20th century: Surjeet


	Socialism and the Next Century As the twentieth century ebbs away, there is a concerted campaign to present the century's history as the culmination of the final triumph of capitalism over socialism. The 20th Century: A journey with Surjeet In the history of mankind, every century has its own significance as many changes can be wrought in a hundred years. The Century of Imperialism The century that is drawing to a close has pre-eminently been a century of imperialism.

In the history of mankind, every century has its own significance as many changes can be wrought in a hundred years. But the 20th century, now drawing to a close, has been marked by an extraordinary rate of change far surpassing anything seen in any previous hundred-year span.
In this century, we have witnessed capitalism develop to its final stage of imperialism, as also the efforts of mankind to find an alternative to this oppressive and exploitative system -- efforts which continue to date.
The slave system extended over some four thousand years, and feudalism some two thousand years, but capitalism was less than 400 years old when the search for its alternative began, a search which became the most important development of our century. Thus barely was capitalism rising to its full flowering and glory when the world witnessed bloody uprisings, first spontaneous, then organised, by workers in capitalist countries, and their brutal suppression by the capitalist ruling class. Then the world saw the emergence of a socialist state and the experiments in the building of an exploitation-free society.
This century saw the imperialist blocs imposing two destructive world wars in furtherance of their search for ever more profits, to be extracted in the only way the system knew -- through exploitation of the very creators of their wealth.
But the brighter side was the banner of revolt, raised in a number of countries against imperialism, to gain independence. This led to disappearance of the old form of colonial tutelage, though not yet of imperialism from the world.
Living through some 80 of the 100 stormy years of this century is the veteran communist, Harkishan Singh Surjeet, now general secretary of the CPI(M). Recollecting his experiences and witness to the changes in the 20th century, he remains staunch in his conviction that the future belongs to socialism, and that the next century will see society move forward in this direction.
Born on March 23, 1916 in an ordinary peasant family, Surjeet not only saw and experienced three-quarters of the changes himself, but was a participant in many of them. Like many young boys and girls of his time, drawn by the call for freedom, he left high school early; in fact he was expelled when he refused to apologise for having organised a meeting of the Workers and Peasants Party in his native village, at the request of his father's friend, an activist in the Akali movement in jail at that time. He joined the Naujawan Bharat Sabha, of which Shaheed Bhagat Singh had been a member.
Two years later, in 1932 he was jailed for the first time. On the first martyrdom anniversary of Shaheed Bhagat Singh, a call had been given by the Congress party to pull down the Union Jack and hoist the Tricolour in its place, over the Hoshiarpur court house. Due to the deployment of army by the British to foil the action, the local unit of the Congress abandoned the idea, but a school-going child, having read in the newspaper of the proposed action, and its rejection, travelled from Jalandhar to Hoshiarpur, and alone, implemented the call. The punishment was jail.
It was in the Borstal Jail, Lahore that, coming into contact with political prisoners, including communists, this Left-leaning patriotic youth got concrete direction and joined the Communist Party in 1934. Since that time he has been a full-time worker, serving the Party in various capacities.
On the eve of the 21st century, Rajinder Sharma, on behalf of People's Democracy, spoke at length to Comrade Surjeet on those momentous 80 years. We reproduce below the main points of the interview.

Q: COMRADE Surjeet, as the 20th century draws to a close, you have not only witnessed but have also participated in numerous struggles. What, in your recollection, was most important factor at the beginning of this century?

ANS: By the beginning of this century, the entire country was under British rule. But the important point was that resistance to this rule had begun. Though ever since the time the British came to India were the Indian people opposed to their rule, as manifested in struggles in different parts of the country, such opposition became a continuous process by the beginning of this century.
The revolutionary nationalist youth had formed the Anushilan in 1902, taking to armed rebellion against the British, as a consequence of which Khudiram Bose was hanged in 1908, rousing strong public sentiment. Then in 1905, came the initiation of a comprehensive action plan against the British in Bogarhat (now in Bangladesh) which was later accepted by the Congress and integrated into its August 7 resolution. This movement coincided with such a militant, widespread and determined protest in Bengal against the plan to partition the province, that the British were forced to dismantle the partition of Bengal along communal lines.
In the following few years, workers in the industrial cities of Bombay and Calcutta gained in awareness, consciousness and confidence, and begun to organise themselves. It is significant to note that the first strike by the workers of Bombay on July 25, 1908, was not on economic demands; it was a political strike in protest against the arrest of the well-known nationalist leader, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, by the British, testifying to their early acquired political maturity, a development whose import Lenin was quick to discern; he was the first to describe the strike as an indicator of important change in India.
Punjab was naturally not untouched by these nationwide developments. In addition, it had one particular feature: the British, in need of cheap cotton for their cloth mills in Manchester, decided to develop Punjab for this purpose. They therefore built canals in the barren lands of west Punjab and brought in peasants from central Punjab, thus making the area fertile and accessible. However, like all shortsighted rulers who never think of the consequences of their action, they imposed harsh and heavy restrictions on the tillers of the land and, as a result, found themselves facing strong peasant anger.
The anger found expression in a strong movement, which can be better understood by the popularity of the song Pagri Sambhal Jatta (Peasants, Do Not Surrender Your Honour). The slogan became the focal point and gave the movement its name. The British tried to crush the movement with utmost brutality. In fact, along with the opposition to the British, its inhuman brutal methods also form a part of the important happenings in the beginning of this century. The foreign rule was not prepared to listen to any voice of dissent. In connection with the participation in Pagri Sambhal Jatta movement, Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh (Bhagat Singh's uncle) were extradited.

Q: In the beginning of this century, when we talk of Punjab, the mention of Ghadar Party is inevitable. What was its impact on the country and on Punjab in particular?

ANS: In the first decade of this century, in 1904-05, many people of Punjab went to USA and Canada in search of jobs. Now after coming into contact with the outside world, and after having breathed the air of freedom, the British rule in India was untolerable for them. Of them, several youth were ready to sacrifice themselves for the freedom of the country, and the fiery speeches of Lala Hardayal enthused them.
The Ghadar Party was formed in 1913. As the name suggests, it comprised people who were ready to wage a war against the British. Baba Sohan Singh Bhakna was the president of the party. In USA, the Indians then enjoyed a fair bit of freedom to carry out their political activities. Making use of it, a Jugantar Ashram was set up in San Fransisco, the memorial of which exists even today.
Also a newspaper Ghadar Di Gunj was started; it openly published appeals for a revolt. At last about 1500 Indians, with a pledge to revolt in India, left their families behind and started for India. In fact in Europe in those days, the idea was -- use weapons from foreign countries to attain freedom and oust the foreign rule from your country. In this thinking, there was little space for building a movement within the country. In their view, the role of the army was important, and the Ghadarites did try to organise the army.
These members of the Ghadar Party were tried in the Lahore Conspiracy Case which exposed the brutal repressive face of the British regime: 22 freedom fighters were hanged, hundreds were sentenced to life imprisonment, more than 15 were made to serve village internment (confined within the boundaries of their villages). The Ghadar effort was crushed brutally, but this aroused strong public sentiment in favour of independent India, which was the success of this movement.

Q: The Ghadar effort took place in 1915, prior to this the first world war broke out in 1914. What was the impact of this war and its developments on India?

ANS: The foremost impact was that in the first world war, numerous Indians, from different parts of the country including Punjab, fought as soldiers of the English army. There was a general feeling in the various nationalist sections as well as among the armymen, that after the war, the British would agree to give independence to us, to a large extent. As is well known, Gandhi and other leaders of the Congress extended help in the war as their duty.
However, the British did not announce any such measures after the war. On the contrary, they imposed the infamous Rowlatt Act, thereby declaring their repressive intentions. This only added fuel to the fire and anger erupted among the countrymen. Reeling under the impact of the first world war, the masses were as though waiting for an explosion. The wide impact of workers' strike of 1918-19 was already experienced by all. The imposition of Rowlatt Act in March 1919 led to countrywide protests, strikes and other defiant actions, which were indicative of the unrest in the masses. There were incidents of violence and sacrifices also. In this regard the call for a countrywide strike on April 6 is significant. So tremendous was the strike's impact that the organisers themselves were surprised at it.
In Punjab, the British broke all limits of repression. In the same year, on Baisakhi day, there was pre-planned firing by the British army on thousands of innocent people in a peaceful meeting, which is now known as the Jalianwala Bagh massacre. It will be remembered for a long time. This massacre was a deliberate act of crushing the mass unrest. This massacre had another underlying factor which prompted the British to act hastily; during the uprising in 1918-19, there was seen exemplary unity among Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs as well as amongst the people of other religions.
Just two days before the Jallianwala massacre, a massive Ram Navmi procession was taken out in Amritsar, in which people from all the three reliogions participated actively. Fearing the public unrest the British had already jailed two known nationalist leaders -- Satyapal and Dr Kitchloo.
Following this, on Baisakhi Day, defying government orders, a massive public meeting took place, as had been announced earlier. The unprovoked British firing resulted in the killing of 379 people; 1200 were seriously injured. Due to severe repression in Punjab at that time, the British succeeded in hiding the news of this massacre from the rest of the country for some time. But, due to one reason or another, the facts came to light and this created an unprecedented wave of anger across the country, which was never witnessed before. The Congress sent an inquiry team, and the issue was highlighted effectively in the Congress session.

ANS: Apart from the tremendous ideological impact of Russian Revolution, its impact on the movement was seen in various ways. One of such visible impacts was that the communist groups came to the forefront after the socialist revolution. Such groups had influence among workers and other sections among whom they were working, but for a long time they worked in isolation. At the same time, in 1920, a group of Indian communists formed the Communist Party in Tashkent. On the other hand, in the name of revenge against the British injustice to Turkey, and to arouse the Indian Muslims against the British, another stream of people emigrated. A majority of them left for Turkey via Afghanistan; instead of reaching Turkey, some of them, after crossing the river Amu, reached the first socialist nation. Some of them studied in the University of Toilers of the East. Abdul Majid, Rafiq Ahmed and others, who returned to India as thorough-bred communists, were arrested as soon as they reached India. They were implicated in the Peshawar Conspiracy Case of 1923; it was in fact the first case against the communists.
Similarly, after the suppression of the Ghadar Party, some of its leaders, who were imprisoned in jails outside, came in contact with the communists. These included Bhai Santokh Singh and Rattan Singh. The communists taught them the idea of mass struggle. Since the Russian socialist revolution had already taken place, the communists advised them to go and see that country themselves. These Ghadar leaders, immediately on their release, left for Russia where they met Lenin too. These leaders contributed a lot towards the propagation of the communist ideology.
All the people associated with the Ghadar movement came out of jails as communists. Also, when Lenin declared that the socialist state of Russia was a natural friend of the working people of colonial states, this had a big impact on the people of these countries. During that period, Indian revolutionaries were spread in many parts of the world; Germany and Afghanistan were the main centres of their activities. All these revolutionaries saw in Russia a natural and trusted ally. Though many of these revolutionaries thought of ousting the British with weapons imported from outside, yet they helped a lot in the spread of socialist ideas.

Q: Then, can it be said that all these activities during the twenties prepared the ground for turning the non-cooperation movement into a nationwide agitation?

ANS: The wave of defiance in March 1919 was a befitting prelude for what followed. Another important development was that the Congress support to the Khilafat movement drew the Muslim masses into the national movement. Towards the end of 1919, an all-India Khilafat conference took place and on August 1, 1920, the non-cooperation movement led by Gandhi began. An important result of this inclusion of the Khilafat issue in the national mainstream was that the lower sections of Muslims also participated in the movement; earlier only Muslims of the higher strata used to participate. This created conditions for rallying the people for a mass movement.
In fact the British had noted with alarm, in 1919 itself, the increasing goodwill among the Hindus and Muslims. I have already referred to the Ram Navmi procession and the Jallianwala which show as to how the obstructions between the people of the two religions had begun to wither away.
In reality, after the first world war, this wave of mass unrest saw the Congress raising the slogans of not only reforms but of mass struggles and Swaraj. But it must be noted that it did this unwillingly, under the pressure of mass unrest. The condition of non-violence were added to the non-cooperation movement. But the movement spread beyond the limits in which the Congress wanted to keep it confined. The rail strike of Assam-Bengal, the Mopala uprising in Malabar and the Akali movement in Punjab against the mahants are important examples. It must be remembered that the Congress did not permit the kar bandi agitation till the last moment. It withdrew Bardoli on February 12 and the non-cooperation movement after the Chauri Chaura incident.

ANS: The soldiers who had returned after the first war played an important role in this movement. The Gurudwaras at that time were under the control of mahants who were using them in connivance with the British, for the furtherance of their interests. This led to great resentment among the Sikh peasantry. It took shape of a mass movement. It had the support of not only Nehru, Gandhi and other Congress leaders but also of Muslim leaders. The Sikh peasantry was also helped by the opinion created by the Ghadar Party and other revolutionaries in their support.
Ultimately in 1925 the movement for Gurudwara reform succeeded. To link this movement with the national movement, the slogan of liberating the big Gurudwara (the country) was given. Numerous Akali cadres joined the Congress, which helped in Congress consolidation in Punjab.

Q: What were the repercussions of withdrawing the non-cooperation movement? Were the other streams also active during this period?

ANS: The withdrawal led to a deep sense of demoralisation among the masses. Another impact was that Hindu-Muslim unity, forged during the movement, was undone by communal clashes. During this period, the continued armed struggle saw the revolutionaries gaining popularity among the youth. Inspired by Mazzini and Garibaldi, the Indian youth increasingly jumped into struggles and sacrificed themselves. Apart from Anushilan and Jugantar in Bengal, youth in United Province and Punjab were particularly active. Organisations such as the Naujawan Bharat Sabha were contributing in drawing the youth to this stream. In the twenties, efforts were on to unite these groups; the youth were also being attracted to the socialist ideas. The HSRA of Bhagat Singh and Chandra Shekhar Azad is an example. One of these groups was of Babbar Akalis who made the approvers their special targets. They enjoyed a great deal of public support. In fact, except one, all Babbar Akali leaders later joined the Communist Party.

Q: The decade ended with the observance of first independence day on January 26, 1930 and the start of the civil disobedience movement. In this background, what other elements were important?

ANS: One important point was that after the Kanpur Conspiracy Case (1924), there arose the Workers and Peasants Parties in the beginning of 1927, and the process reached its peak with the formation of an all-India party. Linked with this was the wave of workers' movement which led to victory of the Left in the Trade Union Congress in 1929. It is important to note that the Trade Union Congress was formed in 1920, but the first May Day was observed in 1927 only. In fact, as a result of these developments, a Left point of view was emerging within the Congress too. After having returned from his Europe tour of more than one and a half years, Nehru himself accelerated this process.
The Congress acquired the membership of newly formed international Anti-Imperialist League, and Nehru and Bose, upcoming leaders with Left leaning, were appointed general secretaries. In this background, it is pertinent to note that the Simon Commission's arrival was greeted with the "Go Back" slogans and a countrywide strike was organised on February 3, 1928, which indicates the popular mood in the country at that time.
It was during one of such protests that the police brutally lathicharged a demonstration led by Lala Lajpat Rai, due to which he finally died after a fortnight, on November 17, 1928. Accepting this as national humiliation, Bhagat Singh's group shot dead Saunders at Lahore. The wave of national uprising was made to reach its zenith by a major depression in the world market. This slump had begun in 1928. It had a cascading effect on the peasants. The peasants of Punjab, who were producing for the world market, were almost ruined, their lands were sold or in some cases leased.
In this background, the Congress gave a call for Purna Swaraj at its Lahore session in 1930, which had earlier been proposed by the communist group in the party in 1922. This was followed by the civil disobedience movement. Once again, the mass unrest forced the unwilling Congress to the fore of agitations. The movement this time was launched with the Salt Satyagraha by Gandhi and his followers to break the Salt law. After a march for three weeks, on April 6, 1930, the wave of non-cooperation once again crossed the limits which the organisers had set.
Apart from the strikes and demonstrations at many places, especially in the United Province, the peasants themselves resorted to the kar bandi. Then there took place the Chittagong raid. At Peshawar, the Garhwal Rifles led by Chandra Singh Garhwali refused to fire at a Muslim mob, and there was the rule of the masses in that area for ten days. All these developments are examples of the strength of public uprising at that time. When the British arrested Gandhi, this again led to nationwide protest. The Sholapur urprising is worth mentioning; Sholapur town was out of British control for more than a week; even martial law could not be imposed there.
The fact is that both the British regime and the Congress were unnerved by the intensity of the agitation. Therefore, the British came up with the idea of a Round Table Conference; after the Gandhi-Irwin pact in March 1931, the struggle was suspended. After Gandhi's return to India at the end of the year, the British launched a direct attack on the Congress. This continued till more than a year and a half.
In the summer of 1932, Gandhi devoted himself to the upliftment of Harijans and withdrew himself from struggle. The mass arrest in both the rounds of the agitation had been in lakhs. By the middle of 1933, the Congress formally withdrew the civil disobedience, though minor activities in personal capacities continued.

ANS: The revolutionary and nationalist movements co-existed in this period. In 1931, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were hanged. But by that time, Bhagat Singh had understood the importance of a militant struggle of the working class. The withdrawl of the civil disobedience movement had a demoralising effect on the workers, peasants and youth. This experience made it clear that the Congress leadership would never allow the movement to take such a turn as would take it out of its control. Also, it would not allow the workers' movement and the anti-feudal movement of peasants to take their rightful place in the national struggle.
The result of all this was that the process of revolutionaries adopting communist ideology gained momentum. The impact of this ideology, as compared to the impact of Congress among the masses, can be gauged from the fact that Bhagat Singh is as popular among the masses as Gandhi is. It is natural that the Left impact did magnify during this period.

ANS: In the middle of the thirties, two important happenings with regard to the communist intervention took place. First, after the Meerut Conspiracy Case, communist leaders remained in jail for a long time; this helped them in discussing the issues at length. The result was that after their release, the formation of a party centre became possible; it was naturally to function underground. Secondly, in July 1935, the Seventh Congress of the Communist International rectified its sectarian outlook on the issue of cooperation with the nationalist bourgeoisie. The result was that now the communists were able to participate in the national movement with a firm line and in a more organised manner.
The failure of the civil disobedience movement led some well meaning Congress leaders to cooperate with the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) that was formed in 1934. At this time, communists were working both in the Congress and in the CSP. EMS, P Sundarayya and other top communist leaders held major responsibilities in both these parties.
Soon, efforts were made to form the All India Kisan Sabha; in 1936 for the first time, an organisation of the peasants at the national level was formed. This year itself, a national level students' organisation, the All India Students Federation (AISF), was formed. Cooperating with the already extant trade unions, this was seen as an exercise to attract the workers, peasants and students to the national movement. Simultaneously, while maintaining their independent identity, the communists were working with the Congress and were trying to expand the influence of the national movement.
At the same time, the question of direct affiliation of the Kisan Sabha members with the Congress arose; Congress president Nehru was in favour of such a move. But othes leaders, including Gandhi, scuttled the move in keeping with their class leaning. But during this time the movements of peasants, students and workers advanced rapidly, and thereby helped in the expansion of communist ideas. During the depression of the twenties, the great development in Russia also helped this process. Then, the civil war of Spain in 1936, and the unity of revolutionaries across the world to help the democratic forces there, also contributed in the progress of the Left ideas. Formed in 1936 itself, the Progressive Writers Association also played an important role in channelising the unrest among writers and intellectuals.

ANS: On the basis of the constitution of 1935, when the question of elections based on limited franchise arose, after a long discussion the Congress decided to participate. Except Bengal and Punjab, it suceeded in forming governments in 11 states. This election made two things clear -- first, the communal separate electoralates for different communities and the need to appeal to the people of one's own community injected communal venom into the campaign. This process, egged on by the British, continued till the partition. Second, the attitude of the Congress provincial governments made it clear that some concessions could be expected from them, but the demands of workers and peasants would not be heard by them. In fact, these governments blocked the anti-feudal struggles of the peasants. This situation can be clearly understood by one example: communist leader Soli Batliwala was arrested by the government of Madras for an agitation. Despite the demand for his release by the Congress executive, he was not released.

Q: During the second world war, the Congress governments had resigned. What form did the nationalist movement take after this?

ANS: On Septmeber 1, 1939, with the German attack on Poland, the second world war broke out. Within a fortnight, the Congress recalled its members from the legislature in protest against dragging India into the war without taking the countrymen into confidence. The Congress governments thus resigned. Despite this, after the declaration of war, the British government launched an offensive against the communists and other Left leaders. Large scale arrests were made in September. Our main leaders were either arrested or had to go underground. Our resistance was not limited to the war only; it aimed to take the freedom struggle into a decisive phase. Our aim was to convert the war into a civil war.
Against the burden of war, the textile workers of Bombay and Kanpur, 20,000 municipal workers of Calcutta, jute workers of Bengal and Bihar, oil workers of Digboi (Assam), coal workers of Dhanbad and Jharia, iron mine workers of Jamshedpur and workers of many other major industries raised the demand of dearness allowance in a big way and organised massive strikes. The working class was activating itself and was determined to fight despite brutal repression. On the other hand, the Congress wanted to utilise the opportunity of war to bargain with the British. It was even ready to support them in the course of war, if they agreed to promise anything concrete. At that time, even the CSP began to target the communists for not supporting the non-violence of Gandhi, and started expelling them from the party.

ANS: On May 22, 1941, Hitler's army attacked Russia. By the end of that year, even America had been dragged into the war. Now the Congress could see the right time for talks; by the end of 1941, majority of Congress leaders had been released from jail as the British too wanted to break the ice. However, the Cripps Mission, sent under pressure of the allies, failed as the British were not ready to lose India.
In these circumstances, the Congress seized the opportunity to increase its activity. In its Bombay session on August 8, 1942, the slogan of "Bharat Chhoro" was given. On the other hand, as the communist leadership was still in jail, their opposition to the war continued for six more months after the attack on Russia. Later, after a long discussion with the leaders imprisoned in Devli camp, it was decided that since the character of war had changed, support has to be given to the war efforts. After this, many Party leaders were freed in May 1942, though I, along with my colleagues, remained in jail till 1944. The Party was legally recognised after a long time.
During this period, a lot of falsehood was spread against our Party, which did go down to the masses. But we demanded that responsibility be entrusted to those who represent the people's aspirations, and we were consistently opposing the repressive tactics of the British. Therefore the falsehood that we were supporting the British was not totally accepted by the public.
The reality is that we failed to integrate our strategy with the anger of the masses against imperialism, and at times we stood in opposition to the public feelings. Hence the self-criticism on the issue of Subhash Bose and the Quit India Movement. In other words, we failed to link the international contradictions with those at the domestic level.

ANS: Bose was considered as a Leftist leader of the Congress. After having been the Congress secretary with Nehru, he was elected president in 1938. Then again, in 1939, he was elected Congress president against the wishes of Gandhi, in fact by defeating his candidate Pattabhi Sitaramiah. At the Trupuri session, an attempt was made to curtail the powers of the Congress president, due to which Bose tendered his resignation. The youth felt a great attraction towards Bose. At the beginning of the second world war, Bose had decided to liberate the country with the suppport of outside forces. Unfortunately, to attain freedom, he saw no harm in collaborating with the imperialists or fascists. As soon as the war broke out, he tried to go to Russia. One of our colleagues, Achchhar Singh Cheema, had made arrangements for his safe passage to Kabul. But due to some reasons, he was unable to reach Russia. Then he decided to go to Germany.
By that time Germany was gaining in the war. The Indians in the British army, led by General Mohan Singh, had surrendered and formed the INA in Singapore. Mohan Singh had placed pre-conditions for the Japanese that they would help in India's freedom struggle but would not interfere. It is understood that the Japanese did not accept these pre-conditions, and had placed Mohan Singh under house arrest.
Bose further concretised these plans and formed the INA on September 1, 1942. It is beyond doubt that there was unparalleled patriotism behind this move, though it is true that in such circumstances, he was unable to realise his mistake of aligning with fascism to fight imperialism.

Q: What was the role of the communists in mass struggles after the second world war?

ANS: After the victory of the Red Army in Stalingrad in 1943, the process of the fascists losing had begun. Gandhi was released from Agha Khan Mahal in May 1944. Then he immediately withdrew the Quit India Movement. After a year, there was a sort of an agreement between the Congress and the Muslim League on the issue of the interim government.
However, the British government modified Viceory Wavell's Congress-League formula into a Hindu-Muslim formula. But this not only led to the failure of the Shimla conference even before it was held; it also showed that the British were interested only in keeping their colony safe by creating a communal divide.
On the other hand, in Bengal in 1945, the Tebhaga movement had begun, which was an indication of the common masses joining the anti-feudal struggle of the peasants. Peasants had begun struggles in other north eastern parts also.
In this regard, a memorable struggle is the armed struggle of the peasants of Telangana. Then the armed forces too were not untouched by the general mood in the country. After the air force strike, there took place in February 1946 the RIN mutiny and workers staged a strike in its support. This took the explosive situation to its peak.
On the other hand, not only the British but the Congress and the League also understood the consequences of a mass uprising. It is no coincidence that the naval mutiny began on February 18, 1946, and the next day, Atlee announced in British parliament that the Cabinet Mission is being sent to India. This was the beginning of the long, complicated talks for the transfer of power called independence. The British decided to seize the initiative and, ironically, both the Congress and the League accepted the communally divided independence, to keep mass unrest at bay.

Q: What was the role of various streams on the demand for creation of Pakistan and partition?

ANS: The biggest role was of the British who, since the beginning of the century, used the communal divide to prolong their stay in India. They even used the Muslim League as a powerful weapon for this. But the League alone cannot be faulted for this; the major organisation of the nationalist movement, the Congress, was also mainly responsible for the alienation of the minorities. The 1939 Tripuri session of the Congress was inaugurated with a havan by the pandits; we were present in Maulana Azad's tent there. He tauntingly asked: which non-Hindu will be ready to join the Congress now ?
Of all the traditional Congress leaders, it was Gandhi alone who had tried to win over the minorities for that party. After the second world war, the League intensified its demand for Pakistan. Based on a wrong understanding of nationality, we too initially accepted this demand. But soon we rectified this mistake. This game plan was hatched to break communal unity and to give a religious colour to it. Barring the north-western border province, this communal venom was deep rooted everywhere. But owing to its geographical position, this province had to go to Pakistan finally.

ANS: In the end the British succeeded in dividing the country at the time of independence. Though the administrative control at that time was in their hands, they made no effort to check the communal violence. The pre-partition riots forced Nehru to accept an exchange of population, especially in Punjab. The bloodshed that took place in Punjab was too barbaric to be described; humanity was nowhere to be seen. The Akalis, Congress all were swayed by this wave of communalism. And the RSS used this as an opportunity to expand its base.
Except the communists, there was no one to stop this madness. Those who led mass struggles in countryside and the leaders of Praja Mandal movements were with us during that grave crisis. I will give you two examples for a better understanding of the situation. There arose the question of saving the life of Congress leader Munshi Hamiduddin's brother whose name I cannot recall. We met Gopichand, interim chief minister of Punjab, in this connection. Instead of giving an assurance, he told us of what was the plight of Hindus across the border. Similarly, it was difficult to save the Jallianwala Bagh hero, Saifuddin Kitchloo, in Amritsar. He was brought to Delhi for safety. So intense was the communal madness.
The violence during and after the partition is a black spot on Indian history in this century. The repercussions of what happened in that period continue even today; we have not been able to integrate the minorities in the national mainstream.

Q: What was the role of various political streams in the integration of princely states after partition?

ANS: The conspiracy hatched by the British before granting independence had, apart from the communal divide, another thorn: an option was given to the rulers of various states to integrate with India or Pakistan, or remain independent, if they so desired.
Though Gandhi and other Congress leaders were opposed to mass struggles, the masses were consistently in struggle against the foreign rule. In this context, they had also realised that the princes were in fact touts of the British. The RSS saw a communal angle in this question too; it supported the Hindu rulers but opposed the Muslim ones. In 1936, under the leadership of Nehru, efforts were made to organise the masses of princely states. The communists and other Left forces supported this agitation. Under pressure of the masses, majority of the rulers accepted the integration. After assuming power in India, the Congress regime gave quite a few concessions to these rulers in lieu of the integration.
But the merger of Hyderabad and Kashmir was a complex issue, and the British had an eye on these states. In Kashmir, the king was a Hindu whereas the people, especially the Muslim peasants, were organised under the leadership of National Conference, for a movement for better conditions. They favoured merger with India. On the other hand, Raja Hari Singh was prepared to play in the hands of British, and the RSS-affiliated organisations like the Praja Parishad were supporting him. But the National Conference led movement created conditions for merger with India. After the attack of intruders sent by Pakistan, who were strongly resisted by Kashmiri people, Hari Singh had to agree to merge with India.
In Hyderabad, the Nizam's game of seeking independence was foiled by the armed struggle in Telangana. Unable to face the fury of the struggle, the Nizam had to ask for support from the Indian government. The newly formed Congress government immediately agreed to help him, used brutal force to crush the armed struggle, and gained merger. The repression on the peasants continued for years, though the Communist Party had withdrawn the agitation in 1951. It was the result of this movement that the government in India was forced to implement whatever limited steps of land reforms it has taken.

ANS: After independence, the countrymen had high hopes from the Congress government. People waited for a fairly long time patiently, but were in the end disappointed. The non-fulfilment of people's aspirations by the ruling party was due to its class limitations. It stood with the capitalists and feudal lords. In fact the Congress leaders had, during the freedom struggle, showed special concern for feudal powers, and had taken all possible measures to prevent the agitation from taking an anti-feudal turn. This prevented them from initiating agitation in the princely states. After independence, the capitalist-feudal alliance came out in the open.
All measures of land reforms were ensured to remain on paper only, though the productive forces could have been developed thereby, to weaken the feudal stranglehold. At the same time, by developing small-scale industries, the problem of unemployment could have been reduced to a great extent.
After assumption of power, a change in Congress stance was seen on the question of reorganisation of states also. During the independence struggle, it was in favour of liguistic states, and had formed its own committees on this very basis. On the initiative of communists, vibrant agitations for the formation of Vishaal Andhra, Aikya Kerala and the Unified Maharashtra had erupted. It was under their pressure that Congress agreed to accept the demand. In consonance with its support for an authoritarian structure and opposition to the federal structure, the RSS vehemently opposed the demand.
Similarly, instead of creating equal opportunities, the Congress government chose to give some sops to the scheduled castes and tribes, and tried to pacify the minorities with some concessions. But all this could not last long.
The result of the decades of status quo was that the Congress base started shrinking. In this background, Indira Gandhi coined slogans which seemed radical, like the nationalisation of banks, garibi hatao, and tried to once again rally the people around her party. But gradually the Congress monopoly of power broke down. The communists and other Left, democratic forces tried to fulfil the aspirations of the people, and continued the struggle for safeguarding independence and democratic values. But unfortunately the democratic forces were not able to fill the vacuum caused by mass disenchantment with the Congress.
While in power, the Congress never adhered to the values of secularism. In Hindi speaking areas, the already existing feudal ideas were a suitable breeding ground for the communal forces. The result was that the space created by the weakening of Congress was occupied by communal forces who had no role in the freedom struggle. The ruling classes, which in the past, supported the Congress, now shifted its loyalty to the rightist forces for the furtherance of their class interests. These forces also suit imperialism which has always been trying to tighten its grip over India.

Q: Finally, how do you see the development that has taken place in India during these hundred years?

ANS: To answer this question, let us briefly look at the changes that took place during the British rule. There is no doubt that during their rule, education expanded in the country. In this respect we can recall that initially the expansion of education was very limited. Only the higher castes and the prosperous people had access to the schools and other institutions. Secondly, the type of education imparted was limited, and was aimed at preparing lower level employees to work for the British rule.
For higher education, one had to go to England, and this was possible for the elite few. The British had imposed a total ban on progressive literature to limit the impact of education. Communist literature was brought by those who used to come from abroad; only a few copies were available to us.
Not only this, the number of government schools was very small. For example, in my district there was only one high school, and one middle school at the tehsil headquarters. For the development of nationalist feelings and with the growing need for education, religious organisations like Arya Samaj and Singh Sabha, and then other social organisations, took the initiatve for exapnsion of education.
Another related aspect was of the socio-cultural development of different ethnic groups. The British had no interest in it and overlooked it. At the higher level they promoted English for their work; at the lower level Urdu was sufficient for them. They even obstructed the development of other languages. But this was resisted. The result was that whatever little job opportunities were available for the Indians during British rule, went only to the prosperous. This was applicable to army where no person apart from the well to do could think of reaching beyond the level of a havildar. But there has been a change after independence. Now opportunities for the middle class have increased. For example, in the armed forces, today you find officers from the middle class and not from the feudal families, though those from the deprived sections still continue to remain out.
Similarly, the expansion of media of mass information is an important development of this century. During the British rule, initially, only English newspapers and magazines were introduced in India. The British had to create space for them in the beginning. The number of nationalist newspapers was small, and it was due to efforts of social reforms movement that the circulation of these papers increased. The big papers were the mouthpieces of the British regime. The role of press was very limited during that period, and nothing was known about the other media.
In fact, I saw a loudspeaker only in 1930. In 1936, Nehru was to address a public meeting in my village in context with the Lahore session of the Congress. We had to arrange a loudspeaker from Lahore, as it was not available anywhere nearby. But the leaders of those days were accustomed to speaking without any public address system. I have myself seen the Babbar Akali leader Mota Singh addressing meetings of more than 50,000 without any public address system.
The apparent limited development in agriculture during the British rule was guided by their need of raw materials; similar was the case of industrilisation. In brief, whatever changes took place were out of complusion. The overall impact of the British rule was highly negative. Their nefarious move to foster communalism is also showing its disastrous effects today.
Compared to this, the years after independence have certainly seen some developments taking place and, despite the best efforts of imperialists to block them, our country built a strong foundation for industrialisation with disinterested help from the socialist USSR.
After the US defeat in Korea in 1953, the Congress regime understood that its policy of following the US is not a good one, as the US was not invincible. It was after this that the Indian foreign policy came out of the shadow of imperialism and moved along an independent path. It was since the Bandung conference that India began to emerge as a major non-aligned player. Barring one or two incidents, India has strongly backed all struggles for independence and for restoration of democracy in the world.
The expansion of education has taken place though, remember, half the country's population is still illiterate. Health facilities have to some extent expanded, but they have not yet reached the common man. It means the opportunities have opened, but their correct use has not been made. The constitutional directives for the state still remain on paper.
These all experiences show that our country does not lack the resources. If the shackles on agriculture and industries are removed, these will develop fast. For rapid development, we do not lack in the necessary management skills or the technical knowhow. The question is of tapping the possibilities.
After independence, the results have not been positive for the downtrodden; they do not have a level playing field. Though they had made sacrifices for the sake of the country, as all the Congress leaders, including Gandhi, had exhorted them to participate in the freedom struggle and had promised a better India, they have been deceived.
As far as the communists are concerned, they have played an important role in advancing the struggle of the downtrodden. Nobody can deny this fact though, at some junctures, on the question of strategy and tactics, we distanced ourselves from the understanding of the public. But due to our commitment for the masses and our sacrifices, we have been receiving support and love from the masses.

Q: Finally, can we say anything for the coming century, based on our experiences of the present century?

ANS: In the beginning of this century, the first socialist state was formed in Russia. The Russian Revolution gave strength to the independence struggles throughout the world, defeated the fascist forces, and presented a new model before the world. Since this was the first experience of building a socialist state, it had many weaknesses; mistakes were committed. Using these weaknesses, in the last decade of this century, imperialism succeeded in breaking the USSR from within. This was not only a setback for the movement, but also finished the bipolarity of the world. This has had an adverse impact on the world situation. But this adversity is not going to last long. As imperialism is intervening everywhere, resistance to it is also growing as we saw in the last decade. The reality is that with the sharpening of contradictions towards the end of this century, the process of overturning the adverse period has already begun.
The past century is one that began with the struggles against imperialism, and same is the story at the end of the century throughout the world. This century was one in which socialist ideas were converted into a reality. It saw the first socialist state playing an important role in world politics for 70 years. In this century, despite all problems, Vietnam, Cuba, China and Korea have held the socialist flag flying high.
This century is one in which science and technology have seen tremendous developments. This century is not only the century of expansion of capitalism, growth of market, and of hiding the harsh facts through media; it is also the century of an enhanced struggle against capitalism.
This century is one which has been used for changing the ideas through the media and other facilities.
After the dismantling of USSR, the way China, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, etc, have foiled the imperialist designs has been witnessed by all.
The way the voice of reviving a reformed socialist state is gaining strength and there is resurgence of socialist forces in the countries where there was a socialist set-up, tells only one thing: that the next century belongs to socialism.