Role of the Communist Party of India in

Pakistan Movement with reference to the

right of self -determination

Muhammad Amir Hamzah*Abstract1

In Pakistan Movement, the role of communists under the banner

of Communist Party of India (CPI) was ignored by the historian,

political Scientist and ruling elite of the both India and Pakistan.

In the education, especially in the curriculum of Social sciences,

the topic has been ignored consciously for the vested interest. But

this act could not minimize the importance of the communist

school of thought in Pakistan movement. Reality is the other side,

when we analyze the whole situation of the struggle for Pakistan.

We see that the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress

was main player of the Indian politics. Both the parties had deep

1Muhammad Amir Hamza is lecturer in Political Science at Govt.Fridia College Pakpattan.

roots among their respective following areas. Communist Party of

India (CPI) was third countrywide and main political force in the

united India. Of course Pakistan was the demand of All India

Muslim Leagues. But the demand for Pakistan strongly

condemned and criticized by Indian National Congress and

religious Muslim parties and groups. Jamat-I –Islami, Jamiat-ul-

ulmai Hind, Majlas Ahrar, Khaksar Tehreek had adopted anti

Pakistan and anti - Muslim League point of view in the Pakistan

movement. But Communist Party of India was only political party

in India which had different point of view about the demand for

Pakistan. The CPI openly supported the idea and demand of

Pakistan on the bases of the right of self-determination of the

oppressed nationalities. This is dilemma of our history that that

the CPI point of view and the support for Pakistan have been

ignored. To highlight the role of CPI and remove the dust from the

real political situation is the main objective of this study. Right of

self-determination is a basic right of nations and nationalities in a

federation. This right is conceded by the various schools of

thoughts but the right of self-determination with the right of

succession is only accepted by communists. This important factor

has also been discussed in this paper.

Communist Party of India: An Introduction

The Communist Party of India (CPI) was founded in

India at the Kanpur Communist Conference. Chairman

of the reception committee was Molana Hasrat

Mohani. Comrade Singaravelu delivered the

presidential address to this Conference. The first

nucleus of CPI was set up in Berlin in 1919, and an

organization in the name of Indian communists had

been established in Tashkent USSR in December 1920.

M.N.Roy was playing the leading role in

establishing the CPI in exile [Bhghwan 1952]. The

Kanpur Communist Conference was in fact the merger

of various left groups from all over the India. The

main leaders were Muzaffar Ahmad from Bengal,

Shaukat Usmani from U.P., S.A.Dange from Bombay,

Abdul Majeed from Lahore and the representatives

from other regions of the Sub-Continent [Lal 2004].

It was starting of the cold war era, the British

Imperialism was very afraid of the growing

ideological, and political power of the working

class all over the World. The British, declared

Soviet Union an enemy country of the capitalism.

So, it was naturally that the British Imperialism

was also terrified by the rising of the working

class struggle and the attraction for the communist

ideas developing amongst wider layer of the

society. The vigilance of the intelligence agencies

against the communists was much greater than

against the bourgeoisie leaders. So, was the

different in method, identity and ferocity of the

state repression? The communist, right from the

beginning, had to work in clandestine conditions,

while the bourgeoisie leaders and parties were

functioning more or less in convenience with the

British rulers [Lal 2004].

Communist party of India had to work under

repression of the British Imperialism from 1920 to

1947. Conspiracy cases were registered against

communist leaders and hundreds were arrested by the

name of Peshawar conspiracy, Meerath Conspiracy,

Delhi Conspiracy and Kanpur Conspiracy Cases in

different times. Philip spart and Benjamin Frances

Bradley had come from England to help the Indian

communists for the CPI. Both were the senior member

of the communist Party of Great Britain. They were

also arrested and sentenced to jail for ten years

with others participants of the Meerath Conspiracy

case. According to “The British Raj in India”,

through invisible terms the removal of the Leading

communists from the political scene had the effects

of improving the industrial climate, intellectually

the country became more aware of the communist

philosophy , and young nationalists viewed the

courage and secret method, of the communists with a

certain amount of admiration. The statements of the

accused during the trail, which were widely

publicized naturally painted communism in the best

possible colours [Burke& Salim]. Communist party

of India passed through the various and different

phases of the repression .From 1920 to 1936, the

party was “open”, and working in trade unions,

Kisan Sabah, Student Fronts and other frontal

organizations under the strict control and

observation of the state institutions .In this era,

thousands of communist workers had to jailed and

face long impressments. After, 1936 to1942, the CPI

was completely banned by the British Imperialist.

In the II World War, when Hitler attacked on the

Soviet Union, Soviet Union became ally of the

Britain, then the ban was relaxed on CPI and

communist leaders were released from Jails.

Right of Self-determination of Nationalities:

A Communist View

In India, communalism the real bane of national

unity was completely abolished by discovering a

‘scientific definition of nationality [Joshi

1945].In order to solve the communal problem of

India, the following definition of a nationality by

Stalin was used by the Communist party of India.

‘’A nation is a historically evolved stable

community of language, territory, economic life and

psychological make up manifested in a community of

culture’’ [Adhikari 1942].Its creative application

to India was declared as following:

‘’In 1938, we were yet wrapped up in the theory

like the rest of nationalists, that India was one

nation and that the Muslims were just a religious

cultural minorities and that Congress-League united

front could be forged by conceding protection of

cultural and religious rights and demands. We stood

on the same basis as the congress leadership and

were guilty of the charge of denying the peoples of

the Muslim nationalities their just right to

autonomy in free India. Since 1940, the party began

to see that the so called communal problem in India

was really a problem of growing nationalities and

that it could be solved on the basis of the

recognition of the right of self-determination to

the point of secession of the muslim nationalities,

as in fact of all nationalities which have India as

their common motherland. In those days many

comrades were shocked by the formulation that India

was not one nation and its development was in the

direction of a multinational unity [Adhikari and

Congress in different times. The era of Pakistan

movement was started after the election of 1937.In

this election League was thoroughly defeated in the

areas of the present day of Pakistan. The League

started thinking about his organizational

weaknesses and demand for a Muslim homeland with

sincerity after the election of 1937.The attitude

of the CPI towards Muslim League during this period

was same as that of the Congress leadership. The

CPI discredited the League as reactionary and

sectarian organization of the Muslim commercial and

feudal lords .Like the Congress, it considered the

Muslim League a creation of British in order to

divide the Hindu muslim and the struggle of the

independence. By stirring up communal passions,

British imperialism wanted to divert the

independence movement into communal channels. It

was a continuation of the “divide and rule” policy

of the British imperialism (Dutt 1955). 1942]

According to the definition of the right of self-

determination and its formulation, CPI declared

that Muslim League is a party of muslim people and

by implementation it was accepted that Congress

represent only Hindus. We quote here the words of

P.C.Joshi secretary General of CPI:

We were the first to see and admit a change in its

character when the League accepted complete

independence as its aim and began to rally the

Muslim masses behind its banner. We held a series

of discussions within our party and League came to

the conclusion in 1941_42 that it had became an

anti imperialist organization expressing the

freedom urge of the Muslim people that its demand

for Pakistan was a demand of self-determination and

that for the freedom of India an immediate joint

front between the Congress and the League must be

forged as the first step to break imperialist

deadlock [Bhghwan 1952].

CPI’S Attitude towards Congress and Muslim

League

It is a well known fact that CPI has different

opinion about the League. The CPI’s viewpoint

changed with time to time. CPI was suffering

extremist line from 1928-34. It had attacked the

Congress as reactionary party. This extremist line

led to its isolation from the main stream politics

and Indian nationalism. After 1934, CPI changed its

policy and focused on Indian nationalism or

independence instead of the communist revolution.

After this change, CPI adopted the policy of

national unity and united front against the British

Imperialism. For this purpose CPI wanted to make a

united front all the political forces of India

including Congress and League. In this new line of

action all India Congress characterized as a main

anti-imperialist force in India. On the other hand

Muslim League characterized as reactionary force

due to its Muslim communal politics and its

leadership dubbed as “agent of British”

(Overstreet, Windmiller1960).

Communist Party of India and Pakistan

movement

After 1937, Muslim League gained momentum in the

Muslim population of India. Nehru admitted this

mass appeal of Muslim League in his auto-biography.

Many other historian and scholar remarked that the

Congress government of 1937 played an important

role in the popularity of the League because the

Congress Government and party had failed to draw

the Muslim masses into the national movement.

Looking from the Marxist viewpoint, the question of

independence was primarily a question of economic

exploitation by British. However, the concrete

context of India was a complex one. India was a

land of many cultures languages and religions and

in this complex situation, in order to unify the

masses it was necessary to have a broad democratic

programme. The Congress had limitation of religion

and class interest also presented it from becoming

a broad national movement. In time to come, Muslim

bourgeoisie and middle class were to develop, and

this Muslim bourgeoisie would also have close link,

with Muslim feudal lords. Now as the Indian

capitalist class felt restricted by British

imperialism so also and within the same framework

of India, the Muslim bourgeoisie felt restricted by

the Hindu bourgeoisie. The British exploited these

conflicts successfully. This situation provided the

background for the growth of the Muslim communal

organization, the Muslim League. It started the

question of separate electorates, and moved on the

question of autonomy for Muslim provinces. By 1940,

a demand for a separate Muslim nation was raised by

the Muslim League (Iqbal 1979).

The rise of the Muslim communal politics gave tough

time both All India Congress and CPI. The CPI faced

this challenge due to negative aspects of the rise

of the Muslim nationalism. The CPI, which at that

time was weak political force in united front

within the Congress movement thereupon assumed the

responsibility of working out a new thesis that

would resolve the contradiction, and harness the

rising tide of the Hindus and Muslims nationalism.

The CPI hoped that the Congress and the Muslim

League’s leadership would see the light of reason,

and composed their differences in the broad

interests of the Indian masses against the British

imperialism.

The situation discussed in the various institutions

of the CPI. Finally the central committee gave the

task to Dr.Adhekari to working out a thesis on the

question of nationalities in India. After hectic

debate Adhikari produced a thesis on national

question of India with special reference of the

demand of a separate state for the Muslims. To

produce a thesis on these lines, Dr.Adhekari

relying on the writings of Lenin and Stalin in the

experience of Russian nationalities question. The

central idea of the theses was as the following:

Every section of the Indian people which has a

contiguous territory as its homeland, common

historical tradition, common language, culture,

psychological makeup 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 to

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, Hindustanis,

Rajastanis, Gujaratis, Bengalis, Punjabis, etc

(Overstreet, Windmiller 1960).

Actually, in this thesis CPI pointed out 18

backward areas for the right of self-determination.

Right of self-determination was correct and

positive on principal with reference to partition.

But with conspiracies of migration makes it

controversial and sectarian(Ahmad 2004).The CPI

formulation although trying to accommodate the

muslim League’s demand for Pakistan, does not

however coincide with it because there were

important differences between CPI and League on the

issue of the definition of a nationalities. But CPI

documents and pronouncements however indicate that

the CPI was prepared to make further concessions to

the Muslim League. Therefore, a year latter by

1944, CPI was openly supporting a sovereign

Pakistan. Sajjad Zaheer speaking for the CPI wrote:

Congressmen generally fail to see the anti-

imperialist liberationist role of the Muslim

League, fail to see that the demand for muslim

self-determination on 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 (Sajjad

1944).

To continue this viewpoint, CPI supported League’s

candidate in 1945-46 elections. In an explanatory

supplement of CPI’s journal, People War,

N.K.Krishna, a prominent leader of the CPI explains

why communist party of India support the M.L in the

election. We will quote here some glimpses from the

article in length because it is the clearest

explanation of CPI’s reversal of policy vis-à-vis

the Muslim League. N.K Krishna Writes:

Pakistan is Freedom Demand

They way our national movement has grown in our

land, the muslim people have remained a backward

suppressed people both politically and

economically. For them our national movement has

done very little. The rest of us have gone forward

and grown more powerfully in every way, they have

remained backward and suppressed. It is true all of

us are common slave under the British. But among

our selves the relations between us and the Muslims

today are not as between free and equal brothers,

but as between a stronger and weaker people……If you

thought it over, you would know that it is finance

capital and control of industries, which dominate

modern life and in our country these are mostly in

Hindu hands. It is in these circumstances that they

demand freedom not only from the British but from

domination by their stronger brothers too…..

It is this urge for freedom for themselves that

makes the Muslim people respond so enthusiastically

to the Pakistan slogan and rally behind the Muslim

League……It is easy to bemoan all this as our

internal differences and say that British are

exploiting them. The British certainly will as long

as such differences exist. But it is the

responsibility of the national movement to seek to

remove these differences by guaranteeing all

sections of our people equal freedom and

justice….We know the feeling of the League

leadership…..We support the Muslim League despite

all failings of its leadership, not only because it

is the most popular organization of the Muslims but

because we support its basic aim of self-

determination for Muslim nationalities. In its

essence, the Pakistan demand is demand for freedom

as much as the demand of the Indian people for

Independence (Krishna 1945).

The above essay indicates the U-turn in CPI’s pre -

1940 position on the Muslim League. The basis of

this new shift in the CPI’s position vis-à-vis the

Muslim League however was the desire to dispel the

fears of the Muslim minority. Acceptance of the

Muslim league’s demand for a separate nation would

disciple the Muslim suspicions of the Hindu

majority and thereby, clear the way for a united

front and national unity against the principle

enemy which was British imperialism. Moreover the

CPI disbelieved that a joint struggle of the

Muslims and the Hindus against a common enemy would

also help in building bridges between the different

nationalities of India. Furthermore, democratic

demands of the people in the post-independence

period would promote economic ties and national

unity of the Sub-Continent into a confederation of

free Indian states. It would however be a voluntary

union based on mutual aid and needs. Thus CPI’s

conception of a confederation of free Indian states

is very different from that of an India divided

into two hostile nations which was emerging from

the selfish and communal policies of the Congress

and League leadership and was being explicated by

British Imperialism This is the how the CPI wanted

to resolve the contradiction that had risen. It was

the contradiction between the need to maintain

unity and the need to deal with the separatist

demand of the Muslim League. We may however note

that in this 1946 formulation of the CPI thesis, in

order to dispel the Muslim minority fears, stress

appeared on the national ties right of succession.

This differed from the regional Adhikari’s thesis

of 1942 where stress was put on “free association

of Indian nationalities” (Iqbal 1979).

The CPI tried his best to bring rationality in to

debate between the Muslim League and Congress

Leadership but failed. The CPI could not change the

political current which was already in motion

because it was a weak political force. And CPI’s

political group was down between 1942 and 1945 when

CPI had given a call in favour of World War against

fascism .CPI’s call went against the “Quit India

“movement, launched at the same time by the

congress leadership.

In India, the Second World War brought out a new

alignment of forces inside the national movement in

general and the left movement in Particular. After

six-month debate the communist Partly of India

changed its line of imperialist War .It called now

it a Peoples war. It called upon the People of

India to play a “People’s Role in the People’s War

[joshi 1945) and started a weekly, “People’s war”

to carry an intense pro-war Propaganda. In view of

the communist Party’s new stand on the War, the

British Government decided to lift the ban on it.

Consequently, to secure the help of communists in

the war efforts, the Governments reviewing,

committee to recommended the release of 16 leading

communist who had been detained as security

Prisoners. In pursuance of this decision, the

release of 8 leading communists from Punjab in may

1942.( The released communists were, Sohan Sing

Josh, Teja Singh Swantanter, Iqbal Singh, Bhagat

Singh Bilga, Fazal Elahi Qurban, Karam Singh Mann,

Achhar Singh Cheema, and Feroze-ud-Din Mansoor.)

As we earlier discussed, the CPI was guided by

Stalin’s definition of nationality in determining

its stand on the demand for Pakistan. Stalin had

defined nationality as follows: A nation is a

historically evolved stable community of language,

territory, economic life and psychological make- up

manifested in a community of culture [Stalin1950].

G.M. Adhikari, Prepared a resolution on Pakistan

and national unity in the light of this definition

and the resolution, also known as the Adhikari

theses, was introduced in the central committee

meeting of the communist party of India on 19

September 1942 and was later adopted by the first

congress of the party in may 1943[Adhikari 1947].

By 1944, the communist leaders had started campaign

the demand for Pakistan as “a just”, Progressive

and national demand [Sajjad 1944]. And the

formation of Pakistan as a “birth right of Muslims”

[Joshi 1944] Accordingly, they demanded”

unqualified recognition” of the right of Muslim

nationalities to establish independent sovereign

states in Muslim homeland in terms of the Lahore

Resolution of the League [People’s War 1944]. As

noted earlier, after 1940 the CPI had changed its

thesis on the nationalities question and began

supporting the Muslim league and its demand for

Pakistan. The CPI following its united front

strategy with nationalist Parties, the CPI also

sent its Muslim communist members in the Muslim

League to try to blunt the communal edge of the

Muslim League.

Sajjad Zaheer, a member of the central committee of

the CPI, visited Lahore in May 1942 and asked the

Muslim members of the Punjab communist Party to

join the league in order to turn it in to a “mass

organization [Ajeet 1988]. He explained that this

way the control of Muslim League would “eventually

pass in to he hands of the masses and that

Congress- League unity could be achieved. He also

advised them that propaganda was to be made on the

lines that Muslims had a right to self-

determination, and every thing Possible was to be

done to undermine the strength of the unionist

Party[Ajeet 1988]. The replacement of unionist

Ministry by a Muslim league Government was

considered a more “national and liberal form of

Government” [Ajeet1988]. To give the above Policy

practical shape, Sohan Singh Josh and Danyal Latifi

met Jinnah in Lahore in April 1944. Jinnah

appreciated the communist campaign on the Pakistan

issue, which he said was “better than was done from

the League Platform itself [Joshi1950]. But he was

suspicious of the communist mobile in joining the

Muslim league. Liqat Ali Khan made it clear to that

communist wishing to join the League would have to

resign from the communist Party [Ajeet1988].

Hoping that Muslim communist would convert the

Muslim league to the communist Point of view, the

communist Party of Punjab asked the Muslim

communist like Danial Latifi, Abdullah Malik and

others to resign from the Party and Join the Muslim

league. Feroz- ud Din, a communist member, was made

incharge of the Muslim front. Danial Latifi and

Abdullah Malik started their work in the Muslim

league and formed a Progressive group inside the

League. They were welcomed by the Progressive

section of the league represented by Mumtaz

Daultana who asked them to help the league’s

organize’ in a membership drive in Punjab. Their

work was found so useful by the Muslim leaguers

that Danial Latifi was appointed office secretary

of the provincial Muslim League [Ajeet 88] Above

all, even the election Manifesto of Muslim league

was drafted by Danial Latifi and it contained a

program of radical national reconstitution.

Except these other prominent Muslim communist

Leaders who joined the Muslim League were ,

Atawullah Gahanina, Chaudhory Rahmatullah, Anis

Hashmy, and Ghulam Nabi Bhullar. Other communist

in the Muslim areas worked very closely with the

Muslim league and assisted it in its organization,

Publicity campaigns, and facilitated its contact

with the Muslim working class and the Peasantry. On

the 29th and 30th of September 1945, Punjab one and a

half lakh peasants participated in Kisan Conference

under the leadership of communist party held its

annual session at Jia - Bugga, a village in Lahore

(now in Kasur) District. This was the first kisan

conference in the Punjab to which league workers

come as delegates and Participated with congress

and communist kisan workers in the Preparation and

organization of the conference. Chaudhory

Rahmatullah a communist Leader who was now the

president of the district Muslim league, toured the

whole reign campaigning for the conference.

Daultana, addressed the conference on its first

day, and upheld the Muslim league agrarian policies

in the Manifesto [People’s 1945].

In Sind, G.M Syed, a progressive young Muslim

leaguer supported the demands of the peasant of the

Sind, most of them are landless and semi-serfs.

They were being organized in the Hari committee

under communist influence. The progressive group of

Muslim leaguers under G.M. syed’s leadership,

baking up the Hari committee forced the Sind

ministry to appoint a committee to look in to the

tenancy rights and to protect the Hari, s. Without

taking up the Hari, s demand, the league could not

have become a mass organization in Sind.

We thus notice that under its united front strategy

the communist Participated actively in the Muslim

league and helped the leaguer in strengthening its

rational and secular appeal. It approached the

peasants and workers through their concrete

demands, as expressed in the formation of a

progressive wing within the Muslim

league .Prominent among these were Daultana, Mian

Ifliqaruddin, Sarder Shaukat Hayat, Ahmad Saeed

Kirmani, Shekh Rashid, Kaswar Gardazi and G.M Syed.

The Punjab Muslim league Manifesto opened the doors

of the league to every progressive Muslim and when

there was fear expressed by the reactionary wing as

to the entry to the communist as office bearers in

the league, there was strong opposition expressed

by the Progressive leaguers in the league press

against such reactionaries. The Ehsan daily of

Lahore commenting on the controversy wrote that

Even though there were some fundamental differences

between the league and the communist party. We

don’t think our contemporaries should be so afraid

…the Muslim league is a people’s organization … any

one who should in the way of Popular interest in

however big he may be, can be, removed form the

league, but if someone work sincerely then why

should they be criticized past for the save of

criticism[People’s 1945].

The united front policy of communists with Muslim

League is still a debatable issue among the

communist, of the India and Pakistan .On this

situation the comments of the Eric Cyprian, a

Prominent member of the CPP is very valuable. He

said in an interview with 1qbal Leghari in 1974.

“We were used by the Muslim League. We were their

errand boys, at their call, and did their all dirty

work. We could not hope to influence the Muslims

League. We were too few and politically too weak.

And, helping the Muslim League secure a base

amongst the workers and Peasants only resulted in

our helping a reactionary organization strengthen

its mass base. Further more, the Muslim League

always held us in suspicion. Purring the elections,

they did not give our boys any tickets. Ataullah

Jahania was in tears over it. According to Sibte

Hasan, the CPI policy of sending communist in to

the ranks of the Muslim League Politics, and the

movement lost some of its finest workers, including

Ataullah Jahania and Choudhry Rahmatullah [Iqbal

1979].

Cabinet Mission and Reversal of the CPI

The New Labour Government of Britain became

anxious, under post war pressure to settle the

question of Indian independence. It dispatched the

Cabinet Mission to India in February 1946 to

explore the Possible-ties of independence. The CPI

interpreted this British is move as an attempt on

the part of the British to reach a quick

settlement with the moderate congress and league

leader ship and to salvage as possible for

themselves before events carried the national

movement in to radical hands. According to R.P Dutt

who had accompanied the Cabinet Mission, as a

special correspondence for the London daily

“Worker”, the British Policy in negotiating with

congress and League leadership aimed to disrupt the

nationalist movement. Strengthen reaction, get into

alliance with it. And this makes independence only

formal. Dutt counselled CPI; therefore, to react by

striving even harder for national unity against

this British Policy of “divide and rule” struggle

for national unity was to be made even at the cost

of alienating the Muslim League now! Moreover the

Muslim League with its communal policies and its

demand for the Partition of India in to two hostile

countries was playing in it the hands of British

imperialism. The urgency of national unity in the

face of this situation has change. R.P. Duty was

thus responsible for the new shift in the CPI

policy. On the question of nationalities, Dutl

wrote:

“The recognition of right of self determination

including secession does not imply the desirability

of separation. On the contrary, the interest, of

Progressive democratic development in India

powerfully requires unity of India. The unity of

India is especially important for the most rapid

advance of its parts through common cooperation,

and for adequate all India economic planning and

development and the raising of socialist standards.

But the union needs to be a volunteer one [Dutt

1955].

This policy has been put forward by the communist

party of India, originally in a resolution of 1942

which represented the first serious study of the

new Problems of the multi- national character of

Indian people. Dutt had thus called for a reversal

of the CPI, s position on the nationalities

question, a return to Adhikari’s thesis of 1942.

Stress was now laid on the fact that “thee interest

of progressive democratic development in India

powerfully requires the unity of India”. Muslim

League’s demand for Pakistan was reactionary and

therefore to be opposed. Thus the imminent

possibilities of the partitioning of the country

with the resultant grounds for future imperial

interference had caused alarm, and CPI under R.P

DUTT, s counsel fell buck to the earlier Adhikari

thesis in which unity was upheld against the

partitioning of India on communal grounds. But this

was a last -ditch effort, and in any case the CPI

was too weak a political force to influence the

outcome of events. Partitioning of India had become

inevitable after the failure of the Cabinet Mission

Plan. In February 1947, the British Labour

Government had dispatched Lord Mountbatten to

India, and made the announcement to that Britain

would grant India independence no later then June

1948. The Mountbatten plan for the partitioning of

India was released on June 3, 1947. Pakistan and

India became independent on August 14 and 15, 1947

respectively.

Concluding Remarks

It was a dilemma of CPI hat she had to work under

the repression throughout the British rule. This is

a reality that CPI did not analyse internal and

international political and economic situation on

the scientific basis, commonly in his history and

especially during the partition days. It was the

blunder of CPI’s leadership that she could not rely

on the working class of India for the liberation of

the country from the yoke of the British. CPI never

trusted on his party institutions about all the

political demands and designs. Due to tailism in

politics, CPI could not take action independently

in the crucial times.

First of all CPI should take lesson from the

Communist Party of China (CPC). The CPC functioned

independently in his liberation movement and she

adopted the strategy of revolution according to his

own situation. But CPI does not seem to be an

independent communist Party. She worked throughout

in the British rule, according to the mandate of

the British Communist party and the Communist

International. This was the main difference between

CPI and CPC in mandatory and sovereign politics.

Communist Party of China was an independent and

sovereign political party under the leadership of

the Chairman Mao. She ignored the instructions and

mandates of Communist International and the

communist Party of Soviet Union. But CPI could not

serve as an independent party and scarified her

important role in the partition and revolution.

Another factor which destroyed the credibility of

CPI was having on designs power. For example, CPI

was struggling for communism, when it should lead

for the national liberation movement.

Secondly, at the time of W. War II, CPI declares it

as an imperialist War and agitates against it.

According to the instructions of the Communist

International , CPI called this a People’s War when

Hitler attacked on the Soviet Union. Same way CPI

could not decide independently at the time of

partition. She declares the Muslim League a

reactionary party and after some time she supported

openly Muslim League and Pakistan Movement. When,

the British communist Dutt came to India with the

Cabinet Mission, CPI had withdrawn again from his

previous stand. She adopted a new thesis on

partition according to the desire of the British

Communist Party. An important conclusion of CPI’s

politics and her role in Pakistan movement can be

concluding that it was the complete failure of

CPI’s leadership. It is to be seen that CPI was not

an independent party. I think that CPI was a tail

or sub-party of the CP Great Britain. All the

important designs of the CPI were wrong, untimely

and under the guideline of the CPGB. It is not our

topic to comment on the politics of CPGB.

It equipped the communists in Pakistan with an anti

Muslim League and therefore anti-Pakistan thesis on

the eve of independence. This was indeed remarkable

as it would cast an unpatriotic shadow on the

socialist movement and make its position extremely

delicate in the new Pakistan. Had Dutt forsaken the

interest of the communist movement in Pakistan to

that of the larger CPI to India? Certainly the

facts would prompt such a conclusion.

Notes and References

Ahmad Bashir, Monthly Neya Zamana (Urdu) November

2004.

Bhghwan Josh, “Communist Movement in Punjab 1926-

47,”n.d, Book Traders, Lahore, p.52

G., Adhikari, Pakistan and National Unity, Peoples

Publishing House, Bombay, 1942, pp. 29, 30.

Home Political Reports, 18/5/44/ quoted by Ajeet

Javid, Left Polities in Punjab, Delhi, 1988),

p.210.

Ibid.

Iqbal Leghari, the Socialist Movement in Pakistan,

unpublished PhD thesis of Laval University of

Montryal, 1979, p.207. Interview with Sibte Hasan

was a member of the polit Bureau of the Communist

Party of Pakistan, from 1948-51.

Iqbal Leghari, the Socialist Movement in Pakistan,

a PhD thesis of Laval University of Montryal, 1979,

p.126.

J. Stalin, “Marxism and the Nationalities and

Colonial Question” (Delhi, 1950), p.8. Also see G,

M, Adhikari, Pakistan and National unity: The

communist solution (Delhi, 1944), p.30.

Lal Khan, “Partition…. Can it be Undone,”Wellered

Publication London, 2001,

N.K.Krishna, People’s War Supplement, November 18,

1945.

Overstreet and Windmiller, Communism in India,

University of California Press, 1960, p. 122.

P.C, Joshi, “They must meet again” (Bombay 1944),

p.6. p.59.

P. joshi, Communist Reply to Congress working

committee Charges, part I (Bombay, 1945), p.45.

Peoples War”, Vol, III, no.15, 8 October, 1944.

People’s war, March 1945, p.4.

Peoples War, Oct 21, 1945, p. 2.

R.P.Dutt, “India today and tomorrow” Delhi, P.P.H.,

1955, pp.244-245.

Sajjad Zaheer, A case for congress League unity,

(Bombay PPH 1944), p.16.

S.M. Burke & Salim ud-Din Qureshi, “The British Raj

in India, (Bombay Allied Publishers 1975) p.112.