CPI(M) MP's Comments On Sengol Conveniently Hide How Hammer-And-Sickle Regimes Treated Women

On 2 July, 2024, in the speech on the motion of thanks to the President, Su. Venkatesan, a Member of Parliament (MP) from Madurai Constituency spoke disparagingly on the Sengol placed in the Parliament.

Though he later called the Sengol a symbol of Dharma and honesty, he initially described it as a symbol of monarchy, claiming every king who held it had many women in his harem. He then asked Parliament what message the Sengol sent to the women of India.

It is quite a question coming from an MP who belongs to Communist Party of India (Marxist) and who also considers himself an expert on cultural and historical domains of Tamil Nadu.

Hindu Sengol

Though for the sake of convenience Sengol is translated as sceptre, there is a civilizational difference between Sengol and sceptre.

Sengol etymologically means rule of goodness — semmai meaning 'goodness' and kol meaning 'the rod of governance.'

Taken together Sengol means 'good governance' and not 'power of authority.'

This worldview or Darshana can be traced to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which states that the Dharma is above the ruler and declares that the weak and the voiceless get justice even against the powerful because of Dharma.

Thus, Dharma is here ethical, not theological.

It is not the symbol of a ruler's power but the symbol of Dharma constraining the power by reminding the ruler of his Dharmic duty.

Hindu saint Thiruvalluvar in his Dharmic treatise Thirukkural had allocated an entire chapter of ten couplets for good governance. Many of the couplets refer to the kol. The chapter is titled ‘As against this the next chapter speaks of the tyranny.'

Thiruvalluvar distinguishes between good governance and tyranny as ‘Sengol’-ness (Sengonmai) and ‘Kodungol’-ness (Kodungonmai) respectively.

Iyya Vaikundar defined Dharma as "protecting the meek and the weak as one's own self." He introduced the 'Thiru-Pirambu' (Auspicious Cane) and the saffron flag for the movement.

So, to associate Sengol with kings having more than one wife or even having concubines is mischievous and perverted. It is a display of historic and cultural illiteracy.

Given that the speaker of the concerned lines is a Sahitya Akademi award winner for a historical novel, it seems the statement stemmed more from a desire to malign Indian culture than from historical ignorance.

Women in Communist regimes

However, since we are discussing the topic, and since Venkatesan is an MP from the CPI(M), it would help to see how women were treated in Communist regimes throughout the world.

Applying Venkatesan's logic to Marxist states (and even to Marx), one could argue that the Soviet Union (1917-1991) or Red China should be considered among the worst institutions of the twentieth century for their treatment of women.

The sexual abuse by Karl Marx of the housemaid Helen Demuth (1820-1890) is well documented. Karl Marx refused to take responsibility for the child born to Demuth out of their relationship. It happened in 1851 when Jenny Marx was pregnant with his fifth child.

The abuse the maid underwent, was taken as part of her duty.

Marx actually made use of the feudal advantage he had in Europe, which was transforming fast into capitalism.

Helena came from a peasant family. She was given as part of the dowry by the mother of Jenny Marx. She was an unpaid residential maid in the household of Marx. When a boy was born outside of wedlock, he was quietly sent away to another family as his presence would hinder Demuth from taking care of the ‘legitimate’ children of the Marx family.

However, the boy named Frederick Demuth was allowed to visit the Marx residence but was barred from entering through the front door. He could use only the back door to visit his mother.

This was only the initial sign of the systemic exploitation of women under the 'revolutionary' governments that would emerge from the political philosophy of Marxism.

As soon as the Soviet Union (the USSR) came into existence, one of the first institutions that was created was the notorious Cheka or VeCheka which was the ‘Extraordinary Commission for Combatting Counterrevolution and Sabotage.’ This was formed on 20 December 1917.

Under the Tsar, the prison system was lenient. Lenin, while imprisoned, could read books, go hunting, and have personal time with his wife after petitioning the authorities. However, under Lenin, the prison system for political enemies became a model for Nazi concentration camps. Here is an excerpt from a statement recorded by one of the prisoners:

One should remember that this was the situation under Lenin before Stalin started his purges and made Gulags even more inhuman.

Here is an excerpt about Beria from a book on Stalin published by Central European University Press:

There are other lurid accounts of the systemic sexual exploitation and abuses of women by the USSR and we shall leave all that because we respect the dignity of the readers.

Mao's China was no different.

What is being presented here is from that book by an academic published by a prestigious publisher and not from a pulp sensational magazine.

The readers should be forewarned that the material is disturbing. Prof. Lynch writes:

This elaborate, disgusting yet well-attested quote is needed because the Member of Parliament in question belongs to that faction of Communist Party of India which sides with China ideologically.