IT is 62 years since Fidel Castro, who is now 88-year old, had burst into limelight. On July 26, 1953, he had led a band of activists into attacking the Moncada garrisons and along with it the little known Bayamo garrisons. Though the attack carried out against the Batista dictatorship was a failure and Fidel, along with others was imprisoned, it did not deter them from planning the future course of action. It is during the course of his trial that he gave the famous speech, 'History Will Absolve Me'. And how correct he was proved!

Cuba, when it carried out its 'revolution' deposing the US-stooge dictator Batista in 1959, was isolated in the entire continent, as all the other countries were afraid of antagonising the US. Sixty years since, the US stands isolated in the continent, with all the other countries actively supporting and standing behind socialist Cuba. US was hopeful that once Fidel Castro disappears from the scene – hoping for the natural biological process to do its duty, as all its attempts to assassinate him were thoroughly repulsed – it can convert Cuba into one of its quasi-states in its Union, akin to Puerto Rico. To date, all these hopes stand belied.

The US was compelled to recognise the Cuban State and restore diplomatic relations. Barack Obama, the president of US, was forced to acknowledge that its policies to isolate Cuba had failed and it is time now to reconsider them. These 'new policies' need to be observed with abundant caution. In spite of all these developments, the inhuman economic embargo on Cuba is still continuing. The Cuban Five are released from incarceration in the US prisons, but the US attempts to subdue the socialist system in Cuba are still in vogue.

In fact, many commentators and political analysts thought that Cuba would not last long as a socialist country after the collapse of the USSR and socialist bloc in Eastern Europe. Surprised by Cuba's diligent resistance, others gave the credit to the presence of charismatic Fidel Castro at the helm and predicted that once he is 'out of the scene', it will be the end of Cuba. They too were proved wrong in 2006, when Fidel Castro had voluntarily retired due to health reasons, handing over the reins to Raul Castro. Cuban resilience made them eat their words. However, they still harbour hopes that Cuba will only last till both the Castro's are active, implying that once they are 'out of the scene', socialist project in Cuba is doomed.

The capitalist system's stress on individualism and its promotion of individuals as 'shapers' of human destiny, has sown seeds of doubts even in the minds of the many 'well-meaning people'. In this background, Raul Castro confidently announced that he will relinquish power in 2018, paving way for younger generation leaders to take over the responsibility of building socialism. Without, for a moment, discounting the 'role of individuals in history', we should try to understand the 'circumstances that shape them'. This should serve as the basis for analysing the past, present and future of Cuba, or for that matter any country.

The paucity of literature educating us (particularly in English) about the Cubans' revolutionary struggle against colonial occupation of Spain, neo-colonial oppression of the US, against Batista dictatorship, its resistance against US military attack (thwarting invasion attempts at Bay of Pigs), the missile crisis and the Special Period, adds to our anxiety. Antoni Kapcia, a professor of Latin American history at the University of Nottingham, makes an attempt to answer some of these questions in his work, Leadership in the Cuban Revolution: The Unseen Story (2014).

Kapcia, traces the history of Cuban revolutionary struggle from the 1953 attack on Moncada garrisons, which Fidel Castro had led along with his younger brother Raul, till 2013. He attempts to bring in the role played by various other people in the struggle and make the reader look beyond 'Fidel-centricism'. Acknowledging the important role played by Fidel all through these struggles and in shaping the destiny of Cuba, he identifies many other key personalities, who too made a significant contribution in the building of modern Cuban State. He builds his case to make it clear that there are many more actors involved than the usual triumvirate associated with Cuban revolution – Fidel, Che and Raul.

Kapcia notes that Raul, though a participant in the attack on Moncada garrison, was not involved in its planning. Fidel and five others – Jesus Montane, Antonio (Nico) Lopez, Abel Santamaria, Haydee Santamaria and Melba Hernandez – planned the attack, in which nearly 110 comrades took part and 71 survived the attack. This attack and the subsequent trial of the captured, had galvanised the revolutionary fervour among the Cubans and led to the formation of the organisation with the name ‘July 26 Movement’. This movement had its own set of leaders throughout the country and conducted its activities even when Fidel and others were in prison or underground in Mexico, planning the Granma expedition.

The landing of Granma and the subsequent guerrilla struggle, with the Sierra as the launching pad, had attracted many other fighters. Kapcia warns us not to get carried away by the heroism of the Sierra guerrillas alone as the only people responsible for the triumph of Cuban revolution. He brings into focus the role played by the urban guerrilla movement, Llanos, who had acted in concert with the Sierra guerrillas. Here, he also brings in the role played by the then Peoples' Socialist Party, PSP, which proclaimed its adherence to communist ideology.

Kapcia presents many facts to show that after the triumph of the revolution in 1959, it is not Fidel alone who had taken decisions and directed its course. He identifies an 'inner-core' consisting of the participants of the Moncada, Granma and Sierra struggle and along with them various other fighters whom he places in the subsequent layers of hierarchy according to their participation in the revolutionary struggle. He terms this structure as an 'onion', in contrast to a 'pyramid'.

Kapcia also shows the 'free hand' given to various people assigned with responsibilities to decide and frame policies, but only with a rider that nothing that harms the revolution was allowed. He quotes the various debates on economy and culture which took place and how Fidel (or for that matter the members of the 'inner-core') had desisted from imposing their opinions as decisions. He also shows how various personnel were chosen to dispose their responsibilities, strictly on their ability and not on the likes or dislikes of any individual, Fidel included. However, Kapcia states that one overwhelming factor that weighed on such decisions was the role played by the concerned person in the various phases of the revolutionary struggle.

Kapcia quotes a well known phrase from Fidel's speech, 'Words to the Intellectuals', to define the attitude in decision making – 'inside the Revolution, everything; against the Revolution, nothing'. He states: “that speech and that definition were also significant outside the world of culture; for, just as it confirmed rather than determined, so too did it reflect what was increasingly being felt and argued in the wider process of change, rather than what was being determined as 'policy'. In other words Fidel's cultural definition of either 'within' or 'against' applied to all dimensions of the Revolution...”

A major limitation of the book is Kapcia's refusal to recognise the presence of anything like class, class character, consciousness, class interests or conflict in the entire process of Cuban revolutionary transformation. For him, what defines Cuban revolution is, one, a 'united' inner-core group (which he identifies as an important element that led to the building of a 'corporate State' – a highly contentious description – though, not of the fascist or right-wing variety) bound by their passion for 'revolution', a term about which he claims, the revolutionaries themselves are not clear about. He argues that their understanding of what a revolution is, kept on changing from 1953 (Moncada attack) to the present, through 1959 (the overthrow of Batista dictatorship), 1961 (the formal breakdown of relations with the US and declaration of socialism as an objective) and 1965 (the formation of the Communist Party of Cuba). He refuses to identify this 'evolution' as something natural that can happen to any participant in a struggle. He fails to look at what had contributed to the unity between the members of the inner-core. It is true that except Che and Raul, most of the other members of the inner-core, including Fidel, were not initially conversant with the theoretical postulates of Marxism-Leninism. But, nonetheless, it cannot be denied that all of them were bound by a deep feeling of anti-imperialism, angst over exploitation – both domestic and colonial – and a sense of replacing the bankrupt system in which the Cubans were eking out their lives.

The second defining feature he identifies is the unity of Cuban people bound by the 'siege mentality', a result of the US imposed blockade. He states that the 'revolution' utilised this siege to continuously harp on the idea of 'them' versus 'us' to safeguard the revolution. He refuses to recognise the role of regular debates and dialogues in rousing the consciousness of the people. Thus, he fails to identify people also as protagonists in the revolutionary transformation, instead, looking at them as mere 'followers'. Stemming from this refusal, Kapcia, naturally writes-off the entire phase of 'Battle of Ideas' as a failed concept, which he contends Raul had immediately withdrawn, once in power. Nothing can be more afar from the truth.

A major problem with the book arises when Kapcia turns to theorising his analysis of Cuban revolution. His attempts to locate Cuban revolution, as different from the other socialist experiments in East Europe (which, it definitely is) and thus explain its sustenance, fails to convince, precisely because of the above mentioned limitations. Nonetheless, this book helps in spotting the various protagonists in the revolutionary transformation of Cuba. It is this existence of collective leadership, among the many other factors, that gives us confidence and nourishes the sprouts of hope about the revolution's sustenance.