Dr Buragadda Srinadh
The preservation of Lenin’s decaying body in Red Square serves as a powerful symbol for many Communists, representing not just a historical figure but the ideals and aspirations of the Communist movement. For them, maintaining Lenin’s body is an act of faith, respect, and commitment to the revolutionary principles he espoused. It signifies dedication to socialism and the ongoing struggle for a classless society. More than a relic, Lenin’s embalmed body is a political statement, reinforcing the permanence of his ideology and serving as a source of inspiration for future generations.
However, this veneration presents an ideological paradox. Many Communists, particularly those adhering to Marxist principles, often criticize religious practices—such as Hindu idol worship—as superstitious and regressive. They argue that the worship of deities diverts attention from material struggles, fostering a “false consciousness” that prevents the working class from recognizing and challenging their economic oppression. According to this perspective, religious symbols reinforce existing power structures rather than dismantling them, making Hindu deity veneration a barrier to social progress.
Yet, the juxtaposition of Lenin’s embalmed body and Hindu idols raises an important question: Why is one form of veneration seen as legitimate while the other is dismissed as irrational? Both involve the preservation of a physical representation—whether a revolutionary leader or a deity—imbued with profound ideological and emotional significance. This contradiction suggests an underlying cognitive dissonance within communist thought, wherein devotion to Lenin mirrors the very religious practices many Communists seek to dismantle.
Historically, Communism has positioned itself in opposition to organized religion, viewing it as an opiate that dulls the masses’ revolutionary potential. Karl Marx’s famous dictum that “religion is the opium of the people” underscores this belief. Communist regimes, from the Soviet Union to China, have often sought to suppress religious practices, replacing them with state-sanctioned ideology. Yet, paradoxically, these same regimes have built elaborate cults of personality around their leaders, elevating figures like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao to almost divine status.
In Lenin’s case, his body has been preserved for a century, displayed in a glass sarcophagus under constant surveillance and maintenance. This effort, requiring state resources and scientific expertise, is reminiscent of religious relic preservation. The Mausoleum itself functions like a shrine, drawing visitors who view Lenin with a sense of reverence akin to pilgrims visiting a sacred site.
Similarly, in North Korea, the embalmed bodies of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il are enshrined in the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun. In China, Mao Zedong’s body lies in state in Tiananmen Square, despite his earlier opposition to such practices. These leaders, once vehemently opposed to religious rituals, have ironically become the subjects of quasi-religious adoration themselves.
The selective rejection of religious symbols while embracing revolutionary iconography reveals a deeper truth: human beings, regardless of ideology, seek symbols to rally around. Whether it is a deity in a temple or a revolutionary leader in a mausoleum, these figures provide a tangible focal point for faith, identity, and collective aspirations.
This raises the question: If Lenin’s body can be preserved as an enduring symbol of socialism, why should Hindu idols be dismissed outright as irrational? If a Hindu devotee finds meaning in an image of Krishna or Shiva, is that fundamentally different from a communist drawing inspiration from Lenin’s preserved remains? Both function as conduits for ideological and spiritual fulfillment.
The contradiction highlights the broader challenge faced by rigid ideological frameworks—they often struggle to account for the emotional and symbolic dimensions of human belief. Cognitive dissonance arises when people hold conflicting values, and in this case, communists must reconcile their reverence for Lenin with their critique of religious devotion. This tension invites a deeper reflection on the role of symbols in shaping political movements, cultural traditions, and personal identities.
Ultimately, the preservation of Lenin’s body and the critique of Hindu idol worship underscore the complexities of belief systems and the ways cultural practices are interpreted through ideological lenses. They reveal that, despite opposing religion, communist movements have adopted their own sacred symbols—transforming political leaders into objects of reverence.
This paradox invites a broader discussion on the universality of symbolism in human societies. Whether through religious imagery, revolutionary relics, or nationalistic monuments, people across cultures seek tangible representations of their values and aspirations. Rather than dismissing one form of veneration while embracing another, it may be worth acknowledging that all societies, regardless of ideology, create symbols to inspire, unify, and sustain their beliefs.
