Trotsky was still in charge of the Red Army, and he often spoke in the meetings. Zinoviev was the chairman of the congress and was assisted by Bukharin and Radek. Outside the congress meetings one often heard names like Kalinin, Rykov, Kamenev, and so on.20 I knew many of the great, medium, and small (less important) leaders of the army, trade unions, and youth groups, and I was happy to know people who led unprecedented historical events. According to what I have read in the papers, none of those leaders, with the exception of Stalin, is alive today. And Lenin was the only one to die “in his bed.” The others were murdered in the conflict between Stalin’s faction and the opposition within the Communist party itself. So it was that the revolution in Russia, just as in France previously, “devoured its own children.”21
[99] History does not know regret or “if only.” What history has done cannot be undone. One cannot reexamine the good and the bad, the fair or the unfair in order to replay the actions of the revolution. They are the reality, facts, and actual events. What we consider to be correct must be tested first by history, by events. We can only learn from the past so as to avoid the wrong and follow the right.
When I was in Moscow there was indeed opposition to the New Economic Policy (NEP). But the democracy within the party or—what was clearer to me—within the Comintern was not disturbed by this.
The Encyclopaedie VI, Supplement takes note of my work during the Fourth Congress. We can read on page 531:
The Congress was attended by Tan Malaka. On 12 November, in the name of the P.K.I. and with the interests of “the thousands of millions of oppressed from the East” before his eyes, he gave an interesting speech on the Communist standpoint on the national boycott movement and on so-called Pan-Islamism; specifically, whether or how far the Communists should support these movements. In an engaging manner he explained the difficulties that the P.K.I. had experienced with Serikat Islam. When, in public meetings, the SIers had asked whether the Communists believe in God, he had answered: “Wenn ich vor Gott stehe, dann bin ich ein Moslem, wenn ich aber vor Menschen stehe, dann bin ich kein Moslem, weil Gott gesagt hat, dass es unter den Menschen viele Satane gibt.” [When I stand before God, then I am a Muslim, but when I stand before men, then I am no Muslim, for God has said that there are many Satans among men.]
Then Malaka characterized Pan-Islamism as in practice nothing but a form of struggle for national independence. What, then, should be the Communist position towards this Islamic current? In a later session he heard from a delegate from Tunis that the same problems occurred there. In each case he characterized Pan-Islamism as nothing but the joining together of all Muslims against their oppressors, and therefore this movement must be supported. A Commission was set up to consider the Eastern Question and to draft a program on that question to bring before the Congress. Tan Malaka was appointed to this Commission.
Aside from the part written in German, the above note is a [Dutch] summary of a speech, which I delivered in German to the Comintern. This speech was not the cause of my being placed in the commission, however. On the contrary, it was because of my contributions to the discussion in the Eastern Commission that I spoke in a meeting of the highest body, the Comintern plenary.22
[100] Non-participants have never known the real course of the discussions within the Eastern Commission. Neither am I going to elaborate on it here, but the main thrust of the excerpt from the Encyclopaedie is indeed correct, since it was taken from my speech, which was published in a Comintern magazine outside Russia.23
The central question was the attitude of Communists towards nationalist movements in the colonial countries, which in China and India took the form of the boycott movement and in India and the Arab countries as well as Indonesia took the form of Pan-Islamism.
The Comintern (Oriental Section) presented a thesis declaring that Communist parties in the colonial countries should assist and work together with nationalist parties against imperialism. This thesis was presented and defended by Russian and Indian Communists.24
Naturally everyone agreed to help and to work with the nationalists, at least in theory, but how this should be done in practice, how concretely to implement this assistance and cooperation, had not been determined before I departed for Indonesia.25 When I left Moscow the Comintern leaders were leaving this question to be decided on the basis of local conditions and policies.26
In fact I was involved in a debate that had raged for some time between the defenders of the thesis and its opponents. One night when it was rather late and I was returning from a visit to a factory on the outskirts of Moscow, a Japanese Communist, the late Sen Katayama, who was debating one of the articles of the thesis, deferred to me to continue the debate.27 He said: “Here comes Tan Malaka. I hand over the defense of my position to him. He is still fresh from the field of the anti-imperialist struggle in Asia.”
“Wait a minute,” I answered. “What article is being debated, and what are the respective positions?”
[101] The difference of opinion that had seemed slight in the beginning appeared great after we descended from the abstract, airy heights of theory to the real and concrete world. When I turned the debate to actualities, to the boycott or non-cooperation and to Pan-Islamism, the chasm between the abstract and the concrete, between theory and practice, became visible. For example, the British Communists objected to the boycott of British goods by the Indian people, because it would lead to unemployment in Britain. How could they ask the British workers to cooperate with the boycotters in India? Apparently previous Comintern congresses had regarded Pan-Islamism as an old-fashioned form of imperialism.28
The debate, which had begun calmly, eventually became quite heated and went on, if I am not mistaken, for three days straight. Finally the Comintern representative, assuming charge of the thesis, forbade me to speak.29 In reply, I registered a strong protest against this way of handling a question that was difficult and unfamiliar to the Western delegates.30
Not until I met a dead end in the commission did I query the chairman of the Comintern, Zinoviev, and the head of the Eastern Section, Radek, in the congress meeting mentioned in the Encyclopaedie excerpt. I asked whether the nationalist movement in the form of the pan-Islam boycott was to be supported, and if so in what way? What I wanted to determine was how assistance and cooperation would be implemented in terms of program, tactics, strategy, and organization. I still got no answer, in spite of the fact that my speech received a satisfying response from the floor. I began to be uneasy and to question my own ability. I asked to be sent to a school, but was only laughed at by a friend, who said, “We haven’t got a professorial chair open for you.”
Only after the congress had ended, when the delegates from all parts of the world were packing to go home, did the question arise as to where I should go. All my friends returning home just bade me farewell, saying “Work hard.”
I was not long in a state of doubt. The new head of the Comintern Eastern Section approached me, saying: “I agree with you. The thesis that you opposed several days ago is indeed too abstract and theoretical. Now I am Radek’s deputy in charge of the Eastern Section. The defender of the thesis has resigned. I hope that we will be able to work together on Asian affairs on a clearer basis.”31
[102] What I want to show the reader here is that this cooperation was like parliamentary democracy. When a Cabinet fails and no longer has the confidence of the Parliament, the prime minister must willingly resign the position. A leader must never hold on to his position until the masses are outside Parliament screaming: “Chamberlain must go.”32 The defender of the thesis was not angry with me, nor did he decline to speak to me or order the Cheka [secret police] to arrest me as a “wrecker” or a “saboteur” of his position. On the contrary, he continued to treat me as a comrade in the struggle. There were still plenty of other jobs of no less importance for him, and he was