Communists and the Making of Pakistan

Re: # 115

Yes. Shujaat Hussain was playing Chotu Ram. That makes PML-Q the Unionist Party.

Thankfuly they have been defeated.

Re: # 110

I am afraid you've not understood what I've written. Your responses to points 1,2,3,4,5 are plain nonsensical. Your response to 6 is just plain funny.

Your response to point 7 shows me that you have no comprehension of the English language. A federation consists of a Unitary center. A unitary center is different from a unitary state.
For example India is not a Unitary state but has a unitary center called New Delhi.

Your response to point 8 is your prejudice. As for Congress... its actions are self evident.


Thanks for the reference. Grateful.

Thank you dear YLH for reviving our memories.

Btw, are not the Jats of Gujrat, Ch. Shujaat, Parvez (There another Parvez has come up but he is Keyani),etc., playing the role of Sir Chhotu Ram today?

Alas, Sir Sikandar Hayat died at a crucial moment in history. Had he lived he and Chhotu would not have allowed Punjab to be partitioned with the resultant internecine carnage of Punjabies.

GT,

I agree to most of what u said but what I meant when I said that Commies cant play electoral politics is that they dont know how to grow.

The theory behind the split is true but I never saw them growing outside WB, Tripura and Kerala and CPI was derecognised as a national party. CPM is one its way to de-recognition.

Had they know to play electoral politics they'd have been reinventing from time to time and gaining in strength.

GT, agreed entirely.

A few points:

1. The CPI gave up on "revolution" and joined electoral politics. So did the CPM. The CPI-ML split with the two precisely because of this. Electoral politics is what made the Indian commies survive and outlive its international brothers. Today splinters of CPI-ML have also joined electoral politics. Essentially revolution gaya tel lene.

2. Implementation is not their cup of tea. The reason is as follows. Essentially, communism is a Western concept (even though some elements of materialism might have been present in the sub-continent a long time back). The "leaders" are mostly far removed from ground realities. The 'dedicated' cadre between "leaders" and the unwashed, have no say in policy matters. They are like Oscar the horse in Animal Farm. Intra-party democracy is totally absent in Indian communist parties. Cadres who oppose this structure are removed from the party. A very good example is that of the once upcomming leader Saifuddin Chaudhury. Google should be enough to find out more about him and the story.

3. Though Marx got the essence of capitalism correct (he hardly said anything about communism), Marxists got the system of free competitive markets totally wrong (except for Paul Baran perhaps). As a result they ended up supporting the cause of public monopolies and sympathising with national monopolies. Deng was the first to recognize this (though even Lenin flirted with the idea of privatization but not fully). One should note that reforms in China preceeded those in India by a decade. Having said this, communists in general have contributed to the ushering in of capitalism by bringing about land reforms in many parts of the world. But so has the US, especially in Korea! Their record on education and health is good in some parts of the world but not in others.

Corections:

ML did try its best to make inroads...it just took time to crack the pot and it happened in 1946.

Each provice had it's own core competency and for Punjab it's food productiion; again when the contribution of industry to GDP was less than 10% it doesnt make any substantial affect on economy or politics. So ur middle-class theory is a non-starter.

The ppl with surplus money (Parsis, Gujjus and the enterpreunarial class like marwaris) got attracted towards Bombay. It's natural.

#75 Posted by MantoLives on October 25, 2007 8:58:52 am

Yaar Yasser,


1. Because before 1938 only real attempts were made by Congress and the Communists.

Commies never played electoral politics not in Punjab or anywhere in India. They always act like agony aunties....

ML did try it's best to make inroads...it just took time to crack the pot in 1946.


2. The point again was Punjab's importance as a recruiting base. So this is pointless really even if we accept your claim as is.

They recruited from all stocks of Indic people not just those 'martial races'.



3. I am afraid you are wrong here. The British divided the Indian Empire into two distinct regions i.e. Regulated and Non-Regulated Provinces. Punjab was a regulated province where the Chief Commissioner had wide ranging powers. These are the facts whether you like it or not. In your case I'd say laughing without investigating is a dangerous proposition.

I am afraid. It's British India and Princely States. The finer distinction as u mention is of no consequence insofar as the British control in India is considered. The elected govt NEVER had that of powers as u and I think now-a-days. It's the British zilla collectors who had supreme powers in day2day affairs of any domain under their control.


4. Really... where were the Birlas, Tatas, Dalmiyas, Habibs, Seghals, Monnoos, Isphahanis, Premjis, located pre-1947... in what is today India or Pakistan?

Yasser, pl think of core-competency. Birlas if they were cud have established their business in arid Rajasthan but they didnt. They were operating outta Bombay with their business establishments in the places where there's proximity to raw materials.

As for Premjis, they're selling oils in those days. They were rich but not tycoons. Punjab has no port (for exports/imports). The only industry I can think of in Punjab is rice milling industry. Each provice had it's own core competency and for Punjab it's food productiion; again when the contribution of industry to GDP was less than 10% it doesnt make any substantial affect on economy or politics.

5. The Industrial workers in the whole of Punjab were 1/4th of the number in Bombay according to the 1930 census... and lets not forget that Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP were not even industrialised.

Mmmmm.. that way the rest of India shud feel aggrieved abt Bombay. The success of Bombay has a different story. The Parsis became middlemen btw natives and British. Gujjus are a mercantinle civlisation. Bombay was the major trading port and the major commercial centre. The surplus ppl (Parsis, Gujjus and the enterpreunarial class like marwaris) got attracted towards Bombay. It's natural.

6. Ironic... the same Congress Party leaders in Punjab routinely denounced Sir Sikandar Hayat, Sir Fazli Hussain and Sir Chotu Ram as collaborators. Now you are saying they were not.

Yasser, even Jinnah said one for press, other things for his cadre and something for public consumption. These political allegations are allegations, either by Congress or ML.

7. Again little knowledge. There is a big difference between the terms Unitary center and Unitary State. Unitary Center itself can only be in a federation. There is no center in a Unitary state. A unitary center means a single center for a federation.

You mean to have multiple power centres in the name of one India?? (rolling eyes). It's unthinkable, chubby.


8. So being likeminded had nothing to do with driving out the British... which was clearly not a Congress priority. So much for your glorious independence struggle.

That's my point as well. Why Congress need a truck with ML; ML was constantly collaborating with British for Pakistan. How allaince btw Congress and ML wud drive out British? The Constitutional developemnts in India had nothing to do with whom Congress/AIML ally with.

8. Driving out British is not the Congress' priority??

Need to know ur history more.


****************

As for my point on armymen rebuked by Jinnah for contesting elections, I guess u can find the info in this book (I am not sure though but of all the books I read, this cud be where u can find that stuff).

Quaid-e-Azam's correspondence with Punjab Muslim Leaders

Edited by Qaim Hussain Jaffri,

Aziz Publishers, Lahore (1977)

Re: # 104
Agreed, I think that was extremely well articulated and gave a remarkable insight within few lines. The solution has a problem but intentions are noble. I think other than a bloody revolution, which communists think is absolutely essential to root out the status quo and change the ownership of means of production, another problem is recommendation of a powerful state. Any state with absolute powers is always likely to abuse it and the rulers would do anything to cling to the rule. Marx was of the view that state with the passage of time would wither away. It did wither away in Russia and East Europe but leaving capitalists in charge.

Re: # 104 I wonder Indian comunists are bent on destruction and violence, like jehadis who are making havoc for islamic revolution like here for bloody socialist revolution or they are tamed by local market forces ?

Re: # 104

well said dulla

its not just about the bloody revolution, its about saving lot of blood also.

UK and other European countries wouldn't have created welfare states without the threat of socialist revolution breathing on their necks.

US would not have dared to act like a mad dog it is now and done this to Iraq, had USSR been in the same position it was few deecades ago.

Re: # 91

kaal bhai, you can spend a life time in understanding those constructs to find out that they are infact not as monstrous as they sound to some or some of the communists have made them look like.

I can reccommend few books, which can help you:

1. A series of Introductory booklets on the ideology by Shiv Verma (who was Bhagat Singh's close ally)
2. Roots of Historical Materialism by Bhag Singh MA
3. History, Mythology and Historical Materialism by Bhag Singh Sajjan

This should be enough to start with, but the problem s that you may have to get these books from India and possibly learn Punjabi as well as the last book was published only in Punjabi.

Let me tell you something intersting about the no.3 book, which was also called 'Yellow Book' whwen published in 1980s and was written by one of the most learned comrades from Punjab who was contemporary of HS Surjeet but was never interested in any post etc. He spent his entire life like our Rishis of gthe old tradition, managed his diabetes andother physical problems on his own with ayurved or homeopathy. He conducted party schools and taught the basic philosophy of communism. His book dealt with the evolution of the ideology throughout Indian mythology and history. Interestingly, his own party, for which he spent his whole life, banned the book, You may still get it from some old CPM comrade who is not affected by the petty politics.

Re: # 76 Mantolives:"Can you quote me your source please."

Here is the source

http://www.khalidhasan.net/fridaytimes/2004-10-15.htm

Enjoy!

kaal, you are right... communists in general have their hearts in the right place and their larger view of how things should be in terms of justice, equality etc are fine things..even if a bit idealistic, it is good to have ideals to aim than not have one. problem I see with communists is their solution is all out revolution with absolutely upside down system compared to existing whatever. my few dozen gray hairs tell me that incremental change/progress is easier to achieve, with less bloodhsed and suffering and has better chances to sustain in the long run than an all out bloody revolution for exreme utopian change - utopia that will require crude force and authority to implement and sustain.

on the other hand the whole idea of communism, marxist left have played and can continue to play a positive role without achieving the revolution. it is acting as a counter weight to the right and retrogressive forces and encourages reforms for work place equality etc. inspite of occasional seemingly anti-nationalist blunders like support of TNT, opposition to nuke deal etc, overall they are a positive influence...until they turn fundamentalists and then they become hard to distinguish from the cave dwellers of tora bora.:-)

Communists are good people trapped in the swamp of bad theory. As good people, their rank and file tend to have right instincts. With bad theory, their leaders come up with naive/terrible solutions.

Indian communists including their successor communists in Pakistan were imo, a naïve bunch. Their ability to understand problems is remarkable but they fail to articulate a proper response or find a solution to the problem they very intelligently identify.

Throughout the 20th century people saw that the communist became a victim of their own ineptness in dealing with the day to day political issues. Big picture and all that are fine but a political party must be able to identify opportunities to further its cause.

Recently, in India, the communist again fell from the grace for the same reasons that had destroyed their politics in 1940s. They had correctly identified the problems with the India-US nuke agreement, but they were never able to offer alternates or make suggestions that would have helped the Sonia Manmohan sarkar present alternate proposals to the US government for a revised agreement.

Politics is not just opposition. The real politics is coming up with solutions that attract the people at large. The communists’ mindset in both countries had been that of opposition. Solutions and alternates are the keys in promoting political goals especially in chaotic political conditions that existed in India before the Partition.

The communists in 1940s were not sure of the solutions to the quagmire that was developing in India due to the conflict between the Congress and the ML. Their first instinct was to stay with the congress. Ideologically, they were closer to the Indian National Congress and there was not a single communist in India who did not believe in united India. Still the CPI, very late in the game, came out with a resolution that was contrary to its long held support of a united India. Their support of Pakistan was based on a desire to not prolong the communal rift and put it behind as quickly as possible by accepting the partition rather than resisting it, which in their opinion would have caused more bloodshed.

Incidentally, the communalist within the majority Hindu community also reached the same conclusion. Even Gandhi was convinced that the situation would get out of hand. The motive was to get the independence quickly before the British leave India without any resolution of the communal conflict. The idea was that if the British left without resolving the communal issues, the united India would see a bloodbath the likes of which were never seen before in the human history.

India did see a bloodbath but it sure was smaller in scale than expected and perhaps all political parties in India heaved a collective sigh of relief when the communal riots did not cross the Punjab borders.

I also think that Yasser’s conclusions about the communist role and ability to control events in Punjab are a bit exaggerated. Communist had very little influence in Punjabi Muslim intelligentsia. Most of their membership in Punjab consisted of Hindu and Sikhs of east Punjab. There were very few Hindu or Sikh communist in the western Punjab which was Muslim dominated. A few Muslims who were part of the communist party lived in Lahore and one Dada Amir Haider, I believe, was from Pindi.