Buddhadeva Bhattacharya
The stand of the National Front group (i.e. CPI) on the Pant resolution may also in this connexion he touched I upon for having a clearer idea of the situation. Explaining it position, P. C. Joshi categorically stated The interests of the movement demanded not the exclusive leadership of one wing or another but a united leadership under the guidance of Gandhiji.'1 Speaking self-critically of the performance of the spokesmen of the left at that session, the CPI leader said:
....it was not made clear as to why we voted for Gandhiji's leadership Did we abjure our criticism of the line Gandhiji had been advocating since office acceptance? We did not. But we wanted Tripuri to make a forward move... And Gandhiji being the one person who inspires the greatest confidence in the masses, a unified Working Committee under his guidance and his co-operation would have the greatest mobilising power for such struggle.2
This meant that the NF group, observe Overstreet and Windmiller, must now abandon the united-front-below tactic against the right-wing Congress leadership, in favour of a more docile policy of cooperation with that leadership... the Communists chose unity under Gandhi.3
This shift in policy caused confusion in the communist ranks. Writing in National Front, A. K. Ghosh (Ajoy Ghosh) recognized the failure of the communist delegates on the platform-in both the Subjects Communist and the open session-in putting forward the Communist line of unity and struggle' and admitted that No wonder, the declaration by Communists that they had confidence in Gandhiji's leadership was interpreted by a section of the delegates as the repudiation of the line we had hitherto advocated.4
Despite 'tremendous confusion' in the ranks of CPI supporters as was admitted by Ajoy Ghosh, the CPI leader- ship went further and pleaded for giving up its 'old attitude towards Gandhism and Gandhian leadership.' Pleading for 're-evaluation' of gandhism and the role of the gandhian leadership, S. G. Sardesai recalled 'every positive side of Gandhism' and asserted that 'This is the Gandhism that we have to resurrect, burnish and replenish."5
The new CPI policy of building 'national unity' required that the criticism of the right-wing leadership be toned down. It was an error, New Age explained, 'to make the Right the target of attack instead of imperialism' in place of under- mining that leadership, the Party could now endeavour to influence it, with confidence that 'the entire national forces including the national reformist bourgeoisie can be won over to struggle against imperialism.'6 And National Front declared that 'The offensive from the Right has to be resisted, but this cannot be done by launching a counteroffensive to throw out the Right.7 In the formulation of this policy of forging an alliance with all anti-imperialist forces including the right-wing gandhian leadership the international line of the communists played a dominant role. Speaking for the for CPGB, Harry Pollitt in a message to the Tripuri Congress declared '....at this urgent moment, the question of paramount importance in India in our view is the unity of all national forces under the leadership of the Indian National Congress.' 8
1. National Front, vol. II, no. 6, 19 Match 1939, p. 96.
2. ibid., p. 97.
3. Overstreet and Windmsller, op. cit., p.168.
4. National Front, vol. II. no, 6, 19 Match 1939, p. 101.
5. ibid., vol. 11, no. 12, 30 April 1939, p. 189.
6. New Age, vol. V, May 1939, p. 301.
7. National Front, vol. II, no. 19,18 June 1939, p. 309.
8. ibid., 19 March 1939, p. 103. Emphasis in original.