Buddhadeva Bhattacharya
We have already referred to the internal differences within the CSP on its Tripuri stand. Let us now discuss the reaction of Anushilan marxists working the CSP. It has already been pointed out that they sided with Bose. It was because of the fact that they found in him the spokesman of the genuine, pro-struggle anti-imperialist forces who in opposition to the vacillating, compromising policy of the reformist bourgeois leadership were trying to project an alternative path—the path of uncompromising struggle against imperialism—before the Congress and the nation. It was in this background their reaction to the CSP stand is to be viewed. Jogesh Chatterji recounts that when Jayaprakash Narayan informed them of the CSP decision to remain neutral on the Pant resolution he reacted violently, resigned from the Party and 'left Tripuri out of disgust.1Other Anushilan marxists fully supported Bose and stood solidly behind him.
The congress socialists and the communists by their actions on the Pant resolution had clearly shown that they were interested in the unity of the Congress under Gandhi's leadership than in the unity of the left under Bose.2 But Bose's struggle against the compromising right-wing leadership was not over yet.
Within three days of his resignation from the Congress presidency, April 29, 1939, Bose announced the formation of Forward Bloc. Its object was 'to rally all the radical and anti-imperialist progressive elements in the country on the basis of a minimum programme, representing the greatest common measure of agreement among the radicals of all shades of opinion.3 It was originally intended to be a nucleus 'for bringing about left-consolidation,' not a party in the actual sense of the term, within the Congress. It was only at its second All-India Conference held at Nagpur in June 1940 it was declared to be a party.4 Bose set before the FB the three-fold task of winning over the Congress to its viewpoint, consolidating the left forces and prevailing on the Congress to resume the national struggle.5 He desired an immediate renewal of mass struggle as opposed to Gandhi's policy of watchful waiting in the face of the international crisis on the eve of the second world war. Subbas Chandra's plea for a left bloc inside the Congress made after Haripura in 1938 met with little active response.
It was only from the middle of June 1939 both the socialists and the communists agreed to work with Rose on the basis of an agreed programme.6 At the time of the first conference of the Forward Bloc 22 and 23 June 1939) the Left Consolidation Committee was formed with Forward Bloc, CPI, CSP, Kisan Sabha, Roy group (now called the League of Radical Congressmen), Labour Party and Anushilan marxists.7 But the tenuous coalition of leftists in the consolidation committee soon broke up under pressure from the High Command. Royists, CSP and CPI withdrew from the LCC. Only the Kisan Sabha, the Labour Party, Anushilan marxists within the CSP, plus Bose's own FB continued to support the LCC.8 Bose soon came to be expelled from the Indian National Congress on the plea of disciplinary action.
Anushilan marxists supported Bose since he represented the pro-struggle anti-imperialist forces as opposed to 'pseudo-leftists.' Since their immediate objective was to overthrow imperialism they deemed it necessary to support Bose.9 But the question of merging with EB did not arise because of ideological differences. Subhas Chandra's war- time political slogan was 'All Power to the Indian People.' This slogan reflected the objectives of anti-imperialist national democratic revolution and it was on this slogan that he tried to launch uncompromising struggle. His ideological moorings were left nationalist. But to convinced marxist-leninists this was not enough to them the immediate objective of anti-imperialist struggle was but a step to realize the ultimate aim of a classless society. Chatterji says: 'He (Bose) wanted to drag us into it (FB-B.B.), but we had
firm faith in an ideology and we were unable to follow that loose path. We were definite that the objective must be crystal clear and the programme too must be commensurate it. We had full sympathy with Pose but could not join hands with him only because of this fact. He, too, appreciated this.10 Anushilan marxists, as we shall see later, instead of joining the FB decided to organize their own party. In an interview with an American scholar, Tridib Chaudhuri has maintained that there were too many diverse and especially non-marxist elements within the FB with which the RSP did not feel it could associate.11
Anushilan marxists wanted to take the opportunity of the difficulties of British imperialists when the second world war started. From Chatterji's autobiography we learn that he approached Acharya Narendra Deva with that end in view. Before the Congress Working Committee and AICC met at Wardha in early October 1939 Jayaprakash came to Lucknow where the national executive of the CSP was to meet. There at an informal parley 'he himself proposed that a War Council would be formed and a secret organisation would be run with headquarters at Lucknow' The proposed War Council was to consist of Acharya Narendra Deva, Pratul Ganguli (a senior Anushilan leader), Jogesh Chatterji and Jayaprakash Narayan. This seemed 'heartening' to revolutionaries like Jogesh Chatterji. But at Wardha AICC meeting 'the C.S.P. and J.P.,' according to Chatterji, 'surrendered to Gandhism and decided that they would only participate in the movement if it was started by Gandhiji and would not start any separate movement.'12
Since we are not dealing in this paper with CSP's war policy it is not necessary to analyse its moves in the background of the national political situation of that period in detail. The only important point to be noted here is that the CSP in spite of its avowal of pursuing an anti-war policy and starting war resistance felt the necessity of carrying the entire Congress with them and for that, to them, Gandhi's leadership was indispensable. The 'pre-eminence and unity of the Congress''13 was the most important consideration that weighed with them, even at the expense of weakening. the anti-imperialist people's movement. Analysisa part, what is relevant here is to record that Anushjlan marxists who had been working inside the CSP since 1938 found its policy to be quite inadequate and they became throughly disappointed' and disgusted.' 14
We have already referred to the withdrawal of the different constituents of the LCC. But undismayed, Bose moved in the direction of mobilizing the people on the basis of an uncompromising struggle. With this end in view an Anti-Compromise Conference was convened at Ramgarh (Bihar) where the AICC met in March 1940. Bose and the FB, supported by the Kisan Sabha, the Labour Party and the Anushilan group within the CSP organized this conference which demanded, as its name implied, no compromise with the British on the issues of support for the war effort and complete independence.15
The resolution adopted by the All India Congress Committee in its Ramgarh session held out the threat of civil disobedience, but no positive war-policy was laid down and no definite line of action was determined. 'At the Ramgarh session, a statement was made on behalf of the Congress Socialist Party lending support to the Working Committee in the belief and hope that the call for mass civil disobedience would soon turn into direct action itself.16 In the Working Committee resolution for Ramgarh the congress socialists saw 'a turning point in history.17 Since it still cherished the idea of 'national unity,' it was in no mood to initiate any action of its own, independent of Gandhi's leadership.
Anushilan marxists within the CSP 'could not tolerate this subservience to Gandhi.18 So they had no option but to sever all their organizational relationship with the CSP.
The only 'alternative before us,' says Chatterji, 'was to form a new party of our own based on the ideas of Karl Marx and Lenin...'19 With this object in view, revolutionaries of different provinces who had assembled at Ramgarh Anti- Compromise Conference took the historical decision after a prolonged discussion that a new party of marxist-leninist revolutionaries be formed and named and styled as Revolutionary Socialist Patty of India (Marxist-Leninist).20
Thus a new party was born—a party which integrated its revolutionary tradition with a new orientation, a party based on revolutionary marxism as opposed to both Social. Gandhism' of the CSP and conformist, official communism of the CPI.
1. Jogesh Chandra Chatrerji, op. cit., pp. 523-4.
2. John Patrick Haithcox, 'Left Wing Unity and the Indian Nationalist Movement,' Modern, Asian Studies, vol. III (January 1969), p. 55. For CSP's position, Acharya Narendra Deva, Socialism and The National Revolution (ed. Yusul Mclierally), Padnia Publications Ltd., Bombay, 1946, pp. 127-83 Jayaprakash Narayan, Towards Struggle, op. cit., pp. 136-43. For CPI's position, P. C. Joshi, 'Triputi.' National Politics, 19 Match 1939, pp 96-7 & 100. For CPI's criticism of the role of Subhas Chandra Bose during 1939-40, see P. C. Joshi, 'Whom How & Why Does Bose Fight?.' in Unmasked Parties and Politics, Bombay, 1940.
3. Quoted in A Beacon Across Asia, op. cit., p.91.
4. Subhas Chandra Bose, The Indian Struggle 1935-42, op. cit., p. 98.
5. Subhas Chandra Bose, Crossroads, op. cit., p. 180.
6. Sublias Chandra Bose, Indian Struggle 1935-42. op. cit., p. 88.
7. David M. Laushey, op. cit., p.128.
8. ibid., p. 129.
9. Myron Weiner, Party Polities in India The Development of a Multi- Party System, Princeton University Press, 1957, p. 121.
10. Jogesh Chandra Chatrerji, op., cit., p. 531.
11. David M. Laushey, op. cit., p. 130.
12. Jogesh Chandra Chatterji, op. cit., pp. 527-8.
13. Acharya Narendra Deva, op. cit., p. 128.
14. Jogesh Chandra Chatterji, op. cit., p. 533.
15. David M. Laushey, op. cit., pp. 129-30.
16. JP Papers, File No. 219/1988-47.
17. Quoted in The Pyoletarian Path, p. 10. Home (Poll.) (Secret) File No. 37/40/40.
18. David M. Laushey, op. cit., p. 130.
19. Jogesh Chandra Chatterji, op. cit., p. 533.
20. ibid. In the First All India Conference held in May 1946 the Party was restyled as Revolutionary Socialist Party of India (RSPI), In the Sixth All National Conference (Quilon, April 1956) it was decided to amend the name of the Party as Revolutionary Socialist Party, in abbreviation RSP.