Daily Times

In the light of the atrocities on the people of Balochistan, which resemble the (Latin American) south cone of yesteryear, the question of the right of self-determination of minorities has regained significance. No one can deny the right of freedom and secession of oppressed nations — in the bourgeois sense — from the oppressors. For Marxists, however, the question poses itself in a different manner. For them, the nation is not based on bourgeois premises. There are only two nations in the world: one that identifies itself with the expropriators and the other, which is a nation/class in itself, the majority of the working class masses — the expropriated ones. As Rosa Luxemburg states, “Capitalist politicians in whose eyes the rulers of the people and the ruling classes are the nations, can honestly speak of the right of national self-determination in connection with such colonial empires. To the socialist no nation is free whose national existence is based upon the enslavement of another people, for to him colonial peoples, too, are human beings, and, as such, parts of the national state. International socialism recognises the right of free independent nations, with equal rights. But socialism, alone, can bring self-determination of their peoples. This slogan of socialism is, like all its others, not an apology for existing conditions but a guiding post, a spur for the revolutionary, regenerative, active policy of the proletariat. So long as capitalist states exist, that is, so long as the imperialistic world policies determine and regulate the inner and outer life of a nation, there can be no ‘national self-determination’ either in war or in peace.”

In 1848, the fathers of socialism, Marx and Engels, supported the unification of Germany and Italy, secession of Hungary from the Habsburg dynasty and of Poland from Tsarist Russia. The objective behind this support was to strengthen the capitalistic forces against the feudal might, a redundant force, which was getting eclipsed by history. They knew that capitalism would itself create its gravediggers — a class-conscious proletariat. The latter alone could redeem humanity from the system based on property relations.

About the concept of the nation, Rosa Luxemburg had an altogether different approach. She considered this whole phenomenon as squarely class based. Till her final breath, she opposed it vehemently as a bourgeois snare. According to her, “It is a veritable perversion of socialism to regard present day capitalist society as the expression of self-determination of nations. Where is that nation in which people have had the right to determine the form and conditions of their national, political and social existence?” Conversely, Lenin was facing another situation in Russia where capitalism had created multiple nations. The nationalists always present Lenin as the biggest advocate of the right of self-determination of the smaller nations but his support for this cause was not necessarily based on secession. In any civilised society, the right to divorce is always open to every couple but not all couples exercise this right. He says, “This demand [for the right of self-determination] is not the equivalent of the demand for separation, fragmentation and the formation of small states…The closer a democratic state system is to complete freedom to secede, the less frequent and the less ardent will the demand for separation be in practice….The demand for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ reply to the question of secession in the case of every nation may seem a very ‘practical’ one. In reality, it is absurd…in practice, it leads to subordinating the proletariat to the bourgeoisie’s policy…The proletariat assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers’ class struggle.” He continues, “It is impossible to estimate beforehand all the possible relations between the bourgeois liberation movements of the oppressed nations and the proletarian emancipation movement of the oppressor nation…A social democrat from a small nation must emphasise in his agitation…’voluntary integration’ of nations. He may, without failing in his duties as an internationalist, be in favour of both the political independence of his nation and its integration with the neighbouring state of X, Y, Z, etc. But he must, in all cases, fight against small nation narrow mindedness, seclusion and isolation.”

Lenin was right in his premise. To maintain its hegemony on the globe, international capitalism is bent upon creating smaller nations. Iraq, Syria and Libya are in fact dissected on religio-ethnic lines. In Sudan this division has been practically materialised. In Mali, and probably in Pakistan, this process is underway. The Pakistan army and the hapless ruling elite have completed the alienation of the Baloch, although people from the other provinces are no exception. Whilst the Baloch hierarchy — the tribal chiefs and their cohorts — are cooling their heels, some reside in the shadow of the hegemonic forces waiting to be called on at an opportune moment. They are biding their time, which they know is not very far off. Sooner or later, their services shall be required. For a sham freedom, they appear to have already offered all their resources to the hegemonic power(s) unconditionally. A smaller undeveloped newly born state having cheap labour with willing rulers will be an ideal opportunity for the multinationals to exploit. The Pakistan establishment has pushed them to the brink. It is up to the people of Pakistan to decide their destiny as hammer or anvil. The working class and the peasants of all the provinces have to join hands to avoid this disaster from happening. They need to understand what Rosa anticipated a century ago: “Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world’s development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will.”

Pakistan too is afflicted by the same curse. It has become a cesspool of injustice and iniquity. The poverty ridden masses, the war on terror and the terror of war are extracting a heavy toll. Except the ruling class, no one is safe here. For them every calamity turns into an opportunity. Hein Marais says, “Shelve the abiding fiction that disasters do not discriminate — that they flatten every thing in their path with ‘democratic’ disregard. Plague zero is on the dispossessed, on those forced to build their lives in the path of danger.” The Baloch, while living in the path of danger, have been brazenly discriminated against. The poverty soaked people are drenched in their own blood. This gory and grisly crime needs to be stopped. Another Bengal-like tragedy is in the offing if the people of all provinces do not stand up to save their innocent brethren from embracing an untimely and unnatural death. Else, tomorrow it will be their turn. Time will move on, taking the people into the abyss and ruin.

(Concluded)

The writer is based in Australia and has authored books on socialism and history. He can be reached at saulatnagi@hotmail.com