First war of independence: 1857

[Guest]

We are missing big time if we are not following this weekly series of Sri Devendra Swarup, being run by Organiser for over 6 months now.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SPECIAL ON 150 YEARS OF 1857

Did Moscow play fraud on Marx?–XXVI
By Devendra Swarup

“B.T. Ranadive destroyed not all the old archives but also all the old literature of the Comintern, the CPI and other Left Parties, the entire Party library and Archives from the earliest days to 1950. It took seven days (in night shift) in a factory chimney to burn them.”

—P.C. Joshi in 1968

Only last week I came across the first response to this series, which was started more than six months ago on June 10, 2007, from a Marxist intellectual Anil Rajimwale in New Age (November 18-24, 2007, p. 10), the weekly organ of the Communist Party of India (CPI). I felt happy as the series was meant to open a serious academic dialogue with Marxist intellectuals who almost dominate the academic discourse in our country. I believe that Marxism had attracted in the twenties of the last century superior intellect of our society, who out of patriotism were attracted to Soviet Russia, which projected itself as an anti-imperialist power committed to provide help to anti-colonial struggles and which had laid down the foundations of a classless society, free of exploitation and inequality. Swept away by the powerful propaganda unleashed by Lenin and Stalin, the Indian Marxists put their blind faith in Soviet Russia and the Comintern. Lenin, under the cover of high sounding ‘democratic centralism’ had converted the idea of ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’, into the ‘dictatorship of the Communist party’ and in turn ‘the dictatorship of its general secretary’. Complete surrender to the communist party and its discipline became an article of faith with Indian communists. Because of this blind faith in the Party, Comintern and Soviet Russia, they were inclined to swallow anything coming from Moscow in the name of Marx.

As the very title of this series “Did Moscow play fraud on Marx?” shows that it was not meant to “attribute to the Indian communists fraudulent intentions” rather to shake them out of their blind acceptance of the intellectual frauds perpetrated by the Communist Party of Soviet Union. I must admit, I was much disappointed to read Rajimwale’s response to my well intentioned efforts.

Rajimwale should have concentrated on the central issue raised by me that “how could the authorship of unsigned articles on 1857 Indian revolt published in the New York Daily Times (NYDT) in 1857-59 either as reports or as its leading articles be attributed to Marx or Engels after the gap of almost a century in September 1952 by P.C. Joshi or in 1959 by Moscow. But his long article is full of polemical rhetorics only. He devotes much space to the exposition of Marx’s perception of India in his 1853 signed articles. That perception I had tried to analyse in two articles of this series published in the issues of Organiser dated June 24 and July 1, 2007 carrying titles “Marx’s perception of India in 1853” and “Marx welcomed British conquest of India” and quoting Marx profusely.

Rajimwale says, “There are any number of books and articles of communist leaders and authors, and by Marxist scholars, who have gone into detailed socio-economic, political and theoretical research of 1857”. Elsewhere he writes, “The Indian communists have carried on their own independent evaluation of 1857 besides, developing Marx’s analyses. Besides P.C. Joshi, leaders and authors like RPD, Dange, Hiren Mukerji, Bipin Chandra etc. and a host of Marxist historians have done seminal work.” I may differ with their ideological bias, but I do admire their intellectual contribution. In this series I have confined myself to the study of Marxian writings on 1857 Revolt. The first two articles in this series published in the issues dated June 10 and June 17, 2007, titled as “Pre-1957 Left Perspective on 1857” and “1857: Reactionary and feudal outburst” present the views of RPD written in 1928 to 1940 and M.N. Roy written in 1923 (when he was a blue eyed boy of Lenin) on 1857 Revolt which they had presented in very negative terms. Obviously, their perception of 1857 was based upon Marx’s perception of India available in his 1853 signed articles. Obviously by that time, i.e. 1940 the NYDT unsigned articles on 1857 Revolt had not been attributed to Marx and Engels.

After the attribution process started in 1952-53, all the Marxist politicians and scholars, without raising any questions about the research methodology which led to this attribution, started singing a different tune about 1857 Revolt. This perceptual change is most welcome to us. Why should we not be happy if our Marxist friends also, following the footsteps of V.D. Savarkar, accept its characterisation as the “First Indian War of Independence”, though late by fifty years. It is unfair to say that “The Organiser and Panchjanya do not seem to digest the appreciation of 1857 by the Indian communists”. The basic question is when did this ‘appreciation’ begin and why? Rajimwale does not try to answer this question. Rather, he resorts to semantics in defence of the attribution of unsigned NYDT articles to Marx by P.C. Joshi in September 1952 and by Moscow between 1953 and 1959. It is simply ridiculous to pretend that P.C. Joshi ‘did not say they were unsigned’; the introduction (also reproduced by Organiser) said they were ‘two hitherto undiscovered’ articles by Marx—undiscovered not unsigned! ...how could Devendra Swarup transform them into ‘unsigned’ articles?” Is Rajimwale really not aware that all the articles on 1857 Revolt, now attributed to Marx and Engels, were published “unsigned” in the NYDT—a fact admitted by Moscow as well? If it was not so, where was the need for P.C. Joshi to introduce them in 1952 as “hitherto undiscovered articles”? Marx’s association with the NYDT from 1841 to 1862 was recorded by every biographer and was known to every Marxist long before 1952. All the unsigned articles were also available in the NYDT files.

All the more ridiculous is the ‘proof’ that Rajimwale adduces in support of the attribution of the authorship of these unsigned articles to Marx. He says, “As far as the question of the authorship of the “unsigned” articles, attributed to Marx is concerned, let it be pointed out that they were included not only by P.C. Joshi but also by other publishers. Kindly refer to the volume called The First Indian War of Independence 1857-1859, by Marx and Engels published by Progress Publishers, Moscow in 1959” and most interestingly, quotes its note no. 25 to prove that “Karl Marx maintained a notebook for the events of 1857-59, with titles etc. So, where is the question of faking or inserting the articles?” This is exactly the “proof” which we have tried to question in the instalments no XI published on August 19 and No. XXV published on December 2. If Rajimwale is so much convinced about the authenticity of this ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’, I shall be highly grateful to him if he could produce any reference to the existence of these ‘Notebooks’ anywhere in the vast pre-1952 Marxian literature comprising of letters, articles, reminiscences, and biographies etc.

But Rajimwale seems to be a prisoner of blind faith in Moscow and Marx, which is evident from his eulogical reference to Marx, “It goes to the credit of Marx’s genius and great scientific foresight that sitting so far away in England, he and Engels could describe India of 1857-59 with almost pinpoint accuracy and insight, almost as if they were in the thick of the battles and events of the First War of Independence.” Could he have written this eulogy before the publication of FIWI by Moscow in 1959? He has only confirmed my impression that “the communist mindset was conditioned by Marx’s perception of India, that “they would not accept any interpretation of 1857 unless it was presented in words of Marx himself” and that “they would accept anything dished out by Moscow in the name of Marx as gospel truth.”

It is a well-known fact that history-writing in the Soviet Union was always the handmaid of power politics. With every change of power centre, history books were rewritten. Well researched works, such as Soviet historians in crisis 1928-1932 by John Barber (London, 1981), Politics and History in Soviet Union by Nancy Heer (Cambridge, 1970) and Rewriting History in Soviet Russia 1956-1974 by Roger D. Marwick (Palgrave, 2001) and many others throw enough light on the politicisation of history writing in Soviet Russia and other Communist states. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, the Russian archives have revealed enough evidence to prove that how documents were suppressed and fabricated to distort history writing. A historian Robert Payne in his biography of Marx (London, 1968) had lamented:

“Today nearly all the original documents connected with the life of Marx are in the Russian hands. His letters and manuscripts are to be found in the Marx-Engels Institute, Moscow, and from time to time new editions appear with suitable emendations. The author of a life of Marx must move warily among the official texts, never knowing for sure what documents have been suppressed or distorted.” (p. 13)

Following the footsteps of their Soviet mentors, the Communist movement in India has also not lagged behind in falsification of history. Every splinter communist party has chosen to publish its own set of documents on the history of the communist movement in India, forgetting that upto 1964 there was only one communist party and there could be only one set of documents for that period. P.C. Joshi, the General Secretary of the CPI from 1935 to 1948, was shocked to find in 1968, when he wanted to write a well-documented history of the communist movement in India, that “The worst tragedy is that B.T. Ranadive destroyed not all the old archives but also all the old literature of the Comintern, the CPI and other Left Parties, the entire Party library and Archives from the earliest days to 1950. It took seven days (in night shift) in a factory chimney to burn them and comrades incharge did it loyally, crying all the while, under orders and as part of Party discipline. Thus my task of collecting material was unimaginably difficult.” (Auto biographical Note dated November 7, 1968).

Elsewhere, referring to important Politbureau meetings and individual discussions during Rajni Palme Dutt’s (RPD) first India visit in 1946, Joshi writes, “My notes of these valuable meetings got burnt along with the rest of the Party Archives under the Ranadive leadership. I can only write from memory” (Rajni Palme Dutt, and Indian Communists in New thinking Communist Vol 12, No. 2 March, 2001, p. 14)

In such a situation, it becomes the responsibility of historians in general and Marxist historians in particular to critically apply the scientific research methodology to determine the authorship of the unsigned articles after a century of their publication. I have not come across any such attempt on the part of any Marxist or non-Marxist historian so far. True to his communist culture, Rajimwale, instead of facing facts and meeting argument with argument charges Organiser and Devendra Swarup of “Poverty of knowledge”. What a welcome to “healthy, well-researched and contructive criticism”!

(To be concluded)

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.p...pid=213&page=15
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->