SUNDARAYYA FOUGHT IN THE PARTY AND LOST

He resigned When the Party Aligned with the RSS

The resignation of P Sundarayya from the post of the general secretary of the CPI (M) and Politburo, during the emergency in October 1975, was a closely guarded secret for a long time, till his resignation letter came to public notice, in 1991. He had confirmed his resignation in his autobiography, in 1984, though it got published in English only in 2009. The Party never allows a cadre to resign, but it expels the cadre; even if a member leaves the Party, it would be termed by the Party as expulsion. But, Sundarayya left it citing differences with its policy, and it was unprecedented in the history of the communist movement in India.

Born in 1913, Putchalapalli Sundarayya became popular as the leader of a peasant revolt, referred to as the Telangana Rebellion, in the Nizam of Hyderabad State. At the age of 17, he joined Gandhi’s Non-cooperation Movement and like EMS Namboodiripad, he made initial contacts with the Communists in jail. Mentored by Amir Hyder Khan, who was in charge of the southern states in the Party, he came into contact with leaders like Sajjad Zaheer, EMS Namboodiripad, Dinkar Mehta, P Krishna Pillai, P C Joshi, Soli Batliwala and others. He became one of the founding members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). In 1952, he was elected as a member of the Rajya Sabha from the Madras assembly constituency and became the leader of the Communist group in Parliament.

Sundarayya with wife

He was so dedicated to the upliftment of the poor that he and his spouse chose not to have children. Sundarayya remained General Secretary of the CPI (M) until 1976.

Sundarayya was born in a feudal farmer’s family on 1 May 1913, at Alaganipadu in the Nellore district in Andhra Pradesh. Young Sundarayya was influenced by social reformers like Kandukuri Veeresalingam, Gurajada Appa Rao and Komarraju Lakshmana Rao. Inspired by Gandhi, at the age of 14, Sundarayya went to the Congress conference held in the Madras state and participated in the ‘Simon Go Back’ agitation. Studying intermediate at Loyola College in Madras, he formed ‘The Council of Fraternity’ along with other students with the aims of developing a love for the country, selling khaddar on Sundays, doing exercises, and educating the agricultural workers in the villages during vacation. On the birth anniversary of the Telugu people’s poet, Vemana, Sundarayya organized a common lunch for the caste Hindus and the Harijans in his village. The feudal orthodox people opposed this and as a result, Sundarayya went on a protest hunger strike for two days.

On Gandhi's call in April 1930, Sundarayya decided to give up his education and join the freedom movement. He wrote a letter to his mother and elder brother and joined the Satyagraha camp at Bhimavaram in West Godavari district and served imprisonment for two years. After release, Sundarayya started fighting against untouchability and organizing unions of agricultural workers. He believed that the mere ending of colonial rule was not enough and there was a need to eradicate the evils of "class oppression." Sundarayya joined the Communist Party at a time when there was a ban imposed by the British rulers on the Party.

The arrest of Amir Hyder Khan in 1933 led to Sundarayya stepping into his role as an organizer of the Party. In 1934, at the age of 22, he was taken into the Central Committee of the Party, the first organized leading body of the Party which was constituted after the release of the Meerut prisoners.  He took up the task of building the Party in the Southern States of Andhra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, at the instance of the CC of the Party.

Sundarayya, along with S V Ghate, was responsible for the entry of E M S, P. Krishna Pillai and A K Gopalan into the Party. His discussions with the leaders of the Congress Socialist Party from Kerala – P Krishna Pillai and EMS – in Mumbai and elsewhere led to his visit to Kerala, after which the first communist unit was set up in 1937. This unit consisted of P Krishna Pillai, EMS, K Damodaran and N C Sekhar. Sundarayya was accompanied by S V Ghate when this unit was constituted. In Tamilnadu, Sundarayya played an important role in recruiting some of the early communist leaders. He worked with P Ramamurthy, P Jeevanandam, B Srinivasa Rao, A S K Iyengar and others. In 1936, in the presence of Sundarayya and Ghate, the first Communist unit of Tamilnadu was set up.

When different Communist groups merged into an all-India centre in 1936, Sundarayya became a member of the Central Committee. During the same year, he established the All India Kisan Sabha and worked as its joint secretary. He organized a march for the protection of farmers covering 1,500 miles from Itchapuram to Madras. Hunted by the police, Sundarayya led underground life between 1939 and 1942. When the ban on the Communist Party was lifted in 1943 after it cooperated with the Second World War efforts of the British colonialists and opposed the Quit India movement, he was elected to the Central Committee in the first all-India conference of the Party held in Bombay. Since then and until his death he served the party and the Communist movement— first CPI and later CPI (M), in various capacities.

Sundarayya married Leila on 27 February 1943. Both of them just told P C Joshi, the then General Secretary of the Communist Party, that they would lead the life of wife and husband.  After two years of their marriage, Sundarayya underwent a vasectomy operation, after both the wife and husband discussed the issue and came to an understanding that they would not have enough opportunity to rear their children properly. However, Sundarayya felt that the choice of having or not having children should be left to the discretion of his wife. He used to advise the cadres of the Party to get married and have a limited number of children. Prakash Karat followed his advice.

The wealthy Sundarayya sold away the entire share of the family property and gifted the amount to the Party, which people like E M S tried to emulate. His book, Visalandhralo Prajarajyam (People’s Rule in the Enlarged State of Andhra), was a landmark in the struggle for the formation of Andhra Pradesh. The Telangana peasants’ armed struggle, which he led and where thousands of young men laid down their lives, was the model for the Punnapra-Vayalar upsurge in Kerala.

Thinking the time is ripe to form a communist government in Andhra, he moved to active electoral politics in the State. He served in the State Assembly from 1955 to 1967 and from 1978 to 1983. He used to go to the Parliament and Legislative Assembly on a bicycle. When the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was formed after the break in 1964, Sundarayya was elected as the General Secretary, till his break up in October 1975. Until his death on 19 May 1985, he remained a true communist.

Sundarayya had definite views on how the strategic tasks of the Party should be translated into action. He had increasing differences in the political tactical line and the line to be pursued in the trade union and Kisan fronts. By 1974-75, these differences led Sundarayya to conclude that his continuing as the General Secretary was untenable as the overwhelming majority in the Polit Bureau and Central Committee did not share his views. In his resignation letter, he said that his resignation is because the CC majority decided on joint actions with Jana Sangh and the RSS, in the name of fighting the emergency, which he considered harmful for the party. E M S, who skipped his son's wedding to take part in Sundarayya's funeral, was in the vanguard of pushing away Sundarayya, from the Party, along with B T Ranadive.

Having fought for his line and lost, he bowed out of the Party. His resignation letter contains the essence of the struggle he had to lead inside the Party.

The text of Sundarayya's resignation letter was first made available by his friends in Kerala. They took the decision to have it circulated in wider circles in view of the importance of the issues raised therein.

Sundarayya submitted his resignation in October 1975, but it was never circulated to party ranks. The Statement of Policy document which the undivided Communist Party adopted in 1951 remained central to Sundarayya's differences with the majority faction led by EMS, who became general secretary, after Sundarayya. It is just poetic justice that ultimately the Party asked E M S to vacate the post, sending him to a lifelong vacation in Kerala.

After Sundarayya's death in 1985, The Marxist, the Party’s theoretical organ, in its July-December issue, carried M. Basavapunnaiah's article, The Statement of Policy Reviewed. In a note to this article B T Ranadive said that the Statement of Policy Reviewed was adopted by the party in 1976. It means it was reviewed after the demise of Sundarayya. There was nothing new; the reviewed Statement acknowledged the Statement of 1951. It is sad that the Party took nine years to circulate their review resolution through The Marxist. Ranadive justified the delay by blaming the Emergency. But there was ample time to circulate it in 1977 or after. It is evident that the Party was struggling to keep Sundarayya’s self-exile, a secret. The review was just an exercise in futility to rebut Sundarayya’s document. The Party chose to bury it till 1985 because it feared Sundarayya’s reaction if it was published during his lifetime. Thus, the Party cheated its cadres.

Basavapunnaiah

The issue of The Marxist that came out after Sundarayya's death did not publish an obituary of him.

 Sundarayya Vs BTR and Others

Sundarayya was peeved with the way in which the dominant leadership of the Party ignored the Party Program and the Statement of Policy (Tactical line) adopted by the undivided Party, in 1951.

On 25 June 1975, Indira Gandhi clamped the State of Emergency, and on 12 October 1975, Sundarayya put in his resignation. The dominant section of the party leadership called on Indira Gandhi at New Delhi, pledging support to the "national" fight against "right reaction and communalism." But, Sundarayya found that the Emergency exposed glaring inadequacies in the party organization. The party had learnt little from the "semi-fascist" attacks in West Bengal in 1972. While the cadres fled their homes, the leaders, safe in the party offices, were happy with their achievements in terms of votes polled and trade unions captured.

Sundarayya felt disillusioned that his Party failed to anticipate such a massive attack like the Emergency. He felt the Party failed to keep itself in consonance with "the perspective of how Indian Revolution will have to be worked for". Though Party Congress and CC resolutions endorsed the Tactical line (the Policy), in practice he found it was being neglected. Like the AICC resolutions on land reforms and socialism, his own Tactical Line remained dusty on party shelves. Thus, from 1975 to his death in 1985, he lived without his dream getting fulfilled. His trusted comrades betrayed the founding principles of the Party and the heritage of the Telangana armed struggle. He died as a betrayed leader on 19 May 1985.

BT Ranadive's note to M Basavapunniah’s article in the Marxist said: "In 1951 the Communist Party of India adopted two documents – the Party Program and the Statement of Policy. Subsequent developments led to the abandonment of the 1951 Program since it contained many mistakes. But the companion document Statement of Policy was neither reviewed nor revised. In the struggle against revisionism in the communist movement in India, the Statement of Policy came under attack from the revisionists. The CPI (M) reiterated its adherence to the basic postulates of the document but incorporated changes in the changed circumstances. After a discussion within the Central Committee of the CPI (M), the understanding that emerged in relation to the document could be finalized, only in 1976."

While BTR says that the party did no more than reiterate its adherence to the basic postulates of the document, Basavapunniah clarifies that his party since its formation was drawn into a ferocious internal struggle in defence of the Statement of Policy and strove to orient the work according to it. The Polit bureau and the CC, he says, upheld its Marxist-Leninist viewpoint on the Party Program and Statement of Policy while rejecting the Naxalite line. The Eighth CPI (M) Congress in December 1968 endorsed and reiterated the Statement of Policy as piloted by the general secretary, Sundarayya. It incorporated into the Policy, strategy and class alliance of the Indian Revolution. However, it was reiterated that the Policy essentially dealt with the path of the Indian revolution.

However, Sundarayya argues in his resignation letter that the dominant section of the party leadership was not inclined to steer the party, as also the working of TU, Kisan and Student fronts on the path of the Indian revolution. The endorsement of the Policy in the Eighth Congress was just ritualistic, and the contradiction led to his exit. The glorious traditions of the Telangana armed struggle and other popular struggles were thrown into the winds. The dominant leadership needed the Policy only to establish their "anti-revisionist" credentials. Not to be identified with Naxalism, they pleaded for the status quo.  With Sundarayya around they would not be explain the status quo, which explains why BTR and MB preferred to circulate the revised Policy of 1976 to the party ranks only in 1985.

The Statement of Policy says: "India has essentially an agrarian and backward economy, the immense importance of peasant struggle should not be minimized. Therefore, the political general strike in the cities and in industrial areas is not the main weapon of our revolution and such a general strike alone will not be enough to unleash country-wide insurrection leading to the overthrow of the present State." It further reads: "For the victory of Indian revolution partisan warfare of the peasants has to be combined with the other major weapon, the general strike and uprisings in the cities led by detachments of the working class. The two basic factors of the revolution are the partisan war of the peasants and the uprisings of the workers in the cities."

To move forward in this path, Sundarayya proposed the urgency to help build peasant partisan warfare, instead of frittering away its resources on building state-level and all-India-level trade unions. However, BTR proposed de-linking the working class from the peasantry. He would not oppose the idea of a worker-peasant alliance, but he would project the hegemony of the working class with which nobody disagreed. By hegemony of the working class, he meant the hegemony of the CITU over the CPI (M) or rejection of the peasantry's role in the Indian revolution, in the Tactical Line. An exasperated Sundarayya retorted that BTR's "idea of establishing proletarian hegemony on the basis of State-wide and all-India-wide organizations, comes from his whole understanding that it is the all-India-wide general strike and insurrection of the working class that will spark off the armed actions of the peasant masses." 

Sundarayya even charged: "In fact, this advocacy is nearer to his own tactical line of 1949". The reference was to the horrible Calcutta thesis, an adventurist policy, which saw the ouster of BTR from higher posts.

But in Bengal, when the Left Front Government under Jyoti Basu put an embargo on the Party and CITU activists who raised the slogan of Andolan chai (We want agitation), it was BMS, the BJP labour outfit which filled the vacuum. When Sundarayya was alive, BTR did not choose to interfere, but after the Muzaffarpur CC meeting, he attacked its basic postulates. He exhibited the obverse side of his 1949 tactical line. Whereas BTR could be reticent, MB could be vociferous. In his sixty-page rebuttal in The Marxist against Sundarayya, he attacked the accusations in the resignation letter, against the dominant section of the PB, of deviation into right revisionism and parliamentary illusions. EMS was in this camp.

The two documents MB recalls in the rebuttal, were the outcome of bitter inner-party struggles during the years 1947-51, in the backdrop of the Telangana armed struggle and other struggles in the wake of the British withdrawal. These issues related to the stage and strategy of the Indian revolution, whether it is the "Russian Path" or the "Chinese Path." In the end, the tactical line of 1951 was adopted.

MB hold Ajoy Ghosh and S V Ghate to be responsible for relegating these two documents to the archives. It is clear that the dominant section of the CPI (M) leadership resorted to this document to create a facade of non-existing ideological squabbles with the post-1964 CPI, and to outshine the Naxalite groups. Hence MB admits: The "positive defence of the Statement of Policy against the Left-adventurist distortions of the Naxalites, did not automatically mean that a collective and common understanding existed on all the different propositions that had been made on the Tactical line document". 

But the cat comes out of the box when he confesses that the CC and the PB of "CPI (M) also did not and could not discuss this Statement of Policy, afresh and collectively, to arrive at a correct and common understanding of its different aspects". MB could make this confession only after Sundarayya’s demise.

From his resignation letter, it is clear that only Sundarayya followed the tactical line, during his term as CPI (M) General Secretary. In the Telangana People's Armed Struggle 1946-1951, Sundarayya provided the background to the Tactical Line. But MB in his sixty-page article, has used Sundarayya's documents against Sundarayya's politics.

In 1974, a year before his resignation, Sundarayya reproduced his party's perspective on the path of the Indian revolution. (SPARK Republic Day Number, 1974, on the request of the Socialist Forum of Nagpur University). A Telugu version of the article was published in Comrade Sundarayya Erin Rachanalu, Part I compiled by V.R. Boma Reddy, Praja Shakti Book House, Vijayawada.) Detailing China’s virtues, Sundarayya said: "However, like China India is a country of vast expanses. Again, like China, India has a vast peasant population. Our revolution, therefore, will have many features in common with the Chinese revolution.”

"For the victory of the Indian revolution, partisan warfare of the peasants has to be combined with the other major weapons, the strike of the working class, the general strike and uprising in the cities led by detachments of the working class. The two basic factors of the revolution are the partisan war of the peasants and the uprisings of the workers in the cities."

But, the dominant leadership left the revolution and opted for parliamentary democracy.

MB informs that the Eighth Party Congress in December 1968 endorsed and reiterated the Statement of Policy, and it observed: "The Eighth Congress of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has reiterated the Statement of Policy”.

BTR with AKG

"But the Statement of Policy, based as it is on the old program, contains some formulations regarding the stage, strategy and class alliance of the Indian revolution which have since been corrected by the party in its new program adopted at the Seventh Congress.

"The old program describing the stage of the revolution as anti-imperialist and anti-feudal had advocated a General United Front in which the big bourgeoisie was also to be a participant. The present party program, correctly characterizing the present stage of the Indian revolution as the second agrarian stage of the revolution, directed not only against the Indian big bourgeoisie, has laid down that the big bourgeoisie has no place in the People's Democratic Front.

"It is necessary to keep this in mind while studying this Statement of Policy, which essentially deals with the path of the Indian revolution."

It meant Sundarayya is the lone maverick in the party leadership who fought for the revolution, for the tactical line, in a hostile house. In Sundarayya’s letter MB figures only in two places-once when he lightly refers to MB who attributed all differences to Mao's supposedly wrong understanding of contradictions, and secondly when he (PS) approvingly refers to MB's complaint that the party leaders were mostly given to deify the perspective, Tactical Line.

The complaint in Sundarayya's letter is that the dominant section of the party leadership was not inclined to orientate the party functioning as well as the direction of class and mass organizations in conformity with the Tactical Line. Thus, he found himself in splendid isolation. 

In 1985, after Sundarayya's death, MB says that in 1976 the party leadership had to assess the socio-economic developments during the post-Independence period, strategy and class alliance in the new party program of 1964, and begin "to integrate such an assessment with the Tactical Line and its implementation". This is absurd, because the dominant leadership had aligned itself with the Emergency, and EMS was free. Mb is trying to say that Sundarayya was seeking to foist upon the party a line hardly reciprocated by the party ranks and leadership at various levels. But for Sundarayya, the Statement of Policy remained the anchor of the country's Communist revolution, though it is just a mirage. Any reader of Sundarayya’s resignation letter would discover that it was this concern of his which led to the squabbles in the party leadership and to his isolation and final resignation.

The party leadership feared that if Sundarayya's allegations reach the party ranks, they would certainly be greeted with a volley of inconvenient questions, and as a pre-emptive measure MB had to resort to platitudes. Hence, they kept mum till Sundarayya’s demise.  But Sundarayya’s questions would continue to haunt the Party. Sundarayya has charged that the party leadership clearly deviated from the party resolutions and the Policy document. The Statement of Policy, or the Tactical line continues to remain just a revolutionary rhetoric.

From Sundarayya's resignation one may have seen the CPI (M) leadership is determined neither to own nor disown this document. In some isolated quarters a secret longing is being nursed that the so-called Bengal line, though subdued at this stage will Kerala is today the lone bastion of the Party, and the situation there is far less encouraging, for the Party is only worried about the hard arithmetic for victory in electoral hustings, even by aligning with the militant Islam. In this despicable milieu, Sundarayya’s letter is a pointer to the Party’s inevitable doom.

© Ramachandran 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

കൊച്ചിയിൽ നിന്ന് മാർപ്പാപ്പയ്ക്ക് ഒരാന

 പോർച്ചുഗൽ രാജാവിന് സമ്മാനം 

ആനയെയും കടലിനെയും നമുക്ക് മാത്രമല്ല, മാർപ്പാപ്പയ്ക്കും മടുക്കില്ല. അതിനാൽ, പോർച്ചുഗീസുകാർ കൊച്ചിയിൽ അധിനിവേശം നടത്തുകയും മാനുവൽ കോട്ട പണിയുകയും ചെയ്ത പുതുക്കത്തിൽ, 1512 ൽ, കൊച്ചി രാജാവ് ഉണ്ണിരാമൻ കോയിക്കൽ (ഭരണം 1503 -1537) പോർച്ചുഗീസ് രാജാവ് മാനുവൽ ഒന്നാമന് ഒരു ആനയെ കൊടുത്തു; രാജാവ് അത് ലിയോ പത്താമൻ മാർപ്പാപ്പയുടെ അഭിഷേകത്തിന് (1514) സമ്മാനമായി കൊടുത്തു. ഈ വെള്ളാനയുടെ  കഥയാണ്, വത്തിക്കാൻ ഗവേഷകൻ സിൽവിയോ ബേദിനി എഴുതിയ, 'മാർപ്പാപ്പയുടെ ആന' (Pope's Elephant, 2000). 

റാഫേൽ വരച്ച ഹന്നോ 

കൊച്ചിരാജാവ് ഇത് സമ്മാനമായി കൊടുത്തതോ അന്നത്തെ വൈസ്‌റോയ്‌ അഫോൻസോ ആൽബുക്കർക്കിനെക്കൊണ്ട് വാങ്ങിപ്പിച്ചതോ ആകാം എന്ന് പുസ്തകത്തിൽ ഊഹിക്കുന്നു. പേടിച്ചരണ്ട കൊച്ചി രാജാവ് വെറുതെ കൊടുത്തത്തതാകാനേ വഴിയുള്ളൂ. വാങ്ങിയതാണെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് ആൽബുക്കർക്ക്, പോർച്ചുഗൽ രാജാവിൽ നിന്ന് പണം വാങ്ങിയിരിക്കാം.

ഹന്നോ എന്ന് ചരിത്രത്തിൽ അറിയപ്പെടുന്ന ആനയെ ഇറ്റലിക്കാർ വിളിച്ചത്, 'അന്നോൻ' എന്നാണ്. രണ്ടു വാക്കും 'ആന' എന്ന വാക്കുമായി ബന്ധമുള്ളതാണ്. റോമിലെ പോർച്ചുഗീസ് സ്ഥാനപതി ത്രിസ്താവോ കുൻഹയ്ക്ക് ഒപ്പം റോമിലെത്തിയ ആന മാർപ്പാപ്പയുടെ ഓമനയായി വളർന്നു; രണ്ടു കൊല്ലം കഴിഞ്ഞ് മലബന്ധം വന്ന് ചെരിഞ്ഞു. മരിക്കുമ്പോൾ ആനയ്ക്ക് ഏഴു വയസ്സായിരുന്നു.

ആനയെ എത്തിച്ച സ്ഥാനപതി ത്രിസ്താവോ, 1504 ൽ ഇന്ത്യയിലെ ആദ്യ പോർച്ചുഗീസ് വൈസ്‌റോയ്‌ ആയി നിയമിതനായിരുന്നു എങ്കിലും, താൽക്കാലികമായി വന്ന അന്ധത കാരണം, സ്ഥാനമേറ്റില്ല. ആൽബുക്കർക്ക് അടുത്ത ബന്ധുവായിരുന്നു; 1529 ൽ ഇന്ത്യയിലെ ഒൻപതാമത്തെ പോർച്ചുഗീസ് ഗവർണർ നൂനോ കുൻഹ, ത്രിസ്താവോയുടെ മകനായിരുന്നു. 

ഉണ്ണിരാമൻ രാജാവ് സ്ഥാനമേൽക്കുന്നതിന് തൊട്ടു മുൻപ്, 1500 ലാണ് പോർച്ചുഗീസ് അഡ്‌മിറൽ പെദ്രോ അൽവാരെസ് കബ്രാൾ കോഴിക്കോട്ട് നിന്ന് പിൻവാങ്ങി കൊച്ചി തീരത്തെത്തിയത്. രാജാവ് അദ്ദേഹത്തെ സ്വാഗതം ചെയ്ത്, സാമൂതിരിക്കെതിരെ ഉടമ്പടിയുണ്ടാക്കി. കോട്ട പണിതു. കബ്രാൾ പോയപ്പോൾ, 30 പോർച്ചുഗീസുകാരും നാല് ഫ്രാൻസിസ്കൻ പാതിരിമാരും കൊച്ചിയിൽ തുടർന്നു. പോർച്ചുഗീസ് പിന്തുണ ഉറപ്പായപ്പോൾ, കൊച്ചി രാജാവ് ശത്രുവായ സാമൂതിരിക്കെതിരെ യുദ്ധം പ്രഖ്യാപിച്ചു. 1502 ൽ വാസ്കോ ഡ ഗാമ കൊച്ചിയിലെത്തി. 1503 സെപ്റ്റംബർ 27 ന് തടി കൊണ്ടുള്ള കോട്ടയ്ക്ക് കല്ലിട്ടു -ഇന്ത്യയിലെ ആദ്യ പോർച്ചുഗീസ് കോട്ട. ഇതൊക്കെയാണ്, ഒരാന കൊച്ചിയിൽ നിന്ന് കപ്പൽ കയറാനുള്ള പശ്ചാത്തലം.

37 വയസിൽ മാർപ്പാപ്പ 

കർദിനാൾ ജിയോവാനി മെഡിച്ചി, ലിയോ പത്താമൻ മാർപ്പാപ്പയാകാനുള്ള സാഹചര്യങ്ങൾ ബേദിനിയുടെ പുസ്തകത്തിലുണ്ട്. ടസ്കനിയിലെ മാടമ്പിയായ, പ്രബലമായ മെഡിച്ചി കുടുംബക്കാരനായ ലോറൻസോയുടെ രണ്ടാമത്തെ മകനായ ജിയോവാനി, മാർപ്പാപ്പയാകുന്നത് 37 വയസ്സിലാണ്. പുരോഹിതനല്ലാതെ മാർപ്പാപ്പയാകുന്ന അവസാനത്തെ ആൾ. ബന്ധുവായ മാർപ്പാപ്പ ഇന്നസെൻറ് എട്ടാമനോട് ശുപാർശ ചെയ്ത്, ലോറൻസോ മകനെ നേരിട്ട് 13 വയസിൽ ഡൊമിനിക്കയിലെ സാന്താമാരിയയിൽ  കർദിനാൾ ആക്കുകയായിരുന്നു. മൂന്ന് വർഷം കഴിഞ്ഞേ വേഷഭൂഷാദികൾ ധരിക്കാൻ അനുവാദമുണ്ടായിരുന്നുള്ളൂ. ജൂലിയസ് രണ്ടാമൻ മാർപ്പാപ്പ മരിച്ചപ്പോൾ, തിരുസംഘത്തിലെ യുവജനങ്ങളുടെ വോട്ടിലാണ് ജിയോവാനി പരമപദമേറിയത്.

ബേദിനിയുടെ പുസ്തകം 

ലിയോ പത്താമൻ 1517 ൽ അനന്തരവൻ ലോറൻസോയെ ഊർബിനോയിലെ ഡ്യൂക്ക് ആക്കാൻ വലിയ ചെലവ് വന്ന യുദ്ധം നടത്തി വത്തിക്കാനിലെ ഖജനാവ് കാലിയാക്കി. മാർട്ടിൻ ലൂഥറുടെ നേതൃത്വത്തിലെ പ്രൊട്ടസ്റ്റൻറ് നവോത്ഥാനത്തെ മാർപ്പാപ്പ എതിർത്തു. ലൂഥറെ പുറത്താക്കി പത്താം മാസമായിരുന്നു, മാർപ്പാപ്പയുടെ മരണം.

ആന പുറപ്പെടുന്നു 

ഹന്നോ ആന ലിസ്ബണിൽ നിന്ന് യാത്രയായത് ഒറ്റയ്ക്കല്ല; 42 മൃഗങ്ങൾ വേറെയുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. പുള്ളിപ്പുലി, കഴുതപ്പുലി, തത്തകൾ, ടർക്കി കോഴികൾ, അപൂർവയിനം ഇന്ത്യൻ കുതിരകൾ. 140 അംഗ പ്രതിനിധി സംഘം, റോമിലെത്തിയത് 1914 ഫെബ്രുവരിയിലാണ്. ഇന്ത്യയിൽ നിന്നുള്ള സമ്പത്ത് ഒഴുകുന്ന മിന്നുന്ന കാലത്ത് വിരാജിക്കുകയായിരുന്നു, മാനുവൽ രാജാവ്. ജനുവരി 18 ന് മാർപ്പാപ്പ, മാനുവലിന് ഒരു സന്ദേശം എത്തിച്ചിരുന്നു: പണമോ ഖ്യാതിയോ ആകരുത് ലക്ഷ്യം, മതം വളരണം. ഇതിൽ ആഹ്‌ളാദം പൂണ്ടാണ്, മാനുവൽ റോമിലേക്ക് സമ്മാന സഞ്ചയത്തെ യാത്രയാക്കിയത്. 

നെറ്റിപ്പട്ടവും അമ്പാരിയുമൊക്കെ പെട്ടികളിൽ അകമ്പടിയായി. 1514 മാർച്ച് 12 ന് റോമിലെ തെരുവുകളിൽ ആഘോഷമായ പ്രദക്ഷിണമുണ്ടായി. ആന പിന്നിൽ വഹിച്ച വെളിപ്പെട്ടിയിൽ, വജ്രവും മുത്തും ആഘോഷത്തിനായി കമ്മട്ടത്തിൽ അടിച്ച നാണയങ്ങളും ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. ആഞ്ചലോ കൊട്ടാരത്തിൽ, മാർപ്പാപ്പ, പ്രദക്ഷിണത്തെ വരവേറ്റു. മാർപ്പാപ്പയ്ക്ക് മുന്നിൽ, ഇവിടന്നു പോയ പാപ്പാൻ്റെ ആജ്ഞപ്രകാരം, ഹന്നോ മൂന്ന് തവണ തല കുനിച്ചു. ഒരു തൊട്ടിയിൽ നിന്ന് തുമ്പിക്കൈ കൊണ്ട് വെള്ളമെടുത്ത് ആന, കർദിനാൾമാരുടെയും  ജനക്കൂട്ടത്തിൻറെയും മുകളിലേക്ക് ചീറ്റി, കേരളത്തിൻ്റെ കൂടി ആശിസ്സുകൾ ചൊരിഞ്ഞു. 

ആനയെ ആദ്യം സൂക്ഷിച്ചത്, ബെൽവേദരെ നടുമുറ്റത്താണ്. അതിന് ശേഷം, സെൻറ് പീറ്റേഴ്‌സ് ബസിലിക്കയ്ക്കും മാർപ്പാപ്പയുടെ അരമനയ്ക്കുമിടയിൽ പുതുതായി പണിത താവളത്തിൽ പാർത്തു. ഈ സൗകര്യം ഒരു അൽമായനും കിട്ടിയിട്ടില്ല. ജനിക്കുകയാണെങ്കിൽ ആനയായി ജനിക്കണം എന്ന് ഏതു കത്തോലിക്കനും വിചാരിക്കുന്ന മുഹൂർത്തമായിരുന്നു, അത്.റോം അന്ന് ലോകത്തിലെ ക്രൈസ്തവ കേന്ദ്രം മാത്രമല്ല, റാഫേൽ, ഡാവിഞ്ചി, മൈക്കലാഞ്ചലോ എന്നീ ദൈവതുല്യരായ കലാകാരന്മാരുടെ ജീവിത കേന്ദ്രം കൂടിയായിരുന്നു. റാഫേൽ വരച്ച ഹന്നോയുടെ ചിത്രം നിലനിൽക്കുന്നു. ധാരാളം ചിത്രങ്ങളിലും ശിൽപങ്ങളിലും സ്ഥാനം പിടിച്ച ഹന്നോ സകല ആഘോഷത്തിലും തലയെടുപ്പോടെ നിന്നു. പ്രഭുവായ പാസ്കൽ മലാസ്പിന ആനക്കവിത എഴുതി. 

രണ്ടു കൊല്ലം കഴിഞ്ഞ് ആനയ്ക്ക് ദഹനക്കേട് ഉണ്ടായപ്പോൾ, സ്വർണം ചാലിച്ച ഒറ്റമൂലി കൊടുത്തു. 1516 ജൂൺ എട്ടിന് ആന ചെരിയുമ്പോൾ, മാർപ്പാപ്പ അടുത്തുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. അവനെ കോർട്ടിലെ ബെലവേദരെയിൽ അടക്കി. റാഫേൽ വരച്ച ആനയുടെ ചുമർ ചിത്രം കാലത്തെ അതിജീവിച്ചില്ല. എന്നാൽ, ലിയോ പത്താമൻ എഴുതിയ വിലാപഗീതം നശിച്ചില്ല. അത് ദേശീയ ഗജഗീതം ആകേണ്ടതാണ്.

നാടകകൃത്ത് പിയത്രോ അരാട്ടിനോ, ആനയെ കേന്ദ്ര കഥാപാത്രമാക്കി, 'ഹന്നോയുടെ ഒസ്യത്ത്' എന്ന പേരിലെഴുതിയ ഹാസ്യകൃതിയിൽ, മാർപ്പാപ്പയെയും രാഷ്ട്രീയ നേതാക്കളെയും വിമർശിച്ചു. മാർപ്പാപ്പ അയാളുടെ ശിരച്ഛേദം  നടത്താതെ, സ്വന്തം സർവീസിൽ ജോലി കൊടുത്തുവെന്നത്, കേരളത്തിലെ മാർക്സിസ്റ്റുകൾക്ക് പാഠമാകേണ്ടതാണ്.

സരമാഗോയുടെ നോവൽ 

ആനയുമായി റോമിലെത്തിയ പോർച്ചുഗീസ് സംഘം, 1515 ഏപ്രിൽ 29 ആയപ്പോൾ, പാപ്പരായി. അവർക്ക് വേണ്ടി, മാർപ്പാപ്പ മാനുവൽ രാജാവിന് ഒരു കൽപ്പന ഉഗ്രൻ സമ്മാനങ്ങൾ സഹിതം, അയച്ചു. ഒരു കപ്പൽ നിറയെ സുഗന്ധ വ്യഞ്ജനങ്ങൾ രാജാവ് തിരിച്ചു സമ്മാനമായി നൽകി. 

ഇതിന് പിന്നാലെ, മാനുവൽ രാജാവിന്,  ഗുജറാത്തിലെ സുൽത്താൻ മുസഫർ ഷാ രണ്ടാമൻ ഒരു കാണ്ടാമൃഗത്തെ അയച്ചു കൊടുത്തു. അതുമായി പോയ കപ്പൽ, ജനോവയിൽ 1516 ഫെബ്രുവരി ആദ്യം അപകടത്തിൽ പെട്ടു. ഇതിനെ ആധാരമാക്കിയാണ്, ആൽബ്രെഷ്റ്റ് ഡൂറർ, റൈനോസെറോസ് എന്ന ചിത്ര പരമ്പര മരത്തിൽ ചെയ്തത്. കാണ്ടാമൃഗം ചത്തതിനാൽ, മാനുവൽ രാജാവിന് തൊലിക്കട്ടിയിൽ മത്സരിക്കേണ്ടി വന്നില്ല.

പോർച്ചുഗലിന് ഒരു ഇന്ത്യൻ ആനക്കഥ കൂടിയുണ്ട് -ജൊവാവോ മൂന്നാമൻ രാജാവ് 1555 ൽ ആർച്ച് ഡ്യൂക് മാക്സിമില്യന് കൊടുത്ത വിവാഹ സമ്മാനം സോളമൻ അഥവാ സുലൈമാൻ എന്ന ആനയെ ആയിരുന്നു. പേരിൽ മതമൈത്രിയുണ്ട്. ഇതിൻ്റെ ലിസ്ബണിൽ നിന്ന് വിയന്നയിലേക്കുള്ള യാത്രയാണ്, കേരളത്തിൽ അറിയപ്പെടുന്ന പോർച്ചുഗീസ് നോവലിസ്റ്റ് ഹോസെ സരമാഗുവിൻ്റെ The Elephant's Journey എന്ന നോവലിലെ വിഷയം. ഇതിൽ പാപ്പാന് പേരുണ്ട് -സുബ്‌റോ. ഹന്നോയുടെ പാപ്പാന് പേരില്ല. പാവം പാപ്പാൻ്റെ ജീവിതം കൊലച്ചോറാണ്.  

© Ramachandran 

AN ELEPHANT TO THE POPE FROM KOCHI

Kochi king gifted it to Portugal

An elephant was shipped to Portugal from the Raja of Cochin, Unni Rama Koyil, in 1512, and it was gifted by King Manuel I of Portugal to Pope Leo X (1514-1521) at his coronation. This fascinating story appears in the book, Pope’s Elephant (2000) by Silvio A. Bedini. The white elephant, called Hanno (c. 1510 – 1516), came to Rome with the Portuguese ambassador Tristão da Cunha and became the pet of the Pope. It died two years later from complications of treatment for constipation with a gold-enriched laxative. Italians called the elephant, Annone.

Cunha was nominated as the first viceroy of Portuguese India in 1504, but could not take up this post owing to temporary blindness. Afonso de Albuquerque, later viceroy, was his cousin. Cunha's son Nuno da Cunha was the 9th Governor of Portuguese India in 1529.

Hanno, sketch by Raphael

Unni Rama Koyil, the king of Cochin from 1503 to 1537, saw the Portuguese embarking on its shores, and conquering the land. Just prior to him, Cochin was the scene of the first European settlement in India. In the year 1500, the Portuguese Admiral Pedro Álvares Cabral landed at Cochin after being repelled from Calicut. The Raja of Cochin welcomed the Portuguese, a treaty of friendship was signed and the Raja allowed them to build a factory at Cochin, and upon Cabral's departure, Cochin allowed thirty Portuguese and four Franciscan friars to stay in the kingdom. Assured of Portuguese support, the Raja declared war on the Zamorin of Calicut. 

In 1502, a new expedition under the command of Vasco da Gama arrived at Cochin, and the friendship was renewed. After securing the throne for the Raja of Cochin, the Portuguese got permission to build Fort Emmanuel at Fort Kochi, named after the king of Portugal. Surrounding the Portuguese factory, to protect it from any further attacks from Calicut, the foundations of a timber fort was laid on 27 September 1503- the first fort erected by the Portuguese in India. 

Leo's rise as Pope

Bedini's fascinating glimpse at a forgotten sidenote to history gives us an elephant's-back view of early modern Europe and the inner workings of the Vatican at the height of its influence. A Vatican scholar and the author of numerous books,  Bedini is Historian Emeritus at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., where he has worked for many years as Deputy Director of the National Museum of History and as Keeper of the Rare Books. While engaged in research in the Vatican museum and archives, he heard that once upon a time an elephant lived at the Vatican. Casual remarks, strange coincidences and a lot of research yielded the exotic story. 

The book also gives curious details of the election of Cardinal Giovani De’ Medici, son of Lorenzo the Magnificent of Florence, the de facto ruler of Tuscany, as Pope, Leo the Tenth, at the young age of 37. His father prevailed on his relative Pope Innocent VIII to name him Cardinal of Santa Maria in Domnica on 9 March 1489 when he was age 13, (1) although he was not allowed to wear the insignia or share in the deliberations of the college until three years later. He was the last non-priest to be elected Pope. (2)

Born into the prominent political and banking Medici family of Florence, Giovanni was the second son of Lorenzo, ruler of the Florentine Republic. His father was worried about his character early on and wrote a letter to Giovanni to warn him to avoid vice and luxury at the beginning of his ecclesiastical career. Giovanni was elevated to the cardinalate in 1489. Following the death of Pope Julius II, Giovanni was elected Pope after securing the backing of the younger members of the Sacred College.

In 1517, the Pope led a costly war that succeeded in securing his nephew Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici as Duke of Urbino but reduced papal finances. In Protestant circles, Pope Leo is associated with granting indulgences for those who donated to reconstruct St. Peter's Basilica, a practice that was soon challenged by Martin Luther's 95 Theses. Pope rejected the Protestant Reformation, and his Papal bull of 1520, Exsurge Domine, condemned Luther's stance, rendering ongoing communication difficult. Pope Leo's death came just 10 months after he had excommunicated Luther.

Hanno's journey

According to the book, King Manuel had either received Hanno as a gift from the Raja of Cochin or had asked Afonso de Albuquerque, his viceroy in India, to purchase him. At that time, in Portugal, King Manuel was basking in the glory of the victorious explorations to the East, including that of Vasco da Gama, to Kozhikode. He dented the Islamic monopoly of the spice trade and religious conversions to Islam. As the riches flowed in from Malabar to Portugal, the Pope communicated in a letter on January 18, 1514, to Manuel acknowledging that ''the Portuguese motive for conquest was not ambition, nor the acquisition of territory and extension of his lands, but the sincere desire to propagate the Law and the knowledge of the faith in those regions.''  

The zeal of the Pope to convert Hindus in Kerala made Manuel happy, and he sent a delegation with magnificent Gifts to Rome 'on a mission of obedience', as was the tradition. Thus, the journey of the Kochi elephant began. The chief delegates accompanied the elephant with his caparisons and paraphernalia packed in trunks.

Hanno and his mahout, 1575, Angers museum

Hanno arrived by ship from Lisbon to Rome, aged about four years. The huge, luxurious embassy of 140 persons made its way through Alicante and Majorca, arriving on the outskirts of Rome in February. They walked the streets of Rome on March 12, 1514, in an extravagant procession of exotic wildlife and wealth of the Indies, with many dressed in "Indian style". Apart from Hanno, the procession featured 42 other beasts, including two leopards, a panther, some parrots, turkeys and rare Indian horses. Hanno carried a platform of silver on its back, shaped like a castle containing a safe with royal gifts, including vests embroidered with pearls and gems, and coins of gold minted for the occasion. The Pope received the procession in the Castel Sant'Angelo. The elephant knelt down thrice in reverence and then, following a wave of his Indian mahout, used its trunk to suck water from a bucket and sprayed it over the crowd and the Cardinals.

Hanno was kept initially in an enclosure in the Belvedere courtyard, then moved to a specially constructed building between St. Peter's Basilica and the Apostolic Palace, near the Borgo Sant'Angelo, a road in the rione of Borgo.

Raphael's portrait of Leo

In 1514, Rome was the centre of the Christian world and the home and workshop of Raphael, Leonardo, and Michelangelo. Pope Leo X was a pleasure-loving pontiff whose court was infamous for its excess, frivolity and impropriety. Hanno became a star in processions and festivals, and the subject of countless paintings, sculptures and fountains.

Hanno in history

Hanno's arrival was commemorated in poetry and art. Italian nobleman Pasquale Malaspina wrote:

In the Belvedere before the great Pastor
Was conducted the trained elephant
Dancing with such grace and such love
That hardly better would a man have danced:
And then with its trunk such a great noise
It made, that the entire place deafened:
And stretching itself on the ground to kneel
It then straightened up in reverence to the Pope,
And to his entourage.

Hanno became a darling of Renaissance Europe. Two years after, he fell ill suddenly, was given a purgative, and died on 8 June 1516, with the pope at his side. Hanno was interred in the Cortile del Belvedere at the age of seven.

Raphael, the great artist, designed a memorial fresco, but it does not survive. The Pope himself composed the epitaph:

Under this great hill, I lie buried
A mighty elephant which the King Manuel
Having conquered the Orient
Sent as a captive to Pope Leo X.
At which the Roman people marvelled, 
A beast not seen for a long time,
And in my brutish breast, they perceived human feelings.
Fate envied me my residence in the blessed Latium
And had not the patience to let me serve my master a full three years.
But I wish, oh gods, that the time which Nature would have assigned to me,
and Destiny stole away,
You will add to the life of the great Leo.

He lived seven years
He died of angina
He measured twelve palms in height.
Giovanni Battista Branconio dell'Aquila
Privy chamberlain to the pope
And provost of the custody of the elephant,
Has erected this in 1516, the 8th of June,
In the fourth year of the pontificate of Leo X.
That which Nature has stolen away
Raphael of Urbino with his art has restored.

Italian playwright and blackmailer Pietro Aretino wrote a satirical pamphlet, The Last Will and Testament of the Elephant Hanno. It mocked the political and religious figures of Rome at the time, including the Pope. The successful pamphlet established him as a famous satirist, ultimately known as "the Scourge of Princes". Hanno's story is told at length in Bedini's book. According to American historian Robert Greene, it earned Aretino a post in the papal service.

By 29 April 1515, the Portuguese had depleted their funds, but they sought a bull signed by the pope, who sent back rich gifts to King Manuel. The king responded with a ship full of spices and, later, an Indian rhinoceros sent to him from the Sultan Muzaffar Shah II of Gujarat. The boat that transported it was wrecked off Genoa on early February 1516, and the rhinoceros was portrayed by Albrecht Dürer in his very famous Rhinoceros woodcuts in June 1516, after sketches of it travelled to Nuremberg. 

Four sketches of Hanno, done in life with red chalk, survive in the collection of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford.

The elephant stories of Portugal don't end here-In 1551, King João III of Portugal gave Archduke Maximilian an unusual wedding present: an elephant named Solomon or Suleiman. This elephant's journey from Lisbon to Vienna was witnessed and remarked upon by scholars, historians, and ordinary people. Out of this incident, Nobel-winner José Saramago has spun a novel, The Elephant's Journey.

Solomon and his keeper, Subhro, begin in dismal conditions, forgotten in a corner of the palace grounds. When it occurs to the king and queen that an elephant would be an appropriate wedding gift, everyone rushes to get them ready: Subhro is given two new suits of clothes and Solomon a long overdue scrub. They cross the border into Spain at Castelo Rodrigo and meet the Archduke at Valladolid.

Accompanied by the Archduke, his new wife, the royal guard, Soloman and Subhro cross a continent riven by the Reformation and civil wars. They make their way through the storied cities of northern Italy: Genoa, Piacenza, Mantua, Verona, Venice, and Trento, where the Council of Trent is in session. They brave the Alps and the terrifying Isarco and Brenner Passes; they sail from Rosas across the Mediterranean Sea and later up the Inn River. At last, they make their grand entry into the imperial city. The mahout's name, Subhro makes it clear that it was an Indian elephant.

_______________________

1. Williams, George L. (1998). Papal Genealogy: The Families and Descendants of the Popes. McFarland Inc.

2. Löffler, Klemens (1910). "Pope Leo X". In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

© Ramachandran 

INDIA OPPOSES CHINA'S BRI AT SCO SUMMIT

India also opposes the strategy for 2030

The recent 23rd Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, virtually hosted by India, discussed some key issues including regional security, economic connectivity and trade. It also saw the inclusion of Iran as a new member and opened the chapter for Belarus’ membership. While Belarus and Mongolia were invited as observer states, Turkmenistan was invited as the guest of the chair.

The summit was joined by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and leaders from four central Asian countries.

The theme of India’s SCO presidency is “SECURE,” which stands for security, economic development, connectivity, unity, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and environmental protection.

New Delhi declaration

The summit issued a joint communique New Delhi Declaration, along with two separate joint statements, one on “cooperation in countering radicalisation leading to separatism, extremism, terrorism,” and the other on “digital transformation.” The Heads of State Council approved the SCO Economic Development Strategy for 2030.

Leaders decided to forge closer ties within the expanding Eurasian bloc but stressed the group is not directed against any other states.

The joint declaration said SCO members oppose bloc, ideological and confrontational approaches to address problems and security challenges. Without referring to NATO’s expansion and Western military assistance to Ukraine, the leaders were critical of the negative impact of “unilateral and unlimited expansion of global missile defence systems by certain countries or groups of countries.”

It called for an inclusive government in Afghanistan with the participation of representatives of all ethnic, religious and political groups in Afghan society.

The SCO Heads of State Council approved the Concept of Cooperation between the member states to decarbonise transport and promote digital transformation and innovative technologies to achieve greater efficiency and sustainability.

It also adopted decisions on the Regulation of the Executive Committee of the SCO Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure and the signing of a Memorandum between the SCO Secretariat and the United Nations Environment Programme.

With the inclusion of Iran, PM Modi proposed an increase in the use of Chabahar Port, located in southeastern Iran, on the Gulf of Oman, for trade and other economic activities. India feels that the International North-South Transport Corridor can serve as a secure and efficient route for landlocked countries in Central Asia to access the Indian Ocean.

Modi said that India would be delighted to share India's AI-based language platform Bhashini with everyone to remove language barriers within SCO.

Referring to Pakistan, Modi said, "Some countries use cross-border terrorism as an instrument of their policies and provide shelter to terrorists. SCO should not hesitate to criticize such nations. There should be no place for double standards on such serious matters."

In an attempt to corner India, Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif said, "There can be no justification for the killing of innocent people, regardless of the cause or pretext. Similarly, religious minorities should never be demonized in the pursuit of domestic political agendas."

Sharif's statement comes at a time when there are reports of Pakistan persecuting minorities.

In May, Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari visited India to attend a key multilateral meeting of the SCO in Goa, and he was the first Pakistan foreign minister to visit India since 2011.

President Xi warned against attempts to foment a new 'Cold War’. He highlighted the significance of upholding multilateralism. He called upon the leaders of Russia, Iran, and other member states to resist sanctions.

My article 

In his first international meeting since the Wagner mutiny, Russian President Vladimir Putin asserted that sanctions imposed by US-led Western countries are making Russia stronger. He told the summit that Russia would stand up against Western pressure, sanctions and "provocations". Russia views countries such as China, India and Iran as key partners in confronting the United States and resisting what it portrays as U.S. attempts to dictate the world order.

Spat over BRI

India, which holds the presidency of SCO and the G20 this year, is walking a diplomatic tightrope as relations between the West and a Russia-China partnership have been fraught due to the Ukraine war, and Beijing's growing clout in global geopolitics.

At the summit, all members except India supported China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which rebuilt the old Silk Road to connect China with Asia, Europe and beyond. Also, India did not sign the SCO Development Strategy for 2030, because the document "had too many Chinese catchphrases."

The New Delhi Declaration included a paragraph reaffirming support for China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which India refused to sign. Earlier too, India had declined to sign the paragraph during the Samarkand declaration in 2022.

India also raised the connectivity issue. "Strong connectivity is crucial for the progress of any region. Better connectivity not only enhances mutual trade but also fosters mutual trust. However, in these efforts, it is essential to uphold the basic principles of the SCO charter, particularly respecting the sovereignty and regional integrity of the Member States," Modi said.

All SCO members, barring India and Russia, are part of BRI, which India objects to, since a major part of its project in Pakistan runs through the Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK), called the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

On Modi referring to the BRI, Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra said, "The references to sovereignty and territorial integrity came both in the context of the SCO charter and also in the context of the connectivity projects.”

However, Xi Jinping defended BRI and said, "China will hold the third 'Belt and Road' International Cooperation Summit Forum. All parties are welcome to participate in the activities of the forum and jointly pave the road to happiness that benefits the world."

Commenting on CPEC, Sharif said, "The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a flagship project of the BRI, can be a force multiplier not only for regional connectivity but also for regional stability, peace and prosperity."

Against the West

China’s focus at the summit, however, was the West, as was that of Russia, and India’s protest over BRI is not a worrying factor.

Hence, Xi said, “We uphold international fairness and justice, oppose hegemonic and bullying practices, expand the "circle of friends" of the organization, and build a partnership of dialogue rather than confrontation and partnership rather than alliance, strengthening the progressive force for maintaining world peace and stability.”

Both Xi and Putin pushed for switching to a system under which foreign trade could be settled in local currencies, a move that helps get around the use of the U.S. dollar, especially in the aftermath of sanctions following the Ukraine war.

India has refused to blame Russia for the war and has lifted bilateral trade largely by purchases of Russian oil to a record high, irking the West.

In his briefing, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said, "The Russian president spoke of rumble-yuan exchange. We have also been supporting trading in national currencies."

Both Xi and Putin are expected to visit New Delhi in September as India hosts the G20 summit, and U. S. President Joe Biden and leaders of other member nations are also likely to be present.

The SCO summit took place barely two weeks after Modi was hosted by President Biden during a state visit, and the two countries called themselves "among the closest partners in the world".

And, China has repeatedly cautioned India, not to fall into the American trap. India is well aware that China is driving the relationship between India and the U.S. It is the only reason why Washington feted Modi. Hence, India would never throw its full weight behind Biden, if the China-U. S. confrontation escalates into a stand-off. India is just seeking to leverage its warming ties with the U.S. to its advantage. For India, camaraderie with China is precious, as a neighbour and both are civilizational nations.

Edited article in China-India Dialogue : 

http://chinaindiadialogue.com/expanding-the-sco-fostering-cooperation-and-connectivity

NEHRU AS A PRO-SOVIET COMMUNIST CRONY

He was fascinated by the revolution

It is well known that Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister wore a political red hat. S Gopal, in his biography of Nehru, has described how Nehru was pressurised by the Soviet communist leader Leonid Brezhnev to withdraw his resignation, following the failed adventure with China in 1962. Nehru had gone to the Himalayas, seeking peace, when Brezhnev intervened.

But Nehru's tryst with the Bolsheviks dates back to 1927 when he visited Moscow for the first time.

Announcing the arrival of Nehru, on November 5, 1927, Pravda, the communist Daily of the Soviet Union, said: "Pandit Motilal Nehru, one of the outstanding leaders of the Indian National Movement is expected here, today or tomorrow. He will come to Moscow with his son Jawaharlal Nehru, leader of the left wing of the National Congress." (1)

Pravda, the central organ of the Bolshevik Party, in the same issue, reported how invitations to Indian democrats had been sent and the reaction of the British colonial authorities to them. In a special article devoted to India, Pravda said that the invitations had been dispatched in good time to Indian political organisations like the Workers’ and Peasants’ Parties of Bengal, Bombay, Madras and Rajputana. These invitations had been intercepted by the British Government. (2)

Nehru at Brussels, 1927

Invitations were also sent to prominent politicians and public leaders and leaders of the national liberation movement. The delivery of telegrams with these individual invitations had been allowed by the British censor. Published in the Indian press, they caused a “sensation”. But as soon as some of the invitees expressed their desire to avail themselves of the invitations, Pravda said, the British Government refused them exit visas.

And yet, in spite of the prohibitory orders of the British colonialists, a few more Indians, besides Jawaharlal and Motilal, managed to reach Moscow. There were three members of the Anti-Imperialist League, and the well-known Indian revolutionary, S J Saklatwala, who had arrived in the Soviet Union a few days earlier than Nehru and who, according to Nehru, was at the Moscow station to meet him. Virendranath Chattopadhyaya, the revolutionary brother of Sarojini Naidu, was there from Germany.

Shapurji Dorabji Saklatvala (1874 – 1936) was a communist and British politician of Indian Parsi heritage. He was the first person of Indian heritage to become a British Member of Parliament (MP) for the UK Labour Party and was also among the few members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) to serve as an MP.

On arrival in Moscow, the Nehrus were greeted by officials of the reception committee and Saklatwala, whom Jawaharlal had met in Brussels, during the Congress of Oppressed Nationalities or the International Congress against Colonial Oppression and Imperialism.

In March 1926, Nehru sailed from Bombay with his wife Kamala and daughter Indira to Geneva, where Kamala was admitted for treatment, at a TB sanatorium in Montana. From his vantage point in Switzerland, Nehru "began to see the limitations of a purely political approach" to India's problems; a brand-new constitution alone could not carry India far without those social and economic changes which had been arrested by the natural conservatism of a foreign bureaucracy and its anxiety not to antagonize vested interests. Stimulated by his left-oriented son, Motilal began to show a keener appreciation of the economic factor in Indian politics. (3)

Motilal wrote to Nehru on January 27, 1927: "The present controversy on the current currency question has revealed the fact that many hundreds of crores (of rupees) have been taken out of the country by the simple process of manipulating the exchange and adjusting the tariff to suit the British manufacturer and merchant." (4)

In Brussels

Nehru attended the Soviet-sponsored Congress of Oppressed Nationalities in Brussels on February 10, 1927. At his suggestion, the Gauhati Congress in December 1926 decided to participate in the Brussels Conference and nominated him as a delegate. Jawaharlal wrote to S Srinivasa Iyengar, the Congress President, to ask whether he might define the political goal of the Congress as independence. Motilal wrote back: "We ask for Swaraj and you can interpret it to mean independence, as indeed it is." (5)

The Indian National Congress was determining its position towards international problems against the background of a grim struggle being waged by the anti-imperialist forces headed by the Soviet Union against the forces of reaction. (6) The Hunter Commission, which officially investigated the events which led to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919, had even picturised the Satyagraha movement headed by Gandhi as a “Conspiracy originated or supported from outside”. This absurd assertion served only as a pretext for pointing at the “Bolshevik intrigues”. From the documents of the sixth volume of the Hunter Commission, one can see an obvious fear of penetration into India of Bolshevik ideas. This fear determined much of the policy of the colonialists.

The organization was founded with the support of the Comintern. Since 1924, the Comintern advocated support of colonial and semi-colonial countries and tried, with difficulties, to find convergences with the left-wing of the Labour and Socialist International and with bourgeois anti-colonial nationalist parties from the colonized world. Another stimulus to create cross-political cooperation was the revolutionary surge in China since 1923 in which the nationalist Kuomintang was in a united front with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Toying the Soviet line, Nehru attacked Britain at the Brussels Conference and described the early history of British rule in India as "an epoch of predatory war-a period in which freebooters prowled about and committed plunders and robberies in an unbridled manner." He used communist jargon and accused British imperialism of encouraging India's communal divisions, uprooting her educational system and undermining her economy." (7)

He was hopeful that the liberation of his homeland would lead to the liberation of Asia and Africa. There was nothing Gandhian in the resolution on India, drafted and moved by him, which resonated with the communist dependence on the proletariat: "This Congress accords its warm support to the Indian National Movement for the complete freedom of India, and is of the opinion that the liberation of India from foreign domination is an essential step in the full emancipation of the peoples of the world. This Congress trusts that peoples and workers of other countries will fully cooperate in this task; this Congress further trusts that the Indian National Movement will base its programme on the full emancipation of the peasants and workers of India, without which there can be no real freedom". (8)

It has all the nuances of a communist communique.

During and after the Conference, Nehru took a keen interest in mobilizing public opinion against the despatch of British troops to China. In a joint resolution of the British, Indian (read Nehru) and Chinese delegates, the Congress of Oppressed Nationalities demanded the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Chinese territory and waters and urged ''the need of direct action, including strikes and imposition of the embargo to prevent the movement of munitions and troops either in India or China and from India to China." (9)

The Brussels Conference was funded by the Mexican Government, which resented US intervention in Latin America, and by the Kuomintang, the Chinese Nationalist Party, which resented British intervention in China. The Soviet Government was quick to see the propaganda value of the conference, and Marxist phrases were bandied about freely in communiques. (10)

George Lansbury, the British Labour leader presided over the conference and was also elected President of the League Against Imperialism, the permanent organization to which the conference gave birth. Jawaharlal was elected to the nine-member executive committee of the League, which included Madam Sun Yat-Sen.

The inclusion of the word 'league' in the organization's name was a direct attack on the League of Nations, which perpetuated colonialism through the mandate system.

Gandhi not impressed

In his reports to India, Nehru recommended that the Indian National Congress should maintain links with the League Against Imperialism. Gandhi was not impressed. Gandhi wrote to Motilal on May 14, 1927: "I read the public printed report of the (Brussels Conference) from beginning to end and I have now read the confidential report. Both are worthy of Jawaharlal. I appreciate the view he presents about foreign propaganda. But somehow or other, I still feel that our way lies differently. I feel that we will not get the support of Europe beyond a certain point, because after all most of the European states are partners in our exploitation. And if my proposition is correct, we shall not retain European sympathy during the final heat of the struggle." (11)

Gandhi, in a note to Nehru, warned against reliance upon external support. Nehru was in touch with the Indian revolutionaries based in Germany. On April 23, 1927, Nehru wrote back to Gandhi: "I do not think it is desirable, nor indeed is it possible for India to plough a lonely furrow now or in the future. It is solely with a view to self-education and self-improvement that I desire external contacts. I am afraid we are terribly narrow in our outlook and the sooner we get rid of this narrowness, the better. " (12)

Gandhi's thinking, to Nehru, was very narrow. Before long, the League Against Imperialism branded Gandhi as a 'reactionary'. (13) When in November 1929, Gandhi and the Congress welcomed Lord Irwin's declaration on Dominion status for India, the League Against Imperialism hurled abuse in stereo-typed Marxist phrases at Gandhi and the Congress: "Chronic reformism", the betrayal of the cause of workers and peasants." (14) This came just before the launch of the civil disobedience movement. Nehru had no other option than to leave the League in April 1930. 

In India, some revolution-minded Indian patriots gained inspiration from Gorky’s fiction and publicist works. 

From the early days of the October Revolution, Nehru closely followed the socialist transformations in Soviet Russia, studied her experience, and strove to use it in the interests of the freedom movement in India. Nehru studied the works of Marx and Lenin which, by his own admission, substantially influenced his views on the ways and laws of global social development. In doing so, as Nehru pointed out in one of his articles, he was deeply impressed in those years by Lenin’s work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and the book written by the American journalist, John Reed, Ten Days That Shook the World. (15)

Later, Nehru wrote about that period: “We began a new phase in our struggle for freedom in India at about the same time as the October Revolution led by the great Lenin. We admired Lenin whose example influenced us greatly.”

In Moscow

So, Nehru was elated when he, together with his father Motilal Nehru, was invited by the USSR Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries to attend the celebrations of the Tenth Anniversary of the October Revolution. On November 7, 1927, Jawaharlal Nehru together with his father, wife and sister set his foot on Soviet soil for the first time.

In September 1927, Motilal was on a vacation in Europe and in October, he was in Berlin. At Jawaharlal's suggestion, it was decided to attend the tenth-anniversary celebrations of the Russian Revolution. They travelled 28 hours from Berlin on an uncomfortable train to reach the small town of Niegerloje, on the Polish-Russian border. 

The Nehrus arrived a day too late to witness the parade in Red Square but spent four hectic days in Moscow. 

The Soviet press gave much coverage to the visit of the Nehrus. On the eve of their arrival, Pravda published their biographies. The newspaper described them as the most prominent leaders of the Indian national liberation movement. Pravda also gave an account of the activities of Nehru in his capacity as an official representative of the Indian National Congress at the first conference of the Anti-imperialist League, held in Brussels. During the stay of the Nehrus in Moscow, the Soviet media reported the meetings they had and the speeches they made.

Nehru was received in the Kremlin by Mikhail Kalinin, Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR. Nehru visited several factories and plants, attended Moscow court proceedings, went to the Museum of the October Revolution, and the Bolshoi Theatre, and saw V. Pudovkin’s film, “The End of Saint-Petersburg”.

On November 8, Nehru took part in a festive meeting devoted to the Tenth Anniversary of the October Revolution, held in the Trade Union House. Professor Vladimir Balabushevich, a famous Indologist reminisced later: “Nehru was a little late for the meeting. Nevertheless, when Nehru and his father, Motilal, made their appearance in the hall and were introduced to the audience by the Chairman of the meeting, all those present in the hall rose and gave them a warm welcoming ovation. Already at that time, Nehru was regarded as an outstanding fighter against imperialism and colonialism.”  (16)

Besides calling on Mikhail Kalinin, Nehru met A. Lunacharsky, the First Commissar of Education, V. Kuibyshev, Chairman of the Supreme National Economic Council, the Health Minister Semashko, the French writer Henri Barbusse and the German internationalist Clara Zetkin, Sun Yat-sen’s widow Soong Ching-ling, and the Mexican writer Diego Rivera.

Nehru described later all these meetings and impressions on returning to India in his detailed articles on the Soviet Union, which came out shortly after. Most of the articles appeared in the Hindu, and only one in Gandhi's Young India. The articles were published later as a book, Soviet Russia: Some Random Sketches and Impressions (1929). 

In the foreword of the book Nehru admits that he is publishing it as a book with "considerable hesitation." "I realise," he writes, "more perhaps than the average reader, their deficiencies and how disjointed and sketch they are." He confesses that some of them were written on trains.

Nehru was impressed by what he saw and felt like a juvenile communist that India could learn much from the Soviets in shaking off the feudal past. He noted that in Moscow the contrast between luxury and poverty was less glaring than in the big towns of India and Western Europe (17) and that high officials in Moscow didn't live lavishly; that the State Opera House was patronized not only by the upper class but also by the commoners; that literacy was increasing fast; that the legal and economic status of women had risen; that conditions in prisons had improved.

He was astonished to see M. Kalinin, President of Soviet Russia, wearing peasant clothes and receiving a salary that was nearly the same as that paid to his subordinates.

While showering praise on the "transformation" in the Soviet Union, he laments the situation in India, thus: "We are a conservative people, not over-fond of change, always trying to forget our present misery and degradation in vague fancies of our glorious past and an immortal civilisation. But the past is dead and gone and our immortal civilisation does not help us greatly in solving the problems of today." (18)

Nehru in Moscow, 1955

So what is the way out? Nehru hints at a revolution: "If we desire to find a solution for these problems, we shall have to venture forth along new avenues of thought and search for new methods. The world changes and the truths of yesterday and the day before may be singularly inapplicable today." (19)

Nehru then proposes for India, the Russian model: "Russia thus interests us because it may help us to find some solution for the great problems which face the world today. It interests us especially because, conditions there have not been, and are even not now very dissimilar to conditions in India. Both are vast agricultural countries with only the beginnings of industrialisation, and both have to face poverty and illiteracy. If Russia finds a satisfactory solution for these, our work in India is made easier." (20)

He also extols the October Revolution as "one of the great events of world history, the greatest since the French revolution, and its story is more absorbing from the human and dramatic point of view than any tale or phantasy.” (21) It is now known that the actual change was in February, in the absence of Lenin, and the October revolution was just a 24-hour coup which unsettled Kerensky, after the return of Lenin. To cap the absurdities, Nehru has devoted an entire chapter to describe Lenin's "virtues". He quotes Romain Rolland at the end to extol Lenin as "the greatest man of action in our century, and at the same time most selfless." (22)

Nehru failed to foresee the tragedy the revolution had in store. He just linked communism with opposition to colonial rule and economic inequality. In his autobiography too,  he praised communism: "Whatever its faults, it is not hypocritical and not imperialistic." He thought the constructive side of the Soviet model was amazing-the so-called massive assault on poverty, disease illiteracy, bigotry and the push towards industrialization. It was Stalin on the throne and Nehru failed to see the skeletons on the cupboard of the dictator, Lenin. 

So, J Coatman wrote in his book, Years of Destiny (23): "Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has now one secret ambition, which is to rival Lenin or Stalin in the history of Communism." But as we all know, Gandhi was a roadblock to Nehru, on the way to the destructive and violent journey to a communist revolution. 

Gandhi wrote to Nehru on January 4, 1928: "You are going too fast. You should have taken time to think and become acclimatized." Nehru tried to explain, but that made matters worse. Gandhi wrote back: "The differences between us are so vast and radical that there seems to be no meeting ground between us." (24)

Gandhi claimed to be a socialist. "I have claimed that I was a socialist long before those I know in India had avowed their creed," he said."But my socialism," he wrote, "was natural to me and not adopted from any books. No man could be actively non-violent and not rise against social injustice wherever it occurred. Unfortunately, Western socialists have, so far as I know, believed in the necessity of violence for enforcing socialistic doctrines. I have always held that social justice, even unto the least and the lowliest, is impossible of attainment by force." (25)

After becoming the PM, Nehru went ahead with the Soviet model of five-year plans and got stuck discouraging the private sector. He took a leftist, V K Krishna Menon as his defence minister, failed miserably against China, and left the arena as a political disaster.

(This article was published in Indusscrolls: https://indusscrolls.com/nehru-as-a-soviet-communist-crony )

____________________________

1. B R Nanda, The Nehrus, Oxford, 1984, pp 258
2. Leonid Mironov, Nehru's First Visit to the Soviet Union, Mainstream, Vol XLVI No 47, 15 November 1975
3. B R Nanda, The Nehrus, Oxford, 1984, pp 256
4. Ibid, 253
5. Ibid, 255
6. A I Yunel, The Russian Revolution and India, 2020, Routledge
7. B R Nanda, The Nehrus, Oxford, 1984, pp 255
8. Ibid
9. Ibid
10. Ibid, p 256
11. ibid
12. Ibid 256-257
13. Ibid
14. Ibid
15. Nehru, Jawaharlal, Soviet Russia: Some Random Sketches and Impressions, 1929, Chetana, Bombay
16. Leonid Mironov, Nehru's First Visit to the Soviet Union, Mainstream, Vol XLVI No 47, 15 November 1975

17. Ibid, pp 13-14
18. Ibid
19. ibid
20. Ibid
21. Ibid, pp 36
22. Ibid, p 39-48
23. Cotman J, Years of Destiny, pp 95. John Coatman (1889–1963) was the director of public information for the Indian Police Service and the British government in India. He was made a Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire in 1929 and was a member of the secretariat during the first Round Table Conference (November 1930 – January 1931). His writing promoted the benefits of the British Empire.

24. B.R Nanda, The Nehrus, Oxford, 1984, pp 293

25. Gandhi, Harijan, April 20, 1940

© Ramachandran