What do you think?
Rate this book
Only Fatherland
Are ideologies a pair of binoculars that enable us to see far? Or are they a pair of blinkers that keep us from seeing even that which is at hand? How is it that communists; equipped as they are with the one great Theory that explains everything; fumble ever so often in seeing the obvious? How did the Theory lead them to declare the Second World War as an 'Imperialist War' one day; and a 'People's War' the next? How did it lead them to undertake to sabotage the Quit India Movement for the British? How did it lead them to trumpet the demand for Pakistan 'better than the Muslim League'? To declare in 1947 that India had not really become independent? To insist that Pandit Nehru was just "a running dog of imperialism"? To launch an insurrection in 1949 on the premise that India was ripe for an armed revolution? To fumble so much in their response to the end of the communist bloc? Arun Shourie; one of the most respected commentators on current affairs in India today; illustrates the malady by reconstructing what the communists did during the Quit India Movement. In the process he uncovers the secret negotiations they conducted and the secret understanding they struck with the British; the reports they submitted to the imperial rulers about the work they were doing to subvert the movement Mahatma Gandhi had launched. He concludes with a review of the reactions of Indian communists to the break-up of the Soviet empire; showing how their mental make-up and habits have not changed in the six decades since independence.
216 pages, Hardcover
First published June 15, 1991
31 people are currently reading
356 people want to read
About the author
Arun Shourie
39 books298 followersIndian economist, journalist, author and politician.
He has worked as an economist with the World Bank, a consultant to the Planning Commission of India, editor of the Indian Express and The Times of India and a Minister of Communications and Information Technology in the Vajpayee Ministry (1998–2004). He was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 1982 and the Padma Bhushan in 1990.
Popularly perceived as one of the main Hindu nationalist intellectuals during the 90s and early 2000s.
He has worked as an economist with the World Bank, a consultant to the Planning Commission of India, editor of the Indian Express and The Times of India and a Minister of Communications and Information Technology in the Vajpayee Ministry (1998–2004). He was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 1982 and the Padma Bhushan in 1990.
Popularly perceived as one of the main Hindu nationalist intellectuals during the 90s and early 2000s.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
November 20, 2025
Arun Shourie’s ‘Only Fatherland’ is one of those books that feels less like a conventional political study and more like a forensic excavation of a nation’s subconscious. It is a book written with urgency but delivered with the patient, almost ascetic discipline of someone who has spent too long watching shadows fall across democratic institutions and is now determined to name them one by one.
From the first page you sense this is not a text meant to be read casually; it is a warning masquerading as research, a critique wrapped in documents, a lament constructed out of footnotes. And beneath it all runs Shourie’s unmistakable faith in the Republic—a faith so battered and bruised that it can speak only through the language of evidence and insistence.
The book’s title itself, ‘Only Fatherland’, carries that tight coil of irony: a phrase used by those who claim absolute loyalty to the nation yet operate with extraordinary hostility toward its democratic spirit. Shourie, with methodical precision, unpacks how this disjuncture emerges, expands, and finally threatens to calcify.
The book’s central project is the exposure of double-speak—ideological duplicity so entrenched that it begins to pass for normal discourse. Shourie turns his attention to how certain political formations in India, particularly those aligned with communist or far-left ideology, have historically assumed the mantle of nationalism even as their intellectual and political loyalties drifted elsewhere.
He does not shout this thesis; he builds it brick by brick, with citations from party documents, speeches, resolutions, and writings that expose a profound mismatch between public rhetoric and internal commitments. The reader is not asked to take Shourie’s word; the reader is asked to listen to the words of those he critiques. And perhaps that is the most disarming aspect of the book—the way it holds a mirror up to ideologies that have long survived by projecting mirrors onto others.
As the narrative unfolds, Shourie’s obsession becomes clear: he is determined to show how political actors who fashion themselves as guardians of India’s pluralism and intellectual sophistication have, at critical historical moments, chosen to align with foreign powers, foreign narratives, and foreign doctrinal obligations.
It is an alignment not just of convenience but of worldview, an allegiance to ideological templates imported wholesale from other revolutions, other struggles, other histories.
This, for Shourie, is the crux: that large segments of the Indian Left have historically preferred borrowing their moral compass from Moscow, Beijing, Havana, or other centers of ideological gravity, and in doing so have evaded the foundational accountability that nationalism demands.
And yet these same actors, in public discourse, deride others as “communal” or “reactionary,” claiming monopoly over the vocabulary of progress. Shourie reacts to this with a mixture of disbelief and grim amusement, but his argument is never emotional. It is archival.
He plunges the reader into party correspondence from the time of the Chinese aggression of 1962, when, at a moment of national crisis, factions of the Indian Left seemed almost dazed by their doctrinal commitments. The conflict between loyalty to ideology and loyalty to homeland becomes more than a theoretical contest; it becomes a litmus test of identity.
Shourie documents instances of communist leaders struggling to reconcile their admiration for the Chinese experiment with the fact of Chinese soldiers crossing into Indian territory. That hesitation—that inability to prioritize nation over imported ideology—becomes a symbol for Shourie, a symbol of how intellectual frameworks can erode common-sense patriotism. He is not arguing against ideological diversity; he is arguing against ideological captivity.
Another strand that Shourie develops with quiet intensity is the role of intellectual institutions—universities, publishing houses, think tanks, academic councils—in creating a narrative ecosystem that normalizes this captivity. The book takes us into the politics of historiography: how versions of Indian history that emphasized class struggle or economic determinism became institutional orthodoxy, while other civilizational narratives were dismissed as backward, irrational, majoritarian.
Shourie is not romanticizing the past; he is pointing to an asymmetry of intellectual tolerance. The Indian Left, in his telling, weaponized the language of secularism to delegitimize alternative frameworks while quietly advancing its own ideological program under the guise of scientific temper.
And yet, the power of ‘Only Fatherland’ is not in its critique of the Left alone. It is in Shourie’s broader engagement with how ideological absolutism—whether left, right, or clerical—undermines the nation-state.
His case studies are drawn primarily from leftist politics because that is where he sees the greatest mismatch between proclaimed patriotism and practiced allegiance, but his deeper concern is with the erosion of intellectual independence. He is relentless in questioning why certain atrocities, invasions, or political failures receive intense scrutiny while others are minimized or erased.
He returns repeatedly to the theme of selective indignation—the idea that moral outrage is often calibrated not by the scale of injustice but by its ideological usefulness.
Shourie’s prose throughout the book is sharp and deceptively unemotional. It carries that signature dryness that hides fire beneath the surface. There is something almost monastic about the way he submits himself to documents, refusing the seduction of rhetoric, letting the bare contradictions speak for themselves. And paradoxically, this restraint amplifies the impact.
The reader begins to see patterns—not because Shourie insists on them but because the evidence keeps circling back to the same fault lines: subordination of national interest to ideological dictates, contempt for dissenting histories, dismissal of civilizational narratives as myth, and a persistent belief that the Indian story must always be interpreted through the grammar of class struggle imported from Europe.
What makes the book feel eerily contemporary, though written decades ago, is how these patterns have continued to shape public discourse. Shourie’s critique of intellectual gatekeeping, for instance, remains painfully relevant. He shows how academic syllabi, journal boards, cultural bodies, and public broadcasting institutions became dominated by cliques whose primary qualification was ideological conformity. The resulting atmosphere discouraged genuine inquiry.
Research became less about investigation and more about signaling. Even dissent within the Left was often stifled in the name of the greater ideological objective. Shourie treats this not merely as a political issue but as a civilizational one: a society cannot flourish if its intellectuals become commissars.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the book is Shourie’s exploration of semantics—how the language of nationalism itself is contested terrain. Words like “secularism,” “communalism,” “reactionary,” “progressive,” “fascist,” “patriotism” become ideological proxies, deployed not to clarify reality but to control it. Shourie devotes considerable energy to decoding these linguistic maneuvers, tracing their evolution from global Marxist discourse to their Indian adaptations. His argument is that by controlling terminology, the ideological Left controlled legitimacy.
Those who questioned their frameworks were branded anti-national even as the Left itself retained the authority to define what nationalism meant. This linguistic sleight-of-hand becomes, for Shourie, one of the most sophisticated tools of political manipulation.
A recurring emotional pulse in the book—though it is never stated explicitly—is Shourie’s deep affection for India’s civilizational heritage. He does not use the language of mysticism or nostalgia; instead, he expresses this affection by documenting how that heritage has been trivialized or misrepresented.
He bristles at the idea that India’s intellectual roots must always pass through Western filters before being deemed legitimate. He objects to the habit of diminishing indigenous traditions simply because they do not conform to Marxist frameworks.
In Shourie’s view, the tragedy is not that alternative histories exist but that one particular ideological narrative was elevated to canonical status while others were systematically marginalized. The result is an intellectual culture that is suspicious of its own ancestry.
And yet Shourie is too sophisticated a thinker to suggest a simple return to the past. His argument is not for revivalism but for honesty. He wants India to examine its own history without ideological blinders, to reclaim the ability to think independently, to break free from imported frameworks that do not account for its unique civilizational trajectory.
The book is, in that sense, a plea for intellectual sovereignty. Shourie believes India cannot be fully itself if its thinkers are embarrassed by its traditions or beholden to foreign intellectual fashions.
One of the most powerful sections of the book is his analysis of how regimes built on ideological absolutism inevitably turn violent—not always through physical force but through epistemic violence. When only one narrative is allowed legitimacy, all others become suspect. This suspicion breeds censorship, fear, intimidation, and self-censorship.
Shourie shows how even debates on sensitive issues like national security, international alliances, and internal insurgencies were distorted by ideological loyalties that had little to do with India’s actual interests. The result was a public discourse that often prioritized party lines over national well-being.
By the time you near the end of the book, a pattern emerges with chilling clarity: the same ideological networks that claimed exclusive rights to define patriotism were often the ones most indifferent to India’s real geopolitical challenges. Shourie does not present this as a conspiracy but as a structural contradiction—a predictable outcome when intellectual elites adopt loyalty to global ideological movements as their primary identity. The nation becomes secondary, almost an inconvenience.
But ‘Only Fatherland’ is not a pessimistic book. Beneath the critique lies a profound faith in the democratic spirit. Shourie believes that India’s strength lies not in ideological purity but in open debate, cultural confidence, and intellectual diversity. His frustration with the Left stems not from hatred but from a sense of betrayal: the very institutions meant to protect dissent had become echo chambers for one rigid worldview. He wants India to break out of these echo chambers, to rediscover its own voice.
There is a quiet moral force in the way Shourie ends the book, without bombast or sentimental flourish. He simply presents the evidence and leaves the reader with a realization: nations cannot be built by people who despise their own cultural inheritance; nor can they flourish under intellectual regimes that prioritize ideology over the lived realities of the people.
The path forward requires clarity—clarity about who speaks in the name of the nation, clarity about the consequences of importing ideological battles from elsewhere, clarity about the need to reclaim intellectual autonomy.
In the end, ‘Only Fatherland’ becomes not just a political critique but a meditation on belonging. It asks what it means to be rooted in a civilization, what it means to inherit a collective past, what it means to be accountable to a nation rather than to a doctrine. Shourie is fierce because he cares; he documents because he refuses to let amnesia become policy.
And as you close the book, you feel that unmistakable Shourie effect: a strange combination of indignation, clarity, and renewed vigilance. You begin to sense how fragile discourse can be, how easily power can distort truth, how urgently democracies need intellectual diversity and civilizational self-respect.
‘Only Fatherland’ stands as both testimony and warning—an insistence that nations weakened by ideological dependency risk losing their sense of self.
And in that sense, Shourie’s book remains as vital as ever, a reminder that the real battle for a nation’s soul is always fought in the realm of ideas, in the quiet corners of classrooms, editorial rooms, research desks, and public debate.
It is a battle that demands courage. And Shourie, for all his rigor and dryness, writes like someone who has never been afraid of that fight.
From the first page you sense this is not a text meant to be read casually; it is a warning masquerading as research, a critique wrapped in documents, a lament constructed out of footnotes. And beneath it all runs Shourie’s unmistakable faith in the Republic—a faith so battered and bruised that it can speak only through the language of evidence and insistence.
The book’s title itself, ‘Only Fatherland’, carries that tight coil of irony: a phrase used by those who claim absolute loyalty to the nation yet operate with extraordinary hostility toward its democratic spirit. Shourie, with methodical precision, unpacks how this disjuncture emerges, expands, and finally threatens to calcify.
The book’s central project is the exposure of double-speak—ideological duplicity so entrenched that it begins to pass for normal discourse. Shourie turns his attention to how certain political formations in India, particularly those aligned with communist or far-left ideology, have historically assumed the mantle of nationalism even as their intellectual and political loyalties drifted elsewhere.
He does not shout this thesis; he builds it brick by brick, with citations from party documents, speeches, resolutions, and writings that expose a profound mismatch between public rhetoric and internal commitments. The reader is not asked to take Shourie’s word; the reader is asked to listen to the words of those he critiques. And perhaps that is the most disarming aspect of the book—the way it holds a mirror up to ideologies that have long survived by projecting mirrors onto others.
As the narrative unfolds, Shourie’s obsession becomes clear: he is determined to show how political actors who fashion themselves as guardians of India’s pluralism and intellectual sophistication have, at critical historical moments, chosen to align with foreign powers, foreign narratives, and foreign doctrinal obligations.
It is an alignment not just of convenience but of worldview, an allegiance to ideological templates imported wholesale from other revolutions, other struggles, other histories.
This, for Shourie, is the crux: that large segments of the Indian Left have historically preferred borrowing their moral compass from Moscow, Beijing, Havana, or other centers of ideological gravity, and in doing so have evaded the foundational accountability that nationalism demands.
And yet these same actors, in public discourse, deride others as “communal” or “reactionary,” claiming monopoly over the vocabulary of progress. Shourie reacts to this with a mixture of disbelief and grim amusement, but his argument is never emotional. It is archival.
He plunges the reader into party correspondence from the time of the Chinese aggression of 1962, when, at a moment of national crisis, factions of the Indian Left seemed almost dazed by their doctrinal commitments. The conflict between loyalty to ideology and loyalty to homeland becomes more than a theoretical contest; it becomes a litmus test of identity.
Shourie documents instances of communist leaders struggling to reconcile their admiration for the Chinese experiment with the fact of Chinese soldiers crossing into Indian territory. That hesitation—that inability to prioritize nation over imported ideology—becomes a symbol for Shourie, a symbol of how intellectual frameworks can erode common-sense patriotism. He is not arguing against ideological diversity; he is arguing against ideological captivity.
Another strand that Shourie develops with quiet intensity is the role of intellectual institutions—universities, publishing houses, think tanks, academic councils—in creating a narrative ecosystem that normalizes this captivity. The book takes us into the politics of historiography: how versions of Indian history that emphasized class struggle or economic determinism became institutional orthodoxy, while other civilizational narratives were dismissed as backward, irrational, majoritarian.
Shourie is not romanticizing the past; he is pointing to an asymmetry of intellectual tolerance. The Indian Left, in his telling, weaponized the language of secularism to delegitimize alternative frameworks while quietly advancing its own ideological program under the guise of scientific temper.
And yet, the power of ‘Only Fatherland’ is not in its critique of the Left alone. It is in Shourie’s broader engagement with how ideological absolutism—whether left, right, or clerical—undermines the nation-state.
His case studies are drawn primarily from leftist politics because that is where he sees the greatest mismatch between proclaimed patriotism and practiced allegiance, but his deeper concern is with the erosion of intellectual independence. He is relentless in questioning why certain atrocities, invasions, or political failures receive intense scrutiny while others are minimized or erased.
He returns repeatedly to the theme of selective indignation—the idea that moral outrage is often calibrated not by the scale of injustice but by its ideological usefulness.
Shourie’s prose throughout the book is sharp and deceptively unemotional. It carries that signature dryness that hides fire beneath the surface. There is something almost monastic about the way he submits himself to documents, refusing the seduction of rhetoric, letting the bare contradictions speak for themselves. And paradoxically, this restraint amplifies the impact.
The reader begins to see patterns—not because Shourie insists on them but because the evidence keeps circling back to the same fault lines: subordination of national interest to ideological dictates, contempt for dissenting histories, dismissal of civilizational narratives as myth, and a persistent belief that the Indian story must always be interpreted through the grammar of class struggle imported from Europe.
What makes the book feel eerily contemporary, though written decades ago, is how these patterns have continued to shape public discourse. Shourie’s critique of intellectual gatekeeping, for instance, remains painfully relevant. He shows how academic syllabi, journal boards, cultural bodies, and public broadcasting institutions became dominated by cliques whose primary qualification was ideological conformity. The resulting atmosphere discouraged genuine inquiry.
Research became less about investigation and more about signaling. Even dissent within the Left was often stifled in the name of the greater ideological objective. Shourie treats this not merely as a political issue but as a civilizational one: a society cannot flourish if its intellectuals become commissars.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the book is Shourie’s exploration of semantics—how the language of nationalism itself is contested terrain. Words like “secularism,” “communalism,” “reactionary,” “progressive,” “fascist,” “patriotism” become ideological proxies, deployed not to clarify reality but to control it. Shourie devotes considerable energy to decoding these linguistic maneuvers, tracing their evolution from global Marxist discourse to their Indian adaptations. His argument is that by controlling terminology, the ideological Left controlled legitimacy.
Those who questioned their frameworks were branded anti-national even as the Left itself retained the authority to define what nationalism meant. This linguistic sleight-of-hand becomes, for Shourie, one of the most sophisticated tools of political manipulation.
A recurring emotional pulse in the book—though it is never stated explicitly—is Shourie’s deep affection for India’s civilizational heritage. He does not use the language of mysticism or nostalgia; instead, he expresses this affection by documenting how that heritage has been trivialized or misrepresented.
He bristles at the idea that India’s intellectual roots must always pass through Western filters before being deemed legitimate. He objects to the habit of diminishing indigenous traditions simply because they do not conform to Marxist frameworks.
In Shourie’s view, the tragedy is not that alternative histories exist but that one particular ideological narrative was elevated to canonical status while others were systematically marginalized. The result is an intellectual culture that is suspicious of its own ancestry.
And yet Shourie is too sophisticated a thinker to suggest a simple return to the past. His argument is not for revivalism but for honesty. He wants India to examine its own history without ideological blinders, to reclaim the ability to think independently, to break free from imported frameworks that do not account for its unique civilizational trajectory.
The book is, in that sense, a plea for intellectual sovereignty. Shourie believes India cannot be fully itself if its thinkers are embarrassed by its traditions or beholden to foreign intellectual fashions.
One of the most powerful sections of the book is his analysis of how regimes built on ideological absolutism inevitably turn violent—not always through physical force but through epistemic violence. When only one narrative is allowed legitimacy, all others become suspect. This suspicion breeds censorship, fear, intimidation, and self-censorship.
Shourie shows how even debates on sensitive issues like national security, international alliances, and internal insurgencies were distorted by ideological loyalties that had little to do with India’s actual interests. The result was a public discourse that often prioritized party lines over national well-being.
By the time you near the end of the book, a pattern emerges with chilling clarity: the same ideological networks that claimed exclusive rights to define patriotism were often the ones most indifferent to India’s real geopolitical challenges. Shourie does not present this as a conspiracy but as a structural contradiction—a predictable outcome when intellectual elites adopt loyalty to global ideological movements as their primary identity. The nation becomes secondary, almost an inconvenience.
But ‘Only Fatherland’ is not a pessimistic book. Beneath the critique lies a profound faith in the democratic spirit. Shourie believes that India’s strength lies not in ideological purity but in open debate, cultural confidence, and intellectual diversity. His frustration with the Left stems not from hatred but from a sense of betrayal: the very institutions meant to protect dissent had become echo chambers for one rigid worldview. He wants India to break out of these echo chambers, to rediscover its own voice.
There is a quiet moral force in the way Shourie ends the book, without bombast or sentimental flourish. He simply presents the evidence and leaves the reader with a realization: nations cannot be built by people who despise their own cultural inheritance; nor can they flourish under intellectual regimes that prioritize ideology over the lived realities of the people.
The path forward requires clarity—clarity about who speaks in the name of the nation, clarity about the consequences of importing ideological battles from elsewhere, clarity about the need to reclaim intellectual autonomy.
In the end, ‘Only Fatherland’ becomes not just a political critique but a meditation on belonging. It asks what it means to be rooted in a civilization, what it means to inherit a collective past, what it means to be accountable to a nation rather than to a doctrine. Shourie is fierce because he cares; he documents because he refuses to let amnesia become policy.
And as you close the book, you feel that unmistakable Shourie effect: a strange combination of indignation, clarity, and renewed vigilance. You begin to sense how fragile discourse can be, how easily power can distort truth, how urgently democracies need intellectual diversity and civilizational self-respect.
‘Only Fatherland’ stands as both testimony and warning—an insistence that nations weakened by ideological dependency risk losing their sense of self.
And in that sense, Shourie’s book remains as vital as ever, a reminder that the real battle for a nation’s soul is always fought in the realm of ideas, in the quiet corners of classrooms, editorial rooms, research desks, and public debate.
It is a battle that demands courage. And Shourie, for all his rigor and dryness, writes like someone who has never been afraid of that fight.
October 14, 2020
I had read/heard somewhere : “Communists are those who always talk about the snake not in the room.”
Communists have an idea which they don’t care to be right or wrong as long as they have this idea. And they are so infatuated with their idea (and inspired by Lenin and Stalin) that even after the utter failure of communism on a global level, they have used all the words in literature to twist the facts, hide truths and brand everyone in the world as culprit.
As per communists, if communism fails, it’s the fault of the non-communists and not communism or the idea itself ! This is not just an allegation but their conduct and behavior all throughout history.
This book is a detailed analysis on the history of CPI(M) in India, their turncoat and back stabbing conduct during WWII, their mentality and behavior. Whereas their past conduct are not much mentioned in the pages of history, their mentality & behavior is ever reflected in Indian society.
The later chapters of the book become more interesting as the author dissects each and every statement and stand of the communists in light of the events that unfolded following WWII.
The author goes to the great lengths to analyze how Commis think (if they think at all), their mentality and their mode of operation - slander, abuse, creating noise suppressing truth etc. He elaborates all these with ample examples.
CPI(M) lost almost everything when USSR collapsed; and having lost their mastermind they got a free hand in turning India into their playground.
USSR might not be here now, neither are Lenin & Stalin, but each n every commi remain Stalinist at heart and in mind.
Communists have an idea which they don’t care to be right or wrong as long as they have this idea. And they are so infatuated with their idea (and inspired by Lenin and Stalin) that even after the utter failure of communism on a global level, they have used all the words in literature to twist the facts, hide truths and brand everyone in the world as culprit.
As per communists, if communism fails, it’s the fault of the non-communists and not communism or the idea itself ! This is not just an allegation but their conduct and behavior all throughout history.
This book is a detailed analysis on the history of CPI(M) in India, their turncoat and back stabbing conduct during WWII, their mentality and behavior. Whereas their past conduct are not much mentioned in the pages of history, their mentality & behavior is ever reflected in Indian society.
The later chapters of the book become more interesting as the author dissects each and every statement and stand of the communists in light of the events that unfolded following WWII.
The author goes to the great lengths to analyze how Commis think (if they think at all), their mentality and their mode of operation - slander, abuse, creating noise suppressing truth etc. He elaborates all these with ample examples.
CPI(M) lost almost everything when USSR collapsed; and having lost their mastermind they got a free hand in turning India into their playground.
USSR might not be here now, neither are Lenin & Stalin, but each n every commi remain Stalinist at heart and in mind.
May 31, 2018
The second book that I have read of Arun Shourie after his brilliant "Eminent Historians"
(https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...)
This book deals with how the Communists in India behaved during the independence movement, particularly during the Quit India movement. The methods the Communists use to malign their opponents are also covered. It is quite astonishing to see how the Communists behaved during WW-II. Initially, they backed Nazi Germany against the allied forces as they were against the imperialism of the British. Also, this time the Stalin-Hitler pact was on.
When Hitler broke the pact and invaded the Soviet Union which was one of his blunders, they conveniently changed sides. They now approached the British government in India and volunteered to work alongside it. They sabotaged the Quit India movement. They indulged in the worst form of slander against national leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), and Subhas Chandra Bose. Shourie has exposed them all through his research and has presented the facts in a brilliant manner. A must read in my opinion.
(https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...)
This book deals with how the Communists in India behaved during the independence movement, particularly during the Quit India movement. The methods the Communists use to malign their opponents are also covered. It is quite astonishing to see how the Communists behaved during WW-II. Initially, they backed Nazi Germany against the allied forces as they were against the imperialism of the British. Also, this time the Stalin-Hitler pact was on.
When Hitler broke the pact and invaded the Soviet Union which was one of his blunders, they conveniently changed sides. They now approached the British government in India and volunteered to work alongside it. They sabotaged the Quit India movement. They indulged in the worst form of slander against national leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jayaprakash Narayan (JP), and Subhas Chandra Bose. Shourie has exposed them all through his research and has presented the facts in a brilliant manner. A must read in my opinion.
December 15, 2019
An excellent researched book on what was real contribution of Communist in Indian Independence struggle especially during crucial movements like quit india , non cooperation and how the policies of communist changes based on the circumstance they are in and also the orders they receive from headquarters Russia we will get to know where the loyalty of the Communists lies even when they live in India . A must read for all indic history lovers who would wish to know absolute truth then the fake history being thought in school in college .
June 13, 2017
This Arun Shourie book covers a narrow subject - how the Communists in India take convenient ideological positions, undermining the national interest and then hiding behind verbosity and slander to counter any opposition. The coverage is specific to the events which unfolded during the second world war.
Shourie goes through volumes of research, establishing how the public stance of Communist Party of India - then the umbrella Communist organization - differed on the war efforts from what they had promised the British government. The research includes letters and documents which in 1940s were not public, but were made public later on via the National Archives.
The evidence on double speak is so preponderous, there is little to debate or critically analyze the specific instances which Shourie has written on. More important is to understand the larger modus operandi of Communists - the way they discredit their opponents using slander and what Shourie terms as "verbal terrorism".
This line of action is routinely seen now in Indian politics beyond the Communists, especially with the left liberal lobby controlling a large part of the establishment discourse. Shourie also talks about how this can be countered, and his conclusions lead one to feel the need of an improved, vocal and assertive right wing ecosystem in the country.
This book is a must read to appreciate history, and to learn from it - it presents a great extrapolation of past to the present, and makes one aware of the bluff that has not been called out routinely and prominently over the years.
Shourie goes through volumes of research, establishing how the public stance of Communist Party of India - then the umbrella Communist organization - differed on the war efforts from what they had promised the British government. The research includes letters and documents which in 1940s were not public, but were made public later on via the National Archives.
The evidence on double speak is so preponderous, there is little to debate or critically analyze the specific instances which Shourie has written on. More important is to understand the larger modus operandi of Communists - the way they discredit their opponents using slander and what Shourie terms as "verbal terrorism".
This line of action is routinely seen now in Indian politics beyond the Communists, especially with the left liberal lobby controlling a large part of the establishment discourse. Shourie also talks about how this can be countered, and his conclusions lead one to feel the need of an improved, vocal and assertive right wing ecosystem in the country.
This book is a must read to appreciate history, and to learn from it - it presents a great extrapolation of past to the present, and makes one aware of the bluff that has not been called out routinely and prominently over the years.
June 11, 2016
Evidence, evidence and loads of evidence ..All of it stacks against the communists. The duplicitous and treacherous role played by the communists during Quit India Movement is well laid out for the lay folk to analyse and judge for themselves. The desperation of the communists to prove their usefulness to the English in sabotaging Quit India Movement is shocking. The numerous letters exchanged between PC Joshi and the British officers (and believe me there are very many) amply disclose the secret deal between communists and British. The deal was based on a quid pro quo. The help of communists In Sabotaging the quit India movement was to be rewarded with the release of their leaders and support of the British government in expanding the communists propaganda network. We often speak of U-turns quite casually these days. If one wishes to know about the mother of U-turns then this book is the place to find it. The Indian communists first declared the WW-II as an imperialist war when the allied forces were stacked against the Nazi Germany and Soviet but soon the Indian communists started eating their words when Germany attacked Soviet which led to the latter joining the allied forces. Now our esteemed Communists declared that the war has now become a people's war and its nature has changed. They even went on to accept their folly in visualising the true nature of the war. They blamed their narrow "bourgeois nationalism" (verbal gymnastics) outlook for this. Then they declared their steadfast support to "proletariat internationalism"(more verbal gymnastics). For masking their hypocrisy and treachery, they dressed up their new line in a nationalistic garb. Propaganda through newspapers, meetings was spread. All efforts were made to sabotage the fifth column activities that were in full swing during the quit India movement( when most of the national leaders were imprisoned). Abuse and insinuations were heaped on Gandhiji and other national leaders for their non cooperation in war efforts. Abuse was heaped earlier as well on these leaders but back then the reason was not taking full advantage of the opportunity presented due to war by pressing the British into submission and extracting freedom from them.
Every ideology has some foundational principles on which it is based. So goes for Marxism. Indian communists twisted their ideology to suit their actions. I have no beef with the ideology of Marxism but the way Indian communists conducted themselves during the quit India movement does not show them in good light. Unquestioned acceptance of the line of action of Soviet and it's blatant justification, without giving it a thought made them look like puppets. What is even more appalling is the way they went about defending their line of action. They tried to rationalise their actions by propagating false agenda and indulging in mud slinging. This short and concise book is a vocal indictment of the functioning and line of the thought of the communists.
Although the book also details and criticises the works of Lenin but I will not venture into that territory. The book also delves in a concise manner on the reaction of communists post the ouster of Gorbachev. These issues have found less space in the book, nevertheless they are equally important. The reaction to these events by Indian communists again does not portray them in a benign manner.
The book based on solid evidences makes it a compelling read for everyone. However I would love to go for further reading on the subject to have a firmer grasp of the nuances. But this one by Mr. Shourie certainly did serve its purpose.
Every ideology has some foundational principles on which it is based. So goes for Marxism. Indian communists twisted their ideology to suit their actions. I have no beef with the ideology of Marxism but the way Indian communists conducted themselves during the quit India movement does not show them in good light. Unquestioned acceptance of the line of action of Soviet and it's blatant justification, without giving it a thought made them look like puppets. What is even more appalling is the way they went about defending their line of action. They tried to rationalise their actions by propagating false agenda and indulging in mud slinging. This short and concise book is a vocal indictment of the functioning and line of the thought of the communists.
Although the book also details and criticises the works of Lenin but I will not venture into that territory. The book also delves in a concise manner on the reaction of communists post the ouster of Gorbachev. These issues have found less space in the book, nevertheless they are equally important. The reaction to these events by Indian communists again does not portray them in a benign manner.
The book based on solid evidences makes it a compelling read for everyone. However I would love to go for further reading on the subject to have a firmer grasp of the nuances. But this one by Mr. Shourie certainly did serve its purpose.
February 17, 2019
This book by Arun Shourie is about the communists of India and their loyalty to Soviet Union. Book starts by mentioning that communists were actively sabotaging the Quit India Movement on behest of British then it goes full circle to explain how it all started. CPI, they were also working against the so called 'Fifth Column' which was mainly led by Neta Ji Subhash Chandra Bose. They tried explaining the country that imposition of emergency was to save India from an international conspiracy.
The CPI mouthpiece named 'People's War' had a large circulation across India in multiple languages and it was used to further propaganda against The Quit India Movement, and they were very harsh on SC Bose too calling him the puppet of an Imperial Japan. CPI resisted the mutiny in Lahore unit of Indian army who were ready to join INA.
Until the time Hitler invaded Soviet Union, the line parroted by communists was that US and Britain are imperialists and we should fight them, as soon as Germany invaded Fatherland, the communists of India were in bed with the same imperial powers which they were against few days ago and now it was necessary for US and Britain to defeat Germany and they had Soviet Union as their ally. In the war, Communist Party of India actually supported the British, undermining the freedom movement; so if you are looking for a counter to the question, that why Savarkar wrote mercy letters in Andaman Jail...this is it.
The most important question the book addresses is that why do communists support the idea of Pakistan and freedom of Kashmir? At one point, CPI was boasting to British that they had made better arguments in support of creation of Pakistan than Muslim League itself.
Marx was an abusive drunkard who believed in shouting people down instead of listening to them. Giving labels and then examining the case was his way of dealing with criticism.
It's a very good read and I recommend everyone to read it.
The CPI mouthpiece named 'People's War' had a large circulation across India in multiple languages and it was used to further propaganda against The Quit India Movement, and they were very harsh on SC Bose too calling him the puppet of an Imperial Japan. CPI resisted the mutiny in Lahore unit of Indian army who were ready to join INA.
Until the time Hitler invaded Soviet Union, the line parroted by communists was that US and Britain are imperialists and we should fight them, as soon as Germany invaded Fatherland, the communists of India were in bed with the same imperial powers which they were against few days ago and now it was necessary for US and Britain to defeat Germany and they had Soviet Union as their ally. In the war, Communist Party of India actually supported the British, undermining the freedom movement; so if you are looking for a counter to the question, that why Savarkar wrote mercy letters in Andaman Jail...this is it.
The most important question the book addresses is that why do communists support the idea of Pakistan and freedom of Kashmir? At one point, CPI was boasting to British that they had made better arguments in support of creation of Pakistan than Muslim League itself.
Marx was an abusive drunkard who believed in shouting people down instead of listening to them. Giving labels and then examining the case was his way of dealing with criticism.
It's a very good read and I recommend everyone to read it.
June 15, 2019
'The Only Fatherland' is the name Author chose for this book. And the name is very specific as the Communist got their inspiration and instructions from Moscow. Economist and Columnist Arun Shourie has given a short and interesting Account of how the Communist not only boycotted but sabotaged the Quit India Movement. How the Communists launched a massive hate campaign against Netaji Bose during the Second World War. Through the party’s mouthpiece (People's War), They published article after article, demeaning Netaji with worst names!. All this they did in the name of fighting an imaginary fifth column. What strikes me most was how they criticized Gandhiji for weakening the national defence against a Fascist enemy(Japan) but they themselves were assisting the British government. The same British who were responsible for the death of 4 million Bengalis in famine.
The reader would be amazed to find that Comrades changed their official stance regarding league and Jinnah. They in the name of 'solution to problem of nationalities' supported the case for Pakistan even when the basis of this nationality was religion (which is in far contrast with the principles of cultural Marxism)
an excerpt from the book:-
"…The main enemy of the proletariat is that section or sections of the bourgeoisie which take a lead in organizing a direct assault on the Soviet. When the national enemy differs from the main international enemy, as defined above, the proletariat concentrates its fire on the latter and its accomplices, attempting to compel its national enemy to do likewise. The proletariat does this just because it recognizes no national barriers, no nation, no Fatherland except the soviet"
The reader would be amazed to find that Comrades changed their official stance regarding league and Jinnah. They in the name of 'solution to problem of nationalities' supported the case for Pakistan even when the basis of this nationality was religion (which is in far contrast with the principles of cultural Marxism)
an excerpt from the book:-
"…The main enemy of the proletariat is that section or sections of the bourgeoisie which take a lead in organizing a direct assault on the Soviet. When the national enemy differs from the main international enemy, as defined above, the proletariat concentrates its fire on the latter and its accomplices, attempting to compel its national enemy to do likewise. The proletariat does this just because it recognizes no national barriers, no nation, no Fatherland except the soviet"
March 10, 2016
It is a thoroughly researched book on the history of communism in India . It talks about the the hypocrisy of communists during our freedom struggle and how their servitude to soviet union sabotaged the quit India movement.
The book also describes the strategies the leftists have used in the past to undermine any opinions voiced against their ideology. In author's words the most common strategy being "damn a person by association and paint a motive". It just amazes me how the very same strategies are still being employed by the present day leftists and they still seem to work.
In an era where most of the political history books are written by left leaning Indologists , it is good to get another perspective. I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to know the history of Indian communists and more importantly to understand the school of thought that breeds left leaning intellectuals in India, so as to effectively call their bluff.
The book also describes the strategies the leftists have used in the past to undermine any opinions voiced against their ideology. In author's words the most common strategy being "damn a person by association and paint a motive". It just amazes me how the very same strategies are still being employed by the present day leftists and they still seem to work.
In an era where most of the political history books are written by left leaning Indologists , it is good to get another perspective. I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to know the history of Indian communists and more importantly to understand the school of thought that breeds left leaning intellectuals in India, so as to effectively call their bluff.
August 6, 2018
Arun Shourie presents an array of extracts of commies and their party letters, cartoons, and articles. One cartoon shows Subash Chandra Bose as a midget being led by Japanese imperialists, another shows him as a cur held up Goebbels. Gandhi is depicted as a kangaroo in whose pouch a frightened JP (frightened by the Commies, of course) jumps right back. And a typical passage that tarnishes the freedom fighters’ reputations.
November 27, 2021
Gem of a book. Shourie Ji’s research is commendable. Books with revelations like these are meant to reach masses and shouldn’t be this tough to read.
January 21, 2019
The book is not very cohesive and has a long list of quoted paragraphs. But some sections are interesting and it is rather an attempt to show that Communist parties of India were not clear in their policies, the way they pretend to be!
May 9, 2024
For them,their theories and lala land comes before the country they live in. This can be seen on daily basis.
They have a lot of issues with everything, and then they do nothing to solve it apart from creating a nuisance. I would have been able to respect them if only they were doing anything for something.
This book was little difficult to read but it was interesting to delve into the world of communists who resort to abusive and defamatory tactics when confronted with opposing viewpoints. This book focuses on presenting facts and logical arguments.
I picked up this book expecting it to address current situations. However, despite being published in 1991, the author now faces criticism and derogatory labels like "sanghi" for this book.
They have a lot of issues with everything, and then they do nothing to solve it apart from creating a nuisance. I would have been able to respect them if only they were doing anything for something.
This book was little difficult to read but it was interesting to delve into the world of communists who resort to abusive and defamatory tactics when confronted with opposing viewpoints. This book focuses on presenting facts and logical arguments.
I picked up this book expecting it to address current situations. However, despite being published in 1991, the author now faces criticism and derogatory labels like "sanghi" for this book.
January 3, 2025
I always wanted to know what did Indian Communist do what stand did we take, the History lessons taught to me were all focused on ethier British, Sri Lanka, French - i really did not care about what went down with them, i wanted to understand what was our story what different sects of Undivided India doing while WW1, WW2 or the gap years between the two war, why Russia helped us - why China and Bharat having such an close culture ties stand as oppents? Why the ideology of Capitalism or Socialism is still prevalent? In 22nd Century are issues still extension of this ideology?
This book helped me get the outline of the culture identities shaping up today and from here.
This book helped me get the outline of the culture identities shaping up today and from here.
February 10, 2024
I don't think any amount of evidence is enough to showcase what communism has done to the world and their ideology in essence has no basis. Shourie does a well researched take on just one instance of how the Indian communists aided the war cause and have kept flipping in their stand and still insisted that their cause was always the same. But, it comes across as a very dry read and no matter how much the author tried to give evidence of the ideology of the communists, it isn't enough. And his thoughts on Gandhi towards the latter half of the book are something I disagree with
March 1, 2022
Not what I thought
The book is primarily meant for those who wish understand generally the evils of socialism. The first few chapters focussed on CPI and it's tendency to blindly follow USSR. Later the focus shifts to USSR primarily.
The book wasn't exactly what i expected from the title. Maybe my interpretation is at fault. Great for those who wish to stay at the crust. Wouldn't recommend for the deep diggers.
The book is primarily meant for those who wish understand generally the evils of socialism. The first few chapters focussed on CPI and it's tendency to blindly follow USSR. Later the focus shifts to USSR primarily.
The book wasn't exactly what i expected from the title. Maybe my interpretation is at fault. Great for those who wish to stay at the crust. Wouldn't recommend for the deep diggers.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews