Faith, Praxis, and the Party

Analyzing the CPIM’s Rectification and the "Believer-Marxist" Dialectic

by Sourav Goswami

In the lead-up to the West Bengal Assembly elections, a series of optics involving Left-front candidates participating in religious ceremonies has catalyzed a profound ideological schism among sympathizers. This discourse centers on the perceived tension between Leninist tactical flexibility and the ontological atheism traditionally associated with Marxist-Leninist cadres. This article examines the intersection of political pragmatism and "moral impunity" within the contemporary socio-political landscape of Bengal.

The tension between the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPIM] and the personal faith of its members represents a sophisticated navigation of "secular institutionalism" rather than a crusade of militant atheism. The recent controveries emerging around Left candidates visiting religius agencies while election campaings in West Bengal, over directives regarding religious conduct and exchanging ideas prior to eletions highlights a century-old friction: can a world outlook rooted in 18th-century Enlightenment materialism accommodate a marginal for whom the "sigh of the oppressed" is articulated through religious idiom? This dilemma is not merely organizational; it is an existential question for the Left in a country where the sacred and the social are inextricably linked.

To understand the CPIM’s current stance, one must look back to Leninist pragmatism. Lenin famously argued against making atheism a mandatory criterion for party membership, asserting that the unity of the oppressed in creating a "paradise on earth" was infinitely more important than consensus on a "paradise in heaven." In his 1905 treatise Socialism and Religion, Lenin noted that "Economic slavery is the real source of the religious humbugging of mankind." However, his opposition was aimed at "clericalism"—the institutionalized alliance between the church and the state—rather than the private faith of the worker. He recognized that demanding immediate atheism would turn the party into an isolated sect, severed from the masses it sought to mobilize. This remains a cornerstone for the CPIM; the party demands adherence to its Program and Constitution, not an immediate surrender of ancestral faith.

The evolution of this stance was further influenced by the Latin American experience with Liberation Theology. The rise of revolutionary Christian movements in the 1960s proved that faith could be a catalyst for, rather than an obstacle to, class struggle. As Gustavo Gutiérrez argued in A Theology of Liberation (1971), the biblical mandate for justice could align perfectly with the Marxist critique of capitalism. This historical shift taught the global Left that neglecting indigenous traditions and cultural identities leads to alienation. For the CPIM, engaging with religious spaces is not an endorsement of "obscurantism" but an acknowledgment of religion’s deep-seated social impact within the Indian cultural fabric.

The CPIM’s "Rectification Document" introduces a nuanced hierarchy to manage this. For general members, the focus is on eradicating regressive practices like untouchability or gender discrimination rather than enforcing atheism. The party views these as social evils sanctioned by religious interpretation rather than essential tenets of faith. However, higher standards are applied to leading cadres, who are encouraged to adopt a scientific world outlook and avoid hosting lavish, ritual-heavy functions. This is a response to what the party identifies as "the infiltration of bourgeois and feudal values" into the revolutionary ranks.

When leaders like Minakshi Mukherjee, Kalatan Dasgupta or Mayukh Biswas participate in social functions with religious overtones (read: courtesy visit during campaign), it is often a functional necessity of mass politics. In a "bourgeois state," a peoples representative cannot be an "island of purity" isolated from the people’s cultural milieu; they must exist within the community to lead it. The dialectic here is one of "presence versus practice." A Marxist leader might stand before a temple or a mosque not to pray for divine intervention, but to stand with the people who do, thereby maintaining the organic link required for political mobilization.

The Indian context adds a layer of complexity: the rise of Hindutva. The CPIM’s primary struggle in contemporary India is against communalism—the weaponization of religion—rather than religion itself, explained by none other then Prakash Karat. By defending the rights of religious minorities, the party exercises a secular commitment to democratic rights. As the party's former General Secretary Sitaram Yechury often emphasized, the fight is for the "syncretic culture of India" against a monolithic, exclusionary identity. The party’s directives aim to ensure that a member's private life does not contradict their public commitment to a progressive, caste-neutral, and gender-just society.

Ultimately, the process of "becoming a Marxist" is a journey toward a scientific world outlook, but this cannot be achieved through administrative fiat. As Lenin noted during the Third International, there is no "fixed organizational form" for all time. The party’s task is to lead the believer toward a shared secular struggle, ensuring that the quest for social justice remains the primary bond of unity. The "Believer-Marxist" is not a contradiction in terms but a transitional identity in the long march toward social transformation.

Selected Citations and References

Lenin, V. I. (1905). Socialism and Religion. Published in Novaya Zhizn, No. 28. 

Gutiérrez, G. (1971). A Theology of Liberation. Orbis Books.

Communist Party of India (Marxist). (2009). Document on Rectification Campaign.

Vanaik, A. (1997). The Furies of Indian Communalism: Religion, Modernity and Secularization. Verso.

Karat, P. (2010). CPI(M), Rectification and Religion. People's Democracy.