Kashmir: Social-Patriotism Among the Indian Left

 

On the opportunistic adaptation of various “Stalinists”, “Trotskyists” and “Maoists” to the chauvinistic wave in the wake of the latest conflict between India and Pakistan

 

By Michael Pröbsting, International Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 02 March 2019, www.thecommunists.net

 

 

 

India’s right-wing government of Narendra Modi is currently whipping up a wave of chauvinism. It used a successful attack of a Kashmiri guerilla movement against Indian occupation forces on 14 February that killed 49 soldiers as a pretext to instigate war-fever and Hindu-chauvinism against national minorities in India as well as against its arch-enemy, Pakistan.

 

On 26 February, the Indian Air Force launched a military attack against Pakistan and bombed a supposed “terrorist camp”. The next day, the Pakistani military shot down two Indian aircraft inside its airspace and captured one pilot. Since then the Indian and Pakistani army have targeted each other's posts and villages along their volatile frontier. This has been the worst escalation of the conflict between the two South Asian neighbors since the 1971 war.

 

As we have elaborated in our statement, the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT) repudiates the war-mongering on both sides. ^[1] We support neither capitalist India nor capitalist Pakistan. ^[2] In the military conflict between the two states, we take a revolutionary defeatist position on both sides. In the tradition of Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin we say: “the main enemy is at home”! ^[3]

 

However, at the same time we are not neutral in the ongoing insurgency of the Kashmir people against the Indian occupation. The Kashmiri people were never asked if they wanted to join India. To the contrary, they have always opposed the Indian occupation. Since the beginning of the Kashmiri Intifada in 1989 there have been regular mass demonstrations and general strikes, as well as armed guerilla activities. Currently, Kashmir is the region with the highest proportion of foreign soldiers and police in the world. About 750,000 soldiers and police forces are stationed in a region that has a population of only 8 million! They are brutally suppressing the Kashmiri people who are, in their majority, Muslims. Nearly 100,000 Kashmiri Muslims have been killed by Indian security forces and about 10,000 women have been gang-raped by marauding bands of Indian soldiers in the past three decades.

 

The RCIT and its predecessor organization have always supported the demand of the Kashmiri people for independence. ^[4] We do not lend political support to the petty-bourgeois and Islamist forces currently at the top of this liberation struggle. However, we consider this struggle to be completely legitimate. We unconditionally support the national liberation effort against the Indian occupation and combine this with the perspective of an independent, socialist Kashmir, i.e. a free and independent workers and peasant republic of Kashmir that unites all parts of Kashmir (i.e. those currently controlled by India, Pakistan and China).

 

Unfortunately, there are so-called “Marxist” organizations in India that completely fail to take such an internationalist position. In this article we will deal with three examples of such opportunists that have succumbed to Indian social-patriotism.

 

 

 

The Pulwama attack: was this “Terrorism”?

 

 

It is hardly surprising that the arch-reactionary Modi government denounces the Pulwama attack as “terrorist”. Every oppressor calls an attack by the oppressed “terrorist”. Just look to Israel where the Zionist state denounces every single act of Palestinian resistance as “terrorist”. So does the tyrant Assad and his Russian and Iranian masters when faced with the Syrian liberation fighters. It is the same with U.S. imperialism and its puppet regime in Kabul when they suffer strikes by the Afghan resistance.

 

Revolutionaries in India and elsewhere strongly denounce such reactionary nonsense. The Pulwama attack was not “terrorist” but an act of legitimate resistance against a foreign occupation force. It was a shaheed operation executed by a young Kashmiri man, Adil Ahmad Dar, who had been a militant of the petty-bourgeois, Islamist guerrilla movement, Jaish-e-Mohammad. This operation was solely directed against enemy soldiers.

 

Shamefully, some Indian pseudo-Marxist organizations joined the patriotic consensus and denounced the Pulwama attack as “terrorist”. The biggest “Marxist” party – the Communist Party of India (Marxist) – issued a statement on the Pulwama attack the same day it took place. The party’s leadership stated: “The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) strongly condemns the terrorist attack mounted on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama in Jammu & Kashmir. (...) The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) conveys its heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families of the personnel who laid down their lives in the line of duty. ^[5]

 

It is not particularly surprising to hear such social-patriotic statements from a Stalinist party that is well integrated into the capitalist state. The CPI(M) currently has nine seats in the Lok Sabha – India’s federal parliament – as well as many seats at the states level. It ruled West-Bengal, the fourth most populous state in the country, for 34 consecutive years (1977-2011). During this period the party not only suppressed peasant rebellions but increasingly collaborated with imperialist monopolies. It dispossessed peasants whose land was then handed over to multi-national corporations, while unleashing the police and its own party thugs against those who fought back. Unsurprisingly, this provoked massive protests and the CPI(M) lost power in the elections of 2011. The CPI(M) is affiliated with the so-called International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties (IMCWP), a loose Stalinist alliance that was initiated by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) in 1998. ^[6]

 

However, it would be wrong to assume that only such major reformist parties like the CPI(M) have adapted to the wave of chauvinism. The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation) has a Maoist background and holds a few seats in states parliaments. It also strongly denounced the Pulwama attack (“a horrific attack on the CRPF convoy” ^[7]; “There is no question of justifying the Pulwama attack.” ^[8]). Like the bourgeois India media it calls Jaish-e-Mohammad a “terrorist” organization. ^[9]

 

Another example is “Radical Socialist” – a small group that claims to “stand proudly in the tradition of revolutionary Marxism as developed and exemplified by Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin and Trotsky.” ^[10] It is affiliated – as a “Permanent Observer” ^[11] – with the so-called “Fourth International” which follows in the tradition of Michel Pablo and Ernest Mandel. ^[12] This organization has also joined the chorus of the chauvinists denouncing the Pulwama attack as “terrorist”.

 

In its statement following the attack, Radical Socialist justified its denunciation by elaborating a peculiar definition of “terrorism”: “Terrorism is not a reference to any category of persons but refers to a particular method, technique or tactic that involves the killing or injuring of innocent civilians or, outside of a battle or war zone, of even soldiers who by virtue of the distinctive nature of the attack are rendered completely defenceless. Precisely because terrorism is an act of this kind it can be and is carried out by the individual, a group, or larger collectivities like the apparatuses of the state. The car bomb attack that has killed 40 CRPF soldiers is just such an act and deserves the strongest condemnation. As in all cases of terrorism our sympathies and condolences are with the loved ones, families, relatives and friends of the victims.” ^[13]

 

No doubt, this is a particularly stupid definition of “terrorism” which could have just as easily come from that “stable genius”, Donald Trump! According to this definition, the Zionist state would be correct to call the Palestinian resistance fighters “terrorist” when one of their snipers kills an Israeli soldier. According to this definition, the British colonial administration in India would have been correct to denounce Indian freedom fighters as “terrorist” when laying an ambush for His Majesty’s soldiers. And, according to this definition, the Japanese would have been correct to denounce Chinese guerrillas in such words and, as well, the Nazis when they assailed the partisans of Eastern Europe and the Balkans during WWII. Marxists have never subscribed to such an idiotic definition of “terrorism”!

 

For Marxists, the key question is whether or not a given people are oppressed by another state. If such a national oppression takes place and if the oppressed rise up against the enemy state, acts of resistance – armed or unarmed – are legitimate. Tactical effectiveness, however, when considered from the standpoint of advancing the liberation struggle, is another matter entirely. The RCIT is opposed to the petty-bourgeois strategy of guerrillaism. We advocate methods that create the possibility of transforming the mass struggle into an armed uprising of the workers and oppressed. However, our opposition to the tactics of guerrillaism do not lead us to slander such guerrilla attacks as “terrorist”!

 

There can be no doubt that the Kashmiri people are oppressed by the Indian state. As a result, there has been an ongoing popular insurgency since 1989. Given the crisis of leadership many youth support petty-bourgeois nationalist and Islamist organizations like Jaish-e-Mohammad – the organization claiming responsibility for the Pulwama attack. But our rejection of the policies and ideology of such organizations does not lead us to deny the legitimacy of the liberation struggle in which such forces play a leading role.

 

It is also true that Jaish-e-Mohammad (or similar organizations) most likely have relations with sectors of the Pakistani security apparatus. But this does not alter the fact that these organizations have broad support among the Kashmiri people. They are not an artificial creation of the Pakistani state but a product of the resistance struggle against Indian occupation. It is often the case that a given petty-bourgeois guerrilla movement has links with a foreign state that is hostile to the domestic enemy. U.S. and British imperialism supported the Chinese liberation fighters against Japan as well as the partisans in Europe battling the Nazis during World War II. Did this eliminate the fact that these guerrilla forces had a legitimate and popular character? Definitely not! ^[14]

 

 

 

“Unite against terrorism” – Modi’s slogan taken up by the Left

 

 

 

It is hardly surprising that the Hindu-chauvinist Modi government tries to mobilize a “national consensus” against both “terrorism” and Pakistan. Every reactionary government today uses the “threat of terrorism” in order to whip up bourgeois patriotism. Every U.S. government has done so since 9/11; the Putin regime has issued a sustained appeal to the Russian public to close ranks against Chechen “terrorists”; the Chinese follow suit against the Uygur Muslim minority; the Israeli government conducts an ongoing campaign against the Palestinians, and President Duterte of the Philippines continuously assails the Maoist rebels, etc.

 

Authentic revolutionaries in India can have nothing in common with such reactionary patriotism. Unfortunately, however, certain so-called “Marxist” groups have capitulated to the wave of social-patriotism. The “Radical Socialist”, which is neither particularly radical nor socialist, expresses its “sympathies and condolences” with the families of the soldiers (but, characteristically, not with the family of Adil Ahmad Dar!): “The car bomb attack that has killed 40 CRPF soldiers is just such an act and deserves the strongest condemnation. As in all cases of terrorism our sympathies and condolences are with the loved ones, families, relatives and friends of the victims.” ^[15]

 

The CPIML (Liberation) is even worse. It fully joins the patriotic wave of “standing with our soldiers”. It not only sends party teams to the families of the soldiers but even organizes “candle marches ... to pay tributes to the soldiers”! It reports, in an article under the subtitle “CPIML Mourns Soldiers, Fights Hate”: “The CPIML organised several condolence meetings for Pulwama soldiers in different parts of the country. Candle marches were taken out in different states to pay tributes to the soldiers and a minute’s silence was observed in several party meetings and programmes. Party leaders in West Bengal and Bihar visited the bereaved families of the soldiers from the state. Condolence meetings were also organised in several places.” ^[16]

 

Authentic revolutionaries in India do not join such a pathetic “uniting the nation behind its army” charade! True, the individual soldier is not the real enemy – these are the generals and the ruling class. But it is ridiculous to present an army as acting as an occupation force in Kashmir as “victims”. Revolutionaries have to say that the best and most effective way to save the lives of soldiers is the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the Indian army from occupied Kashmir!

 

 

 

Calling for the unconditional withdrawal of Indian occupation troops?

 

 

 

But it is impossible to find such words in the copious statements of these parties published in the past weeks! Despite the obvious, oppressive character of the Indian occupation of Kashmir (a fact which even these revisionists cannot deny), these parties don’t manage to mutter more than a few liberal and pacifist phrases that: “hatred is bad” and “human rights should be respected”. But they do not even consider demanding in their statements the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Indian troops from occupied Kashmir. They refrain from calling for the national self-determination of the Kashmiri people and, included with that, the right to separate from India!

 

In contrast, the RCIT defends the Marxist position on the national question. Friedrich Engels expressed the evergreen sentiment: “A nation cannot become free and at the same time continue to oppress other nations.” ^[17]

 

Indian workers and oppressed cannot be free as long Kashmir (as well as other national minorities) remains occupied by the Indian state.

 

Lenin made it clear that revolutionaries have to understand the crucial difference between oppressed and oppressor people. In his speech on the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920 he stated: “First, what is the cardinal idea underlying our theses? It is the distinction between oppressed and oppressor nations. Unlike the Second International and bourgeois democracy, we emphasize this distinction.“ ^[18]

 

From this it follows that authentic Marxists – in contrast to the pseudo-Marxists – must actively champion the national liberation struggle of the oppressed people.

 

“Socialists cannot achieve their great aim without fighting against all oppression of nations. They must, therefore, unequivocally demand that the Social-Democratic parties of the oppressor countries (especially of the so-called “Great” Powers) should recognize and champion the oppressed nation’s right to self-determination, in the specifically political sense of the term, i.e., the right to political secession. The socialist of a ruling or a colonial nation who does not stand for that right is a chauvinist.” ^[19]

 

“The proletariat must struggle against the enforced retention of oppressed nations within the bounds of the given state, which means that they must fight for the right to self-determination. The proletariat must demand freedom of political separation for the colonies and nations oppressed by “their own” nation.” ^[20]

 

But, as a matter of fact, the organizations mentioned above do not utter such words in the present situation. They have succumbed, instead, to the chauvinist wave instigated by the Modi government.

 

 

 

Supporting national self-determination for Kashmir?

 

 

 

The “Radical Socialist” seems – but only seems – to approximate such a demand. They write: “The solution of Kashmir lies with the people of Kashmir, not with India and Pakistan. The people Kashmir on both sides must be the one who decided the fate of Kashmir. A consultative process from both sides must start now. The armies of both countries from both parts of Kashmir must be withdrawn. A civilian solution to a civilian issue must be ensured by the civilians and not by any army means or through a bunch of terrorists, state sponsored or otherwise. (...) There is no military solution of Kashmir.” ^[21]

 

This somewhat more sophisticated statement of the Mandelites blatantly avoids taking a consistent revolutionary position. First off, this statement repeats the bourgeois-pacifist nonsense that “military force is no solution.” What a mockery of history! Would it have been possible to get rid of Nazi fascism without violence?! Would the Vietnamese or the Korean peoples have been able to defeat U.S. imperialism without violence?! Would the Bangladeshi people have succeeded in winning freedom from Pakistan without violence?! One could name many more examples! Repeating such pacifist idiocy is nothing but an adaption to the liberal petty-bourgeoisie!

 

“Radical Socialist” also demands that “the armies of both countries from both parts of Kashmir must be withdrawn.” What does this mean concretely? It suggests that these Indian “Trotskyists” would only actively demand a withdrawal of the Indian army if simultaneously the Pakistani army does likewise. Since this is excluded for the foreseeable future, the “Radical Socialist” will not aggressively push for the withdrawal of the Indian army. ^[22]

 

And what is the meaning of the liberal pacifist gibberish about “a civilian solution”?! This is nothing but a denunciation of the armed resistance of the Kashmiri people and a reactionary equation of the Indian occupation army and Kashmiri “terrorists” (i.e. freedom fighters). This is the language of liberal academics and not of revolutionaries fighting for the cause of the working class and the oppressed people!

 

 

 

Calling upon the ruling classes of India and Pakistan to ensure peace?

 

 

 

Finally, it is absurd to see “Marxist” parties appealing to the ruling classes of India and Pakistan to “ensure lasting peace” and “step up diplomatic efforts to prevent terrorism”. Such wrote the CPI(ML)(Liberation): “A war between two nuclear-armed countries like India and Pakistan, however limited or short-lived, portends grave danger to the people of India, Pakistan, and the whole of South Asia. We, the people of India, do not want another Pulwama. Neither do we want another war between India and Pakistan. We therefore call upon the governments of India and Pakistan to exercise restraint, stop the situation from escalating and step up diplomatic efforts to prevent terrorism and war and ensure lasting peace across the India-Pakistan border. We appeal to the peace-loving people of both countries to reject the competitive jingoistic clamour in their respective media and strengthen the prospects of peace.” ^[23]

 

The ruling classes of both states have proven in the past decades (including three major wars) that they are neither willing nor able to “ensure lasting peace”. How can they “prevent terrorism” if they are themselves terrorist?! Just take the Indian state which has slaughtered an estimated 100,000 people in Kashmir since 1989! THIS is the real bona fide state “terrorism” operating in the region and cannot be morally equated to guerrilla operations against a brutal, sustained occupation!

 

The Mandelite “Radical Socialist” calls the reactionary Pakistani state to suppress organizations which are supportive of the Kashmiri guerrilla struggle: “Yes, the Pakistan government must in any case be pressured to take action against the JeM given its past history. (...) We welcome the ban on Jamata Dawa and Anjman Falahi Insaniat by the state of Pakistan. The state must break all open or hidden contacts with religious fundamentalist groups.” ^[24]

 

Such appeals to the Pakistani state (which is traditionally dominated by the army) to suppress these organizations reveal a thoroughly reformist logic. As Marxists we have no political sympathy for these Islamist organizations. But to encourage the authoritarian Pakistani state to increase repression against organizations that might be giving material aid to the legitimate liberation struggle in Kashmir is shameful! It is an adaptation to the pressure of chauvinist public opinion in India!

 

It is urgent that authentic revolutionaries in India fight against such revisionist capitulation to Hindu chauvinism. Revolutionaries must support the liberation struggle of oppressed nations – particularly if they are oppressed by their “own” ruling class!

 

We also call upon revolutionaries in the Mandelite “Fourth International” to publicly denounce such capitulators like “Radical Socialist”. It is a shame that their positions are publicly advertised on the official website of this “Fourth International”! An international organization that has such social patriots in its own ranks cannot legitimately claim adherence to Marxism and Trotskyism!

 

A revolutionary party – in India as well as internationally – can only be built in continuous struggle against all forms of revisionism and social patriotism. It can only be built on the basis of consistent internationalism and support for the liberation struggle of the workers and oppressed. Without this, an application of Trotsky’s strategy of permanent revolution is impossible!

 

 

 

The program of revolutionary defeatism is a combined strategy

 

 

 

As we have stated in our recently published declaration the RCIT advocates, in the India-Pakistan conflict, the Marxist program of revolutionary defeatism. This requires the application of Marxist program and the methods of class struggle to the terrain of anti-chauvinist and anti-militarist struggle. It is based on the axiom that the working class is an international class. As such, its interests are in sharpest contrast to those of the ruling classes in India and Pakistan. For these reasons workers must utilize every conflict their class enemy is involved in, in order to advance their interests and strengthen their fighting power.

 

However, we have always emphasized that revolutionary defeatism is a combined strategy. This means that it combines the revolutionary struggle against the reactionary bourgeoisie with support for all liberation struggles of the workers and oppressed people. The program of defeatism is either such a combined strategy or is not defeatist at all!

 

One might object that Pakistan’s military interferes in the Kashmir conflict. This is undoubtedly true. This does not negate the fact, however, that it is the oppression of the Kashmiri people by the Indian state that is the fundamental impulse of the popular struggle – and not the intrigues of Pakistan’s ISI.

 

The Marxist classics were fully aware of the fact that the bourgeoisie of an enemy state might try to utilize the national struggle in a given country. Lenin explained that in the epoch of imperialism reactionary powers will always try to interfere and exploit national and democratic conflicts. However, this fact should not lead Marxists to automatically adopt a defeatist instead of a revolutionary defencist position in such conflicts. Rather, the position taken by Marxists should depend on which factor becomes dominant – the national, democratic liberation struggle or the reactionary war of oppression.

 

“On the other hand, the socialists of the oppressed nations must, in particular, defend and implement the full and unconditional unity, including organisational unity, of the workers of the oppressed nation and those of the oppressor nation. Without this it is impossible to defend the independent policy of the proletariat and their class solidarity with the proletariat of other countries in face of all manner of intrigues, treachery and trickery on the part of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations persistently utilise the slogans of national liberation to deceive the workers; in their internal policy they use these slogans for reactionary agreements with the bourgeoisie of the dominant nation (for example, the Poles in Austria and Russia who come to terms with reactionaries for the oppression of the Jews and Ukrainians); in their foreign policy they strive to come to terms with one of the rival imperialist powers for the sake of implementing their predatory plans (the policy of the small Balkan states, etc.). The fact that the struggle for national liberation against one imperialist power may, under certain conditions, be utilised by another “great” power for its own, equally imperialist, aims, is just as unlikely to make the Social-Democrats refuse to recognise the right of nations to self-determination as the numerous cases of bourgeois utilisation of republican slogans for the purpose of political deception and financial plunder (as in the Romance countries, for example) are unlikely to make the Social-Democrats reject their republicanism.” ^[25]

 

Such an approach is not only valid for cases involving the interference of Great Powers but also applies to the current conflict in South Asia. In fact, there are a number of cases of semi-colonial capitalist states which suppress national minorities and where revolutionaries are obligated to support their liberation struggle – despite the fact that neighbouring states might try to utilize such conflicts for their own interest. Such are, for example, the Kurdish minorities in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria ^[26]; the Rohingya in Myanmar ^[27]; Thailand’s Muslim minority in the Malay Patani Region; the Eritrean people in Ethiopia until 1991, etc.

 

Likewise, we can see in South Asia that foreign states repeatedly tried to utilize such conflicts for their own advantage. This has been the case in the liberation war of Bangladesh against the Pakistani state. ^[28] And as Pakistan supports Kashmiri insurgents against the Indian state, the latter supports Balochi rebels against the Pakistan army. However, again, the Indian interference does not also negate the progressive and legitimate character of the national liberation struggle of the Balochi people.

 

We therefore repeat that it is crucial for revolutionaries in India to combine a defeatist position in the conflict with Pakistan with support for the national liberation struggle of the Kashmiri people. Authentic revolutionaries who reject any form of social patriotism should unite their efforts to build a revolutionary party in Kashmir, Pakistan, India and internationally. Only such a party can lead the liberation struggle of the working class and the oppressed people to victory! The RCIT and its Pakistani section call upon revolutionaries to join us in building such a party!