Imported political ideology...
India is a land of wonders. India is a land of uncertainties, of mystique and of great solitude. As Mr.Gurcharan Das writes in his own submission - India Unbound - "It is an elephant that has begun to lumber and move ahead. It will never have speed but it will always have stamina." I am, for sure, as confused as ever and not convinced.
India got political independence way back in 1947 but took almost 50 years to start the process of economic liberalization. The political bankruptcy over the years has only compounded the misery. It is very important for any country to have confident leaders. When an ordinary person does something wrong it is less than half harmful than when a leader does so. Not because we place leaders in a higher pedestal, but as leader's wrong doing inspires the subordinates in the wrong way.
Out of many such compulsory trades India exported mathematics and spirituality but imported communism.
My friends call me a communist and probably a communist I am. An ideological one. The only political (or apolitical?) ideology doomed to be failed. Any sensitive and young person who believe in ideology and equality of human beings has to be a communist. An apolitical follower of the once famous "Das Capital" is only a mirage today. Indian politicians on their part has only compounded this in a unique way.
From independence we were a country not here not there. As pointed out in India Unbound we wanted a business community to serve the country the way politicians wanted, the license raj made sure a slow death of the entrepreneurial abilities of the society at large and created a corrupt bureaucracy to support the wrong doings. One of our leaders never trusted businessman and the other thought their money is needed but not they.So, what are we? A socialist state? A state who is confident enough to fulfill its citizens dreams? We were more draconian state than any communist regime (vide writings during emergency periods), lacked planning and believed that state would do everything for its citizens even if they were inefficient.So, why blame only communist for their doings? When the rightists perform the same things they rename it as a "human face" but the communists are criticized as regressive and anti business. The whole model of 5 year planning is a complete fiasco and self serving failed policy. Yet they are regarded highly in esteem. Is it because they were not created by communists?
I do agree that communists made a blunder of economics when they thought that they can make poor people rich by converting riches poor. But at least their ideology was not flawed. They presumed wrongly when they overestimated the powers of state but were correct to predict the rise of the working class and the perils of raw capitalist regime. But what did the others do to rewrite history in the right manner?
As it is said - two wrongs do not make it right. So is the case with India. We were never on the right side of left and fooled ourselves by walking on the left side of the right.We were friend for both - USSR and USA. We could not decide between non violence and violence and in the process ended up losing in the partition.
Communism is comparatively new to India but not alien to its confused ideology. Communism puts enormous faith in the state so does the confused Indian socialism, Marxists believe in liberating working class and the Indian polity believes in making everybody economically equal. Thus, as we see there is not much of a difference between them - neither politically nor ideologically. But to our much delight and dismay, imported communism didn't work well here. Its track record is even more dismal than imported Islam.
However, the twin sister of Marxism, locally known as socialism has found enormous favor with our policy makers and all the loop holes of capitalism come out in political mouthpieces in the election years. As long back, Marx pointed out, "We see the great advance made by Adam Smith beyond the Physiocrats in the analysis of surplus-value and hence of capital. In their view, it is only one definite kind of concrete labour—agricultural labour —that creates surplus-value....But to Adam Smith, it is general social labour—no matter in what use-values it manifests itself—the mere quantity of necessary labour, which creates value. Surplus-value, whether it takes the form of profit, rent, or the secondary form of interest, is nothing but a part of this labour, appropriated by the owners of the material conditions of labour in the exchange with living labour." The same philosophy has been in usage over the years by all parties in India albeit in a slightly different manner. To create a democracy we needed opposition and hence we have them. They are neither ideologically different nor they are designed in a different manner. The only reason they exist is either they had an internal feud with the parent body for power or they harped wrongly on the religious notes. Hence, their pedigree is always questionable in my view.
To the extent that even Marxism has been Indianized and changed conveniently for the gallery, it has created a yawning disparity among the middle as well as working class. They neither had any historical baggage for India nor did they understand the local philosophy. Hence they crashed badly. In the race of power they became corrupt and opportunist and we kept equating them with Marxism. The gap thus created presented a big advantage to others, who in the name of socialism traded the same path with sure ideological bankruptcy.
So, after 60 years of independence we are neither here nor there. We waited for long on the road for the state to become self sufficient but took almost 50 years to come back to capitalism. We have opened up now but in every election year we still fool the masses in the name of socialism and equality. The result is we have neither a strong working class nor a mass of nation building industrial houses.
We blame communists for failure in Bengal but barring 3-4 states I am not too sure about the improved status of living for the en mass. And even in those states, the pressure came from outside, like the population, business class or like in 1991 - the point of no return.
But, how easily and conveniently we bypass issues by putting the blame on those failed ideologies in the name of communism.The only thing we forget is that an ideological bankruptcy is more dangerous than a political one.
Labels: Jehadi
3 Comments:
The problem with communism is not that it is idealistic or that it hinders business operations.
Ideologically, there are few things stronger than that and almost all communists do believe in them.
I would try to list some of them:
1. Unionization of all possible democratic institutions and often destructive in their attitude.
2. Rather than believing in 'creation' it first dismantles everything present good or bad.
3. It is absolute - whatever the party believes is right. The rest are just details.
4. Given a choice between religious bigotry and ideological fundamentalism I am not sure that in the long run which is more detrimental.
5. Communism at its very best could be exclusive and at its worst genocidal.
I accept that there is a severe idealogical vacuum in India's political centre-stage, and the similarities in terms of actions of democrats and communists over the years have been unbelievably same but that could only be restricted to economic measures.
Not with respect to foreign policy, not with respect to social liberty, not with respect to moral standpoints and most importantly not with respect to patriotic credentials.
It is mostly correct to say that "we needed opposition and hence we have them" but that does not give the full picture. The BJP had a very distinct ideology from the very beginning. I am not a proponent of their moral policing on every conceivable matter but it WAS a part with a difference.
Finally, any country where there is a high disparity of income and abject poverty - both in tandem will find favour with communism at some point of time or the other. And I think we both would agree on that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
First two clarifications given once again -
1. I am only ideologically a communist. I mean, if somebody with a heart and without a brain practical enough, goes through the "Das Capital" volume 1 (Vol 2&3 were later largely edited by Engeles) he/she is bound to be impressed by the clarity and humanitarian angle presented in that famous thesis. Till today no other antithesis has been able to
provide such an equitable platform, even at the theoritical base.
2. I have never equated the present political practice called communism worldwide.
As a true theoritical practitioner I have only marvelled at the revolutionary power that a communist exhaults till the time he/she is out of the political process. In fact, one of the paper at that time argued that a true Marxist should not join politics. The job is to keep a vigilant eye to balance the perils of the capitalism, to make sure that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Hence, Marxism as a political tool has never appealed to me. In terms of foreign policy, social liberty or moral standpoints - I guess they are more driven by vote bank politics and hence is of little consequences. At the same time you fight with A country and do a defence shadow exercise in your base. So, where is the clarity on the other side?
But, yes on the patriotic credentials part I agree with you in toto.
On your observation that saffron is a party with a difference I am not too convinced. I am yet to find a situation where they are politically different from the present government in terms of foreign policy, defence policy, economic policy or for that matter vote bank politics. The difference that we are perceiving are only because the nature of the coalition in running, not due to the change at the center.
And last but not the least, I have always hated religion as a political weapon and beleived that it is the biggest opium to keep citizens distracted from the actual issues.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home