Volume:
2,
No.
1
Issue:
January-
March
1984
IT
is
full
50
years
since
the
formation
of
the
Congress
Socialist
Party
whose
beginning
can
be
traced
to
a
preliminary
consultation
held
at
Patna
in
May
1934,
where
an
organising
committee
was
formed
with
Jayaprakash
Narayan
as
convener.
Being
one
of
those
who
participated
in
the
two
conferences,
I
can
take
legitimate
pride
in
the
role
played
by
that
organisation
in
radicalising
the
then
congressmen
and
developing
a
powerful
anti-imperialist
united
front
in
the
1930s.
I
was
therefore
extremely
happy
when
I
was
informed
by
one
of
those
who
have
been
in
the
socialist
movement
for
the
last
half
a
century
that
the
jubilee
of
those
two
conferences
is
being
observed.
I
was
asked
to
associate
myself
in
some
way
with
this
project.
I
shall
certainly
cherish
the
sweet
and
bitter
memories
of
the
struggle
inside
that
party
which
took
me
from
the
Gandhi-Nehru
ideology
to
Marxism.
I
however,
cannot
endorse
the
view
of
the
friends
who
proposes
to
observe
the
year
1984
as
the
“golden
jubilee
of
the
birth
of
India’s
socialist
movement.”
For,
though
a
very
important
stage,
the
formation
of
the
Congress
Socialist
Party
did
not
signify
“the
birth”
of
India’s
socialist
movement.
The
socialist
movement
was
in
existence
much
earlier.
The
beginning
of
the
propagation
of
socialist
ideas
in
India
should
be
traced
to
the
year
1912
when,
within
a
few
months
of
each
other,
a
Hindi
and
a
Malayalam
biography
of
Karl
Marx
were
published.
The
former
was
written
by
the
well-known
revolutionary,
Lala
Hardayal,
and
the
latter
by
Ramakrishna
Pillai.
Four
years
earlier,
in
1908,
the
first
political
strike
of
the
working
class
in
the
India
had
taken
place-the
strike
of
the
Bombay
workers
in
protest
against
the
arrest
and
conviction
of
the
militant
nationalist
leader
from
Maharashtra,
Lok
Manya
Tilak.
The
two
prerequisites
for
an
organised
socialist
movement-the
emergence
of
apolitically
conscious
working
class
and
the
propagation
of
Marxism-had
thus
been
present
in
India
at
least
two
decades
before
the
CSP
was
formed.
The
big
revolutionary
upsurge
of
the
years
immediately
following
the
end
of
the
First
World
War
took
the
militant
national
movement
several
steps
forward.
For
the
first
time
in
the
history
of
India’s
freedom
movement,
the
working
class,
the
peasants
and
the
fighting
middle
classes
rallied
behind
the
non-cooperation-Khilafat
movement
led
by
Mahatma
Gandhi.
Industrial
strikes,
citywide
hartals,
huge
demonstrations
and
rallies
of
all
sections
of
the
working
people-those
became
common
features
of
our
political
life.
This
led
to
the
emergence
of
that
typical
form
of
militant
proletarian
action,
the
strike,
and
the
corresponding
organisation,
i.e.,
the
trade
unions
strike
committees,
etc.
Along
with
these
started
the
more
systematic
propaganda
of
the
teachings
of
Marx,
Engels
and
Lenin.
Communist
–
Socialist
ideas
came
to
India,
as
to
the
rest
of
Asia,
through
the
reports
(distorted
though
they
were)
about
the
epoch-making
events,
which
led
to
the
mergence
of
Bolshevik
Russia.
To
paraphrase
Mao
Se
Dong,
“it
was
the
salvoes
fired
in
revolutionary
Russia
that
brought
the
message
of
communism”
to
India.
Stirred
by
the
stories
of
the
revolutionary
upturning
of
society
in
Bolshevik
Russia
and
frustrated
at
the
compromising
policies
of
the
Congress
leadership,
rank
and
file
Congressmen
turned
to
two
alternative
paths:
either
the
doctrine
of
individual
terror
against
the
British
rulers
and
their
Indian
agents,
or
communism.
It
may
be
noted
that
the
well-know
revolutionary
leader,
Bhagat
Singh,
in
his
last
days
moved
towards
communism
and
that
many
of
his
colleagues
subsequently
joined
the
CPI.
Several
other
who
were
thrilled
by
the
world
shaking
revolution
in
Russia
undertook
their
“pilgrimage”
to
the
land
revolution,
braving
the
ordeals
of
the
Himalayan
shows
and
the
difficult
terrain
which
they
had
to
negotiate.
Thus
were
the
seeds
of
socialism/communism
sown
on
Indian
soil.
Emergence
of
Communist
Groups
The
birth
of
India’s
socialist
movement
should,
in
other
words,
be
properly
traced
to
the
early
1920s
when
two
parallel
developments
took
place
–
the
birth
of
the
All
–
India
Trade
Union
congress
and
the
mergence
of
the
early
communist
groups.
These
latter,
like
pioneers
in
any
country,
had
to
cross
many
hurdles,
which
their
successors
cannot
even
imagine.
No
socialist
of
later
days
can
forget
the
grim
conditions
under
which
the
first
generation
of
communists
had
to
fight
and
pave
the
way
for
the
subsequent
formation
of
the
organised
socialist
movement.
Those
who
propose
to
celebrate
1984
as
the
completion
of
half
a
century
after
“the
birth
of
India’s
socialist
movement”
are
therefore
less
than
fair
to
those
pioneers
whose
self-sacrificing
work
of
propagating
socialism
preceded
the
formation
of
the
Congress
Socialist
Party.
To
state
all
this
is
not
to
deny
the
positive
contribution
made
by
the
Congress
Socialist
Party
in
carrying
forward
the
work
that
had
earlier
been
done
by
the
pioneers.
Nor
is
it
to
claim
for
the
pioneers
that
they
did
not
suffer
from
various
weakness
and
shortcomings,
which
prevented
them
from
developing
an
all-India
party
with
branches
in
the
major
states.
Despite
these
weakness
and
shortcomings,
however,
the
communist
groups,
which
operated
for
over
a
decade
before
the
birth
of
the
CSP
were
the
real
pioneers
of
India’s
socialist
the
pioneers
of
India’s
communist
movement
were
persecuted
at
every
step
by
the
British
rulers
who
launched
three
conspiracy
cases-
Peshawar,
Kanpur
and
Meerut-
in
the
course
of
less
than
a
decade
in
a
planned
drive
to
prevent
the
growth
of
communism
on
Indian
soil.
Hundreds
of
militant
trade
unionists
and
radical
Congressmen
were
hunted
as
communists,
while
those
who
were
members
of
any
communist
group
in
any
part
of
the
country
had
to
undergo
various
kinds
of
persecution.
Politically,
too
the
communists
whose
job
it
was
to
master
and
apply
the
theoretical
principles
of
Marxism-Leninism
had
to
face
such
a
powerful
adversary
as
the
Indian
bourgeoisie,
the
most
nature
and
cleverest
of
that
class
rowing
in
any
colonial,
semi-colonial
or
dependent
country.
the
ideological
–
political
difficulties
arising
out
of
this
could
have
been
overcome
to
a
large
extent,
and
mistakes
speedily
corrected
if
only
the
various
communist
groups
functioning
in
the
country
could
have
had
the
opportunity
to
hold
continuous
discussion
among
themselves
and
with
the
leadership
of
the
deliberate
policy
adopted
by
the
British
rulers.
These
difficulties,
however,
did
not
prevent
the
small
and
scattered
communist
groups
from
developing
a
militant
trade
union
movement,
popularising
the
main
objectives
and
slogans
of
revolutionary
socialism
among
the
rapidly
growing
group
of
radical
Congressmen
and
shaping,
though
only
in
a
limited
way,
the
policies
of
the
Indian
national
Congress
itself.
The
manifesto
issued
to
the
delegates
of
the
Ahmedabad
session
of
the
Indian
National
Congress
and
various
other
pronouncements
made
in
the
name
of
the
CPI
informed
the
mass
of
Congress
about
the
existence,
of
and
the
revolutionary
programme
adopted
by,
the
slowly
emerging
Communist
Party.
The
small
band
of
communist
working
within
the
Congress
allied
themselves
with
radical
Congressmen
in
popularising
the
concept
of
complete
independence
and
pushing
forward
with
the
programme
of
direct
mass
action.
Above
all
the
communists
were
more
active
than
anybody
else
in
developing
the
militant
trade
union
and
other
mass
movement
through
the
popularisation
of
the
advanced
ideology
of
Marxism-Leninism
was
combined
with
militant
mass
action.
With
these
activities
did
in
a
small
way
influence
the
thinking
and
activities
of
anti-imperialist
militants
in
the
Indian
National
Congress,
and
while
a
section
of
the
Congress
leaders
like
Jawaharlal
Nehru
and
Subhas
Bose
were
also
influenced
by
them,
the
mass
of
Congressmen
were
outside
the
influence
of
the
organised
communist
movement.
They,
in
fact,
were
the
victims
of
anti-communist
prejudices
spread
by
the
British
rulers.
The
main
reason
for
this
is
that,
at
the
very
time
when
a
furious
battle
was
going
on
between
the
left
and
the
right
in
the
leadership
of
the
Congress,
culminating
in
the
Lahore
session
of
the
Congress
adopting
complete
independence
as
the
goal
of
the
Congress
and
President
Jawaharlal
Nehru
declaring
that
he
was
a
socialist,
all
the
top
and
middle-level
leaders
of
the
Communist
Party
and
pro-party
unionists
were
going
through
the
Meerut
conspiracy
case
trails.
This
all
India
case
and
scores
of
lesser
known
persecutions
shattered
the
organisation
of
the
Communist
Party
from
top
to
bottom
so
that
for
full
four
years
(1929-33)
there
was
no
all-
India
center
of
the
Communist
Party.
It
is
therefore
unfair
of
the
socialist
and
other
critics
of
the
Communist
movement
in
India
to
argue
(as
was
seriously
argued
by
the
leaders
of
the
newly
formed
congress
Socialist
Party)
that
the
communists
were
“completely
out
of
touch
with
the
congress
and
having
no
influence
on
the
national
movement.”
(Meerut
Thesis
adopted
at
the
second
all-India
conference
of
the
Congress
Socialist
Party
in
January
1936)
Epoch-Making
Developments
The
mass
of
Congressmen
and
other
anti-imperialists
in
the
country
were,
however
influenced
by
the
epoch-making
developments
in
the
world.
The
deepest
crisis
of
the
capitalist
world
economy
stood
in
marked
contrast
to
the
epoch-making
first
five-year
plan
being
successfully
implemented
in
the
Soviet
Union.
No
more
were
the
theories
of
socialism
abstract
questions
of
philosophy
to
be
debated
by
economists,
but
principles
that
were
being
applied
in
a
part
of
the
world
and
proving
its
superiority
in
the
face
of
the
crumbling
economy
of
capitalism.
India’s
anti
imperialists
saw
in
the
speedy
development
of
socialism
in
the
Soviet
Union
a
picture
of
their
own
country’s
future
if
only
they
were
able
to
win
freedom
throwing
the
British
rulers
out.
This
opened
the
eyes
of
rank
and
file
Congressmen
who
began
to
rally
round
the
ideas
of
Marxism-Leninism.
This
found
reflection
in
the
thinking
and
pronouncements
of
those
all-India
leaders
of
the
Congress
who
were
moving
to
the
left,
Nehru’s
presidential
address
at
the
Lahore
session
being
an
example.
Developments
In
India
Development
inside
the
country
too
made
the
bulk
of
militant
anti-imperialist
have
a
second
look
at
the
strategy
and
tactics
of
the
struggles
against
imperialism.
Followed
as
the
Salt
Satyagraha
of
1930
and
the
second
Civil
Disobedience
Movement
of
1932-33
was
by
the
compromising
politics
of
the
national
leadership
represented
by
Mahatma
Gandhi,
on
the
one
hand,
and
the
advocates
of
the
parliamentary
programme,
on
the
other,
radical
Congressmen
started
having
serious
reservations
on
the
Gandhian
ideology,
programme
and
policies.
They
were
disillusioned
also
of
the
parliamentary
programme
advocated
by
a
section
of
the
top
leadership
of
the
congress-a
programme
with
which
Gandhi
said
he
had
reservations
but
which
he
“blessed”.
On
the
other
hand,
the
efficacy
of
the
weapon
of
working
class
strikes
and
other
forms
of
mass
direct
action
was
proved
during
the
1930-32
satyagraha.
This
made
the
mass
of
anti-imperialist
political
activists
look
for
ways
and
means
of
organising
the
working
class,
which
drew
them
towards
communism
and
socialism.
The
meeting
of
the
All-India
Congress
committee
held
in
Patna
in
May
1934
and
the
following
all-India
session
of
the
Indian
National
Congress
held
in
Bombay
in
October
1934,
became
the
seems
of
a
furious
between
Gandhi,
the
Parliamentary
programme-
wallahs
and
other
sections
of
the
right
leadership
on
the
hand,
and
the
leftist
headed
by
the
socialists,
on
the
other.
The
newly
born
Congress
Socialist
Party
came
out
more
or
less
as
the
“leader
of
the
opposition”
to
the
“ruling
group”
in
the
Congress,
which
consisted
of
the
Gandhians,
the
parliamentary
and
other
rightists.
As
for
the
communists,
they
had
just
come
out
of
the
condition
into
which
they
had
been
driven
during
the
years
of
the
Meerut
conspiracy
case.
Although
the
various
communist
groups
had
come
together
under
a
centralised
leadership
just
before
the
formation
of
the
CSP
the
newly
set
up
all
India
center
of
the
CPI
had
to
work
underground,
since
the
British
government
imposed
a
ban
on
it.
Their
contribution
to
the
development
of
the
left
at
this
stage
was
therefore,
minimal.
Genesis
of
the
CSP
The
Congress
Socialist
Party,
as
is
known,
was
directly
born
out
of
the
above-mentioned
developments
inside
the
Indian
National
Congress.
The
first
preliminary
conference
to
take
steps
to
form
the
party
was
held
in
Patna
a
couple
of
days
before
the
AICC
session
in
May
1934.
The
first
regular
all-India
conference
too
was
held
in
October
the
same
year
in
Bombay,
just
preceding
the
all-India
session
of
the
Indian
National
Congress.
The
two
sessions
of
the
party
were
thus
preparations
on
the
part
of
the
socialist
for
the
battle
that
was
ahead
in
the
AICC
and
the
Congress
session.
The
attempt
was
thus
to
clearly
define
the
attitude
of
the
leftists
to
the
problems
being
placed
before
the
Congress.
Among
the
voluminous
material
on
the
birth
and
development
of
the
Congress
Socialist
Party,
a
prominent
place
should
be
given
to
a
book
written
by
Jaya
Prakash
Narayan
under
the
title,
Why
Socialism.
That
opened
the
eyes
of
a
large
number
of
young
Congressmen
and
women
who
were
grouping
towards
a
new
path
since
they
had
become
frustrated
with
the
utter
futility
of
the
programmes
and
practices
adopted
by
the
rightwing
leaders
of
the
Indian
National
Congress.
Striking
a
personal
note,
I
may
state
that
J
P
‘s
Why
Socialism
showed
us,
the
young
Congressmen
of
Kerala,
that
the
path
mapped
out
by
socialism
was
for
superior
to
Gandhism,
the
parliamentary
path
as
well
as
individual
terrorism-three
ideological
approaches
which
were
then
contending
for
ascendancy
in
the
Congress.
Why
Socialism
therefore
became
the
textbook
through
which
we
imbibed
the
elements
of
the
new
ideology.
This
was
true
of
young
Congressmen
and
women
all
over
the
country
who
were
all
yearning
for
a
new
ideology.
The
crux
of
j
P’s
book
consisted
not
so
much
of
its
advocacy
of
socialism
as
the
ultimate
objective
towards
which
India
should
move
after
attaining
freedom,
as
of
its
assertion
that
the
ideology
of
socialism
enables
the
radical
Congressmen
to
rally
the
mass
of
working
people
in
the
struggle
for
freedom.
In
other
words,
socialism
was
not
desirable
as
the
final
objective
but
also
the
effective
method
for
the
country’s
attainment
of
independence.
The
programme
advanced
in
the
book
therefore
contained
an
exposure
of
the
Gandhian
programme
of
khadi
and
village
industries,
non-violent
resistance,
etc;
the
parliamentary
path
advocated
by
another
section
of
the
right-wing
Congress
leaders
with
the
full
blessings
of
the
Mahatma
himself
and
the
programme
of
individual
terrorism
practiced
by
groups
of
revolutionaries
throughout
the
country.
As
opposed
to
every
one
of
those
methods
J
P
advocated
mass
struggles
waged
by
the
industrial
and
agricultural
labourers,
the
peasants
and
sections
of
the
working
people.
The
new
perspective
outlined
and
the
new
programme
advocated
by
Mahatma
Gandhi,
on
the
other
hand,
would
transform
the
Congress
from
a
fighting
organisation
into
a
combination
of
non-political
Seva
Sangh
and
an
efficient
machine
for
waging
electoral
battles.
Once
again
striking
a
personal
note,
I
cannot
but
recall
two
incidents,
which
moulded
my
political
development.
The
first
was
J
P
‘s
visit
to
Kerala
after
the
preliminary
conference
held
in
Patna
in
May
1934.
The
visit
was
in
his
capacity
as
the
Secretary
of
the
Organising
Committee,
which
was
to
prepare
for
the
foundation
conference
of
the
CSP
to
be
held
in
October.
The
speeches
he
delivered
during
that
visit
and
the
informal
discussions
he
held
with
us
underlined
the
importance
of
organising
the
trade
unions
and
the
kisan
sabha
without
which
no
determined
struggle
could
be
waged
for
independence,
or
could
the
compromising
policies
of
the
Congress
leadership
be
fought.
He
sought
to
generalise
the
experience
of
the
strikes
and
hartals
which
took
place
during
the
civil
disobedience
movement
and
pointed
out
how
these
forms
of
militant
mass
action
helped
in
paralysing
the
administration.
Improving
on
this
experience
and
developing
the
united
strength
of
the
working
class,
he
pointed
out,
was
the
only
methods
through
which
the
mighty
British
rule
could
be
broken.
We
saw
in
this
the
real
alternative
to
the
satyagraha,
parliamentary
and
terroristic
methods
with
which
we
were
so
far
familiar.
The
second
incident
occurred
in
February
1935
when
a
meeting
of
the
first
National
Executive
of
the
CSP
was
being
held
in
Nagpur.
In
between
the
formal
sessions
of
the
executive,
J
P
held
an
informal
meeting
at
which
he
outlined
his
idea
of
developing
the
CSP
in
to
an
effective
organisation
in
the
struggle
against
the
British
rulers.
Pointing
out
how
a
bourgeois
leader
of
the
Congress,
Sardar
Patel,
created
his
Bardoli,
J
P
asked:
“Can
we
not
create
our
own
socialist
Bardoli?”
This
was
not
meant,
he
clarified,
for
merely
realising
some
economic
demands
but
for
preparing
the
peasants
to
develop
their
parallel
governments.
“Seisure
of
the
thana”
was
the
term
he
used
to
indicate
the
direction
in
which
the
peasantry
should
be
organised.
The
two
incidents
mentioned
here
would
show
that,
although
using
the
term
socialist
and
sharing
many
of
the
ideas
of
“democratic
socialism”
with
the
leaders
of
the
Socialist
International,
J
P
was
above
which
would
challenge
the
leading
position
occupied
by
the
established
bourgeois
leadership
of
the
freedom
movement.
The
path
shown
by
him
was
so
attractive
to
the
young
Congressmen
and
women
that
thousands
of
them
plumbed
for
it
in
a
few
months.
J
P
and
his
comrades,
however,
were
not
operating
in
a
vacuum.
They
had
before
them
the
experience
gathered
by
the
first
generation
of
Indian
socialists
who
declared
themselves
to
be
communists
and
were
working
under
the
leadership
of
the
Communist
International.
These
pioneers
could
not,
as
was
noted
above,
consolidate
themselves
into
a
well-organised
party
since
imperialism
put
insuperable
obstacles
in
their
way.
Furthermore,
their
ides
of
how
the
struggle
for
socialism
should
be
organised
in
India
came
into
conflict
with
those
of
the
new
group
that
was
emerging
within
the
Indian
National
Congress.
Questions
arose
whether
the
Congress
being
bourgeoisie,
could
develop
into
an
instrument
of
struggle
for
socialism.
The
Meerut
Thesis
Serious
discussions
took
place
between
the
spokesmen
of
the
CSP
and
those
of
the
Communist
Party
of
India,
which
had
in
the
meantime
overcome
the
split
in
its
ranks
and
established
a
united
all-India
organisation.
The
results
of
these
discussions
were
spelt
out
in
the
document
adopted
at
the
second
national
conference
of
the
CSP
held
in
Meerut
in
January
1936.
That
document,
popularly
known
as
The
Meerut
Thesis,
runs
as
follows:
“The
Congress
Socialist
Party
grew
out
of
the
experiences
of
the
last
two
national
struggles.
It
was
formed
at
the
end
of
the
last
C
d
(civil
disobedience)
movement
by
such
Congressmen
as
came
to
believe
that
a
new
orientation
of
the
national
movement
had
become
necessary;
a
redefinition
of
its
objectives
and
a
revision
of
its
methods.
The
initiative
in
this
direction
could
be
taken
only
by
those
had
theoretical
grasp
of
the
forces
of
our
present
society.
These
naturally
were
those
Congressmen
who
had
cone
under
the
influence
of,
and
had
accepted,
Marxism
socialism.
It
was
natural,
therefore,
that
the
organisation
that
sprang
up
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
situation
took
the
description:
‘socialist’.
The
word
‘Congress’
prefixed
to
‘socialist’
only
signified
the
organic
relationship
–past,
present
and
future-
of
the
organisation
with
the
national
movement.
“The
socialist
forces
that
were
already
inexistence
in
the
country
were
completely
out
of
touch
with
congress
and
had
no
influence
on
the
national
movement.
Therefore,
there
did
not
take
place,
as
otherwise
there
would
have,
a
fusion
of
the
emerging
Congress
Socialist
Party
with
the
groups
previously
existing.
Giving
the
adoption
of
correct
and
sensible
tactics
by
all
the
parties
concerned,
there
is
every-likelihood
of
such
a
fusion-taking
place
at
a
later
stage.
“The
immediate
task
before
us
is
to
develop
the
national
movement
into
a
real
anti-imperialist
movement-a
movement
aiming
at
freedom
from
the
foreign
power
and
the
native
system
of
exploitation.
For
this
it
is
necessary
away
its
present
bourgeois
leadership
and
to
bring
them
under
the
leadership
of
revolutionary
socialism.
This
task
can
be
accomplished
only
if
there
is
within
the
Congress
an
organised
body
of
Marxian
socialists.
In
other
words,
our
party
alone
can,
in
the
present
conditions,
perform
this
task.
The
strengthening
and
clarification
of
the
anti-imperialist
forces
in
the
Congress
depends
largely
on
the
strength
and
activity
of
our
party.
For
fulfilling
the
party’s
task
it
will
also
be
necessary
to
coordinate
all
other
anti-imperialist
forces
in
the
country.
“Consistent
with
its
task,
the
party
should
take
only
an
anti-imperialist
stand
on
congress
platforms.
We
should
not
in
this
connection
make
the
mistake
of
placing
a
full
socialist
programme
before
the
Congress.
An
anti-imperialist
programme
should
be
evolved
for
this
purpose
suiting
the
needs
of
workers,
peasants
and
the
lower
middle
classes.
“It
being
the
task
of
the
party
to
bring
the
anti-imperialist
elements
under
its
ideological
influence,
it
is
necessary
for
us
to
be
as
tactful
as
possible.
We
should
on
no
account
alienate
these
elements
by
intolerance
and
impatience.
The
Congress
constructive
programme
should
not
be
obstructed
or
interfered
with.
It
should,
be
scientifically
criticised
and
exposed.
“In
Congress
elections,
“we
should
not
show
keenness
to
‘capture’
committees
and
offices
nor
should
we
form
alliances
with
politically
undesirable
groups
for
the
purpose.
“This
does
not
mean
that
the
party
shall
not
carry
on
socialist
propaganda
from
its
own
platform.
It
must
continue
to
do
so-and
do
it
more
systematically
and
vigorously.
“It
follows
that
the
party’s
own
programme
must
be
a
Marxist
one:
otherwise,
the
party
will
to
fulfill
its
task
and
leadership.
Marxism
alone
can
guide
the
anti-imperialist
forces
to
their
ultimate
destiny.
Party
members
must,
therefore,
fully
understand
the
technique
of
revolution,
the
theory
and
practice
of
the
class
struggle
the
nature
of
the
state
and
the
processes
leading
the
socialist
society.”
(Emphasis
added)
Conference
in
Faispur
A
year
after
The
Meerut
Thesis
was
adopted,
the
third
conference
of
the
CSP
was
held
in
Faispur.
It
developed
some
of
the
ideas
contained
above
and
said:
“It
is
the
Congress
that
we
must
take
as
the
basis
and
starting
point,
and
we
must
attempt
to
make
it
an
all-embracing
united
front
against
imperialism.
The
Congress
has
already
succeeded
to
a
extent
in
uniting
wide
forces
in
the
Indian
people
for
the
national
struggle
and
remains
today
the
principal
existing
mass
organisations
of
diverse
elements
seeking
national
liberation….
While
the
Congress
is
a
mass
organisation,
its
leadership
is
predominantly
bourgeois.
This
leadership
is
unable
to
develop,
while
the
framework
of
its
conception
and
interests,
the
struggle
of
the
masses
to
a
higher
level.
At
the
same
time
it
should
be
kept
in
view
that
the
Congress
leadership
is
no
longer
undivided.
Recently
a
conscious
left
has
been
forming
within
the
Congress
and
this
development
is
reflecting
itself
in
the
leadership
also….
Our
task
within
the
Congress
is
not
only
to
wean
away
the
anti-imperialist
elements
from
the
bourgeois
leadership
but
also
to
develop
and
broaden
the
Congress
so
as
to
transform
it
into
a
powerful
anti-imperialist
front.”
Such
a
transformation
of
the
Congress,
the
Faispur
Thesis
went
on
is
necessary
o
consolidate
the
socialist
forces.
“These
forces
are
unfortunately
still
divided.
The
party
from
the
beginning
has
stood
for
unity
in
the
socialist
ranks…
Apart
from
unity
or
agreement
among
socialist
ranks,
it
is
necessary
that
the
forces
of
the
left
are
also
consolidated
and
an
under
standing
developed
within
its
leadership.”
(Socialist
Movement
in
India,
Asim
Kumar
Chaudhari,
Cal.,
Appendix
–
II,
pp.
vi-vii,
emphasis
added)
CSP-CPI
Agreement
It
can
thus
be
seem
that
the
leadership
of
the
newly
formed
CSP
was
making
a
bid
for
bridging
the
gulf
between
the
earlier
groups
of
socialist-communists
and
those
who
rose
within
the
ranks
of
the
Congress
in
the
wake
of
the
international
and
national
development
of
the
early
1930s.
Central
to
this
perspective
was
united
action
between
the
reorganised
all-India
leadership
of
the
Communist
Party
of
India
and
the
Congress
Socialist
Party.
A
formal
agreement
was
arrived
at
between
the
two
parties.
P
C
Joshi
and
Jaya
Prakash
Narayan,
the
General
Secretaries
of
the
two
parties
signed
a
formal
agreement
on
behalf
of
the
two
parties.
That
agreement
played
a
big
role
in
the
anti-imperialist
upsurge
of
the
years
immediately
preceding
the
outbreak
of
the
Second
World
War.
It
helped
in
the
unification
of
the
trade
union
movement
as
well
as
in
the
development
of
the
kisan
and
student
movement,
both
oriented
towards
the
unity
of
all
anti-imperialist
forces.
At
the
same
time,
it
helped
the
radical
section
of
Congressmen,
the
emergence
of
a
well-organised
left
in
the
Congress
organisation
and
a
weakening
of
the
hold
of
the
right
wing
leadership
of
that
party.
The
electoral
defeat
of
Mahatma
Gandhi’s
candidate
for
congress
president
ship,
characterised
by
the
Mahatma
as
his
own
defeat,
was
the
high
watermark
of
this
developing
unity
of
the
left.
The
agreement
between
the
newly
formed
Congress
Socialist
Party
and
the
reorganised
all-India
leadership
of
the
CPI,
however
united
not
only
these
two
parties
but
a
large
number
of
anti
imperialist
throughout
the
country.
the
top
leaders
of
the
left
in
the
Congress,
like
Jawaharlal
Nehru
and
Subhas
Chandra
Bose,
were
in
broad
agreement
with
them.
The
pronouncements
of
Nehru
as
Congress
President
for
two
years
and
Bose
for
reflected
the
views
not
only
for
these
two
individual
leaders
but
of
the
entire
left
inside
the
Congress
as
well
as
outside.
Such
a
broad
agreement
among
all
the
leftists
was
possible
because
of
the
epoch-making
struggle
between
capitalism
and
socialism,
between
war
and
peace,
in
world
politics.
While
stirring
a
large
number
of
Congressmen
and
drawing
them
towards
socialism,
these
historic
developments
helped
those
who
had
already
organised
themselves
in
the
communist,
socialist
or
other
leftist
parties
to
extend
their
activities.
The
formation
of
the
CSP
helped
in
the
crystallisation
of
process
by
providing
a
forum
where
disillusioned
Congressmen
could
come
together,
organise
united
action
with
the
communists
and
other
leftist
forces
outside
the
Congress
and
help
in
the
emergence
of
a
powerful
anti-imperialist
united
front.
The
work
of
developing
a
powerful
anti-imperialist
front,
however,
was
not
smooth
or
easy.
The
struggle
was
hard,
since
the
differences
among
the
various
parties
and
gropes
were
wide
and
sharp.
This
was
particularly
true
of
the
difference
between
the
communists
on
the
hand,
and
other
leftists,
including
the
Congress
Socialists,
and
the
mass
of
left
Congressmen,
on
the
other.
The
Congress
socialist
Party,
as
its
very
name
implies
was
an
organisation
of
Congressmen,
with
its
commitment
to
socialism
being
an
extension
of
the
congressmen’s
commitment
to
the
the
Gandhian,
Nehruite
and
other
ideologies
of
the
Congress
party.
For
them
and
left
Congressmen,
socialism
was
a
development
from
the
resolution
of
the
Lahore
and
Karachi
sessions
of
the
Congress.
Communist
Programme
of
Action
The
communists,
on
the
other
hand,
tried
from
the
very
beginning
to
apply
to
the
concrete
condition
of
India
the
proletarian
world
outlook,
strategy
and
tactics
of
struggle
and
organisation.
The
draft
programme
of
action
formulated
by
the
party
in
1930
stated,
“In
this
connection,
world
history
and
the
lesion
of
class
struggle
in
India
prove
that
only
the
leadership
of
the
working
class
can
ensure
fulfillment
of
the
historic
task
of
emancipating
the
Indian
people,
abolishing
national
slavery,
sweeping
aside
all
the
fetters
which
check
national
development
confiscating
the
land
and
effecting
a
far-reaching
democratic
reconstruction
of
revolutionary
character.
The
working
class
of
India,
organised
by
the
industrial
process
itself
and
by
the
class
struggle
well,
under
the
leadership
of
the
communist
vanguard,
perform
its
historic
task
of
organising
the
scattered
masses
of
peasantry
and
town
poor
for
struggle
against
British
domination
and
landlordism.
“But
in
order
to
organise
the
mass
of
workers,
in
order
to
rally
the
proletariat
as
a
district
class,
conscious
of
its
distinct
class
interests
and
fighting
for
the
leadership
of
the
national
movement
for
emancipation,
in
order
to
bring
about
the
revolutionary
alliance
of
the
workers
and
peasantry
in
order
to
liberate
the
working
class,
the
peasantry
and
the
town
poor
from
the
hands
of
national
reformism
and
direct
their
revolutionary
struggle
towards
an
anti-imperialist,
anti-feudal
revolution,
for
all
these
purposes
the
working
class
requires
its
own
proletarian
Communist
Party.”
The
letter
half
of
the
1930s
witnessed
sharp
changes
in
the
international
situation
and,
following
them,
the
situation
in
India
changed
as
well.
The
1935-1936
years
marked
the
beginning
of
the
unification
of
the
anti-fascist
forces
all
over
the
world
for
which
the
call
was
given
by
the
Communist
International
in
August
1935.
In
India,
too,
the
bourgeois-led
freedom
movement
saw
in
the
Soviet
Union
and
other
socialist-communist
forces
in
the
world
a
reliable
and
strong
ally
against
British
rule.
It
was
this
that
got
reflected
in
the
radical
postures
adopted
by
the
Congress-not
only
its
left
leaders,
like
Nehru
and
Bose,
but
even
the
right
leaders
headed
by
Gandhi.
Even
before
these
developing,
the
communists
were
trying
to
give
a
proper
agrarian
orientation
to
the
programme
of
the
Indian
National
Congress.
An
amendment
along
these
lines
was
moved
at
the
1928
session
of
the
Congress,
which,
of
course
was
defeated.
This
struggle
enabled
the
communists
in
the
1930s,
in
cooperation
with
the
congress
socialist
and
other
radicals
to
undertake
the
task
of
seriously
organising
the
peasantry
under
the
kisan
sabha.
This
was
one
of
the
most
significant
gains
of
the
developing
anti-imperialist
unity
of
the
latter
half
of
the
1930s
in
which
the
CPI-CSP
unity
played
the
decisive
role.
Battle
Between
Right
and
Left
However,
as
the
leftists
consolidated
themselves
and
grew
strong
in
the
wake
of
the
growingly
united
anti-imperialist
front,
the
right
became
panicky.
They
tolerated
three
years
of
leftist
presidents
of
the
Congress-Nehru
and
Bose-since
it
helped
the
consolidated
of
the
Congress
as
an
organisation
capable
of
winning
the
electoral
struggle
in
1937.
They
however,
saw
to
it
that
the
leftists
were
in
a
minority
in
the
Working
Committee.
Nehru
and
Bose
occupied
the
post
of
president
ship
only
because
they
were
allowed
to
do
so
and
on
condition
that
they
should
have
Working
Committee
composed
predominantly
of
rightists.
The
development
of
the
leftist
movement
during
those
three
years
naturally
unnerved
the
right
leadership.
While
it
helped
in
the
mobilization
of
the
masses
behind
the
congress
in
its
electoral
struggle,
it
stood
in
the
way
of
the
Congress
leadership
coming
to
a
negotiated
settlement
with
the
British
rulers.
They,
therefore,
refused
to
give
another
year
during
which
the
leftist
leaders
Subhas
Bose
would
occupy
the
post
of
Congress
President.
A
fierce
would
fought
between
the
right
and
the
left
for
the
post
of
Congress
president
ship
for
the
fourth
year,
the
respective
candidates
of
the
two
sides
being
Subhas
Bose
for
the
left
and
Pattabhi
Sitaramayya
for
the
right.
That
epic
battle,
in
which
the
left
came
out
successful,
followed
by
a
still
more
fierce
battle
in
which
the
right
succeeded
in
manoeuvring
the
elected
Congress
President
out
of
office,
was
the
beginning
of
the
break-up
of
the
ant-imperialist
front
formed
three
years
earlier.
If
the
Lucknow
Congress
of
1936
marked
the
beginning
of
the
united
anti-imperialist
front
in
which
the
communists
and
Congress
Socialist
cooperated
with
leftist
Congressmen,
the
Tripuri
Congress
of
1939
was
its
end.
This
found
reflection
in
the
relation
between
the
CSP
and
the
CPI.
Although
confirmed
anti-communists
like
Masani
were
in
control
of
the
organisational
machine,
the
political
leadership
of
the
CSP
was
provided
by
Jaya
Prakash
Narayan,
who
was
more
convinced
than
anybody
else
in
the
CSP,
of
the
need
for
communist-socialist
unity.
He
was
the
author
of
Why
Socialism,
and
the
chief
architect
of
the
Meerut
and
Faizpur
Theses.
Following
as
he
did,
the
significant
developments
in
the
world
indicated
the
rapid
advances
of
the
anti-fascist
movement
and
its
betrayal
by
the
bourgeois
leaders
of
the
western
capitalist
countries,
he
was
all
for
communist-socialist
unity
on
a
world
scale.
In
India
too,
he
was
for
united
action
leading,
if
possible
to
the
merger
of
the
communist
and
socialist
parties.
He
agreed
with
his
anti-communist
comrades,
like
Masani,
that
cooperation
with
the
two
parties
would
strengthen
the
communists.
He,
however,
did
not
mind
it
because,
according
to
him,
the
Socialist
Party
would
also
grow.
The
situation,
however,
radically
changed
in
the
latter
half
of
the
1930s.
The
Moscow
trials
against
the
Trotskyites,
including
several
top
officers
of
the
Red
Army,
made
liberal
socialist
like
Jaya
Prakash
indignant.
They
began
to
doubt
whether
all
that
Masani
and
company
were
saying
against
the
Soviet
Union
and
the
communists
were
as
baseless
as
they
had
thought
earlier.
These
doubts
became
enormously
strengthened
when
the
Soviet
leaders
signed
the
non-aggression
treaty
with
Nazi
Germany.
These
developments
in
the
world
brought
J
P
closer
to
such
rabid
anti-communists
among
the
leaders
of
the
CSP
as
Masani,
Ashoke
Mehta
Patwardhan
and
so
on.
However,
a
large
number
of
young
congressmen
and
women
who
had
joined
and
worked
in
the
CSP
on
the
lined
laid
down
in
the
Meerut
and
Faizpur
theses
did
not
J
P
in
moving
away
from
the
earlier
pro-soviet
and
anti-
fascist
to
the
new
anti-communist
line.
They
thought
that
in
the
then
world
situation,
the
Soviet
Union,
which
was
the
most
dependable
bastion
of
the
anti-
fascist
forces
in
the
world,
had
to
defend
itself
against
enemy
agents.
They
therefore
gave
wholehearted
support
to
the
leadership
of
the
Soviet
Union
and
the
communist
international.
As
for
the
Soviet-German
agreement,
it
undoubtedly
understood,
that
when
imperialism
was
using
every
diplomatic
and
political
means
to
isolate
and
weaken
the
Soviet
Union,
the
leaders
of
the
latter
were
obliged
to
do
everything
possible
to
get
out
of
the
isolation
into
which
their
country
was
being
forced.
Subsequent
developments
in
the
world
situation-the
perfidious
Nazi
attack
on
and
the
heroic
resistance
put
up
to
it
by
the
Soviet
people,
culminating
in
the
final
defeat
of
fascism-proved
the
correctness
of
the
positions
adopted
by
the
Soviet
leadership.
Break-up
of
Relations
The
months
preceding
the
outbreak
of
the
Second
World
War
and
the
first
years
of
the
war,
therefore,
led
to
a
break-up
of
the
relations
between
the
CSP
and
the
CPI.
Some
of
the
state,
district
and
local
units
of
the
CSP
(including
the
entire
membership
of
the
CSP
in
Kerala)
transformed
themselves
in
their
entirety
from
the
CSP
to
the
CPI.
This
is
ascribed
by
anti-communist
historians
of
the
CSP
to
the
wily
machinations
of
the
CPI
leaders
who
are
supposed
to
have
made
several
know
communists
to
“infiltrate
into
the
CSP”
and
disrupt
if
from
within.
Since
I
happen
to
be
one
of
those
who
are
thus
supposed
to
have
“infiltrated”
himself
into
the
CSP,
I
may
state
the
actual
facts.
I
was
elected
one
of
the
four
Joint
Secretaries
of
the
all-India
congress
socialist
Party
along
with
Masani,
Goray
and
Gautam
at
the
very
first
conference
in
October
1934.
None
of
the
delegates
who
attended
the
Bombay
Conference
from
Kerala
(including
Krishna
Pillai,
A
K
Gopalan
and
myself)
had
in
fact
any
earlier
contacts
with
the
Communist
Party
at
that
time.
No
question
therefore
arises
of
“EMS,
a
communist,
being
permitted
to
infiltrate
into
the
CSP.”
It
was
a
year
after
the
Bombay
Conference
of
the
CSP
that
the
late
Krishna
Pillai
and
I
had
the
first
contact
with
the
Communist
Party
of
India
through
Sundarayya.
It
took
almost
two
more
years
after
this
first
contact
9in
19370
to
form
the
first
unit
of
the
Communist
party
of
India
in
Kerala.
During
this
whole
period,
the
CSP
leaders
of
Kerala
worked
as
honest
and
loyal
workers
in
the
cause
of
socialism,
to
develop
the
trade
unions,
kisan
sabha
and
other
pass
organisations
as
well
as
to
develop
the
Congress
as
a
radical
anti-imperialist
organisation
in
Kerala.
It
was
this
solid
work
in
the
urban
and
rural
areas
of
the
state
and
not
the
mercy
of
Masani
and
Co.,
that
made
us
leaders
of
the
trade
union
and
the
peasant
movement,
members
of
the
AICC,
etc.,
making
me
the
Secretary
of
the
Kerala
Provincial
Congress
committee
and
a
member
of
the
then
Provincial
Legislative
Assembly
of
Madras.
Krishna
Pillai,
AKG
and
I,
in
other
words
were
Congress
Socialist
leaders
in
our
own
right
and
not
because
JP
or
somebody
else
“put
us
in
charge”
as
the
anti-communist
“historians”
want
the
people
to
believe.
Why,
then,
did
the
congress
Socialist
of
Kerala
join
the
Communist
Party
en
bloc?
Because
they
were
tremendously
impressed
by
the
gigantic
strides
taken
by
the
Soviet
Union
in
its
(first)
five
year
plan.
They
naturally
came
to
the
conclusion
that
the
socialist
revolution
in
Russia
showed
the
revolutionaries
of
India,
as
the
revolutionaries
of
other
countries
fighting
for
freedom,
the
path
forward.
They,
therefore,
joined
the
very
first
group
of
congressmen
who
declared
socialism
to
be
their
final
objective,
the
group
headed
by
JP,
Masani,
etc.
It
may
be
added
here,
that,
if
in
fact
the
founders
of
the
CSP
in
Kerala
had
come
into
contact
with
the
then
illegal
CPI
before
the
formation
of
the
all-India
CSP,
they
might
have
probably
plumed
for
that
party.
For,
unlike
Masani
and
Co.,
that
did
not
have
the
background
of
the
British
Labour
Party
whose
‘socialism’;
was
infected
with
anti-communist,
anti-soviet
prejudices.
Naturally,
therefore,
the
moment
they
got
the
first
opportunity
to
contact
the
then
illegal
CPI,
the
Congress
Socialists
of
Kerala
entered
into
serious
and
businesslike
discussion
with
them,
and
on
weighing
the
merits
and
demerits
of
the
policies
laid
down
by
the
leaders
of
the
CPI,
on
the
one
hand,
Masani
and
Co.,
on
the
other,
they
found
the
former
more
correct.
Their
change
over
from
congress
Socialism
to
communism
was
thus
as
natural
as
the
earlier
transition
of
Gandhite
or
Nehrite
Congressmen
into
Congress
Socialists.
What
happened
in
Kerala,
however
was
no
exception.
In
several
other
states,
the
same
development
took
place.
It
was
natural
for
those
who
came
into
the
socialist
movement
through
JP’s
Why
Socialism
and
whose
convictions
were
strengthened
by
the
Meerut
and
Faizpur
Theses
to
refuse
to
be
subjected
to
the
anti-
Soviet
and
anti-communist
prejudices
which
Masani
and
Co.,
tried
to
create
in
them.
If
Socialism
provided
the
more
effective
method
of
winning
independence,
as
J
P
pointed
out
in
why
Socialism,
the
socialists
cannot
afford
to
join
the
chorus
of
anti-sovietism
and
anti
–
communism.
J
P,
too,
in
the
first
years
the
CSP
refused
to
too
the
line
of
Masani
and
Co.,
though
subsequently
he
succumbed
to
it.
May
others,
including
the
entire
CSP
of
Kerala
and
of
some
other
areas
in
the
country,
refused
to
follow
J
P
into
the
anti-communist
camp.
Why
The
Break
The
years
preceding
and
immediately
after
the
outbreak
of
the
war
thus
saw
a
clear
break
between
the
CPI
and
CSP
his
unity
in
action
had
helped
the
consolidation
of
left
forces
in
the
latter
years
of
the
thirties.
The
path
traversed
by
the
two
parties
since
then
have
been
so
divergent
that
it
would
be
unimaginable
for
anybody
who
does
not
know
the
facts
that
the
two
parties
together
had
given
effective
leadership
to
the
left
movement
at
a
particular
stage
in
its
development.
The
question
arises
as
to
why
the
break
came,
the
line
adopted
by
which
party
has
been
proved
more
correct.
The
stand
adopted
by
the
CPI
during
the
latter
part
of
the
war,
i.e.,
after
Nazi
Germany
attacked
the
Soviet
Union,
did
undoubtedly
lead
to
the
temporary
isolation
of
the
Party
from
the
mainstream
of
India’s
patriotic
masses.
People
could
not
understand
how
a
war
waged
by
the
British
rulers
of
India
could
be
“people’s
war”;
as
it
was
characterised
by
the
CPI.
The
CSP,
on
the
other
hand,
came
to
the
center
of
the
stage,
played
the
leading
role
in
organising
the
popular
revolt
against
British
imperialism
during
the
days
of
the
Quite
India
struggle.
The
socialist
leaders
therefore
hoped
that,
in
the
contest
between
themselves
and
the
communists,
they
would
get
the
overwhelming
support
of
the
people.
It
was
in
fact
with
this
calculation
that,
following
the
attainment
of
independence
on
August
15,
1947,
the
then
Congress
Socialist
Party
removed
the
prefix
“Congress”
and
transformed
itself
into
the
Socialist
Party.
Its
leaders
had
the
ambition
of
coming
out
as
the
major,
if
not
the
only
opposition,
to
the
new
ruling
the
Congress.
In
1952,
when
the
first
general
elections
under
the
new
constitution
were
held,
the
socialist
leaders
staked
their
claim
for
being
the
major
opposition
party
in
the
country
as
a
whole
and
the
ruling
party
in
a
few
states.
The
results
of
the
elections,
however,
were
quite
contrary
to
their
expectations.
Not
only
was
the
Socialist
Party
humiliated
by
the
massive
defeat
administered
by
the
electorate,
but
also
the
communist
Party
came
out
as
the
major
left
opposition
group.
The
united
front
led
by
the
party
was
in
a
position
to
stake
its
claim
for
forming
the
first
non
–
Congress
Government
in
the
two
southern
states
of
Travancore-
Cohin
and
Madras,
while
in
two
other
states-
West
Bengal
and
Hyderabad-the
CPI
became
the
recognised
opposition.
In
the
two
houses
of
Parliament,
too,
the
CPI
came
out
as
the
largest
group
in
the
opposition.
These
humiliating
electoral
reverses
were
followed
by
intense
ideological
and
political
confusion
in
the
ranks
of
the
Socialist
Party,
which
led
several
anti-communist
leaders
of
the
CSP
to
different
paths-J
P
to
sarvodaya,
Masani
to
the
Congres
and
then
Swatantra,
Patwardhan
to
Sanyas,
and
so
on.
The
rest
followed
the
tortuous
course
of
the
initial
merger
of
the
Socialist
Party
with
the
Praja
Party
to
form
the
PSP,
the
break-up
of
that
party
into
the
PSP
and
SP;
the
merger
of
the
two
into
the
SSP;
the
break-up
of
the
latter;
the
final
merger
of
all
existing
socialist
groups
into
the
Janta
in
1977;
the
subsequent
division
into
various
groups
formed
out
of
the
old
Janta,
etc.
The
path
traversed
by
the
Socialist
Party
since
its
first
electoral
defeat
in
1952,
showed
the
deep
crisis
into
which
in
fell.
It
is
true
that
the
Communist
Party
too
got
split
into
the
CPI(M)
and
CPI.
Followed
as
this
was
by
the
rise
of
the
Naxalite
groups
from
the
CPI(M)
and
that
of
the
Dange
group
from
the
CPI,
it
may
be
superficially
compared
to
the
disintegration
of
the
Socialist
Party.
In
fact,
there
is
no
comparison
between
the
ideological,
political
and
organisational
struggle
among
the
communists
and
the
disintegration
of
the
Socialist
Party.
For,
unlike
the
socialists
the
communists
fought
on
question
of
ideology
and
politics.
It
therefore
became
possible
after
a
time
for
the
two
major
organisations
of
communists,
the
CPI(M)
and
the
CPI,
to
learn
from
experience
and
come
together
in
united
actions.
The
area
of
unity
in
action
has
been
steadily
expanding,
though
major
ideological
issues
still
remain.
No
such
question
of
ideology
and
politics
was
involved
in
the
mergers
and
break-ups
of
the
various
socialist
groups.
The
Difference
This
difference
in
the
paths
traversed
by
the
two
parties
can
be
traced
to
the
fact
that
while
the
communists
with
all
the
weaknesses
revealed
and
mistakes
committed
on
several
occasions,
stood
on
the
solid
ground
of
the
proletarian
outlook
on
international
as
well
as
national
issues,
the
CSP
has
its
foot
firmly
set
in
bourgeois
policies.
This
was
so
when
the
communists
joined
the
CSP
in
working
inside
the
Congress
and
tried
to
develop
it
into
a
genuine
anti-imperialist
organisation.
Unlike
the
CSP,
whose
membership
was
confined
to
those
socialists
who
were
primarily
Congressmen,
the
communists
joined
the
Congress
as
communists.
The
former
had
their
basic
loyalty
to
the
Congress
organisation,
while
the
latter’s
loyalty
was
basically
to
their
class
and
party.
During
the
Quit
India
struggle
of
August
1942,
and
in
the
subsequent
years,
the
CSP
was
undoubtedly
with
the
anti-imperialist
masses
but
they
were
only
carrying
out
the
decisions
of
the
congress.
When
the
Congress
gave
up
the
path
of
mass
struggle
and
went
in
for
negotiated
settlement
with
the
British
rulers,
therefore,
the
CSP
could
do
nothing
to
prevent
it.
The
CPI,
on
the
other
hand,
was
able
rapidly
to
overcome
its
war-time
isolating
from
the
anti-imperialist
masses
and
come
out
as
the
most
energetic
organiser
of
such
heroic
actions
a
Telangana,
Punnapra-Vayalar,
Tebhaga,
etc;
it
plunged
fully
into
such
anti-imperialist
actions
as
the
demonstrations
in
support
of
INA
prisoners
and
the
RIN
revolt.
The
role
played
in
these
militant
mass
actions
brought
the
Party
one
again
into
the
mainstream
of
the
anti-imperialist
movement.
Although
this
was
taken
to
left-sectarian
lines
after
the
Second
Congress
of
the
CPI
(1948),
the
party
was
even
at
this
stage
not
in
conflict
with
the
mood
of
the
masses;
although
over-stepping
the
lines
within
which
the
people
were
giving
expression
to
their
discontent
against
the
new
Congress
regime,
the
Party
was
not
swimming
against
the
main
current,
as
it
was
during
the
days
of
the
Quit
India
struggle.
That
was
why
the
Party’s
performance
in
the
1952
general
elections
was
much
better
than
that
of
the
socialists.
Ideological
Struggle
It
is
now
full
32
years
after
the
respective
lines
of
the
CPI
and
the
Socialist
Party
were
put
to
the
first
test
of
electoral
support.
The
rich
experience
gained
in
this
period
has
taught
the
CPI(M),
the
CPI
and
the
various
socialist
groups
into
which
the
original
CSP
got
divided
the
lesson
that
they
should
unite
their
forces
and,
together
with
other
democratic
forces
fighting
the
ruling
party’s
drive
towards
authoritarianism
and
for
the
preservation
of
democracy,
they
should
base
themselves
on
the
mobilisation
of
the
working
people
independently
of
the
bourgeoisie.
In
this
struggle
for
the
unity
of
left
opposition,
the
ideological
difference
between
the
communist
and
socialist
movements
should
nevertheless
be
borne
in
mind.
The
communist
movement
in
India
arose
over
six
decades
ago,
as
part
of
the
international
proletarian
movement
and
withal
its
ups
and
downs,
stuck
to
that
position;
the
mistakes
and
deviations,
which
no
doubt
crept
in,
were
overcome,
due
largely
to
its
basic
character,
proletarian
outlook
on
international
and
national
questions.
Although
to
a
large
extent
influenced
by
the
international
proletarian
movement,
the
various
socialist
parties,
whose
origin
should
be
traced
to
the
formation
of
the
CSP
50
years
ago,
were,
and
continue
to
be,
by
and
large
non-proletarian
democratic
parties.
The
two
together
could
make
a
big
contribution
in
the
prewar
years,
but
drifted
apart
during
the
war
and
after.
The
unity
of
action,
which
has
of
late
been
developing
is
no
doubt
a
positive
development,
but
it
should
not
make
anybody
blind
to
the
gulf
that
still
separates
the
two
(proletarian
and
non-proletarian)
trends.
Let it be stated in conclusion that the CPI(M) is itself conscious of the need for eternal vigilance and continuous struggle against the non-proletarian trends that may crop up in a mass revolutionary party of the working class. Hence the emphasis laid in the party documents on continuous ideological struggle against right as well as “left” deviations the use of the method of criticism and self-criticism, without which the party cannot develop itself into a mass revolutionary party of the working class.