At all events, a split is
better than confusion, which hampers the ideological, theoretical and
revolutionary growth and maturing of the party, and its harmonious, really
organised practical work which actually paves the way for the dictatorship of
the proletariat. V.I.
Lenin
After reading a recent blog on
Apna Kal by Dr. Rasheed Hassan Khan (RHK), in which he tried to justify splits
and expulsions, that took place throughout the history of National Students
Federation (NSF), I was compelled to reflect upon it. I completely agree with
the notion that organizations need to expel its cadre and even move for the splits,
if the party line or discipline is on stake. Only the parties that emphasize on
quality rather than quantity succeed in the long run. We can find numerous
examples in the course of history where splits resulted in the growth of the
party; Bolshevik Revolution had not been successful if they had not part ways
with Mensheviks.
My Understanding Regarding Splits
I am not against the expulsions
and splits in general but what concerns me is the outcome of those splits and
expulsions. Lenin correctly points out advantages that a party achieves through
expulsion and splits, provided the party line and leadership is on the correct
path and forming a correct analysis.
1. Ideological
clarity
2. Theoretical
and revolutionary growth
3. Party
maturity
4. Party
Harmony
5. Organized
practical work
With due respect to RHK, in the
light of what I have studied, experienced and listened from the previous
members of NSF, splits on the contrary resulted in confusion, chaos,
immaturity, disharmony and decline in our case. It is almost infantile to blame
those, who had been expelled, for the constant decline that the organization
experienced.
ho chuka qata ta’lluq to jafayen
kyon hon
jinko matlab nahin rahta wo satate bhi nahin (Dagh)
What I liked about Meraj Muhammad
Khan (MMK) was the fact that he admitted his mistakes in an interview with us, while
RHK on the contrary is still not ready to accept his mistakes. On a question
regarding operation against the people of East-Pakistan, Meraj admitted his
mistake that he should have quit the PPP then, but he refrained from commenting
why NSF was quiet on this issue. According to him this question should be asked
from RHK as he was the President at that time. The fact is every pro-Chinese
group was covertly supporting the operation by keeping a criminal silence. Only
the people who were expelled could comment on the real motives because of which
they were expelled.
RHK was quick to label others
petty bourgeois, lumpen and opportunist, but failed to reflect upon the
circumstances that forced him to lead the organization for more than twenty
years. For me leading a student organization when one is not a student is an
opportunistic position itself.
Reality Check
RHK in that particular blog shed
light on ‘ruling ideas’ that Marx explained in detail in his famous work
‘German Ideology’, I would like to take things a bit further by taking help of
Gramsci’s ‘Hegemony’ and ‘opposition culture’. Gramsci argues that in any
society, hegemony is created not of any particular class but group of classes,
and naturally opposition culture is also formed by the group of classes. Pakistan
is a classic case as we can observe Feudal-Comprador-Mullah alliance
cooperating with the imperial forces to enforce its hegemony. Similarly NSF
brought forth the slogan of ‘Talba, Mazdoor aur Kissan’ and NAP combined the
socialist demands with the nationalist demands.
Lumpen section of the society
that has been ignored by the Left, up till now, became the chief political
working force for the fascist elements like MQM and other nationalists. If one
does not want to keep lumpen and petty bourgeois elements in its ranks and file
then there is no need of a mass front. I think expulsion of petty bourgeois and
lumpen section from NSF should have taken place if and only if they were steeling
the organization from the core group. But I feel extremely shameful to comment
here that majority of members expelled from the organization had remained part
of the core group in their respective eras. I cannot agree with the decisions
of party leadership with regard to expulsions because
1. If
these members had lumpen and petty bourgeois attitudes, party leadership should
not have made them part of the core group.
2. If
there was a difference of opinion, multiple debates should have been carried
out before labeling members petty bourgeois and lumpen. Difference of opinion
not necessarily means that the section is lumpen.
3. If
party leadership had strong grip on the party and these sections were only part
of the units then they could have been ignored. Even if not ignored their
expulsion would not have hurt the party.
The fact is very bitter and I
never wanted to touch this issue. All the members that were expelled from the
rank and files had remained part of the core group once and had been very close
to the party leadership and RHK. It is pathetic to term, once your close comrades,
lumpen and petty bourgeois because they failed to bow before your hegemony. The
fact is NSF started to wither away after RHK took its charge and continuous
rifts gripped the organization. If NSF fails to establish itself today, today’s
leadership should take the prime responsibility for that not the members that it
has purged.
General Failure of the Left
It is but one factor that has
contributed in the downfall of the organization but there are multiple other
factors that resulted in the failure of Left in general. Other factors include
bookish strategies that we followed and our failure to understand and pacify the
abstract contradictions within our society. In my work ‘Shehr-e-Charagar se
Shehr-e-Khonchkan’ I have mentioned the reasons why Maoists had their impact in
Punjab and Karachi, and why pro-Moscow groups dominated smaller provinces.
Punjab and Karachi had a federal leaning and hence Maoist strategies worked
quite well with the theory of People’s Democratic Revolution, but on the other
hand Moscow’s line of Nationalism worked well in Sindh, KPK and Baluchistan,
where nationalistic current was on the rise.
Both pro-Chinese and pro-Moscow
failed to find a solution of these abstract contradictions that were hampering
the class struggle. Where pro-Chinese failed even to consider these
contradictions as real challenge, pro-Moscow sailed on the boat of nationalists
and now the extreme fascist forces in Sindh use the term comrade for their own
cadres. A Maoist myself, communicating with old Maoists about the need to
understand and find a solution for the ethnic and nationalist contradictions
prevalent in our society makes them think as if I am presenting an opinion of
the nationalist and pro-Moscow line.
It is true that state supported
the formation of certain ethnic parties in Karachi who used fascist methods to
counter our class narrative and tore us apart, but we also failed to realize
the implications of policies carried forward by Mumtaz Bhutto. Political
decisions should be sharp and quick otherwise new dynamics eat up the previous
forces if they had never existed. I know it is difficult to carry forward
politics of principles when ethnic politics is on full blow, but at least we
should have saved our organizations, as Jamiat did during its downfall, and
waited for the correct moment.
On the contrary all the big guns
opted for seclusion when the dark era hit the scene. Jamal Naqvi, RHK, etc.
left the arena and those who are still struggling are termed opportunists and
lumpen. People who are not part of the struggle have no right whatsoever to
term these few men lumpen and petty bourgeois, which are still holding the
banner of class struggle. They might not be as energetic as the cadres were at
the time of RHK and MMK, but it is not that era. This era is marked by complete
political alienation and gangs and goons taking over the whole of Karachi. If one
cannot contribute, one should not label those who are still working for the
promotion of Marxist ideology.
