Hindus in Hindu Rashtra book - my impressions

Hindus in Hindu Rashtra book - my impressions 

     I got this book through one of my relatives whose political leanings I do not know. Anyway it doesn't matter here for reviewing this book. Except Historian Sitaram goel's book 'Hindu temples - what happened to them' , I have never read any book by a hindutva writer. The author of this book "Hindus in Hindu Rashtra" is Anand Ranganathan. I already knew about him as a Right wing propangadist and writer in English along with people like J Sai Deepak & Vikram Sampath. These people are very popular through their speeches and discussions on Youtube channels and I have watched some of their videos. They were all very articulate and communicative to drive their points hard. The agenda, of course is Hindutva. 

     Let's come to the book. We will see the some of the arguments put forth by the author on the plight of hindus in India and my views on them.

1 Hindus are treated like Eighth class citizens in their own country and victims of State sponsored apartheid.

      

     In my opinion no one is ill treated just because of being Hindu in the country. But if the person is from a lower caste or a Dalit the possibility of ill treatment is more. As lower castes and dalits are getting united politically, the changes do come in their lives albeit slowly. If the author is really interested in the emancipation and uplifting of hindus he must discuss the economic issues of poor Hindus like access to education, health, employment opportunities, water, housing etc rather than the non issues ( non issues for the majority hindus who find it difficult to make both ends meet ) he discussed in this book. He waxes eloquently about settling scores with our minority brothers and sisters for what their forefathers supposedly dis hundreds of years before. The fact is the majority of upper class muslims already left India to  Pakistan whose forefathers probably inflicted cruelty and barbarism upon the non muslims. The remaining Islamic population in the country majorly consists of poor and lower class muslims who got converted due to the earlier oppression at the hands of upper class segments of hindus. They are as hapless and powerless now as earlier. What's the point of finding faults with the innocent poor minority people of this country. It is not that there are no issues. But to address the issues at hand you must direct them against the real targets to solve them. Shooting in the air. This is what the author is trying to do. Real progress of hindus can happen only when real issues are discussed by intellectuals in the country. When you don't discuss crony capitalism & skewed distribution of wealth no change can happen for the common people whether they are hindus or from any other religious faith. 

   

2 Minority appeasement is on unprecedented scale since the days of Gandhi.

      In the days of independence movement Mahatma Gandhi tried his very best to foster unity between hindus and muslims and unfortunately he paid with his life for the same. During his days he exhorted hindus to be large hearted as majority in the country. Some of the hindus paid heed to it and some didn't. Nehru did give some concessions to Minority population especially Muslims for giving them additional reassurance to make them feel part of the country.  It is debatable whether all of them are needed after more than 70 years of independence. Muslims are to be part of that introspection to decide whether they are needed or relevant. While scrapping them no political party should be allowed to exploit them for their own gains.

3 Hindu temple management is in the wrong hands. Almost everywhere in the country they are mismanaged.

     There are issues with the management of temples throughout the country. True. I agree with the author's statement.  But the author does not seem to suggest any workable solution to the issue. If the temples are to be removed from governmental control and are to be given to some privately managed trust or a simililar kind of set up, plethora of new problems will crop up and the corruption and mismanagement level will go up manifold. So the people who advocate release of temples should fight for the same after giving viable and better alternatives. As of now I don't see better solutions coming from those demanding it. 

4 Plight of Kashmiri Hindus are very pathetic and governments are oblivious to their situation including the present one.

     Here no one will disagree that concrete steps must be taken for relocation of Pandits in the Kashmir valley. But at the same time we must not forget BJP is also squarely responsible for the plight of Pandits along with other Mainstream political parties. We shouldn't forget that the bjp was supporting the central government when the Pandits were hounded out of their homes in the year 1991. Nobody should be allowed to take political mileage out of this humanitarian issue.  

5 Places of worship Act 1991 is against Hindus reclaiming their temples.

     After demolition of Babri masjid and the unfortunate events happened in the country following it, no right thinking person will wish to repeat the same invoking some other religious place. So many lives were lost and the nation had lost valuable time of more than 30 years discussing this issue. One issue hijacked the nation and all other important matters were sent to back burner. The country cannot afford to waste time discussing similar issues. So invoking similar historical issues now is irresponsible and will again take our country backwards further. We cannot allow any one to raise any issue similar to Babri masjid - Ram Janmaboomi. Those who do it in the case of Kashi mathura or Gyan Vapi mosque do not have nation's interest in their minds. They just want to divert attention from livelihood issues of aam aadmi being discussed. So in my view, the places of worship Act 1991 was enacted having the larger interests of the country.

6 Indian judiciary is dominated by left leaning judges and so many verdicts are against Hindu customs and practices like in the case of Sabharimala.

    If a person understands that being left means  being modern and progressive statements like the above will not get thrown around loosely. Though our judiciary throws up some verdicts which are not modern or progressive by some individual judges at times, by and large the judgements on important matters are on the progressive side including Sabarimala verdict. We may differ with them on certain perceptions but I think, this view stems out of selective reading of verdicts from Hindutva prism. The same author conveniently quotes extensively from Ayodhya verdict as it suited his views. 

7 Even the present government which came to power using the Hindu Card is not doing enough for the Hindus' cause.

     The author gives the examples of RTE Act wherein it applied to Hindu managed schools and not minority institutions.  I really don't understand the justification for it. In my view it is better to make it uniformly apply to all institutions Hindu or otherwise.  

    The author conveniently hides the fact that the present government ( so called Hindu) will use the Hindu Card for the purpose of getting votes. When it comes to real issues of governance they will showcase their religious bias to cover their blatant failures. 

Conclusion 

    To conclude I must say that this small book of 130 pages is mere compilation of some of the extreme hindutva views espoused by the author on various forums in the country. I tried to respond to some of the points raised by the author. I know for sure that my responses will not cut much ice for people who were already taken in by the right wing blitzkrieg unleashed during the recent years.

      zzzzzzzzz    zzzzzzzzzzzzz    zzzzzzzz

       

The importance of being Gandhi

Why Gandhi is important?

    Here I have tried to summarize some points which are uniquely Gandhian. These are the reasons why I admire Gandhi the most among the political leaders past and present.  I had Gandhi on my WhatsApp DP some time ago. I remember someone asked, Why Gandhi ?   I came up with some reasoning for that and seemingly he was not impressed. So then I thought of writing down some of the aspects of Gandhi which I consider his unique contribution to humanity as a whole.

 Ahimsa and violence 

First time in history a major struggle was launched based on Non violent methods which eventually succeeded.  It paved the way for using the method for resolving conflicts. Until then violence was the only option. Gandhi proved and gave another highly successful, viable and less destructive for humanity to follow. It is not that the method will always work. It may not. But it is an option to explore in bigger and even smaller disputes between groups.

End cannot justify means

For any group or groups of people or societies basic understanding is the end or reaching ultimate goal any means is acceptable.  But not for Gandhi. For him means to the end is equally important.  If should just and fair. Otherwise he wouldn't employ the method to achieve the objective.  In modern day politics this idealistic or holistic view is the goal to reach though it is yet to be fruitified in reality.

Always leave room for dialogue 

Another important Gandhiji's idea which is to be adopted is the openness for dialogues always.  He would never break negotiations at any point. He would try to wind up discussions on a positive note or atleast would ensure continuation of negotiations at another point of time. If this is applied even in family discussions that will do a world of good for the families. This will certainly result in avoiding Confrontation and conflicts within groups/family. 

Incremental growth

Gandhi never believed in instant successes. In his scheme of things he would go for  incremental growth. So in his movements he wouldn't hesitate a moment to retain whatever little bit of progress which comes along. After realizing limited achievement of his goal, he would start going for further development. For people who lead big or small movements or agitations for any purpose this approach can be a major guide. 

                                            To be continued....

        

கொடைமடம் - நாவல் வாசிப்பு

கொடைமடம் நாவல்  - சில எண்ணங்கள் 

     நான் மிக விரைவாக படித்து முடித்த புத்தகம் சாம்ராஜ் அவர்கள் எழுதிய கொடைமடம்.  படிக்க தொடங்கி    இரண்டு தினங்களில் 600 பக்கங்களை கடப்பது என்பது எனக்கு ஒரு சாதனை தான்.  சமீபமாக ஒரு பத்து பக்கம் வாசித்தால் எனக்கு தூக்கம் கண்ணைக் க‌ட்டி கொண்டு வந்து கொண்டு இருந்த நேரத்தில் படிக்க தொடங்கிய புத்தகம் இது.  வாசித்த மூன்று நாளும் வேறு எண்ணங்களே இல்லை.  கதை மாந்தர்கள் முழுமையாக மனதை ஆக்கிரமித்துக் கொண்டு இருந்தனர் . ஆகச் சிறந்த ஒரு வாசிப்பு அனுபவத்தைத் தரும் ஒரு புத்தகம்.  சந்தேகம் எதுவும் இல்லை. 

      இடது சாரி இயக்கத்  தலைவர்கள் மத்தியில் 80 கள் 90 களில் கதை ஓட்டம் செல்கிறது. முக்கிய கதை மாந்தர்கள் ஜென்னி முகுந்தன். அவர்கள் வழியே கதை ஓட்டம்  பெரும்பகுதி சென்றாலும் ஏராளமான கிளை  துணைக் கதைகளும் விரவிக் கிடக்கின்றன.  அவைகள் ஏதோ ஒரு வகையில் main storyline உடன் தொடர்பு உ‌ள்ளது. Common thread is there. அதில் பொதுவான அம்சம் இடதுசாரிகள் அல்லது பெண்கள் என்பதாக இருக்கிறது. 

      கதையின் சிறப்பு சுவாரஸ்யம் குறையாமல் ஆசிரியர் சொல்லி செல்லுவது என்றாலும் கூட அ‌தி‌ல் பல இடங்களில் உள்ள அதீதமான எள்ளல் tone சற்றே நெருடலாக இருந்தது. இடது சாரிகள் மீது உயர் எண்ணங்கள் இருப்பதாக சொல்லிக் கொள்ளும் ஒருவர் இயக்கத்தை உயிர் மூச்சை விட மேல் ஆனதாக கருதி செய்யும் தியாகங்களை கேலி கிண்டலடிக்கும் வகையில் எழுதியிருக்கிறார். இதை  என்ன என்று சொல்வது?  இடது சாரி கட்சி நண்பர்களுக்கு இந்த கதையை அர்ப்பணிக்கிறேன் என்று வேறு நூல் வெளியீட்டில் சொல்கிறார். 

    இந்த கதையை 90 களில் veli வந்த 

ஜெயமோகனின் "பின் தொடரும் நிழலின் குரல்" உடன் ஒப்பீடு வருவது தவிர்க்க முடியாத ஒன்றாக நான் கருதுகிறேன். 

இரண்டிற்கும் கதைக்களம் கிட்டத்தட்ட 

ஒரே களம் தான். அதற்கு இடது சாரிகள் மத்தியில் வந்த எதிர் வினைகள் இந்த நூலுக்கு வந்த மாதிரி தெரியவில்லை.  தோழர் தியாகு நூல் அறிமுகம் செய்து சிலாகித்துப் பேசுகிறார்.  ஜெயமோகன் கதையில் சற்றே தத்துவம் விரிவாக அலசிப் பட்டு இருக்கும். எந்த கேலி கிண்டலும் அதில் இருக்காது. ஆனாலும் கடுமையான எதிர் வினையை அந்த நூல் சந்தித்தது. இன்றும் அதை கசப்பும் ஏளனமாக இடது சாரிகள் பேசி வருவது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது. புதினம் தான் என்ற சலுகை எதுவும் அதற்கு கிட்டவில்லை. 

     

    CPM தலைவர் W R வரதராஜன் தற்கொலை   சற்றே நினைவு படுத்தும் செம்முகில் தோழர் கதை கிளை கதையாக கூறப்படுகிறது. மதுரை கல்லூரி மாணவர்கள் மறியல் செய்வதாக ஓர் இடம் வருகிறது.  அவர்கள் தரப்பு கோரிக்கை நிறைவேற்றுவதற்கு ஒப்புக் கொண்ட பின் மீண்டும் Nicaragua நாட்டில் உள்ள இடது சாரி தீவிரவாத  கைதியை விடுவித்த பின்னரே மறியல் முடியும் என போராட்ட மாணவர்கள் சொல்வதாக இருக்கும். Did the left controlled movements take such ridiculously irresponsible stances anywhere? Extremely exaggerated, I think.

     வேறு ஒரு கிளை கதையில் magic செய்யும் ஒரு தோழர் cancer பாதித்த குழந்தைகளுக்கு நிகழ்ச்சி செய்தார் என்ற காரணத்தால் கட்சியை விட்டே நீக்கப் படுகிறார்.  அந்த குழந்தைகள் வைத்தியம் பார்க்கும் மருத்துவ மனை கிறித்துவ missionary அமைப்பு என்பதை காரணம் காட்டி அவர் வெளியேற்றப் படுகிறார். 

    The author does not use the names of main stream left parties like cpm or cpm. He gives new names to avoid controversies. கட்சி பெயர்கள் பற்றி சொல்லும் போது ஒரு கட்சி socialism என்று ஆங்கில பேரையும் மற்றும் ஒரு பிரிவினர் அதன் தமிழ் பெயரான பொது உடமை கட்சி எ‌ன்று இருக்கும் எனக் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளார்.  

   திருமணம், குழந்தைகள், காதல் மற்ற கலாச்சாரம் சம்பந்தப்பட்ட நிகழ்வுகளுக்கு இடது சாரிகள் hypocrisy அல்லது குழப்பம் இந்த கதை அப்பட்டமாக தோல் உரித்து காட்டுகிறது.  Mainstream கட்சிகள் அப்படி இல்லை என்றே நான் நினைக்கிறேன்.  

கட்சி கட்டுபாடு ஒழுக்கம் என்ற பெயரில் கட்சி முழு நேர உறுப்பினர்களை  அடிமைகள் போல் treat செய்யும் என்பது சொல்லப்படுகிறது.  உண்மையில் naxal இயக்க நடைமுறையில் இவ்வாறு இருக்க வாய்ப்புண்டு.  

1 The portrayal of Semmugil character and his treatment at the hands of party leadership which leads to break up with wife and suicide eventually. 

2 How Marxist workers discouraged from raising questions . Eg Sudhakar alias RK. But he comes out early not losing anything. 

3 How silly party can go when dealing with religious institutions..eg Magician character

4 The inflexibility of Jenny while dealing with love and family. So she loses another love in her life. It is because of her Marxist literature studies, it seems. Not pragmatic enough for taking life's decisions. So message is if you study communist literature you won't importance or primacy to other's views. You will always try to change other's. 

5 The hypocrisy and selfish portrayal of party leaders.  Eg The comrade who do money lending 

Business. 

6. It was really funny when every time Jenny asks Mukundan to lead a life of core Marxist believer full time. Living life simple, reading Marx Engels core philosophy books daily , eating Fruit based diet two times a day ( part of Marxist belief ) etc.

   It is not that a creator doesn't have the freedom to write  about all these things. He certainly has the liberty. Literature has the freedom to analyse and dissect anything.  True. But after exposing all the negatives of left movements during a certain period, one cannot claim to have written it for the benefit of the movement. Though many good moments are also portrayed, I feel the bad moments will attract more strongly. 

     இடது சாரிகள் மிக கடுமையாக சரிவு நோக்கி செல்லும் இந்த நூற்றாண்டில் இந்த நாவல் போன்ற எதிர் மறை அம்சம் அதிகமாக உள்ள ஒரு விவரணை எந்த விதத்திலும் மக்களிடம் அவர்களின் முக்கியத்துவம் பற்றி கொண்டு செல்ல உதவ போவதில்லை என நான் நினைக்கிறேன்.

   ஜென்னி ஒரு முக்கிய பெண் கதாபாத்திர வடிவமைப்பாக இருக்கிறார்.  Communism பயின்ற அவர் மன நிலையையும் இந்த கதையில் உப கதைகளில் வரும் பல்வேறு பெண் கேரக்டர்களையும் ஒப்பு நோக்க ஒரு Marxism பயின்ற பெண் எவ்வளவு individuals tic ஆகவும் ஆணை சற்றே அச்சுறுத்தல் செய்பவராகவும் இருப்பது சித்தரிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. முகுந்தன் தொடக்கம் முதலே ஈர்ப்பு இருந்தாலும் அவளை நெருங்க தயங்கும் மன நிலையில் உள்ளான்.  இவை இக்கதையில் extraordinarily depicted என நான் நினைக்கிறேன். 

    இந்த நாவல் என்னுடைய தனிப்பட்ட பார்வையில் முக்கியமான ,  சுவாரஸ்யமான ஒன்று தான். நான் சொன்ன குறைகள் எல்லாம் ஒரு இடது சாரி பார்வையில் சொன்ன விஷயங்கள்தான்.  எந்த ஒரு கலைக்கும் "நோக்கம்" முக்கியம் என்பது கூட ஒரு leftist view தான்.  இந்த நூலை எழுதிய நோக்கம் கலை மட்டுமே என்றால் மிகவு‌ம் நல்லது.  

  What's the takeaway from this book for Marxism inspired movements is that they have to realise that societies and individuals are to be given time to evolve on matters of culture and relationships and it is better to let the things change on its natural course. Any change effected forcibly will not last long. 

     

       

                 ________________ ____

   

    

   

 

Spectrum of left - part 4 / The differences

Why I always would say that I am not a "believer" of Marxist ideas?

        At the outset I must confess that I only have a simple and basic understanding of Marxist principles. I am no way qualified to write exhaustive critique on Marxist school of thought. I make this attempt to highlight the areas of Marxism where I do have major differences in my limited understanding. This article is meant only to enhance my knowledge on the subject. Not to downgrade or belittle or to find faults in it.  

      Majority of "believers" of today's Marxists  are people who fell into Marxism controlled organisations due to some circumstances in their lives. They also may have been attracted to it due to personality of some charismatic leaders.  Some might be into it because of their association with Marxists dominated trade unions and some might be due to benefits which they received at some point. Many of them do not think beyond the belief system to which they are wedded to. They are more akin to followers of religions or political parties in my opinion. Like majority followers of religion do not have any basic idea about the religion to which they belong. It is only because they are born into it they are following. Most do not even make an attempt to learn the basics of their religion's history or philosophy but blindly follow all rituals and methods. Similarly normal people who are members of parties or organisations which have Marxism their core doctrine do not have any basic idea of the school of thought. Like their religious counterparts they blindly follow what their leaders say. I think, that is one of the reasons why Marxism is also a kind of religious faith according to one school of thought. 

Basic elements 

 

    Here I will try to outline my doubts and differences vis-a-vis some of important Marxist principles limiting the subject matter to my understanding. Class struggle, increased awareness of proletariat classes which would result into conflicts and ultimately revolution,  Annihilation of classes, Labor value excess theory,etc. These are some of Marxist concepts. Let us discuss the above concepts briefly..

Annihilation 

       According to Marx due to the increased struggle between proletariat and ruling classes there will be more and more conflicts in society which will result ultimately in a revolution and a whole new society will emerge out of the revolution. We know that all Marxism induced revolutions in the world resulted into large scale violence. It is a different debate whether it was possible to have change of governments in countries without violence. After getting Marxist inspired proletariat led government, moot question comes how to implement the ideals of Marxism in the country. First to get transformed was Soviet union where the Marxist leadership tried to change everything through governmental force. Redistribution of wealth took place which turned many rich into paupers. Wherever opposition came they crushed them with state power. 

     Unfortunately this forceful transformation may yield fruits in the short run. In the long run the experiment will collapse sooner or later.

Labour excess value theory

        One of the basic tenets of Marxism is the Labor excess theory value. Marx tries to establish the core value of labor through some complicated mathematical formulas. In the whole human existence, Marx was the first to attach primacy to labour. That was opening of door of labor welfarist thinking in the history. Subsequently it paved the way for many labour centric developments. But it was too simple to say that labour is the major or the only contributor of all 'Capital' generated.  This theory was negated immediately after it was formulated during 19th Century. In the modern 21st century context it is all the more complicated. Determining value of products is a more cumbersome process now and it is very difficult to arrive at a definite value at the making level. Anyhow labour gets his value of his services at the time of giving his services. Value gets determined based on many factors at the time of selling. There cannot be a standardised value for a product. In my opinion selling of a product or service should get a primary position rather than that of labour or employee who only do it mechanically. Here idea is the creative phenomenon and is more important.  

Sacrosanctity and proselytizing 

        Marxism is always a kind of science according to their proponents. Its tenets are subject to many interpretations. When this is an irrefutable fact, many Marxist schools adopt a very rigid stance on the subject. Many believers or faithfuls who do not have an iota of idea about the concepts blindly follow their ideological mentors and thereby obstruct any meaningful debates. Any theory or ideology will grow only when free discussions are allowed within the fold. All religions have standard interpretations or orthodoxy. Religious ideologies do not evolve or grow.  They remain stagnant. People who contradict the standard positions will be discouraged in the religions. Unfortunately this seems to be happening in most of Marxism based schools too. If anyone offers a differing perception he is criticized and vilified. If he persists he is thrown out of the fold and all kinds of character assassination happens. This is the level of democracy prevailing there. Like in Abrahamic religions especially Christianity, proselytizing or trying to convert people into the fold is always encouraged in a 

systemic manner. This is also ridiculously similar to religions. 

Marxist Predictions of future turned out to be blatantly wrong

       Predictions of marx like increased class conflict, awareness of proletariat or working class of the exploitative nature of capitalist order are yet to materialize. It is never going to materialize, it seems. As the proletariat classes are fragmented into several forms or types there is absolutely no homogeneity among them. It is a daunting task now to bring them all under one roof in the name of a doctrine. During the early days of nineteenth century there weren't numerous varieties of the labor like in today's world. The forms of labor were very simple like agricultural or mechanical or industrial. During modern era this has become so complex and into multiple forms, it has become almost impossible to raise class consciousness uniformly across all sections of proletariat. 

Denial of human spirit 

     Marxism is a Collectivist idea and there is no scope for any individualism. Extraordinarily brilliant minds normally are not encouraged in a Marxist inspired system. Many talented scientific minds, Artists and intellectuals who had their origins in Soviet Russia left the country for better prospects in US or west. Marx himself is a product of western liberalism. 

Only this way or high way attitude- no faith in democracy

    Democracy and Marxism inspired state never go together.  The system is a declared totalitarian and dissenting views are not permitted. So there is self criticism in the system. 

No scope for improvement or expansion of economy  

    Marxism based Economic structure will not have the opportunity to go beyond the actual size as free markets and share trading are highly regulated and controlled. The scope for expanding of economy is very compared to free market systems.

Myth of collectivism vs myth of god centric philosophy 

     In the religious systems GOD is the central point of belief around which everything is woven. Here in Marx based structure central point is Egalitarian utopia realizing it is the myth. The whole idea is centered around that myth. God is a kind of "other"world concept whereas in communist society the myth is "THIS" worldly though realizing it is only like chasing mirage. 

Do not recognize the role of religions in uniting people 

    

      Marxists have a negative view of religious philosophies. They do not recognize the positive 

role of religions in shaping of human mind and culture. This stems out of seeing all things through materialist prism. 

     They do not realize that it is also an extension or continuation of theological systems in a way. So this isolated thinking impedes their evolving further. 

No mechanism for update of ideas though calls itself modern and scientific 

     Here in Marx philosophy there is no mechanism updating the concepts based on changed circumstances.  Like Muslims ' view of Quran, Marxists say the concepts are always relevant and scientific and needs no updation.This dogmatic approach is doing more harm than good. Most of them do not recognize this fundamentalist tendency is also unfortunate.

No authentic interpretation 

  

     Another problem faced by the idealogy of Marx is that there is no authentic interpretation of the same. The ideas are interpreted to suit the interests of the people in power. Like in countries like in Romania, Cambodia etc.

Calling for abolition of marriage system without having any alternative ideas to it

Communist Manifesto calls for abolition of system of marriages in Society. It says marriage is the root cause of accumulation of wealth by people. So, if you abolish marriages it is easier for establishment of Egalitarian society. Whether suddenly or gradual, it is not clear. Soviet union under Stalin tried this experiment by running a campaign to discourage marriages. They advocated officially for free relationships. It was a complete disaster for women and children. It was discarded after some years.

Exploitation of common people in the name of collective welfare

In a capitalist set up workers are exploited by individual owners or corporates. In a Collectivist Communist idea the same exploitative conditions may be imposed by the state in the name of development of country. Whether they will be paid adequately depend on the leadership and circumstances. So there is every possibility of continuation of exploitation albeit in a different form. 

Conspiracy theorists 

As I have seen from the behavior of typical communists 

and from what I learnt from communist literature, they have this tendency to call anything which does not come within the ambit of their thinking domain, as conspiracy hatched by bourgeois class. That may be spiritual or any development due to advancement in technology. 

  

End justifying the means?

For a communist " end will always justify the means ". It doesn't matter what are the means adopted towards realizing the objective.  Annihilation or total destruction theory was born out of this somewhat primitive idea. A modern civilised group cannot agree to this preposition 

which tends glorify violence. 

Instant solutions rather than incremental ones

Communists are for the total transformation of society

with the help of proletariat revolution and dictatorship which follows it. I think, internationally the experiences in several countries tell catrostrophic consequences due to hasty implemententation of these ideas. So in those places, had these ideas been executed having some sort of incremen4al or step by step there could be likelihood of long lasting successes. 

   To conclude I might add that communist ideas are a mixed bag. There are good and bad things. But it was a game changer in the lives of common folks of the world. I am writing separately in another part why I am saying so.

            XXXXXX     XXXXXX   XXXXXXX

      

    

 

Spectrum of left Part 3 - Gandhi and Marx debate

Gandhi and Karl Marx - A New Perspective - Akeel Pilgrami essay

     It is a known fact that both Gandhi and Karl Marx are seen as poles apart. Marxist scholars and Gandhians meet nowhere according to common understanding. There are those who are adamant that there can be no convergence point between these two. 

     However, there are points where both these agree in certain areas in the opinion of Philosopher and Columbia University professor Akeel Bilgramy. Although superficially there are no similarities, Akeel Pilgramy tries to establish similarities through certain interpretations.

       Left-wing scholars in India and around the world have harsh criticisms of Gandhi on the one side and they also insist that serious, original left leanings should be dug out of his writings and actions to bring forth more debates. 

Pilgramy says that Gandhi had no understanding of class, like many other philosophers, thinks that Gandhi's flow of thought is not uniform. He thinks that he is a person who gives opinions according to the political needs of the time and later thinks deeply and says the same thing in a slightly different way. He notes that while the historian Irban Habib was the first leftist to record Gandhi in a historically positive light,this author notes that he was the first to attempt philosophically positive interpretations of Gandhi from a leftist perspective.

      Pilgamy's New Modern Commentary on Gandhi, "Gandhi as a Philosopher", argues that both Marx and Gandhi share epistemological worlds and how capitalism separates people from nature and leads them down the path of destruction. He explains that they agree on the phenomenon of alienation.

    In his 1909 book, Hind Swaraj, Gandhi states that India is in a position similar to that of Britain in the 'pre-modern' era and that India does not need to follow the same capitalist path that Britain took from that point to the post-modern era. In the book Gandhi advocates against the capitalist modern age and tries to prevent India from taking that path.

    When Karl Marx talks about the revolutionary changes taking place in Russia and also about countries like India, the journey towards revolutionary economic changes through the capitalist path is similar to countries like Britain. He says it is not necessary for countries like India to follow the same path of revolution.

Liberal mantras - Liberty and equality

     New modern world ideas such as individual freedom and equality are conflicting ideas. Pilgramy reminds us that neither Gandhi nor Marx considered them as primary goals. Marx clearly rejects the concept of freedom and  equality as bourgeois ideas. In his writings, Gandhi himself passes over these important liberal ideas without giving them any importance. Both reject the two concepts of liberty and equality because of their contradictory nature, Akeel Pilgramy explains this in his paper released on the subject. He also argues that unalienated life is the right way to go. Thus he is saying that the ideas of freedom and equality have not only become outdated, and also says that the work of formulating ideas to improve human society from a new perspective should be done. Gandhi's objection was that the focus of left-wing thought was on the economic structure of capitalism that continued after colonial rule not on other important social issues.

     ***    ****** ******         ******** ******?

Spectrum of left - part 2/ Artificial intelligence and the Left

Artificial intelligence and the Left 

       Recently I attended LIC employees Association's divisional level conference at Thanjavur. In the conference an interesting topic was raised by Kalapiran, a State level office bearer of Tamil nadu progressive writers  association. in his address to the delegates session of the conference he was talking about artificial intelligence popularly known as AI. Surprisingly for a declared leftist  and a communist sympathizer he spoke somewhat positively on the development. 

      Some people are of the opinion that communists always oppose any new development and they will be highlighting only the negative consequences of such new development . They always fail to see the possibilities of positive outcomes. 

       I remember asking Dr Thomas Issac in another state level conference, one of CPM party's economic idealogues, about the impact of AI on the labour and employment in the country. At that time he replied that he was yet to study the matter fully to give a suitable reply to the question.  

     As for the speech by our Kalapiran, to me it was a welcome development to see a leftist talking positively about the fourth and possibly fifth stage of Industrial revolution. I think, it is high time the left intellectuals and other like minded people to formulate a plan of action safeguarding the interests of people at large. They must think of forcing the governments and big corporate leaders not to utilize the next stage of technological progress to just fill their coffers maximizing the profits. They must look for ways to share excess wealth created with common people by generating more jobs.  All stakeholders must sit together sooner rather than later to have a workable solution to this huge impending crisis. 

Yuval Noah Harari views on AI    

    In his book Homo Sapiens, historian and Yuval Noah Harari identities AI as one of the global issues confronted by humans. The reason he gives is that the AI will take away many jobs and this is going to result in massive unemployment crisis in the world.  Unless the issue is tackled globally, finding a solution will be very difficult, he says. 

Impact of industrial revolutions on the common people 

   On the face of it, it may seem that Industrial revolutions helped the ' powers that be 'in a big way. But the fact is science and technology driven Industrial revolutions facilitated all kinds of developments for mankind especially common people who were non entities upto then. The revolutions brought positive developments to humanity which never would have materialized without revolutions. This is the perception at the macro level. Some sections of people or groups might have got severely affected due to these technogy upgradations in human history.  

   Hence there is a real possibility that fourth and fifth phase of Industrial revolutions will bring  more positive benefits than negative if only they are planned in a systemic manner. No one is in a position to stop developments in science. The wise will think of tackling these for the overall benefit of humanity. The activists who are positive among the left movement should work in this direction. The areas of education, health, agriculture can be revolutionized with the use of AI. The better availability of knowledge on these areas can be made at all levels and in every nook and corner of the world. As for the impact on employments , they must be discussed politically to find a solution with minimal impact for common people..

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

     

    

    

Spectrum of Left - Part 1 / Time to retrieve left from orthodoxy

Spectrum of Left

     We were discussing politics in a family function some months ago. One of the persons in the casual chat was a district level RSS funtionary. As I am a known left sympathizer,  the rss guy tried to provoke me by strongly criticizing the Marxism based parties' activities and movements. I didn't fall for the trap. I said though I have left leanings as a trade union functionary, I won't blindly defend all that the left parties do nor do I fully subscribe to Marxist ideas. My support is only a qualified one and I further said that I was entitled to difference of opinion on some of the conventional left views or policies. One of the participants then said that there are many shades of left - or spectrum of left views among people. It provoked me to attempt this write up on the left thinking. 

    

Debate with fundamentalists 

     And in the discussion I unambiguously told that, yes, I have some differing view points with the orthodox leftists.  But on the principles of right wing forces like rss, I don't have any point of discussion with most of them. Most of the right wingers are like blind bhakts. Their minds are closed and not open to any ideas. It is a different matter that some in the left wing are also similar to them. It is fundamentalism of one extreme against another. It is futile to talk with fundamentalists of any hue.

Left and Right - Simple interpretation

    What exactly is left and what is right? Is there any authentic definition? Anyone or any idea on the side of ruling establishment is Right and the persons who are in the opposing side is Left wing. This is a simple definition of the terms, in my view. As per this view, naturally persons who take up causes of common folks is left, broadly speaking. This was the case even before the influence of the Marxism. Political activist  Yogendra yadav, in one of speeches recently says that even when leftists or Marxists come to take the reins of power, the people who are in the opposing camps may also be called left. So, in his opinion left is anti establishment, basically. In the talk he wanted complete consolidation of all left forces, left, extreme left, right of left and centre left forces to defeat rise of right wing in the country.

Isn't there left fundamentalism?

     

       We all know regarding religions, theology and belief systems there are many varieties. We call extreme views as fundamentalism in religions. The religious fundamentalists are one of major causes of conflicts all throughout human history.  There are also varieties of left thought. Those who have extreme views of left are also fundamentalists, in a way. The fundamentalism of left come in various forms. Of them well known form is called left extremism. There are many extremist left Organizations in the world today, though considerably weakened during the present times. 

Predicament of Left - what is the solution?

     The tragedy of our times is complete mis understanding of left idealogy. Generally left is identified only with the people who have extreme and orthodox views like Marxist Leninist groups.

Majority don't have the understanding that anyone who is dissatisfied with the present system of governance and who is having the thought of "people deserve better" will come into the ambit of left, whatever their take on Marx & Marxists.  Marxists, for the last one century hijacked the leftist ideology by default. With many changes in today's times after more than 150 years of Marx, it is time to retrieve and hand over the role of left to all who are concerned with the plight of common masses. Will any hindu muslim or Christian accept if we say that all those who follow these religions are fundamentalists.  None of them will agree. Majority will say that they are following their religions like normal people. They do not have any big agenda like the extremists. We don't treat them like the  fundamentalists and leave them alone to follow their paths peacefully. Likewise people oriented leftists whose only agenda is people's welfare should be left alone not bothering about dogmas or doctrines.

Positive Role of Marxism

   

     It is not that I belittle or downplay the role of Marx or Marxists in the shaping of human history. Most certainly Marxism largely influenced the course of humanity's progress. It heralded a new era in the lives of common masses. It did play a major role in ensuring the inclusive progress of all stakeholders including the lowest strata of people. This inclusive progress happened for the first time in human history due to the direct and indirect consequence of Marxism, we may dare say. With the help of Industrial revolution many new things came like minimum working hours, minimum wages, democracies, the birth of new middle classes, welfare state concept, pension for workers, bonus, trade union rights, collective bargaining etc., to name a few. All these would not have been possible without the philosophy of Karl Marx. 

     I feel that all people who are in the forefront of various left movements to go beyond their individual preferences on interpretations of the Marxist principles, must come on some common minimum platform to tackle people's issues like alleviation of poverty and safeguarding employments, creation of more jobs, ensuring proper distribution of wealth to reduce income inequalities, environmental issues, et al. It is time for the left to unite internationally based on all issues faced by humanity forgetting the difference of opinions due to the interpretation left ideologies. This is needed to save humanity from self destruction.

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