e-mail login:  password:  
 Please login or sign up.
  |
Whither India Part 4

WHITHER INDIA?

(c) Lok Awaz Publishers 1996.
No Part of this Publication may be reproduced without prior written permission of the publisher.

Part IV

The Necessity for Indian Theory

The starting point, the first step, the most immediate question and the  long-term task that appears in India for the victory of the revolutionary  movement is that of theory. It expresses it self most succinctly in the  necessity for Indian theory, a theory emerging out of the conditions of  India and suitable for the development of communism here. This starting  point has to be made by settling scores with the old conscience, the  conscience of all conciliators with social -democracy, on the one hand,  and that of the British colonialists and of the bourgeoisie and feudal  elements, on the other.  

The theory of the conciliators with social-democracy considers it normal  to have a system which is a direct import from Europe, suitable for the  classes created by the colonialists themselves, classes in whose interests  it is to renovate and strengthen such a system. It is also important to  examine seriously how Marxism-Leninism which is presented in a dogmatic  form is something quite suitable to these classes that form the large  industrial houses, the capitalists and feudal landlords. For what other  reason have they nurtured this dogmatic Marxism-Leninism than to defend  their system?  

Comrades, the greatest problems taken up for solution at this time by  CGPI is that of Indian theory. This work began at the time of the First  Congress of the Party, the tenth anniversary of its founding. If CGPI is  to play its role as the vanguard of the working class, it must develop the  theory of communism from Indian conditions. This theory must be developed  by settling scores with the old conscience of India. It must be given an  Indian form. It must bear no trace of Euro-centrism or any other influence  that would render it unscientific. This theory most be suitable to the  practice of Indian revolution and applicable in general terms to any  conditions in the world. It is only through the development of this  Indian theory that the question Whither Indian? can be fully answered  and the revolutionary movement spurred forward.  

India, a land of small production and individual and communal property for  more than twenty-five hundred years, is filled with numerous philosophies  and theories based on this experience, However, the conditions have  changed in many ways, Large-scale production, that is, the social process  of material production, is taking hold in both the cities and the  countryside, Regardless, there remains a lot of space in which community  ownership and ideas abound and cannot be filled by capitalism. What will  the Marxist-Leninists do about it? Will they first transform these  primeval communal feudal-patriarchal relations, the Asiatic mode of  production, into capitalist relations; or, will they go straight to  socialism? It is far better to go straight to socialism. For this,  there is a need for an Indian revolutionary theory that can illuminate  the practice of revolutionising the entire life in India, of doing just  that-going straight to socialism. This requires actually putting all the  many philosophies and ideologies, their myriad forms and shapes, to the  critical test of practic and working out one revolutionary theory.  

This theory has to be closely linked to the working class movement for  emancipation, around which everything hinges. Only by comparing and  contrasting it with the most advanced philosophy and theory,  Marxism-Leninism and contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought, can Indian  revolutionary theory be modernised. Indian philosophy and theory must  be the most modern. It has to mercilessly differentiate itself from all  schools of thought which render it powerless and give it the role of  being merely of some spritutal character.  

Ideas, notions, views, interpretations are all, generally speaking,  relative. For this reason, anyone's ideas can be as right or as wrong as  anyone else's. Theory, on the other hand, is absolute until such times it  is proven wrong. If ideology does not arise from the soil of a country, if  constant struggle is not waged to resolve what is right or wrong on the  basis of theory, there can be no truly conscious, truly independent and  truly revolutionary movement of the working class. To achieve victory in  the movement of the working class for emancipation, it is crucial to pay  continuous attention to both ideological struggle and theory.  

The fundamental premise of the Indian philosophy of Darshan is that  things and phenomena reveal themselves. The entire universe is nothing but  Maya. Awagaman is the mode of existence of Maya. Such a materialist rendering of the Indian outlook is an excellent  starting point for the development of Indian theory. Indian communists  must develop this theory by beginning from the present, bringing under  sharp criticism all that is in vogue within the Indian conditions,  especially the old conscience that is pushed by the Indian ruling  classes.  

The stagnation of the philosophy of Darshan is inextricable linked with  the stagnation of Indian thought, and of the economic and political  theories in our country, The darshandharis, ensconced within the  comfortable walls of Indian, American and British universities,  pontificate about Indian philosophy, as if it has no relevance or  link with the present conditions in India, with the illumination of the  road to progress for the Indian people at this time in history. Idealist  and religious interpretations are given of Darshan, to make it lifeless  and useless for the Indian people. Meanwhile, deprived of a philosophy  and outlook to deal with the problems, today, the Indian people are left  floundering helplessly, at the mercy of the bourgeoisie and imperialism.  

Darshan, for instance, is confined to the sphere of religion wherein  God reveals himself to believers through their daily darshan.  Various schools of philosophy deliberately given an idealist  interpretation to maya-the entire universe, including matter and  the reflection of that matter in the forms of thought-declaring it  to mean illusion. Awagaman, the coming into being and passing away  of things and phenomena including thought, is deprived of its profound  revolutionary and materialist character, that it in fact reflects the  way things and phenomena reveal themselves and come into  being and  pass away, Instead, these darshandharis give an idealist, cyclical as  well as fatalistic interpretation to these concepts.  

Such interpretations do not assist the Indian people to address the  problems that exist in society. Instead of assisting the people in working  out the proper relationship between humans and nature and between humans  and other humans, as Darshan did in ancient times, they make human beings  a passive victim to the ravaging forces of society and nature today. It is  the tragedy of India that Indian communists do not combat these false  interpretations of Darshan. For the Anglo-Americans, especially since the  days of colonial rule, to deliberately denigrate Darshan and reduce it to  a matter of scholastic study of something from the dim past with no  relevance for this day and age, is understandable. But why should Indian  communists fall prey to this?.  

By not developing Indian philosophy, by not rescuing it from the realm of scholasticism and the confines of the universities ad religious  institutions, by not arming themselves and the people with an outlook that  will help them solve the problems facing Indian society, Indian communists have assisted the bourgeoisie in perpetuating its rule. The bourgeoisie  and its political parties, while paying lip service to Indian philosophy,  carry on their fighting by donning themselves in the garb of Indian  traditions and colours. Communists meanwhile remain on the sidelines,  debating on the "backwardness" or "forwardness" of the Indian people.  Some of them even debate whether they should appropriate some of the old  symbols of Indian history or religions, as if the question of philosophy  or theory is a matter of shedding one set of clothes for another. Such a  thing makes a mockery of the place of theory in society, its necessity at  a time when history has to be created consciously and the pre-history of  anarchy and spontaneous upheavals has to be ended. Communists of India  need to raise theory to the highest level possible and give it profile  that will be acknowledged on the world scale as a contribution to opening  the path to the progress of society not only in India but throughout the  world.  

Having traversed seventy years of struggle for socialism and communism in India, all Indian communists must realise that the theories that must be opposed are not rejected simply because they are foreign. They must be repudiated because they are instruments for the enslavement and bondage of Indian society. If society is to prepare itself for the twenty-first century, it must leave behind this entire baggage of European social-democracy and assortment of bourgeois socialism. This is really the point. It must be recognised that without a theory and philosophy that has historically developed within the concrete conditions of a given country. it is not possible to build socialism and communism in that country. This will put to rest once and for all the legacy introduced by British colonialism according to which Indian philosophy and thought can only find expression through European philosophy.  

The European philosophical tradition originating from Plato and Aristotle  was perfected during the Age of Enlightenment and Reason and was given  further shape during the revolutionary struggles which gave rise to the  modern European nation-state. Nonetheless, this momentous development was  to be followed by Irrationalism, the reaction of the European bourgeoisie  to the revolutionisation of social science carried out by Karl Marx and to  the fear of proletarian revolution.  

In this Irrationalism which the European colonialists imposed on their  colonies. Such a thing carried on even after these colonies became  independent. Viewing India through the prejudices of such colonialist  philosophy may satisfy the requirements of some foreign scholars and may  even be used to justify the notion of a "white man's burden", that  missionary zeal with which the colonialists sought to conquer and  civilise the "barren" Indian souls. Through bloodshed and conquest they  brought India under the sway of civil society and European colonialist  philosophy. That civil society and that European philosophy can do  nothing to advance the movement of the working class for emancipation.  

The colonial destruction of the people created a void which the  colonialists tried to fill with irrationalism. They negated Indian  society and philosophy. They must now be negated if Indian society and  philosophy are to develop and progress. The negation of their  irrationalism must give way to rationalism.  

Frederick Engles sharply pointed out long ago that "the philosophy of  every epoch presupposes certain definite thought material handed down to it  by its predecessors from which it takes its start..........."(4)  

 Do we Indian communists suggest that our ancestors handed down to us no" certain definite though material" at all?.  

Just as Karl Marx and Frederick Engles settled scores with their old  conscience-the prevailing ideas of their age-so too must we settle scores  with the prevailing conscience of India, our old conscience. We cannot  even begin to do so if we deny its existence, if we deny Indian  philosophy, if we deny that we have "thought material" which has come  down to us. If we do not settle scores with our former conscience, the  domain of philosophy will remain in the hands of the Indian bourgeoisie  and imperialism. The development of Indian philosophy and theory will be  obstructed.  

We Indian communists take from the Indian philosophy of Darshan, that  which is materialist and revolutionary, namely, that all things and  phenomena reveal themselves. Things and phenomena do not reveal themselves  in their dogmatic form as the Indian bourgeoisie would want us to believe.  The mode of existence of maya, that is awagaman, puts to rest such  revelations in their dogmatic form. Awagman provides maya with the  quality of coming and going, coming into being and passing away.  Things and phenomena reveal themselves according to their level of  development-as conditions change, what they reveal changes accordingly.  Recognising this is the starting point of establishing Indian philosophy  and theory. This is not the end point any more than dialectical and historical  materialism is the end point. It is foolish to think that the formidable  discoveries that have been made to date are the pinnacle and final word on  what is needed by humanity, for all times and for all peoples of this world. Such a vulgar opinion only appeals to those who are satisfied with the present  state of affairs and are benefiting from the status quo.  

Just as the bourgeoisie has reduced the entire country to dependence and reliance on foreign capital by strengthening the foreign colonial legacy, the economic and political system and other institutions, it is reduced to reliance on European philosophy. It is a beggar also in terms of the "thought material". This is the greatest crime it is committing against the people. Its schools are filled with foreign "thought material", to the extent that the "national language", the language in which it transacts its relations is also foreign.  

According to Engles, "Marx summarises the common content lying in things and relations and reduces it to its general logical expression. His abstraction therefore reflects, in the form of thought, the content already reposing in things"(5)  

If the philosophy is foreign, "the common content laying in things and  relations" has to be foreign as well. In other words, such a philosophy  would not reflect "the content already reposing in things" in Indian  society. The bourgeoisie as a class, the big industrial houses, the  capitalists and landlords, owe their creation to the British colonial  system. The British colonialists, besides other things, provided the  bourgeoisie with property relations based on exploitation and a thought  material which justified those relations. By destroying everything that  was theirs in the past the British have given Indians the option either  to take up the thought material of the classes created by the British, or  to be lost in the void of what has been negated. Revolutionary communists  must reject both and create a vibrant theory that will smash the thought  material passed on by the British and the void created by them.  

British thought material as presented by the Indian ruling classes negates  the development of India philosophy and theory. Such a thing can be called  a genocide (at the very least a cultural genocide), but the Indian  bourgeoisie is proud of it; it spews forth every thing that is hostile to  the interests of the Indian working class and people. Indian communists,  basing themselves on the definite thought material handed down from the  past and the summation of the experience of the working class movement  taken in general form, must give rise to a theory that provides it with its  own spiritual weapon, a theory that finds its material weapon in the  working class itself.  

Karl Marx pointed out that the proletariat is the heart of the revolution,  while philosophy is the head, If the proletariat, the material weapon and  heart, is Indian, how can it be directed by a British head? Furthermore  what is the use of a heart if it has no head? To suggest that European  social-democracy or that different forms of bourgeois socialism are the  head is to bury one's own head in the sand and to continue the rotten  tradition of serving the class that is hostile to the working class and  people, Indian communists must provide the working class with its own head,  with Indian theory and philosophy in order to guide its struggles for  emancipation. Either the working class takes command of its own philosophy, or it allows  the bourgeoisie a free hand to sing bhajans to European philosophy so as  to disarm the working class and keep it and the society in perpetual  bondage. Indian communists must fight unwaveringly against the Eurocentric  pressure according to which the thought material coming out of European  and American academia and other institutions is the only one of value, and  the most advanced at that.  

The so- called theory of orientalism even denies that there is such a  thing as Indian philosophy. It reduces Indian philosophy to spiritualism,  opposing the very essence of materialism - the conclusion that every society  provides itself with "certain definite thought material". Far from  allowing Indian philosophy to remain a target of curiosity for the native  and foreign scholars, Indian communists must develop Indian theory and  philosophy as an integral part of the development of the revolutionary movement.  

Internationally, by taking the experience of the international communist  and worker's movement as a whole, in general form, the communist philosophic  conscience has developed from Marxism to Leninism to contemporary  Marxist-Leninist thought. However contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought  is not the negation of Leninism, just as Leninism was not the negation of  Marxism. Together, they are not dogmas but are a guide to action. The  philosophy and theory that would guide the Indian revolution will find  their development in close connection with the working class movement as  it exists today in India and internationally. Nonetheless, the dogmatism of  different social-democratic and opportunist trends is exerting enormous  pressure to sabotage this work.  

The main enemy of this revolutionary theory remains right opportunism, the  social democratic ideas that seek to subordinate the class struggle of  the working class to the requirements of the bourgeoisie. Today, right  opportunism is adapting itself to the requirements of the world  bourgeoisie of privatisation and liberalisation. This adaptation has continued for more than fifty years and will continue until such a time as either the world proletariat is completely disarmed, or it confronts its bourgeois false conscience and Indian theory and philosophy are renovated, modernised and brought up to date . With this revolutionary adaptation and development, the mimicry and buffoonery of the present period will end.  

The intrigue against socialism and communism is not only to present  Marxism as a form of liberal ideology that is an ideology minus its  revolutionary class content, but also as the last word in social thought  in the spirit of a catechism, a kind of Marxian fundamentalism It is  also to present it as hostile to Leninism, and to present Leninism in  opposition to contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought.  

It is significant that in the last six years, not a few parties which  formerly called themselves communist have changed their names and are now  presenting themselves as "nice", liberal and soical-democratic parties, In  bourgeois style, they pretended to have no class content, no national  content, but in fact, they have no revolutionary class content. At the  same time , some others who have not changed their names have, in like  manner, adopted the demeanour of very "nice" peaceful, liberal communists  with whom it is possible for imperialism, the bourgeoisie and world  reaction to "get along with ". At the Congress of CPI (M) in April 1995,  for example the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation  (CPRF)issued a public statement according to which 21 major communist  parties in the world have all abandoned the notion of the dictatorship of  the proletariat. In other words, communism is not the condition for the  complete emancipation of the working class, but merely a policy objective,  Communism as the condition for the complete emancipation of the working  class can be created only by proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of  the proletariat. Communism as a policy objective stands against  proletarian revolution and the directorship of the proletariat.  It embraces the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as the final act of human  civilisation, as immutable, as something that will go on forever.  

Within this framework, a position of opposing all dictatorships is  presented merely as a ruse, an act of treachery and deception against the  movement of the working class for emancipation. It is not for nothing that  following the capture of the largest number of seats in the Duma by the  CPRF, the Clinton administration, according to news agency reports,  "dismissed communist electoral gains in Russia, declaring that the Party's  new breed are not the 'totalitarian Bolsheviks of old'.  

Contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought is a guide to the creation of Indian  theory. Lenin's conclusion that "... a correct revolutionary theory.....  is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the  practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement,"  means that a really revolutionary and really scientific theory develops  only by beginning from the present and serving it. Our work for the  creation of Indian theory has already begun. The Indian revolutionary  movement is under the sway of the bourgeoisie at this time. Far from  being guided by a revolutionary theory. the working class is guided by the  interests of its class enemies. The bourgeoisie is split into many factions. These factions are fighting with each other dividing the working class and  the toilers along the lines of division in their own camp, creating a  disaster for the revolutionary movement. Divisions in the bourgeoisie,  in the objective sense, provide the working class with an opportunity to  make an advance. But in the absence o f revolutionary Indian theory, it  is the working class that is split and its movement for emancipations is  temporarily paralysed.  

Scores of communist parties and groups exist, some big and many small,  promoting a lot of theories in the working class movement. Some of these  are alien class theories while others are so divorced from practice that  they do nothing else but cause maximum confusion. Besides parties and  groups of communists, there is the Congress(I), a social-democratic party.  Several socialist parties also exert influence, and even outright  reactionary parties also exist. The bourgeoisie is extremely satisfied  with this arrangement. However, the workers still succeed in revolting  from time to time.  

Different sections of the bourgeoisie rountinely inflame passion all over  the country on the basis of religion, region, language, tribal affiliation  and caste. This is done habitually, as part of settling scores and scoring  points over their rivals, while the people are divided along these lines  and terrible tragedies are committed against them. The abominations in  Punjab and the North East, the massacre of Tamils in Karnataka, of Sikhs  following the assassination of Indira Gandhi, and of Muslims all over  India following the demolition of the Babri Masjid are but a few of the  most glaring instances of this bloodletting. What began with the partition  of India in 1947, with millions of people being slaughtered and rendered  into refugees as a result of the infighting of the bourgeoisie has  continued to date, inflicting fresh and painful wounds upon our people,  and dividing the polity in favour of the bourgeoisie.  

Instead of showing a way out of this situation and forging the political  unity of the working class and toilers on the basis of a revolutionary  path, the communist movement itself has tended to become divided along  the lines of the division within the ranks of the bourgeoisie. It has  tended to get embroiled in these conflicts on one side or the other. It  has even become an advocate for this or that bourgeois grouping or front.  Instead of concentrating on developing the revolutionary movement through  theoretical and organisational work, it has side-tracked itself into  becoming a cheer leader for this or that section of the bourgeoisie and  for the capitalist system . The Indian revolutionary movement is in a  cul-de-sac as a result. It is through the work for the creation of  Indian revolutionary theory as one of the most important ingredients for  the growth of communism of Indian soil that the revolutionary working  class movement for emancipation will extricate itself from this painful  position and achieve its goal.  


Return to: | Whither India Index |



Please login at the top of the page or sign up, to add your thoughts/enter discussion.
Subject:
Message:  
 
Discussion: code of conduct


CGPI.org reserves the right to delete disruptive, disrespectful, or otherwise inappropriate discussion entries at any time. Users who violate the Code of Conduct will have their permissions to use the tools on this site permanently revoked.

 

Disclaimer: The opinions presented on this website's event and discussion forums are those of readers from around the world and do not necessarily represent the views of CGPI, its members or any affiliated organisations.

Home | About | Statements & Speeches | Documents | People's Voice | Donate | Act Now! | Download

Search powered by Powered by Google