Daily Times

Q) How can Leftist politics be revived in contemporary Pakistan, particularly with respect to i) electoral democracy, ii) Islamist militancy, and, iii) a viable macro-economic policy?

Answer: The most important requirement for a viable 21st century socialist project in Pakistan is the rehabilitation of the idea of politics as change. The Pakistani public has, over the past few decades, completely imbibed the notion of politics as a relatively cynical, instrumental game with little pretense that it can have a more substantive meaning, let alone be a force for fundamental transformation of state and society. Ironically, part of the way progressive parties can make themselves heard in the mainstream is by participating in electoral contests – not necessarily because we hope to win them but because they will allow us a platform to put our ideas out into society at large. It is a struggle to at one and the same time lend some legitimacy to electoral ‘democracy’ in an age where money has become so dominant, whilst also challenging the whole basis of such a system, but it is a balance that we have to strike to make our ideas heard.

Islamist militancy is something that we cannot directly challenge, in part because we have no guns or money and in part because the state’s dubious policies in this regard are shaped by geo-political considerations that have little to do with the non-aligned foreign and strategic policy frameworks that we proffer. Effectively the only thing we can do is to insist that all conflicts in society – and those with other states – must be resolved through open dialogue, and this is the best chance we have of challenging the legitimacy of Islamist militancy. We must also continue to insist that there is no military solution to militancy, which ultimately has its roots in political conflicts.

At some level, the alternative we offer on major economic policies is a simple one: everything cannot be sold, privatised or left at the altar of the so-called self-correcting market mechanism. The commons must be protected and everyone must have a right to them. This is not possible under neo-liberal capitalism. This means not only that we reverse the trend of privatising everything but that we also demand that more and more social production be protected from corporate control. This is very hard when the state is completely committed to commodification of everything but that is precisely why we are propagating an alternative to the mainstream rather than assuming that the existing state is going to magically accept our ideas because they are better for humanity and/or the natural environment.

i) What impact did the shift in Communist Party of India’s position on Pakistan movement in 1940s have on Left in Pakistan?

I think the shift in the CPI position on the so-called ‘nationalities question’ was a reflection of the times; in the midst of WWII, when the communist left was de facto with the allies against fascism, it seemed logical to stay away from the much more radical anti-British position of the congress, and even more so, the Indian national army of Subhash Chandra Bose. But the fact that there was so much back and forth in the position of the CPI – most obviously right after partition when support was withdrawn to the both of the new states of India and Pakistan – confirms that there was a lot of ideological confusion. In principle it is worth bearing in mind that supporting the Pakistan demand was not necessarily seen as supporting partition of India, which, in any case, was something even the Muslim League wasn’t necessarily suggesting until after the cabinet mission plan. Nevertheless, I think the CPI was struggling to make sense of all that was happening at the time and that’s what explains its back and forth.

ii) What was the CPP’s role in the Rawalpindi conspiracy case?

There has never been conclusive evidence that the CPP formally hatched a conspiracy with elements in the armed forces, so on the one hand it is straightforward enough a matter: the CPP was framed so its subsequent criminalisation could be justified. Having said that, this was an era in which communist parties did have a proclivity to ‘infiltrating’ the highest echelons of the state as a means of revolutionary upheaval; this was the Bolshevik model. So it’s not as if elements within the CPP may not have been cultivating contacts within the army/state apparatus. But I don’t believe that there was an ‘official’ CPP line in this regard, and that is why ultimately the Pindi conspiracy case was a trumped up affair

iii) How did Left activism get impacted by the ban on CPP?

Left activism after the Rawalpindi conspiracy case went completely ‘underground’, and this  had a long-term impact on both the perception of the left in society, as well as its own internal culture. In short, the left suffered greatly – victimised by the state and relatedly depicted as ‘anti-Pakistan’ in society at large. Its internal culture was thereby secretive and very sectarian as a result. Nevertheless, the left still managed to play a big role in Pakistani politics, all the way up to the 1980s. The political upsurge from the mid 1960s to the mid 1970s was in large part due to the communist left, even though the PPP was the obviously benefactor. Indeed, the PPP became the face of the left precisely because the communist left was criminalised and forced to operate ‘underground’. It is also worth bearing in mind that long before the PPP ever emerged, the left-run National Awami Party (NAP) was arguably the most influential political organisation across the country (in both wings).

iv) How did the Sino-Soviet split impact Pakistani Left?

The NAP was divided in the mid 1960s due to the Sino-Soviet split – the split affected the left badly in general as well. The PPP was also often seen as supported by the pro-Chinese left as opposed to the pro-Soviet left. In general the split exacerbated sectarianism, and badly divided a movement that could ill afford further weakening. Even today, this split can be detected between the lines; some old-school ‘Maoists’ have a soft corner for contemporary China’s rise whereas the old pro-Soviet types are far more critical. In fact, there is no logic to such sectarianism in leftist politics today because these labels are relics of the Cold War period.

Published in Daily Times, August 14^th 2017.