Communists and the Making of Pakistan

Lokraj, no doubt communists had a softer corner towards creation of Pakistan...may be more prominent members were not happy but general feeling seems that it might help bring revolution faster hence good or OK to happen..let feudals divide themselves now, we can always put the 2 countries together after revolution. what happened later probably made comrades in India feel guilty (while Pakistani comrades are still licking their wounds on their lifeless bodies after 2 generations). My feeling is punjabi comrades' bold opposition to Khalistanis was partly due to the realization of their failure in 1947...it was a repeat that they couldn't afford to let happen again..secondly communist cadre was many times stronger in 80's than it was in 40's. it probably could not give fight in 40's that it gave now.

correction: deepak chopra was not comrade...was not he son of lala jagat narayan?

The communal-minds (led by the vamp Jinnah) and the ever-opportunist Communists, they made good bedfellows – and who am I to call them strange?! Clearly, it is no coincidence that both these groups loved to lick British boots and bad-mouth the Indians who sought freedom. Their kinds cherish each other’s company so much even after all that time – as in Afghanistan in 1979, Chechnya now, and in countless other places. By all means, they should spend as much time in each other’s company as it pleases them – as long as they both just stay the heck out of Amrikka! It is too bad that the Indian Communists missed a chance to accompany Jinnah to the land of the Pure – perhaps such a grievous error can still be corrected for the present day Indian communists who would be no doubt welcomed with open arms, perhaps even with a bear-hug, by the Pakistani mullahs. They would truly make a “Ram-milai-joDee�!

Re masanamuthu #98

[The truth is Rajaji / Periyar had no bones in the Pakistan / Partition stuff.. So they can coolly support Jinnah's demands whereas the North Indian Congress leaders cannot.]

Rajaji was an astute observer of the political scene. By the early 1940s, he had seen enough of the intransigence of Jinnah-bhai that he realized that the mad man was bent upon Pakistan and would not stop at mass murder to get it. It had nothing to do with not having any bone in the Partition stuff and everything to do with having a brilliant intellectual approach to politics.

E V Ramaswamy Naicker thought that if the British conceded any partition demand, that would automatically support his wet dream of Dravidastan. He had no principles or scruples, a trend that continues in today's Tamil Nadu.

Rajaji suggested that the Congress accept the inevitability of Pakistan. He didn't say anything about giving Jinnah everything he or Chaudhri Rehmat Ali wanted.

E V Ramswamy Naicker (Periyar -- in reality, Thanthai Periyar [Father Big Man] to you and people of your ilk) supported Pakistan because he thought that would give him leeway in getting a Dravidastan.


:-) Harimau, how r u?.

whether dravidastan or gangulistan, life is good now.. that's all that matters.. have some fun.

The truth is Rajaji / Periyar had no bones in the Pakistan / Partition stuff.. So they can coolly support Jinnah's demands whereas the North Indian Congress leaders cannot.

CreateAlpha

That seems like an interesting possibility....thanks.

(communism seems like a watered-down, much flawed, near childish form of religion. No wonder it died so soon everywhere except in India)

kaal yaar, since you like religion so much..try weaving that into religon as well. It works just the same...

LOL GT bhai, but people like my uncle ACTUALLY believe in their UTOPIA, without really knowing anything about it.

Utopia and ignorance (and guilt, as createlpha suggests) must go hand in hand. Yet for those at the bottom of the ladder, the desperation of their situation/needs might lead to real passionate pursuit of utopianism. The less one knows, or the 'guiltier' one is, the more one believes.

At the top of the ladder, a majority of the leadership might well understand these things as little more than brute powerplay.

-------------

drsahib, I would really appreciate if you could explain where my understanding of communism (in terms of those six elements) might be mistaken. Thanks.

#93 Posted by CreateAlpha:

Good one!

GT, this is nothing new. Most commuistleadership through out the world came from landed gentry and the upper classes. Call it Rich man's guilt.

kaal:

"I suspect most Indian communists never find their sheila dixits."

Yaar kaal, they do not have to. They have nothing but have everything. Most of Jyoti Basu's family is into big time bidness. Yechury's family are big time landlords in Andhra (unlike Namboodripad they still own the land). Prakash and Brinda Karat (related to Pronoy Roy .. yep the media and congress wallah) spend Christmas in Goa along with their neice who lives in LA who in turn makes a movie on Delhi riots which in turn is reviewed by Ras (?) in chowk. Small world, bhai sahib and sheila dixit fits in nicely somewhere. Aur aap nikle hein ideas pe baat karne!

drsahib, entirely possible that I misunderstand communism. Which one(s) of those six basic elements would you say do not belong to communism? And if they all do, which ones can we reach beginning with charavaka or Guru Nanak's teaching?

(It's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. I am actually ashamed I have not once read all of Guru Granth Sahib :()

Dr. sahib, Kaal is right. When the literacy rate is so anemic in the region..the options are things that promise utopia. be it communism or islam....

kaal ji, you seem to have similar view of communism as average Pakistani has of hinduism. Indoctrination and concretization needs to be left behind if one really needs to learn something about alternative world views.

We may be once again focusing on people (communists), and not on ideas (communism).

Let me recount a real story.

One of my uncles in our village (I have many many uncles) was particularly dil-phenk.

There wasn't a village-belle he would set his eyes on who would not totally steal his heart.

One day, he fell in love with communism. He must have been around 25 years old then.

One can say with fair confidence, my communist uncle didn't know one real thing about communism, never read a book or article on the subject (in fact, no one ever saw him read anything but jasoosi kahaniya type of stuff). But uncle liked the idea of 'justice.' Who wouldn't, if you are also dirt poor, and hate working hard?

Anyways, this uncle of mine took communism seriously for many years, became politically active, atteneded rallies etc.

One morning of course the charm broke, and he became a follower of sheila dixit. Haven't kept track of his political evolution ever since.

I suspect most Indian communists never find their sheila dixits. But looking at their individual behaviors we will never be able to say anything about communism, or about the leaders who espouse that ideology.

drlokraj ji

Could you please further explain communism's relation to Indian traditions. Let's get to the heart of communism:

1. Dialetical/historical materialism.
2. Alienation
3. Revolution
4. Dictatorship of the proletariat
5. Redistributive justice
6. A millennial world-view of world domination.

By combining insights from charvaka and Guru Nanak do we reach any of the above basic elements of communism? Thanks.

Bombay, in 1947, had Muslim and Hindu workers living in very close proximity. Ever wonder why they did not kill each other in large numbers ..... yep, you guessed it - the commie trade unions.