Life as a socialist Agitator- Minoo Masani

(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.