During the past 30 years the Soviet Union has met with numerous difficulties in practising Communism. Since many of these difficulties were insurmountable, they have had to, modify the Communist theory and practice in order to circumvent them. So the Communist line is shifting from the left to the right. Now the democratic countries are doing the same thing. The introduction of socialist ideas in the form of minimum wage laws, short hours and labor insurance is one of the many instances which prove that the governments of the democratic countries are pursuing a political and economic line slowly shifting to the left. With the passage· of time, the argument goes, distance between these two would be shortened and the chasm would gradually be bridged over.
The above represents the views of those, especially Toynbee, who believe in the possibility of co-existence between democracy and Communism. These views are presented, however, in complete ignorance of the fundamental difference between religion and Communism as well as between Democracy and Communism with respect to their ultimate objectives and their far reaching effects upon the life of the peoples.
The prime objective of both Christianity and Mohammedanism is to achieve the supreme good of mankind throughout the world. An American writer, Mr. James A. Michener, writes in his article, "Islam: The Mis-Understood Religion" in Reader's Digest, May, 1955, that the people of the West would meet numerous problems in the Muslim world. But many of them would be softened by a remark that Muhammad made to his followers: "You will find your most affectionate friends will be those who say, 'We are Christians.' " Again he said that he has been studying Islam for many years and can not see any valid reason why this religion (Islam) and Christianity can not cooperate. In an article "Islam-The Religion for the Modern Man" in the Islamic Review, Nov.-Dec., Mr. Muhammad Amin said, "Islam teaches toleration. Since God is one, all men are brothers." In "The Onward March of Christian Faith" written for a special issue on Christianity of Life Magazine, December, 1955, Paul Hutchinson says of the rise of Islam, "But to get back to feudal Europe in the Seventh Century there came out of Arabia another religion, Islam. This passionate religion numbers Jesus among the true prophets but exalts its founder Mohammed as the greatest of all Allah's interpreters to men .... " Mr. Maulvi Abdul Karim in his article, "Islam—A Universal Religion of Peace and Progress" in the Islamic Review, Nov.-Dec., 1937, said "What they—Noah, Abraham, Moses, David Solomon; Jesus—had taught was corrupted in course of time, and unwarranted interpolations had found place in the Scriptures revealed through them." Again he said, "The greatest, and last of God's Prophets referred to by Davenport was Hazrat Muhammad, also called Ahmad, the Prophet of Arabia. His predecessor was Jesus Christ, after whom no prophet, worth mentioning, appeared for about six hundred years."
The above shows that these two religions worship the same God and their followers look upon each other as friends or brothers. Even Jesus Christ was claimed by the Mohammedans as one of their prophets. Why could they not co-exist?
A Christian pastor preaches his gospel to the people by way of persuasion. He means what he says. When a person accepts his gospel and becomes a Christian, his mission with that person ends. What he hopes is that that person would regularly go to church and live a life useful and helpful to his neighbors and community. There is no interference with his profession, property, his family life and his relations with others. So with the Mohammedans and other religious people. If there is any difference noticeable in a person after he becomes a Christian, it may be in the absence of bad habits such as smoking and gambling which he had acquired before, or in a, change from selfishness to generosity. In a word, he is improved in both behavior and character. The same is true of those who accept Mohammedanism or Buddhism.
But what of the person who accepts Communism? He is no longer himself but becomes a different being. He no longer considers himself as a member of his family, a friend or relative of others; a member of his community, or a' citizen of the country to which he owed allegiance. He becomes cold-blooded and ruthless. His whole being is dominated by inhumanity. He treats as enemies all those who are not Communists and kills those who are opposed to Communism. Even among the Communists themselves there are no normal human relations. Each is a spy of the other. One is on constant alert as to what others will do against him. One is thrown into jailor sentenced to death without knowing the reason for his imprisonment or death penalty. What a hell life becomes in the Communist world!
What is the ultimate objective of Communism? It is dedicated to world conquest. The Kremlin, the nerve center of Communism or the headquarters of the Communists, is preaching its gospel of communizing the world. Through its agents in different countries it is trying to convert the peoples to Communism either by means of deception or by use of force. Those who have become Communists are directed by the Kremlin to overthrow their government by all means possible. If they succeeded, their country would be deprived of its political independence and territorial integrity. Then, its original social, economic and political institutions would be uprooted. The family system and other basic traditions would be destroyed. The whole system of human relations would be changed. In a word, the history of that country would be rewritten full of lies.
What is democracy? According to Abraham Lincoln's definition, it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is, the government is run in the interests of the governed. In the American Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, it is stated, " ... all men are created equal ….. endowed ….. with certain inalienable rights ….. among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it ….. "
With regard to the practice of democracy, the United States and Britain furnish the best examples. There is no Iron Curtain in the democratic countries. The Communists can see for themselves what is going on in these countries; what the government is doing for the people; what privileges the people enjoy there. No word of explanation, no false propaganda, is necessary.
Both in theory and practice democracy is not only different from but, indeed, contrary to Communism. Whereas the ultimate objective of Communism ii world conquest, democracy respects the political independence and territorial integrity of other countries no matter what form of government they have adopted. Communism creates a reign of terror in every Communist country. The people under a Communist government either toil as slaves or die as criminals. But in a democratic country all the people are treated as equals and enjoy such inalienable rights as the protection of life, property and the pursuit of happiness. With respect either to domestic or foreign policies, these two political ideologies face opposite directions. No conciliation between the two is possible. If Communism is left to drive on its course without being deterred or prevented in time, democracy will perish from the earth.
The recent denunciation of the late dictator, Joseph Stalin and the campaign of "smiles" on the part of the Kremlin are no more than a change of tactics. At the 19th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, October, 1952, Anastas Mikoyan, one of the most loyal supporters of the dictator's Old Guard, praised Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism-in the USSR, as a treasure house of ideas, saying, "…. we will continue to …. advance towards the victory of Communism led by our leader and teacher, the inspired architect of Communism, our beloved Comrade Stalin." In his speech to the 20th Party Congress, February 14, 1956, he has entirely changed his tune. He said inter alia, " ….. for nearly 20 years we had in fact no collective leadership. The cult of personality flourished, a cult already condemned by Marx and Lenin. Collective leadership has restored, in a very short time, the Leninist norms of Party life from top to bottom."
The Kremlin knows that the name of Stalin creates enmity and leaves a bad impression not only at home but also abroad. The change of the Soviet attitude is aimed at winning the hearts of the free Asians. The Kremlin dictators have to do something to show that they have been separated from Stalin. They further stated, during their visits in India, that it is unnecessary for the Communist parties in the various countries to be engaged in armed rebellion, and that to achieve a socialist society, it is sufficient if the Communist parties fight through parliamentary and peaceful means.
Yet no matter how Stalin is insulted, denounced, belittled and criticized, Stalin's concept of placing the whole world under the oligarchical rule of the Kremlin remains unchanged. It would incur only tragedy if the democratic governments and their peoples were lured into believing that the Soviet leaders are making any basic change in their policies or in the ultimate objective of Communism.
Co-existence between democracy and Communism is not only theoretically incompatible but, practically, impossible.