In a strongly worded ruling, the Bombay High Court on July 25 dismissed a plea by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) seeking permission to protest against the ongoing Gaza conflict. The court sharply questioned the CPI(M)’s priorities and patriotism, directing the party to address urgent domestic challenges instead of wading into distant geopolitical controversies.
The division bench, comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad, did not mince words. “Our country is facing many challenges… We do not want this kind of approach,” Justice Ghuge remarked, calling the party “short-sighted” for focusing on Palestine while neglecting civic issues that impact Indian citizens.
This judicial rebuke has reignited scrutiny of the CPI(M)’s chequered political history, marked by multiple instances where the party is seen to have placed foreign ideological allegiance over national interest.
A Legacy of Aligning with Foreign Powers
Many have long accused the CPI(M) of harboring a pattern of betraying national interests, often aligning with foreign regimes under the guise of internationalism. This trend dates back to some of the most defining moments in Indian history.
Quit India Movement (1942): Loyalty to the Soviets Over Freedom
During the peak of India’s freedom struggle, when Mahatma Gandhi launched the Quit India Movement in 1942, the CPI (the undivided Communist Party before the split that created CPI(M)) openly opposed it. Following directives from the Soviet Union, then allied with Britain in World War II, the party chose to support the British colonial government, branding the Quit India movement as “untimely” and counterproductive.
Even more controversially, segments within the party endorsed the idea of Pakistan’s creation, backing the Muslim League’s separatist demands in the name of “self-determination.”
Sino-Indian War (1962): Silence on Chinese Aggression
The 1962 war with China marked another glaring moment of disloyalty. Instead of supporting the Indian armed forces, many CPI(M) leaders either downplayed or denied Chinese aggression. Reports from that time suggest some members even opposed organising blood donation camps for Indian soldiers, a move that deeply hurt national sentiment and led to widespread suspicion of the party’s loyalties.
Galwan and Doklam Standoff: Ambiguity Over Patriotism
More recently, during the 2017 Doklam standoff and the 2020 Galwan Valley clash with China, CPI(M) refrained from unequivocal condemnation of Chinese actions. Instead, the party focused on criticising the Indian government’s response. It even celebrated the Chinese Communist Party’s centenary in 2021, raising eyebrows about where its loyalties lie in times of national tension.
Domestic Apathy: Ignoring India’s Ground Realities
The court also slammed the party for neglecting grassroots issues affecting Indian citizens. Justice Ghuge asked pointedly, “Why aren’t you raising your voice for concerns like flooding, blocked drains, or illegal parking?” The court reminded the CPI(M) that civic distress, not distant wars, should be its immediate concern.
Despite claiming to stand for the common man, CPI(M) has rarely led sustained movements on pressing civic matters such as infrastructure decay, sanitation, housing shortages, or rising unemployment in urban and rural India.
Protest Rejection and Legal Weakness
The petitioner had not even submitted a separate request to Mumbai Police for the protest. Instead, the CPI(M) merely challenged the rejection of a prior application by the All India Peace and Solidarity Foundation (AIPSF), dismissed on June 17. The court clarified that matters of foreign policy fall under the jurisdiction of the Union government, not political parties or street protests.
Justice Ghuge warned that actions like these can create diplomatic friction, stating, “Whether to support Palestine or Israel is the responsibility of the Government of India… You may not realize the diplomatic consequences.”
Free Speech vs Misuse
While advocate Desai, representing the CPI(M), argued that the protest was about the right to free speech, the bench cited recent Supreme Court observations noting increasing misuse of this fundamental right. The court stressed that free speech must be exercised responsibly and in the national interest.
The Bombay High Court’s rejection of CPI(M)’s Gaza protest plea has triggered a renewed debate about the party’s ideological compass and national commitment. From aligning with British colonizers to remaining ambivalent during wars with China, and now focusing on foreign conflicts while ignoring India’s own problems—the CPI(M)’s political legacy continues to invite serious questions about whose side it’s really on.
Comments