The adage that "revolution devours its own children" has long been associated with the French Revolution, but its echoes resonate through other seismic upheavals like the American, Russian, and Chinese revolutions. Scholars have exhaustively analyzed this phenomenon, dissecting how revolutions, in their fervor, often turn against their own architects.
Yet, an equally pressing question—rarely given the attention it deserves—is what counter-revolution does. A close examination of global dynamics today reveals that counter-revolution not only shields its own progeny but also selectively consumes the very icons who envisioned and fought for revolutionary ideals. In the case of India, this process has been particularly pronounced, with the nation’s historical and spiritual symbols becoming fodder for a global counter-revolutionary wave.
Kishan Patnaik, a visionary socialist thinker, was among the few to explicitly identify globalization as a process of global counter-revolution. After over three decades of neoliberalism’s dominance, India has not only become an integral part of this counter-revolutionary tide but also one of its most vocal proponents. The counter-revolution in India has thrived by devouring the icons that once embodied the nation’s aspirations for freedom, sovereignty, equality, self-reliance, cultural integrity, and communal harmony. These icons, the dynamic forces behind India’s national identity, have been systematically co-opted and distorted to serve the interests of counter-revolutionary forces.
The storm of counter-revolution in India is so ferocious that it is not content with consuming historical figures alone. It extends its reach into the infinite realm of time, engulfing spiritual and religious symbols that have long anchored the nation’s collective consciousness. This relentless hunger threatens to erode the very foundations of India’s cultural and moral fabric, replacing them with a homogenized, market-driven ethos.
India’s freedom struggle against imperialist domination was celebrated globally as a glorious revolution. Its vision of non-violence, self-reliance, and universal brotherhood inspired not only colonized nations across Asia, Africa, and the Americas but also left an indelible mark on the imperialist powers of Europe. Independent India was tasked with carrying this revolutionary legacy forward, both domestically and on the global stage. However, imperialist powers, in collusion with local communal forces, struck a devastating blow to this vision at the outset by partitioning the country. This act of division was not merely a geopolitical maneuver but a profound setback to the revolutionary ideals of unity and inclusivity.
As India gained independence, the mantle of global imperialism shifted to the United States, ushering in a new, more insidious phase of domination. Unlike the overt colonialism of the past, American imperialism was rooted in economic, strategic, commercial, educational, and intelligence networks designed to subjugate newly independent nations.
This neo-imperialist framework was not a relic destined to fade but a dynamic system that expanded through institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and global trade agreements. European nations, once colonial powers themselves, became complicit in this new order, acting as enablers of American hegemony.
At the heart of this neo-imperialist project lies the so-called "American Dream"—a seductive vision of prosperity, individualism, and consumerism. This dream, built on the pillars of market dominance, military might, and cultural manipulation, has captivated much of the world. While a detailed exploration of the American Dream’s mechanics is beyond the scope of this article, its impact on India cannot be overstated. Had India’s leadership fully embraced Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of self-reliance and moral governance, the nation might have resisted this allure. Instead, the post-independence trajectory reveals a gradual capitulation to neo-imperialist ideals.
For roughly a decade after Gandhi’s assassination in 1948, traces of the Indian revolution lingered among the ruling class and the populace. Leaders and thinkers, including those in the socialist and communist movements, sought to adapt the revolutionary spirit to the new realities of independence. These movements, though fragmented, exerted pressure on policymakers and even challenged communal and right-wing elements. Globally, figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela drew inspiration from India’s non-violent struggle, adapting its principles to their own fights against injustice.
Yet, within India, a corrupt and opportunistic elite, having reaped the benefits of independence, grew eager to embrace the American Dream. Within four decades, this elite had systematically undermined the revolutionary ideals that had defined India’s freedom struggle. The shift began in earnest with Rajiv Gandhi, who lamented the estrangement between the world’s two largest democracies—India and the United States. His successors, through policies like the New Economic Policies of 1991 and the Dunkel Draft, opened India’s economy to global markets, effectively aligning the nation with American neo-imperialism.
The Devouring of Icons
The counter-revolution’s most brazen act has been its appropriation of Mahatma Gandhi, the foremost symbol of India’s revolutionary ethos. Leaders across the political spectrum have invoked Gandhi’s name to legitimize their alignment with the American Dream, a vision fundamentally at odds with his principles of simplicity, self-reliance, and resistance to materialism. Narasimha Rao, addressing the US Congress, claimed to be building the India of Gandhi’s dreams.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, speaking at the Gandhi Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, and later before the US Congress, attempted to reconcile his "Gandhian Socialism" with American imperialism. Manmohan Singh, too, assured the world that Gandhi’s vision was being realized under his leadership. These declarations stand in stark contrast to Gandhi’s own stance: he famously stated that he would only visit the United States if it abandoned the dominance of the dollar.
This appropriation of Gandhi is not an isolated act but part of a broader pattern. The counter-revolution has systematically co-opted other icons of India’s freedom struggle, from the heroes of the 1857 Revolt to figures like Bhagat Singh and B.R. Ambedkar. In 2007, the 150th anniversary of the 1857 Revolt was marked by a government-sponsored "kranti yatra" from Meerut to Delhi, accompanied by seminars and events.
While these initiatives appeared to celebrate the anti-imperialist spirit of 1857, they ultimately served the counter-revolution by reducing the revolt’s radical legacy to mere spectacle. Manmohan Singh, who had overseen India’s integration into the global neoliberal order, welcomed the marchers at the Red Fort, a symbolic irony given his role in undermining the very sovereignty the revolt had sought to defend.
The counter-revolution has also spawned numerous mini-counter-revolutions, often disguised as populist movements. The 2011 anti-corruption movement, orchestrated by a coalition of NGO leaders, RSS affiliates, civil society activists, and media, is a case in point. This movement, which mobilized an apolitical youth desensitized by decades of neoliberalism, was hailed as a "second freedom struggle" and compared to the JP movement and even the independence movement itself. Icons like Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Bhagat Singh were prominently displayed on its platforms, their images used to lend legitimacy to what was essentially a counter-revolutionary agenda.
The movement’s leaders, including figures like Anna Hazare, praised state leaders like Narendra Modi and Nitish Kumar for their governance models, aligning them with the RSS’s vision of "Bharat Mata." The movement culminated in the rise of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which adopted Ambedkar and Bhagat Singh as its icons, further muddying their revolutionary legacies. The spectacle of cutting electric wires in public view, celebrated by civil society activists, underscored the performative nature of this so-called revolution.
The Broader Implications
The counter-revolution’s impact extends beyond political icons to institutions and values. Constitutional bodies, educational institutions, and cultural academies have all been infiltrated by counter-revolutionary forces. The ecology, from coastal regions to the Himalayas, faces relentless assault, as does the sanctity of religious and social festivals. The tricolour, India’s supreme symbol of nationalism, has been co-opted by counter-revolutionary campaigns, reduced to a prop in slogans like "tricolour in every home." Similarly, the Constitution, a beacon of India’s democratic and socialist aspirations, has been undermined by policies that prioritize capitalist interests over public welfare.
The secular/progressive camp, which claims to uphold the values of the freedom movement, has been complicit in this erosion. Rather than confronting the reality of counter-revolution, it fixates on the RSS’s role, ignoring its own contributions to the crisis. By failing to articulate a coherent alternative to neoliberalism, this camp has allowed the RSS to fill the ideological vacuum, further entrenching communalism and capitalism.
The politics of icons has become a battleground in this era of corporate-communal nexus. The Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian honor, has been politicized, with figures like Karpoori Thakur and Chaudhary Charan Singh recently drawn into the counter-revolutionary fray. Meanwhile, accusations of "stealing" icons—whether Gandhi, Ambedkar, or others—have become commonplace, reflecting the commodification of revolutionary legacies.
The secular/progressive camp’s tendency to blame historical figures like Jayaprakash Narayan and Rammanohar Lohia for legitimizing communal forces is particularly misguided. Such narratives oversimplify the complex political dynamics of the 1960s and 1970s, ignoring the broader context of communalism’s rise. Gandhi himself engaged with communal leaders in an attempt to prevent partition, and the Congress’s own right wing has long harbored communal elements. Blaming JP and Lohia serves only to deflect responsibility from the secular/progressive camp’s failure to counter the neo-imperialist tide.
The Path Forward
The counter-revolution’s triumph signals a period of decadence for Indian civilization, society, and nationhood. The responsibility for this decline cannot be laid solely at the feet of those who have embraced it. A deeper investigation into the structural and ideological factors that enabled this shift is essential. Only through such introspection can a path to resistance and renewal emerge.
Future generations will look back with astonishment at how India’s elite—bureaucrats, intellectuals, and elected leaders—surrendered the nation to neo-imperialism. Unlike the royalties who ceded power to British colonialism, today’s elite have acted out of greed and ambition, embedding neo-imperialism deeper into India’s fabric. Yet, hope lies in the voices of resistance—farmers, workers, students, and journalists—who continue to challenge this new slavery. From their struggles, a vision for an alternative India, rooted in the revolutionary ideals of freedom, equality, and justice, may yet emerge.
Postscipt: The individuals involved in the episodes described here are not named, though readers may recognize them. This is not a personal critique but an analysis of the broader tendencies within the counter-revolutionary framework. My respect for these figures does not diminish the need to confront the reality they represent.
---
The writer associated with the socialist movement is a former teacher of Delhi University and a fellow of Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla. This is the abridged version of the author's original article
Comments