മാപ്പിള ലഹള:പച്ചയും ചുവപ്പും -പുസ്തകം ഇറങ്ങി

ഇതാ രണ്ടു പുതിയ പുസ്തകങ്ങൾ 

വാരിയം കുന്നത്ത് കുഞ്ഞഹമ്മദ്‌ ‌ ഹാജിയെ മഹാനായി ചിത്രീകരിക്കാൻ  മുസ്ലിം മത മൗലിക വാദികളും മാർക്സിസ്റ്റ് ചരിത്രകാരന്മാരും വർഗീയ ചലച്ചിത്രകാരന്മാരും കൊണ്ടു പിടിച്ചു ശ്രമിക്കുന്നതിനിടെ മാപ്പിള ലഹളയെ ആധാരമാക്കി രണ്ടു പുസ്തകങ്ങൾ ഇറങ്ങി -പത്രപ്രവർത്തകനും എഴുത്തുകാരനുമായ രാമചന്ദ്രൻ എഴുതിയ 'മലബാർ ജിഹാദ്‌',അദ്ദേഹം പരിഭാഷ ചെയ്ത സി ഗോപാലൻ നായരുടെ 'മാപ്പിള ലഹള 1921'.

മാപ്പിള ലഹളയെപ്പറ്റി ആദ്യം പുറത്തിറങ്ങിയ പുസ്തകം മലബാർ ഡെപ്യൂട്ടി കലക്റ്ററായിരുന്ന ഗോപാലൻ നായർ ഇംഗ്ലീഷിൽ 1923 ൽ എഴുതിയത്  ആയിരുന്നു.അക്കാലത്ത് വന്ന പത്ര റിപ്പോർട്ടുകളുടെ സമാഹാരമാണ് ഇത്.പത്രങ്ങൾ മിക്കവയും ഇന്നില്ലാത്തതിനാൽ,ഇത് സുപ്രധാന ചരിത്ര രേഖയാണെന്ന് അവതാരികയിൽ ഡോ കെ എസ് രാധാകൃഷ്ണൻ വ്യക്തമാക്കുന്നു.സ്വയം രാജാക്കന്മാരായി അവരോധിച്ച മത മൗലിക വാദികളുടെ തനി നിറം ഇതിൽ കാണാം.

ഹൈദരാലിയുടെ കാലം മുതൽ മലബാറിൽ സംഭവിച്ച ഇസ്ലാമികവൽക്കരണ പശ്ചാത്തലത്തിൽ.മാപ്പിള ലഹളയുടെ ഉള്ളടക്കം വിശകലനം ചെയ്യുന്ന 'മലബാർ ജിഹാദ്‌'എന്ന  രാമചന്ദ്രൻറെ പുസ്തകം ,ആദ്യമായി അബനി മുക്കർജി മാപ്പിള ലഹളയെപ്പറ്റി എഴുതിയ പ്രബന്ധം പുറത്തു കൊണ്ട് വരുന്നു.1921 ഒടുവിൽ മുക്കർജി എഴുതി ലെനിന് നൽകിയ പ്രബന്ധത്തിലാണ്,ലഹള വർഗീയ സമരമാണെന്ന തല തിരിഞ്ഞ വിശകലനം വന്നത്.ഇത് ആവർത്തിച്ച കെ എൻ പണിക്കരെ പോലുള്ള കൂലി ചരിത്രകാരന്മാർ മുക്കർജിയെ തമസ്കരിച്ചു;വ്യാഖ്യാനം മോഷ്ടിച്ചു.ഗാന്ധിയുടെ നിലപാടും പുസ്തകത്തിൽ വിമർശിക്കപ്പെടുന്നു.

പുസ്തകത്തിന്റെ ആമുഖത്തിൽ രാമചന്ദ്രൻ പറയുന്നു:

"1836 നവംബറിൽ തുടങ്ങിയ പോരിന്റെ തുടർച്ചയായിരുന്നു,1921.അതിന് മുൻപ് ഏതാണ്ട് 80 മാപ്പിള കലാപങ്ങൾ നടന്നു.കുടുംബ പരമായി തന്നെ വംശഹത്യാ പാരമ്പര്യമുള്ള കാളവണ്ടിക്കാരൻ ഫസൽ പൂക്കോയ തങ്ങളെ നാട് കടത്തിയതിലുള്ള പക മലബാർ കലക്‌ടർ ഹെൻറി വാലന്റൈൻ കൊണോലിയുടെ കൊലയിൽ കലാശിച്ചു.കലാപങ്ങളിൽ ക്ഷേത്രങ്ങൾ മാപ്പിളമാരുടെ ലക്ഷ്യങ്ങൾ ആയിരുന്നു.മഞ്ചേരി ക്ഷേത്രത്തിൽ 92 മാപ്പിളമാർ ബ്രിട്ടീഷ് പട്ടാളത്തിന് ഇരകളായ കഥ ചരിത്രത്തിലുണ്ട്.ക്ഷേത്ര വളപ്പുകളിൽ പശുക്കളെ അറുത്ത് അവയുടെ ആന്തരാവയവങ്ങൾ വിഗ്രഹങ്ങളിൽ ചാർത്തുന്നതും വിഗ്രഹങ്ങൾ തകർക്കുന്നതും ക്ഷേത്രങ്ങൾ ചാമ്പലാക്കുന്നതും ഏത് മാപ്പിള ലഹളയിലും കാണാം.

"ഇവ വർഗ സമരമാണെന്ന് കെ എൻ പണിക്കർ മുതൽ വെളുത്താട്ട് കേശവൻ വരെയുള്ള മാർക്സിസ്റ്റ് ചരിത്രകാരന്മാർ കണ്ടത്,വക്രതയും കുടുമ്മി വച്ച അശ്ലീലവുമാണെന്ന് എന്നെ ചരിത്ര ബോധം പഠിപ്പിച്ചു.ചരിത്ര ബോധം ഒന്നേയുള്ളു;മാർക്സിസ്റ്റ് ചരിത്ര ബോധം എന്നൊന്നില്ല.കുഷ്ഠം ഒരു രോഗമാണ്;മാർക്സിസ്റ്റ് കുഷ്ഠം എന്നൊന്നില്ല.മാപ്പിള ലഹളയിൽ ഏറ്റവും പീഡനം അനുഭവിച്ചത് നായന്‍മാരും നമ്പൂതിരിമാരും ചില ക്ഷത്രിയരുമാണ് -തീയരുമുണ്ട്.ജനിച്ച സമുദായത്തെയും മതത്തെയും വഞ്ചിക്കുകയാണ്,മത ഭ്രാന്തിനെ വർഗ സമരമാക്കുക വഴി നായരും നമ്പൂതിരിയുമായ മാർക്സിസ്റ്റ് ചരിത്രകാരന്മാർ ചെയ്തത്.അവരിൽ പ്രധാനികൾ സി ഗോപാലൻ നായർ ഇംഗ്ലീഷിൽ എഴുതിയ 'മാപ്പിള ലഹള 1921' പകർത്തി വച്ചിട്ടുമുണ്ട്."

പച്ചയും ചുവപ്പുമല്ലാത്ത ചരിത്രമാണ് ഈ പുസ്തകങ്ങളിലുള്ളത്.

രണ്ടിന്റെയും പ്രകാശനം കുരുക്ഷേത്ര പ്രകാശൻ,കലൂർ,കൊച്ചി.ഫോൺ 0484 2338324

മലബാർ ജിഹാദ്, പേജ് 184,വില 180 രൂപ.

മാപ്പിള ലഹള, 1921 പേജ് 144 വില 150 രൂപ 

ADHIKARI'S THESIS FOR JINNAH AND PAKISTAN

The Left Supported  Islamic Fundamentalism

Dr. Gangadhar Adhikari (1898 – 1981) is best known in party circles as the bridegroom who forgot his wedding day. He was an eccentric Marxist theoretician and prolific writer. He was the former general secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI). He was a chemical scientist who earned his PhD degree in Berlin in 1927. He worked with some of the best scientists, attending lectures by Max Planck and Albert Einstein.

Dr Adhikari was in Germany between 1922 and 1928 and was attracted to Marxism. He joined the German Communist Party. He returned to India in 1928 and joined the Communist Party of India. He was arrested in the Meerut Conspiracy Case.  Einstein wrote an open letter to the British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald seeking the release of the scientist Adhikari.

Adhikari was elected the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India in the National Conference at Kolkata in 1933.

He was a member of the CPI Politburo from 1943-1951.

When the clamour for Pakistan by the Muslim League, on the basis of Jinnah’s two-nation theory, was warming up, and Congress leaders were in jail following the uprising of August 1942, the CPI released a ‘thesis’, drafted by Gangadhar Adhikari. Adhikari's position on the national question, published in 1943 under the name Pakistan and Indian National Unity, was inspired by Joseph Stalin's Marxism and the National Question as it stressed the importance of nationality to share a common language, a defined territory and a common national consciousness.

The substance of the thesis was that there was no such nation as India, that India was really a conglomeration of as many as eighteen different ‘nationalities’ and that each one of these nationalities had the right to secede from the conglomeration. The communist understanding was that Muslims would be oppressed by the Hindus in united India and that the League had become ‘progressive’.

Supporting Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan, the communists argued that secession, far from dismembering the country, would “lead to still greater and more glorious unity of India, the like of which India has not seen in her history.”

Adhikari's Pakistan thesis was the speech, On the Present National Questions in India, at an Enlarged Central Committee meeting of the Communist Party of India, held in September 1942. It was published in Labour Monthly, March 1943, pp. 87-91.

Here is an abridged version of the thesis, published in the Labour Monthly:

Pakistan and Indian National Unity

By G Adhikari

The question of national unity, of Hindu-Muslim unity, has always been before our country and therefore only if we see its evolution side by side with that of our national movement, can we understand it properly in its present phase. The question itself has gone through different phases of development alongside the different phases through which our national movement itself has gone. However, only such a historical dynamic treatment of the problem can enable us to understand its significance today, in today’s phase of our national movement. Old ways of looking at the problem, old solutions, still persist in our understanding, and quite naturally so. These tendencies, these outmoded ways of thinking, which really form the deviations of today, have to be brought out and nailed down sharply, not only in terms of principles but also in terms of historical evolution, otherwise, they cannot be rooted out. Comrades raise several doubts and several questions. Where do these arise from?

From nowhere else except our own former approach to the problem before the outbreak of the war. That is why a historical-political review is necessary, a review of how the question of Hindu-Muslim unity is developed through the three different phases of our national movement. Only in this way can we understand the significance of Pakistan and of the demand for the self-determination of nationalities; only in this way can we understand exactly why these demands have arisen now at this time and not before.

Let's look back and examine the evolution of the problem. We find three distinct approaches to the problem in three distinct periods, each one corresponding to a particular phase of our national movement.

In the first and earliest period, it was the fundamental axiom of the national movement (which was itself in its earliest period) that India is one nation; the difference between the Hindus and the Muslims is only one of religion; the stronger the national urge among the masses of both religions grows, the sooner this difference will go off and Hindus and Muslims will grow together as one. At this period, propaganda for unity on the basis of nationalism against imperialism was considered the adequate solution to the problem. Such propaganda was carried on by the Liberals in the earliest period of the national movement and the Liberals at that period were the leaders of the incipient national movement. The Liberals, who were the earliest nationalists, just argued: “What is needed to solve the problem is nationalist consciousness.” This period lasted till about 1921 when it reached its culmination in the Khilafat-Congress unity.

The second period lasts from 1921 up to about 1936. In this period, with the further development of the nationalist movement, comes a further development of the problem of Hindu-Muslim unity themselves, and then seemingly “new” problems crop up ... To have a static conception of a nation is to be blind to all such development, is to be blind to historical development and reality. Let us take the case of our own country. There have been different nationalities, not yet grown to full nationhood, lying dormant within it. Actually, it was the foreign power, by its conquest and consequent shattering of all the old forms of economy, which actually started the process of “national” development. Before this foreign conquest, India was mainly of a feudal-village economy and therefore could not be called a “nation” in the modern bourgeois sense of the term. Before the British conquest of India, there was no part of India which can be described as a nation in the bourgeois sense. How then does this “national” development begin under the British in a typically uneven way? Such an uneven development had already set in even under a pre-capitalist economy, due to various historical and geographical causes. But this uneven development is accentuated by imperialism. This accentuated uneven development, imposed by imperialist exploitation and by the imperialist imposed distorted thwarted forms of capitalist development, gives rise in the course of time to various problems. In certain parts, bourgeois development comes earliest; these parts naturally lead the national anti-imperialist movement and at that stage, we ourselves were not conscious that we are actually a multi-national state. As bourgeois development goes on spreading and as the masses of the people and especially the peasantry in all parts of India wake up to political consciousness, then it is that individual national movements begin to arise within the framework of the all-Indian national movement against imperialism.

It was this unrest of the border nationalities, their democratic movement for self-expression within the broad framework of the struggle against Tsarism, that characterises the Russia of 1912-14. Bourgeois separatist movements arise in the border nationalities, seeking to take advantage of, and exploit, this democratic sentiment of the masses. As against this, the labour movement in the border regions led by the Bolsheviks seeks to combat this separatist tendency and to unite all the nationalities for the struggle against Tsarism. This is the crux of the national problem that came up before the Bolshevik Party in 1912. The Bolsheviks realised that only by recognising the essentially democratic and progressive character of this striving of the nationalities for self-determination, only by conceding this as a right, could they fight the bourgeois separatist tendencies successfully and forge unbreakable all-in unity against the Tsarist autocracy. The Bolsheviks demarcated clearly between two things: (1) the awakening to the national consciousness of new nationalities, an awakening which was historically progressive and found its expression in the demand for self-determination; (2) the way in which the bourgeoisie within these nationalities was seeking to take advantage of this essentially democratic urge of the masses and lead it into their own separatist class channels. They realised that granting the first is the only way to defeat the second and to forge a greater revolutionary unity of all the masses than ever before.

Similarly, here too in our own country, the problem of unifying the different sections of our people against imperialism, for the war of liberation against Fascism arises at a time when the spread of the national movement has aroused various dormant nationalities of our land to life when new “national” urges are beginning to appear under this impact. Unless we recognise this fact, we cannot find the key to unity today.

It is when we examine the present period that the full force of Stalin’s remark comes out before us: “In the case of India, too, it will probably be found that innumerable nationalities, till then lying dormant, would come to life with the further course of bourgeois development.”

We Communists recognise, and explain clearly to the people, two things: (1) The problem of nationalities can only be solved in a firm and lasting manner under Socialism when the disuniting factor of the bourgeoisie disappears; (2) But at the same time, a partial solution is also possible under capitalism, but only under conditions of complete and full democracy. The solution which the C.P.S.U. put forward in 1917 was one of attaining complete democracy, of a radical complete democratic revolution.

This is the crux of the problem which the bourgeois reformists entirely pass over. The problem today is not a constitution-mongering problem of remaking boundaries. The question of communal unity must be seen as a revolutionary question of forging revolutionary unity of all sections of our people to break the imperialist-feudal rule. The breaking of this rule is the precondition to the people being able to remake boundaries in a democratic way.

This is where the Communist solution is a revolutionary solution and is sharply demarcated from all constitution-mongering of the Liberals and the bourgeois reformists. To try to wander off into ethnographic pastimes and boundary-making formulae is to stray from the revolutionary path into the path of reformism. The problem before us today is not one of drawing maps and making boundaries, but one of forging the revolutionary unity of action of all sections of our people, to win the expected war, of liberation and to secure the common freedom of all.

This is what is stressed in paragraph 1 of our Resolution. That our solution is not a constitutional solution, that the cornerstone of our policy is the unity of the masses as the vanguard of the national movement.

Our policy with respect to the Hindu-Moslem problem fits into this general framework. This policy has to be sharply and clearly demarcated from (1) the stand of Jinnah and the separatists; (2) the stand of the National Congress leadership; (3) the stand of the Akhanda Hindustan-wallas...

It is necessary, in closing, to stress once again one important point – that is the crux of Communist policy. The question of the self-determination of nationalities is to be looked upon as a political revolutionary question, not a constitutional question.

It is the constitutionalist whose first question is: “Whether to separate or not.” But Communists say: When we grant the right of self-determination as an unconditional right, then this right becomes the hallmark of sovereignty, of equality. The way in which we should pose the question of nationalities is: how shall we define the nationalities so as to create conditions where there still be the fullest and freest flowering and development of national characteristics? We keep two aspects in mind, two aspects which cannot be separated: (1) Right of separation; (2) Object of unification. Our solution itself is no static solution. In the Soviet Union, for example, after the Revolution itself, a number of nationalities attained full-fledged nationhood in the course of time. Hence, we steadily keep before ourselves the two criteria: (1) the grant of the right of separation dispels distrust and creates unity here and now. (2) We should so demarcate the nationalities that in a free and democratic India, the nationalities will grow and flower, will develop towards Socialism.