Commemorating birth centenary let us resurrect visions of late Professor Randhir Singh who was an epitome of creativity as a Marxist - Part 2

By Harsh Thakor

 

Randhir Singh on setback to Socialism

I admire Randhir Singh for challenging the dogmatic and autocratic character of the left parties like the C.P.I. (Communist Party India) and C.P.M, (The Communist Party of India (Marxist) and give respect to more democratic functioning. In his writings he was critical of Socialist Societies like USSR (Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics or CCCP)  neglecting mass democracy and was not convinced by the analysis of Marxist Leninist groups that the setback was only due to capitalist reversion under Khrushchev in USSR. What was most striking is that he maintained that there were inherent flaws within Socialist Societies which failed to live upto the expectations of Karl Marx and supported no particular trend within India. In his view we must all go back to Marx. He was a living example of how a person could contribute without being a member of a Communist party or accepting orthodox Leninism or Maoism. Randhir Singh introduced the ideas of the New Left in the campuses like Herbert Marcus, Jean Paul Sartre or Louis Althusser. Few intellectuals took Marxist analysis to such creative depths or proved that Marxism was not a dogma. Few better asserted that conventional theory of Marxism Leninism or Maoism has to be critically analyzed and conventional concept of the absolutism of the Communist party must be challenged which should be answerable to the people. This has striking significance when we remember how the Soviets were bureaucratized in erstwhile USSR or Revolutionary commune dissolved in China in the Cultural Revolution. No Indian intellectual from a Marxist perspective illustrated the dogmatic tendencies within the Indian and International Communist camp. Perhaps it was a misfortune that Randhir Singh could not comprehensively trace or address the root cause of the setback to Socialist societies or write a critique on Maoism, or the phenomena of splits or deviations within the Indian Communist Movement. Still few intellectuals in the world still displayed faith in Marxism with such degree of conviction as Randhir Singh.

 

Randhir Singh admired China under Mao but equally admired Cuba and Vietnam. In his view Cuba was a model for third world people and Che Guevara made path breaking contributions. He did not blindly support Maoist people’s war path but also admired the Bolivarian revolution and other movements in Latin America adopting extra-parliamentary forms. On Nepal he also made some insightful writings which helped the leadership of revolutionary forces there.

 

Quoting Randhir Singh "No discussion of socialism today, least of all its future, can bypass what happened in the erstwhile Soviet Union. What we have here, as I have argued at length in my book, is a failed revolutionary experiment: a grievously deformed socialism that was built and the final crisis and collapse of the sui generis class exploitative system it had ultimately degenerated into — all of which is fully amenable to a Marxist explanation in terms of its method of historical materialism and class analysis. In other words, what failed in Soviet Union was not socialism but a system that came to be built in its name. It is indeed imperative for socialists who wish for a future beyond capitalism to understand what has happened, what was built and what has failed as socialism in the Soviet Union. They must assess the costs and consequences of this failure, the collapse of what we have described as ‘actually existing socialism’, and some others as ‘authoritarian communism’ — though they must do so fully mindful of the costs and consequences of ‘actually existing capitalism’ or ‘authoritarian capitalism’ which has rushed in to pick up the pieces. It was certainly mistaken to see the struggle for socialism in our times as a contest between ‘the socialist world’ and ‘the capitalist world’, as official Marxism in the post-1917 period made it out to be. It was, as always, an international class struggle with several more or less important fronts. The countries of ‘actually existing socialism’, while it lasted, were only one front of this struggle, and while they did condition or influence this struggle, positively as well as negatively, they did not determine or settle the question of its outcome. Nor does the collapse of these countries now or their return to the capitalist fold, in any way settle the question of the future of socialism — the struggle still goes on and will, so long as capitalism lasts. Nevertheless, these countries constituted what was in many ways a most important front of the ongoing international class struggle and their collapse demands that socialists understand and come to terms with it. If they no more need to carry the burden of a deformed and degenerated socialism or be answerable for its ugliness and cruelties, the burden of a genuine, Marxist explanation of its collapse has still to be carried by them so that our people know the truth and appropriate lessons are drawn for struggles of the future. The collapse of the Soviet Union does not end or modify the structural logic of global capitalism as manifested in poverty, underdevelopment, deindustrialisation and exploitation in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It has only made global capitalism all the more powerful and given a new edge to its predatory logic. Any social system built on inequality in the command of human and natural resources works in many ways to reproduce itself and to increase the extent of the in-built inequality."

 

 Randhir Singh on India

 

Randhir Singh wrote some of the most comprehensive articles on state terrorism and democratic Rights in India and presented a paper at the 1991 conference of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee. A very notable article was also written summing up the phenomena of Khalistani and state terrorism in Punjab in the 1980's when he refuted the pro-state views of Bipin Chandra. Randhir Singh was bitterly critical of the attacks on the Sikh community and vocally condemned the collaboration of left parties with the parties like Congress and BJP. In most incise depth he exposed how fascist Hindutva politics was infiltrating the parliamentary system and breaking the very fabric of democracy. Even as a Marxist he felt that M.K. Gandhi made a positive contribution.

In India he opposed the militaristic tendencies of the Maoists but left no stone unturned in condemning Operation Green Hunt. Even if differing with line he defended the contribution of the Maoists in taking up the cudgels of the tribals. Randhir Singh was a strong adherent in utilizing extra parliamentary trends to achieve a radical change and not blindly adopt tactic of Boycott of elections.  He was bitterly critical of the splintering within the revolutionary camp and why unity did not take place between the C.P.I.(Maoist) with other groups not undertaking armed revolution.

“The revolutionary Left, including the Maoists, need to shift the focus of debate and struggle from violence to politics, to policies and programmes, to the issue of the country’s path of development, which to be pro-people has to be a socialism-oriented path of development.  As part of this shift the Maoists also need to reach out to other Naxal formations.  A challenge for the Maoists, this shift and reaching out is a challenge for their ‘civil society’ sympathisers and supporters as well.  They must not rest content with their opposition to the government’s war on people or with ‘peace initiatives’ etc.  They need to help towards realisation of both this shift and unity among the Naxalites.  Unless this happens and the focus of debates and struggle shifts from violence to politics, above all to the issue of the country’s path of development, Indian politics will remain stranded in the quagmire of violence to the benefit of the ruling establishment, the people’s support for the capitalist path of development will continue to be consolidated, democracy will continue to be eroded, giving way to the authoritarian form of bourgeois rule, misery and suffering, old and new, will continue to be visited upon our adivasi population, all revolutionary advance will stay stalled and winning popular support for a revolutionary transformation of Indian society, for an alternative politics that seeks to realise the Naxalite aspiration for a life worthy of human beings for all, will become increasingly more difficult.”