Pakistani Punch-Up (1972)

 

From the January 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

The violence which is an integral element of world capitalism has erupted yet again. In the Indian subcontinent the inevitable armed conflict between the two enemies has not been prevented by the United Nations, the international peace-keeping body.

Once again we see how capitalism cannot develop an effective means of preventing violence, whether on a local or international level. Only Utopians could expect the League of Nations, the United Nations, the Warsaw Pact or the Commonwealth to work wonders. Violence is a necessary part of capitalism.

To get down to cases: Just now we described the Indo-Pakistan armed conflict as “inevitable”. There are several reasons for this — some complex, some simple, some ancient and others more immediate.

Most people point to the partitioning of India at the time of Independence — nearly 25 years ago — as a significant point in history. The demand of the Muslims for their own state resulted in India losing five Muslim-majority areas to Pakistan. These areas were: North-West Frontier Province, Sind, Baluchistan and half of the Punjab in the west, and in the east the Eastern half of Bengal. The new state of Pakistan was thus a split personality: its capital, its business and military centres were developed in the West wing while the East wing, more populous and economically more promising, was treated as a colony.

During the sixties, under Ayub Khan’s corrupt dictatorship, Bengali demands for autonomy grew more emphatic, backed by civil and industrial unrest. Ayub’s successor, Yahya Khan, tried to placate these forces but finally, last March, resorted to military methods.

We may ask: why was he so determined to retain East Pakistan at such appalling cost? The reason is the usual sordid one of capitalist economics. East Pakistan had a profitable export trade, mainly in jute and tea, and the West wing needed foreign currency badly, both for maintenance of the Army and for development of new industries; and besides East Pakistan provided a captive market for West Pakistan’s growing industry.

That is what Pakistan stands to lose by this war. Against this loss, Yahya Khan would be fairly happy if he could grab Kashmir. This beautiful and fairly prosperous state, bordering West Pakistan, is a Muslim- majority area but was ceded to India by its Hindu ruler and has ever since been a bone of contention.

As for India, Mrs. Gandhi has her own reasons for war: if one counts the refugees, she has more than ten million reasons. Since Partition, India is naturally in a competitive position as against Pakistan. To take only two examples: their textile exports compete for foreign markets and so do their jute exports. At the time of Partition, West Bengal had more than 100 jute mills, which were separated at a stroke from the better jute producing areas of East Bengal. The mills had to be run down, as the small West Bengal crop of low-grade jute could not keep them going profitably.

For this reason — and others not connected with Partition — West Bengal is now in serious economic trouble. There is an extremely high rate of unemployment, and political and industrial unrest have led to indiscriminate murders and terrorism, with gangs of goondas roaming the city slums and terrorising the villages (If all this does not fit your stereotype of peaceable, poetic Bengali people, just remember that two Bengali words we all know are "thug” and “cosh”, and that in 1947 the bloodbath of Partition was worst in the Punjab and Bengal.)

Mrs. Gandhi has every reason to swim with the tide of Bengali nationalism and, posing as an altruistic benefactor, rescue Bangla Desh from the tyranny of the Pak Army. In doing so she will divert attention from her domestic difficulties and outflank the left wing parties. The majority party of West Bengal supports Moscow, so it will have to endorse her action. She may also have her eye on East Bengal’s potential as a cheap food-growing area, as a captive market for Indian manufactures and as a help in restoring West Bengali jute mills.

Finally we see a cynical line-up of angels backing this war — a war which is bringing starvation, disease and destitution to tens of millions of helpless men, women and children; which destroys the crops, the homes and the land they depend on; which has already pauperised 10 million refugees and is daily killing scores of others.

This war is hacked by so-called Communists in the Kremlin, supporting the same Mrs. Gandhi who refuses to allow their comrade Jyoti Basu to hold office in West Bengal. In backing India, the Russians are opposing, not only “imperialist” America, not only the corrupt, religion-based authoritarian regime of Pakistan, but also their own comrades in Peking. What an Unholy Alliance is this new Holy Trinity: Pakistan, America — and Peking! And what a piece of blatant humbug is Russia’s support for India and the “right of self-determination” for Bangla Desh!

None of these principalities and powers, these international Al Capones, has any concern for ordinary people. Famine, cholera, typhus and acres of refugee camps are a price they are only too happy to see others pay, as they fight it out, by proxy, in the plains of Bengal and the Punjab or the mountains of Kashmir.

This war, like other capitalist adventures, is one from which the working class can hope for no gain and which they should denounce from all angles. War, after all, is only the method by which the capitalist class redistributes its loot. When wealth is socially owned, this will be seen as the strangest and most self-destructive exercise possible.

Charmian Skelton

Democratic or Constitutional? (1969)

Book Review from the May 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Republican Constitution in the Struggle for Socialism by E. M. S. Namboodiripad Asia Publishing House

This pamphlet is the text of a lecture given last year by the Chief Minister of Kerala, a leading member of the 'Communist Party of India (Marxist)', set up in 1964 as a breakaway from the pro-Moscow party but recently forced to expel pro-Peking elements who wanted to start a guerilla war. It is a treatise on the 'constitutional way' to state capitalism on the Russia/China model. As fits a member of a party caught in the middle, Namboodiripad skilfully sits on the fence, saying that political democracy is useful to the workers as it lets them organise but doubting whether his party could win power peacefully, at least not until India's present constitution is considerably amended. He goes on to suggest the necessary amendments.

What has this to do with Socialism? Nothing. Namboodiripad makes it clear that his party’s immediate aim is not even the State capitalism he mistakenly thinks is Socialism but only a 'people’s democratic government' of, presumably, capitalism. If that's all the ‘left-wing communists' can offer, what must the 'right wingers' be like?

The CPI(M) does not aim at Socialism, but even if it did it is not by examining paper constitutions that one can assess the chances of establishing Socialism by peaceful means. Only by looking at the way political institutions really work, and how they might work in the presence of a determined socialist majority, can this be done.

There are two aspects to this question. Can political power be won by peaceful means? And can that power be used to establish Socialism without violence? The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always answered yes to the first, and to the second, that if the opponents of Socialism use violence to resist its establishment the socialist majority have, in the state machine, the means to deal with the situation. We do not base this view on a study of constitutional law but by taking into account such real social and political factors as the effect of universal suffrage and public opinion on the behaviour of modern governments; the overwhelming numerical superiority of the working class; the complexity of the modern state; and the likely effect of a mass Socialist movement on a capitalist government and on all workers, including those in the civil service, the police, and the armed forces.

We stand for democratic political rather than strictly constitutional action. If, to take a silly example, the House of Lords tried to stand in the way of an elected Socialist majority or if the courts ruled that it was illegal to take over the capitalists’ wealth without compensation, that would not hold us up. The Socialist majority in and out of parliament would just ignore them, even if it were unconstitutional to do so.

We emphasise democracy to show we hold it essential that before Socialism can be established a majority of workers must want and understand it As long as the real political institutions more or less allow a majority to have their way we are not too concerned about the exact wording of the constitution. Certainly the opponents of Socialism will not be able to shelter behind any 'entrenched clauses' guaranteeing ‘the right to property' (that is, to exploit labour) which most constitutions—including, to Namboodiripad’s annoyance, that of India—have, in a bid to stop Socialism.

Adam Buick

News from India (1996)

Party News from the April 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our companion party in India, the World Socialist Party (India), founded last year, is as active as ever. They report that one of their members campaigning amongst agricultural workers at Bahalalpur (West Bengal) was attacked by local “Communist Party of India (Marxist)” thugs. He was punched and his wrist watch and a tape cassette of a socialist meeting were smashed. Such tapes are proving very popular and our Indian comrades are planning to produce and distribute more.

At its January meeting the Executive Committee of the WSP(I) passed a resolution condemning “the violent attack and intimidation inflicted on our political campaigns and comrades by ruffians, goons and hirelings of the CPI (M) and urges upon all who stand for democracy, especially belonging to the World Socialist Movement, to politically raise the voice of condemnation against any such violence anywhere, using whatever meagre democratic means they do have at their disposal”.

The so-called Communist Party of India (Marxist) is part of the government coalition in West Bengal State and its leader has been mentioned as a future possible Prime Minister of India should the Congress Party lose the next elections. Apparently, he has a reputation for not being dishonest. He personally may not have been involved in any financial scandals but his party spreads the lie that Russia used to be socialist and employs intimidation to maintain control of its clients, i.e those whose votes it tries to keep in return for minor personal favours.