People's Democracy

Che Lives On In the Struggle Against Imperialism

R Arun Kumar

“The experience of colonial domination shows that, in the effort to perpetuate exploitation, the colonisers not only creates a system to repress the cultural life of the colonised people; he also provokes and develops the cultural alienation of a part of the population, either by so-called assimilation of indigenous people, or by creating a social gap between the indigenous elites and the popular masses. As a result of this process of dividing or of deepening the divisions in the society, it happens that a considerable part of the population, notably the urban or peasant petite bourgeoisie, assimilates the coloniser's mentality, considers itself culturally superior to its own people and ignores or looks down upon their cultural values.” Amilcar Cabral

The significance of the year 2007 apart from the fact that it is 150 years of the 1857 Revolt, 60 years of our independence and the birth centenary year of Bhagat Singh lies in the fact that it also marks the 40th death anniversary of Che Guevara, recognised as one of the ‘icons of the 20th century’.

Bhagat Sigh and Che are two people who always inspire the youth, though both of them are separated by time and space. Che was hardly three years old when the British rulers hanged Bhagat Singh. Nonetheless many interesting coincidences can be deduced from the lives of both the youngsters. Bhagat Singh and Che are both characterised by their strong hatred towards imperialism. Both of them courted danger with ease in their struggle against imperialism. Both of them had that charisma to attract youth with their power of reasoning and logic and an understanding of the aims for which they were fighting. Both of them sacrificed their lives at a young age (Che became a martyr at the age of 39 while Bhagat Singh was martyred at the age of 23). Death did not frighten them. Che’s famous last words were “Shoot coward! You are only going to kill a man,” while we all know how bravely with a smile on his lips and shouting slogans against imperialism and for socialism Bhagat Singh went to the gallows.

In fact they continue to frighten the imperialists even after their death. Both of them have frightened the imperialists to such an extent that neither their dead bodies were given to their relatives nor did the murderers carry decent burials of the martyrs. As Fidel Castro had said “They (imperialists) wish to deprive the revolutionary movement of even a symbol, a site, a spot.” The reason behind this is not far to understand, as the most important thing that distinguishes these two revolutionaries is their love for the people and especially for the toiling sections of the society. It is for the well being of the toiling people that they have always thought, fought and ultimately gave their lives. So if they have a ‘spot’ it might become a ‘shrine’ and a place where the people can draw inspiration in their struggle for a better livelihood. The imperialists never want this to happen, as it constantly poses a threat to their existence.

The frightened imperialist forces and the ruling classes, even to this day are trying in vain to erase the memory of these two young martyrs. Last year MTV had shown an ad for their ‘youth icon’ contest, in which a young lad burns the poster of Che, implying that he is no longer relevant today and that, time has come to replace him. Of course, they had to withdraw it after a protest from SFI, but this shows to what extent they can go to erase the memories of these heroes. They have tried to kill their ideas by not giving them any space but failed as their ideas continue to occupy the hearts of the masses. They have tried and are still trying to misrepresent them and their ideas. The projections that they are terrorists, anarchists, only interested in taking away human lives are some of these attempts.

Another interesting feature is the attempt to own these icons as their own representatives and thus try to drive a wedge between them and the masses. This is not a new feature because history is witness to attempts to assimilate Buddha in the Dasavataras and Sufi and Bhakti movements that questioned the social inequalities existing in the society of those times into ruling ideology. It is happening now when MNC’s and imperialist agencies use the pictures of these revolutionaries to promote their profits using the popular appeal of these heroes. It is thus, the task of the real revolutionaries to clear the air of confusion and take the ideas of these icons to the people. Linking them with the present debates will further help people to understand the character of the ruling classes and also give them an idea as to who is ideal.

British colonialists had claimed that they were ruling India because of their benevolent intention to ‘civilise’ us. The Royal Proclamation of Queen Victoria in 1858 stated, “It is our earnest desire to stimulate the peaceful industry of India, to promote works of public utility and improvement, and to administer the government for the benefit of all our subjects resident therein”. To suit the changed times, imperialism is today claiming upon it the responsibility of ‘democratising’ the world. The invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and the threats issued to Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria are all part of this ‘sacred mission’. Dissecting this mask of the imperialism and exposing its cruel face, Che said “The United States intervenes in Latin America invoking the defence of free institutions…Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the colour of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men - how can those who do this consider themselves as guardians of freedom?…It must be clearly established, however, that the government of United States is not the champion of freedom, but rather the perpetrator of exploitation and oppression against the peoples of the world and against a large part of its own population.”

Che was proved right. The US has a very bad record of human rights violation. But this does not stop it from sermonising about human rights and threaten other countries with dire consequences for their violation. The recent attacks on the black population in the US show the existing wide schism in the US society on racial lines. However best they are trying to camouflage racial discrimination in their country, they are unable to hide the growing dissent among the people. The torture chambers, detention of people without trail, not to speak about the Guantanamo Bay where they detain prisoners and commit all sorts of abuses are all live examples of the US brand of democracy. The mutant form of this democracy that they are trying to export to other countries is even more threatening. In spite of all this damning evidence against US, our rulers want to ally our country with the US and take part in the exercise of ‘establishing democracy in the world’.

Che had warned, “Imperialism crushes nationality, tarnishes patriotic sentiments and colonises economy.” Bhagat Singh too had said, “We believe that imperialism is nothing but a vast conspiracy organised with predatory motives. The imperialists…also organise general massacres, devastation and other horrible crimes like war. Under the garb of custodians of ‘law and order’ they break peace, create disorder, kill people and commit all conceivable crimes”. This understanding of the nature of imperialism is true even to this day. Even a cursory glance at what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries proves the validity of this understanding. It is also a fact that bypassing the UN, US took upon itself the task of protecting ‘law and order, restoring democracy and eliminating terrorism.’ Any humane person will condemn these barbaric brutalities of imperialism.

But for some of the political leaders and commentators in the media, anti-imperialism is a dead ideology. They argue that post-Cold War, anti-imperialism lost its relevance and so has the non-aligned foreign policy. Unfortunately they are blind to the fact that it is only after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc that the US had unshackled itself and hastened the process of imposing its hegemony over the third world using its economic and military might. They advocate an alliance with the ‘lone super power-the US’.

The same people who had benefited from the policies dictated by the Bretton Wood institutes at the behest of the US and pursued by successive governments at the centre are gung-ho about the strategic partnership with the US. They are the ones who are scoffing at the critics of the Indo-US nuclear deal and the strategic partnership. This miniscule minority of the rich wants to don the role and pose as the representative of entire country. The progress of this elite minority is depicted as the progress of the entire country, their opinion as the country’s opinion and their love for imperialism as the love of the entire people.

They want all of us to believe that a strategic alliance with the US would be for the good of the entire country. They do not want us to question them about the implications of the strategic alliance that US had with Iraq before it fell out of favour, the condition of Pakistan or any other country for that matter. When everybody is crowing that the hands of imperialism are bhasmasura hasta they paint them as abhaya hasta and want us to place them on our heads without questioning them. An extreme expression of this faith on imperialism is found in the argument that it should be trusted to act in our interest even circumnavigating its own domestic laws.

Any argument against imperialism is termed as a redundant idea arising from blind ‘anti-Americanism’. For this, Che had given a reply long back, valid even today “We are against the United States because the United States is against our people.” He further clarified that this should not be construed to mean that we are against the people of US. “I would like to salute them because the US people are not to blame for the barbarity and injustice of their rulers…” That is the reason why Bush, a ‘good friend of India’ is hated by more than 67 percent of the citizens of US and also by the majority of people world over.

There are some other people who can tolerate criticism of imperialism but if the Left starts mobilising people they start panicking. Though they realise that imperialism cannot be fought just by shouting insults against it, they do not desire any active opposition to imperialism. As an African saying goes: “When your house is burning, it’s no use beating the tom-toms.” They do not want to allow the Left to stop the imperialist forces from ‘burning our house’. The most intriguing fact is that one who has burnt the house and others who have helped him burn are left unscathed, while those who are risking their lives to save the house from getting burnt are questioned of their integrity.

Some of the ‘powerful friends’ of the US-both inside and outside of our country-have already unleashed a campaign saying that those who are opposed to the nuclear deal and strategic alliance with the US are not patriots. It is worthy to remember what Mahatma Gandhi had meant by patriotism. “By patriotism I mean the welfare of the whole people”. The critics of the strategic alliance with the US are coming with lots of evidence to prove the disastrous affects of entering into such an arrangement. The proponents of the deal and alliance are not able to convincingly argue what welfare it does to the people. The hollowness of their claim of a gain in producing nuclear energy at the cost of compromising our country’s defence, opening up of the finance sector, FDI in education, retail and insurance, is debated at many places and does not need a repetition here.

Commenting on the ruling classes in Latin America, Che stated, “Faced with the dilemma of choosing between the people and imperialism, the weak national bourgeoisie chooses imperialism and definitively betray their country.” We should not let our ruling classes (though they might be different from the Latin American variants Che was referring to) betray the country. They should be reminded of the fate of all those betrayers and be warned to cater to the welfare of the people. Welfare of the people will be possible only when we protect our sovereignty, intellectual self-reliance, cater to the needs of the majority of the people and come out of the poisonous embrace of imperialism.

The present leaders of the ‘grand old party of the country’ who claim to inherit the legacy of the freedom struggle should ponder over their pro-imperialist policies. They have to remember what Nehru had said about imperialism. “If freedom was to be established in the world not only fascism and Nazism had to go, but imperialism had to be completely liquidated.” If we value our freedom and want to protect it, we have to fight for the liquidation of imperialism. There are many people in our country who are fighting for their food, water, houses, clothes and above all for their existence. Through these struggles they are realising the link between the struggle for their basic demands and the anti-imperialist struggle.

All the attempts of the ruling classes to desist people from the path of the struggle are proving to be futile because people do not have short memory. They remember their historic legacy and draw inspiration from it. However hard the imperialism might try to erase the memory of the revolutionary heroes from popular consciousness, it is bound to fail in its endeavour. “Ernesto has died, but he had already been born into eternity…Death ended his journey, but opened the doors to the life he had so desired. The memory of Ernesto, his life, his struggle, will always live on in the hearts of the peoples of this world.”
For all the people who care for others and for a better tomorrow, Che will always be a rage and ‘anti-imperialism’ chic. Just wear it on your sleeves.