Stalin Good, Mao Bad? Comrade Karat forgets his Marx!

Simple-minded and spurious reasoning from the CPI(M) head honcho. Proving why the 'progressive' Indian position that the CPI(M) for all its faults is better than the BJP or Samajwadi Party is utterly unfounded.

Karat suggests that Naxalites--- who, as is well known, are Maoists--- are not a "Left trend" and not "Marxists". Here's the problem Mr Karat-- whatever you think of Mao and Maoists, it is impossible to claim that they are not Marxists! They do not exhaust Marxism and there are legacies of Marxism that would squarely contradict the theory and praxis of various Maoist movements. But Maoists across the world have been and continue to be an integral part of the lived and living history of Marxism. The ostensible reason for the expulsion of Indian Maoists from the Marxist fold is the former's use of violence-- particularly violence directed against CPI(M) members. But Karat is being hypocritical here, of course, as will be glaringly obvious to anyone even cursorily familiar with the ideology of the CPI(M).

For this happens to be the same same Karat of the same CPI(M) that (a) has never repudiated the use of political violence when directed against 'enemies of history' or 'enemies of the party' or 'bourgeois imperalists' (b) has never repudiated or criticized Stalin for the pogroms sanctioned by the leader which resulted in the death of millions, and (c) in fact, considers Stalin a very important figure from whom much can be learnt. (I am told but do not know for sure that CPI(M) offices have posters of Stalin.) Karat himself is often described by Left folk as Stalinist in his ideological purity (read dogmatism). Here, for instance, is an extract from a 1992 CPI(M) resolution, "On Certain Ideological Issues: (Resolution Adopted at the 14th Congress of the CPI(M) Madras, January 3-9, 1992)", which, while acknowledging some minor faults in Stalin's administrative style, does not even hint at the violence that he was responsible for.

The CPI(M), since the Burdwan Plenum in 1968, has repeatedly made clear its assessment of the positive and negative aspects of Stalin's leadership. While being severely critical of certain gross violations of inner-party democracy and socialist legality, he May 1990 C.C. resolution had stated: "The CPI(M) rejected the approach which, in the name of correcting the personality cult, is negating the history of socialism. The uncontestable contribution of Joseph Stalin in defence of Leninism, against Trotskyism and other ideological deviations, the building of socialism in the USSR, the victory over fascism and the reconstruction of the war-ravaged Soviet, Union enabling it to acquire enough strength to check imperialist aggressive moves, are inerasable from the history of socialism.

Karat betrays the same kind of doublespeak that politicians from all Indian parties are famous for. It is obvious that Karat's position is compelled by the tide of anti-Naxalite public opinion. If for whatever reason, the Naxalite movement gains public sympathy in India, Karat is quite likely to embrace them again. And the complicated family squabbles among the various Left parties in India are also a factor of course.

Whenever I see the CPI(M) up to its shenanigans, I am reminded of Nehru's astute and acerbic observation in the Discovery of India that for the Communist Party of India the history of India starts in 1917 with the Russsian Revolution.