In Defense of The Left

The recent demise of Kaifi Azmi has practically closed an era of left idealism in Urdu poetry; other notables of this era included Sahir Ludhianvi, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Josh Maleehabadi, Habib Jalib and Majrooh Sultanpuri. They idealized what was more or less communism and Marxism: detesting bourgeoisie, concerns about the plight of workers, farmers, students, artisans and others at the bottom of socio-economic ladder and highlighting miserable conditions of the poor masses. In fact, at least in quality, Urdu poetry during twentieth century was dominated by the left or progressive idealism. The widespread popularity of their poetry (lyrics, poems and ghazals) brought fame and recognition, though never translating into similar widespread mass appeal for their political ideals. Therefore, by virtue of powerless and unpopular politically, they do not share any blame for the continuous plight of the masses or poverty of South Asian nations. In order for them to share blame, the communism had to succeed in South Asia and then failing, just as Islam succeeded in creating Pakistan and Taliban’s Islamic government in Afghanistan and then failed in 1971 and 2001 respectively.

The twentieth century also witnessed the rise and fall of communism. It is beyond the scope of this essay to discuss the reasons behind the implosion of communism except to suggest that communism performed poorly in comparison to the liberal democracy and capitalism as models respectively for governance and economy. The importance of comparison is lost when religious sensitivities of people and historical data without comparison within that particular time frame are used to justify a particular political philosophy. For instance, Islam is a good religion and Islamic system of governance a decent one against zero background or baseline. Both of them look floundering aimlessly when compared against other successful ideologies or political systems. Despite many calls from within and from outside, the communism refused to reform by accepting positive overlaps from competing systems. The inflexibility, inherent or induced, caused communism to collapse and likely to do the same to Islamic fundamentalist model in future.

One of the casualties of communism collapse was the worldwide decline in mass appeal for the democratic left. It energized the ultra-right and religious fundamentalists because they contributed to the collapse of communism. The democratic left moved towards the center at faster pace and the right moved further away from the center. The normal trend would have been both right and left moving towards the center. In order to win popular support, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Gerhard Shroeder had to move quickly to the center or left had to align behind these centrist gentlemen. The worst part of communism collapse was the rise of ultra-right and religious fundamentalism.

In France, the decline of popular support for left has led to Le Pen, an ultra-right with fascist tendencies, coming in second in the first round of presidential election and another ultra-rightist Alvaro Uribe has won presidency in Colombia. In Zambia, a Christian fundamentalist, Frederic Chaluba defeated a corrupt leftist regime of Kenneth Kaunda, although he turned out to be worst than Kaunda and lost reelection recently. In Guatemala, a born-again Christian General presided over the worst massacres of Native American highlanders in recent times. Sudan is practically bankrupt under an Islamic Fundamentalist regime with no end in sight to ongoing civil war. More Israeli and Palestinian civilians have lost their lives during Likud regime than a Labor regime in Israel. In India, rise of BJP has led to higher communal tensions and rioting. In the USA, the women’s rights according to Roe v. Wade is under threat of repealing.

India experienced democratic left during Nehru, V. P. Singh/ Chandershekhar and I. K. Gujral/ Devi Gauda era. Due to the short lived and marred with internal squabbling of the other two times, only Nehru era is worth mentioning. A lot can be said for or against the influence of Nehru’s policies in India. The bashing of Nehruvian socialism, particularly popular among Diaspora Indians, is mistakenly judged in terms of the paradigms of late twentieth century. It was more important for a newly independent country to have a sense of distinct identity, nationalism and a respectable place in the world community. His vision for the better future of India by investing in infrastructure, education, acceptance and respecting diversity of cultures and languages and most of all planting firmly the roots of democracy in the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Indians can never be taken away from his legacy. It is difficult to assess the damage, had Nehru left the scene earlier like Gandhi and Jinnah.

Pakistan’s short-lived experience with democratic left came during Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s rule (1971-77). It was a combination of leftists, pseudo-leftists and feudal rule but decisively anti-establishment during the earlier years. His nationalization of banking industry is usually considered the darkest spot on his legacy because corrupt politicians and other elite groups were able to borrow from nationalized banks easily which they either defaulted on repayments or written off by various Presidents. Interestingly the biggest borrower has been the government of Pakistan and they keep borrowing to keep up with the repayments. The salaried people were badly hit due to high inflation during the oil crisis of circa 1973. It would be very unfair to his legacy to mention the plight of salaried folks without mentioning the worldwide inflation and the oil crisis, when the price of oil hit 34 dollars a barrel. If he played some role in oil embargo by Arabs leading to oil crisis, then he certainly failed to calculate its impact on his own people. More schools, colleges and universities were opened during his seven-year rule than any other seven-year period. The art and culture flourished with government backing. He definitely made poor Pakistanis aware of their conditions. It is to his credit that even after 24 years of his murder, his daughter is still able to cash in on his legacy. Can Ayub Khan’s, Zia Ul Haq’s children cash in to similar extent on their fathers’ legacies?

The assumption that there would have been big and successful private sector banks and other corporation in South Asia if not for Nehruvian socialism or Bhutto’s nationalization is in fact very naïve. Many or even most of the government controlled corporations and nationalized businesses might not have been around by now. Both small and large businesses regularly fail even in the Mecca of capitalism. Many of the top ten US corporations during 1920’s are not even around any more. The Enron collapse is one of the well-known recent example. How can one say with confidence that without nationalization, Habib Bank Limited would have been this big or that big? The strength of a business institution in private hands in itself is no guarantee for success. The overall business environment as well as consumer spending has never been good in South Asia. The areas outside government monopolies have not performed exceptionally either. The airlines trying to compete against PIA or IA/ AI are not even worth mentioning. Private TV channels are nothing more than music video and movie channels. The railway system open to competition would be no different than private airlines.

The component of innovation gets much less credit in capitalism success stories than what it deserves. Innovations start due to freedom, curiosity, love, determination, meticulous pursuit and knowledge and not out of love for capitalism. The capitalist system with investors ready to back innovation with money makes innovation to the market. Innovation itself is not an outright factor of capitalism or directly proportional to capitalism; it is more other way around. Otherwise why would a country under capitalism unabatedly, like Philippines, only have innovations in the area of coconut oil and San Miguel Beer.



The major business successes of last twenty years – the high-tech industries, beginning with semi-conductor related innovations are concentrated in Silicon Valley, California for reasons other than capitalist financing., otherwise Dell and Microsoft would have been there too. The Silicon Valley would have become world famous even if Jerry Brown was the governor. The point is that business philosophy of the State or Federal governments can not stop businesses from succeeding in liberal democracies.



Democracy generally evolves into two-party system with a number of insignificant smaller parties. This has been the case in countries with deep-rooted democracy. In such cases, a party on the right of center and another on the left of center fluctuate towards or away from the center, depending on the circumstances and local conditions. The flexibility to move along right-center-left axis is absent among the ultra-right, ultra left and religious fundamentalists; they hate flexibility. The democratic right is best equipped to neutralize ultra-left, the democratic left is best equipped to challenge ultra-right and a two-party democratic right and left is best equipped to challenge religious fundamentalists. Therefore, to counter the rise of religious fundamentalism in South Asia, a two-party system on either side of the center is the best solution.

Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have essentially achieved a two-party democratic system. Pakistan was fast becoming a two-party democratic system before the derailment of democracy by military in October 1999. One party was made up of rightists, centrists, feudal and opportunists (PML) and the other were made up of leftists, pseudo-leftists, seculars, liberals and feudal (PPP). Had the democracy continued the proportion of feudal and opportunists would have declined due to the increased popularity of the core leadership of both parties and the larger pool of potential candidates’ availability. The diversity of cultures and large population has prevented India into becoming a two-party democratic system. However, it is quite likely that, in future, the alliances of convenience will change into stronger partnerships for the Lok Sabha and Rajiya Sabha elections – based on socio-economic preferences of regional parties. The democratic left in India is highly fractured and on top of that, Sonia Gandhi at the helm of the largest democratic left of center party does not bode well for democratic left as a whole.

Like everything else, except some religions, the philosophies also undergo evolution. Since the end of cold war, the democratic left is moving closer to center. The current left of center terminology encompasses the liberals, seculars, secular humanists, rationalists and even post-modernists. The component of leftists has significantly declined in the overall left-of-center. The left-of-center no longer implies socialism or nationalization of industries. It simply means honestly believing and doing something – when in power, about the genuine concerns of the poor, human rights, equality and striving for a just society. Since decreasing the poverty of a nation decreases the miseries of the poor, left-of-center is equally enthusiastic about a healthy growth rate of economy by all available means.



The democratic left or more generally speaking left-of-center has been on the forefront of human rights, equality and social justice. They believe in the role of government in mitigating inequality, even if it meant borrowing and spending in the public sector. The democratic left believes in playing according to the rules and, unlike religious fundamentalists and communists, almost never resorted to violence on the very first opportunity when in opposition. They have set the benchmarks for basic human rights, equality, social justice, and multiculturalism and environment protection. In South Asia, the democratic left has served the public better in all spheres except religion. The best economic progress in India came under left-of-center, P. V. Narasimha Rao’s regime. They have been the vanguards of diverse cultural heritage from Bengal to Balochistan, producing the best literature. Beyond any doubt, the rights of minorities and women are better respected and protected by the democratic left and most important of all –the prospects of peace in South Asia –have the maximum probability under the democratic left or left-of-center governments in both India and Pakistan.