally, the development of imperialism, the export of capital, and the necessity of protecting the great sea and rail routes have led, on the one hand, to the seizure of new territories by the old national states and [p. 371] the conversion of the latter into multinational (colonial) states with the national oppression and national conflicts characteristic of multinational states (Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy), and on the other hand, have intensified the strivings of the dominant nations in the old multinational states not merely to preserve the old state boundaries but to extend them and to subjugate new (weak) nationalities at the expense of neighbouring states. In this way the national problem was enlarged and finally, in the very course of events, became merged with the general problem of the colonies ; while national oppression was transformed from an internal question into an inter-state question, into a question of conflict (and war) between the “Great” imperialist Powers for the subjugation of weak and non-sovereign nationalities.’

The imperialist War (1914-18) led to an extreme aggravation of national conflicts within the victorious colonial States (Great Britain, France, Italy), to the complete disintegration of the defeated former multinational states (Austria, Hungary, Russia in 1917), and finally to the formation of new bourgeois national states (Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Yugoslavia, Finland, Georgia, Armenia, etc.), each with its own national minorities. The new national States based as they are on private property and class inequality cannot exist (i) without oppressing their own national minorities, (Poland, which oppresses the White Russians, Jews, Lithuanians and Ukrainians ; Georgia which oppresses the Ossets, Abkhasians and Armenians ; Yugoslavia which oppresses the Croats and Bosnians and others); (ii) without extending their territories at the expense of their neighbours which leads to conflict and war ; and (iii) without becoming subject financially, economically and militarily to the ‘Great’ imperialist Powers.

This was inevitable as private property and capital inevitably disunite people, inflame national unity and intensify national oppression ; and collective property and labour just as inevitably bring people closer, undermine national dissension and destroy national oppression. The existence of capitalism without national oppression is just as inconceivable as the existence of socialism without the emancipation of oppressed nations, without national freedom. Hence the triumph of the Soviet and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a basic condition for the abolition of national oppression, the institution of national equality and the guarantee of the rights of national minorities. The establishment of a Soviet system in Russia and the declaration of the right of nations to political secession have brought about a complete change in the relations between the toiling masses of the nationalities of Russia. In isolation the existence of the various [p. 372] Soviet Republics was uncertain and unstable because of the menace to their existence offered by the capitalist states. Their joint interests in the matter of defence, a restoration of their productive forces shattered during the War, and the fact that those Soviet Republics which are rich in food must come to the aid of those which are poor in food, all imperatively dictated the political union of the various Republics as the only means of escaping imperialist bondage and national oppression.

The above extract authoritatively lays down the principles as conceived by the Communist Party of Russia ; these principles have been explained at length by M. Stalin and others in their speeches and writings extending over a period from long before the Revolution of 1917 down to the present day. Let us consider in the light of the above principles, as so explained, the claim of the Muslim League that the Musalmans of India constitute a nation separate from the other nation or nations of India and as such are entitled not only to the right of secession but also to actual separation—here and now—from India, of the areas in which they are numerically in a majority.

If we apply the tests whereby it is to be judged whether a community constitutes a nation or not according to the principles of the Communists, the Musalmans of India as a whole cannot be said to constitute a nation. They do not all speak one and the same language, which is different for different provinces and territories. In fact the Muslims of a particular province speak the language of the province to which they belong and which language is also spoken by the non-Muslim communities of that province and which differs from the language of other provinces. This is true not only of the distant provinces but also of contiguous provinces in the North-Western Region where Baluchi, Sindhi, Pushto and Punjabi are spoken by the residents of the four provinces. These differ from one another as much as they differ from say Hindi or Hindustani or Bengali and Gujerati.

They cannot be said to inhabit the same territory unless we take India as a whole constituting one territory. The territories in the North-Western and Eastern Regions of India where Musalmans predominate in population are separated from one another by nearly a thousand miles. Nor can it be said that the Musalmans as such have a separate economic life which distinguishes them from non-Muslims. Their economic life is the same as that of the non-Muslims in the area which they inhabit and is separate from that of Muslims and non-Muslims alike in other regions which differ.

It is noticeable that M. Stalin does not mention religion at all [p. 373] as a basis for the foundation of a separate nation. In fact in several places in his writings he ridicules the idea that the Jews on the basis of their religion alone can be said to constitute a separate nation. But we may assume that what he calls ‘psychological make-up manifested in a community of culture’ does include the influence of religion which undoubtedly plays an important part in the cultural development of a community. Despite what Islam may have taught, there is no doubt that Islamic culture in India as a whole is not uniform. It has indeed varied in its content and manifestation in different parts and Musalmans present as variegated a kaleidoscope as any other community in this respect. The difference between Shias and Sunnis is practically as old as Islam itself. Then we have many groups of Musalmans who observe the Hindu law of succession and still maintain many of the customs of the Hindu community to which they originally belonged. We have also the recent sect of Qadianis. Many of these differences are about religious tenets and principles but they also pervade and permeate the social life of the Musalmans. It must be admitted, however, that despite these differences there is an overall Muslim culture which is common to all Musalmans. In that sense there is an overall Indian culture also which is common to Muslims and non-Muslims of India in spite of many differences among them. It thus follows that according to the Communist definition the Musalmans of India as a whole do not constitute a separate nation. The Indian Communists also recognize this. ‘Gandhiji has the greatest objection to accepting religion as basis of nationhood. He is right in the sense that religion alone does not make a nation. It will be a digression here to discuss what part religion does play in influencing the psychological make-up of a people and in moulding their national culture, both of which are among the attributes of a nation. It is enough for us to state that the Indian Muslims cannot be regarded as a nation on the basis of their common religion. But to say this alone is to state only half the truth.’ The other half of the truth according to Mr Joshi is that India constitutes a family of nationalities.

The second point which requires consideration is the historical one—of the growth of the question of nationalities. M. Stalin divides this into three periods. ‘The first period is the period which saw the break-up of feudalism in the West and the triumph of capitalism. The formation of people into nations occurred during this period’ —in Great Britain (without Ireland), France and Italy. ‘In Eastern Europe, on the contrary, the process of formation of nationalities and the elimination of feudal disunity did not coincide in time with the process of formation of centralized States. . . . Mixed States arose, each made up of several nationalities which [p. 374] had not yet formed themselves into nations but which were already united in a common State.... These multinational States of the East were the birth-place of that national oppression which gave rise to national conflicts, national movements, the national problem and the various methods of solving that problem.’ Russia in the Tsarist Regime was one of these Eastern States of Europe where the question arose on account of the oppression of the border regions by the Great Russians.

'The second period in Eastern Europe is marked by the awakening and invigoration of subject nations (Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians) which, as a result of the imperialist War, led to the dissolution of the old bourgeois multinational States and the formation of new national States enthralled to what are known as the Great Powers.

‘The third period is the Soviet period, the period of the destruction of capitalism and the abolition of national oppression.’

Now in India we have not had the same kind of development. We have undoubtedly one centralized State covering the whole of British India and exercising an overriding power over the Indian States. But in this centralized State Indians of no community or province have had any power. Whatever oppression nationalities have had to suffer has not been at the hands of any Indian group or community exercising power in this Central State as was the case in Eastern Europe—in Russia in particular. All nationalities of India have been subject to the same Central power which is a foreign power. The problem that arises here is not of safeguarding the rights of nationalities inter se but against the common Central power which equally dominates each and all of such nationalities. The case of India therefore falls in the category not of European nationalities but of the colonial countries. Logically therefore the question which ought to demand and receive precedence is of attaining freedom from the imperialist domination of Great Britain and not separation of the oppressed nationalities from one another. This is exactly what the Congress has been insisting upon.

It may be said, however, that the nationalities which constitute a minority should be assured that when freedom from imperialist domination and oppression is attained, they should not be exposed to the risk of similar domination by the majority which will come into power on the elimination of the imperialist power. This assurance can be given by recognizing the right of self-determination or secession subject to certain self-evident and essential limitations similar to those which the U.S.S.R. Constitution imposes. ‘The question of the right of nations freely to secede must not be confused with the question that a nation must necessarily secede at any given moment.... When we recognize the right of oppressed [p. 375] peoples to secede, the right to determine their political destiny, we do not thereby settle the question whether particular nations should secede from the Russian State at the given moment. I may recognize the right of a nation to secede, but that does not mean that I compel it to secede. A people has a right to secede, but it may or may not exercise that right, according to circumstances. Thus we are at liberty to agitate for or against secession, according to the interests of the proletariat, of the proletarian revolution. Hence the question of secession must be determined in each particular case independently, in accordance with existing circumstances, and for this reason the question of the recognition of the right to secession must not be confused with the expediency of secession in any given circumstances.’ What is demanded in India is not merely the recognition of the right to secession but an actual secession here and now and before the country has been able to get rid of the dominant imperial power.

It is thus apparent that M. Stalin and the Russian Communist Party do not insist on one uniform pattern of action to be adopted in all countries irrespective of their peculiar conditions. M. Stalin in particular emphasizes the differentiation between revolution in imperialist countries, countries that oppress other peoples, and revolution in colonial and dependent countries, countries that suffer from the imperialist oppression of other States ; and he quotes as authoritative the statement from a thesis of the Communist International that in countries like China and India ‘foreign domination perpetually hinders the development of social life,’ and that ‘therefore the first step of a revolution in the colonies must be to overthrow foreign capitalism.’ Is it not in keeping with this that in India the first step must be the ending of the foreign domination and not a division of the country ?

It must also be noted that while the Communist Party adopted as its policy the right of nations to self-determination, the right of peoples to lead an independent political existence, it also holds equally strongly that oppressed nationalities cannot achieve their emancipation without the abolition of private property and capital, without the establishment of collective property and labour, and without the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is therefore on the twin principles of the recognition of the right to secession of nationalities and of the establishment of a Soviet state and of the dictatorship of the proletariat that the fraternal collaboration of peoples within a single confederate State can be built up. It will not do to take up one aspect, viz. the right of secession and leave out the other, viz. the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is evident that a consistent adoption of both the aspects will create many difficulties, and those who support [p. 376] Pakistan as demanded by the Muslim League know this and are consequently vocal about the one but silent about the other in this context. It is not without reason also that Mr Jinnah and the Muslim League generally are cold, if not positively hostile, towards the support which the Communist Party of India is offering so effusively to the League proposal.