I know not, am I my comrade’s keeper?-C P John

The horrifying death of W.R. Varadarajan, one of the most important leaders of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) and a central committee member of the CPM from Tamil Nadu, has raised several questions about the politics and practices of the communist parties. From the facts emerging from the media, the death is likely to have been a suicide. Is this an indicator of the unbearable stress of life and work within the communist parties?

In the era of Stalinist obscurantism, many comrades were driven to suicide by feelings of guilt, of not being able to cope with the “revolutionary” requirements. Mohit Sen, in his autobiography A Traveller and the Road: The Journey of an Indian Communist, has narrated the story of two Vietnamese comrades attending the same party school in Beijing in the early ’50s, who killed themselves. They were stricken with guilt after spending a small amount of money collected for the party, on themselves. The stress of this guilt exploded during an “introspection session” at the party school, under the tutelage of none other than Liu Shaoqi — the author of How To Be A Good Communist — who was expelled from the party during the Cultural Revolution and persecuted in prison until his death. But these Vietnamese comrades were condemned by Liu Shaoqi then, and not even granted a burial in the graveyard meant for “true” communists, since they had severed links with the party through their deaths.

However, W.R. Varadarajan has not been dismissed from the party after his death for the sin of committing suicide. Communist parties have always defined “party life” and “party work” as one and the same as far as dedicated party workers — and especially the top leaders — are concerned. Family, marriage, parenting, and all other worldly affairs were often discussed inside the party, and always directed by it.

In this case, a complaint was filed by Varadarajan’s wife alleging illicit relations. The party state unit discussed the matter and decided to strip him of all the posts he had in the party. The central committee of the party seemed to simply endorse the decision of the state unit. Technically, this virtual expulsion is constitutional and within the rules, and the whole issue can justifiably be called the party’s internal issue. But the question remains: who is responsible for Varadarajan’s life and his death?

Perhaps the CPM central committee’s collective wisdom in punishing Varadarajan for his transgressions cannot be questioned. But did all those present at the meeting have the moral authority to cast the first stone? The party may be excessively focused on the moral free-fall, since it had to expel its Punjab state unit secretary in the recent past. When life and work are in conflict, can anyone expect a reasonable judgment from a party forum which pretends to be omnipotent? How can such delicate personal matters be debated and resolved in political forums? But a party like the CPM still “believes” that it can judge anything and everything.

Even after the morally harsh judgment, the party did not display any concern for Varadarajan. It could not comprehend the trauma that he must have undergone. W.R. Varadarajan’s so-called comrades seemed to have no idea of what happened to him after the disciplinary action. The virtual expulsion from the party functioned like an implicit social boycott. Varadarajan’s decision to end his life was the product of the guilt and shame inflicted upon him by his own comrades. For several days, he went missing. A leader who once enjoyed great stature in the party was finally taken to the mortuary as an unidentified corpse. This is the saddest part of the whole story. Varadarajan has gone. But who is responsible for his death? “I know not, am I my comrade’s keeper?” may be the best answer.

The writer is a former vice-president of the Students Federation of India (the CPM’s student wing), and is now the secretary of the Communist Marxist Party which broke away from the CPM in 1986

express@expressindia.com