4. “The accusers refuse to allow anyone to question the "so-called" victim.”

Considering how a rape victim that I know personally was treated by an international control commission, I think that is entirely justifiable. And unnecessary, as many others have come forth and are prepared to testify. It is not uncommon for rape victims to consider the “investigation” as a second 'rape'. This has nothing to do with whether the “investigators” are men or women. In the Swedish case mentioned earlier, the woman “investigator” was by far the worse.

7. “He [Heiko] is similar to the case of Atlee Yarrow and the SPUSA, after his expulsion.”

After his expulsion Atlee Yarrow joined a white nationalist group in the USA. Hardly comparable to Heiko who has continued to passionately argue for Marxism. To compare him to a fascist and call him a megalomaniac is simply slander.

8. “The leadership of the IMT were and have been all over this since the allegations were made, and made several trips to Pakistan to see for themselves.”

The Pakistanis who have raised the allegations and who have testified, claim that the IMT leadership internationally have not even answered their appeals that the case be raised. Going to Pakistan “to see for themselves” can hardly be taken seriously, if they have not spoken to eye witnesses, and accepted their expulsion.

If this is the best the IMT leadership can manage, it seems that they are guilty as charged. However, it cannot be excluded that Leon T is not in possession of all the facts. Which just goes to prove the need for an open investigation, if the IMT does not want to stand unfairly condemned.

What does an open investigation mean in practice? It does not mean that the alleged perpetrators or the alleged victims be tried in public either in a kangaroo court composed of IMT members or of other leftists. Nor does it mean that the case should be given to the Pakistani courts. It does however mean that all the facts and documents connected with the case should be made available to a public discussion, while guaranteeing the anonymity of those involved. This is the only correct way of dealing with what is essentially a political issue.

by Jonathan Clyne former member of the International Executive of the International Marxist Tendency.    

The fundamental reason is because rape is a political question and should therefore be discussed openly.    

      

The traditional view is that rape is not a political question. It has been seen as personal failure of the rapist or a misreading of signals in a game between adults or simply the inability of some men to control their supposedly naturally greater need for sex than women. All human behaviour is complex and there are always various tendencies at work, but that has never been a barrier to try and analyse the main (often underlying) tendencies at work, without pretending that there can't be other tendencies at work too. The same thing should be done with rape.    

     

Looked at in that light, none of the above explanations for rape hold, whether rape is explained as a personal or a natural phenomena. Different societies show very different rape rates. The fact that a South African woman has a greater chance of being raped than learning to read and write has nothing to do with either “natural” or “personal” causes. Nor the facts that every sixth US woman has experienced rape or an attempted rape. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics)

 

In a large survey, 35 percent of US male college students admitted that they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it. Note, this was a question about their willingness to rape, that is a clearly stated illegal action, not a question about cases that they might defend on the grounds that it was not really rape. Another survey about more loosely defined sexual abuse showed that “43 percent of college-aged men admitted to using coercive behaviour to have sex, including ignoring a woman's protest, using physical aggression, and forcing intercourse.” (http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html)

 

All this indicates that rape is not a question of unfortunate isolated incidents, but is a broader problem and has social causes. A problem that has largely been buried.

 

The causes of rape are connected to the oppression of women, and more generally to the existence of hierarchical societies. Therefore rape must be treated as a political question. Concretely, that means, just like with all political questions, bringing things out into the public sphere for discussion. And working out ways for society to deal with it. Police intervention is an insignificant part of that. Rape is the most unreported crime, and of reported rapes only a tiny minority end in convictions. Factoring in unreported rapes, about 95 percent of US rapists will never spend a day in jail. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape)

 

Clearly other measures are necessary, and confining it to the police and personal (sympathy and help for the victim) spheres is completely inadequate. Bringing out details about rapes is a necessary part of the political process, just like publicizing details of life under capitalism is an important part of the political struggle of the working class generally. Even if it is considered in bad taste. (Recently the Swedish upper class was scandalized at the bad taste of some activists who organised a bus trip for a “safari” to the “ghetto of the rich” to show ordinary people how the rich lived. Apart from being reported to the police, they were pelted with eggs by a gang of upper class youths.)

 

Here are two excellent articles about the issue of rape in Pakistan - http://www.marxist.com/rape-women-pakistan.htm and http://www.marxist.com/rape-women-pakistan.htm. It is worth noting that in one of the articles the author comments: “The large number of cases goes unreported because any suggestion of sex is considered taboo in Pakistan”. We should not fall into the trap of not writing about rape because of the risk of being salacious. 

 

Rape culture is not confined to countries like Pakistan.  A 'rape culture'  is defined as a culture where "sexual violence is both made to be invisible and inevitable" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture). Fighting rape culture therefore must involve making rape clearly visible.

 

Perhaps even more important than looking at the causes of rape is the need to look at the effects of rape. As such, it plays a role in maintaining both women's oppression and the general hierarchy of society. Like any act of violence or threat of violence, it is the ultimate means of maintaining a hierarchy of power. Therefore rape is often systematic and sanctioned from above in war.

 

In Pakistan, the use of rape as means to maintain power is not an underlying tendency, but openly stated and exercised in countless cases. It is not unusual for a village council to decide to use gang rape as a means of keeping women in their place. This is regardless of the law, and even when gang rape is prosecuted its chances of success are small (for an example see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13158001). Even before things get to court women have to go through a tremendous ordeal in Pakistan. Seventy percent of women in police stations were subjected to sexual and physical violence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Pakistan#Sexual_violence) Having gone through that, it is the woman that can end up in the dock, accused of adultery. (http://www.jazbah.org/asmaj.php)

 

Having said all the above in order to prove that rape is a political issue and should therefore be discussed openly, it would be futile to deny that for me there is also a personal and moral element involved in why I want the issue publicized. Nobody can fight simultaneously against all injustices. One always picks and chooses one fights and often they are related to a personal starting point.

 

I have visited Pakistan many times. I have seen the position of women there. I know some of the people involved. And since its inception until two years ago, I sat in the leadership of the IMT. I bare a certain responsibility for what has possibly happened.

 

I don't give a damn about the present political positions of the IMT, but I do care when a person is possibly seriously affected. Then I feel I must act within the means available. I seriously regret I did not act decisively when I came to know about a similar issue years ago. Then I hid behind the women's assurance that I need not pursue the matter.

 

It is impossible from a distance to dig out all the facts about an individual rape case. But that makes it no less important to bring to light alleged abuses and allow them to be dealt with openly. Leaving it to the leadership, to deal “sensitively” with the issue, appears to have been a failure in this case. Two years have passed and nothing seems to have been done.

 

To my knowledge letting the leadership deal with these things “sensitively” has always been a failure, whether it was dealt with by the leadership itself or a control commission. In practice the control commission is not independent, but selected by the leadership. Of all the cases I know of issues of any type going to a control commission, I know of none which I consider has dealt fairly with the issue.

 

An example is the experience of a young Swedish comrade who was raped many years ago by a  South African comrade. At an international control commission the Swedish comrade was subjected to the type of interrogation that would be unacceptable if done by the police or a court of law in Sweden. After that the South African was suspended for two years and the whole thing was silenced. Nothing was done to use this dreadful event to clarify the gravity of this issue to the whole organisation. Rape, just like all other political issues, must be dealt with openly.

 

The internal culture of the IMT and its predecessor the CWI is such that it tends to smooth over the behaviour of its leaders. This is in keeping with its closed in atmosphere where no discussion is allowed to be held publicly (and even internal discussion must “go through the proper channels”). The justification for this is that “the leadership must lead” and that a united image must be presented to the outside world, lest it give ammunition to “the enemy”.

Without committing myself to the guilt of those that stand accused, I find the testimonies published on this site sufficiently credible that they should be publicized in order for the case to be dealt with openly. I know from personal experience that some of the important circumstances connected to the case are true. I have been in close contact with the leadership of the Pakistani IMT's section for many years. It is clear to me that the consumption of alcohol among the leadership is clearly excessive, even by European standards, never mind the standards of a country where alcohol is illegal. There is a strong social pressure for comrades to consume alcohol. I also personally know of two incidents when a heavily intoxicated leader of the Pakistani section overstepped the boundaries of unwanted sexual attention, although the incidents were not of  the gravity that affected Comrade F.

The publication of these testimonies is an attempt to inform members of the IMT of what has been going on. They are unlikely to hear about it any other way, as the leadership maintains a monopoly over the means of communication within the organisation. It expels people who do not accept that. The best that can be hoped for at this stage is that the wrong Comrade F has been, most likely, subjected to be redressed by IMT members demanding a thorough and open investigation. The perpetrators should be expelled if found guilty.

 This was sent to us by Zafar Imam and other comrades of the IMT in Pakistan.
.................

Gang Rape of a Female Comrade of IMT in Pakistan, Explusion of Comrades and Related Questions   

 

In Pakistan section of IMT, recently there has emerged a crisis, which

is direct result of the wrong doings of Pakistani section's

leadership.     

Comrades from Kashmir region, Islamabad and Hyderabad Region of Sindh

Province were expelled during the month of November, December 2011 and

January 2012, without any prior notice, warning or any chance of

clarification. After such bureaucratic decision, many comrades gave

resignations from their basic memberships or gone in-active in

organizational activities.

8 out of 11 CC members of JKNSF were expelled bureaucratically by Adam

Pal on a phone call. L.K and Adam Pal plotted the expulsion. The

militant and hardcore leadership of JKNSF working in the difficult

terrain of Kashmir were expelled because of the differences of

opinion! Is this Marxism or a religion? Is this science or blind

following of Adam Pal and L.K?

 

After the expulsion of comrades, including comrade Aadil (former JKNSF

president), Shoaib Sham (CC member JKNSF) the position of JKNSF went

very weak in Kashmir. The opposite nationalist group of JKNSF regained

the majority in JKNSF and IMT lost the JKNSF. These bureaucratic

policies of leadership have facilitated the fall of IMT in Pakistan

and accelerated the process of its destruction.

 

The same happened in Islamabad and Lahore too. Key comrades were

expelled from there too.

Comrade Xulfi Marxist, Zafar Imam and Rashid were expelled from

Hyderabad region of Sindh, and then comrade Haresh's expulsion

followed them. A whole area of Gulab Laghari comprising of four

branches dissolved itself in reaction to this decision, including the

fall of active branches from Hyderabad, Shahdadkot and Ratodero Branch

in Larkana.

 

These comrades were expelled because they used to ask questions

related to political line of Pakistani section, which is

unquestionably run by one man. These comrades had differences of

opinion on national question primarily, Enterism in PPP,

bureaucratization of organization by one man and many other

undemocratic decisions.

 

These comrades had another objection over section's top leadership's

role. Three of top leaders were involved in a gang rape of a female

comrade. Organization gave cover to this crime, and instead of

expelling the culprits, they were kept on leading positions. After

whole two years of repeatedly demanding the expulsion of rapists,

instead of punishing the culprits, those comrade were expelled who

demanded explanation of such crime. These were the same comrades who

have recently been expelled.

 

The leadership of Pakistani section is still in state of denial. Not

only this, but IMT's International leadership too has kept silent.

After repeated appeals for probe, comrades of International section

kept unfriending these comrades from Facebook.

Comrades have now concluded that neither of IMT's leadership is

serious to probe into the matter. It just looks at the matter as if it

never happened. They might be thinking of these comrades as 'some

stupid third world loosers'.

 

The expelled comrades are given life threats by CC members of IMT's

Pakistani section to 'shut their mouth' otherwise face the

consequences. Evidences of such threats can be produced on demand.

There was no other way left for these comrades, but to write each and

every thing in detail publicly. This became necessary to face the

character assassination tricks observed on these comrades by Pakistani

section leadership.

We are writing this account of the rape incident publicly because

IMT's leadership failed to contact comrades and showed inserious

attitude towards their grievances. Below is the account of gang rape

of female comrade.

 

 

Gang rape of female comrade in Karachi

Time: some where between 10.30 pm and 11.30 pm in night

Location of Crime: Karachi Hawks Bay

Related Event: National Winter Marxist School of IMT Pakistan Section

Date: 04 December, 2010

 

Gang Rapists:

1. PJ ( CC member of IMT Pakistan

section)

2. RL (CC member of IMT Pakistan section)

3. CK (CC Member of IMT Pakistan section)

 

Victim: Comrade 'F' from Karachi

 

At the night of 3 December 2010, National Winter School of Pakistani

section was held. At the night of 4 December 2012, just before the

dinner was served, three comrades belonging to national leadership in

Pakistani section got fully drunk and entered the room of female

comrades. There, they molested comrade 'F', belonging to Karachi.

During the gang rape, the incident was reported to top leader of the

section on phone by female companions of the victim, and the leader

called back to culprits to get off and run away. They followed the

orders.

 

At the night after incident and the other day that followed, the whole

leadership of the section was mobilized to apologize from the victim,

forgive and forget the incident. Moral tricks and psychological

pressures were used to calm her down the next day, because ‘the school

would get disturbed’. It was promised to her that strict and severe

action will be taken against the rapists, but she should be silent the

next day in the school.

 

However, despite such tricks and giving cover to culprits, next day at

morning, the incident echoed in the words of comrade Amjad Laakhair's

contribution. He, in his contribution in the school, condemned the

event and asked for the immediate action. But...........the leadership

kept silent. A criminal silence was maintained. Leadership is still

silent to this day.

 

Eye Witness: Xulfi Marxist, Female Comrade Ishrat

 

Evidences: Almost all participants of the school that night, but to

name a few: Comrade Xulfi Marxist, Comrade Tahir from KPK, Comrades

from K.N.Shah Branch, Comrade Razaq Laghari, Comrade Fahad Memon,

Comrade Ishrat, Comrade Amjad Laakhair.

 

Eye Witness Account by Xulfi Marxsit (as reported):

 

At the night of 4 December 2012, when I was passing by the female room

in the wing, where comrades stayed at night during Hawks Bay Winter

School in Karachi, I heard the sobbing voice of a woman. A slow

weeping sound of a woman was coming out of room. I hurried to inquire

what is wrong. I first knocked the door, no reply came. Then I opened

the door. I was astonished at the sight of what I saw. Down the bed at

mattress, was lying comrade 'F'. At one side of her was PJ,

fully drunk. On the Other Side of Her was RL. CK was

sitting nearby her. All the three men were fully drunk as I noticed it

from their movements. Comrade 'F' was weeping, she too was drunk. I

saw that P and RL were molesting her, and she was totally

handicapped by them. On the bed was comrade R, sitting and

weeping. When she saw me, she cried and yelled 'What the hell you

people are doing. I am just now calling L.K, these drunk bastards are

molesting her and giving us threats.

 

Comrade R also forced me to get out and get lost. She was angry,

weeping. I immediately returned back to report the thing to other

comrades nearby and do something.

 

Eye witness account by comrade Ishrat as reported:

 

Female comrades participating in Winter School in Karachi were given

separate room for living. My companions in the room were comrade

Raheela, Myself, comrade 'F' and some others. At the night of 4

December 2010, when we had yet not taken dinner, I was still in my bed

in the room. Comrades outside had drunk and were singing, dancing and

crying. During this hoopla, Comrade 'F' entered the room and lied on

mattress down the bed. She was heavily drunk. Immediately after her,

three men entered our room. I could see they were fully drunk and were

not able to talk properly. At first I thought that comrades might have

got some immediate work with us, that is why they have entered our

room unwelcome. But I quickly understood that there was something

wrong with them.

 

RL opened his arms and stretched them to comrade 'F', who was

lying totally dozed on mattress. He cried in zeal, "I love you 'F', I

love you" and suddenly broke into her bed over her. He was quickly

followed by the other two, who forcefully entered her bed. For me, it

was unbelievable. We resisted and shouted at them to get lost of our

room. But they could hardly listen to us. They kept on molesting

comrade F, who was unable to resist them by force because of her

condition, though she was abusing them to get off her body. I and my

other companion started to abuse them, shout at them and then kick

them to get away from F. This resulted in threat by PJ, who

asked us to keep silent otherwise he will beat us. This was

unbelievable and tormenting.

 

Before us, comrade F was weeping and abusing them to get away from

her, but neither she nor we were in position to get off with those

drunk monsters.

We started to cry and weep, totally feeling helpless. To whom could we

ask for help? We were frightened from all of the male comrades present

that night in the School. Because most of them were drunk, and who

knows how will they react? Will they too do the same with us? There

were enormous doubts. We were fearful. My companion comrade Raheela

called comrade L.K from her cell phone to report to him the incident

and help us. She could hardly talk to him.

 

Quickly after she talked on phone, the mobile phones started to ring

and one of the monsters talked on the phone. They then quickly got off

from 'F' and ran away out of our room.

After about half hour of the incident, almost every body in the School

came to know what had happened. Different comrades kept knocking our

door and expressing their grief with us regarding the incident. But to

be honest, we were really frightened. We could hardly sleep that

night.

 

Post-incident Remarks of some comrades:

 

Comrade Taahir from KPK: Comrade Tahir was present at the occasion

that night, who witnessed the whole thing. He was a newly recruited

comrade, who had come first time to attend the Marxist school. After

this gang rape incident, he was highly disappointed by IMT and left

the organization. Currently he lives in Kohat. Contact details of

Tahir can be provided on request.

 

Taahir: It was unbelievable for me to witness such crime committed by

those who preached for a just society. I couldn't believe that the

Marxists could do so? For days, the incident disturbed me mentally. I

could not get along with such organization, where the leadership was

raping its own comrades. At that night, after I knew about the

incident, I wanted to beat the rapists. But somebody told me that they

had escaped from the scene. I left the organization. I was totally

disappointed.

 

Comrade Ishrat: Comrade Ishrat was a female comrade, who was companion

of the victim that night. After coming back from school, she left the

organization immediately. To this day, she abuses the organization

because it did nothing to punish the rapists. Contact details of

comrade Ishrat can be given on request.

 

Ishrat: I had seen the rape with my own eyes and I couldn't help my

companion. This feeling of helplessness had torn me apart. From that

night, I can't figure out how those can do such a crime who advocate a

society of justice, peace and free from chains? I simply couldn't

believe my very own eyes that night. I hate those bastards. They were

monsters. I decided to leave this organization, where female comrades

are too much insecure. In fact, they are male chauvinists.

 

The Moral Trick

 

After the incident of rape came to surface, first time publicly on

Facebook, comrades were replied with threats of facing serious

'consequences'. One CC member, namely Anwar Panhwar, in branch meeting

of Shahdadkot, clearly gave death threat to comrade Haresh - the

expelled one. After that, such tricks continue to date.

 

One special trick that Pakistani section leadership of IMT did was:

Why didn't these comrades went public about the gang rape at that time

when the gang rape was committed? Why do they now openly 'allege' on

Facebook and break the discipline of organization? Isn't against the

'discipline' to 'allege' comrades and true 'Marxists' publicly? Why

did they not contact the organization before coming public?

 

Well, it is hypocrisy at its best in the first place. Why did not the

organization bothered about the rape incident for whole two years?

Why, we ask, did it not take action against the rapists even after

repeated demands of probe by different comrades at different times?

Why, in the first place, did it give cover to rapists and kept them on

the highest possible leading positions of the section till date?

 

And, what about this advice that the 'discipline' of the organization

should have been followed? To your knowledge, the matter was being

discussed within the organization for whole two years. Leadership

didn't bother to take an inch of step ahead against these culprits.

This moral trick of 'discipline' can not be imposed on the expelled

comrades, because they followed the discipline for whole two years and

kept trying to solve the matter - along with some other political

differences - within the organizational discipline. But when they were

kicked out of the organization, how could they keep silent? Which

discipline to follow?

 

Further, did the organization itself cared a little of 'discipline'?

From giving cover to rapists to expelling the comrades, it kept on

breaking its own discipline. Why should the expelled comrades now

respect the discipline of a dead skeleton, which has no meaning for

them now?

We now think that the time is over to appeal before IMT's

International leadership. It played the wait and see game for long. It

didn't intervene. It kept itself aloof, as if it was a supernatural

structure resting on the Mars, knowing nothing of the world near it!!

 

Even then, if IMT's International leadership is a bit serious about it

and wants to probe into the matter, we are ready to provide access to

all eye witnesses and evidences. But in our understanding, we think

that the time for IMT is over. A Marxist organization can not keep

itself aloof from the crimes of leadership of its section. If it does

so, it is accountable to history.

Long Live Socialist Revolution! Long Live the voice of truth

 

Comrades from Lahore Region

Comrades from Hyderabad Region

Comrades from Islamabad Region

Comrades from Kashmir Region

The following is part of a report from Pakistan posted on FB recently.

This is the second wave of explsions from the IMT section in Pakistan, see earlier posts regarding leading national figure Manzoor Ahmed and his supporters.


"Pakistan Section of IMT has gone bureaucratic against its comrades!
Pakistan section of IMT has recently been suffering from bureaucratic
clutches observed on ordinary comrades. Principles of democratic
centralism have been violated and basic document of organization,
passed in congress 2011 of the section, too has been violated during
the year at many occasions. Equilibrium between democracy and
centralism has distorted. There is no room for comradely dissent. Who
so ever utters a word of dissent over organizational and political
matters, is met with a un-comradely criticism from leadership.
Leadership of the section is trying hard to maintain control on the
organization in these times of deepening crisis of new recruitment.

"This situation has been present in the section around some years, but
recently it has sharpened, as the contradictions of the society have
sharpened and the movement of working class is in low ebbs.
Pakistan Section’s heavily youth-centered organization has become very
slow in achieving new recruitment. It has been unable to
proletarianize itself despite different efforts, namely “PTUDC”. In
the times of near absence of working class movement, which could hold
the grip of mainstream politics and bring to the forefront the agenda
of class struggle, Pakistan section’s organization has gone introvert.
Not only introvert, but it also has been unable to inject new blood in
its body through recruitment. Situation is quite similar to
stagnation. Already active branches are going in-active, despite hard
efforts to make them active. Support from below has been nominal, as
branches occasionally meet and that too with visible sense of burden.
Super structures of organization, like central committee and regional
committees can be seen active, but all active layers below them
(branches and areas) have gone inactive and frozen.

"In such times, there is a strong need to explore new vistas and do the old things
with new and creative ways. But such creativity is met with strong
negation and criticism, as the leadership in the super structure is
afraid of loosening control and reluctant to adapt to changes.
This situation has led to bureaucratic tactics to maintain control.
Even if organizational document and principles are at stake, they are
taken little care of. The “Theory of Necessity” is practiced. It is:
Whatever is correct in the view of leadership at some particular time
in some particular situation IS right – whatever may be the result.
Comrades from below are seldom contacted for suggestions to improve
work. Equilibrium between democracy and centralism has distorted,
resulting in bureaucratic centralism. There is a clear sense of
favoritism: He who is near to central leadership and favorable for it,
is uplifted to higher organizational and decision-making positions,
thus giving the full control of organization in few hands. Where is
democracy in this whole process? It is name sake. Where are the
ventilating spaces for comrades, where they can express their thoughts
and views and contribute in the development of the organization?
Nowhere.

"Expulsion of Comrades

"Recently, three comrades have been expelled from the organization
without any prior notice, any opportunity to clarify their positions
and even without any valid political and organizational reason.
Comrade Zulfikar Mahesar (Xulfi Marxist), Zafar Imam and Rashid were
expelled from organization on December 28, 2011, without any prior
notice.

"These comrades belong to Sindh Region of Pakistan section – a region
of thriving political opportunities for IMT.

"These three comrades received a text message from Regional Secretary
Hanif Misrani, that they have been expelled from organization by CC.
Sub Committee. After asking the reason why such decision was taken in
such haste? comrade Hanif replied, “because comrades were in-active.”
Though, all these comrades have been active according to their roles,
but this reason (inactivity) does not disqualify any comrade from
basic membership of IMT. If this is so, then it can be proved that
Pakistan section’s organization will lose half of its membership on
such criteria. Thus, it turns out that there must be some other
reasons for the expulsion of comrades! And what are they?
Regional and central leadership of Pakistan section has been unable so
far to convince to comrades the exact reasons why these comrades were
expelled?! Neither it is ready to call the meeting of any responsible
institution/body where comrades can appeal for the restoration of
their basic membership and clarify their positions. This particular
situation neither can be justified on the basis of organizational
document, nor is it something what is the legacy of Bolshevism. It is
a clear cut bureaucratic centralism.

"Roles of Expelled Comrades

i)      Comrade Xulfi
Comrade Xulfi has been working in organization from last 7 years on
different responsibilities. Recently, he has transformed his role
according to global social networking trend, and started to gain
contacts from different parts of world for recruitment in IMT. Comrade
Xulfi is no unknown figure for all those comrades who usually use
Facebook. He has about 3 to 4 thousand contacts; he has provided
contacts to IMT in different parts of the world for recruitment
including India. He was surprised by the text message about expulsion
the evening of 28 December 2011. It was totally against what he has
been preaching on social networking sites across the world. It was
entirely un-comradely, un-revolutionary, un-democratic and
non-Bolshevik attitude to expel some comrades without any prior notice
and valid, justifiable and proven reason. After asking the reason
multiple times, he only received this text message from Regional
Secretary, “You will be told in RS meeting.” (*RS meeting controversy
will be defined later).

ii). Comrade Zafar Imam
Comrade Zafar Imam is former member of Central Committee of the
section. How he was expelled from central committee, is a different
story, which shall be described later!
He has remained on different responsibilities in the organization.
Comrade Zafar has been working in organization from 2006.
He is an active blogger, columnist of a Sindhi daily, where he
propagates the ideas of Marxism and IMT publicly, and has been the
back-bone of Information Technology department of organization in
Sindh. He is the developer of Sindhi website of Pakistan section of
IMT. (http://www.classtruggle.com )
He also received text message of his expulsion from organization by
regional secretary. After asking the reason, he was replied with one
word answer. “Inactivity”. !

iii). Comrade Rashid
Comrade Rashid has been working in the organization from last 6 years.
At the time of his expulsion, he was working as an elected member of
regional committee of Sindh. He was elected on December 23, 2011 by
regional aggregate just five days before his sudden expulsion. He had
laid the basis of the whole new area of Sindh region, namely Gulab
Laghari. Seeing his role, he was elected by regional aggregate as a
member for regional committee in Hyderabad."

 March 25 & 26, 2011 in Rawalpindi

 Our Congress took place in the biggest hall in Rawalpindi, the Liaquat auditorium. This is located exactly at the place where Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s ex-prime minister and chairperson of the Peoples Party, was assassinated. 700 Comrades registered for both days. The comrades came from all over the country, from Karachi to Kashmir, Pakhtoonkhwa to Baluchistan and from the Gilgit and Baltistan. The workers who participated in the conference came from all walks of life including the Steel Mills, Port Qasim, Pakistan International Airlines, Paramedical, Railways, Civil Aviation Authority, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, Capital Development Authority, Banking and various other private sector areas. Also represented at the Conference were youth, students and lawyers organizations: Peoples Students’ Federation, the Pakhtoonkhwa Students’ Federation, JKNSF, JKPSF, the Peoples Lawyers’ Forum and the Peoples Youth Organization.

Opening Session

The Conference began with the singing of a revolutionary song followed by poems of Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Habib Jalib. Then Irshad from the Electricity Union started the political section. Manzoor Ahmad ex-member of the National Assembly and leader of the PPP’s Labour Bureau commenced the discussion. He thanked all comrades who came from far flung areas to attend congress.

He reminded the Conference that while the ‘Revolutionary Struggle’ tendency had started out as an international tendency in concept, it had no links internationally. However, it is already making such links through TANIT (Towards A New International Tendency) as the Conference can see from the banner above the stage. In particular, he welcomed two representatives from TANIT to the Congress, Heiko Khoo and Pat Byrne.

Kabir from the Telecommunications Union read out the messages of revolutionary greetings to the Congress that had been received. These were from Melanie MacDonald from Canada, Wojtek Figel from Poland, Alex from Germany, Nadim from Tunisia (living in Britain), and Jonathan from Sweden.

World Economic and political perspective and character of the present Epoch

After the Opening Ceremonies Manzoor introduced the main speaker for this session, Pat Byrne. Pat is of Irish background born and brought up in Britain, but now living in Turkey. He came from a Labour family and had joined the Militant in 1972. He had been mainly active in the Labour Party and his union. And had participated in the IMT after the split in the CWI. He was an active member of TANIT’s international coordinating committee. After that the first session on World Economic and political perspective and character of the present Epoch started formally.

Pat began (full speech available in text and audio in English with Urdu translation on TANIT and on www.tanit.co and www.karlmarx.net) by referring to the Arab revolution taking place as the conference met. He hailed the courage of the Arab masses in braving attacks and even death to overthrow their dictators. Now revolution was everyone’s lips. But what kind of revolution and what was likely to follow it?

He gave a historical background of the role of the US after the Second World War which had given capitalism such stability. He explained the rise of neo-liberalism and detailed the rise of globalisation and how it was undermining the strength of the advanced countries. He outlined some of the causes of the Great Recession of 2008.

He returned to the question of the Arab Revolution, explaining that it was a political revolution not a social revolution. That the democratic aspirations of the people could not be delivered by capitalist ‘representative democracy’ which he proceeded to critique in detail. He contrasted this with what a real democracy would look like under the genuine control of the majority. That the Arab masses would soon be disappointed with the results of their revolution. A vacuum that we should seek to fill.

He finished by talking about the role of modern communication technologies in the Arab uprisings and their potential for future struggles. That just as the invention of printing helping the bourgeois come to power, the invention of the internet could do the same for the socialist movement, bringing the old slogan ‘Workers of the World Unite’ to reality.

In response to a question about Libya, Heiko spoke and gave some background to the Gaddafi regime. How it had nationalised the oil and gas in Libya and abolished capitalism. This had led to a rise in living standards and welfare services. But the regime was ruling through a bureaucracy and police repression. How the Gaddafi family had looted the resources of the country for themselves. Therefore, we could not support the regime. Nor could we support the Coalition powers in their military intervention. The Western powers hypocritically supported democracy purely for their own gain. We had to base our position on what was in the interests of working people in Libya.

Forty Five written questions were passed to the speaker. In Pat’s reply, he answered the following questions (full speech on audio available in English with Urdu translation on www.tanit.co and www.karlmarx.net):

Subjects he covered included:

What about the Banks? Law unto them – bonuses continue etc.

What has happened in Ireland? Elections, Labour Party, ULA 200 billion Euros debt in a country with only 5 million people.

Why is Left not organising the Arab uprisings?

Will imperialism succeed in Arab countries?

Control of Internet? How to overcome hurdles on internet by dictators?

What will be the benefit of social revolution/socialism?

What are differences between GB Shaw and Marx – with regards to democracy?

The role of leadership? – We are not anarchists

What is the definition of the working class?

What are the roots of terrorism?

What will be the future of capitalists after the revolution? Nowhere to hide – offshore banking.

We do not advocate violence nor are we pacifists. We will defend ourselves and the people against attack.

Muslim versus socialist versions of revolution? Role of religion in politics. Islam was not the motor force of the Arab revolutions. It was a secular movement. In Bahrain it has clearly become mixed up with the movement.

Why do we need a new international rather than the old one?

What about Democratic centralism?

Which conference should we follow – IMT or this one? We should not ‘follow’ either – we want cadres not followers. Study the differences yourself and make up your own minds.

Pakistan Economic and Political Perspective

After an hour’s break, the Conference’s second session on the subject of Pakistan Perspectives was opened by comrade Manzoor.He said that we are not going to abuse anybody. We are going to make a solid analysis so that people can understand what is happening in Pakistan. We don’t want this analysis to be restricted to just the leadership but involve all of you. The state and the system in Pakistan cannot solve its problems. The failure of the Communist Party to make the revolution in the old Hindustan state laid the basis for the problems we have today. Great Britain blamed the failure of the Hindustan state on the problems between the Hindus and the Muslims.

Contributions in the discussion:

By a trade union comrade
We should exchange our ideas with people not here. Only socialist revolution can solve the people’s problem. The PPP must return to its original constitution and slogan: ‘Socialism is our Motto’

By a student
Students are all now talking about revolution. But they don’t know which kind of revolution. The only revolution that can work is a socialist revolution and we are the wing that stands for this.

From a comrade from Karachi
we need more attention towards cadre-building to prepare for revolution. There have been too many movements in the past but they have not been following the correct aim. The workers of the world must be united.

From Sindh comrade and CC member
The PPP have been leaving their traditions and leaving a space where youth are joining other organisations some of them using terrorist methods. This is very dangerous.

President of People’s Student Federation in Punjab
The state is divided and has no direction. Only conflicts are arising and the youth and the ordinary people are victims of this. This system is moving towards destruction by its own hand. Either it will end in anarchy or revolution. There are only two alternatives. The PPP is divided into two main factions – the capitalist wing and the working class wing. The capitalist wing is constantly on the offensive against the working class wing.

Female Media Worker
The media is owned by a few rich people. The people’s views are not represented. Why cannot our views be expressed through the state media?

Railway worker – Chairman of one of the large Railway unions
between 1967-69 the revolution was not completed but diverted into reforms. Everyone is now talking about revolution but what do they mean by this? The media have achieved independence but are following the tune of the multinationals to create a mindset to help oppress the workers further. This media is actually helping the fundamentalists. We the revolutionaries should have our own media, our own stations. We need our own television and radio stations, our newspapers and websites. Our more educated comrades who have more time should spend time on this. I am a working man with no time to read websites and books. This dark night must go away. We are waiting for the red dawn. We are doing our work among the workers. We need the youth to help us. Speeches are fine at conferences but we need revolutionary action.

Student comrade from Kashmir
The Pakistan state is cutting back so much on education. Many institutions are being privatised. Soon it will only be rich children who can afford a good education. The solution is not to take up the gun but books and pens in our hand. Some people say that the PPP cannot make a revolution. That we should break away and form another Party. But the majority of workers look towards the PPP. Of course we can form a pure party with just a few comrades in it. We see so many other small left groups do this. We prefer to remain where the workers are. The working class will make the revolution.
We are not intellectuals. We are active in the broad popular organisations. We can use Marxism to guide us in the struggle.

Manzoor’s summing up

I have received so many questions. There is no time to answer them all but it shows that the comrades are taking great interest in this congress. The collisions between the different factions of the state can provide chances for us – the collision between liberalism and fundamentalism. Neither offer a way out. The murder of the politicians fighting the Blasphemy Law was answered by lighting candles. But this achieved nothing. We needed a mass reaction. If fundamentalism comes into force it will not discriminate between liberals, socialists or moderate Muslims. It will crush all trends and move forward over their bones. Only revolution and the working class can defeat fundamentalism. The ruling class cannot understand how to get rid of these crises.

Talibanisation is taking place in Punjab. Factions of the army support the Taliban. They regard it as a strategic asset. The army and police are more scared than the public. The PPP cannot rule because every day they are under blackmail from other parties or sections of the state machine. They have no space to solve the economic crisis or create jobs. We support the national aspirations of the Kashmiri people as we do of all the nationalities in Pakistan. But the conflict between Pakistan and India over Kashmir is fundamentally about access to water.

Only stressing lines of national independence will not solve the people’s problems. We need jobs, health, and education for the working class. Only if the workers of the different nationalities unite can we go forward. Unless we get rid of this ruling class we cannot achieve any real independence for the nationalities. We must unite as working class irrespective of race, religion, nationality and so on because we all suffer common problems. We must not become divided along these lines in our own movement. Privatisation is not the main threat in such an unstable situation. If somebody tries to privatise any institution we will become a wall against them. Privatisation has failed everywhere in the world. If we lose our offices inside the PPP in the fight against privatisation we will. The media is changing. You can’t block the spread of information any more. Information is spreading in seconds.

Full speech in Urdu & English live translation on audio available on www.tanit.co and www.karlmarx.net)

 

SECOND DAY
This session began with various performances of music, dance and poetry

The Chinese Economic Miracle- Triumph for Capitalism or the Planned Economy?

The Third Session on CHINA was led off by Heiko.Heiko outlined the birth of the Chinese Communist Party and took us through its struggle in the 1920s up until the revolution of 1949. He then detailed the experience of the Soviet Union after the revolution and the various economic debates that took the country through War Communism, the New Economic Policy, the Left Opposition’s alternative and Stalin’s policy on collectivisation. He then talked about the mistakes of Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the significance of the Cultural Revolution. He then explained that the reasons for the current economic miracle were the combination of planning, public ownership of the largest enterprises and the control of banking and credit. How central planning and investment meant that China did not significantly suffer from the slump in the capitalist world in 2008-9.

He gave examples about the strength of the Communist Party, the rapid growth of the trade union movement now at 240 million, the struggles of the workers and the response of the state. China was a state in transition, neither socialist nor capitalist. There were tremendous contradictions. A state based on dictatorship of the proletariat with a constitution and laws that declare full workers’ rights but where bureaucrats and private bosses trying to deny these rights.
He argued that the best way to proceed in China is to seek to help those communists and trade unionists who are seeking to turn the fine words of the constitution into practice.

 

Discussion
A comrade from Karachi
We see a great disappointment after Soviet Union’s disintegration and observed a massive decline in the labour movement especially in left politics. But after hearing Heiko’s speech about China there is a ray of hope which can play a positive role to stimulate our youth and working class. Of course, at present China is seen as an economic success story which includes a tendency towards Marxist ideas. We need to spread these ideas worldwide among working class.

Pat intervened with an explanation of some of Jonathan’s analysis as expressed in his document which had been translated into Urdu and circulated to al the comrades. How the ideas expressed in the Soviet Union in the 1920s concerning the need to make the state companies more effective than their capitalist competitors were being implemented in China. How the Command Economy of the Soviet Union could never work, with a central bureaucracy trying to ignore the realities of the market and decide on prices for every commodity and centrally plan everything. The fall of the Soviet Union had led to a disastrous fall in production and terrible hardship for the population.

The Chinese Communist Party leadership saw this and decided to take a different road combining state control and planning with market disciplines. Step by step they embraced the market and are beating the capitalists at their own game. Pat added some examples of his own. How the Chinese state companies are wining because they have virtually unlimited credit behind them, long-term planning and a willingness to take risks and massively invest in technologies etc. In one sector after another they are succeeding in building up their industries.

 

Finance Appeal
Irshad from the Electrical Workers Union launched a Financial Appeal by explaining that we have been operating for three years without any full-timers. However we urgently need a full-timer to develop our website.
Then followed a stream of comrades with individual financial contributions and pledges from their areas.

Full speech on video available in English with Urdu translation on www.tanit.co and www.karlmarx.net)

 

 

 

Organization

The Fourth Session of the Conference was on organization. It was led off by Comrade Kabir from the Telecomm Union. He pointed out that the uprisings around the world lacked revolutionary leadership. If a socialist revolution was to take place in any one country, the modern methods of communications could allow it to quickly spread across the world. The tragedy is that all the left groups and parties across the world are unable the gain leadership of the masses. The reasons there are so many splits within the left movement is that whenever differences arise they are incapable of discussing them in a mature way – they dismiss any opposition. This is their main problem.

Internally they suffer from leaderships with an Ego problem who are determined to hold onto their positions against any criticism or challenge. The left groups are producing followers not cadres.

In our group, Revolutionary Struggle, we do not want to create a central command structure – we need a system where every comrade can participate. Not implementation of orders but democratic decision-making.

Modern methods of communication are bringing together all humans. The old left Leaderships were trying to keep information centralised in order to keep power in their hands rather than share it with the membership. But modern technology makes this impossible.

Our organisation is only 3 years old. We were thrown out of the IMT. They used abusive language and accused us of working for our own private interests and selling out to the PPP leadership. Now people can see that we are none of this.

 

The IMT group in Pakistan gives the impression of being a large organisation but in fact it is run by full-timers with very little beneath it. Their branch structure is extremely weak. We must not repeat these mistakes. We must have strong democratic branches.

We have weaknesses. In some regions our work depends too much on key individuals. We need to change this and build a collective organisation in those areas. We don’t need gurus. We need to democratise our paper. All comrades must develop the skills of writing to contribute to it.

Finance – what we have achieved so far has been made in very difficult circumstances because we did not have enough finances. In all regions we need to build a necessary infrastructure to promote our ideas.
Capitalism has lost its progressive role. It now needs to intensify exploitation to overcome its current crisis.
The uprising in the Middle East can be spread to other regions. If it comes to Pakistan we have to ask ourselves: are we ready to lead and direct it in a true direction?

 

Central Committee Election

A new more democratic system was introduced for the election of the CC. Instead of it being nominated from the leadership as it was in the past, nominations were made from each region. Comrade Manzoor read out these nominations and said a few words about each nominee.

Introduction to TANIT

The Conference’s Fifth Session was an Introduction to TANIT . Pat explained that TANIT came out of a split in the International Marxist Tendency. However, he did not wish to dwell on the IMT which would be the typical behaviour of other groups who tended to focus on such internecine struggles.

TANIT began on the 1^st of April last year with the launch of a simple email list. Since then we have held conferences in Belgium, Germany and Greece. The idea of such frequent local conferences was to allow the rank and file comrades in those countries to participate. This was a break from the past practice of international conferences being held only once a year or every two years and being only open to the leading comrades in each section. Next month we shall be meeting in Sweden.

We have decided to begin by focusing on four main topics: Nature of the Epoch, Transition to Socialism, Attitude towards the broad organisations of working people, and Organisational culture.

We have launched an online Discussion Forum which gives a chance for every comrade to participate in debate, put forward proposals, or amendments to others etc. We will hold a Conference in August in Poland to agree positions on these documents. After the August Conference we will create a website to promote these ideas including audio-visual presentations to better explain our positions.

In these very early days we have participants in about 20 countries. In the main these comrades are in small groups or are individuals. We also have contacts in many other countries. But we have not been recruiting. First we must work out our ideas. Once this has been done sufficiently we will be reaching out to new people and groups.

TANIT is not trying to create some proto-international. A real International can only consist of mass organisations made up of tens of millions of members. Also we are not sectarian against other mass left formations. Thus we will help activists in broad parties to the left of social democracy like the Left Party in Germany, the United Left in Spain, the Scottish Socialist Party and so on. Wherever, the workers are we should be there assisting them achieve a programme of democratic socialism and helping their organisations to unite with other workers mass organisations.

We don’t want to create an international group controlled from one centre. It is ridiculous to think that comrades in an office in London as with the IMT and CWI, can direct the work in countries like Pakistan. Rather we are building an international network – a genuine partnership of socialist left-wing organisations who can share ideas, inspire each other and organise solidarity across the world. We also want to leave behind the old model of narrow organisation where everyone has to agree on every dot and comma handed down to them from a few top leaders. And when you disagree are forced to leave or are expelled.

Pat finished with some personal observations about Revolutionary Struggle:

“This is the first time that I have ever seen a political group like yours dominated not by full-time political ‘experts’ but by the comrade’s active in the mass movement. This is how it should always have been in our movement. Last night I attended the Trade Union Commission. When I heard the demands from the comrades in all the areas for the setting up of the People’s Labour Federation and the great potential this federation has to unite the divided trade union movement and extend it across Pakistan, I saw most clearly how correct it has been for the comrades to continue the struggle in the PPP.

Then I listened to Manzoor’s great contribution. How can such a dedicated comrade who is giving all his time and energy to the struggle be accused of opportunism and careerism. Then I listened to Kabir’s brilliant summary of the various issues involved in organisation and the internal life of your movement. Comrades we have nothing to teach you and everything to learn from you.”

 

Organisational Session Summing Up (by Kabir)

We now have 1067 members. The Fighting Fund collection resulted in 167,000 Rupees.There was voting on three issues open to all members at the Conference:The political position on Pakistan as put forward by Manzoor .Pat’s report on behalf of TANIT.The CC slate as nominated and read out. All three votes were overwhelmingly in favour with 1-2 votes against on each item.

Comrade Mansoor summed up the Conference

The Conference concluded with the singing of the International, followed by the chanting of slogans: ‘Revolution, Revolution, Socialist Revolution’ and ‘Dark night go away, the red dawn will come’.

 

The above is based on some notes taken by Pat Byrne. Layout and photos from Amjad. A fuller record by text, video, audio and photos is available on: www.tanit.co 

by Jamil Iqbal

The partition of India in 1947 cut through the living body of whole communities, leading to untold death and misery. This was all part of the tried and tested method of 'divide and rule' and behind it lay the interests of privileged ruling elites, not those of the poor masses.

"Leave India to God. If that is too much, then leave her to anarchy." - Gandhi, May 1942

After World War II the British imperialists were in a hurry to leave India. The Partition of British India in 1947, which created the two independent states of India and Pakistan, was followed by one of the cruellest and bloodiest migrations and "ethnic cleansings" in history. The religious fury and violence that it unleashed caused the deaths of some two million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. An estimated 12 to 15 million people were forcibly transferred between the two countries. At least 75,000 women were raped.

Pakistan was made up of two regions: West Pakistan on the Indus River plain, and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), more than 1,100 miles apart. Important parts of what was once considered India were now part of other nations. The Indus River, after which the subcontinent is named, became part of Pakistan after the partition.

To solve the minority question, the British imperialists, implementing their policy of divide and rule, separated the continent into a Hindu and a Muslim state. This was done with the aid of the political competition between the two main political parties-The Indian Congress and The Muslim League.

The Indian National Congress, the premier organization and still the leading organization of the Indian national movement, was founded in 1885. Actually the National Congress, established through the activity of the Indian middle class, was brought into existence as an organization through the initiative and under the guidance of an Englishman. More than that - and what is less universally known - the National Congress was in fact brought into being through the initiative and under the guidance of direct British imperialist policy, on a plan secretly pre-arranged with the Viceroy, as an intended weapon for safeguarding British rule against the rising forces of popular unrest and anti-British feeling in India.

Divide and rule

The British had followed a divide and rule policy in India. In order to win the Muslims over to their side, the British helped establish the M.A.O. College at Aligarh and supported the All-India Muslim Conference, both of which were institutions from which leaders of the Muslim League and the ideology of Pakistan emerged. As soon as the League was formed, Muslims were placed on a separate electoral list. Thus the idea of the separateness of Muslims in India was built into the electoral process of India.

The Muslim League gained power also due to the Congress. The Congress banned any support for the British during the Second World War. However the Muslim League pledged its full support, which found favour with the British, who also needed the help of the largely Muslim army. The Civil Disobedience Movement and the consequent withdrawal of the Congress Party from politics also helped the League gain power. This gave the Muslim League the opportunity to form strong ministries in provinces that had large Muslim populations.

The partition of India, Bengal and the Punjab in 1947 instead of solving the religious minority problem, which was its ostensible objective, in fact consolidated much more firmly the rule of religious majorities in what previously constituted British India.

There was nothing surprising in this, because the 1940 Lahore Resolution of the Muslim League proposed to create separate states in the Muslim majority areas of east and west India. Thus, in real terms, there was no question of solving the religious minority problems in India either for the Muslims or for the Hindus and other people in the declared objectives of either the Congress or the Muslim League.

What became quite clear during the Indian independence movement in the 1940s, was that both Congress and the League were trying to consolidate the interests of the Indian feudal-bourgeois classes belonging to the Hindu and Muslim majority communities respectively, the former under the garb of a united India in the name of Indian nationalism, and the latter in the form of a separate state for the Muslim minorities of India, who actually constituted majorities in the eastern and western parts of northern India.

What was apparently quite amazing during the struggle for independence in the 1940s was that the Muslims of the clearly Hindu majority areas in India like Bihar, Assam and southern provinces joined the ranks of the Muslim League in large numbers in demanding Pakistan - which, according to the Lahore Resolution itself, did not include their areas. It was a tragic historical example of how emotionally-charged powerful political propaganda can sweep away minimal common sense, judgment and even consideration of thoughtful interest, and create political blindness not only among the illiterate masses, but also among the literate and even highly educated sections of the people.

The pretension of the Congress to Indian nationalism, which was supposed to safeguard the interests of all sections of the people, irrespective of their religion, caste and language, broke down when the question of preserving the unity of the Punjab, and especially Bengal, cropped up as a matter of high importance at the time of independence. The Congress made a radical and formal departure from its long-standing position of secular nationalism when it demanded the partition of Bengal in the same language and for the same ostensible considerations as formed the core principle of Pakistan demanded by the Muslim League.

After receiving a copy of the agreement on United Bengal signed by Sarat Bose and Abul Hashim (two Congress leaders), Ghandi wrote to Sarat Bose, "There is nothing in the draft stipulating that nothing will be done by mere majority. Every act of government must carry with it the cooperation of at least two-thirds of Hindu members in the Executive and Legislative" (i) This was a comparatively mild communal approach compared to what followed.

Angry telegrams

Gandhi and Sarat Bose both subsequently exchanged angry telegrams when Gandhi, writing about the above-mentioned agreement, said in a letter to Sarat Bose dated June 8, 1947, "I have gone through your draft. I have discussed the scheme roughly with Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel. Both of them are dead against the proposal and they are of the opinion that it is merely a trick for dividing Hindus and scheduled caste leaders. With them it is not a suspicion but a conviction. They feel also that money is being lavishly expended in order to secure scheduled caste votes. If such is the case you should give up the struggle at least at present. For, the unity purchased by corrupt practices would be worse than frank partition, it being recognition of the established division of hearts and the unfortunate experience of the Hindus" (ii).

The scheduled caste are often called ‘untouchables' in the British press. Gandhi is expressing the fear that the Muslim League were forming a bloc with them against the higher caste Hindus. The point is that all the leaders of the nationalist movement were dabbling in reactionary attempts to stir up religious and caste divisions within the movement.

Sarat Bose vehemently protested against Gandhi's accusation of corrupt practices etc. and finally wrote a short letter to him summing up the attitude of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress as a whole at the time of partition. In the letter Sarat Bose wrote to Gandhi, "It grieves me to find that the Congress which was a great National Organisation is fast becoming on organization of Hindus only." (iii). No stronger words could be used for the essential communal character of the Indian National Congress led by Gandhi, Nehru and Patel and their likes in 1947.

The question of the partition of Muslim Majority Bengal and the very clear stand of the Congress leaders on the question demonstrated that in spite of raising the bogey of Indian nationalism, the Congress throughout was actually trying to consolidate the interests of big Hindu capitalists and landlords in the whole of India as a religious majority. The Muslim League in the interest of Muslim feudal lords was trying to make the best out of it by separating the Muslim majority areas in the east and west of India, leaving the interest of the minority Muslims to the ‘good will' of the majority Hindus.

The people of British India, particularly the various minorities, were thus used both by the Congress and The Muslim League in the interests of the capitalist and landlord classes of their own religious communities with tragic consequences not only for the religious and other minorities, but for the entire people of what is called South Asia.

End Notes:

i Umar, Badruddin (2000), "Language Movement in East Bengal" JG publisher, Dhaka, p.12

ii ibid p12.

iii Ibid p12

Bibliography:

Dutt, R. Palme (1940) "India Today", Victor Gollancz Ltd, London pp91-102, 277

Khan, Lal (2003) "Crises in the Indian Subcontinent-Partition Can it Be Undone", Wellred Publications, London

Umar, Badruddin (2000), ""Language Movement in East Bengal" JG publisher, Dhaka, p.11-18

Ahmad, Aijaz (Ed) (2001), "Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, On the National and Colonial Questions, Selected Writings", Left Word Books, Delhi pp61-103

Chatterji, Joya (1995) "Bengal Divided-Hindu Communalism and Partition 1932-1947", CUP, India.

by Jamil Iqbal

In this first article Jamil Iqbal outlines Marx’s analysis of how British imperialism, by introducing capitalist methods, broke down the old Asiatic mode of production and with it the old type of social structures. The British capitalists did this simply to facilitate the exploitation of Indian resources and labour, but by so doing also prepared the ground for the modern struggle against British imperialism.

“The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked… The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindus themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether.”

Karl Marx “The Future Results of British Rule in India” New-York Daily Tribune, August 8, 1853

“There is no end to the violence and plunder which is called British rule in India.”

Lenin, “Inflammable material in world politics”, 1908

In order to understand the partition of the sub-continent and the terrible conditions it had to face it is necessary to identify the role of imperialism in India and cover certain historical ground. For our present purpose we are not concerned to follow in any detail the chronicle of British rule in India, which would require a separate volume. We are concerned to bring out some of the decisive forces of development which underlie the present situation and its problem.

The burning question today is the present oppression and the path of liberation. We are only concerned with the past in order to bring to light the dynamic forces which still live in the present. The first to bring this dynamic approach to Indian history, to turn the floodlight of scientific method on to the social driving forces of Indian development both before and after British rule, and lay bare alike the destructive role of British rule in India and its regenerative or revolutionizing significance for the future, was the founder of modern socialism, Karl Marx.

Marx’s well known articles on India, written in a series in 1853, are among the most fertile of his writings, and the starting point of modern thought on the question of imperialism. Marx’s writing show the distinctive problems of Asiatic economy, especially in India and China, the effects of the impact of European capitalism upon it, and the conclusion to be drawn for the future development as well as for the emancipation of the Indian people. This close attention is given by some fifty references to India in “Capital”, and the many references in the Marx-Engels correspondence.

Marx’s analysis starts from the characteristics of “Asiatic economy”, which the impact of capitalism for the first time overthrew. “The key to the whole East, is the absence of private property in Land”, wrote Engels to Marx in June 1853. The absence of private property in land is not originally different from the primitive starting-point of European economy; the difference lies in the subsequent development. Why, then did primitive communism in the East not develop to landed property and feudalism, as in the West?

Climate

Engels suggests that the answer is to be found in the climatic and geographical conditions: “How comes it that the Orientals did not reach to landed property or feudalism? I think the reason lies principally in the climate, combined with the conditions of the soil, especially the great desert stretches which reach from the Sahara right through Arabia, Persia, India and Tartary to the highest Asiatic uplands. Artificial irrigation is here the first condition of cultivation, and this is the concern either of the communes, the Provinces or the Central Government” (Engels, letter to Marx, June 6, 1853).

The conditions of cultivation were not compatible with private property in land, and so arose the typical “Asiatic economy” of the remains of primitive communism in the village system below, and the despotic central government above, in charge of irrigation and public works, alongside war and plunder. The understanding of the village system is thus the key to the understanding of India. The classic description of the village system is contained in “Capital”:

“Those small and extremely ancient Indian communities, some of which have continued down to this day, are based on possession in common of the land, on the blending of agriculture and handicrafts, and on an unalterable division of labour, which serves, whenever a new community is started, as a plan and scheme ready cut and dried. Occupying areas of from 100 up to several thousand acres, each forms a compact whole producing all it requires. The chief part of the products is destined for direct use by the community itself, and does not take the form of a commodity. Hence, production here is independent of that division of labour brought about, in Indian society as a whole, by means of the exchange of commodities. It is the surplus alone that becomes a commodity, and a portion of even that, not until it has reached the hands of the State, into whose hands from time immemorial a certain quantity of these products has found its way in the shape of rent in kind. The constitution of these communities varies in different parts of India…

‘This dozen of individuals is maintained at the expense of the whole community. If the population increases, a new community is founded, on the pattern of the old one, on unoccupied land. The whole mechanism discloses a systematic division of labour; but a division like that in manufactures is impossible, since the smith and the carpenter, & Co, find an unchanging market, and at the most there occur, according to the sizes of the villages, two or three of each, instead of one. The law that regulates the division of labour in the community acts with the irresistible authority of a law of Nature, at the same time that each individual artificer, the smith, the carpenter, and so on, conducts in his workshop all the operations of his handicraft in the traditional way, but independently, and without recognising any authority over him. The simplicity of the organisation for production in these self-sufficing communities that constantly reproduce themselves in the same form, and when accidentally destroyed, spring up again on the spot and with the same name this simplicity supplies the key to the secret of the unchangeableness of Asiatic societies, an unchangeableness in such striking contrast with the constant dissolution and refounding of Asiatic States, and the never-ceasing changes of dynasty. The structure of the economic elements of society remains untouched by the storm-clouds of the political sky”. (Capital, Vol. 1, ch14, sec 4)

This is the traditional Indian economy which was shattered in its foundations by the onset of foreign capitalism, represented by British rule. Herein the British conquest differed from every previous conquest, in that, while the previous foreign conquerors left untouched the economic basis and eventually grew into its structure, the British conquest shattered that basis and remained a foreign force, acting from outside and withdrawing its tribute outside. Herein also the victory of foreign capitalism in India differed from victory of capitalism in Europe, in that the destructive process was not accompanied by any corresponding growth of new forces.

“All the civil wars, invasions, revolutions, conquests, famines, strangely complex, rapid, and destructive as the successive action in Hindostan may appear, did not go deeper than its surface. England has broken down the entire framework of Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstitution yet appearing. This loss of his old world, with no gain of a new one, imparts a particular kind of melancholy to the present misery of the Hindoo, and separates Hindostan, ruled by Britain, from all its ancient traditions, and from the whole of its past history.” (Marx, “The British Rule in India”, New-York Daily Tribune, June 25, 1853)

Destructive role

Marx traced with careful attention, distinguishing between the earlier period of the monopoly of the East India Company up to 1813, and the later period, after 1813, when the monopoly was broken and the invasion of industrial capitalist manufactures overran India and completed the work. In the earlier period the initial steps of destruction were accomplished:

1) By the East India Company’s colossal direct plunder. The treasures transported from India to England were gained much less by the comparatively insignificant commerce, than by the direct exploitation of that country and by the colossal fortunes extorted and transmitted to England;

2) By the neglect of irrigation and public works, which were now allowed to fall into disrepair;

3) By the introduction of English land system, private property in land, with sale and alienation, and the whole English criminal code;

4) By the direct prohibition or heavy duties on the import of Indian manufactures, first into England, and later also Europe.

All this did not give the final blow. That came with the era of nineteenth century capitalism. It was only after 1813, with the invasion of English industrial manufactures, that the decisive wrecking of the Indian economic structures took place. The effect of this wrecking during the first half of the nineteenth century Marx traced with formidable facts.

Between 1780 and 1850 the total British exports to India rose from £386,152 to £8,024,000; while the cotton manufacture in 1850 for which the Indian market provided one-fourth of the foreign markets, employed one-eighth of the population of Britain and contributed one-twelfth of the whole national revenue.

“From 1818 to 1836 the export of twist from Great Britain to India rose in the proportion of 1 to 5,200. In 1824 the export of British muslins to India hardly amounted to 1,000,000 yards, while in 1837 it surpassed 64,000,000 of yards. But at the same time the population of Dacca decreased from 150,000 inhabitants to 20,000. This decline of Indian towns celebrated for their fabrics was by no means the worst consequence. British steam and science uprooted, over the whole surface of Hindostan, the union between agriculture and manufacturing industry”. (Marx, The British Rule of India-in the New-York Daily Tribune, June 25, 1853)

The handloom and spinning wheel were the pivots of the old Indian society. The village system was based on agricultural union. British capitalism not only destroyed the old manufacturing towns, driving their population to the crowded village, but destroyed the balance of economic life in villages. From this arose the desperate overpressure on agriculture. At the same time the merciless extraction of the maximum revenue from the cultivators, without giving any return for necessary expansion and works prevented agricultural development.

Does Marx shed tears over the fall of the village system and the destruction of the old basis of Indian society? Marx saw the infinite suffering caused by the bourgeois social revolution, as in every country, and all the greater in India on account of its being carried through under such conditions. But he saw also the deeply reactionary character of that village system and the indispensable necessity of its destruction if mankind is to advance. Marx’s words lose none of their force today for those who, in India as in Europe, seek to fight British rule by appealing for the revival of the vanished pre-British India of the spinning wheel and the handloom.

“Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies.

“We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow”.

“England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution” (Marx, The British Rule in India, New-York Daily Tribune, June 25, 1853).

British Rule in India

England in Marx’s view had a double mission in India. One, destructive, the other regenerating-the annihilation of the old Asiatic society, and the laying of the material foundations of western society in Asia. So far the destructive side had been mainly visible; nevertheless the work of regeneration had begun.

Wherein did Marx see the beginning of such regeneration? He gives numerous indications: political unity… more consolidated and extending further than ever it did under the Mogul rule and destined to be strengthened and perpetuated by the electric telegraph; Strengthening of the British military control; free press, introduced for the first time into Asiatic society; the establishment of private property in land – the great desideratum of the Asiatic society; building up, however reluctantly and sparingly, of an educated Indian class imbued with European science; regular and rapid communication with Europe through Steam transport.

More important than all these was the inevitable consequence of industrial capitalist exploitation of India. In order to develop the Indian market, it was essential to secure the transformation of India into a reproductive country – that is the source of raw materials to be exported in order for the imported manufactured goods. This made necessary the development of railways, roads and irrigation. This new phase was only beginning at the time when Marx wrote. From the consequences of this new development Marx made the prophecy which is the most famous of his declaration on India:

“Know that the English millocracy intend to endow India with railways with the exclusive view of extracting at diminished expenses the cotton and other raw materials for their manufactures. But when you have once introduced machinery into the locomotion of a country, which possesses iron and coals, you are unable to withhold it from its fabrication. You cannot maintain a net of railways over an immense country without introducing all those industrial processes necessary to meet the immediate and current wants of railway locomotion, and out of which there must grow the application of machinery to those branches of industry not immediately connected with railways. The railway-system will therefore become, in India, truly the forerunner of modern industry… Modern industry, resulting from the railway system, will dissolve the hereditary divisions of labour, upon which rest the Indian castes, those decisive impediments to Indian progress and Indian power.” (Marx, The Future Results of British Rule in India, New-York Daily Tribune, August 8, 1853).

Does this mean that Marx saw imperialism in India as a progressive force capable of emancipating the Indian people and carrying them forward along the path of social progress? On the contrary. He made clear that imperialism was laying down the material conditions for new advance. But that new advance could only be realised by the Indian people themselves on conditions that they won liberation from imperialist rule, either by their own successful revolt, or by the victory of the industrial working class in Britain, carrying with it the liberation of the Indian people. Until then, all material achievements of imperialism in India could bring no benefit or improvement of conditions to the Indian people.

Marx’s analysis of the Indian situation up to the middle of the nineteenth century turns on three factors:

1) The destructive role of British rule in India, uprooting the old society;

2) The regenerative role of British rule in India in the period of free-trade capitalism, laying down the material premises for the future new society

3) The consequent practical conclusion of the necessity of a political transformation whereby the Indian people should free themselves from imperialist rule in order to build the new society.

Today imperialism all over the world has outlived its objectively progressive role, corresponding to the role of capitalism, and has become the most powerful reactionary force in the Indian sub-continent, strengthening all the other forms of Indian reaction. The stage has thus been reached when the task of the political transformation indicated by Marx is directly on the order of the day.