Why does all the debate and rules about Marxism are transgresses by Indian non-acceptance of the existence of Pakistan even after 62 years and looked at in the context of the division of the sub-continent which Mr.Aijaz likeMr. Jaswanth Singh, finds very painful and unacceptable even today.
Many issues about Kashmir were also barely touched upon during the talk.
About the rise and prominence of RSS and other fundamentalist Hindu groups he says that they are a reaction to the rise of Muslim fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan post- Afghan Jehad. He blames
USA for creating fundamentalists in Egypt, Afghanistan and says that the Hindu fundamentalists are getting more prominent and powerful in retaliation. My question is simple. Why if India is a functioning democracy with established Institutions and institutional mechanisms? what is the political vacuum? Then he says that the space vacated by left has been taken up by the fundamentalists. This maybe true in a very small part in Egypt and Afghanistan, but not India. And if India then why? Why and where is the vacuum in Indian polity?
If the rise of Hindutva is a response to Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan, then why this response in Pakistan? Is not Kashmir the factor in this anti-Muslimsentiment and grouping. He does blame the Muslimization of the Kashmir issue as a factor which is hindering the Indian approval of the right of self determination of Kashmiris.How can anyone ignore the religious identity of majority Kashmiris and only address it ithe context of Jehadi issue. He maybe right in some part as he says that the Jamaate Islami and some other groups have made it a Jihadi issue.But then was not Pakistan created in the Muslim majority areas context. He says that the partition of the subcontinent is the most painful and wrong incident of history. Then he also says that post Maharashtran rise of Hindu fundmentalists parties, Muslims of India have to continuosly prove that they are good Indians. Then isn't that what was the creation of Pakistan is all about.
My question still is left unanswered that in a successful democratic state why and how the Hindu fundamentalist pressure is rising.is it justified and was Pakistan was afterall not justified in its creation.
Now some very serious questions about Marxism, its image and existence in the indian mind. Mr.Aijaz says that he is comfortable within the Indian democratic political system. He says that it is the superiority of a just judiciary under which he wants to live. Is this not a contradiction.Choosing the good points of Western liberal democracy. Marxist theory nowhere justifies a democracy especially with a just, superior judiciary. What are the Hegelian views? Why Indian Marxism evolving towards a new compromise? Or is this an Indian system? No clarity on this.
Why are Indian communists compromising with Imperialism. Or maybe Mr. Aijaz has his own stand.
He says that communism in India has become a fringe ideology post Gandhian assasination. But isnt the whole world moved towards capitalism post USSR dissolution? Now post Western capatilistic financial crises, what will be the future of Marxism? In the world? In India?
It seem India will never be communist. It is evolving into a gradual capatilistic state with a distinct Indian flavor. It maybe a successful model but for its own hegemonistic designs, a regional political and military involvement beyond its control and its nuclearisation. How it addresses its poverty and social justice issues remains to be seen. If the bougeiose is happy with the current system of Western capatalistic leanings there is no place with Marxist experimentation.
Mr Aijaz was insistence that growth and economic progress is not linked to liberal democracy. Then where is the proof of the Marxist link. His eulogised view of the current Chinese growth model is flawed. He said that China has invested in poor, underdeveloped regions like Tibet and shares with these regions, the fruits of its economic growth. This is a farce. The human rights violations especially in Tibet, the ethnic hegemonistic designs over Uighuir Muslim populations is conveniently set aside by him. If this is the modern Indian face of Marxism, then where is the fundamental concept of equitrable social justice. Where is the difference between Marxism and Imperialism.
In the end the question remains, Is the world ready for Marxism? Are the bourgiose aware enough? Is the illeterate strong enough for "revolution"What is the international,universality of Marxist regimes. What will be the differences between Fascist rulers and Marxist revolutionary rulers. In the endthe debate must continue. In Aijaz's own words, Marxism never ends it continues.It is yet to be completed. Utopia?