By Sohail Ahmed

During the 1970s drastic cost increases in oil prices by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) led to market turmoil throughout the globe especially in the so-called third world countries. As a result, raw material exporting countries had been weakened, and rich countries’ markets had turmoil whereas the loan interest rate had increased. These dramatic changes in the global market stimulated international financial institutions to adopt the Monetarists free-market approach by Milton Friedman and moved away from Keynesian principles of government intervention.

The implications of the aforementioned fluctuations persuaded the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to introduce Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) in the 1980s to redevelop countries. Most of the nations are members of the International Monetary Fund but Western countries/ former colonizers have greater influence on voting. This neocolonial SAPs’ tendency demonstrates direct agreement between international financial institutions with countries’ finance ministries that compel the host counties to increase privatization, economic deregulation, increase taxes on public consumption goods, and decrease subsidies over public sectors. The macroeconomic conditionality of structural adjustment programs has changed market fundamentalism and altered the dynamics of socioeconomic conditions of countries, other than that health conditions. The decline of Primary Health Care has roots in the structural adjustment programs.

Garman Democratic Republic, which only existed from 1949 to 1990, had a socialist style of health care policy

In 1978, delegates from 134 countries including the United States had gathered in the Alma Ata city of Kazakhstan (Former part of USSR), to promote the Primary Health Care system around the globe. This multispectral strategy aimed to ensure fundamental health care facilities through packages for all populations, that’s why the rhetoric phrase “Health For All”. Vaccination, maternal-child health services, family planning, endemic and epidemic disease control, and first aid have all been included in this package.

Furthermore, it focused on actively engaging government in the medical practices and ensuring the participation of the community in public health education. Subsequently, it was harder to sustain this project for a longer period due to market-oriented macroeconomic conditionalities by Structural adjustment programs. As a result, two schools of thought emerged: one comprehensive, which wanted to address all health concerns in the package of Primary Health Care and was run by the government, and the other selective, which wanted to compromise multisectoral primary health care and embed only some aspects of health care services except all dimensions due to SAPs conditionalities to increase taxes on public health services.

Eventually, in 1987, the situation worsened for Primary Health Care and Word Bank denounced health services as a more private matter, compelled people to charge money for health services, and introduced non-government actors to provide health services along with private insurance companies. Similarly, East Germany’s former socialist estate, known as the Garman Democratic Republic (GDR), which only existed from 1949 to 1990, had a socialist style of health care policy.

Historical research demonstrated how primary health care was separated from the public realm and deemed a private affair by global institutions

Also read: Neocolonialism and the IMF

The DDR’s tagline was “Socialism Is the Best Prophylaxis,” which was coined by physician and politician Maxim Zetkin (1883-1965). This slogan emphasized that the GDR was more interested in preventive health care than in therapeutic care. This anti-capitalist state had assured that healthcare facilities were under government surveillance, that there were no profit-driven healthcare services, and that human capital was invested in.

Furthermore, the formation of GDR’s healthcare system insists to make sure universal health and comprehensive health rather than the selective model of health for all citizens as a fundamental right. Outpatient and inpatient medical treatment were both provided by the government. They recruited community nurses who had received medical therapy, and remarkably, there was only one doctor for a population of ten people. Over time, most skilled doctors migrated to America and West Germany because they paid more than East Germany and had a greater impact on the whole health care system. Finally, after Germany’s reintegration in 1990, the East German economic structure was dissolved and public health policies were modified. Due to the newly German government’s severe application of austerity measures, social welfare programs have been decreased, as has the concept that Socialism is the Best Prophylaxis.

The data indicated approximately 40 pharmaceutical companies in Pakistan are unable to sustain the supply of medicine

This historical research demonstrated how primary health care was separated from the public realm and deemed a private affair by global institutions. Similarly, the engagement of non-governmental players has depoliticized the topic of health care, which is why many no longer consider it a concern. The unprecedented hyperinflation in Pakistan has had a profound impact on the public health sectors and overall socioeconomic conditions. The hike in the energy prices like petrol, diesel, and electricity causes dozens of industries’ unsustainability. The data indicated approximately 40 pharmaceutical companies in Pakistan are unable to sustain the supply of medicine. The pharmaceutical companies issued that the reasons behind the increased cost of medicines are the devaluation of money and excessive taxes on imported medicine ingredients.

______________

Sohail Ahmed is M.Phil. Student at the Department of Anthropology, Quaid-e-Azam University Islamabad. He is working in the medical anthropology research domain paying attention to the perspectives of bioethics, medical ethics, and the issue of overuse and misuse of antibiotics and the ethical dilemmas of medical practice in Sindh, Pakistan.

The post Socialism is the Best Prophylaxis first appeared on Sindh Courier.

SHOUKAT LOHAR

In the realm of economic and political systems, three prominent ideologies have shaped societies worldwide: communism, socialism, and capitalism. Each of these systems offers distinct approaches to the distribution of wealth, the role of the state, and individual rights. Understanding their fundamental principles is crucial for comprehending the dynamics and debates surrounding these ideologies. This article provides a concise overview of communism, socialism, and capitalism, shedding light on their core tenets and key differences.

Capitalism

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of resources and the means of production. In this system, individuals and businesses have the freedom to engage in trade and pursue their economic interests. Competition, supply and demand, and the price mechanism play essential roles in determining prices, production levels, and resource allocation. Capitalism emphasizes individual rights, free markets, and profit accumulation as drivers of economic growth. Minimal government intervention, known as laissez-faire capitalism, is often associated with this system.

Socialism

Socialism seeks to address the perceived inequalities and power imbalances inherent in capitalism. It advocates for collective ownership and control of resources, with the goal of achieving economic equality and social justice. Under socialism, the state or the community as a whole may own and manage key industries, while essential services such as healthcare, education, and welfare are often provided by the government. Socialism aims to prioritize the welfare of society as a whole over individual profit motives. While retaining elements of market economies, socialism emphasizes government intervention to regulate and guide economic activity.

Communism

Communism is an idealistic political and economic ideology that aims to create a classless and stateless society. It envisions a system in which the means of production are owned collectively, and wealth is shared equally among all members of society. Communism seeks to eliminate the disparities caused by class divisions and exploitation, advocating for the abolition of private property and the establishment of a planned economy. In practice, communism has often been associated with authoritarian regimes, where the state wields significant control over various aspects of citizens’ lives.

Key Differences

While capitalism, socialism, and communism share a focus on economic systems, they diverge in their fundamental principles and implementations:

1. a) Ownership: Capitalism emphasizes private ownership of resources, while socialism advocates for collective ownership, and communism seeks to abolish private property altogether.
2. b) Economic Incentives: Capitalism relies on profit motives and competition to drive economic growth. Socialism aims to balance individual and societal interests, focusing on social welfare. Communism strives for shared resources and societal harmony, often downplaying individual incentives.
3. c) Role of the State: Capitalism encourages limited government intervention, allowing the market to guide economic activity. Socialism promotes government intervention through regulations and public services. Communism envisions a stateless society, but historical implementations have featured a powerful state apparatus.
4. d) Wealth Distribution: Capitalism allows for the accumulation of wealth by individuals and businesses. Socialism aims to reduce wealth disparities through progressive taxation and social programs. Communism seeks equal distribution of wealth, with an emphasis on communal ownership.

Conclusion

Understanding the basic tenets of communism, socialism, and capitalism enables us to engage in informed discussions about economic and political systems. While capitalism emphasizes individual rights and free markets, socialism and communism strive for more egalitarian societies through collective ownership and state intervention. The practical implementations of these ideologies have varied across the world.

_____________

Shoukat Lohar is Assistant professor in English at Mehran University of Engineering and Technology Jamshoro. He can be reached at Shoukat.ali@faculty.muet.edu.pk

The post Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism: A Basic Understanding first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Farooque Chowdhury | Dhaka

Two opposing forces

Two class forces were standing opposed to each other in the land: on the one hand, there was the force of the exploiting classes – the landed and capitalist classes, and at the head of them, the imperialist masters; and, in its opposition, was the force of exploited classes – the exploited peasantry and the industrial workers.

In terms of ideology and political program, one was backward looking, for status quo while the other was forward looking, for progress, standing for a society that ensures rights and dignity, for a fair share in prosperity, for a better life for all, for a society free from exploitation. The progressive force of the exploited masses were for breaking the chain of all forms of bondage, be it in land, in ownership of property, in ideology, and for real independence.

Thus, there was a contradiction that was irreconcilable, as the questions were: what type of land do we dream – shall it be in bondage of exploitation, or free from exploitation, shall it be dominated by the exploiters or by the exploited?

Zamindars were disturbed and worried over the increasingly powerful slogan of socialism. To them, socialism was a threat to their existence, the slogan of socialism made them worried

One revered leader, I am not naming here, was telling “Hospitals are institutions for propagating sin”; “medical science is the concentrated essence of black magic”; “The railways, telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers, doctors and such like have all to go”. In 1934, a delegation of zamindars met the leader at Cawnpur. They were disturbed and worried over the increasingly powerful slogan of socialism. To them, socialism was a threat to their existence, the slogan of socialism made them worried. The revered leader assured the landlords: “I shall be no party to dispossessing the propertied classes of their private property [….] You may be sure that I shall throw the whole weight of my influence in preventing a class war. […] Suppose there is an attempt unjustly to deprive you of your property you will find me fighting on your side. Our Socialism or Communism should be based […] on the harmonious cooperation of labor and capital, the landlord and tenant.”

Contrarily, there was another voice, the voice for liberation from exploitation, and for progress. That was the voice of the exploited. At the first Indian Communist Conference in Kanpur, held from December 26 to 28, 1925, it was declared: “The ultimate goal of the party will be establishment of a workers’ and peasants’ republic in India. And, the immediate objective of the party shall be the securing of a living wage for the workers and peasants by means of nationalization and municipalization of public services; namely land, mines, factories, houses, telegraphs, telephones, railways and such other public utilities which require public ownership. The party shall for the attainment of the above object form labor and peasants’ unions in urban and rural areas, enter district and taluk boards, municipalities and assemblies and by such other means and methods carry out the ideal and program of the party with or without the cooperation of the existing political parties in the country.” [G Adhikari (ed.) Documents of the History of the Communist Party of India, vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, New Delhi, 1982]

At the same conference, the president of the conference appealed to the workers: “To the workers of India, we say organize your unions, strong numerically and financially, for only in your organization lies your strength. Do not dissipate your energy […] Conserve all your strength […].” To the peasants, the same appeal was made: “Oh, you the forlorn, the oppressed and the suppressed, let us march together in weal or in woe singing the song Internationale […]”

Thus we find, another force, it was political force and, not only political force, class force also, it was getting organized, raising its voice. It might happen that at that time, this force was weak, seemed insignificant to many. But that, the class force other than the interest that went to the revered leader seeking his assurance regarding their property, already began its presence on the political map of this subcontinent.

The reality, however, is to be admitted that this new political force was weak. One fact tells its condition. At the Kanpur conference, it was informed that “[t]he financial position of the party is not sound. During the past nine months we could publish only four small leaflets. We were unable to send necessary messages to the press and our rules and regulations are still unpublished.” [ibid.]

Today, it’s unimaginable that a political organization dreaming to throw away all shackles of exploitation, and declaring a class war, could publish only four small leaflets in nine months. But that was the reality. But the reality was based on class conflict, which demanded a forward-looking journey. And, that shows an aspect of history’s journey along the path of class conflict.

That forward-looking journey was admitted by Jawaharlal Nehru also, as he said in 1933 in “Whither India”: “India’s immediate goal can therefore only be considered in terms of the ending of exploitation of her people. Politically, it must mean independence and the severance of the British connection, which means imperialist domination; economically and socially it must mean the ending of all special class privileges and vested interests,”

The concern or fear of revolution was not only in 1924. Much earlier, in 1917, the promise of representative government by Curzon and Austen Chamberlain was also out of that fear

Thus, we find, as has been told above, on the one side, along with the imperialism, there were the exploiting classes, and, on the opposite, there were the exploited masses. That was one of the fundamental contradictions in this subcontinent, which has not yet subsided. As the people were trying to handle this contradiction in their way and within their capacity, the political forces other than the people’s politics, and the colonial power were also trying to handle this contradiction in their way and capacity. The two were different approaches.

The political movements of the exploited people, of the industrial workers were developing, organizations were coming up, and people were gaining experiences in political struggles. The people were also gaining force as a political mass, which was impossible to be ignored by the imperialism and the class forces that considered imperialism as its class brother or class ally. Struggles of the peasantry and of the workers were increasingly rising and expanding. There were great struggles by the working people in this land, which now well documented. At times, those were like rising tide, wave after wave. A number of those struggles including the risings in Sholapur, in Bombay, today’s Mumbai, the sailors’ revolt, were significant.

It was menacing, threatening to the internal and external class forces of exploitation. This threatening reality to the exploiting interests is found in Sir Malcolm Hailey, as he said in the Legislative Assembly in 1924: “Anything like a real revolution would have most disastrous effects on that very class that is now represented in the Legislative Assembly and Provincial Councils; for among the ignorant masses of India a political revolution would become a socialist revolution in a very short space of time.” Similar observation has been cited at the beginning of this series of articles.

That concern or fear of revolution was not only in 1924. Much earlier, in 1917, the promise of representative government by Curzon and Austen Chamberlain was also out of that fear. The colonial power was trying to face the challenge of revolution in this subcontinent following the revolution in Russia in 1917. Their concern was ensuring their economic and financial interests in this land. The same concern was of their class allies in this subcontinent. The partition was their master stroke on the working people’s struggle for emancipation. It was not limited within a certain time-period, the time during partition, but has extended its flames of hatred to further years, in politics, in mass psyche. It has, on the one hand, strengthened the cruel hands of the exploiting classes, and on the other, weakened the working people’s struggle that didn’t follow any sectarian line. As an example, Bengal may be cited.

[To be continued]

Click here for Part-I, Part-II, Part-III

______________

Courtesy: Counter Current (Published on 28/06/2023)

The post The Partition of the Sub-continent and the Bifurcation of Bengal (Part – IV) first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Sam Ben-Meir

“Anarchism is an aspect of socialism (among many others) that those of us wishing socialism, or some comparable form of resistance, to survive will have to think about again, this time without a prearranged sneer.” T.J. Clark, Farewell to an Idea

The December 9, 2022 marked 180 years since the birth of Pyotr Kropotkin (1842-1921), the Great Russian anarchist, sociologist, historian, zoologist, economist, and philosopher. Now, of all times, we should be remembering, revitalizing, and creatively reconstructing his legacy.

One might assume that a 19th century Russian anarchist would have nothing to say that could possibly have real bearing on the world today, that his political philosophy, whatever relevance it might have once held, had been long surpassed. I would dare to venture another point of view: not only are we unable to justify confining Kropotkin to the history of ideas—or worse, the dustbin of history—rather, this is a thinker that remains still ahead of us, a thinker whose vision has yet to be truly realized. We have not yet caught up with Kropotkin, but there are indications that conditions more favorable to receiving his thought are on the horizon, and that perhaps there is a day approaching when we may even begin to see his ideas implemented on a scale that could radically transform our communities and, most especially, our workplaces.

Kropotkin’s importance for us has only grown because the material conditions, the post-scarcity, the technological advances, have made it possible, no doubt for the first time in history, to truly realize his vision of unfettered human creativity. There is one chapter in The Conquest of Bread (1892) that I want to focus on because it may surprise those who are new to anarcho-communist political philosophy. The chapter is entitled “The Need for Luxury,” and his thesis is quite a simple one: “After bread has been secured, leisure is the supreme aim.” The anarchist commune—or what is sometimes referred to today as “luxury communism”—recognizes “that while it produces all that is necessary to material life, it must also strive to satisfy all manifestations of the human mind.”

Anarcho-communism is opposed to the state inasmuch as it represents centralized power in the hands of a few, hierarchical relationships and class domination.

We can agree with Aaron Bastani, who argues in Fully Automated Luxury Communism (2020) that, “There is a tendency in capitalism to automate labor, to turn things previously done by humans into automated functions. In recognition of that, then the only utopian demand can be for the full automation of everything and common ownership of that which is automated.” Bastani is talking about using the levels of post-scarcity and automation that we’ve attained to finally usher in a society free of drudgery, toil, and where the full range of tastes can be satisfied.

Given the multiple crises we are facing, the general name for which is global capitalism, how should we answer the question famously posed by Lenin, “What is to be done?” There are at least three basic principles which can be derived from the work of Kropotkin, and that can and should strategically guide us as we move forward. The first is ending the tyranny of private property which has produced greater economic inequality today than we have ever seen in the history of the world. The concentration of capital has produced a condition in which a handful of individuals possess wealth exceeding that of the combined wealth of the billions of people who share this planet. So, as the great French philosopher Alain Badiou has also reiterated, our first principle must be that of collectivism in opposition to the dictatorship of capital: “It is not a necessity for social organization to reside in private property and monstrous inequalities.”

The second principle involve democratizing our workplaces, through worker self-management, or more precisely through what the economist Richard Wolff calls “worker self-directed enterprises” – in a word, economic democracy. Experiments with non-traditional, non-hierarchical firms, have largely met with success. Perhaps the greatest example is Spain’s Mondrian Corporation, but there are many others. So that we are well past the stage of asking ourselves whether such non-capitalist forms of organization can succeed and be competitive. It has been amply proven that they indeed can.

The non-capitalist reorganization of our workplaces would undoubtedly improve the condition of workers, which is under assault around the world. In countries around the world, union leaders are routinely threatened with violence or murdered. Indeed, the International Trade Union Confederation reports that 2019 saw “the use of extreme violence against the defenders of workplace rights, large-scale arrests and detentions.”  The number of countries which do not allow workers to establish or join a trade union increased from 92 in 2018 to 107 in 2019. In 2018, 53 trade union members were murdered — and in 52 counties workers were subjected to physical violence. In 72 percent of countries workers have only restricted access to justice, or none at all.  As Noam Chomsky observed, “Policies are designed to undermine working class organization and the reason is not only the unions fight for workers’ rights, but they also have a democratizing effect. These are institutions in which people without power can get together, support one another, learn about the world, try out their ideas, initiate programs, and that is dangerous.”

The distinctive feature of anarchist programs is not that governments are excluded from the process and without any meaningful contribution to make. The essential characteristics are voluntarism, antiauthoritarianism, the decentralization of political authority, worker self-management (economic democracy)

And third, it is time we recognize, as Badiou put it two weeks after the election of Trump, “that there is no necessity for a state in the form of a separated and armed power.” The principle of free association as opposed to the state is one that anarchism has long advocated. But we need to be clear here: anarchism is usually taken to mean, if anything, opposition to all government or to government as such. In fact, this is a mistakenly one-sided view of anarchism, and it certainly does not represent a nuanced understanding of Kropotkin, who made a clear and sharp distinction between government and the state.

Anarcho-communism is opposed to the state inasmuch as it represents centralized power in the hands of a few, hierarchical relationships and class domination. But Kropotkin was not necessarily opposed to a condition of society in which certain elements of decentralized community government remain. Martin Buber underscored this point: Kropotkin’s “‘anarchy,’ like Proudhon’s, is in reality ‘anocracy’; not absence of government, but absence of domination.” The distinctive feature of anarchist programs is not that governments are excluded from the process and without any meaningful contribution to make. The essential characteristics are voluntarism, antiauthoritarianism, the decentralization of political authority, worker self-management (economic democracy), and in general a tendency to address social problems from the bottom up, rather than by imposing solutions from the top down.

Kropotkin was one of Russia’s finest minds, and one that was among the most dedicated to the ideals of which we are in danger of completely losing sight. There is no better time than now to salvage the very best of Russian thought, to reaffirm its universality, its inherently critical posture towards authoritarianism, and the self-destructive pursuit of power through violence.

________________

Sam Ben-Meir is an assistant adjunct professor of philosophy at City University of New York, College of Technology.

Courtesy: History News Network (Published on Jan 15, 2023)

The post Pyotr Kropotkin – The Great Russian Anarchist first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Caracollo, Bolivia

Previously, one of the 2019 coup leaders, Luis Fernando Camacho, who is currently Santa Cruz governor, proclaimed the start of a political movement to convert Bolivia into a federal country.

This Tuesday, November 23, the ‘Movement towards Socialism’ (MAS) and dozens of workers’ organizations began a seven-day march from Caracollo to La Paz, the capital city. Its purpose is to defend Bolivia’s President Luis Arce, who is being harassed by destabilization attempts led by the Santa Cruz Civic Committee, a far-right organization that has openly spoken in favor of a new coup.

“We are not alone. Here, Bolivians are united and standing, telling the old neoliberal right they will not be able to divide our country. This march is for the Homeland and for the unity of the Bolivian people. Long live our social organizations!” President Arce said.

“The march is expected to arrive in La Paz amid a great popular gathering,” teleSUR correspondent Freddy Morales reported, adding that a massive meeting kicked off the march. In this act, former President Evo Morales pointed out that the Bolivian people recovered democracy through the Oct. 2020 elections, when the MAS party won the presidency with over 55 percent of the votes.

“The economic elites want to have their own ‘colonial State’ because they do not forgive the Socialist government for the nationalization of natural resources and other anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist policies,” Evo recalled and denounced that the strike called by Santa Cruz-based conservatives caused severe damage to the farmers but not to large corporations.

The “March for Life” is expected to arrive in the capital city on Nov. 29, when thousands of people will stand together to support the Arce administration and demand justice for the victims of the Sacaba and Senkata massacres.

Meanwhile, one of the 2019 coup d’état leaders, Luis Fernando Camacho, who is currently Santa Cruz governor, proclaimed the start of a political movement to convert Bolivia into a “federal” country, arguing that the MAS government is responsible for the current economic crisis.

The statistics, however, point to other culprits. Between 2019 and 2020, the coup-born regime led by Jeanine Añez indebted the country by US$4.9 billion and caused a drop of 11.1 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP).

______________________

Courtesy: TeleSur

The post Bolivian Workers March in Defense of Democracy first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Among his political initiatives were the formation of the short-lived Mahabharat Svarajia Party and Jamna Narbada Sind Sagar Party

By Raza Naeem

The legendary crusader for Indian independence, Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi, who passed away 74 years ago today, had travelled to Afghanistan in 1915 at the direction of his teacher, Sheikh al-Hind Maulana Mahmudul Hasan. There, Ubaidullah was one of the prime movers of the ‘reshmi rumal’ or ‘silk letters’ conspiracy to overthrow the British. As Mohammed Ayub Khan described it in a 2013 academic paper:

“Sindhi rose in prominence in India’s nationalist imagination for his role in the ‘Silk Letters Conspiracy.’ At the urging of Hasan he had written letters to the governor of Russian Turkistan and the Czar asking them to join forces with Turkey and declare war on the British. The letters provide minute details of the proposed organizational structure of an army called Hezbollah and how to recruit Indians for it. The letters were concealed in silk scarves to escape detection. However, they were found, and the British clamped down in India by passing the draconian Rowlatt Act limiting civil freedoms.”

Ubaidullah remained in Kabul for seven years, working closely with the revolutionaries who had formed a provisional independent government for India, as well as the Hindustan Ghadar Party, there before moving to Moscow along with many of his comrades in October 1922.

During his stay in Moscow, he keenly observed the principles of communism and the attempts to bring these principles to practice in the Soviet Union. When he reached Istanbul nine months later, he published a draft of a constitution for Free India in Urdu from Istanbul in 1924 which closely resembled the Soviet constitution in its economic character, emphasizing peoples’ welfare, nationalization, abolition of feudalism and landlordism. Ubaidullah understood socialist teachings to be directly in conformity with Islam.

He also formed a party, the Mahabharat Svarajia Party to advance the political program his constitution envisaged.  The British confiscated copies of the document and Ubaidullah was forced to remain in exile – in Turkey, Italy and Arabia.

After his return to India in 1939, he continued expressing these views.

Tanvir Anjum quotes the words of Faruqi to the effect that “during his sojourn abroad his ‘Islamist’ approach to Indian politics was transformed into ‘nationalist-secularist’. He had left India as a firebrand agitator and an organizer of revolutionary activities; he came back as a thinker.”

Also read: Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi – Political Teacher of Subhas Chandra Bose

According to Khan, the Ubaidullah who returned home “devoted himself to resolving the Hindu-Muslim question by positing new ideas of a federal India, distinct from the ones presented by the Congress and the Muslim League. These ideas were first developed by him in 1926 and revised after his experiences in the Muslim world.” He formed a new party, the Jamna, Narbada, Sind Sagar Party, to take forward his views but it never really took off.

In his preface to the ‘Constitution’ he wrote, the Maulana says while describing the impressions of Moscow:

‘We had the opportunity to witness the results of the Russian Revolution in Moscow with our eyes. Some members of our Committee learnt the Russian language in order to study the Revolution. We had good opportunities to exchange views with important persons of Russia. To study the influence of the Russian Revolution on other countries of Europe, our committee members went to these countries… (but) we feel this reality with sorrow that the present generation of our country has gone very far away from understanding the nature of the Revolution.’

Arguing about the national problems of India, Ubaidullah said that:

‘Class complexity is present in every nation. The mutual struggle of the rich and laborer, landlord and peasant, capitalist and worker can easily divide every Indian nation into competitive and opposing ranks. That is why to resolve all Indian problems and especially Hindu-Muslim differences on purely religious basis cannot produce any permanent path to salvation. Therefore we do not deem religion to be the basis to resolve these problems in our program, but present a solution to these problems on national and class division and economic and political principles.’

Maulana Sindhi was a great opponent of the capitalist system, so while arguing about the future of India in this document, he writes that:

‘By breaking the present capitalist system in our country, we establish the foundations of such a system which is the guarantor of the welfare of the working class meaning the majority and remains under the rule of this working class. Our independence movement can become certainly successful from this.’

Describing the Soviet Union, the Maulana writes:

‘India reduced its greatness to dust by overlooking the French Revolution. Now by shutting our eyes to this revolution (the Russian Revolution) of global importance, we do not want that India sign its own death warrant. Russia meets us just a few steps further from the place of meeting of the Himalayas, Karakoram and Hindu Kush. Our conclusive opinion is that if we give away all that we have achieved in the sixty years of this slavery and buy the friendship of the nations from the northern passes to the North Pole even while remaining hand-to-mouth, we will not be at a loss.’

Though a Deobandi and an avowed follower of Shah Walliullah, the 18th century Delhi theologian who is seen by scholars as the father of a rigid and puritanical Islam, Ubaidullah’s definition of Islam, according to Mohammad Khan, “was much more broad based than the one which is traditionally held”:

Similarly, his definition of kafir (generally translated as ‘unbelievers) was far more restrictive and altogether novel. In his exegesis of the Qur’an, Sindhi argued that the kafirs mentioned in Surah 2, v.4, actually represent ‘reactionary conservatives’. At another place he is reported as using the same term for those who want to divide people on the basis of religion, sect, and nation.

Ubaidullah was also a strong voice against separatism on the basis of religion. As Khan notes, he presented “a very unique idea of what it means to be an Indian” in a 1940 lecture, ‘What Do We Want?’:

“He said a true Indian is the one who strives the most to unite India. The Aryans were the first to give a united conception of India. This position was later on taken by Muslims. Therefore, Muslims are the ones who deserve to be called ‘Indians’ of the first order. In this scheme of things Mehmood of Ghazni and Aurangzeb, extremely divisive figures in Indian history and the Hindu imagination, become heroes for uniting India and stand shoulder to shoulder with Asoka and the earlier Aryans. The British can also be accorded the status of the ‘Indian of first order’ if they adopt India as their homeland, as the Muslims and Anglo-Indians have done.”

His last years were marked by a life of great simplicity. He remained an opponent of the country’s partition and a fighter against imperialism till his death in 1944.

____________________

About the Author

Raza Naeem is a Pakistani social scientist, book critic, and an award-winning translator and dramatic reader currently teaching in Lahore. He is also the president of the Progressive Writers Association in Lahore. His most recent work is an introduction to the reissued edition (HarperCollins India, 2016) of Abdullah Hussein’s classic novel The Weary Generations. He can be reached at: razanaeem@hotmail.com

Courtesy: The Wire (An Indian website) – Article was published on August 21, 2018

The post Ubaidullah, the Maulana Who Saw Socialism as Guarantor of Peoples’ Welfare first appeared on Sindh Courier.