But, that wasn't a communist government. If it was, other parties would be outlawed, there would be a monopoly of one party installed. [..] If Kerala was a communism, anyone opposing the ruling party would wind up in prison or dead, because they have not 'transformed'. Because they would be 'counterrevolutionaries.
I'm pretty fiercely anti-communist myself, as my previous posts in this thread attest. But I dont think I buy into this logic here.
Basically yoú appear to be saying - I lived in a communist state - so I know what communism is, it's a system that works like the one I lived under did - ergo, any other entity that calls itself communist but doesnt fit the model of the communism I know, is not really
That doesnt work.
"Communist", like "socialist" - a label claimed by everyone from soft-pedalling French social-democrats to hardline Soviet communists - in the end is a label that has been used by a variety of people and parties to describe a variety of far-left, revolutionary socialist political programs and strategies. As much as we think we know what the real and proper definition is, it is not really up to any of us to decide which of the self-described communists is really
communist, and which ones aren't.
Now I know nothing about India. But take Western Europe for example. Communist parties there were slavish followers of the Moscow line for several decades. But from Tito onwards, different definitions of what communism should be about and how communist politics should be pursued developed over time. So-called "Euro-communism" emerged, with the Italian Communist Party leading the way and several others (including the Dutch, eventually) following. "Euro-communists" still aimed to arrive at a communist society in the end. But they no longer envisaged that communist society as the Soviet model where "anyone opposing the ruling party would wind up in prison or dead", and they no longer envisaged a Moscow-directed trajectory as the way to get there.
Were they therefore no longer "real" communists? Well they certainly thought they were. And they were certainly not regular social-democrats either, since they still proponed to achieve a system change, not just a gradual adaptation of the existing capitalist society.
Now the Euro-communists never got to found any actual communist state, of course. So we dont know what would have happened. What we do know is that the system they proposed was not the one you describe - and yet they were communists - they described themselves as such, and were described by all other political players as such, and still are described as such in the historical works.