Finding the “Modern Prince”: A Case Study within the Historiography of Tebhaga Peasant Insurgency

The theoretical formulation of the “Modern Prince” by Antonio Gramsci constitutes an extremely significant reconceptualization of revolutionary political agency in contemporaneity. It is a reinterpretation of Machiavelli’s infamous political tract, “The Prince”, and allocates a form of transformation, from a singular imagery of a sovereign figure to a Sorellian “myth” of political ideology which helps in constructing an embodiment of historic-political consciousness condensed in a political party/ organization, which Gramsci puts it as “a creation of concrete fantasy which works on a dispersed and pulverized people in order to arouse and organize their collective will” (p. 127).

The “political manifesto” has confirmed itself on multiple historical occasions, where it has been reimagined in a way that transcends the materiality of its mere manifestations. However, one such revolutionary (or rebellious) instance can be traced back to Tebhaga peasant insurgency in 1945-46, where the intricacies of its historiographical discourse are in continuous contestation, like the movement being understood as a complex interaction between structural agrarian contradictions or as an autonomous uprising, all seen from multivalent analytical perspectives on the dialectic between political organization, structure and subaltern agency. This is where the concepts/theoretical inputs by Gramsci plays itself out within such intricacies and the true potentiality is unveiled. 

The centrality of it lies in its “immediacy” of imminent socio-historical actions which could necessitate an arousal for a phantasmatic inflammation of fanaticism in collectivity. The erosion of “organic” essence (the myth as an organism) occurs when the immediacy produces or transforms the movement into a “defensive” (As Gramsci puts it) rather than the creational/foundational aspect of it, makes this issue a problematic regarding a successful attempt towards national-popular collective will. For Gramsci, even more than the issue of structural contradictions, the decisive transformation occurs at the political relations of the forces, where the degree of homogeneity and organization reached to various social groups, where economic grievances assume a political form as these social groups inhabit collective consciousness and organizational capacity. The historiography of Tebhaga movement is structurally shaped around this particular interrogation, that how and in what way the inherent structural contradictions within agrarian economy had gotten translated into political mobilization? the conventional interpretation is fundamentally focused on the decisive role of Communist Party of India (CPI) and Bengal Provincial Kisan Sabha (BPKS), which consciously organized a political struggle and transformed the socio-economic grievances into a coordinated class-based movement.

Somnath Hore/ Kiran Nadar Museum of Art

One of the major scholarly interventions came from Andre Beteille, who’ve argued that it was essentially an “organized revolt by an organizing agency”, manufactured by the communist party and there was inconsistency in their relationship with peasant interests, more inclined towards restoration of political credibility which was lost due to its controversial stand during World War II and Quit India Movement. The argument was also opined in similar strands by scholars like Saugata Bose and Jnanabrata Bhattacharya, that Tebhaga movement was largely an attempt from both the parties to repair the damage it had faced during “people’s war policy”, standing in alliance with the allied forces, which has hampered its populist image even amidst the subaltern social groups. The damage control theory was further essentialized with the fact that there’s was an alienating factor working within this peasant mobilization and it was formally organized council meeting of Bengal Provincial Kisan Sabha in September 1946, that too just two months before the origination of the movement, which disregards an essence of continuity in the progression of recalcitrant development.  Similarly, there existed a sense of what Gramsci talks about as “party arrogance”, which unlike national interest, comprises of the elements of internal struggle and a question revolving around whether they exist by their own power as a mode of necessity or exists only for the interests of other, due to which there should be a reliance on historical necessity and maintenance of organic connection with the social base. 

The subaltern school of historiography, however, held a different perspective that shifts the focus from political organization to autonomous agencies. Ranajit Guha, was one of the pioneers to observe the autonomy of peasant insurgency, whether it’s from Jalpaiguri region of Northern Bengal or Kakdwip region from southern part, the argument for the consistency of peasant leadership was something that can’t be overturned. Partha Chatterjee made similar claims regarding class interest being the sole rationale behind the political mobilization during the movement despite some scholarly instigation towards the role of communal consciousness playing a vital role since the composition of peasant community constitutes largely of muslim raiyats and the landowning class was primarily Hindus (often propagandized as “Saha Jotedars”).

However, scholars like Prof. Benay Bhushan Chaudhury, postulated a middle ground from the former scholastic strands, according to him, the people’s war policy did have an alienating consequence but it was during the Bengal famine where the extension of relief support from communist volunteers and Kisan sabha activists, made them form a supportive alliance with the peasantry, especially, forming a social base constitutive of landless laborers, raiyats and other marginalized communities. 

Therefore, what is at stake is not a conclusive resolution because to trace historicity in politically charged movements like this is similar to get embroiled in a perplexity to come for a judgement. These interpretations could possibly correspond to the different phases within the developmental process of collective political consciousness. The main discussion revolves around whether the political parties were successful to extent that it had a visceral relationship with its social base (peasantry), so as to develop a national popular collective will, which he mentioned that it faced significant opposition from the landed aristocracy and propertied class.

Courtesy, Seagull Books

The historiography of the movement somewhere moves between these questions of organicity within the political organization which claimed to be constitutive of peasantry as its main communitarian support base and the agency held by all the active elements in this rebellion. As Gramsci stated “Any formation of a national-popular collective will is impossible, unless the great mass of peasant cultivators breaks simultaneously into political life” (p. 131), which Machiavelli thought of as an attempt in reformation of militia. The observations made by Bose and Bhattacharya intends the “organizing force” to act only in immediate interests (in Gramscian term, it’s close to the concept of “economic-corporative” politics, which refers to the organizational attempt to act particularly in defense of immediate economic interests), that comprises of consolidation against the allegation of parochial politics mechanized by these parties in pre-independence. This political move is quite incongruous to the construction of collective consciousness due to its distantiation from the subaltern class and inaccessibility of peasantry to the active political realm.

However, the oppositional views held that Communist party’s role was not an eternal imposition but an articulation of emerging collectivity among the subaltern peasant communities (it functioned as an organizational expression of a broader social group). Therefore, the advocates for the later argument tended towards significance of “public spirit” within this whole process of resistance, which unlike the subaltern strand of scholars, did acknowledge the vitality of organizational forces to formulate such grievances in its forefront and the statement by Gramsci that the “public spirit presupposes continuity, whether with the past, or rather with tradition, or with the future, i.e. which presupposes that every act is a stage in a complex process which has already begun and which will continue” (p. 136), summarizes the essentializing factor behind the magnitude of “continuity” that it holds in a larger historical process, not only restricted to the internalized historicity of the parties but also encompass the wider socio-political ethos that it represents or more accurately put, articulates in a condensed expression.  

The “continuity” does not necessarily have to be realized in the form of concrete resistance/political movement but it could precede and succeed the central movement to impinge an anti-establishment psyche on the recalcitrant social groups. As D. Bandyopadhyay talks about Operation Barga (providing protection to the “bargadars”) launched during 1978 under Left Front state governance and it was the conclusive materialization of long-term grievances carried on from Santhal Rebellion (1857) through Tebhaga Movement down to post independence state government machinery. However, Bandyopadhyay also questioned the status of bargadars even after the implementation of policies, since, the left front government carried on the argument made by B.C. Roy (chief minister in 1948) and Congressman  (Swarajist), J.M. Sengupta to bring conflicting peasant groups like landless agricultural laborers, sharecroppers (bargadars), middle and upper class peasants under a common banner to form a “mutual” understanding between them and prevent “civil war” (as Sengupta puts it).

There was a historicity behind the positioning of sharecroppers in such vulnerable situation, where multiple commissions were sent to make changes, one among such was Floud Commission (named after Francis Floud), which proposed radical changes like abolition of zamindari system and a systematic upliftment of bargadars but soon faced abhorrent backlashes from the members of congress party, majorly constitutive of the landed gentries. Furthermore, the memorandum sent by the Kisan Sabha to the commission was also quite ambiguous regarding the status of bargadars and didn’t take an outright oppositional stance against the propertied class and Swarajist sections. What actually became significant here was the negligence towards the demand of tebhaga (two-third share) rightly deserved by bargadars and other marginalized peasants. Interestingly, the call for “Tebhaga” was proposed by Sir Francis Floud rather than the organizing parties (CPI and BPKS) and Abani Lahiri stated, "The first clash that took place there had been spontaneous and there was no organization but organization came in the trail of the struggle" (Lahiri, 2001, p. 56) and “the movement did not get disrupted because peasants moved into action without waiting for our opinion” (Lahiri, 2001, p. 68).

It is also important to note that Bandyopadhyay showed doubt regarding the inherent composition of these parties which was mainly constituted by urban middle class elite stating, “Though the middle class consists of various diverse groups, they have one element in common: the furtherance and promotion of their sectional interests” (Bandyopadhyay, 2001). The leadership varied from regional basis wherein certain regions the movement got actively progressed by the participation of adivasis, while in regions like Burdwan, Lahiri notes the middle peasantry dominated the party due to which it didn’t take off beyond the point of their immediate interests. 

Coming back to Gramsci, it directs toward the concept of cultural elite parties, which he referred to the independent blocs but here it doesn’t merely get restricted to the independent/anarchist bloc, rather the well-organized parties like CPI and Kisan Sabha itself got dominated by the middle-class intellectual elites providing ideological leadership to the affected communities but couldn’t perhaps maintained the organic coherence. Conclusively, the Gramscian manifesto allows these coinciding perceptions between structure and subaltern agency, to be interpreted not as mutually exclusive explanations but as a process through the friction between the subaltern classes and the organizational leadership, the structural contradictions running parallel to the counter-hegemonic projects could be seen with clarity. 

REFERENCES

• Gramsci, A. (1957). The Modern Prince & Other Writings. Foreign Language Press. 

• Das, S. (2008). “Ideology and Organisations of Rural Protest: Tebhaga Peasant Movement in Bengal”. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 69 (2008), pp. 674-690.

• Bose, S. (1986). Agrarian Bengal: Economy, Social Structure and Politics, 1919-47.

• Bhattacharya, G. (1978). “An Examination of Leadership Entry in Bengal Peasant Revolts”. Journal of Asian Studies, No. 4.

•  Beteille, A. (1974). Studies in Agrarian Social Structure. Oxford University Press. pp-184-85.

•  Chaudhuri, B.B. . “Organized Politics and Peasant Insurgency : The Bengal Provincial Krishak Sabha and the Sharecropper's Struggle, Bengal, 1945-47” (Book- Review article). Calcutta Historical Journal, Vol XII,Nos. 1-2, July 1988-June1989.

•  Chatterjee, P. (1984). Bengal (1920-1947) : The Land Question. Calcutta; Vol-I. p. 208.

•  Guha, R. (1982) (ed.), Subaltern Studies, Oxford University Press, Delhi.

• Bandyopadhyay, D. (2001). “Tebhaga Movement in Bengal: A Retrospect”. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 41 (Oct. 13-19, 2001), pp. 3901-3903+3905-3907.

•  Lahiri, A. (2001): Post-War Revolt of the Rural Poor in Bengal: Memoirs of a Communist Activist, translated by Subrata Banerjee, Seagull, Kolkata.