country, while the two communist parties in India have, at least in some of their recent pronouncements, come to hold Rajiv Gandhi responsible for contributing to a large measure to this growing threat. Indeed, this distinctive perception of the CPI and CPI(M) is at the root of a fundamental dilemma in their tactical formulations and operations. But of this, later The second presumption of the Indian commentators about the existence of some enforceable obligation on the Indian communist parties to toe the Soviet line is completely baseless. This only once again vindicates the truth of Marx's statement that "the traditions of all the dead generations weigh like a nightmare on the part of the living", in this instance, the critics of the Indian communist parties. They forget the fact that much water has flowed down the Volga, Yangtse, Tiber and Ganga since the time when monolithism was the order of the international communist movement. More particularly, they forget the facts that the CPI(M) was born as a separate party with the outspoken condemnation of the CPSU as 'revisionist' and that the CPI some years ago nonchalantly decided to suffer a second split when it parted company with S A Dange, a founder-member of the pre-split CPI, on the issue of purported loyalty to the Soviet line on Indira Gandhi and her government.
