Comptes Rendus Et Essais Historiographiques

Comptes rendus et essais historiographiques
2009
Daniela Spenser y Rina Ortiz Peralta, La Internacional

Comunista en México: los primeros tropiezos.
Documentos, 1919-1922, Instituto Nacional de Estudios
Históricos, Fuentes y documentos, México, 2006, 417 p.
Daniela Spenser, “Unidad a toda costa”. La tercera
internacional en México durante la Presidencia de Lázaro
Cárdenas, CIESA, Publicaciones de la Casa Chata, México,
2007, 555 p.
Elizabeth Burgos
https://doi.org/10.4000/nuevomundo.56874
Index | Texte | Citation | Auteur
Entrées d’index
Mots clés :
Mexique, parti communiste, révolution, URSS
Palabras claves:
Comintern, México, partido comunista, revolución, URSS
Haut de page
Texte intégral
PDF
Signaler ce document
1Un convenio suscrito con la Academia de Ciencias de Rusia a raíz de los cambios suscitados
gracias al proceso de la perestroika, permitió a la Dirección de Estudios Históricos de México
rescatar el acervo documental relativo a México contenido en el archivo estatal ruso, hasta
entonces inaccesible a los investigadores. Los dos volúmenes que integran la investigación
realizada por académicos mexicanos en el RGASPI, (siglas en ruso del Archivo Nacional
Estatal Ruso de Historia Social y Política) revisten, tanto para México como para América
Latina, un interés capital.
2El objetivo del Comintern de incitar la fundación de partidos comunistas a lo largo y ancho
del globo, de influenciar las actividades de los sindicatos obreros, de incidir en las actividades
intelectuales y artísticas, de animar las organizaciones de jóvenes, las diversas asociaciones
comprometidas con la paz mundial, en su empeño de reemplazar el capitalismo por el
socialismo a nivel mundial, hizo que la acción del Comintern en el mundo, influyera de
manera decisiva en el curso de la historia de todos los países sometidos a su influencia.
3América Latina constituyó uno de las zonas de interés de Moscú; y México en particular,
dado su contexto político relacionado con la revolución y debido a su cercanía y a sus
relaciones privilegiadas con Estados Unidos, principal centro de interés del Comintern en el
continente americano. Además, como centro político que irradiaba hacia el resto del
continente, México constituía un punto estratégico para las actividades del Comintern hacia
el resto del continente. De allí la importancia de la publicación de estos dos volúmenes que
constan principalmente de documentos provenientes de fuentes originales (trascriptos y
traducidos al español del alemán, inglés, italiano, francés y ruso), destinados a facilitar
estudios ulteriores que profundicen aún más en ese espacio histórico, que además de la
inaccesibilidad de los archivos, están limitados por la barrera del idioma.
4Entre las colecciones de mayor interés para la historia mexicana se distinguen las relativas
a la actividad de la Internacional Comunista durante el período de 1919 y 1943. Un equipo
de trabajo emprendió, de 1993 al 2000, la revisión de 18 fondos con más de 60 registros
documentales. Tras una selección de los documentos más significativos, se procedió a
microfilmarlos y hoy se encuentran depositados en la biblioteca Manuel Orozco y Berra de la
Dirección de Estudios Históricos. La formalización de un trabajo conjunto mediante un
convenio de colaboración suscrito por la parte mexicana entre organismos mexicanos, hizo
posible que el trabajo de las investigadoras Daniela Spenser (investigadora del CIESAS) y
Rina Ortiz (INAH), culminara en la elaboración de una serie de libros que han puesto al
alcance del público esas fuentes hasta ahora inaccesibles.
5Se optó por publicar no sólo los documentos más novedosos, sino que se emprendió la
recreación de la historia del comunismo mexicano a través de los propios documentos
siguiendo un orden cronológico y un hilo conductor temático. El seguimiento de ese método
condujo a las investigadoras a consultar otros fondos relacionados con el tema, por ejemplo
los fondos relativos a Estados Unidos puesto que la acción del Comintern en ese país
repercutía de manera natural en México, como es el hecho de la decisión de la conferencia
de la Internacional Socialista celebrada del 3 al 8 de febrero de 1920, entre cuyas
resoluciones adoptadas se acordó encargar al Partido Comunista Norteamericano fundar un
buró secundario para las dos Américas.
6El primer volumen que abarca los años de 1919 –1922, fue realizado por Daniela Spenser
y Rina Ortiz Peralta. Los documentos que integran el libro provienen del archivo del Partido
comunista Mexicano, del Archivo del Comité Ejecutivo de la Internacional Comunista, del
Archivo de la Internacional Sindical Roja y del archivo personal de Sen Katayama, japonés,
emisario del Comintern en México cuya acción se desplegó en particular en el medio obrero y
sindical. Se incluyen además documentos de los Archivos Nacionales de Washington
complementarios a los archivos rusos. Se trata de informes dirigidos a la Embajada de
Estados Unidos en México que llevaba un seguimiento de las actividades comunistas en ese
país. Las autoras completan el acervo documental con testimonios de sobrevivientes, como
también extractos de las memorias del hindú Manabendra Nath Roy y del estadounidense,
Charles Francis Phillips, ambos jugaron un papel activo en la fundación del comunismo
mexicano.
7En el primer capítulo se narra el marco contextual en el que se desarrollan los hechos
ocurridos en México relacionados con los documentos. Se trata del México previo a la
revolución y durante el proceso revolucionario. Para el movimiento revolucionario mexicano,
que cuando irrumpe la Revolución bolchevique ya poseía un acervo bien nutrido de
experiencias de lucha de los oprimidos contra los opresores, significaba un movimiento de
emancipación que alimentaba el sueño de justicia de los desheredados y la percibían como
una comunión de objetivos con la Revolución mexicana. Pero pronto aparecieron las fisuras
que dividieron a los mexicanos en torno a ambos modelos revolucionarios, en particular, el
papel del Estado, de la reforma agraria, la democracia obrera. Por ejemplo, para los
anarquistas mexicanos, la revolución rusa se tornó en tragedia. Apasionante capítulo que
esboza una galería de personajes, revolucionarios profesionales, que acudían a México
atraídos por la efervescencia revolucionaria, o enviados por Lenin con la misión de proceder
a fundar partidos comunistas. El caso más sobresaliente fue el de Mijail Borodine quien llega
a México en octubre 1919 enviado por Lenin al Nuevo Mundo para fundar partidos
comunistas y se asegurara de la asistencia de delegaciones de cada país al Segundo
Congreso de la Internacional Comunista a celebrarse en el verano de 1920. En 1923,
Borodine será el emisario de la revolución bolchevique en China.
8El segundo capítulo del volumen comienza con la celebración del congreso del movimiento
socialista mexicano en 1919 cuyos resultados se vieron obstaculizados por la influencia del
grupo inspirado por la Revolución bolchevique. Precisamente, los documentos revelan la
acción de las influencias internacionales confrontadas con las tradiciones nacionales. El tercer
capítulo narra las experiencias de los enviados por el Comintern en México, el japonés Sen
Katayama, el socialita italo-norteamericano Louis Frina y el norteamericano Charles Phillip. El
cuarto capítulo rinde cuenta de las ideas que esgrimían los cominternistas ante los
interlocutores mexicanos integrantes de sindicatos y ligas agrarias. El quinto capítulo
concluye con reflexiones acerca de las vivencias de los mexicanos durante su experiencia
con la Unión Soviética y el comunismo. Como bien lo expresa Daniela Spenser, “a diferencia
de los partidos comunistas de América Latina, el partido mexicano existía en dependencia no
sólo con el Comintern, el PCUS, o la URSS, sino también a la sombra de la Revolución
mexicana”.
9El segundo volumen, La Tercera Internacional en México durante la presidencia de Lázaro

Cárdenas, se centra sobre las relaciones del Partido Comunista Mexicano con el Comintern
entre los años 1934 y 1940. Los documentos provienen del Archivo Estatal Ruso de la
Historia social Política (RGASPI), del Partido Comunista Mexicano, de la Internacional Sindical
Roja, del Secretariado del Caribe, del Secretariado Latinoamericano, del comité Ejecutivo del
Comintern y de la Colección de Manuscritos Generales de los Archivos Nacionales de
Washington.
10El primer capítulo gira en torno a “la metamorfosis de la Tercera Internacional” y a sus
avatares. Se trata de un denso bosquejo de la historia de la URSS y del Comintern durante el
escenario internacional marcado por el ascenso de Adolfo Hitler a la cancillería alemana en
1933 y los efectos que tuvo sobre la política interna y externa de la URSS, - sobre todo, si se
tiene en cuenta que el Partido Comunista Alemán (KPD) era considerado por Moscú como “el
ejercito de la vanguardia del marxismo-leninismo en el mundo capitalista” - y los procesos a
que esto dio lugar, entre otros, la relación con la violencia política, la guerra de España, el
desarrollo del trotskismo a nivel internacional, al punto de transformar la Internacional
Comunista, creada para promover la revolución mundial, en instrumento del poder estatal de
la URSS. Las conexiones et interacciones de estos procesos, repercutieron, por supuesto, en
América Latina. Al final, en 1943 Stalin decidió la disolución del Comintern so pretexto de
que era un obstáculo para “el desarrollo de los partidos comunistas”. En el fondo esa decisión
se debió a que Hitler, pese al pacto de no agresión suscrito con Stalin en 1939, invadió a la
URSS en 1941, obligaba a Stalin a propiciar una alianza contra Hitler con los países que lo
combatían. Gracias a la disolución del Comintern los partidos comunistas ya no podían ser
acusados de ser agentes de una potencia extranjera. Por supuesto, esa disolución no eximió
a los partidos comunistas de su dependencia con Moscú. Se creó un nuevo ente: el
Cominform, Oficina Comunista de Información que tampoco pervivió, esta vez debido a los
avatares de la Guerra Fría. Los instrumentos de influencia de Moscú, pasaron a ejercerse a
través de los movimientos anti-coloniales, y revolucionarios en el llamado Tercer Mundo.
11El segundo capítulo versa sobre el proceso histórico del cardenismo, cuya evolución se
inscribe en el proceso revolucionario emprendido por México previo a la Revolución Rusa, de
allí que la implantación de la corriente marxista influyera en México de manera diferente que
en el resto de América Latina, y que el proceso histórico tomara una senda particular.
Durante cardenismo se crea la Confederación de Trabajadores de México, se realiza la
reforma agraria, la confederación Campesina, la nacionalización del petróleo, se funda el
Partido de la Revolución Mexicana. Una suerte de frente popular a la manera europea, salvo
que se originaba desde el propio Estado. Los comunistas mexicanos, que se habían opuesto a
la política reformista de Cárdenas, cambiaron de actitud obligados por el rumbo tomado por
el Comintern y por el mandato emanado de parte de éste último de apoyar al proyecto de
Cárdenas. No por ello terminaron las relaciones conflictivas entre los comunistas y Cárdenas.
El hecho de otorgarle asilo político a Trotsky demostraba el deseo de Cárdenas de afirmar su
independencia política en lo doméstico y en lo internacional, a lo que los comunistas, por
supuesto se opusieron y denunciaron.
12La “Parte II” del volumen contiene la documentación propiamente dicha: la traducción y
trascripción de los textos y documentos que rinden cuenta de la compleja trama de ese
importante capítulo de la historia mexicana; de sus incidencias y sus relaciones con los
acontecimientos transoceánicos, con el resto de América Latina, los avatares del Partido
Comunista Mexicano en su empeño de incidir en el contexto mexicano, como también, la
controvertida figura de Hernán Laborde, su Secretario General. De sumo interés es el
informe del español Rafael Alberti y María Teresa León, su esposa, rindiendo cuenta de la
gira que realizaron enviados por el Comintern, por Estados Unidos, México y Centroamérica,
en marzo-octubre de 1935. Es notable el lujo de detalles que emplean para rendir cuenta de
las tareas cumplidas que ilustra la manera en que realizaban sus tareas los “revolucionarios
profesionales”, identificados con una causa e imbricados dentro de una disciplina de partido
leninista. La “Parte II” contiene una serie de fotografías de la época que le imprimen un
rostro a los documentos escritos. Por cierto que esa sección deja el lector con un sentimiento
de decepción, pues hubiese esperado una mayor cantidad de imágenes; sobre todo si se
toma en cuenta el acerbo fotográfico con el que cuenta México. Para concluir no me resta
más que reiterar la importancia para la historiografía de esos dos volúmenes, y aplaudir y
felicitar a las autoras por el rigor y la calidad del trabajo realizado.
Haut de page
Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique
Elizabeth Burgos, « Daniela Spenser y Rina Ortiz Peralta, La Internacional Comunista en México:
los primeros tropiezos. Documentos, 1919-1922, Instituto Nacional de Estudios Históricos, Fuentes
y documentos, México, 2006, 417 p. Daniela Spenser, “Unidad a toda costa”. La tercera
internacional en México durante la Presidencia de Lázaro Cárdenas, CIESA, Publicaciones de la
Casa Chata, México, 2007, 555 p. », Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos [En ligne], Comptes rendus et
essais historiographiques, mis en ligne le 19 août 2009, consulté le 04 novembre 2021. URL :
http://journals.openedition.org/nuevomundo/56874 ; DOI :
https://doi.org/10.4000/nuevomundo.56874
Haut de page
Auteur
Elizabeth Burgos
Articles du même auteur
 Stéphane Boisard, Armelle Enders et Geneviève Verdo (coord.), « L’Amérique latine des

régimes militaires », Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire , numéro 105 (spécial), Paris,
Presses de science Po, janvier-mars 2010, 300 p. [Texte intégral]
Paru dans Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos, Comptes rendus et essais historiographiques
 Ramos Pismataro Francesca, Romero Carlos A., Ramírez Arcos Hugo Eduardo

(coord.), Hugo Chávez: una década en el poder , Bogotá, CEPI-OV-Editorial Universidad
del Rosario, 2010, 824 p. [Texte intégral]
 Jesús Ruiz González de Gordejuela Urquijo, Los vascos en el México decimonónico, 1810-

1910, Donostia-San Sebastián, Real sociedad Bascongada de los amigos del país-Gobierno
Vasco, 2008, 832 p., Colección Ilustración Vasca, Tomo XVIII. [Texte intégral]
 Teodoro Petkoff, El chavismo como problema , Caracas, Editorial Libros Marcados, 2010,
180 p. [Texte intégral]
 Consuelo Naranjo Orovio (coord.), Historia de Cuba, Madrid, Consejo Superior de

Investigaciones Científicas, Ediciones Doce Calles, S. L., 2009, 625 p. [Texte intégral]
 Vladímir M. Davydov, Hacia la identificación civilizacional de América Latina, Moscú,

Instituto de Latinoamérica, Academia de Ciencias de Rusia, 2007, 46 p. [Texte intégral]
 Tous les textes...

Haut de page
Droits d’auteur
O Partido Comunista da Índia é o partido político comunista mais antigo da Índia e
um dos oito partidos nacionais do país. [5] [6] O CPI foi formado em 26 de dezembro de
1925 em Kanpur . [2] [7] [8]
Partido Comunista da Índia
Abreviação CPI
Secretário geral D. Raja
Presidente Parlamentar Binoy Viswam
Líder Lok Sabha K. Subbarayan
Líder Rajya Sabha Binoy Viswam
26 de dezembro de 1925 (95
Fundado
anos atrás)
Ajoy Bhavan, 15, Indrajit
Quartel general Gupta Marg, Nova
Delhi , Índia -110002
New Age
Janayugom
Jornal
Kalantar
Visalaandhra
Federação de Todos os
Ala estudante
Estudantes da Índia
Federação Juvenil de Toda a
Ala jovem
Índia
Federação Nacional de
Ala feminina
Mulheres Índias
 Congresso Sindical
de Toda a Índia
Ala trabalhista
 União Bharatiya
Khet Mazdoor
Asa camponesa Toda a Índia Kisan Sabha
Comunismo [1]
Ideologia
Marxismo-Leninismo [2]
Posição política Esquerda [3]
Afiliação internacional IMCWP
Cores Vermelho
Status ECI Partido Nacional [4]
Lista
Aliança Democrática
Progressista,
Frente de Esquerda Tamil
Nadu , Frente de Esquerda
Tripura,
Frente
Democrática de Esquerda de
Aliança
Bengala Ocidental ,
Frente Democrática de
Esquerda de Kerala ,
Maharashtra
Esquerda Manch
Democrática, Assam
Mahagathbandhan, Bihar
Punjab Aliança Democrática
Assentos em Lok
2/543
Sabha
Assentos em Rajya
1/245
Sabha
Estados indianos
Assentos em 19/140
Assembléias ( Assembleia Legislativa de Kerala )
Legislativas Estaduais 2/243
( Assembleia Legislativa de Bihar )
2/75
Assentos em Conselhos
( Conselho Legislativo de
Legislativos Estaduais
Bihar )
Número de estados e
territórios da união no 1/31
governo
Símbolo eleitoral
Bandeira de festa
Local na rede Internet
www .communistparty .in
 Política da Índia
 Partidos políticos
 Eleições
História
Formação
O Partido Comunista da Índia foi formado em 26 de dezembro de 1925 na primeira

Conferência do Partido em Kanpur , depois em Cawnpore . SV Ghate foi o primeiro
Secretário Geral da CPI. Havia muitos grupos comunistas formados por índios com a
ajuda de estrangeiros em diferentes partes do mundo, grupo Tashkent de Contatos foram
feitos com Anushilan e Jugantar os grupos em Bengala , e pequenos grupos comunistas
foram formados em Bombaim (liderados por SA Dange ), Madras (liderado por
Singaravelu Chettiar ), United Provinces (liderado por Shaukat Usmani ), Punjab ,
Sindh (liderado por Ghulam Hussain ) e Bengala (liderado por Muzaffar Ahmed ).
Envolvimento na luta pela independência
Durante a década de 1920 e início de 1930, o partido estava mal organizado e, na

prática, havia vários grupos comunistas trabalhando com coordenação nacional
limitada. As autoridades coloniais britânicas haviam proibido todas as atividades
comunistas, o que tornava muito difícil a tarefa de construir um partido único. Entre
1921 e 1924, houve três julgamentos de conspiração contra o movimento comunista;
Primeiro caso de conspiração de Peshawar , caso de conspiração de Meerut e caso de
conspiração bolchevique de Kanpur . Nos primeiros três casos, comunistas muhajir
treinados na Rússia foram levados a julgamento. No entanto, o julgamento de Cawnpore
teve mais impacto político. Em 17 de março de 1924, Shripad Amrit Dange , MN Roy ,
Muzaffar Ahmed, Nalini Gupta, Shaukat Usmani, Singaravelu Chettiar , Ghulam
Hussain e RC Sharma foram acusados, em Cawnpore (agora chamado de Kanpur) caso
de conspiração bolchevique. A acusação específica era que eles, como comunistas,
estavam tentando "privar o rei imperador de sua soberania sobre a Índia britânica, por
meio da separação completa da Índia da Grã-Bretanha imperialista por meio de uma
revolução violenta". As páginas dos jornais diariamente espalharam planos comunistas
sensacionais e as pessoas pela primeira vez aprenderam, em escala tão grande, sobre o
comunismo e suas doutrinas e os objetivos da Internacional Comunista na Índia. [9]
Singaravelu Chettiar foi libertado por motivo de doença. MN Roy estava na Alemanha e
RC Sharma em francês Pondichéry e, portanto, não poderia ser preso. Ghulam Hussain
confessou que havia recebido dinheiro dos russos em Cabul e foi perdoado. Muzaffar
Ahmed, Nalini Gupta, Shaukat Usmani e Dange foram condenados a várias penas de
prisão. Este caso foi responsável por apresentar ativamente o comunismo a um grande
público indiano. [9] Dange foi libertado da prisão em 1927. Rahul Dev Pal era um líder
comunista proeminente
Em 25 de dezembro de 1925, uma conferência comunista foi organizada em

Kanpur. [10] As autoridades coloniais estimaram que 500 pessoas participaram da
conferência. A conferência foi convocada por um homem chamado Satyabhakta. Na
conferência, Satyabhakta defendeu um " comunismo nacional " e contra a subordinação
ao Comintern. Sendo derrotado pelos outros delegados, Satyabhakta deixou o local da
conferência em protesto. A conferência adotou o nome de 'Partido Comunista da Índia'.
Grupos como o Partido Trabalhista Kisan do Hindustão (LKPH) dissolveram-se no
CPI. [11] O CPI emigrado, que provavelmente tinha pouco caráter orgânico, foi
efetivamente substituído pela organização que agora opera dentro da Índia.
Logo após a conferência de 1926 do Partido dos Trabalhadores e Camponeses de

Bengala, a clandestinidade da CPI ordenou que seus membros se unissem aos partidos
dos Trabalhadores e Camponeses da província. Todas as atividades comunistas abertas
eram realizadas por meio de partidos operários e camponeses. [12]
O sexto congresso da Internacional Comunista se reuniu em 1928. Em 1927 o

Kuomintang se voltou contra os comunistas chineses, o que levou a uma revisão da
política de formação de alianças com a burguesia nacional nos países coloniais. As teses
coloniais do 6º congresso do Comintern conclamavam os comunistas indianos a
combater os "líderes reformistas nacionais" e a "desmascarar o reformismo nacional do
Congresso Nacional Indiano e se opor a todas as frases dos swarajistas, gandistas etc.
sobre resistência passiva" . [13] O congresso, entretanto, diferenciou o caráter do
Kuomintang chinês e do Partido Swarajista indiano , considerando este último nem um
aliado confiável nem um inimigo direto. O congresso exortou os comunistas indianos a
utilizarem as contradições entre a burguesia nacional e os imperialistas britânicos. [14] O
congresso também denunciou o WPP. O Décimo Plenário do Comitê Executivo da
Internacional Comunista, de 3 de julho de 1929 a 19 de julho de 1929, instruiu os
comunistas indianos a romper com o WPP. Quando os comunistas o abandonaram, o
WPP se desfez. [15]
Retrato de 25 dos prisioneiros de Meerut tirados do lado de fora da prisão. Fila de trás
(da esquerda para a direita): KN Sehgal , SS Josh , HL Hutchinson , Shaukat Usmani ,
BF Bradley , A. Prasad , P. Spratt , G. Adhikari . Fileira do meio: Radharaman Mitra ,
Gopen Chakravarti , Kishori Lal Ghosh , LR Kadam , DR Thengdi , Goura Shanker , S.
Bannerjee , KN Joglekar , PC Joshi , Muzaffar Ahmed . Primeira fila: MG Desai , D.
Goswami , RS Nimbkar , SS Mirajkar , SA Dange , SV Ghate , Gopal Basak .
Em 20 de março de 1929, prisões contra WPP, CPI e outros líderes trabalhistas foram
feitas em várias partes da Índia, no que ficou conhecido como o Caso da Conspiração
Meerut. A liderança comunista foi agora colocada atrás das grades. O processo de
julgamento duraria quatro anos. [16] [17]
A partir de 1934, os principais centros de atividade do CPI eram Bombaim, Calcutá e

Punjab. O partido também havia começado a estender suas atividades a Madras. Um
grupo de estudantes Andhra e Tamil, entre eles P. Sundarayya , foram recrutados para a
CPI por Amir Hyder Khan . [18]
O partido foi reorganizado em 1933, depois que os líderes comunistas dos julgamentos
de Meerut foram libertados. Um comitê central do partido foi criado. Em 1934, o
partido foi aceito como seção indiana da Internacional Comunista. [19]
Quando elementos da esquerda indiana formaram o Partido Socialista do Congresso em

1934, o CPI o rotulou como Social Fascista . [13]
A Liga Contra o Gandismo , inicialmente conhecida como Comitê de Boicote de

Gandhi, era uma organização política em Calcutá , fundada pelo Partido Comunista da
Índia e outros para lançar atividades militantes antiimperialistas . O grupo recebeu o
nome de 'Liga Contra o Gandismo' em 1934. [20]
Em conexão com a mudança de política do Comintern em relação à política da Frente

Popular , os comunistas indianos mudaram sua relação com o Congresso Nacional
Indiano. Os comunistas aderiram ao Partido Socialista do Congresso, que funcionava
como a esquerda do Congresso. Ao aderir a CSP, a CPI acatou o pedido de CSP de uma
Assembleia Constituinte, que havia denunciado dois anos antes. A CPI, entretanto,
avaliou que a demanda por uma Assembleia Constituinte não seria um substituto para os
sovietes . [21]
Em julho de 1937, reunião clandestina realizada em Calicut . [22] Cinco pessoas estiveram

presentes na reunião, P. Krishna Pillai E.MS Namboodiripad , NC Sekhar, K.
Damodaran e SV Ghate . Os quatro primeiros eram membros do CSP em Kerala. O CPI
em Kerala foi formado em 31 de dezembro de 1939 com a Conferência de
Pinarayi. [23] Este último, Ghate, era um membro do Comitê Central da CPI, que havia
chegado de Madras. [24] Os contactos entre o CSP em Kerala e o CPI começaram em 1935,
quando P. Sundarayya (membro do CC do CPI, com sede em Madras na altura) se
reuniu com EMS e Krishna Pillai. Sundarayya e Ghate visitaram Kerala várias vezes e
se encontraram com os líderes do CSP lá. Os contatos foram facilitados através das
reuniões nacionais do Congresso, CSP e All India Kisan Sabha . [18]
Em 1936-1937, a cooperação entre socialistas e comunistas atingiu seu auge. No 2º

congresso do CSP, realizado em Meerut em janeiro de 1936, foi adotada uma tese que
declarava que era necessário construir 'um Partido Socialista Indiano unido baseado no
Marxismo-Leninismo '. [25] No 3º congresso CSP, realizado em Faizpur , vários
comunistas foram incluídos no Comitê Executivo Nacional do CSP. [26]
Em Kerala, os comunistas conquistaram o controle de CSP e, por um breve período,
controlaram o Congresso ali.
Dois comunistas, EMS Namboodiripad e ZA Ahmed , tornaram-se secretários conjuntos

de CSP para toda a Índia. A CPI também tinha dois outros membros dentro do
executivo CSP. [21]
Por ocasião da Conferência do Congresso de Ramgarh de 1940, a CPI divulgou uma

declaração chamada Proletarian Path , que buscava utilizar o estado enfraquecido do
Império Britânico em tempos de guerra e fez um apelo à greve geral , políticas sem
impostos e sem aluguel e mobilizando-se para um levante revolucionário armado. A
Executiva Nacional do CSP reunida em Ramgarh decidiu que todos os comunistas
seriam expulsos do CSP. [27]
Em julho de 1942, a CPI foi legalizada, como resultado da Grã-Bretanha e da União

Soviética se tornarem aliadas contra a Alemanha nazista. [28] Os comunistas fortaleceram
seu controle sobre o Congresso Sindical de Todas as Índias. Ao mesmo tempo, os
comunistas foram politicamente encurralados por sua oposição ao Movimento Quit
India .
O CPI contestou as eleições para a Assembleia Legislativa Provincial de 1946 por conta
própria. Teve candidatos em 108 dos 1585 assentos. Ele ganhou em oito assentos. No
total, a votação do CPI contou com 666 723, o que deve ser visto tendo como pano de
fundo que 86% da população adulta da Índia não tinha direito de voto. O partido
disputou três cadeiras em Bengala e ganhou todas elas. Um candidato do CPI, Somnath
Lahiri , foi eleito para a Assembleia Constituinte. [29]
O Partido Comunista da Índia se opôs à divisão da Índia e não participou nas

comemorações do Dia da Independência de 15 de agosto de 1947 em protesto contra a
divisão do país. [30]
Depois da independência
Durante o período próximo e imediatamente após a Independência em 1947, a situação

interna no partido era caótica. O partido mudou rapidamente entre as posições de
esquerda e direita. Em fevereiro de 1948, no 2º Congresso do Partido em Calcutá, BT
Ranadive (BTR) foi eleito Secretário Geral do partido. [31] A conferência adotou o
'Programa de Revolução Democrática'. Este programa incluiu a primeira menção à luta
contra a injustiça de casta em um documento do CPI. [32]
Em várias áreas, o partido liderou lutas armadas contra uma série de monarcas locais
que relutavam em desistir de seu poder. Essas insurgências ocorreram em Tripura ,
Telangana e Kerala. [ carece de fontes? ] A rebelião mais importante aconteceu em Telangana ,
contra o Nizam de Hyderabad . Os comunistas construíram um exército popular e uma
milícia e controlaram uma área com uma população de três milhões. A rebelião foi
brutalmente esmagada e o partido abandonou a política de luta armada. BTR foi deposto
e denunciado como um 'aventureiro de esquerda'.
Em Manipur , o partido se tornou uma força a ser enfrentada por meio das lutas agrárias
lideradas por Jananeta Irawat Singh . Singh ingressou no CPI em 1946. [33] No congresso
de 1951 do partido, 'Democracia Popular' foi substituída por 'Democracia Nacional'
como o principal slogan do partido. [34]
O Partido Comunista foi fundado em Bihar em 1939. Após a independência, o partido

comunista obteve sucesso em Bihar (Bihar e Jharkhand). O Partido Comunista conduziu
movimentos pela reforma agrária, o movimento sindical teve seu pico em Bihar nos
anos sessenta, setenta e oitenta. As conquistas dos comunistas em Bihar colocaram o
partido comunista na vanguarda do movimento de esquerda na Índia. [ Carece de fontes? ] Bihar
produziu alguns dos líderes lendários como líderes Kishan Sahajanand Saraswati e
Karyanand Sharma , gigantes intelectuais como Jagannath Sarkar , Yogendra Sharma e
Indradeep Sinha , líderes de massa como Chandrasekhar Singh e Sunil Mukherjee ,
dirigentes sindicais como Kedar Das e outros. [ carece de fontes? ] Foi em Bihar que a revolução
total de JP foi exposta e o partido comunista sob a liderança de Jagannath Sarkar lutou a
Revolução Total e expôs seu vazio. "Many Streams" Selected Essays de Jagannath
Sarkar e Reminiscing Sketches, Compilado por Gautam Sarkar, Editado por Mitali
Sarkar, Publicado pela primeira vez em: maio de 2010, Navakaranataka Publications
Unip. Ltd., Bangalore. Na região de Mithila de Bihar Bhogendra Jha liderou a luta
contra os Mahants e Zamindars. Mais tarde, ele venceu as eleições parlamentares e foi
MP por sete mandatos. [ citação necessária ]
No início dos anos 1950, a liderança comunista jovem estava unindo trabalhadores
têxteis, bancários e trabalhadores do setor não organizado para garantir apoio em massa
no norte da Índia. Líderes nacionais como SA Dange , Chandra Rajeswara Rao e PK
Vasudevan Nair os encorajaram e apoiaram a ideia, apesar de suas diferenças sobre a
execução. Líderes comunistas incendiários como Homi F. Daji , Guru Radha Kishan ,
HL Parwana, Sarjoo Pandey , Darshan Singh canadense e Avtaar Singh Malhotra
estavam emergindo entre as massas e a classe trabalhadora em particular. [ carece de fontes? ] Esta
foi a primeira liderança de comunistas que estava muito próxima das massas e as
pessoas os consideram campeões da causa dos trabalhadores e dos pobres. Em Delhi, o
Dia de Maio (majdoor diwas ou mai diwas ) foi organizado em Chandni Chowk
Ghantaghar de uma maneira que demonstra a unidade entre todas as facções das classes
trabalhadoras e acende a paixão pelo movimento comunista na parte norte da Índia. [ citação
necessária ]
Em 1952, o CPI tornou-se o primeiro partido da oposição líder no Lok Sabha, enquanto
o Congresso Nacional Indiano estava no poder. [ citação necessária ]
O movimento comunista ou CPI em particular emergiu como um favorito depois que

Guru Radha Kishan empreendeu um jejum até a morte por 24 dias para promover a
causa dos trabalhadores têxteis em Delhi. Até então era um equívoco público que os
comunistas são revolucionários com armas nas mãos e os trabalhadores e suas famílias
tinham medo de se associar aos comunistas, mas este ato mobilizou o público em geral a
favor do movimento comunista como um todo. Durante este período, as pessoas com
suas famílias costumavam visitar 'dharna sthal' para encorajar os quadros da CPI. [ citação
necessária ]
Esse modelo de abnegação para a sociedade funcionou para a CPI muito mais do que o
esperado. Essa tendência foi seguida por quase todas as outras unidades estaduais do
partido no coração do Hindi. O sindicato AITUC relacionado com o Partido Comunista
se tornou uma força proeminente para unir os trabalhadores nos setores têxtil, municipal
e não organizado, o primeiro sindicato no setor não organizado também surgiu na
liderança do camarada Guru Radha Kishan durante este período na área de Sadar Bazaar
de Delhi. [ carece de fontes? ] Este movimento de polarização em massa dos trabalhadores em
favor do CPI funcionou efetivamente em Delhi e pavimentou o caminho para o grande
sucesso do CPI nas eleições nas áreas dominadas pela classe trabalhadora em Delhi. O
camarada Gangadhar Adhikari e EMS Namboodiripad aplaudiram esta brigada de
camaradas dinâmicos por sua abordagem abnegada e capacidade organizacional. Esta
brigada de comunistas incendiários ganhou mais destaque quando o herói de Telangana,
Chandra Rajeswara Rao, se tornou o secretário-geral do Partido Comunista da
Índia. [ citação necessária ]
Na eleição de Travancore-Cochin para a Assembleia Legislativa de 1952 , o Partido

Comunista foi banido, por isso não pôde participar do processo eleitoral. [35] Nas eleições
gerais de 1957, o CPI emergiu como o maior partido da oposição. Em 1957, o CPI
venceu as eleições estaduais em Kerala. Esta foi a primeira vez que um partido de
oposição obteve o controle de um estado indiano. EMS Namboodiripad tornou-se
Ministro-Chefe. Na reunião internacional de 1957 dos partidos comunistas em Moscou,
o Partido Comunista da China dirigiu críticas ao CPI por ter formado um ministério em
Kerala. [36]
Diferenças ideológicas levaram à divisão do partido em 1964, quando duas conferências

partidárias diferentes foram realizadas, uma do PCI e outra do Partido Comunista da
Índia (marxista) . [ citação necessária ]
Durante o período 1970-77, o CPI foi aliado do Partido do Congresso. Em Kerala, eles
formaram um governo junto com o Congresso, com o líder do CPI, C. Achutha Menon,
como ministro-chefe. Após a queda do regime de Indira Gandhi , o CPI reorientou-se
para a cooperação com o CPI (M). [ citação necessária ]
Na década de 1980, o CPI se opôs ao movimento Khalistan em Punjab. Em 1986, o

líder da CPI no Punjab e do MLA na legislatura de Punjabi, Darshan Singh canadense,
foi assassinado por extremistas sikhs. Ao todo, cerca de 200 líderes comunistas, dos
quais a maioria eram sikhs, foram mortos por extremistas sikhs em Punjab. [ citação necessária ]
Situação atual
Partido Comunista da Índia (CPI) e controle regional do CPI-M.
Estado (s) que tiveram um ministro-chefe da CPI.
Estado (s) que tiveram um ministro-chefe da CPI-M.
Estado (s) que tiveram ministros-chefe tanto da CPI-M quanto da CPI.
Estados que não tiveram / tiveram ministro-chefe da CPI-M ou da CPI.
Territórios da União sem governo estadual.
Mural em Thiruvananthapuram
O CPI foi reconhecido pela Comissão Eleitoral da Índia como um 'Partido Nacional'.
Até o momento, o CPI é o único partido político nacional da Índia a disputar todas as
eleições gerais usando o mesmo símbolo eleitoral . Devido a uma derrota massiva nas
eleições gerais indianas de 2019, onde o partido viu sua contagem reduzida para 2 MP,
a Comissão Eleitoral da Índia enviou uma carta ao CPI perguntando por que motivo seu
status de partido nacional não deveria ser revogado. [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] Se um desempenho
semelhante se repetir na próxima eleição, o CPI não será mais um partido nacional .

1925 em Kanpur . [2] [7] [8]
Abreviação CPI
Fundado
anos atrás)
New Age
Janayugom
Jornal
Kalantar
Visalaandhra
Ala estudante
Ala jovem
Índia
Ala feminina
Mulheres Índias
de Toda a Índia
Ala trabalhista
Khet Mazdoor
Comunismo [1]
Ideologia
Cores Vermelho
Lista
Progressista,
Tripura,
Frente
Aliança
Bengala Ocidental ,
Maharashtra
Esquerda Manch
Democrática, Assam
Assentos em Lok
2/543
Sabha
Assentos em Rajya
1/245
Sabha
Estados indianos
Assentos em 19/140
2/75
Bihar )
governo
Símbolo eleitoral
Bandeira de festa

 Eleições
História
Formação





WPP se desfez. [15]




sovietes . [21]



executivo CSP. [21]


India .



necessária ]

necessária ]

Kerala. [36]


Situação atual

1925 em Kanpur . [2] [7] [8]
Abreviação CPI
Fundado
anos atrás)
New Age
Janayugom
Jornal
Kalantar
Visalaandhra
Ala estudante
Ala jovem
Índia
Ala feminina
Mulheres Índias
de Toda a Índia
Ala trabalhista
Khet Mazdoor
Comunismo [1]
Ideologia
Cores Vermelho
Lista
Progressista,
Tripura,
Frente
Aliança
Bengala Ocidental ,
Maharashtra
Esquerda Manch
Democrática, Assam
Assentos em Lok
2/543
Sabha
Assentos em Rajya
1/245
Sabha
Estados indianos
Assentos em 19/140
2/75
Bihar )
governo
Símbolo eleitoral
Bandeira de festa

 Eleições
História
Formação





WPP se desfez. [15]




sovietes . [21]



executivo CSP. [21]


India .



necessária ]

necessária ]

Kerala. [36]


Situação atual
M. Turov
1925-7
(Winter 1963)
From International Socialism (1st series), No.15, Winter 1963/4, pp.38-

39.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet
Archive.
M.N. Roy’s Mission to China

Robert C. North and Xenia J. Eudin
University of California Press, 1963; $7.50.
This is a collection of documents of extraordinary value

on Communist-Kuomintang relations during the
Chinese revolution of 1925-27. It clearly describes the
policy of Moscow in aligning with the Kuomintang,
curtailing the peasants’ uprising, and delivering the
working class of Shanghai, Canton, and other cities, to
the mercy of the butcher, Chiang Kai-shek. The active
role of Stalin in directing the policies of the Chinese
CP, leading to the defeat of the revolution, comes out
clearly in the material presented. The unclear role of
M.N. Roy himself – one of the main agents of the
Comintern in China – is also revealed. The book is
invaluable for any student of the Chinese revolution of
1925-27, as well as the history of the opportunism of
Stalin in the colonial struggle, wearing the dress of
‘revolution from above’.
2-3 | 2014
L'orientalisme des marges
Transgresser les marges
Le monde en révolutions ou le parcours désorientant

de M. N. Roy
Nicola Pozza
p. 343-366
https://doi.org/10.4000/edl.785
Résumé | Plan | Texte | Bibliographie | Notes | Citation | Auteur
Résumés
FRANÇAISENGLISH
Le parcours de Manabendra Nath Roy (1887-1954) est déroutant à plus d’un titre, car
l’auteur bengali s’est constamment joué des frontières établies, tant nationales et
géographiques qu’idéologiques et partisanes. Acteur central de la naissance du Parti
communiste du Mexique (1919) puis fondateur du Parti communiste indien (1920), proche
de Lénine et membre influent de l’Internationale communiste, Roy s’est par la suite
complètement distancié de la doctrine communiste puis de la politique du Congress pour
fonder en 1940 un mouvement dissident, le Radical Democratic Party, avant de remplacer ce
dernier par le Radical Humanist Movement (en 1948). Sans cesse en déplacement, toujours
distant vis-à-vis des avis dominants, il s’est particulièrement opposé au leitmotiv orientaliste
de l’époque qui cherchait à glorifier « l’héritage spirituel de l’Inde », en prônant au contraire
une philosophie matérialiste puis humaniste. Nous analyserons dans cet article la position de
M. N. Roy par rapport aux discours orientalistes et panasiatistes de son époque et
examinerons notamment sa position très critique à l’égard de l’Inde conçue comme antithèse
spirituelle à l’Europe. Ceci nous permettra d’interroger la paire antagonique formée par les
notions de « centre » et de « marges » (ou « périphérie »), en utilisant le double parcours
biographique et idéologique de l’auteur comme cas d’étude.
Haut de page
Plan
Introduction
1. Biographie : un parcours sinueux
2. India in Transition (1922)
3. Roy et les discours asiatistes
Conclusion
Haut de page
Texte intégral
PDF 214kSignaler ce document
Introduction
1Le parcours de Manabendra Nath Roy (1887-1954) est déroutant à plus d’un titre, car
l’auteur bengali s’est constamment joué des frontières établies, tant nationales et
géographiques qu’idéologiques et partisanes. Acteur central de la naissance du Parti
communiste du Mexique (1919) puis fondateur du Parti communiste indien (1920), proche
de Lénine et membre influent de l’Internationale communiste, Roy s’est par la suite
complètement distancié de la doctrine communiste puis de la politique du Congress pour
fonder en 1940 un mouvement dissident, le Radical Democratic Party, avant de remplacer ce
dernier par le Radical Humanist Movement (en 1948). Sans cesse en déplacement, toujours
distant vis-à-vis des avis dominants, il s’est particulièrement opposé au leitmotiv orientaliste
de l’époque qui cherchait à glorifier « l’héritage spirituel de l’Inde », en prônant au contraire
une philosophie matérialiste puis humaniste. Contrairement à la majorité de ses
compatriotes, Roy ne basa ainsi pas sa lutte contre l’impérialisme colonial sur le modèle du
nationalisme, mais l’inscrivit au contraire dans la perspective d’une solidarité internationale,
qu’il voulait concomitante à tous les mouvements révolutionnaires. Le mouvement de
libération de l’Inde devait participer selon lui d’un mouvement universel, puisque la question
de la libération était à ses yeux avant tout une question de lutte des classes, dont la
pertinence sociale et historique se devait d’être globale, débordant le cadre limité des
frontières nationales.
 1 Pour de plus amples informations, voir M. N. Roy, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol. 1, p. 9-56 ;
J. (...)
2Dans ces circonstances, examiner le parcours de Roy selon la polarité

« centre vs périphérie » paraît, de prime abord en tout cas, peu pertinent. Face à son
parcours sinueux, autant d’un point de vue intellectuel que géographique, la question se
pose dès lors de savoir où et comment situer le « local », où placer les « marges », et par
rapport à quel centre (pour reprendre les termes de l’argumentaire de cette publication) ?
Comment peut-on situer Roy dans cet espace et par rapport à cette polarité ?
Réciproquement, son parcours mouvant, « désorientant », permet-il de questionner et de
repenser cette polarité ? C’est ce que cette contribution se propose d’examiner en retraçant,
dans un premier temps, les grandes étapes du parcours géographique et politique de Roy. Il
ne sera pas fait mention de tous ses faits et gestes 1, mais nous insisterons sur certaines
étapes et certains aspects capitaux de son parcours, en vue d’apporter un premier élément
de réponse aux questions soulevées ci-dessus et afin de souligner l’extrême
cosmopolitanisme du personnage, loin de l’unique relation binaire Inde-Europe. Dans un
deuxième temps, l’analyse portera sur quelques textes qui permettront de mettre en
perspective et de clarifier le parcours et les prises de position idéologiques de l’auteur. Cette
contribution se limitera à la première partie des œuvres de Roy, à savoir à sa période
« marxiste ».
1. Biographie : un parcours sinueux

3Né Narendra Nath Bhattacharya au sein d’une famille de brahmanes du Bengale, Roy s’est
dès son plus jeune âge profilé comme un révolutionnaire libre-penseur. Provenant d’un
milieu éduqué – son père était enseignant de sanskrit –, il fut également influencé par
l’intense atmosphère intellectuelle et réformatrice du Bengale de cette fin de XIX e siècle. Roy
abandonna rapidement l’école pour se consacrer pleinement au mouvement de résistance
bengali, le mouvement Swadeshi, durant les années 1906 à 1914.
 2 Cf. S. Bhattacharya, « Bengal and Germany », p. 6 : « It may be mentioned here that around the
same (...)
 3 En passant par la Malaisie, l’Indonésie, l’Indochine, les Philippines, le Japon, la Corée et la Chi (...)
 4 Il opère ce changement de nom sur le conseil de Dhana Gopal Mukherjee, l’ami chez qui il loge,
qui (...)
 5 Cf. J. Vigreux, « Manabendra Nath Roy (1887-1954) », version électronique § 10 : « Roy met à
profit (...)
 6 Sur cet épisode, voir B. Carr, « Marxism and Anarchism in the Formation of the Mexican Communist
Pa (...)
4C’est dans ce contexte révolutionnaire et suite à ces années de formation que Roy réalise
en 1915 plusieurs aller-retour entre Jakarta et Kolkata (Calcutta) afin de livrer des armes au
mouvement Swadeshi, grâce à l’aide des autorités allemandes basées dans le Sud-Est
asiatique2. La même année, il décide de se rendre à Berlin, en utilisant un passeport franco-
indien fourni par l’ambassade d’Allemagne à Pékin et en voyageant sous le nom de « Père
Martin ». Il se dirige tout d’abord vers Shanghai3, puis embarque sur un bateau de croisière
japonais à destination de San Francisco, qu’il atteint en juin 1916. Fuyant la police
britannique, il se dirige immédiatement à Palo Alto (Ca), où il adopte son nouveau nom de
Manabendra Nath Roy4 et où il fait la connaissance d’une étudiante de la Stanford University,
Evelyn Trent (1892-1970, connue par la suite sous le nom de Shanti Devi), qui deviendra sa
première épouse et son mentor en matière d’éducation politique. En octobre, il part pour
New York où il sympathise avec la diaspora indienne et le mouvement anticolonial et où il
rencontre le célèbre leader nationaliste Lala Lajpat Rai (1865-1928). C’est là qu’il se met à
étudier sérieusement le marxisme dans l’idée première de le combattre ; il finira au contraire
par l’adopter et par en faire l’idéologie guidant tous ses écrits pour les années à venir. En
juin 1917, il fuit les Etats-Unis pour Mexico City, où il apprend très vite l’espagnol (au point
d’écrire et de publier ses propres textes en espagnol l’année suivante déjà) – il s’initie
également à cette occasion à l’allemand et au français5. Il sympathise avec le président
mexicain Venustiano Carranza et la cause socialiste. En décembre de l’année suivante, il est
nommé secrétaire général du Parti socialiste du Mexique, qu’il transforme le 28 novembre
1919 en Parti communiste du Mexique6, suite à sa rencontre avec Mikhaïl Borodine (1884-
1951), un émissaire du Komintern, et à leur amitié naissante. Ce dernier l’invite alors à
participer au deuxième Congrès de l’Internationale communiste qui se tiendra à Moscou du
19 juillet au 7 août 1920.
 7 Dans sa version française, le texte final sera publié sous le titre de « Thèses et additions sur le (...)
5Roy part pour l’Europe, débarque en Espagne puis s’arrête en chemin à Zurich et à Berlin
avant de se rendre à Moscou pour le Congrès. A l’invitation de Lénine (1870-1924) et en
réponse aux « Thèses sur les questions nationale et coloniale » de ce dernier, il y présente
ses « Thèses complémentaires » – thèses qui seront adoptées, moyennant quelques
modifications répondant aux points de divergences existant entre sa position et celle du
révolutionnaire russe7. Roy estime ainsi, contrairement à Lénine, que la bourgeoisie
indienne, de nature réactionnaire, ne peut en aucun cas être une alliée du mouvement
révolutionnaire, car elle ne viserait au final qu’à se substituer aux « exploiteurs étrangers ».
En bref, pour reprendre le résumé de Sibnarayan Ray, éditeur et auteur de l’Introduction au
premier volume des Selected Works of M. N. Roy, le révolutionnaire indien estimait que :
 8 M. N. Roy, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol. 1, p. 20.
(a) a revolution in Europe depended on the course of the revolution in Asia bringing about the
break-up of the colonial empires ; (b) in the colonies, especially India, there were two
movements, one bourgeois democratic, limited to the middle classes, which sought compromise
with the existing order, the other a mass movement which represented the exploited majority for
whom political independence to be achieved and made meaningful required at the same time a
social and economic revolution ; and (c) the Comintern should support revolutionary mass
movements and not the colonial middle class movements and leaderships8.
 9 Le mouvement du Califat (ou Khilafat en Inde) fut un mouvement qui prit place en Inde en 1919
pour (...)
 10 Le procès-verbal de la rencontre est reproduit dans M. N. Roy, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol.
1, (...)
 11 J. P. Haithcox, Communism and Nationalism in India, p. 24.
6Immédiatement après ce Congrès intervient une étape centrale, autant d’un point de vue
symbolique et géographique par rapport au thème de cet ouvrage que d’un point de vue
historique par rapport au développement du communisme en Inde. Roy part avec sa femme
pour Tachkent – alors capitale de la République Socialiste Soviétique Autonome du Turkestan
–, afin de monter une armée de libération formée de musulmans venus d’Inde dans le cadre
du mouvement du Califat9. Sur place, il fonde le 17 octobre 1920, avec sa femme et cinq
autres membres fondateurs, le « Parti communiste de l’Inde », qui adopte les principes de
l’Internationale communiste10. Il retourne à Moscou en mai 1921, avant d’aller s’établir en
avril 1922 à Berlin où il devient un des proches de August Thalheimer (1884-1948) et de
Heinrich Brandler (1881-1967), leaders de la Ligue spartakiste (Spartakus Bund). Cette
année-là permet d’illustrer l’activité incessante et l’énergie inépuisable de Roy : il arrive en
avril à Berlin, sort le 15 mai le premier numéro de son nouveau journal, The Vanguard of
Indian Independence, et publie avant la fin de l’année trois livres : India in Transition (son
premier livre majeur, qui va être utilisé ci-après comme principale source d’analyse), India’s
Problem and its Solution, et What Do We Want ?11.
 12 J. Vigreux, « Manabendra Nath Roy (1887-1954) », version électronique § 20.
 13 Sur les raisons de cette expulsion, voir J. P. Haithcox, Communism and Nationalism in India, p.
130 (...)
7Roy devient alors le principal exégète du marxisme sur la question coloniale. D’ici à fin
1926, il fait partie de tous les organes centraux de l’Internationale communiste : le
Présidium, le Secrétariat politique, le Comité exécutif et le Congrès Mondial. A ce titre, mais
aussi parce qu’il cherche à fuir les autorités britanniques, il voyage constamment à travers
l’Europe, tout en étant essentiellement basé à Berlin12. Mais en raison de sa position critique
vis-à-vis de la centralisation moscovite et de la « bolchevisation » en cours, ainsi que de son
soutien au Parti communiste allemand de l’opposition (KPD-O), Roy se fait officiellement
exclure de l’Internationale communiste en décembre 1929 13. Il est alors traité de
« renégat », de « traître », de « droitier » – critiques qui lui seront aussi adressées plus tard
par les membres du Parti communiste indien.
 14 Cf. R. Nath, « Manbendra Nath Roy (1887-1954) » : « Roy tried to reformulate materialism in the
lig (...)
8En décembre 1930, il retourne en Inde, à Mumbai (Bombay), alors centre de la contestation
ouvrière indienne. Il est emprisonné peu après, suite au procès de Kanpur qui l’avait
condamné six ans plus tôt pour conspiration contre l’Empire britannique. Il met à profit ses
années de détention (du 21 juillet 1931 au 20 novembre 1936) pour rédiger plus de 3000
pages de manuscrits (appelés « The Prison Manuscripts »), contenant ses réflexions sur le
matérialisme historique et le rationalisme, sur la situation en Inde, mais aussi sur les
développements de la physique14.
 15 Par antipathie à l’égard des institutions et par rejet de ses pairs, Roy s’aliène de plus en plus
d (...)
9A sa sortie de prison, il rejoint l’Indian National Congress. Ellen Gottschalk (1904-1961),

qu’il a connue à Berlin et qui deviendra sa seconde épouse, le rejoint quelques mois plus
tard. Ils s’installent à Dehra Dun, au pied de l’Himalaya, où ils organisent tous les deux ans
des camps d’études, de 1940 à 1950. En 1939, suite à la non-élection de Subhas Chandra
Bose (1897-1945) au poste de président du Congress, Roy rompt avec ce parti et fonde un
groupe dissident, la League of Radical Congressmen. L’année suivante, à l’occasion du
premier « anniversaire » du début de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, cette
même League organise une manifestation antifasciste. Dès le début de la guerre, Roy
estimait en effet que le véritable danger pour la démocratie indienne était dorénavant le
fascisme et non plus l’impérialisme. Il s’aliène les communistes et les congressistes et se fait
expulser du Congress qui refusait tout soutien aux Britanniques contre l’Allemagne nazie.
Roy décide dans ces conditions de fonder un nouveau parti politique indépendant, le Radical
Democratic Party15.
10En 1946, il prépare pour la réunion de son parti à Mumbai une série de principes de base,
qui seront connus et publiés en 1947 sous le nom de New Humanism – A Manifesto. En
décembre 1948, suite à l’échec du parti aux élections pour l’Assemblée constituante, il
dissout le Radical Democratic Party, estimant par la même occasion que l’existence d’un parti
n’est plus compatible avec sa vision de la démocratie. Il fonde le Radical Humanist
Movement, dont les valeurs clés se veulent être la liberté, l’humanisme, la raison, la paix et
le « matérialisme moniste ». C’est à ce moment-là qu’il commence la rédaction de
son magnum opus : Reason, Romanticism and Revolution (1952).
11L’année suivante, il rebaptise son ancien journal Independent India en The Radical

Humanist et change le Marxian Way Quaterly en Humanist Way, soulignant ainsi l’emphase
accordée à la notion d’humanisme et son éloignement de la doctrine marxiste. Il établit
encore l’Indian Renaissance Institute à Dehra Dun, avant de décéder le 25 janvier 1954 dans
cette même ville des suites d’une série d’infarctus.
12De ce parcours complexe et sinueux, les points suivants doivent retenir notre attention
dans le cadre de cet article. Tout d’abord, le couple notionnel « centre-marge » est
difficilement opérant dans le cas de Roy. Bien que le pouvoir britannique – qui peut être
perçu pour l’époque coloniale comme le centre par excellence – reste présent en arrière-plan
de la lutte idéologique de Roy, il ne constitue pas pour autant chez lui le principal pôle
antagonique à l’Inde, ce pôle d’attraction ou de répulsion inspirant la grande majorité de ses
contemporains. Chez Roy, un autre pôle intervient dans le tableau, représenté par (au
moins) deux « lieux ». Un premier, géographique : l’Europe communiste, avec Berlin comme
principal centre d’action pour Roy, en décalage avec Moscou, centre dominant du
communisme. Un second, idéologique : le marxisme, qui permet à Roy de se positionner en
dehors de l’opposition impérialisme vs nationalisme.
13Ensuite, le parcours de Roy permet de rappeler que les centres d’action ne se limitaient
pas à Londres et Kolkata (puis Delhi pour l’Inde), mais que des régions et des villes
apparemment « en marges », comme Tachkent, constituaient elles aussi des centres
importants de l’époque.
2. India in Transition (1922)
14Cette partie traitera essentiellement de son premier essai sur la situation politique et
socio-économique de l’Inde contemporaine : India in Transition. Suite à l’adoption en 1920
par l’Internationale communiste de ses « Thèses complémentaires », Roy avait eu le
sentiment qu’il lui faudrait les développer sous la forme d’une monographie, notamment
pour contrebalancer la direction prise par l’Internationale, à son goût trop eurocentrique. Cet
essai en est le produit, terminé en octobre 1921 et publié une première fois début 1922 en
russe, à Moscou. Après son déménagement à Berlin, Roy publie en avril la version anglaise
sous le nom d’un éditeur fictif basé à Genève : Edition de la Librairie J. B. Target. En
septembre de cette même année sort la version allemande, publiée à Hambourg, alors qu’au
même moment l’édition anglaise est interdite en Inde – les premières copies sont
interceptées en août déjà. Rappelons que Roy écrit cet essai pendant le mouvement du
Califat et le premier mouvement de non-coopération lancé par Gandhi à la fin de 1920.
 16 Voici, à titre d’exemple, le paragraphe final de la version préparatoire de l’Indian Communist

Mani (...)
 17 Il devra d’ailleurs clarifier sa critique à l’égard des nationalistes en soulignant la distinction (...)
 18 Gandhi, par son attitude conciliante à l’égard du pouvoir britannique et son rejet de la
rhétorique (...)
15Dans ce contexte, les enjeux politiques de la lutte pour l’indépendance de l’Inde sont selon
Roy intrinsèquement dépendants des enjeux socio-économiques. Façonnant son discours
selon les termes de la rhétorique marxiste16, il estime qu’un changement d’ordre politique
est inconcevable sans une révolution économique du « prolétariat indien ». Idéologiquement,
il fait de l’élite économique indienne – la « bourgeoisie nationaliste » ou « réformiste »
comme il l’appelle – la cible première de son combat – et non l’impérialisme britannique,
cible privilégiée par les nationalistes indiens17. Gandhi est doublement au cœur de ses
critiques, non seulement comme représentant de cette « bourgeoisie », mais aussi en tant
que figure de ce que Roy appelle le « patriotisme spirituel »18.
 19 Cf. M. N. Roy, India in Transition, p. 11 : « The British ruling class is anxious to be the god-fat (...)
16Roy présente dans son introduction à India in Transition les trois points de vue existant
alors, selon lui, sur l’Inde et la question coloniale. Il y a tout d’abord, dit-il, celui des
« impérialistes britanniques », qui voient l’Inde nouvelle (« the Young India ») comme un
nouveau-né dont la classe dirigeante britannique serait en quelque sorte le parrain et qui
aurait pour « sage-femme » le « libéralisme impérial »19. Intervient ensuite le point de vue
des « patriotes constitutionnalistes ». Ceux-ci correspondent chez Roy aux classes
dirigeantes indiennes, qui acceptent et suivent le modèle précédent. Enfin sont définis les
« nationalistes orthodoxes », ces religieux indiens qui cherchent à faire « revivre l’ancien » et
qui préfèrent parler de « revivalisme », plutôt que de naissance comme le font les
Britanniques.
17Mais aucun des représentants de ces points de vue n’est capable, selon Roy, de faire
prendre à l’Inde le chemin du progrès :
 20 Ibid., p. 12.
Neither the anxiety of the British Imperialists, nor the desire of the constitutional patriots, nor the
fanaticism of the orthodox nationalists will be able to lead the rising Indian nation astray from the
path marked out by those historical forces which determine human progress20.
 21 Ibid., p. 13.
 22 A ce stade (1922), la rhétorique asiatiste qui allait faire de l’Inde la porteuse de civilisation e (...)
18Ce qu’il faut à présent, estime-t-il, c’est analyser le passé et le présent de l’Inde et voir
son futur selon le point de vue du « matérialisme historique ». Mais la tâche n’est pas aisée,
juge-t-il, car l’historien est alors obligé de passer par le filtre de deux courants
historiographiques fortement implantés dans les esprits de l’époque et liés aux perspectives
vues ci-dessus, à savoir : 1) l’historiographie impérialiste qui s’intéresse plus à sa « mission
civilisatrice » qu’aux conditions des peuples colonisés, et 2) l’historiographie indienne, qui
« sacrifie les faits historiques sur l’autel du patriotisme »21. Roy les estime, cela va sans
dire, dépourvues d’objectivité22.
 23 M. N. Roy, India in Transition, p. 148.
19Comment alors se démarque-t-il de ces deux historiographies ? Quel type de lecture

propose-t-il à leur place pour expliquer la situation économique et matérielle de l’Inde ? Dans
le chapitre 6 de son essai, intitulé « Political Movement », l’auteur revient sur les
événements sociaux et politiques qui ont précédé la période britannique. Il s’attelle tout
d’abord à montrer qu’au « temps des invasions musulmanes »23, l’Inde était en partie sous
régime féodal – parmi les Rajputs du Nord – et en partie, majoritairement d’ailleurs, divisée
en royaumes théocratiques d’une part, patriarcaux d’autre part. Il écrit, par exemple :
 24 Ibid., p. 145.
Under such circumstances, national consciousness, embracing the entire population that inhabited
the continent of India, was naturally an impossibility24.
20Il poursuit sa critique de la conception nationaliste en insistant sur le fait que l’Inde n’est à
ce stade qu’une « expression géographique », qu’elle n’a pu jusque-là contenir d’identité
nationale. Plus précisément :
 25 Ibid., p. 147 sq.
The extensive peninsula called India, is a mere geographical expression ; it is very distinctly
marked out from the mainland of Asia by physical barriers. But to hold that this geographical
accident has been in itself sufficient to create a sense of national unity among the diverse
communities inhabiting India, would be to misread the history of human evolution25.
 26 Ibid., p. 149.
21Roy ne partage donc pas la conception des nationalistes hindous qui, en réaction aux
« historiens impérialistes », attribuent à cette époque déjà l’existence d’une « nation
hindoue » et évoquent le « passé glorieux » que l’Inde aurait connu avant l’invasion des
musulmans. Si Roy estime lui aussi que la population du sous-continent a pu effectivement
souffrir de la présence de souverains étrangers, il ne lie pas pour autant cette situation à une
incapacité inhérente qu’auraient eue les Indiens à forger une unité et une identité nationales,
comme en concluent selon lui les historiens européens. Mais en même temps, il rejette tout
aussi catégoriquement la position inverse des historiens nationalistes, qui prétendent que
des liens culturels et religieux naturels soudaient les Indiens entre eux pour former
justement « une unité nationale homogène »26. Aucune des deux explications
communément défendues à son époque ne lui paraît correspondre aux véritables causes
historiques ayant présidé à la prise de pouvoir par les Anglais sur le sous-continent.
22Néanmoins, il n’échappe pas à une autre forme d’interprétation réactive vis-à-vis des
historiens britanniques, en faisant des musulmans non pas des opposants religieux – la
religion n’entre en rien dans son analyse historique – mais les précurseurs des capitalistes
britanniques. C’est en raison des colonisateurs musulmans puis britanniques que le progrès
des peuples indigènes fut freiné, dit-il. Il explique cela en ces termes :
 27 Ibid., p. 147.
The political state, imperial as well as provincial, was the apparatus of a dominant social class
extraneous to the country. Its expression was mainly directed against the native feudal chiefs, an
increase of whose power constituted a menace to the safety, – the very existence, of the
Musalman authority. Thus the establishment of a more advanced form of political institution,
instead of contributing towards, checked the social progress of the people27.
 28 Ibid., p. 156.
23En bref, il interprète la conquête coloniale de l’Inde par les musulmans puis par les
Britanniques comme le résultat d’une série de « causes et événements concomitants se
développant de manière méthodique et répondant à des lois matérielles déterminées »28.
Ainsi, ce n’est ni la « perfidie » des colons britanniques, comme le maintiennent les
nationalistes indiens, ni une « infériorité innée » des indigènes comme l’affirment les
historiens britanniques, ni encore une « visée politique colonialiste », en ligne avec les
discours orientalistes, qui doivent expliquer selon Roy l’emprise britannique sur le sous-
continent, mais une alliance de circonstances socio-économiques :
 29 Ibid., p. 156 sq.
The English traders who came to the shores of India without any political pretensions, could
eventually establish a great and mighty empire, because they happened to embody the social
force which, in accordance with the imperious material laws determining all human progress, was
next to assert itself over the political life of the country29.
24Cet extrait permet de mettre en exergue deux aspects importants de la rhétorique de Roy
sur l’histoire coloniale : premièrement, il rejette le point de vue selon lequel les Britanniques
surent planifier le pouvoir économique et politique acquis au fil des siècles sur le sous-
continent ; deuxièmement, il insiste, à l’inverse, sur la prééminence du matérialisme
historique pour expliquer les forces à l’œuvre dans cette partie du monde.
 30 Ibid., p. 157 : « The British East India Company succeeded in establishing its political
domination (...)
 31 Dans le « Programme for the Indian National Congress » qu’il rédige et envoie à diverses
personnes (...)
25Roy admet toutefois que suite à cette première étape, en quelque sorte purement
économique, les Britanniques ont eu l’intelligence de s’allier à la nouvelle classe
commerçante indienne et à l’intelligentsia pour imposer leur emprise politique sur le peuple,
et sur ces nouvelles élites par la même occasion30. Mais quoi qu’il en soit, pour lui, le jeu de
forces qui parcourt l’Inde ressort toujours en dernière instance d’une série de facteurs socio-
économiques ; les questions religieuses n’entrent en aucune manière dans le schéma
explicatif de Roy31. Cette position va clairement à l’encontre des conceptions dominantes de
l’époque qui voulaient voir dans l’Asie en général et l’Inde en particulier le lieu d’un modèle
d’expression avant tout spirituelle.
3. Roy et les discours asiatistes

 32 C. Stolte, H. Fischer-Tiné, « Imagining Asia in India », p. 75 sq. Ces auteurs définissent
globalem (...)
26Quelles étaient ces conceptions et comment peut-on situer la position de Roy parmi les
différentes réponses indiennes au regard colonial et orientaliste ? L’article « Imagining Asia
in India : Nationalism and Internationalism (ca 1905-1940) » de Carolien Stolte et Harald
Fischer-Tiné sera utile ici à notre propos. Dans cet article, les auteurs délimitent et
développent trois types de rhétoriques asiatistes présents chez les auteurs indiens de la
première moitié du XXe siècle32 :
a) l’Asie conçue comme antithèse spirituelle à l’Europe – les auteurs présentent comme
figure de proue de cette conception Rabindranath Tagore ;
b) l’Asie vue comme « India Magna », en d’autres termes l’idée que la « Grande Inde » a
fortement influencé l’Asie – idée essentiellement soutenue par Kalidas Nag, l’auteur
de Greater India (1926) ;
c) et la « Jeune Asie », présentant le continent comme le lieu d’une modernité supérieure –

et dont les principaux « prophètes » en Inde (selon le mot des auteurs) furent Benoy Kumar
Sarkar et Taraknath Das.
 33 Ibid., p. 77.
 34 Sur Tagore et le rôle de Calcutta dans le discours panasiatiste, voir M. R. Frost, « “ That Great
O (...)
 35 C. Stolte, H. Fischer-Tiné, « Imagining Asia in India », p. 80.
27Le premier type de rhétorique est probablement le plus connu en dehors de l’Asie et celui
qui vient en premier à l’esprit lorsqu’on pense aux réactions indiennes, ou asiatiques, à la
présence coloniale. Pour l’Inde, le discours de Vivekānanda (1863-1902), mais aussi celui de
la Société Théosophique, est certainement le plus représentatif de cette emphase sur « l’Inde
spirituelle ». Toutefois, certains penseurs indiens ont élargi cette idée au continent dans son
entier. C’est notamment le cas de Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) qui, dans un message
délivré durant sa première visite au Japon en 1916, « était d’avis que l’Occident sécularisé
ne pouvait se réformer de l’intérieur. Ce rôle historique et mondial devait être réservé à
l’Asie, notamment à sa principale puissance émergente, le Japon »33. Stolte et Fischer-Tiné
soulignent toutefois que Tagore ne manquera pas de condamner très fermement
l’impérialisme et le nationalisme japonais34. Par la suite, c’est Gandhi, cible privilégiée de
Roy comme on l’a déjà dit, qui reprendra le flambeau de « l’unité spirituelle » de l’Asie, à la
différence près toutefois qu’il percevait pour sa part « toute implication avec l’Asie comme
une nécessité regrettable »35.
 36 Cf. par exemple M. N. Roy, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol. 2, p. 225 (« On Patriotism », lettre
d (...)
28A la lecture des textes de Roy, il paraît évident que celui-ci éprouvait un dédain radical
pour toute politique nationaliste, de quelque origine qu’elle fut ; sur ce point il peut donc être
comparé à Tagore36. Il est par contre exclu de l’assimiler plus largement à la rhétorique de
Tagore, tant la conception spiritualiste de celui-ci lui paraissait irrecevable comme réponse à
la question coloniale. Une critique sans ambages de cette attitude qu’il qualifiait
« d’impérialisme spirituel » fait justement partie de ses arguments contre le discours de
Vivekānanda dans India in Transition :
 37 M. N. Roy, India in Transition, p. 192 sq. En ce sens, et même si le regard de Roy sur la

question (...)
He preached that Hinduism, not Indian nationalism, should be aggressive. His nationalism was a
spiritual imperialism. […] This romantic vision of conquering the world by spiritual superiority
electrified the young intellectuals, whose desperate economic position made them restive37.
 38 Quelques années plus tard, après sa sortie de prison suite à son retour en Inde, il utilisera un
la (...)
29Roy rejeta en bloc le discours orientaliste de l’entre-deux-guerres qui voulait voir dans le
« spiritualisme indien » le modèle salvateur du monde38. Partageant son point de vue,
Evelyn Trent, sa première femme, offre un exemple parlant de ce refus dans l’extrait suivant,
dirigé contre la perception idyllique de Gandhi par Roman Rolland (1866-1944) :
 39 E. Roy, « Mahatma Gandhi ».
India’s triumph will be a world triumph of the forces of light over darkness, of spirit over matter,
of God over Satan. With such a conception of the Indian struggle for freedom we have nothing to
do ; it embodies the exaggerated subjectivism of the disillusioned post-war intellectual, flying to
the realm of metaphysics to escape from the cruel logic of facts and realities39.
30Deux ans plus tard, Roy dénoncera de manière encore plus virulente la vision
dichotomique de Rolland opposant l’Asie à l’Europe, attribuant à ce dernier la crainte d’une
insurrection asiatique et africaine et d’un « péril » potentiel pour l’Europe. A cette division
géographique et politique, Roy opposera une lecture du monde basée sur la dichotomie
marxiste divisant la société en classes prolétaires et bourgeoises :
 40 M. N. Roy, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol. 2, p. 362 (« Mr Rolland and the “ Asiatic Peril ” »,
p (...)
We suggest to M. Rolland to try to change his categories of thought. Instead of thinking so

exclusively in the terms of Asia and Europe, he might try to think in the terms of wage-slaves and
capital, of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. He will then see that his imagined Asiatic Peril is
neither distinctly Asiatic nor is it a peril except to capitalists (in both Europe and Asia)40.
 41 Sur la Greater India Society et sur la relation de ses membres avec l’indianisme français, voir
de (...)
 42 Deux des membres fondateurs de la Greater India Society, fondée à Kolkata en 1926.
 44 « La grande assemblée des hindous », parti nationaliste hindou fondé en 1915 pour défendre les
inté (...)
31Le deuxième type d’asiatisme souligné par Stolte et Fischer-Tiné est cette fois lié à cette
forme de nationalisme qui fit de l’Inde le « porteur de la civilisation » en Asie du Sud-Est et
qui se fit connaître en tant qu’organisation sous le nom de Greater India Society41. Parmi
ses membres les plus influents, Kalidas Nag (1891-1966) et P. C. Bagchi (1898-
1956)42 furent des orientalistes formés à Paris par Sylvain Lévi (1863-1935) et Jean
Przyluski (1885-1944). C’est auprès de ceux-ci qu’ils assimilèrent l’idée que l’Inde hindoue et
bouddhique avait autrefois connu son heure de gloire et avait su « propager ses savoirs
culturels, spirituels et matériels » à travers toute l’Asie43. Cette idée d’une « Grande Inde »
essaima dans toutes les classes éduquées de l’Inde et se popularisa particulièrement parmi
les organisations hindoues comme la Hindu Mahasabha44 : « Le point central de l’asiatisme
de la Hindu Mahasabha consistait à faire de l’Asie un continent hindou et bouddhiste »45.
 46 S. Bayly, « Imagining “ Greater India ” », p. 710 sq.
32S’il y a bien un discours auquel Roy ne peut être associé, c’est celui-ci. Roy s’est toujours
clairement distancié de toute forme de nationalisme indien, encore plus hindou. Un aspect,
néanmoins, nous permet de ne pas complètement dissocier Roy des nationalistes, malgré ce
qui vient d’être dit. C’est le fait qu’il a insisté, tout comme les nationalistes, sur le rôle
primordial que pouvait et devait jouer l’Inde dans la lutte des pays colonisés contre les
puissances coloniales. Mais, une fois encore, les réponses apportées furent nettement
distinctes dans un discours et dans l’autre. Si Roy accordait à « l’Orient » en général et à
l’Inde en particulier un rôle majeur dans l’histoire mondiale de ce début de XX e siècle, c’était
en raison de ce qu’il estimait être la force exemplaire de son mouvement révolutionnaire et
non pour un quelconque motif religieux ou culturel. Comme nous l’avons vu ci-dessus, par
rapport au premier type de rhétorique, Roy ne s’est pas inscrit en faux contre toute forme
d’universalisme. Ce qui distingue son discours des autres, et notamment de celui de
la Greater India Society, est la primauté accordée aux critères socio-économiques, au
détriment des arguments nationalistes, religieux et culturels. A ce titre, sa rhétorique se
démarque complètement des divers discours orientalistes et non seulement de l’orientalisme
britannique, comme le firent les partisans de la « Grande Inde »46.
 48 Ibid., p. 89.
 49 B. K. Sarkar, « The Futurism of Young Asia ». L’article est ensuite publié avec d’autres essais
« o (...)
 50 K. Manjapra, M. N. Roy, p. 20.
33Reste le troisième type de rhétorique présentée dans l’article de Stolte et Fischer-Tiné.

Selon les auteurs, cette rhétorique se distingue des deux précédentes en ce sens qu’elle
« résista fondamentalement à l’axiome de la spiritualité “ inhérente ” à l’Asie »47. Pour son
représentant le plus célèbre, le Bengali Benoy Kumar Sarkar (1887-1949), la soi-disant
supériorité de l’Occident sur l’Asie n’était qu’une pure construction historique, tout comme le
mythe d’une différence de civilisation, purement issu selon lui d’une lecture orientaliste des
anciens textes de l’Asie, déconnectée de leur contexte de production48. Pour Sarkar, anti-
impérialiste radical, et ses compagnons de « Young Asia », la réponse à l’Occident ne devait
pas passer par la voie de la spiritualité, mais reconnaître et utiliser au contraire toutes les
sciences et techniques de l’Europe et de l’Amérique, comme avait d’ailleurs commencé à le
faire le Japon. C’est ce qu’il explique dans « The Futurism of Young Asia », un article publié
une première fois en 1918 dans la revue International Journal of Ethics et issu d’une
conférence donnée à la Clark University de Worcester une année plus tôt49. Voici,
finalement, une perspective qui s’approche de celle de Roy, en tout cas par leur refus
commun de voir en l’Inde, et l’Asie, une simple réponse spirituelle à l’Occident. Un
rapprochement entre les deux auteurs d’autant plus vraisemblable que Sarkar fut le maître
de Roy au Bengal Technical Institute en 190750. Une étude comparée et détaillée des points
de convergence et de divergence entre les deux Bengalis apporterait certainement une
lumière supplémentaire à l’histoire des relations politiques, économiques et intellectuelles
entre ces deux parties du monde ; cela déborderait toutefois le cadre de cette contribution et
nécessiterait une autre recherche.
Conclusion
 51 Il faudrait ajouter à cela le fait qu’il était originaire du Bengale et qu’il ait grandi à proximit (...)
34Avant de conclure, un aspect essentiel de la situation géographique et intellectuelle de Roy

nécessite d’être mentionné en relation avec le thème de cette publication, afin de pouvoir
ajouter un éclairage supplémentaire à son parcours atypique. Il s’agit du fort lien existant
entre l’appartenance d’un individu au « centre » – et le fait d’avoir ainsi un accès privilégié à
l’information – et la possibilité de détenir par ce biais-là une certaine forme de pouvoir. En ce
sens, Roy doit clairement être associé à une situation de pouvoir, puisqu’il se trouvait à
double titre au cœur même des centres décisionnels et idéologiques de son époque, à
savoir : l’Europe, et plus particulièrement dans son cas Berlin, foyer d’innombrables
mouvements intellectuels, politiques et culturels du début du XXe siècle, et l’Internationale
communiste, foyer de l’idéologie marxiste, dont il occupa pour un temps tous les postes
clés51. Il avait ainsi non seulement accès à toutes les informations capitales de son temps,
qu’elles proviennent d’Europe ou d’Inde – de nombreux informateurs ou émigrés indiens le
tenaient au courant des événements du sous-continent – mais il était, qui plus est, lui-même
en mesure de créer et de diffuser ce savoir grâce à ses fonctions politiques et à ses
constantes publications en de nombreuses langues.
35Cette dernière réflexion en tête, reprenons les différents éléments importants de l’article
pour interroger les notions de « centre » et de « marges » dans un cas de figure comme
celui de Roy. Nous avons vu, pour commencer, que Roy, au même titre que les nationalistes
indiens, a offert une réponse personnelle au regard porté par les historiens britanniques
(« orientalistes » ou « impérialistes ») sur l’Inde. Il a ainsi contribué à la vaste réponse des
marges au discours du centre. Mais, contrairement à eux, il n’a pas « inventé » un passé
indien glorieux, unifié, basé sur de grandes valeurs spirituelles et atemporelles, en opposition
au supposé matérialisme occidental. Au contraire, il a repris le leitmotiv du progrès social et
économique des grands discours occidentaux, que ceux-ci fussent de nature évolutionniste,
impérialiste, orientaliste ou marxiste, pour l’appliquer à la situation indienne en particulier et
à celle de tous les pays et peuples colonisés en général, sans pour autant privilégier l’idée
d’une unité, d’une essence asiatique. De ce point de vue là, il s’est réapproprié le centre pour
expliquer les marges. Par ailleurs, le constat s’impose qu’il a adopté, lui aussi, une
perspective et un discours à visée universaliste – qui plus est lorsqu’il s’est tourné, de retour
en Inde, vers la philosophie humaniste et rationaliste du Radical Humanism. Il s’est ainsi
approprié le langage du centre, du pouvoir, mais en privilégiant une région (l’Inde et plus
précisément Dehra Dun, au pied de l’Himalaya) perçue comme appartenant aux « marges »
dans le contexte colonial, mais aussi dans les années suivant l’Indépendance.
36La question qui demeure est la suivante : peut-on échapper, même avec un parcours aussi
atypique et désorientant que celui de Roy, à la tension bipolaire du centre et de la périphérie
(ou des marges) ? Peut-on l’assouplir, l’étendre pour y inclure un troisième terme ? Un
exemple possible de « décentrement » hors de l’opposition « centre-périphérie » pourrait
être fourni par la situation de Tachkent : comme nous l’avons vu ci-dessus, cette ville a pu
fonctionner comme un réel pôle de convergence et de rencontres vers la fin du XIX e et le
début du XXe siècle, alors que l’on retient d’elle l’image d’une ville et d’une région fort
éloignées des capitales et centres de pouvoir de l’époque, représentés par des villes comme
Londres, Moscou ou Kolkata.
37S’il paraît difficile d’éviter le schéma « marges-centre » qui semble s’imposer de lui-même,
même dans ce cas de figure, tout au moins l’étude d’un auteur comme M. N. Roy présente le
double avantage de mettre en lumière la nature dynamique et mouvante de cette relation et
de devoir repenser les différentes postures idéologiques qui avaient cours en Inde durant la
première moitié du XXe siècle, rappelant ainsi que tous les Indiens ne partageaient pas ce
topos orientaliste de l’Inde spirituelle s’opposant au monde occidental scientifique et
matérialiste.
Haut de page
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références par Bilbo, l'outil d'annotation
bibliographique d'OpenEdition.
Les utilisateurs des institutions qui sont abonnées à un des programmes freemium
d'OpenEdition peuvent télécharger les références bibliographiques pour lequelles Bilbo a
trouvé un DOI.
Bibliographie
BAYLY, Susan, « Imagining “ Greater India ” : French and Indian Visions of Colonialism in the
Indic Mode », Modern Asian Studies, 38/3 (2004), p. 703-744.
DOI : 10.1017/S0026749X04001246
—, « India’s “ Empire of Culture ” : Sylvain Lévi and the Greater India Society », in Sylvain
Lévi (1863-1935) : Etudes indiennes, histoire sociale, éd. par Lyne Bansat-Boudon, Roland
Lardinois, Turnhout, Brepols, 2007, p. 193-212.
BHATTACHARYA, Swapna, « Bengal and Germany : Some Aspects of Political, Economic and
Intellectual Encounter », en ligne :
<http://www.india.diplo.de/contentblob/3184072/Daten/2137509/download_datei_bengal_g
ermany.pdf> (consulté le 21.09.2013).
BOQUERAT, Gilles, « Du bond en avant au retour en arrière, évolution de la perception

indienne de l’Asie centrale au cours du XXe siècle », Cahiers d’Asie centrale, 1/2 (1996), p.
283-296.
CARR, Barry, « Marxism and Anarchism in the Formation of the Mexican Communist Party,
1910-19 », The Hispanic American Historical Review, 63/2 (1983), p. 277-305.
DOI : 10.2307/2514710
CHOUHAN, A. P. S., SINGH, Dinesh Kumar, « M. N. Roy and Marxism », The Indian Journal of
Political Science, 66/3 (2005), p. 633-648.
DALTON, D. G., « M. N. Roy and Radical Humanism : The Ideology of an Indian Intellectual
Elite », in Elites in South Asia, ed. by Edmund Leach, S. N. Mukherjee, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1970, p. 152-171.
FROST, Mark Ravinder, « “ That Great Ocean of Idealism ” : The Tagore Circle and the Idea of
Asia, 1900-1920 », in Indian Ocean Studies : Cultural, Social and Political Perspectives, ed.
by Shanty Moorthy, Ashraf Jamal, New York/London, Routledge, 2010, p. 251-279.
GOEBEL, Michael, « Una biografía entre espacios : M. N. Roy, del nacionalismo indio al
comunismo mexicano », Historia Mexicana, 62/4 (2013), p. 1457-1493.
HAITHCOX, John Patrick, Communism and Nationalism in India : M. N. Roy and Comintern

Policy, 1920-1939, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1971.
DOI : 10.1515/9781400869329
HAY, Stephen N., Asian Ideas of East and West : Tagore and his Critics in Japan, China, and
India, Cambridge (Mas.), Harvard University Press, 1970.
KARNIK, V. B., M. N. Roy : Political Biography, Bombay, Nav Jagriti Samaj, 1978.
KAVIRAJ, Sudipta, « The Heteronomous Radicalism of M. N. Roy », in Political Thought in

Modern India, ed. by Thomas Pantham, Kenneth L. Deutsch, New Delhi/Beverly Hills/London,
Sage, 1986, p. 209-235.
MANJAPRA, Kris, M. N. Roy : Marxism and Colonial Cosmopolitanism, London/New York/New

Delhi, Routledge, 2010.
MINAULT, Gail, The Khilafat Movement : Religious Symbolism and Political Mobilization in

India, New York/Guildford, Columbia University Press, 1982.
NATH, Ramendra, « Manbendra Nath Roy (1887-1954) », Internet Encycopedia of Philosophy,

en ligne : <http://www.iep.utm.edu/roy_mn/> (consulté le 21.09.2013).
QURESHI, M. Naeem, Pan-Islam in British Indian Politics : A Study of the Khilafat Movement,

1918-1924, Leiden/Boston/Köln, Brill, 1999.
ROY, Evelyn, « Mahatma Gandhi : Revolutionary or Counter-Revolutionary ? A Reply to

Romain Rolland and Henri Barbusse », Labour Monthly, 5/3 (1923), en ligne :
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/roy-evelyn/articles/1923/gandhi_rev_counter.htm>
(consulté le 18.02.2014).
ROY, M. N., India in Transition, with collaboration of Abani Mukherji, Genève, Edition de la

Librairie J. B. Target, 1922.
—, « A Programme for the Indian National Congress », The Advanced-Guard, (1 décembre
1922), en ligne : <http://www.marxists.org/archive/roy/1922/12/national-congress-
program.htm> (consulté le 18.02.2014).
—, « Bourgeois Nationalism », Vanguard, 3/1 (1923), en ligne :

<http://www.marxists.org/archive/roy/1923/08/15a.htm> (consulté le 18.02.2014).
—, « On the Duty of Revolutionary Intellectuals », Political Letters, Zurich, The Vanguard

Bookshop (1924), en ligne : <http://www.marxists.org/archive/roy/1923/08/15.htm>
—, Fragments of a Prisoner’s Diary, vol. 2, India’s Message, Calcutta, Renaissance

Publishers, 1950.
—, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol. 1, 1917-1922, ed. by Sibnarayan Ray, New Delhi
[etc.], Oxford University Press, 1987.
—, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol. 2, 1923-1927, ed. by Sibnarayan Ray, New Delhi

[etc.], Oxford University Press, 2000.
SARKAR, Benoy Kumar, « The Futurism of Young Asia », International Journal of Ethics, 28/4
(1918), p. 521-541.
DOI : 10.1086/intejethi.28.4.2377465
STOLTE, Carolien, FISCHER-TINÉ, Harald, « Imagining Asia in India : Nationalism and

Internationalism (ca. 1905-1940) », Comparative Studies in Society and History, 54/1
(2012), p. 65-92.
DOI : 10.1017/S0010417511000594
TROTSKY, Leon, « An Open Letter to the Workers of India », New International, 5/9 (1939),
p. 263-266. En ligne : <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/india.htm>
VIGREUX, Jean, « Manabendra Nath Roy (1887-1954), “ représentant des Indes

britanniques ” au Komintern ou la critique de l’impérialisme britannique », Cahiers d’histoire.
Revue d’histoire critique, 111 (2010), p. 81-95. En ligne : <http://chrhc.revues.org/2075>
Haut de page
Notes
1 Pour de plus amples informations, voir M. N. Roy, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol. 1, p. 9-56 ;
J. P. Haithcox, Communism and Nationalism in India ; V. B. Karnik, M. N. Roy : Political
Biography.
2 Cf. S. Bhattacharya, « Bengal and Germany », p. 6 : « It may be mentioned here that around
the same time (1915-1916) Germany’s involvement with the Indian nationalist movement reached
it’s [sic] climax. Under the leadership of Baron Openheimer, the German Foreign office opened a
special committee for the Orient (Turkey) and India. »
3 En passant par la Malaisie, l’Indonésie, l’Indochine, les Philippines, le Japon, la Corée et la
Chine.
4 Il opère ce changement de nom sur le conseil de Dhana Gopal Mukherjee, l’ami chez qui il loge,
qui lui recommande de faire ainsi table rase de « son passé de militant nationaliste pour se
consacrer à la révolution sociale » (V. B. Karnik, M. N. Roy : Political Biography, p. 41).
5 Cf. J. Vigreux, « Manabendra Nath Roy (1887-1954) », version électronique § 10 : « Roy met à
profit ce séjour pour parfaire sa maîtrise des langues ; polyglotte, il parle et écrit en bengali, en
anglais, en espagnol, en allemand, en français et en russe. C’est au Mexique, qu’il publie son
premier livre en espagnol, La India, Su Pasado, Su Presente Y Su Porvenir (L’Inde, son passé, son
présent et son avenir) dans lequel il développe ses thèses anticolonialistes. » Sur cet épisode
mexicain, voir M. Goebel, « Una biografía entre espacios ».
6 Sur cet épisode, voir B. Carr, « Marxism and Anarchism in the Formation of the Mexican
Communist Party, 1910-19 ».
7 Dans sa version française, le texte final sera publié sous le titre de « Thèses et additions sur les
questions nationale et coloniale ».
8 M. N. Roy, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol. 1, p. 20.
9 Le mouvement du Califat (ou Khilafat en Inde) fut un mouvement qui prit place en Inde en 1919
pour soutenir le sultan (et calife) de l’Empire ottoman et protester contre la politique britannique
au Moyen-Orient. Suite au traité de Sèvres, qui signait le démembrement de l’Empire ottoman,
le Central Khilafat Committee vit le jour à Allahabad en juin 1920 et inspira la première campagne
de non-coopération (1920-1922), pour laquelle l’engagement de Gandhi allait s’avérer crucial. Sur
le mouvement du Califat, voir G. Minault, The Khilafat Movement ; M. N. Qureshi, Pan-Islam in
British Indian Politics. Sur le rôle de Roy à Tachkent, voir G. Boquerat, « Du bond en avant au
retour en arrière, évolution de la perception indienne de l’Asie centrale au cours du XXe siècle », p.
286 ; J. P. Haithcox, Communism and Nationalism in India, p. 20-23.
10 Le procès-verbal de la rencontre est reproduit dans M. N. Roy, Selected Works of M. N. Roy,
vol. 1, p. 179. Les communistes indiens actuels sont divisés sur la question de l’origine du parti en
Inde. Les membres du Parti communiste de l’Inde (marxiste) soutiennent qu’il a justement été
fondé à Tachkent en 1920, alors que ceux du Parti communiste de l’Inde (CPI) font remonter sa
naissance au 26 décembre 1925 à l’occasion de la première conférence communiste panindienne à
Kanpur.
11 J. P. Haithcox, Communism and Nationalism in India, p. 24.
12 J. Vigreux, « Manabendra Nath Roy (1887-1954) », version électronique § 20.
13 Sur les raisons de cette expulsion, voir J. P. Haithcox, Communism and Nationalism in India, p.
130-139. V. B. Karnik, un de ses fidèles alliés du Radical Humanist Movement, résume ainsi les
critiques que Roy formulait alors contre le communisme tel qu’il le percevait : « Communism,
which he had hoped would after its victorious fight against fascism assume the leadership of world
forces of progress, had degenerated into nationalism and equated itself with the nationalist
interests of Russia. » (M. N. Roy : Political Biography, p. 543). Avant cela toutefois, en février
1927, Roy aura été envoyé à Guangzhou (Canton) comme représentant du Komintern pour
soutenir le mouvement révolutionnaire chinois (et le soulèvement agraire contre le nationalisme
du Guomindang de Tchang Kaï-chek). Après l’échec du mouvement agraire, Roy quitte la Chine en
juillet et se tourne vers une autre approche de la solidarité sociale, estimant que la paysannerie
seule ne peut mener la révolution et se libérer : il propose de former le Workers and Peasants
Parties (WPP) en Inde, qui inclut cette fois la petite bourgeoisie.
14 Cf. R. Nath, « Manbendra Nath Roy (1887-1954) » : « Roy tried to reformulate materialism in
the light of latest developments in the physical and biological sciences. He was convinced that
without the growth and development of a materialist and rationalist outlook in India, neither a
renaissance nor a democratic revolution would be possible. »
15 Par antipathie à l’égard des institutions et par rejet de ses pairs, Roy s’aliène de plus en plus
d’anciens « amis » communistes ou congressistes. Contrairement à eux, il est alors en faveur
d’une « mediated autonomy, in which freedom would arrive within the framework of a South Asian
federative union of member nations, and within a transnational federation of democratic
governments worldwide » (K. Manjapra, M. N. Roy, p. XVII).
16 Voici, à titre d’exemple, le paragraphe final de la version préparatoire de l’Indian Communist

Manifesto que Roy rédigea avec sa première femme et Abani Mukherji (1891-1937) à Berlin, peu
avant de se rendre au deuxième Congrès de l’Internationale communiste à Moscou : « Cease to
fall victims to the imperialist cry that the masses of the East are backward races and must go
through the hell fires of capitalistic exploitation from which you are struggling to escape. We
appeal to you to recognise the Indian revolutionary movement as a vital part of the world
proletarian struggle against capitalism. Help us to raise the banner of the social revolution in India
and to free ourselves from capitalistic imperialism that we may help you in the final struggle for
the realisation of the universal communist state. » (M. N. Roy, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol.
1, p. 164). Cette application fidèle du modèle marxiste à la situation indienne, plutôt que son
adaptation, a d’ailleurs été régulièrement sujette à critiques ; voir par exemple S. Kaviraj, « The
Heteronomous Radicalism of M. N. Roy », p. 234, ou A. P. S. Chouhan, D. K. Singh, « M. N. Roy
and Marxism », p. 641.
17 Il devra d’ailleurs clarifier sa critique à l’égard des nationalistes en soulignant la distinction qu’il
opère entre « le nationalisme bourgeois conçu pour servir les intérêts des classes supérieures (et
notamment les capitalistes) et le patriotisme révolutionnaire fondé sur le noble idéal d’assurer le
bonheur et la prospérité pour la majorité du peuple » (M. N. Roy, « Bourgeois Nationalism »).
18 Gandhi, par son attitude conciliante à l’égard du pouvoir britannique et son rejet de la
rhétorique révolutionnaire, était en effet considéré par les marxistes comme un exemple typique
de la « bourgeoisie indienne ». Illustrant cette critique à l’aube de la Seconde Guerre mondiale,
Léon Trotsky (1879-1940) a cette formule lapidaire à son égard : « The leader and prophet of this
bourgeoisie is Gandhi. A fake leader and a false prophet ! » (L. Trotsky, « An Open Letter to the
Workers of India »).
19 Cf. M. N. Roy, India in Transition, p. 11 : « The British ruling class is anxious to be the god-
father of this child and has appointed the clever midwife of imperial Liberalism to help its birth. »
20 Ibid., p. 12.
21 Ibid., p. 13.
22 A ce stade (1922), la rhétorique asiatiste qui allait faire de l’Inde la porteuse de civilisation en
Asie du Sud-Est n’a pas encore vu le jour. Elle apparaîtra quelques années plus tard avec la
naissance de la Greater India Society (voir point 3 ci-après).
23 M. N. Roy, India in Transition, p. 148.
24 Ibid., p. 145.
25 Ibid., p. 147 sq.
26 Ibid., p. 149.
27 Ibid., p. 147.
28 Ibid., p. 156.
29 Ibid., p. 156 sq.
30 Ibid., p. 157 : « The British East India Company succeeded in establishing its political
domination over India with the help of, and subsequently at the cost of, the native trading class
which, together with the intelligencia, constituted the progressive and objectively most
revolutionary factor of Indian society in the middle and latter parts of the eighteenth century. »
31 Dans le « Programme for the Indian National Congress » qu’il rédige et envoie à diverses
personnes et organisations en Inde en décembre 1922, Roy établit un programme de « libération
nationale » en vingt points. Alors que le premier objectif listé est l’indépendance complète du
pays, suivi par une série d’objectifs socio-économiques, le premier point mentionnant
expressément la question religieuse n’intervient qu’en antépénultième position et dit : « The State
will be separated from all religious creeds, and the freedom of belief and worship will be
guaranteed. » (M. N. Roy, « A Programme for the Indian National Congress »).
32 C. Stolte, H. Fischer-Tiné, « Imagining Asia in India », p. 75 sq. Ces auteurs définissent

globalement les discours « asiatistes » comme « discourses and ideologies claiming that Asia can
be defined and understood as a homogenous space with shared and clearly defined
characteristics » (ibid., p. 65).
33 Ibid., p. 77.
34 Sur Tagore et le rôle de Calcutta dans le discours panasiatiste, voir M. R. Frost, « “ That Great
Ocean of Idealism ” » ; sur Tagore et sa réception en Asie, voir S. N. Hay, Asian Ideas of East and
West.
35 C. Stolte, H. Fischer-Tiné, « Imagining Asia in India », p. 80.
36 Cf. par exemple M. N. Roy, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol. 2, p. 225 (« On Patriotism »,
lettre datée du 12 juin 1923) : « A movement which is based only on patriotism cannot go very far
in these days. Pure Indian patriotism smacks of reaction, and produces Gandhis and Arabindas
[i.e. Aurobindo], about whom you have no more illusions » ; ou ibid., p. 237 (« On the Duty of the
Revolutionary Intellectuals », lettre datée du 15 août 1923) : « It is stupidity or sheer hypocrisy to
say that our nationalism will be different from European nationalism. Nationalism is always
aggressive, directly or indirectly. »
37 M. N. Roy, India in Transition, p. 192 sq. En ce sens, et même si le regard de Roy sur la

question spirituelle changera quelque peu par la suite, il paraît erroné de faire un « rapprochement
étroit » avec Vivekānanda comme le fait D. G. Dalton, « M. N. Roy and Radical Humanism », p.
158.
38 Quelques années plus tard, après sa sortie de prison suite à son retour en Inde, il utilisera un
langage encore plus fleuri pour dénoncer cette conception de l’Inde (M. N. Roy, Fragments of a
Prisoner’s Diary, vol. 2, p. VII) : « The belief in India’s spiritual message to the materialist West is
a heady wine. It is time to realise that the pleasant inebriation offered a solace to proud
intellectuals with inferiority complex. »
39 E. Roy, « Mahatma Gandhi ».
40 M. N. Roy, Selected Works of M. N. Roy, vol. 2, p. 362 (« Mr Rolland and the “ Asiatic Peril ” »,
publié dans The Masses of India, I/7, juillet 1925).
41 Sur la Greater India Society et sur la relation de ses membres avec l’indianisme français, voir
de S. Bayly, « Imagining “ Greater India ” » et « India’s “ Empire of Culture ” ».
42 Deux des membres fondateurs de la Greater India Society, fondée à Kolkata en 1926.
44 « La grande assemblée des hindous », parti nationaliste hindou fondé en 1915 pour défendre
les intérêts des hindous au sein du Congress, qui fit place plus tard au Bharatiya Jana Sangh, puis
à l’actuel Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), le « Parti du peuple indien ».
46 S. Bayly, « Imagining “ Greater India ” », p. 710 sq.
48 Ibid., p. 89.
49 B. K. Sarkar, « The Futurism of Young Asia ». L’article est ensuite publié avec d’autres essais
« on the relations between the East and the West » sous forme de livre en 1922 à Berlin, la même
année et au même endroit donc que India in Transition de Roy.
50 K. Manjapra, M. N. Roy, p. 20.
51 Il faudrait ajouter à cela le fait qu’il était originaire du Bengale et qu’il ait grandi à proximité de
Kolkata puis dans la ville même, alors capitale de l’Empire britannique des Indes et un des centres
les plus cosmopolites de l’océan indien.
Haut de page
Pour citer cet article
Référence papier
Nicola Pozza, « Le monde en révolutions ou le parcours désorientant de M. N. Roy », Études de
lettres, 2-3 | 2014, 343-366.
Référence électronique
Nicola Pozza, « Le monde en révolutions ou le parcours désorientant de M. N. Roy », Études de
lettres [En ligne], 2-3 | 2014, mis en ligne le 15 septembre 2017, consulté le 04 novembre
2021. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/edl/785 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/edl.785
Haut de page
Auteur
Nicola Pozza
Université de Lausanne
Articles du même auteur
 Inde, pays protéiforme: là où tout a commencé [Texte intégral]
Paru dans Études de lettres, 312 | 2020

Haut de page
Droits d’auteur
Revisiting M. N. Roy
Two part series on Intellectual and Political Life of M.
N. Roy
 Sankalp Gurjar

 28 Jan 2020

 2 comments


M. N. Roy (center) with Vladimir Lenin and Maxim Gorky
January 25th was the Death Anniversary of Naren Bhattacharya, better

known as M. N. Roy (1887-1954); An Indian revolutionary, radical
activist and political theorist, as well as a noted philosopher from 20th
century. Two part series will focus on the personality of M N Roy and
his endeavours across the globe. It tries to highlight this fact that
personalities like M N Roy, who were not rooted in any one particular
national and ideological context, are being overlooked and the need to
bring them back into the mainstream of national histories and also in
histories of particular ideologies or movements. While tracing the
intellectual and political Life of M. N. Roy, this part of the article will
deal with Roy’s career before entering Indian Politics.
Just like Jawaharlal Nehru, Roy was active in politics for more than
four decades. Born on 21 March 1887 at Arbelia, West Bengal, he
started out in 1905 when Bengal was partitioned by the then British
Viceroy Lord Curzon and he decided to leave active political life in
1947 when India attained independence. Roy’s actions throughout his
life were motivated by his particular ideological formations. In that
sense, he tried to bring unity in his thought and action. And so, he
never wavered to put forth his ideas even if it was going against the
current. To better understand Roy, it is necessary to have a look at
Roy’s ideas briefly and how they were evolving continuously before
proceeding further.
There exists a constant thread of anti-
imperialism and pursuit of freedom in Roy’s thinking throughout his life.
That drove him initially towards militant nationalism. When he turned to
Marxism in late 1910’s, he synthesized Marxist ideas with his specific
context of colonial India. Marxism expanded Roy’s quest for freedom
from just nationalistic ambitions to internationalist direction. From
Marxism he moved to ‘radical humanism’ (which will be discussed
later) in late 1940’s.
Roy’s ideational circle was continuously expanding. He started from

anti-colonial national liberation movement and moved to the liberation
of oppressed classes of Asia in particular and the world in general
through Marxism. In his intellectual advancement, he reached a point
(of radical humanism) when he considered freedom and reason as two
most important values for human existence. In this enlargement of his
ideas, he never lost a streak of radicalism (and which might have
prevented him from becoming a successful political organizer). With
this backdrop in mind, let’s take a look at Roy’s career.
Roy’s political-intellectual career can be divided up in four phases. First

phase is from 1905 to 1915 when he was active in India through his
extremely militant methods. Second phase is his international career
which spans from 1915 to 1930. In this phase he was transformed from
being a radical freedom fighter to a brilliant communist theoretician-
leader who challenged Lenin’s ideas about the support for anti-colonial
struggles and tried to spread revolutionary Marxist ideas in Asia.
Third phase of Roy begins in 1930 when he returned to India

clandestinely and was put in prison for Six years. This phase ends in
1948 when he dissolved his Radical Democratic Party and retired from
active politics. Fourth and last phase of his life is from 1948 to 1954
when he decided to stay put at Dehradun to pursue intellectual
endeavors by forming Indian Renaissance Institute. In this phase he
also organized camps for training his (especially young) followers.
Each phase of Roy’s career is explained in detail in the next section.

Given the nature of work he carried out, focus is obviously more on his
second and third phase i.e. between 1915 to 1948. First and Fourth
phase will be covered briefly.

Roy before Comintern: 1905-1920
Bengal was politically very active in later years of 19th century and was
proving difficult for the British to manage. They decided to partition it in
1905 and thereby to divide Bengalis in two separate provinces wherein
they will be in a minority. This sparked off violent reactions and Bengal
stood up against the partition.
It was around the same time that
Bengali youth was getting organized and also radicalized for toppling
the British Raj from India. Many organizations were formed then in
Bengal, one of them being Anusheelan Samiti. Roy joined it (Roy,
1997, p.4). He was involved in various cases of robberies to raise
funds for the terrorist activities and to acquire arms and ammunition.
He travelled extensively to organize various terror groups around early
1910’s. He was arrested more than once in this period by the British
authorities for his activities.
As the clouds of First World War were gathering, Roy and his group
got in touch with the German officials in Calcutta to obtain arms and
funds. It was this search which took him to the then Dutch ruled
Indonesia in 1915 and from then on to the United States of America
(USA) via Japan (Roy, 1997, pp.4-13). He landed on the West coast of
the USA with which first phase of his life ended.
The British officials knew about Roy, so they followed him even in the
USA. In the USA he met Indian revolutionaries who were organizing
revolt in the British India (Roy, 1997, pp.13-18). They were known by
the name ‘Ghadar’ which meant ‘rebellion’. They were led by Lala
Lajpat Rai who later became famous for anti-Simon Commission
agitation in Lahore in 1928. (In the USA, at around the same B R
Ambedkar was also completing his Doctorate from Columbia
University. There is no evidence which could substantiate any claims
whether Roy met him or not.) Search was still on for Roy as the British
wanted him. There were even news reports about Roy’s arrival in the
US.

Roy met his first wife Evelyn in the USA (Roy, 1997, p.14). She
introduced him to the Western ideas and was responsible to bring a
shift in his focus from nationalistic causes to the internationalist ones
(Roy, 1997, pp.20-21). To avoid the British spies, he went to Mexico in
1917 with his wife. There he formed the Mexican Communist Party
(Roy, 1997, p.28), first in the entire Western Hemisphere and also first
outside the Soviet Union (Karnik, 2012, p.28). He got along well with
the then President Carranza of Mexico (Karnik, 2012, pp.26-30).
Through his writing and work in Mexico, Roy became very popular. He
was introduced to the European arts and culture in Mexico which
broadened his overall outlook (Roy, 1997, p.21). Roy was specifically
attracted towards the process of renaissance, reformation and
enlightenment in Europe. Before Mexico, Roy’s exposure was limited
to India and Indian culture. This introduction to European culture in
addition to Marxism was to have lasting impact on his thinking process.
During his stay in Mexico, Roy also met Borodin, a high ranking Soviet
Official sent to the USA for spreading Communist ideas. Borodin
debated with Roy about various Marxist ideas and completed Roy’s
ideological turn from right wing nationalism to the left wing
internationalism (Roy, 1997, pp.22-30).
Because of his work in Mexico and his friendship with Borodin, Roy got
an invitation to attend the Second Communist international (Comintern)
in 1920. He attended that conference as a Mexican representative
(Roy, 1997, pp.29-30). There were invited Indian representatives, but
then he was assumed to be de-facto Indian representative.
Comintern Years: 1920-1930

Marx had focused on the advanced capitalist countries i.e. west
European countries for his analysis of capitalism. He counted on the
industrial labor class (proletariat) in those countries to overthrow the
oppressive capitalist system and bring about socialist order of
classless society. Lenin, using Marxist methods, had put forward his
thesis in 1915 which proclaimed that Imperialism is the highest stage
of capitalism. With the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 in Russia, first
Communist government in the world was formed. They overthrew
Tsarist regime and proclaimed that now a people’s republic has been
formed (Mclean & Mcmillan, 2009, pp.470-71).
Formation of Communist government in Russia was an important
development for capitalist world. Attempts were made to subdue this
revolution and Bolshevik government. Civil War had started in Russia
in the aftermath of revolution and it continued in 1918-19. Meanwhile,
Russian Marxists thought to spread the revolution across the world.
Marxism as an ideology had an internationalist outlook right from the
beginning. Marx himself had given call for ‘workers of the world to
unite’. So, it was but natural that after the revolution, Russian Marxists
thought of spreading their ideology across the world. They formed
Communist International, better known as Comintern, for this purpose
(Stalin disbanded it later).
Comintern's first congress was convened in 1919 in Moscow, Russian

capital (Mclean & Mcmillan, 2009, p.269). Second Congress of
Comintern took place next year in 1920 which M N Roy attended as
Mexican representative. In the Second Congress, discussing the
colonial world, position was taken that united front should be taken to
oppose colonial governments. Communist parties were to be involved
in the national liberation struggles. Lenin himself had supported this
formulation. But M N Roy argued against this line of thinking. He was
of the opinion that communist movements in colonies should be
supported but not bourgeois led national freedom struggles (Roy,
1997, pp.38-52) (Remnek, 1975).
Roy, with his synthesis of Indian experience and Marxism, also

expounded in the Second International that to overthrow capitalism in
the metropolitan countries of the west, their colonies in Asia should first
be liberated. This would reduce the capacity of the colonial capitalism
to exploit colonies and sustain itself. It means, capitalism of Europe
depended on colonies in Asia (Roy, 1997, p.49). So, struggles in
colonies for freedom attained importance as they were in effect
opposing the imperialism and capitalism of the west which
Communists were also opposing and were hoping to bring it down.
This formulation then raised an important question as to whether to

support ongoing national liberation movements in colonies or not.
According to Roy, bourgeoisie in the colonized societies was not to be
trusted for revolution (Roy, 1997, pp.49-52). Their help should be taken
so far as they are useful for ending the Imperialism in colonies. But
then, communist parties in the colonies should remain at the forefront
of this struggle because national bourgeoisie remains in alliance with
the old, feudal structure (Roy, 1997, p.52). But Roy’s theses were not
given adequate attention.
Roy’s argument was different from Lenin’s formulation of supporting

existing national liberation movements in colonies. With this debate,
then 33 year old Roy reached to the high echelons of Comintern
(Karnik, 2012, p.37). He was to play major role in deciding Comintern’s
policies about colonies. In the immediate years after First World War,
from 1920 to 1925, Roy was directing communist movement in India
from his base in the Soviet Union.
India of early 1920’s was swayed over by Gandhian method of non
violent struggle and his overall politics. Gandhi brought in new
enthusiasm in masses about India’s freedom and expanded the
organizational base of Congress. Communists were standing against
Gandhi and his Congress. British imperialism was their prime target
but the mainstream of freedom movement was also not radical enough
for Communists. So, they had to fight against both of them for gaining
influence.
Roy established Indian Communist Party in Tashkent, present day in

Uzbekistan, and formed an Indian military academy to train Indians-in-
exile in communist ideology and military tactics. This activity was later
stopped under the pressure of British Government on Bolsheviks. It
was used as a bargaining tool by Bolsheviks to get trade related
concessions from the Britain (Karnik, 2012, p.41) (Roy, 1997, pp.55-
56).
Roy tried to invade India via Afghanistan in early 1920’s. Afghanistan

then was providing passage to Roy’s trained men to India. But this
effort of Roy was not approved by Afghan government, which was a
monarchy under the British influence then. Though Communists in
Moscow supported it, they were skeptical about the efficacy of this plan
from the beginning (Remnek, 1975).
British government in India was very watchful of Roy’s activities

pertaining to India. So, they embarked upon the strategy to contain
Roy’s influence, disrupt his lines of communication and supply (of
money, materials and men), track his followers and if possible, put
them in prison.
Due to Roy’s aggressive propaganda efforts and independently as well

small groups communist groups were emerging in early to mid 1920’s
in Indian cities like Mumbai, Madras and Lahore etc (Karnik, 2012,
p.44). These small communist outfits were working, not always in
tandem with Roy. As mentioned earlier, Congress was the strongest
political force in India then. Congress was also a mass movement. He
pressed his followers to infiltrate Congress from within as that would
have provided them easy way in to masses and also a chance to
spread their ideology. But it was not what happened (Remnek, 1975).
British Indian government had decided to contain Communism in India.

They orchestrated trials in Kanpur. These trials of 1924 were a major
setback to the mushrooming communist movement in India. Many
young communist leaders were arrested and growth of communist
influence was effectively checked. Roy was far away in Europe, unable
to help his Indian comrades (Roy, 1997, pp.60-61). British had
carefully spread misinformation about him which contributed to his
image being taken a hit in India (Roy, 1997, pp.100-01).
At around the same time, debate was going on in Comintern as to who

should guide communist movements in colonies? Whether communist
parties in metropolitan countries should do it or communist parties in
colonial world are allowed to set their own course? Sentiments in
Comintern were in favor of former arrangement. Roy did not agree to it.
But in 1925, Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) took over
responsibility of guiding Indian communist movement from Roy
(Karnik, 2012, p.46).
Roy was then sent to China where a civil war was going on and
Chinese communists were actively taking part in it. Roy’s old friend
Borodin was also engaged in China. In Chinese civil war, Kuomintang
(KMT) led by Chiang-Kai-Shek was the dominant group. He was
initially supported by the Soviet communists. They were helped to set
up a military academy and moreover were provided with other required
assistance (Karnik, 2012, pp.48-49).
For Roy and his fellow communists, three main questions were to be
addressed in China. First was how long should Chinese communists
co-operate with KMT? Second question was about the timing of
agrarian revolution. And third question was about the second northern
expedition being undertaken by Communist armies. Roy differed with
Borodin on all three. Roy made a case for breaching ties with KMT
immediately; he argued to implement agrarian revolution as early as
possible in communist controlled areas and also opposed second
northern campaign (Karnik, 2012, pp.50-51).
His reservations proved correct. Very soon, KMT leadership, under

pressure from its own right wing, embarked upon slaughtering
communists. Northern campaign also turned out to be a failure and it
eventually reduced strength of Communists (Karnik, 2012, pp.51-53).
After the death of Lenin in 1924, Comintern was undergoing internal

pressures of its own where struggle for power was being fought which
ultimately resulted in Roy being expelled from Comintern. (More on
that later.) It affected Comintern’s decision making related to China.
Chinese communists did break ties with the KMT but that was too late
for them. Their influence and strength was reducing by then. Later Mao
had criticized Roy and Borodin both for their failure in China (Roy,
1997, pp.78-80).
Meanwhile in 1926, Roy had come up with another thesis on the

changing nature of imperialism in India. He said, “(D) ays of classic
imperialism were over.” According to him, to prevent the collapse of
British capitalism, which was finding it, difficult to export capital to
colonies, it was compelled to mobilize resources in colonies and
encourage industrialization there. This stage, he argued, would
inevitably lead India to attain dominion status within the British Empire.
In this process, national bourgeoisie would be “granted partnership” in
imperialist exploitation and so national liberation struggles led by such
bourgeoisie should not be supported by communists.
This formulation was called as ‘Theory of Decolonization’ and

ultimately it was to prove as one of the main reasons for Roy’s
expulsion from Comintern. Roy’s thesis generated storm in Comintern.
His theory was not adopted and was denounced (Roy, 1997, pp.80-
84). It was not his thesis per se but rather its name and what it implied
mattered more.
In late 1920’s fascism was on rise, due to economic depression and its
effects, in Europe and German communists were of the opinion to join
hands with social democrats for checking the growth of fascism.
Comintern opposed this move. But nonetheless Germans went ahead
with their conviction. Roy also supported them. Stalin was
consolidating his power in the Soviet Russia and was of the opinion to
strengthen socialism in country. Those who were opposed to Stalin
were all expelled from Comintern including Zinoviev and Roy. 1929
can be called as a ‘year of expulsions’ in Comintern. Various groups
were expelled from communist movements across the world (Roy,
1997, pp.85-86). Roy fled from Russia to Germany and lived there with
the help of his Mexican passport. In Germany, Roy wrote his book on
China whose 100,000 copies were sold very quickly. In addition to that,
he continued to write for journals edited by former communists (Roy,
1997, p.86). This expulsion from Comintern put an end to second and
most important phase of Roy’s life.
- Sankalp Gurjar
References:
1. Roy, S., 1997. M N Roy: A Political Biography. Hyderabad: Orient
Longman.
2. Karnik, V.B., 2012. Manvendranath Roy ( Marathi). Delhi: National
Book Trust.
3. Mclean, I. & Mcmillan, A., 2009. The Concise Dictionary of Politics.
New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Remnek, R.B., 1975. M N Roy and the Comintern 1920-24.
Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 3 (Fall/ Winter), pp.26-35.
Read Second Part of this article:

M. N. Roy and Indian politics
The Indian Radical Who Helped

Found the Mexican Communist
Party
BY
ADITYA IYER
Exiled from India, anti-colonial activist M. N. Roy charted a
revolutionary course that took him everywhere from New
York City to Mexico, where he helped found the Mexican
Communist Party. His life was the epitome of socialist
internationalism.
M. N. Roy with other delegates at the Second World Congress of the Communist
International, Petrograd, 1920. (Wikimedia Commons)
Our new issue, “The Working Class,” is out in print and online
now. Subscribe today at a discount to get it.
Jeremy Corbyn: Climate Crisis Is a Class Issue
Jeremy Corbyn
When Oklahoma Was the Heartland of American Socialism
Meagan Day
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: What the NBA Championship Means to Me
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
We Will Never Forget Dawn Foster
Lynsey Hanley
When the Indian nationalist M. N. Roy entered a small Chinese restaurant in

1917’s Mexico City, he just intended to make a new friend in the strange land
in which he was exiled. Instead, he would leave his lunch with aging Mexican
socialist Adolfo Santibáñez with an idea, creating what would become the first
Communist Party outside of Russia — an improbable twist of fate that would
propel him to global fame.
Narendra Nath Bhattacharya, later known as M. N. Roy, was born on March
21, 1897, in the village of Arbelia near Calcutta. He joined the revolutionary
independence organization Anushilan Samiti at the age of fourteen. Created by
the Bengali barrister Pramanath Nath Mitra, the Samiti believed that a
nationwide armed struggle was the only salient method to defeat the British
Empire.
The outbreak of WWI made the Samiti look to Imperial Germany as a

potential ally given their mutual enemy, the British. In 1914, the word came
back; Germany was prepared to finance the revolution. Bhattacharya left for
Japan in 1915 in what he assumed would be a short trip to meet the German
consul for an, in hindsight, absurd plan. As he wrote decades later in
his Memoirs, the Samiti had decided “to use German ships interned in a port
at the northern tip of Sumatra, to storm the Andaman Islands, and free and
arm the prisoners there,” and procure “several hundred rifles and other small
arms” from Chinese smugglers to do so.
The trip was a failure; the Germans swiftly proclaimed they could not help
fellow Indian nationalist Subhas Bose unless he went to Berlin, and
Bhattacharya had to flee Japanese police investigating his activities. He would
not see India again for the next sixteen years.
The revolutionary bounced from Japan to China, often travelling in disguise to

throw pursuing colonial police off his trail. To make it to Berlin via the United
States, Roy disguised himself as “Father Martin,” a theologian from French-
controlled Pondicherry, and obtained a fake passport from his German
contacts.
M. N. Roy (Wikimedia Commons)
Bhattacharya arrived in San Francisco in the summer of 1916. He would

slowly discard his suspicion of Marxism while conversing with American
radicals, marry, and change his name to Manabendra Nath Roy.
This almost leisurely sojourn came to an abrupt halt once the United States
joined WWI a year later. Now no longer a quirky Indian revolutionary but
instead a German collaborator, Roy fled across the border to Mexico at a
critical juncture in its history.
The constitution had just been passed by General Venustiano Carranza, the

“victor” of the Mexican Revolution. His former allies, Emiliano Zapata and
Pancho Villa, continued to challenge his regime.
Roy began writing for a local newspaper, El Pueblo, about the shared

struggles of the non-Western world fighting for their liberty. His words
reached a wide audience well-accustomed to the idea of revolution, from
liberals such as Carranza to socialists like Santibáñez, with whom Roy
founded the Socialist Workers Party in 1917.
But it was a revolution yet to come that would change the course of Roy’s
life: that of the Bolsheviks. Roy recounts being “swept up in that electrified
atmosphere” as his Mexican peers celebrated Vladimir Lenin’s triumph, and
this euphoria combined with Roy’s newfound socialist leanings prompted him
to formally change his party’s name in 1919 to the Mexican Communist Party
(PCM).
Though the PCM failed to impact the Mexican political landscape, its

establishment on the other side of the world drew the attention of the
Bolsheviks. Mikhail Borodin soon arrived to personally invite Roy to
the Comintern’s Second World Congress.
Roy reached Moscow in the summer of 1920, where he was personally

received by Lenin, the “most unmitigated optimist” Roy had ever met. Lenin
asked him to critique his draft on The National and Colonial Question and
prepare his own thoughts for the upcoming congress.
Roy was largely irrelevant to the wider Indian debate on how independence
should be achieved at this point. But now, a continent away, he suddenly
found himself in the position to influence official Comintern policy on anti-
colonial movements.
And shape it he did. Roy fundamentally opposed Lenin’s original assertion

that Communist parties should ally with bourgeois-democratic liberation
movements. Using the Indian National Congress (INC) as an example,
Roy argued that India and other colonies had an absence of “reliable”
nationalist movements; instead, socially conservative elites like Mahatma
Gandhi ran the show, and would, in his estimation, switch allegiance to
imperialist powers if it suited them. The Comintern, therefore, should instruct
local Communist parties to “devote themselves exclusively to the organization
of the broad popular masses for the struggle for the class interests of the
latter.”
Delegates to the Second Congress of the Comintern at the Uritsky Palace in
Petrograd. Vladimir Lenin and M. N. Roy are both pictured. (Wikimedia
Commons)
The most radical elements of Roy’s rejoinder — such as emphasizing that a

worldwide revolution was only possible once colonialism was defeated —
were quietly ignored. But by adopting a modified version of his proposals, the
foundation for the Comintern and the future USSR’s policies were partially
set by Roy.
Roy rapidly ascended the ranks of the Comintern, becoming a member of the
Executive Committee in 1922 and secretary of the Chinese Commission four
years later. This came to a halt after Joseph Stalin assumed control; spared the
purges, Roy was merely expelled in December 1929.
He returned to India for the first time in sixteen years and was swiftly arrested
by the British colonial state, denied trial, and sentenced to twelve years of
hard labor, serving only six. This took its toll on Roy; he died in 1954, but not
before remarrying and undergoing another profound shift in his political and
philosophical outlook.
Disillusioned with Communism after his experiences in the Comintern and
leery of the INC in a newly free India, Roy developed an alternative
philosophy he called “radical humanism,” arguing that social progress ought to
be measured by individual liberties.
Roy ultimately didn’t influence the Indian freedom struggle when he left for
Japan in 1915. But what he did accomplish was nothing short of remarkable.
From a young boy in the liberation struggle to a leading star in the Comintern,
from a jaded nationalist to a committed Marxist and philosopher, from exile to
heroic revolutionary returnee, M. N. Roy’s career was an astonishing one that
took him around the world.
Like so many of his fellow underground Asian anti-colonial compatriots, like

Ho Chi Minh or Tan Malaka, Roy’s own quest for independence intersected
with other major political developments of the twentieth century — and
ultimately reminds us of how truly global the anti-colonial freedom struggle
really was.
 ARTS & CULTURE

 CINEMA
CINEMA
Man of paradoxes
AJOY ASHIRWAD MAHAPRASHASTA
Print edition : April 19, 2013T+ T-

M.N. Roy with his second wife Ellen Gottschalk in Bombay in March 1937. Photo:
THE HINDU
Still from the documentary 'The Comintern Brahmin': M.N. Roy with Bolshevik leaders
at the 2nd Comintern Congress of 1920. Photo: fdaf sdgds fed
Still from the documentary 'The Comintern Brahmin': Moscow in present times. Photo:
dsaf sdfg vsdg
Still from the documentary 'The Comintern Brahmin': busts of Lenin and other
Bolshevik leaders lying in the dumpyard of a building, indicating the state of
communist artefacts in Russia today. Photo: f dfsgsdf dafd ffggf
Still from the documentary 'The Comintern Brahmin': Director Vladimir Leon looking
at Roy's digital photos in the Russian Archives in Moscow. Photo: f sds fd fsd fdafsdf f
French director Vladimir Leon’s film on M.N. Roy explores the trajectory of the
revolutionary’s life and politics.
SOMETIME at the turn of the millennium, an old but famous photograph set
internationally acclaimed French documentary film-maker Vladimir Leon on a quest for
a forgotten man in the annals of history. Guessing the film-maker’s Russian connection,
the Indian historian Hari Vasudevan showed Leon the iconic photograph shot during the
second Communist International (Comintern) Congress in 1920. Amidst the tall
Bolshevik leaders of the time such as Grigory Zinoveiv, Vladimir Lenin and Maxim
Gorky, there was an Indian face in the picture. It was that of Manabendra Nath Roy, or
M.N. Roy, one of the founders of the Communist Party of India in 1920.
“Here was a man about whom the world hardly knew anything,” says Leon, who found
in Roy’s life the perfect plot for a film. “Roy was a part of incredible moments in
history. Imagine a person from a rural family in colonial India being witness to three of
the most revolutionary periods of the 20th century.”
Roy, who in the early 20th century was part of an underground revolutionary
organisation called Anushilan Samiti in the then Bengal, also founded the Communist
Party of Mexico with 10 people, became the leader of the militant peasant movement
there, represented both India and Mexico in the second Comintern Congress as an
important delegate and, later, participated in the Indian nationalist movement. Despite
such struggles, Roy remained on the margins of history.
Leon started filming Roy’s life in 2002 and, in the four years that he took to complete
the film, he travelled the entire northern hemisphere, from Mexico to Russia to India
and Germany. Through the course of the film-making, Leon discovered facets of Roy’s
life that were nothing less than paradoxical. From being a staunch nationalist, inspired
by the socio-religious reformer Vivekananda, the nationalist writer Bankim Chandra
Chatterjee and the revolutionary anti-colonial leader Bagha Jatin, all from Bengal, Roy
became a devoted internationalist switching between being a Marxist, believing in a
worldwide revolution, and a radical humanist in the heyday of his life. He was expelled
from the Comintern in 1928, but he remained a Marxist. Like the European
communists, he supported the anti-Stalinist politics of the Communist Party of Germany
(Opposition). When he returned to India in the 1930s, he drew the wrath of Indian
communists because he deviated from communism to become a radical humanist. He
formed the Radical Democratic Party in 1940.
To every place that Leon went to learn about his protagonist, Roy was a hated figure. In
Mexico, the communists considered Roy a traitor because he did not speak about
Mexican problems at the second Comintern Congress. In Russia, Roy was known for
having contested with Lenin. While Lenin believed, in principle and in politics, that
nationalist movements across the world should be supported if they were anti-colonial
in nature, Roy believed that the struggles should not be supported unless they were
militant.
Roy cited the example of the Indian nationalist movement, which he felt did not
question the status quo of power. He said that the non-violent struggle in India was only
a bourgeois struggle for power and predicted that India would achieve independence by
a mutual exchange of power, and that the British would grant India independence
peacefully for retaining it as a vibrant market, and that in the process, the age-old
exploitation of the proletariat would not end and another exploitative state would come
to power.
Just as in the other countries where Roy played a role, in India too, he is best known as
a communist renegade who deviated from the path of revolution. If not for these
paradoxes, Leon would not have named his film The Comintern Brahmin. Leon’s film,
made in French and in a style typical of a slow French docudrama, was screened
recently in New Delhi and Kolkata with support from the Indian Renaissance Institute
that Roy formed.
The film shows Roy’s life unfolding in front of the viewer, without Leon trying to direct
the viewer in any one direction. Sometimes investigative, sometimes reflective,
sometimes trying to talk about Roy’s personal life, the film tries to merge contemporary
political understanding with the historical praxis. Without making him a hero, Leon
keeps hinting to the viewer that Roy’s life is a means for a revolutionary to understand
contemporary dilemmas.
The title of the film, as problematic as it sounds, became one of its most discussed
points. To Leon, it denoted Roy’s paradoxes more than anything else. A communist
would not believe in religion but still has to grapple with religious issues. “Roy never
fits a category. He was a philosopher and a politician at the same time,” says Leon. “My
idea was to conceptualise the dilemmas of the contemporary revolutionary. Roy’s life,
back in the early 20th century, reflected such dilemmas at a time when ideologies had a
clear political agenda. That is why I named the film The Comintern Brahmin.”
Roy was a committed internationalist and yet thought of political issues in their national
contexts. He grew beyond communism to form a radical humanist party, yet his
thoughts were steeped in the emancipation of the common people. He came from a
priestly class and denounced all forms of tradition in favour of modern ideals of
renaissance and enlightenment, and yet he remained one who fiercely debated the
Eurocentric ideals of 20th century Marxism.
Was he an individualist? Was he just an intellectual? Or was he actually trying to be a
politician, despite repeated failures? These are some of the questions that are thrown to
the viewer but remain unresolved until the end of the film.
However, what is clear is that Roy definitely was trying to cull out an alternative
political trajectory, despite failing at it. For his internationalist communist self, he
deemed it necessary to support Britian in its war against Germany in the Second World
War as he considered it necessary to defeat fascism first in order to see any light for a
revolutionary democracy. It was precisely for this that he did not support the Quit India
Movement of 1942 and also the industrial strikes in Bombay (Mumbai) in the 1940s. At
one time, he joined the Indian National Congress with his supporters with the intention
of radicalising it, for which he is despised even today by Indian leftists. Despite
militantly differing with Gandhi and his support for non-violence, and Hindu traditions
and religious ideals, Roy’s political programme of forming people’s committees in
villages did not differ much from Gandhi’s local governance programme. While he was
a Marxist, he challenged the Comintern so much that his theories became a role model
for countries such as Vietnam. “Despite being an internationalist, he felt that a
contextual revolutionary base has to be necessarily created in colonial countries because
their history is not the same,” says Leon.
Leon says that there are other figures in history who led a life similar to Roy’s. “Walter
Benjamin, the great Frankfurt school thinker, and 19th century French thinker Alexis
De Tocqueville are similar personalities. Tocqueville was hated by the leftists as he was
an aristocrat and differed with Marx on many points. But he also wrote one of the best
critiques of a liberal democratic state, and predicted that it had the makings of a
totalitarian state, an aspect that was very novel in the 19th century. His predictions are
proving true in the present times.
“Benjamin also refused to get into a bracket. He was greatly influenced by the Marxist
playwright and thinker Bertolt Brecht but at the same time Jewish traditions influenced
him. Like Roy, both these personalities were insiders and outsiders at the same time,”
says Leon.
Roy’s politics and philosophy had changed course many a time in his life and touched
continents in many ways. But if one were to attempt a lucid narrative on his life and
times, one quickly realises that narrative tools tend to fail terribly. For director Leon, the
difficulty lay precisely here— the inability to construct an idea of the man, the
revolutionary and the thinker in Roy to varied viewers.
The documentary generated a mixed bag of responses—from fierce disapproval to
sincere praise. Leon says that the film is a French point of view, and he was ready to
face different reactions from people across the world. “To me, Roy’s life is interesting
as it points out a world view of an internationalist and the revolutionary politics of those
times. He had an idea of India beyond its territory. He thought of the Indian freedom
struggle as one that could be an international example, and that is why he dissented
from most political practices of that time,” Leon emphasises.
However, he agrees that Roy failed but also stresses that for Roy freedom was the
ultimate trajectory to practise any kind of politics. “He was very lonely, very
intellectual, a philosopher, a poet, and was part of very radical groups throughout his
life in search of his politics. Until his death, he remained a figure that was rejected both
by the Left and by the Right. Because for him true freedom, somehow, always clashed
with his own ideologies,” says Leon.
Perhaps, it is time to relook and reread Roy since political contexts have changed.
Because the paradoxes in which Roy lived have translated into pertinent issues today
and hence all those invested in change are naturally implicated in his quest. And to
explore the most important question, which Leon phrases aptly, “Is it possible to invent
a politics where the freedom of man is not constrained? And, at the same time are you
right in politics when you are right alone?”
 ARTS & CULTURE
RADICAL THINKERS
Emma Goldman and M.N. Roy: Lasting legacies

SACHIDANANDA MOHANTY
Print edition : July 16, 2021T+ T-

VLADIMIR LENIN, Maxim Gorky (behind Lenin), M.N. Roy (right, extreme) and
others. A 1920 picture. Photo: the hindu archives
Emma Goldman. Her life-long opposition to regimes of tyranny and violent authority
ensured her non-acceptance by all political systems.
How does the retrieval of the forgotten narratives of Emma Goldman and M.N. Roy,
towering personalities in their own times, help us in charting out utopian vistas that could
be relevant to our own times?
BEGINNING with a landmark publication in 1991 called Marvelous Possessions: The
Wonder of the New World,[i] Stephen Greenblatt, avant-garde literary-cultural critic and
leading exponent of an influential movement called New Historicism, argued against
‘disciplinary hegemony’ and found in ‘interdisciplinarity an important means of
generating new knowledge’.[ii] Critiquing the long-accepted notion of ‘objective’
historiography, the Harvard critic maintained that ‘historical truth arises from the
inadequacy of the story that is told’. Examining closely the diaries of Christopher
Columbus regarding his voyages to the New World, originally scripted by the explorer
in Spanish, Greenblatt unveiled, with extraordinary originality and insight, the
ideological underpinnings of Columbus’ ‘discovery’ of America. New Historicism led
to important consequences, including revisionist history, viewed from the standpoint of
the experience of the marginalised and forgotten people.
Forgotten Narratives
Following Greenblatt, I shall try and restore, in this essay, two seminal narratives to
public attention. I shall endeavor to show that the near disappearance of the twin
narratives has not been accidental. Indeed, there are underlying political, ideological and
institutional reasons that may help explain why the memories of the two figures who
played a pivotal role during the first half of the 20th century on the world scene have
been tragically glossed over and lost to later generations. I shall also argue that the
retrieval of the two is relevant to our times.
Emma Goldman and M.N. Roy were towering personalities in their own times, who
chartered out political and literary paths for themselves. Both were part of long-
established philosophical and political tradition; both aligned themselves with the 1917
Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and lent support (Roy for a longer period) to it, but
because of their independent, dissenting and original thinking, both parted company
from Bolshevism in due course. Recent works by independent historians[iii], such as
Anne Applebaum, Donald Rayfield, Tim Tzouliadis and Amy Knight, on the basis of
declassified papers of the Soviet archives, would help explain the serious reservations
Emma Goldman and Roy had with regard to the nature of the Bolshevist regime, which
is acknowledged by a growing number of Marxist sympathisers today. Such works must
be seen against the background of the classic study by David Caute, The Fellow-
Travelers: Intellectual Friends of Communism, 1988.[iv]
Indeed, Goldman and Roy had the foresight to see the nature of the system that would
unfold in the erstwhile Soviet Union. They maintained that while the October
Revolution was unquestionably timely, momentous and epoch-making, it went
paradoxically against some of its own cherished beliefs.[v]
Regrettably, both Goldman and Roy have been treated as renegades in orthodox Marxist
circles, and appropriated as anti-communists in partisan sections.[vi] They seem to be
largely missing in the New Left circles as well. This is a loss to the intellectual history
of Marxism and to the future possibilities of the movement, especially in the era of late
capitalism and ‘globalisation’ of the world, which have caused widespread
disenchantments in economic and cultural terms throughout the world.
Also read: Origins of Communist Party of India, in Tashkent
I suggest that Emma Goldman and Roy, despite their differences with official
communism, were life-long supporters of socialism of the cooperative kind. Towards
the end of his life and career, Roy championed what was called radical humanism,
which also had an important component of cooperative socialism.
The centenary of the October Revolution in 2017, rightfully celebratory in character, did
not seem to carry, deeper introspections (honourable exceptions apart) regarding the
Bolshevist movement and its critique by sympathetic adversaries, barring the mandatory
critique of Stalinism. The amnesia is unfortunate and needs to be discarded for a more
complete account of the movement and its future possibilities.
Emma Goldman: The Radical Free-thinker

Emma Goldman’s birth into a Jewish family in Lithuania on June 27, 1869, in the
former Russian Empire; her life in the United States as an immigrant; her involvement
in the revolutionary trade union, suffragette, working class, birth control, and feminist
movements; her literary work through the anarchist journal Mother Earth in 1906; her
autobiography Living My Life[vii] along with five other books; her deportation to Russia
in 1917; her meeting with the various factions of the October Revolution; her fateful
encounter with Lenin along with her life companion Alexander Berkman, in March
1920; her affinity with cooperative socialism and reverence for Kropotkin; her two
seminal works, My Disillusionment in Russia and My Further Disillusionment in
Russia; and, finally, her strong views on the prison system, atheism, freedom of speech,
marriage, free love and homosexuality, ensure her contemporary relevance. She died on
May 14, 1940, in Toronto, Canada, practically unsung, and is sadly missing today in the
public domain.
Emma Goldman’s life-long opposition to regimes of tyranny and violent authority
ensured her non-acceptance by all political systems, although she participated in major
revolutions, including the Spanish Civil War and the October Revolution. I would,
therefore, make a claim for the preservation of all documents relating to the life and
times of Emma Goldman, and make them easily available to the present generation of
students of culture, dealing with freedom, dissidence and internment, systems of belief,
faith and atheism, as well as various forms of utopian living at national and international
levels.
Roy: The Thinker as the Revolutionary

Roy, who was born Manabendra Nath Bhattacharya on March 22, 1887, in the Bengal
Presidency of British India and died on January 25, 1954, in Dehradun, has nearly
disappeared from public memory in the East and West despite his monumental
achievements as an eminent revolutionary and writer who rubbed shoulders with Lenin
and the leading lights of the Comintern (the Communist International). His early
revolutionary-nationalistic work through Jugantar; his active participation in the Indo-
German Conspiracy in 1914, the founding of the Mexican Communist Party in 1917,
and the Communist Party of India (Tashkent group) in October 1920; his participation
in the Comintern Congress as a delegate and Stalin’s representation to China; his
expulsion from the Comintern by Stalin in December 1929; his arrival in India and
being sentenced to 12 years imprisonment in 1932 in the Kanpur Conspiracy case; his
meeting with Nehru, Bose and Gandhi; his differences with Gandhi, the Congress party
and the Indian Communists; his support of the Allied Powers during the Second World
War against the Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy (the latter as in the case of Sri
Aurobindo); his differences with the Congress; his major publications such as New
Humanism and ‘the establishment of Radical Humanism as an alternative to Capitalism
and Communism’, make him an equally eminent thinker and man of action of the 20th
century. What is most remarkable is that at the suggestion of Lenin, Roy prepared his
own thesis as a supplement to Lenin's Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the
Colonial Questions. [viii]
Clearly, there is an urgent need to reclaim the narrative of Roy with all the rich
complexity present in his life and work[ix]. Roy met Lenin in May 1920 while Goldman
did so in March that year. While the young Roy, somewhat overawed, came out with
unqualified admiration for Lenin, the older and more experienced Goldman, was not
taken in by Lenin’s claims and his view that freedom is a ‘bourgeois luxury’ that has no
place during the Revolution. In fact, as events would reveal, Roy was to discover the
real nature of the Bolshevik tyranny when he was expelled from the Comintern in 1929.
He managed to escape narrowly, through the timely help of a Russian colleague, to
India and chart out a new stage of his revolutionary and literary life.
Emma Goldman’s meeting with Lenin

As Goldman writes:
The interview with Lenin was arranged by Balabanova. ‘You must see Ilyich, talk to
him about the things that are disturbing you and the work you would like to do,’ she had
said. But some time passed before the opportunity came. At last, one day Balabanova
called up to ask whether I could go at once. Lenin had sent his car and we were quickly
driven over to the Kremlin, passed without question by the guards, and at last ushered
into the workroom of the all-powerful President of the People’s Commissars.
***
I broached the subject of the Anarchists in Russia. I showed him a letter I had received
from Martens, the Soviet representative in America, shortly before my deportation.
Martens asserted that the Anarchists in Russia enjoyed full freedom of speech and press.
Since my arrival I found scores of Anarchists in prison and their press suppressed. I
explained that I could not think of working with the Soviet Government so long as my
comrades were in prison for opinion’s sake. I also told him of the resolutions of the
Moscow Anarchist Conference. He listened patiently and promised to bring the matter
to the attention of his party. ‘But as to free speech’, he remarked, ‘that is, of course, a
bourgeois notion. There can be no free speech in a revolutionary period. We have the
peasantry against us because we can give them nothing in return for their bread. We will
have them on our side when we have something to exchange. Then you can have all the
free speech you want—but not now.’ [x]
M.N. Roy’s meeting with Lenin

Roy recollects in his autobiography:
The entrance to the office of the President of the Council of People’s Commissars was
guarded by an army of secretaries headed by an oldish woman. Unassuming in
behavior, plain in looks and rather shabbily attired, she was evidently efficient with her
unobtrusive authority. Pin drop silence reigned in the large room occupied by Lenin’s
personal Secretariat, which was composed of about a dozen people.
***
I was escorted into the Secretariat. Engrossed in their respective preoccupation, the
inmates took no notice of me. But St. Peter of the Bolshevik heaven was always on the
alert. She stood up, looked at the big clock on the wall, and silently came forward to
take over the charge from the subordinate colleague who had escorted from the entrance
of the palace. She conducted me towards a tall silver and gold door, pushed it open
gently, just enough for one to pass, and with a motion of the head bade me enter. I
stepped in, and the door silently closed behind me.
***
Nearly a head shorter, he tilted his red goatee almost to a horizontal position to look at
my face quizzically. I was embarrassed, did not know what to say. He helped me out
with a banter: ‘You are young! I expected a grey-bearded wise man from the East’. The
ice of initial nervousness broken, I found words to protest against the disparagement of
my seven and twenty years.
Lenin laughed, obviously to put an awe-struck worshipper at ease. Though much too
overwhelmed by the experience of a great event to observe details, I was struck by the
impish look…. The impish smile did not betray cynicism. Lenin was the most
unmitigated optimist. Not only was he convinced unshakably that Marxism was the
final truth, but he believed equally firmly in its inevitable triumph. He combined the
fervor of the prophet with the devotion of the evangelist. [xi]
Looking back at a later period, Roy mused in his autobiography: “Lenin might have
turned the course of the revolution to a more fruitful direction. The New Economic
Policy was the signal. Its unfoldment might have headed off the subsequent relapse into
terrorism and coercion, which destroyed the utopian ideal of Communism.”[xii]
Future: Cooperative Socialism?

Could Lenin have tried out a newer form of socialism through his New Economic
Policy had his life not been cut short, as Roy muses? Such questions would remain
hypothetical, but it was central to Roy, especially in his later days. As V.M. Tarkunde,
one of the best civil rights exponents of his time wrote about Roy’s economic and
political philosophy in memorable terms:
Contrary to economic thinking which was then current, Roy gave priority in the
People’s Plan to the development of agriculture and small-scale industry. The Indian
state, according to the Draft Constitution of Free India, was to be organised on the basis
of a countrywide network of Peoples’ Committees having wide powers such as
initiating legislation, expressing opinion on pending bills, recall of representatives and
referendum on important national issues.[xiii]
Also read: Prakash Karat: ‘Our stress is on the widest unity against
authoritarianism’
This was indeed a clarion call for a decentralised approach to development based on
people’s participation at the State and regional level, an approach that is still waiting for
its day in India.
Sri Aurobindo
Goldman and Roy were not the only ones to have faith in cooperative socialism. In the
postscript chapter of his important political treatise called The Ideal of Human Unity,
Sri Aurobindo was to write with great insight about the future course of events. He
wrote at the height of the Cold War in 1950:
It is not that the principles of Communism necessitate any such results or that its system
must lead to a termite civilization or the suppression of the individual; it could well be,
on the contrary, a means at once of the fulfilment of the individual and the perfect
harmony of a collective being. The already developed systems which go by the name
are not really Communism but constructions of an inordinately rigid State Socialism.
But Socialism itself might develop away from Marxist groove and evolve less rigid
modes; a cooperative socialism, for instance, without any bureaucratic rigor of a
coercive administration, of a police state, might one day come into existence…[xiv]
Conclusion
This then could be the lasting legacy of Goldman and Roy: a move towards greater
unity and equality among mankind, based on the principles of freedom and cooperation,
enunciated by Emma Goldman, Kropotkin and their followers. In varied measures, the
approach finds strength in Roy as well. It resonates today with a growing body of
experiments in community living throughout the world, outside the pale of the all-
powerful state.
Sachidananda Mohanty is former professor and head of the Department of English,
University of Hyderabad. He is the former Vice Chancellor of the Central University of
Odisha. His latest book is Cosmopolitan Modernity in Early 20th-Century
India (Routledge, 2018).
REFERENCES
[i] Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World, Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1991; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
[ii] The Greenblatt Reader, edited by Michael Payne, MA: Blackwell Publishing, USA,
2005.p3. Gratefully acknowledge a personal copy received from Professor Greenblatt in
2005 at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
[iii] See, among others, Gulag: A History, by Anne Applebaum, London: Penguin
Books, 2003; The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin’s Russia by Tim
Tzouliadis, London: Penguin Books, 2008; Stalin and His Hangmen, by Donald
Rayfield, Viking, 2004; London 2005; Beria: Stalin’s First Lieutenant by Amy Knight,
Princeton: Princeton University Press,1993.
[iv] The Fellow-Travelers: Intellectual Friends of Communism, by David Caute, New
Haven, Yale University Press, 1988. Caute underlines the political and ideological
circumstances that led to the pronounced affinity most intellectuals of the times had
towards Bolshevist Communism in Russia during the first half of the 20th Century. By
far the best book on the subject.
[v] One of the first moves made by the Bolshevists who seized power from the Social
Democrat Kerensky, was to establish the All Russian Extraordinary Commission
(commonly known as Cheka) to deal with counter-revolutionary activities. The
approach was laid down by Felix Dzerzhinsky, the founder of Cheka, who defended the
organisation in unequivocal terms:
‘We stand for organised terror—this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute
necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the
Soviet government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a
day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted
with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have
greater weight than a criminal’s own confession?’.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/480078.Felix_Dzerzhinsky, accessed on
27.5.21.
Initially meant to defend the new Russian State against elements of the old guard,
subversives, hoarders and criminals, Cheka soon acquired extralegal authority,
especially after the failed assassination of Lenin on August 30, 1918, by Fanya Kaplan,
a member of the Social Revolutionary Party, one of the many political factions that
functioned underground during the early days of the Revolution.
For a good understanding of this subject, see, Russia and the Cult of State Security: The
Chekist Tradition, From Lenin to Putin by Julie Fedor, Routledge, 2013.
[vi] Upon her return to England from Russia, after the initial spirit of welcome by well-
known thinker-writers like Harold Laski and Rebecca West, Emma Goldman did not get
the hearings she expected due to the pro-Bolshevist sentiments then current in the
continent. See https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-living-my-life.
Accessed on 28.5.21.
[vii] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-living-my-life. Accessed on
28.5.21.
[viii] Sibnarayan Ray, In Freedom's Quest: Life of M.N. Roy (Vol. 1: 1887–1922).
Calcutta: Minerva Associates, 1998, pp. 93-94. An important and sympathetic
publication in recent years has been by Kris Manjapra entitled M.N. Roy: Marxism and
Colonial Cosmopolitanism, New Delhi : Routledge India, 2010. Manjapra’s study,
excellent as it is, sadly, does not seem to find many takers even in elite departments of
history, political science, philosophy and cultural studies in India.
[ix] Oxford University Press has brought out the Selected Works of M.N. Roy from 1987
through 1997, A total of four volumes were edited and published by Sibnarayan Ray.
Unfortunately, the project was abandoned in 2008 following the demise of Ray, a great
loss to Roy scholarship. The volumes are not widely publicised.
[x] See Emma Goldman, My Disillusement in Russia, New York: Doubleday Page and
Company, 1923, pp. 47-51. Also see, the letter of Kropotkin to Lenin in Cosmopolitan
Modernity in Early 20th Century India by Sachidananda Mohanty, New Delhi:
Routledge 2nd edition, Global and South Asian, 2018. pp. 8-9.
[xi] See Mint-on-Sunday Stalin’s Youngman: M.N. Roy and the Russian Revolution:
First Meeting with Lenin. https://www.livemint.com › Sundayapp › Stalins-youngman,
Accessed on 26.5.21.
[xii] https://www.livemint.com › Sundayapp › Stalins-youngman, Accessed on 26.5.21.
[xiii] V.M. Tarkunde, ‘Introduction’ to Men I Met by M.N. Roy, New Delhi: Ajanta
Publications, 1968; rpt. 1981. The book offers pen portraits of many world famous
figures Roy met in his career.
[xiv] Sri Aurobindo, The Ideal of Human Unity, [First edition, 1919]; rpt. Pondicherry:
Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1998.
Feature | October 17, 2020
Socialism and anti-colonialism: The life

and politics of M.N. Roy
By Jesse McLaren
“In view of the fact that the power of international capital is rooted all through
the globe, anything less than a worldwide revolution would not bring about the
end of the capitalist order and the triumph of the proletariat in Europe. The
struggle of the European proletariat must be aided by the revolutionary action of
the toiling masses of other lands subjugated by the same power, that is, capitalist
imperialism.”- MN Roy, 1921
October 17 is the centenary of the founding of the Indian Communist Party by

Manabendra Nath Roy. MN Roy founded the Communist Parties of both Mexico
and India, debated Lenin and challenged Gandhi, but has been written out of
history by some. Socialism is often reduced to Europe while anti-colonialism in
India is often reduced to Gandhi. But Roy’s life and politics in the 1920s
embodied the connection between socialism and anti-colonialism that continues
to inspire.
“From die-hard nationalism to Communism”

MN Roy was born as Narendra Nath Bhattacharya in 1887, and as a teenager
joined the national liberation movement against Britain’s colonial occupation.
Many nationalists saw gaining independence as a military operation, and looked
to rival imperial powers to assist them in driving out the British during World
War I. As Roy recalled, “By the beginning of 1916, there was practically no
military force to defend the British power in India. The Indian officers of the
skeleton army stationed here and there were eager to join a popular uprising. We
had established contact with them all over the country already in the middle of
1915. The situation was fully appropriate for an armed uprising. But at the
crucial moment, the Germans failed to keep their promise.” Betrayed by
European imperialists, he looked to Asian nationalists for support but was further
disillusioned: “Thrown back upon my wits [by Japan’s alliance with Britain], I
looked to the Chinese nationalist leader Sun Yat-Sen…But my faith in racial
solidarity was shaken rudely by the refusal of the prophet of Asiatic nationalism
to help India against Britain.”
Going further abroad in support of arms and support, Roy ended up in San
Francisco. There he connected with other Indian exiles and US socialists,
including meeting his partner Evelyn Trent. Both groups came under attack by
the US government when it joined WWI. Narendra Nath Bhattacharya changed
his name to Manabendra Nath Roy, both to escape the police and as part of his
political rebirth. Initially reading Marxism in order to argue against it, he found
himself won over to a new strategy for national liberation: “‘What difference
would it make to the Indian masses if they were exploited by native capitalists
instead of foreign imperialists?’… Suddenly, a light flashed through my mind; it
was a new light…visualising a different picture of freedom.”
While he engaged Marxist theory in the US, it was in Mexico that he engaged in
practice—completing his political evolution “from die-hard nationalism to
Communism.” Roy and Trent joined hundreds of radicals who fled the US to
escape prison or military service, and found in Mexico a country in the midst of
revolution—both against imperial powers and its own local ruling class. This
provided Roy with a new framework to understand national liberation for his
own country:
“In Mexico I realised, what I could not do in China, that national independence
was not the cure for all the evils of any country. These thoughts raised in my own
mind a question which provided the clue for a better understanding of Indian
history…The poverty of the Indian masses was the result of economic
exploitation by British imperialism and native feudalism. The liberation of the
Indian masses, therefore, required not only the overthrow of British imperialism
but subversion of the feudal-patriarchal order which constituted the social
foundation of the foreign political rule. The corollary was that India needed a
social revolution not mere national independence.”
Having initially left India in search of arms for a small-scale military assault on
British colonialism, his experience instead taught him the necessity of large-scale
political revolution. As he described, his experience in the US and Mexico had
“revolutionized my idea of revolution….Social forces antagonistic to the
established order must, in the first place, be politically mobilized and recruited in
the army of revolution. Only then would arise the question of arming the soldiers
ready to fight for liberation. Our old idea of revolution put the cart before the
horse.”
The other country that revolutionized his idea of revolution was Russia. The
Bolsheviks had organized an insurrection only after mass political mobilization,
and the workers’ state challenged imperialism and supported national liberation
movements around the world. While the nationalists Roy worked with in India
were focused exclusively on challenging foreign powers, the politics of the left in
Latin America had the opposite problem of being indifferent to any state. But the
Russian Revolution provided an alternative, a living example of both socialism
and national liberation:
“The news of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia had reached the New World to
fire the imagination of all who dreamt of the proletariat capturing power. It was
no longer a utopia. The manifesto calling for the formation of a working class
party as the instrument for capturing political power, therefore, could not be
dismissed as fantastic. The idea that to be actually in possession of political
power might be within the realm of practical possibility shook the preconceived
anarcho-syndicalist theoretical antipathy for the State. The manifesto found a
widespread response. The issue of La Lucha in which it was first published had
to be reprinted three limes.”
Roy and Trent joined local socialists to found the Communist Party of Mexico in
1919, the first Communist Party outside Russia. They then went as delegates to
participate in the Communist International.
“The symbol of revolution the East”

As Roy explained, “Lenin had insisted that Socialists must support the movement
for the autonomy of the national minorities subjugated by the Russian as well as
the Austro-Hungarain Empire…A corollary to the policy in Europe was a
demand for the liberation of the peoples subjected by colonial powers….Lenin
drew the conclusion that successful revolt of the colonial peoples was a condition
for the overthrow of capitalism in Europe. The strategy of world revolution
should therefore include active support of the national liberation movement in the
colonial countries.”
This included inviting anti-colonial revolutionaries to help shape the policies of

the Communist International to reflect their experiences. At the 1920 Second
Congress, Roy wrote a supplement that modified Lenin’s theses on national
liberation; then at the 1922 Fourth Congress, Claude McKay and Otto Huiswood
(Black leaders of the Communist Party of the US) drafted the Comintern’s
resolution on Black liberation. Far from the Stalinized version of what became of
the Comintern—a monolithic organization where international groups were
expected to toe the party line dictated by Moscow—the early Comintern
developed through democratic debate, including Roy debating Lenin. As Roy
recalled:
“he argued that Imperialism had held the colonial countries back in feudal social
conditions, which hindered the development of capitalism and thwarted the
ambition of the native bourgeoisie…The Communists, therefore, must help the
colonial liberation movement under the leadership of the nationalist bourgeoisie,
regarding the latter as an objectively revolutionary force…I maintained that,
afraid of revolution, the nationalist bourgeoisie would compromise with
Imperialism in return for some economic and political concessions to their class.
The working class should be prepared to take over at that crisis the leadership of
the struggle for national liberation and transform it into a revolutionary mass
movement… I reminded Lenin of the dictum that I had learnt from him: that
without a revolutionary ideology, there could be no revolution. I had also learnt
from him that for leading a mass movement step by step towards a definite goal,
a purposeful organization inspired by a revolutionary philosophy was of supreme
importance. That decisive factor was still absent in India. Our endeavour
therefore should be to bring it into being by placing before the national liberation
movement a concrete picture of its objective aspiration.”
Roy was central to two initiatives that followed this: the First Congress of the
Oppressed Peoples of the East in September, 1920, and the founding of the
Indian Communist Party on October 17, 1920.
Strategy and tactics of national liberation

This coincided with the launch of Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement, which
tested different strategies and tactics for national liberation. Prior to WWI the
Congress was an upper middle class party advocating constitutional reforms, but
in the aftermath of WWI they had a surge in popular support under Gandhi. As
Roy explained, this was not because of his unique personality or the particular
tactic of non-cooperation that he advocated. With Britain suppressing the armed
strategy of the revolutionary nationalists, Gandhi harnessed the longstanding
opposition to British colonial rule that exploded during and after WWI.
But despite mass support, Congress had a narrow economic base that restricted
its strategy and tactics: “Big capitalists financially supported the Congress, and
Gandhi’s religious ideology and the doctrine of trusteeship appealed to the
mediaeval mentality of the landlords. He taught the workers not to look upon
their employers as exploiters, but trust them as their elder brothers. The peasants
were told that the landlords were the natural trustees of their interests.”
As a result, Gandhi’s call for non-cooperation was conditional, and his focus on
non-violence was used to constrain the movement: when peasants rose up and
refuse to pay taxes he opposed them, when workers rose up in mass strike at
Ahmedabad he didn’t support them, and when people responded to police
violence by burning down a police station at Chauri Chaura he denounced them
and suspended the movement.
Two years after his first appearance at the Comintern, Roy addressed the Fourth
Congress in 1922 to reassess the experiences and outline the next steps:
“In every conflict and struggle we see the interests of imperialist capitalism
coinciding with those of the native landowners and the native feudal class. When
the popular masses arise and the national movement becomes revolutionary in
scope, it will threaten not only imperialist capitalism and the foreign domination.
In addition, the native upper classes will join with the foreign exploiters. We see
a dual struggle in the colonial countries, directed simultaneously against foreign
imperialism and the native privileged classes, which indirectly or directly
reinforce and support foreign imperialism… Thus we see that Communist parties
are necessary, even if for the moment they are no more than cells. These parties
are destined to play a great role and to take over the leadership in the national
revolutionary struggle, when it is abandoned and betrayed by the bourgeoisie.”
The Fourth Congress outlined the method of the united front, whereby
revolutionaries engage alongside reformists in the fight for reforms in order to
make concrete gains, to expose the limitations of the bourgeois leaders, and to
win people to socialist organization. As part of this method Roy outlined a social
and economic program of national liberation that the Congress should adopt—
including abolition of landlordism, nationalization of public utilities, minimum
wage and the eight hour day, sickness and unemployment insurance, free
education, religious freedom, and women’s equality. He also outlined a list of
actions Congress should support—including nonpayment of rent and taxes,
support for labour and tenant strikes, organizing trade unions and mass
demonstrations for the release of political prisoners.
From Stalinism to individualism

But Communist Parties were too small to provide an alternative leadership to
bourgeois nationalism, and revolutionary waves were rolled back—from
Germany in 1919, to India in 1922, to China in 1926. As Roy explained
in Lessons of the Chinese revolution,
“Like the Indian non-co-operation movement, the Chinese Revolution has

suffered a temporary defeat because of the betrayal of the bourgeois and petty-
bourgeois nationalist leaders. These turned against the revolution as soon as it
threatened capitalist and land-owning interests. The development of the struggle
for national freedom sharpened class-antagonism inside the Chinese society.
Rather than sacrifice the sectional interests of the reactionary landlords and
capitalists, the bourgeois nationalist leaders betrayed the revolution. Class
solidarity cut across national solidarity.”
These successive defeats isolated the Russian Revolution, reinforced Stalin’s

counter-revolution, and ended Roy’s decade of revolutionary theory and practice.
Roy had been elected by the Communist International to assist with the Chinese
revolution, and had opposed Stalin’s strategy of advocating for the Chinese
Communist Party to merge with the the nationalist Kuomintang. When the
Kuomintang then turned on the Communists and sabotaged the revolution, Stalin
blamed Roy for the catastrophe. Roy was expelled from the Comintern, and the
increasingly Stalinized party he had founded in India turned on him:
“The pioneers of the Communist Party of India all had their first lessons in
applied Marxism, and indeed in revolutionary politics, from this book [India in
Transition]. All frankly acknowledged the indebtedness. Subsequently, they
denounced me as a renegade.”
Many other Communist leaders suffered the same fate—expelled, exiled or killed
by Stalin’s counter-revolution—but drew different conclusions. Some, like
Trotsky or CLR James, challenged Stalinism and upheld the tradition of
revolutionary socialism. But others, like Roy, saw Stalinism as the inevitable
result of socialism, and retreated into philosophy. Roy initially joined the
Congress, met with Nehru and continued to urge the party to support a radical
program of national liberation. But when Congress launched the Quit India
movement to challenge British occupation in 1942 in the midst of WWII, Roy
opposed the campaign and echoed the Stalinist appeal to support the “people’s
war”. He left the Congress and briefly launched his own Radical Democratic
Party, but then came to the conclusion that no parties are any good and dissolved
it. Instead he devoted all his time to the individualist philosophy of “radical
humanism”, with a focus on “man as a thinking being, and he can be so only as
an individual.”
Despite the tragic betrayals and retreats at the end of his life when the world
revolutionary wave receded, Roy’s earlier work during the rising wave of the
1920s continues to inspire. A century later capitalism continues to devastate the
world with economic exploitation and national oppression. But with the shadow
of Stalin’s counter-revolution fading, there’s a new generation reclaiming the
long tradition of socialism and anti-colonialism, and their intersection that MN
Roy embodied.
For more on MN Roy and the anti-colonialism following the Russian Revolution,
see Liberate the Colonies! Communism and Colonial Freedom, 1917-24
K.A.W.
Book Review
Roy Repudiates His

Past
Source: The Labour Monthly, Vol. 14, February 1932,
No. 2, pp. 123-124, (822 words)
Transcriptionp: Ted Crawford
HTML Markup: Brian Reid
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2009).
You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform
this work; as well as make derivative and commercial
works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as
your source.
M. N. Roy, Revolution and
Konterrevolution in China.
Soziologische Verlagsanstalt
Berlin, 1930.
Roy did not visit China as a prominent member of

the social-fascist International, but, in 1927, as a
delegate from the Comintern. As such he had the
opportunity of observing a movement from within
which Vandervelde could watch—if at all—only
from afar and after the events. Unfortunately Roy
did not write his China book as a Communist, but
as an opponent of the Communist movement, after
he had been expelled from it. Roy has recently
declared that the Sixth Congress of the Comintern,
the congress which was the first body to forecast
the coming world economic crisis and a whole
series of other events that have since occurred, did
not pass a single correct resolution.
It is this spirit of blind animosity against all that

is Communist, against all that the former
Communist, Roy, once stood for himself, which
gives its character to this book. Roy repudiates,
sometimes openly, always implicitly, the method
and the social point of view of Marx in so far as it
was applied to China. (Thus if one reads what Roy
writes about the “character” of feudalism or about
the causes that have conditioned the special
development of China, one finds it difficult not to
think that he is writing with his tongue in his
cheek, ridiculing, both his readers and Marxism as
a whole). He further repudiates Lenin’s dialectical
method and his interpretation of the Sun-Yat-Sen
phase of the Chinese Revolution. (Lenin demanded
a critical utilisation of the material supplied by the
bourgeois specialists for an investigation on
Marxist lines, since this was the only material
which was available. Roy completely disregards
this material of the experts and attempts to
provide his own scheme in a most dilettante
manner—with results which are scientifically
catastrophic. Lenin regarded the young Chinese
bourgeoisie as having up to a certain point a
genuinely revolutionary spirit, while Roy always
looks upon the Kuo Min Tang as composed of
bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements that can
never be really revolutionary.) This pseudo-
radicalism straightaway leads Roy to attack the
Comintern from—the right! In 1920 Roy had
written in his supplementary thesis on the
National and Colonial question to the Second
Congress of the Comintern: “It would be a mistake
to attempt to solve the agrarian problem in many
of the eastern countries according to pure
Communist principles. In its early stages the
revolution must be carried on with a programme
including many petty-bourgeois reform demands
such as the division of the land, &c. But from this it
does not follow at all that the leadership of the
revolution will have to be surrendered to the
bourgeois democrats. On the contrary, the
proletarian parties must carry on vigorous and
systematic propaganda for the Soviet idea and
organise peasants’ and workers’ Soviets as soon as
possible.” (Protocol of the Second Congress of the
Comintern). Thus Roy in 1920, thus for many
years afterwards. But in 1930 the same Roy,
though he is compelled to admit that the present
agrarian movement in China is under Communist
leadership, can write that this leadership is merely
“purely formal” (p. 465), and that “really it is not
possible to speak of Red Armies and Soviets. A true
Red Army and real Soviets can only be the
creations of the proletarian class. The revolting
peasants of China are not fighting for Communism
and the local executive organs they have set up are
in no way organs of the proletarian dictatorship”
(p.464).
All this although he is aware of the fact that there

are proletarian and plebian elements in the Red
Armies and Soviets, and that the Communists are
leading the armies and the agrarian movement
(p.464). In 1920 Roy realised that a peasant
movement with a “programme of petty-bourgeois,
reformist demands,” these are his own words,
which under Communist leadership should
proceed to form Soviets “as soon as possible,” is an
organic and necessary preliminary of the
movement of colonial liberation. In 1930 he
opposes this interpretation on the ground that they
cannot be regarded as “organs of the proletarian
dictatorship.” That sounds immensely radical, but
implies the very opposite in actual fact. From
whence does Roy expect the revolution to develop?
From a bourgeois-parliamentarian national
assembly! “If the bourgeoisie would seriously fight
for convening a national assembly of the type
proposed by Wang Tschin-wei, it (!) could greatly
influence the democratic mass movement”(p. 461).
One can see Roy has in fact completely abandoned
all that he learned both as regards theory and
practice when he was a follower of Lenin and the
Comintern. No wonder, therefore, that he not only
does not understand the earlier history and the
heroic phase of the Kuo Min Tang in a Marxian
way, but that he is unable to have the slightest
understanding of the present Chinese Soviet
Movement.
K. A. W.
M. N. Roy Archive
The Labour Monthly Index
Communist Party of Great Britain
https://sreenivasaraos.com/2016/01/16/mn-roy-brief-
outline-of-life-events-and-thoughts-part-12/

Comptes Rendus Et Essais Historiographiques

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Comptes Rendus Et Essais Historiographiques

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Comptes rendus et essais historiographiques

Daniela Spenser y Rina Ortiz Peralta, La Internacional

9El segundo volumen, La Tercera Internacional en México durante la presidencia de Lázaro

Pour citer cet article

Articles du même auteur

 Stéphane Boisard, Armelle Enders et Geneviève Verdo (coord.), « L’Amérique latine des

Paru dans Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos, Comptes rendus et essais historiographiques

 Ramos Pismataro Francesca, Romero Carlos A., Ramírez Arcos Hugo Eduardo

Paru dans Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos, Comptes rendus et essais historiographiques

 Jesús Ruiz González de Gordejuela Urquijo, Los vascos en el México decimonónico, 1810-

Paru dans Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos, Comptes rendus et essais historiographiques

Paru dans Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos, Comptes rendus et essais historiographiques

 Consuelo Naranjo Orovio (coord.), Historia de Cuba, Madrid, Consejo Superior de

Paru dans Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos, Comptes rendus et essais historiographiques

 Vladímir M. Davydov, Hacia la identificación civilizacional de América Latina, Moscú,

Paru dans Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos, Comptes rendus et essais historiographiques

 Tous les textes...

O Partido Comunista da Índia foi formado em 26 de dezembro de 1925 na primeira

Envolvimento na luta pela independência

Durante a década de 1920 e início de 1930, o partido estava mal organizado e, na

Em 25 de dezembro de 1925, uma conferência comunista foi organizada em

Logo após a conferência de 1926 do Partido dos Trabalhadores e Camponeses de

O sexto congresso da Internacional Comunista se reuniu em 1928. Em 1927 o

A partir de 1934, os principais centros de atividade do CPI eram Bombaim, Calcutá e

Quando elementos da esquerda indiana formaram o Partido Socialista do Congresso em

A Liga Contra o Gandismo , inicialmente conhecida como Comitê de Boicote de

Em conexão com a mudança de política do Comintern em relação à política da Frente

Em julho de 1937, reunião clandestina realizada em Calicut . [22] Cinco pessoas estiveram

Em 1936-1937, a cooperação entre socialistas e comunistas atingiu seu auge. No 2º

Dois comunistas, EMS Namboodiripad e ZA Ahmed , tornaram-se secretários conjuntos

Por ocasião da Conferência do Congresso de Ramgarh de 1940, a CPI divulgou uma

Em julho de 1942, a CPI foi legalizada, como resultado da Grã-Bretanha e da União

O Partido Comunista da Índia se opôs à divisão da Índia e não participou nas

Durante o período próximo e imediatamente após a Independência em 1947, a situação

O Partido Comunista foi fundado em Bihar em 1939. Após a independência, o partido

O movimento comunista ou CPI em particular emergiu como um favorito depois que

Na eleição de Travancore-Cochin para a Assembleia Legislativa de 1952 , o Partido

Diferenças ideológicas levaram à divisão do partido em 1964, quando duas conferências

Na década de 1980, o CPI se opôs ao movimento Khalistan em Punjab. Em 1986, o

O Partido Comunista da Índia é o partido político comunista mais antigo da Índia e

Partido Comunista da Índia

Local na rede Internet

O Partido Comunista da Índia foi formado em 26 de dezembro de 1925 na primeira

Envolvimento na luta pela independência

Durante a década de 1920 e início de 1930, o partido estava mal organizado e, na

Em 25 de dezembro de 1925, uma conferência comunista foi organizada em

Logo após a conferência de 1926 do Partido dos Trabalhadores e Camponeses de

O sexto congresso da Internacional Comunista se reuniu em 1928. Em 1927 o

A partir de 1934, os principais centros de atividade do CPI eram Bombaim, Calcutá e

Quando elementos da esquerda indiana formaram o Partido Socialista do Congresso em

A Liga Contra o Gandismo , inicialmente conhecida como Comitê de Boicote de

Em conexão com a mudança de política do Comintern em relação à política da Frente

Em julho de 1937, reunião clandestina realizada em Calicut . [22] Cinco pessoas estiveram

Em 1936-1937, a cooperação entre socialistas e comunistas atingiu seu auge. No 2º

Dois comunistas, EMS Namboodiripad e ZA Ahmed , tornaram-se secretários conjuntos

Por ocasião da Conferência do Congresso de Ramgarh de 1940, a CPI divulgou uma

Em julho de 1942, a CPI foi legalizada, como resultado da Grã-Bretanha e da União

O Partido Comunista da Índia se opôs à divisão da Índia e não participou nas

Durante o período próximo e imediatamente após a Independência em 1947, a situação

O Partido Comunista foi fundado em Bihar em 1939. Após a independência, o partido

O movimento comunista ou CPI em particular emergiu como um favorito depois que

Na eleição de Travancore-Cochin para a Assembleia Legislativa de 1952 , o Partido

Diferenças ideológicas levaram à divisão do partido em 1964, quando duas conferências