Bernard De Mello, the former assistant editor of the "Economic and Political Weekly", stands as a prominent defender of Marxism and revolutionary democracy. Few progressive writers articulate their views with such balance, managing to convey depth without resorting to empty rhetoric. With a fusion of passion and intellectual clarity, Bernard has skillfully revived the essence of the Naxalbari movement and Maoism, exposing the myths propagated by pro-corporate and imperialist forces.
Esteemed revolutionary poet Varavara Rao holds Bernard in high regard, and many within the revolutionary movement commend him, even when they find themselves at odds with his political views.
Bernard's insights are deeply influenced by foundational texts such as Paul A. Baran's "The Political Economy of Growth" (1957), Paul M. Sweezy's "Monopoly Capital", and Harry Magdoff and Samir Amin's "The Age of Imperialism".
In his 2018 work, "Fifty Years After Naxalbari: Unfinished History", Bernard enriches the discourse surrounding the historic Naxalbari movement. He details how both the Naxalbari and Srikakulam uprisings reshaped the nation's trajectory, alongside the brutal suppression of these movements. Through a vivid narrative, he illustrates the ruthless nature of capitalism in India, the hypocrisy of claimed democracy, and the rise of fascism, challenging the false narratives surrounding the country’s economic successes.
Bernard meticulously critiques the façades of democracy in India, illustrating how economic policies since 1947 have primarily favored the affluent. He traces the origins of what he terms "semi-fascism" within the Brahmanical Hindu context and identifies its roots within the Congress party itself, exploring the extensive violation of human rights across various domains.
He concludes by emphasizing the stark contrast between a genuine libertarian democratic consciousness and the decaying liberal democratic framework increasingly morphing into a semi-fascist society.
With incisive historical analysis, Bernard examines Congress's fundamentally anti-people stance, noting its compromises during pre-independence struggles, such as the Naval revolt and the Chauri Chaura incident.
He highlights the pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim sentiments present in Congress’s early actions, allowing readers to connect the political landscape of post-1947 India to the pre-independence decisions of the Congress.
He traces the suppression of democratic rights back to Nehru's era, illustrating how the governance model was shaped by capitalist interests long before the Emergency. He critiques Nehru's bias towards exploitative classes and points out that, under Indira Gandhi—who projected a façade of advocating for the poor—the exploitation of the working class intensified.
Bernard investigates the implications of post-1991 liberalization, globalization, and the rise of Hindutva fascism, highlighting an escalating state oppression in the subsequent decades. He meticulously documents the plight of casual and contract laborers, showcasing how industrial tycoons have been granted unprecedented leeway to infringe upon the rights of workers and tribal populations, citing cases such as those involving Ambani and Adani.
In particular sections, he elucidates the Indian state's aggressive posture in Kashmir and critiques Nehru for attributing blame to China during the 1962 war, overlooking the Indian army's role.
Bernard argues that India's sub-imperialism has roots in its semi-peripheral, underdeveloped capitalist structure, dominated by a nexus of big business, the state, and multinational corporations. He explores the emerging trend of Hindutva neo-fascism, contrasting it with historical fascism under Hitler.
He also engages with concepts of Santana Hinduism and MK Gandhi's vision of Ram Rajya, while asserting the secular nature of the Bhakti movement, which welcomed Dalits, tribals, and lower-caste individuals.
Further, Bernard emphasizes the significance of Ambedkar, advocating the need for the revolutionary democratic movement to merge with caste struggles. He establishes connections between the teachings of Bhagat Singh and the Naxalite movement, while also discussing various mass movements such as the Telangana armed struggle, the Navnirman movement, and the notable 1974 railway strike.
In a critically objective light, Bernard evaluates the practices and theories of the CPI (Maoist), expressing disdain for those pro-establishment intellectuals who label the Maoists as mere terrorist factions, while highlighting their role in orchestrating mass revolutionary resistance against systemic oppression. He notes the establishment of jan adalats and janatana sarkars, which have empowered marginalized communities and asserted their rights.
However, Bernard remains critical, pointing out the Maoists’ challenges in establishing base areas and acknowledging the subjective conditions in India that differ from those preceding the Chinese Revolution.
He also contests the Maoist characterization of India as semi-feudal, rejecting their notions of comprador and national bourgeoisie, and critiques the subordination of Janana Sarkars to party directives. He notes the mistakes made by the Maoists, particularly in underestimating their adversaries and attempting to ally with the Congress party.
He expresses admiration for the tenacious resistance exhibited by the People's War group amidst severe state repression from 1985 to 1992 while also suggesting that their inability to maintain a robust military base led to their capitulation to state power.
Further, Bernard analyzes land reform superficialities in Bihar and Jharkhand and the resistance from revolutionary factions like the Maoist Communist Centre. He recounts their efforts in capturing and redistributing illegally occupied land, advocating for the dignity of Dalits and backward castes, and creating local militias for self-defense against sexual violence and oppression.
In his review of Alpa Shah's "Nightmarch of the Guerillas", Bernard summarizes her insights regarding the intimate bonds formed between the Maoist organizations and local communities, highlighting their approach to mitigating caste and class divisions. He endorses Shah's critique of the Maoists for neglecting traditional tribal cultures.
In his articles, such as "What is Maoism?" and "Did Lenin and Mao Forsake Marx?", Bernard explores the tenets of Marxism-Leninism and their evolution into Maoism. His critical examination encompasses the contributions of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, tracing the common thread of radical democracy through these ideologies. While praising the revolutionary achievements realized in China post-1949, he critiques the state’s bureaucratic tendencies during the Stalin era. He acknowledges the significance of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution as a move towards revolutionary democracy while remaining critical of the excesses attributed to Mao's leadership.
In closing, he asserts that both Lenin and Mao perpetuated the legacy of Marxism as applicable to their respective contexts, countering narratives that undermine their contributions.
However, it is pertinent to note that Bernard's interpretation of the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' appears limited, favoring a model he terms 'radical democracy.' He emphasizes mass movements but seems to overlook aspects of revolution within a socialist framework. His characterization of Maoism aligns more with revolutionary democratism than the continuous revolution under proletariat leadership outlined by Mao.
Additionally, Bernard does not fully engage with the critique of Trotskyism or the implications of post-1978 China transitioning towards capitalism. His support for a bourgeois democratic multi-party system, alongside his understanding of India's semi-feudal reality, presents inconsistencies.
While he appreciates certain armed actions of the People's War and acknowledges the participatory approach of these movements, he also admits that replicating the Chinese revolution in India is unfeasible. This duality in his argument raises questions about his stance on party ideologies and their influence over mass organizations during the 1980s.
Lastly, he remains critical of Charu Mazumdar's revolutionary perspectives without addressing the central themes and practices of T. Nagi Reddy and DV Rao regarding agrarian revolution and the mass line. He neglects the potential for extra-parliamentary electoral tactics and discusses the Maoist boycott of parliamentary elections without fully evaluating the implications.
---
*Freelance journalist
Comments