AHC: Turn India Communist After Independence

I'm not terribly knowledgeable about modern Indian history, but I'm kind of surprised it never turned communist. India was closer geographically to the Marxist-Leninist countries than the Western Bloc, especially after Mao rose to power in 1949, which makes for an easier communist supply chain. If I remember correctly, the U.S. tended to intervene more in Western Europe and the Pacific rim rather than South Asia. The anti-colonial rhetoric should appeal to Indians who had recently kicked out the British (albeit through Gandhi's peaceful protest rather than Bose fighting for the Axis). I also imagine the anti-clericalism and class warfare aspects would appeal to the lower castes and Dalits too.

Besides, there was (and is) a thriving communist movement in states like Kerala in our timeline.

However, India was a leader of the "Non-Aligned" movement during the Cold War thanks to the popular Prime Minister Nehru.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make the national government of India in this timeline Marxist after independence. "Red India" does NOT need to include Pakistan or East Pakistan/Bangladesh, although you get a lot of bonus points if you give a plausible way of accomplishing this. It can come through either elections, or a bloody revolution, whichever you prefer.



I've been lurking here for some time, and I'm glad to join here. I'm a fan of A More Personal Union in particular. After reading a book that briefly mentioned communism in Kerala, I had this challenge idea kicking around in my head.

Wasn't India de facto Marxist for vast periods in OTL? Or am I seeing it incorrectly?

PiratePartyist said:

Wasn't India de facto Marxist for vast periods in OTL? Or am I seeing it incorrectly?

Click to expand...

Not really, Nehru was a proponent of Fabian socialism, but India was never Marxist.

PiratePartyist said:

Wasn't India de facto Marxist for vast periods in OTL? Or am I seeing it incorrectly?

Click to expand...

Nope. It was hugely protectionist with a heavily regulated and planned economy but it was never Marxist. The Indian state never used Marxist rhetoric and while Communist parties often dominated (and still dominate) some of the State governments they were generally wiling to work within the governmental system. Where you saw and see outright Communist revolt is in the most underprivileged and backward districts (which is why there's the Red Belt across East India) but besides rhetoric and industrial action (on par with the sort of industrial action you'd see in any European social democracy during the period) this didn't spread outside those specific districts.

Basically Nehru and Congress successfully created a nationalist Fabian socialist ideology that gave the people, at least theoretically and idealistically, some level of affirmation. Despite grinding poverty across most of India there was (and is) a sense that the government is trying to help and I think that's what preserved India form the sort of Marxist upheaval you saw elsewhere in the decolonised world.

Flocculencio said:

Nope. It was hugely protectionist with a heavily regulated and planned economy but it was never Marxist. The Indian state never used Marxist rhetoric and while Communist parties often dominated (and still dominate) some of the State governments they were generally wiling to work within the governmental system. Where you saw and see outright Communist revolt is in the most underprivileged and backward districts (which is why there's the Red Belt across East India) but besides rhetoric and industrial action (on par with the sort of industrial action you'd see in any European social democracy during the period) this didn't spread outside those specific districts.

Basically Nehru and Congress successfully created a nationalist Fabian socialist ideology that gave the people, at least theoretically and idealistically, some level of affirmation. Despite grinding poverty across most of India there was (and is) a sense that the government is trying to help and I think that's what preserved India form the sort of Marxist upheaval you saw elsewhere in the decolonised world.

Click to expand...

So basically, the government of India was socialist enough to steal Marxism's thunder? Kind of like Bismarck implementing a social security system to siphon support from the German socialists (though probably with less cynical motives)?

Kind of ironic considering Lenin's thoughts. He wanted the Labour Party to be elected in Britain so that it would "prove" that democratic socialism wouldn't go far enough to appease the people, and provoke violent revolutions across the world. The source for this is Bertrand Russell's "The Theory and Practice of Bolshevism", in case you're wondering.

*Checks Wikipedia* *Discovers that there are THREE organizations titled "Communist Party of India".* Workers of the world, disunite!

Thanks for your answers. I wonder how these commies reacted to India deregulating the economy. *Checks again*. It turns out that the Maoist party was founded in 2004, and is the violently revolutionary branch of the movement. Manmohan Singh called it the "single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country". Here's a story about the subject. Looks like you were right about the "Red Belt".

http://www.economist.com/node/14820724

Thanks a lot, Flocculencio!

If things somehow go really badly for India, OTL could meet the criteria, sadly enough.

Herman Gigglethorpe said:

*Checks Wikipedia* *Discovers that there are THREE organizations titled "Communist Party of India".* Workers of the world, disunite!

Click to expand...

That's not actually an India specific thing, nearly every country in the Americas and Eurasia (that was'nt part of the Soviet or Sino blocs or had governments violently repressing Communism) has multiple Communist parties (and usually multiple Socialist parties to); the only major exception I can think of is Japan, which has only one Communist Party (and IIRC has only ever had that one).

Iori said:

That's not actually an India specific thing, nearly every country in the Americas and Eurasia (that was'nt part of the Soviet or Sino blocs or had governments violently repressing Communism) has multiple Communist parties (and usually multiple Socialist parties to); the only major exception I can think of is Japan, which has only one Communist Party (and IIRC has only ever had that one).

Click to expand...

And the Japaneese communist party is mostly a big tent anti-establishment party rather than holding to any kind of specifically marxist intention (although thats because at any given time the communists are usually the only party not allied with the ruling government at the time).

eliphas8 said:

And the Japaneese communist party is mostly a big tent anti-establishment party rather than holding to any kind of specifically marxist intention (although thats because at any given time the communists are usually the only party not allied with the ruling government at the time).

Click to expand...

Well I don't think I'd go that far, thought the JCP is unique in that it has almost from the start been an atypical Communist Party in that it's never followed alot of traditional Marxist-Leninist stuff, always been Democratic Communist (IE they eschew the idea of Revolution) and has generally focused on multiple issues rather than only ever fixating on ideological Communism and not caring about anything else like alot of Communist parties have normally done.

Iori said:

Well I don't think I'd go that far, thought rh JCP is unique in that it has almost from the start been an atypical Communist Party in that it's never followed alot of traditional Marxist-Leninist stuff, alsways been Democratic Communist (IE they eschew the idea of Revolution) and generally focus on multiple issues rather than only ever fixating on ideological Communism and not caring about anything else like alot fo Communist partyies have normally done.

Click to expand...

I mean yeah, I won't lie they are a competent very skillful party, but at the same time that really doesn't change the fact that they are more than anything else a big tent anti-establishment party. And you know what, that's not actually bad for them, where I Japanese I would almost certainly be a supporter (assuming I somehow ended up exactly the same politically).

Herman Gigglethorpe said:

So basically, the government of India was socialist enough to steal Marxism's thunder? Kind of like Bismarck implementing a social security system to siphon support from the German socialists (though probably with less cynical motives)?

Click to expand...

To some extent - the Indian independence movement was almost entirely dominated by leftists of various stripes - from Gandhi's "village socialism" to Nehru's idealistic Fabian socialism. Sardar Patel was probably the least leftist prominent leader out there, and even he was a socialist.

This was because the British capitalist system had systematically wrecked India's economy. The British sought to use India as a massive market for British products and a huge source of raw materials - essentially deindustrializing the country and preventing any real growth or input of capital. All capital flowed outwards to Britain. It's no surprise that Indian intellectuals never found capitalism that appealing.

As for why communism never took root - the answer is that it did, in places. India has historically been highly decentralized, with a lot of power delegated to the states and even more to local and village councils - panchayats. In some states, Communist parties ran and won - the system allowed for it. There was no repression - and so a democratic outlet was found. In other parts, due to India's lack of industrialization, traditional Marxism had little hope, since there was no proletariat.

Herman Gigglethorpe said:

*Checks Wikipedia* *Discovers that there are THREE organizations titled "Communist Party of India".* Workers of the world, disunite!

Click to expand...

As someone else mentioned, this is hardly unusual. However, the various organizations are very, very different. One of them (the CPI) is a pretty bog-standard national typical political party. The second (CPI-Marxist) doesn't really run on the national level and instead focuses on state elections, and does quite well - West Bengal, Tripura, Kerala.

Herman Gigglethorpe said:

Thanks for your answers. I wonder how these commies reacted to India deregulating the economy. *Checks again*. It turns out that the Maoist party was founded in 2004, and is the violently revolutionary branch of the movement. Manmohan Singh called it the "single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country". Here's a story about the subject. Looks like you were right about the "Red Belt".

Click to expand...

The third one is the Communist Party of India - Maoist, who are lunatics and thugs. They weren't really founded in 2004, but simply emerged from a number of Naxalite movements. The Naxalites are a mixed bunch, and never that successful overall - some are genuine Maoists, some are just out for money, some are just thugs, some are just angry and oppressed. It varies. In any case, the insurgency has lasted for 40 years and never gotten anywhere, nor do I expect it to. It seems to be waning somewhat as development comes to Chatisgarh and other nearby states.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Ganesha said:

This was because the British capitalist system had systematically wrecked India's economy. The British sought to use India as a massive market for British products and a huge source of raw materials - essentially deindustrializing the country and preventing any real growth or input of capital. All capital flowed outwards to Britain. It's no surprise that Indian intellectuals never found capitalism that appealing.

Click to expand...

They've done studies which indicate that over the course of the 19th century - while industrializing western Europe and North America experienced the fastest economic growth in history so far - India's per capita income remained essentially static. Growth in some sectors - railways, production of raw materials for exports - was pretty much entirely cancelled out by the destruction of indigenous cottage production and other forms of extraction. Well, I suppose the ending of wars (aside from those committed by the British themselves) was worth something, but overall, jeez, very few indians in 1900 could have looked on the Empire as Mother Bountiful.

(To paraphrase something someone said on the internet, this is another reason why expecting the UK and India to remain close partners in the 20th century is like imagining the Wobblies and the Robber Barons skipping hand in hand through a field of buttercups)


Bruce

Herman Gigglethorpe said:

Thanks for your answers. I wonder how these commies reacted to India deregulating the economy. *Checks again*. It turns out that the Maoist party was founded in 2004, and is the violently revolutionary branch of the movement. Manmohan Singh called it the "single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country". Here's a story about the subject. Looks like you were right about the "Red Belt".

http://www.economist.com/node/14820724

Thanks a lot, Flocculencio!

If things somehow go really badly for India, OTL could meet the criteria, sadly enough.

Click to expand...

The Naxalites have their insurgency in the Red Belt I talked about but the thing is that even there, they have little to no influence outside it. It's not a spreading rebellion because outside those grindingly poor districts the conditions do not exist that could give support to the rebellion.

The mainstream communist parties took reasonably well to deregulation after a few hiccups- they tend to push for social support programmes and the like. For example Kerala, the highest educated state in India and the one with the highest HDI tends to elect Communist governments in every alternate election cycle. It's best to think of Indian communists as you would Social Democrat parties rather than as "commies".

There are several reasons for the failure of the Communists to capture power in India.
One reason is the adoption of socialism as a motto by Nehru and the Congress Party. By proclaiming that the Government would follow a socialist pattern of development, Nehru stole the wind out of the sails of the Left in India. The close relations that developed between India and the Soviet Union also was detrimental to the growth of the Communists in India. Though they were in opposition in Parliament, they were forced to support the Government in most of the foreign policy issues.

The nature of the Communist leadership in India was also a problem. Unlike Mao in China or Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, the Communists in India were not nationalists, but were Moscow-looking and dogmatic. Before the Independence they were too dogmatic and parroted what Stalin and USSR said. They opposed the Quit India Movement of the Congress because Stalin was with the Allies. Again at the time of Independence they supported Jinnah in the name of the right of self determination of peoples. These policies led to the loss of support among the common people.

Another result of their dogmatic approach was their stubborn adherence to the theory of Class War and negligence of the caste system in India. In India the Caste is more important than Class and their failure to mobilise the backward and SC-ST groups affected their growth. It should be noticed that parties that mobilised backwards and dalits like SP and BSP in the North and the Dravidian parties in the South were highly successful in elections. But the Communists didn't do so and they also couldn't follow this line as most of the Communist leaders were Brahmins and other high caste persons. EMS Namboodiripad in Kerala and Jyoti Basu in Bengal were Brahmins.

Another reason for their failure is that they are confined to the border states like W.Bengal and Tripura in the East and Kerala in the South. They have no influence in the Indo-Gangetic Plain which is the Heartland or most of the major states. They have come to power only in these three states and hence derisively termed as party of two and a half states. Tripura has only two seats in the Lok Sabha, and now it is the only state ruled by the Communists.

The split in the Communist Party in 1964 also was a great roadblock in their path of development. The Party split into C.P.I. and C.P.I.(M) on ideological grounds. Later the Maoists better known as Naxalites split from the CPI(M) in 1967. Today the two major parties are co-operating in a Left Front but a reunification is a distant possibility. The reason is not ideological, but the fact that CPI(M) which is a far richer party do not want to share their wealth with their poorer cousins, CPI.

The major Communist parties CPI(M) and CPI have completely adopted the Parliamentary path and pay only lip service to the Revolution at times. There are no chances in the foreseeable future for them to come to power in India on their own. They may share power with other parties as a minor party in a united front government.

Well there was that time in 1996 when Jyoti Basu (the Communist Chief Minister of West Bengal) was offered the Premiership by a would-be coalition in parliament. The CPI(M) voted to turn down the offer, however.

Mind you, this would not have been a Communist government - just a coalition government with a leader drawn from the Communist Party. And given how these large, multiparty coalitions have fared, it likely would have been pretty short-lived, as the OTL 1996-1999 governments were.

What if we got rid of Gandhi and made the Indian goverment mishandle the resulting Muslim/Hindu violence even more? Could that lead to more dissatisfaction for people looking for an alternate?

Kishan, I really like your analysis. I'm particularly interested in what you said about Indian communists failing to emphasize caste rather than class - it's funny that they didn't really. I'm sure Marx himself would have wasted no time describing caste as merely "class in disguise."

mowque said:

What if we got rid of Gandhi and made the Indian goverment mishandle the resulting Muslim/Hindu violence even more? Could that lead to more dissatisfaction for people looking for an alternate?

Click to expand...

In the end Gandhi IOTL couldn't do much to prevent violence. And Partition was handled about as poorly as it could have been by all three parties - Congress (which became the Indian government), the Muslim League (which led Pakistan) and the British (who left). Our timeline was a worst-case scenario; we ended up with more than 500,000 people dead, millions injured, over 10 million displaced, and two antagonistic governments which would go on to fight three wars over the next 30 years and regard each other as their primary enemy. OTL's record with Hindu-Muslim relations pretty much blows already. It doesn't get much worse.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Ganesha said:

Kishan, I really like your analysis. I'm particularly interested in what you said about Indian communists failing to emphasize caste rather than class - it's funny that they didn't really. I'm sure Marx himself would have wasted no time describing caste as merely "class in disguise."

Cheers,
Ganesha

Click to expand...

I have also explained the reason for the Communists not emphasizing the caste factor in place of the class factor. The leaders of the Communists in the early years, before and soon after independence, were all high caste Hindus, especially Brahmins. Com. E.M.S.Namboodiripad, who was the ideological guide of the undivided Communist Party and CPI(M) later, the General Secretary for years and the first Chief Minister of Kerala, was a Brahmin. Com. Jyoti Basu who was the Chief Minister of W.Bengal for a generation and who was once tipped to be the Prime Minister was also Brahmin. In fact the majority members of the Polit Bureau belong to the upper castes. Such a leadership could never emphasize the caste factor pulling the rug under their own feet.
But leaders like E.M.S. have exploited the caste and religion for opportunist electoral purposes. When the elections came in Kerala at the time of the First Iraq War under Senior Bush, the Communists idolised Saddam Hussain as a great leader standing up against the greatest Evil Power on Earth, U.S.A, to get the support of the Muslim voters and they won the elections!
I think that the fact that the Communists did not exploit the caste factor, though it did not benefit them, was good for the polity as a whole. The caste based parties in the Northern states and Tamil Nadu are actually causing a lot of damage to the social harmony.

Maybe have Gandhi killed, so the anti-British resistance takes the form of a violent revolution that radicalizes the Indians.

Kishan said:

I have also explained the reason for the Communists not emphasizing the caste factor in place of the class factor. The leaders of the Communists in the early years, before and soon after independence, were all high caste Hindus, especially Brahmins. Com. E.M.S.Namboodiripad, who was the ideological guide of the undivided Communist Party and CPI(M) later, the General Secretary for years and the first Chief Minister of Kerala, was a Brahmin. Com. Jyoti Basu who was the Chief Minister of W.Bengal for a generation and who was once tipped to be the Prime Minister was also Brahmin. In fact the majority members of the Polit Bureau belong to the upper castes. Such a leadership could never emphasize the caste factor pulling the rug under their own feet.
But leaders like E.M.S. have exploited the caste and religion for opportunist electoral purposes. When the elections came in Kerala at the time of the First Iraq War under Senior Bush, the Communists idolised Saddam Hussain as a great leader standing up against the greatest Evil Power on Earth, U.S.A, to get the support of the Muslim voters and they won the elections!
I think that the fact that the Communists did not exploit the caste factor, though it did not benefit them, was good for the polity as a whole. The caste based parties in the Northern states and Tamil Nadu are actually causing a lot of damage to the social harmony.

Click to expand...

Interesting explanation, Kishan. Why did so many Brahmins turn Communist anyway? Phrases like "you have nothing to lose but your chains" should appeal to the lower classes, not the priestly caste! Yes, I know Friedrich Engels was a businessman himself, but what you're describing sounds hilariously like a group of self-hating bourgeoisie. Did they associate Communism more with independence than with ideology (kind of like Vietnam?)

The Saddam Hussein anecdote is just plain weird. Didn't he crack down hard on Communism (one reason the U.S. supported him at first)?

As for "social harmony", I never said the hypothetical commie India had to be functional! *Evil laugh*

This is plausible. If the British delayed negotiations any further, there would have been some armed mutiny that could have tagged on with the Indian Communists.