The communist is primarily an anti-nationalist, secondly anti-God and tertially anti-Hindu. In socio political practice, however, he as well as the communist parties sound more anti-Hindu than anything else. The reason could be that to speak against nationalism would send a message of being anti-nationalist which might imply being anti-patriotic. On the other hand, to speak against God would hurt the sentiments of most people, including Muslims. The purpose therefore to be achieved is by speaking up against any sociopolitical movement which has a Hindu inspiration. In India, nationalism has to be aroused around the Hindu ethos.
The nation is looked upon as an instrument in the hands of the rich to exploit the poor. Appropriately, the communist anthem has been a song called the Internationale. The result is that the supranationalist and the internationalist are allies following the dictum that an enemy's enemy is a friend. Both are adversaries of nationalism and in India of the Hindu ethos, which is the mainspring of the nationalist sentiment.
Communists role during the British Rule
It would be desirable to recall the track record of the communists in India during British days When one could afford to speak and work openly against nationalism. Go back to 9 August 1942 when Gandhi called upon the British to quit India. Overstreet and Windmiller in their book Communism in India, University of Berkeley, 1962, wrote the CPI(Communist Party of India) criticised the Quit India resolution as misguided and pernicious. Furthermore, Netaji Subhas and his movement were condemned as a fifth column. The Indian Socialists were described as the advance guard of the Japanese Army.
In those days of 1942 and after, communist praise was showered on the Muslim League. An example of such appreciation in the words of the CPI Central Committee member Sajjad Zaheer is: It is a good and fine thing, a happy augury, for Indian Muslims and for India as a whole that the Muslim League continues to grow and gather around it millions of our liberty-loving people. In the increasing strength and capacity of the League to move the Muslim masses on the path of progress and democracy lies the salvation of millions of our Muslim countrymen .... By mid-1942, the Party was expressly committed to the general view that India was a multinational entity, and that the unqualified right of self-determination should be granted to each nationality. A Party statement of July asked:. "What can be the basis of our national unity?" Recognition of the principles of self-determination including the right of separation, for all the nationalities that inhabit our great subcontinent.
Communists support Muslim League Agenda
A resolution of the September plenary meeting of the Central Committee definitively outlined the Party's new orientation. Its critical passage was as follows: Every section of the Indian people which has a contiguous territory as its homeland, common historical tradition, common language, culture, psychological make-up, and common economic life would be recognized as a distinct nationality with the right to exist as an autonomous state within the free Indian Union or federation and will have the right to secede from it if it may so desire ... Thus free India of tomorrow would be a federation or union of autonomous states of the various nationalities such as the Pathans, Western Punjabis(dominantly Muslims), Sikhs, Sindhis Hindustanis, Gujaratis, Bengalis, Assamese, Beharies, Oriyas, Andhras, Tamils, Karnatikis, Maharashtrians, Keralas, etc.
The resolution made it abundantly clear that those nationalities which were predominantly Muslim could secede. This would give to the Muslims wherever they are in an overwhelming majority in a contiguous territory which is their homeland, the right to for1l1 their autonomous states and even to separate if they so desire.
A year later, the Party was openly supporting Pakistan. Zaheer said that Congressmen generally fail to see the anti-imperialist, liberationist role of the Muslim League, fail to see that the demand for Muslim self-determination or Pakistan is a just, progressive and national demand, and is the positive expression of the very freedom and democracy for which Congressmen have striven and undergone so much suffering all these years.
The American authors wondered what could have prompted the CPI to be so openly pro-Muslim, so pro-Pakistani? They explain that: the policy may have been prompted in part by an intention to encourage not Muslim separatism alone but all regional particularism throughout the sub-continent. The regional linguistic units of India, while no one but the CPI termed them "nationalities," had in many cases shown strong particularist impulses on which a political party might easily capitalize.
Proposal for Sovereign Bengal
At one stage the Party openly proposed that Bengal be a sovereign country, in addition to India and Pakistan. It also hinted at independent status for the Sikhs. But it was only after the war that this larger import of the Party's policy-its identification with regional particularism emerged fully. The CPI's anti-Indianism did not end with supporting multiple partitions of India. In 1944, General Secretary P.C. Joshi wrote articles wherein he advocated not only the creation of Pakistan, but also an undivided sovereign Bengal. The scholars from California have written: In Bengal as a whole the majority of the population was Muslim but only by a slight margin, the eastern and northern districts being pre-dominantly Muslim while the others were predominantly Hindu. Earlier, the Party had proposed that Bengal be partitioned accordingly, but the League demanded that Bengal go to Pakistan. Now Joshi declared that Bengal should be a united sovereign and independent state, which would maintain relations of mutual assistance and friendly economic collaboration with both India and Pakistan. This solution was clearly advantageous to the League since thus it would again have influence over all of Bengal rather than over the Muslim-majority districts only. In fact, the new state would probably make common cause with Pakistan, but this Joshi did not mention.
Punjab to be part of Pakistan
The anti-Hindu real politik of the CPI had no limits. To quote: With regard to the other disputed area, the six eastern districts of Punjab(Central Punjab), Joshi proposed a solution which was equally advantageous to the Muslim League. In all the disputed districts the Sikhs constituted a large minority, and in all but one the Sikhs and Hindus together formed a majority, in but one were the Muslims in the majority, and that by only a small margin. Yet Joshi declared that the best solution would be to give all six districts to Pakistan, adding the suggestion that there be a "Muslim-Sikh Pact" which would guarantee the rights of the Sikhs under a Muslim government. The Sikhs have nothing to fear, he declared.
Pro-Chinese
Recall the Chinese aggression against India in 1962. Some members of the Communist Party of India felt that the Chinese were justified in their action which, in their view, was taken in self-defence against Indian aggression. Other members took the view that the opinion of Moscow was more correct, in that the Chinese should not have attacked. Neither faction was interested in how the Indians felt. Those who were pro-China left the CPI and formed a new party called the Communist Party of India(Marxist), now popularly known as the CPI(M). The pro-Russian faction remained with the CPI.
In 1964, when an intra-party debate was held, not much publicity was given. According to Dr. Sudipto Kaviraj (in his unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), a significant reason was the fear of being arrested and jailed for treason under the Defence of India Rules.
Communist Hypocrisy
That however does not justify the hypocrisy of most communists. Take for example, a family name of Chatterjee which is a modernised version of Chattopadhyaya, which in turn is the Bengali version of Chaturvedi; or whose family has studied the four vedas. Does not that sound very Hindu, if not also Brahmin and sana tan ? Again, consider the first name of Sita Ram. That is even more emphatically Hindu. Do not underrate the value of a name. It is a brand equity. It is among the first things a family gives to a baby soon after birth. Without it, the baby would not have an identity. How can one carry the identity of Sita Ram Chatterjee and, at the same time, spend one's time running down the Hindu ethos as communal, revivalist, obscurantist and what not?