(20 November 1905 – 27 May 1998)
An abridge
Chapter from Minoo Masanis autobiography- Bliss was it in that to be alive.
An
incipient group of socialists emerged for our discussions in Nasik prison
(1932-33), Among the main participants in these discussions were Jayaprakash
Narayan and myself. Others who joined in were Achyut Patwardhan and Asoka
Mehta. My own early thinking and my Labour Party background made it natural
that I should want a similar sort of development in our country. Since I was
also a nationalist, such a development could only be a group within the Indian
National Congress which was a kind of anti-imperialist front for the
elimination of Biritish rule.
I
had met Jayaprakash late in 1932 before getting arrested and convicted for a
term in Nasik prison. The next time I met him was in January 1933 in the
"B" yard of the Nasik prison, where he had arrived before. We had a
year's rigorous imprisonment ahead of us both and so we were together till we
left prison at the end of that year. I could not have had a more charming and
considerate fellow prisoner. A stranger among the several people from Bombay in
jail, J.P. soon won all hearts.
J.
P.'s background was totally different from mine. During his stay in united
States as a student, he had come under the influence of the communist party
under the leadership of Jay Lovestone and has, for all the practical purposes,
become a communist. But there was one difference. J. P. was a patriot and a
nationalist and he was shocked that the Communist Party of India should have
taken up positions altogether antagonistic to the struggle for Indian
independence and become contemptuous of Mahatma Gandhi's leadership. While a
communist in all other respects, he was a dissident from the Moscow line which
had been laid down at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, Which
was to treat all groups of nationalist and even democratic socialist as
"social fascists" with whom no cooperation was possible and whose
influence among the people had to be undermined. That was how J. P. found
himself "underground" in 1932.
In
later life, I was to meet Jay Lovestone who, by the early 50's, had been cured
of his communism and become political adviser to the American Federation of
Labour. I used to tease him saying that by his anti-communist activities he was
doing penance and making reparation for having helped J. P. become a communist.
With
such different backgrounds, it was natural that J. P. and I found ourselves out
of tune on the question of democracy vs. dictatorship. I was a staunch democrat
of the British Labour Party kind had and has little sympathy with communist
methodology or technique, though I was a rather starry-eyed admirer of the
October Revolution in Russia. Obviously, I had not considered whether these two
conflicting attitudes could be reconciled. J. P. on the other hand was a
staunch believer in the dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever that may
mean. Marxism was the bedrock of his socialist faith.
When
we stumbled across the discovery of this basic disagreement, we could have
agreed to disagree, dropped the effort at working together to create a new
party and waited for events. Being both young and impatient, we were so keen on
projecting socialism on the political map of India and thus "developing
the anti-imperialist struggle" that we decided to sweep these differences
under the carpet, and to go ahead without resolving this doctrinal difference.
Looking
back, I have no doubt that this was a rather opportunist attitude. while the
motives of opportunists often are, our ignoring a fundamental disagreement was
wrong, and bound in course of time too boomerang. it was not long before it
did.
When
we left Nasik prison at the end of 1933, J. P. and I agreed that, as soon as we
are out, we would go ahead with the formation of our proposed new party on the
basis of the programme we had prepared in prison. I lost no time and in the
middle of December I took a train to Allahabad to visit Jawaharlal Nehru.
Though I had been following his public life since the late twenties and had
briefly run into him in a London hotel in 1927, I had never really met him and
he had probably forgotten all about me.
Jawaharlal
was kind enough to task me to stay with him in Anand Bhawan during my short
visit of a couple of days. We got on extremely well from the very beginning. We
were both modern and westernized men, though he was considerably older. We were
both socialists and he was therefore naturally responsive and sympathetic to
what I had to say. Jawaharlal looked at the plan we had drafted and was willing
to give us the support we needed.
Before
we parted. I handed over to Jawaharlal a letter dated December 19th 1933.
Dear
Pandit Jawaharlal
Some
of us Congressmen in Bombay who are socialists are attempting to form a
congress Socialist Group or Party.
We
feel that the lead you have given to the Congress and to the country by
emphasizing the necessity of taking up a consciously socialist and
anti-imperialist position should be followed by the organization of socialist
within the Congress.
The
Group it is proposed to form would carry out the purpose you have in view by
placing before the Congressmen and the public of our province (or, may be
presidency) a programme that would be socialist in action and objective.
The
Group would be socialist propaganda among rank and life Congressmen with a view
to converting the Congress to an acceptance of socialism. We would also carry
on propaganda among the workers (and peasants) at the same time participating
in their day to day economic struggles.
It
would hearten us to know that in the formation of such a group we shall have
your approval and support.
Yours
fraternally
M.R.
Masani
On
the same day, Jawaharlal gave me a letter in the course of which he welcomed
"the formation of socialist groups in the congress to influence the
ideology of the Congress and the country."
To
M.R. Masani
Allahabad
December 19, 1933.
Dear
Masani
I
have your letter. I would welcome the formation of socialist groups in the
Congress to influence the ideology of the Congress and the country. As you are
aware, I have been laying stress on the socialist ideal very much in my recent
speeches and writings. I feel that the time has come when the country should
face this issue and come to grips with the real economic problems which
ultimately matter. All over the world today people are being forced to think in
terms of economic and social change and we in India cannot effort to remain in
the back water of pure politics.
The
congress is, as its very name implies, a nationalist organization and it has so
far functioned on the nationalist plane. That was inevitable because in a
country under alien domination the problem of political independence has always
taken first place. So long as the Congress remains the nationalist Congress
this nationalist outlook is bound to dominate this situation. But the world
events as well as the natural consequences of our mass struggles have forced
the Congress to think, to some extents at least, in terms of economics. Our
direct action struggles were, to begin with, purely political: however, the
political aspects became tinged with economic. The Congress, nationalist as it
was, began to talk rather vaguely and idealistically in terms of some social
change. That process of change of ideology is proceeding apace and is being
hastened by economic conditions as well as the continuation of direct action.
The
time has undoubtedly come now when we must think more clearly and develop a
scientific ideology. This is, so far as I am concerned, one of socialism and I
would, therefore, gladly welcome the formation
of
groups to spread this ideology. But it is not enough to talk merely in terms of
an academic ideology, especially at a moment when our country is in the midst
of a struggle for freedom.
This
ideology must be tacked on to action and this action, if it is to bear fruit,
must be related to the Congress struggle. Otherwise the socialist group will
become an ineffective, academic and sterile Center. Even to spread the ideology
the effective method is through action which is coordination to the direct
action of the Congress and labour and peasant organizations.
I
lay stress on this because I have had sad experience of individuals and groups
putting on the colours of socialist and advancing a brave ideology and then
doing nothing or, what is worse, just criticizing on the struggle. If a group
is meant to give shelter to such persons it is obvious that little can be
expected from it. It has become the fashion for some people to cover their own
ineffectiveness by strong criticism of the Congress activities. Criticism of
ideology or methods must of course be free and welcome but it must not be
allowed to become an anti-revolutionary weapon. Although ideologically
backward, the Congress is undoubtedly today the most advanced revolutionary
organization in action in India. It must be strengthened and at the same time
directed towards newer channels.
I
hope therefore this Socialist group you suggest will take part in action as
well as thought and will join the vanguard of the struggle. I should like to
make clear that in the last but one paragraph of this letter I do not refer to
people who may differ as to the present Congress programme. personally I hold
that under existing circumstances the present programme is suitable and gives
us scope to develop our struggle. But I know that other comrades are of a
different opinion and I respect these comrades. In any socialist group both
these sets of opinion as well as others must have full scope. What I referred
to was the person who has no notion of indulging in any action now or later and
finds satisfaction in brave talk only. I attach considerable importance to
action as I feel that out of it alone will the masses imbibe revolutionary
ideas.
Your
sincerely,
Jawaharlal
Nehru
By
October 1934, about a dozen provincial socialist parties and groups had been
formed wan we felt we could move on to form an all India Party. Soon October 21
and 22, 1934, the Second and All India Congress Socialist Conference met in
Bombay to form an All India Party out of a federation of the provincial groups
and to formulate the resolutions and policies which should be placed before
Congress session a few days later on our behalf. This meeting took place in a
big hall in a half constructed building in worli in Bombay called Ready money
Terrace, not very far from Pandal (a temporary awning) which had been put up
for the Congress Session.
On
the eve of the conference, I wrote an article setting out the socialist view of
the political situation in the country. Talking about the three groups in the
Congress, I wrote:
The
first is the bulk of active Congressmen
who are supporters of Mahatma Gandhi and are occupied in carrying out
constructive programme of the Congress namely khaddar (hand spun cloth), untouchability
and prohibition work...
The
second section is that composed of a
considerable section of the Congress leaders, namely. The Congress
Parliamentary Board. It has in its ranks men with great intellect and influence
but it is rather as a result of the process of demoralization through defeat
than of intelligent conviction that they have taken to constitutional path...
There
remains a third section, and this time to growing one, in the Congress, namely,
the Congress Socialist. since Patna they have organized themselves into parties
in most of the Congress provinces and are going to hold an all India Conference
and form an All India Party on October 21 and 22 in Bombay. This Party is
essentially the party of youth: men over forty five years are few and far
between in their ranks. Though deprived of the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru, Who is still in jail, the party has become an effective minority
movement in the Congress and bids fair to challenge soon the hitherto
unchallenged supremacy of Mahatma Gandhi....
........
They believe that it is only by remaining within the nationalist moment that it
is possible to ensure the establishment of a socialist state of the transfer of
political power to the people of this country.
At
Bombay this month these three forces Gandhi,s, Constitutionalism and
Socialism-will join issue. Political alignment being what they are today, there
is little doubt that Gandhi and the parliamentary Board will combine to repel
the socialist advance and succeed in doing so.
On
October 20, our own conference started. The delegates represented thirteen
provincial Congress Socialist parties.
Jayprakash
Narayan in his report stressed the fact that the party was within the Congress
and intended to participate in all Congress activities but as a minority it
would exercise its right to propagate its views, to criticize and even oppose
policies which seemed to be wrong.
Jayprakash
also dealt with the criticism of the left wing that Socialism and Congress were
contradictory terms and the party should not be with the congress, Jayaprakash
concluded by saying:
The
Congress Socialist Party is not the party of any one class. it is not the party
of the working class alone. It is a political party uniting on its platform all
anti-imperialist elements and its task is to lead such elements to the
overthrow of British imperialism and the establishment in India of real Swaraj
for the masses.
There
was then a discussion of the draft constitution and programme of the party
submitted by the drafting committee. After prolonged discussion, the
constitution and programme were adopted with several amendments, and the party
was formed.
The
conference had to consider the new party's position vis-a-vis the three trade
union organization that were then in existence, namely, the National Trade
Union Federation run by moderate veterans who had established the trade union
movement in India, the All India trade Union Congress Socialist Party, and the
Red Trades Union Congress, Which was the trades union wing of the Communist
Party of India.
Idealists
as we were, We talked of bringing about unity between the three organizations.
This looked a difficult undertaking by any standards since, after the Congress
Socialist Party was formed, the Communist party of India had applied the tag of
"Social Fascist" to the new group in line with the Sixth Congress of
the Comintern.
I
remember seeing at that time a chart emanating from this quarter which
professed to portray the alignment of political forces in India. On one side of
the battle line was the Communist party of India, with such auxiliary fronts as
the Red Trades Union Congress and the Indian people's Theatre Association, and
on the other was a grand alliance consisting of the British Government, the
Indian National Congress, and the Congress Socialist Party and about every
group one could think of.
It
was against this background that we bravely made our effort to bring about
unity within the trade union movement. The amusing thing is that we succeeded.
