The political framework of the left wing has been historically shaped up to dream of and struggle for an “inevitable revolution”. Their philosophy nourishes an ideological optimism, which is sometimes contrary to their realistic approach, and challenges the credibility of their worldview. From the era, when the world beheld the assertion of ‘communism in 20 years’, to the day, when we see the implementation of an incongruous rhetoric of ‘social-capitalism’, the left has generally been disappointing.
In our region too, we have seen the leftists taking various positions, quite contradictory to their perceived narrative. Take the issue of the Partition, for instance. The Communist Party of India had supported the demand for a separate religious state just because of Stalin’s ambiguous definition of a ‘nation’. In the growth of the Muslim League, the CPI did not see the growth of religious-communalism but the rise of ‘anti-imperialist consciousness’ in Muslim masses. Consequently, many Muslim cadres of the CPI had joined the Muslim League and diverted their revolutionary energies in propagating the idea of Pakistan, a land they anticipated to be free from the exploitation of ‘Hindu moneylenders and landlords’. It didn’t take a lot of time for their futuristic illusion to be shattered.
In the 1960s, when the communists in Pakistan were divided between pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese fractions, like their counterparts in the world – they, once again, took strange sides. That was the time when Pakistan, under Ayub Khan’s dictatorship, had started flirting with China because of their common enmity with India. Ironically, the Maoist fraction in Pakistan typically saw India as a formidable foe just because of Sino-Indian war and Pakistani establishment’s allegiance for the People’s Republic of China. The establishment’s adherence for China, despite being notoriously anti-communist, emerged from the Sino-Indian conflict itself. While being pro-Moscow was considered as unpatriotic in Pakistan, being pro-Beijing wasn’t. Both fractions decided their moves, what they referred to as ‘tactics’, according to the international political scenario, most notably the Cold War, rather than the local situation.
Later, during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, the leftists – outside the radical horizon of the National Awami Party and the pro-Soviet fraction, started siding with the populist People’s Party; hence, they couldn’t objectively analyze the oppression of the Bengali masses. Bhutto’s s blend of radical rhetoric borrowed from the leftist jargon and the hollow slogans of ‘Islamic Socialism’ attracted several trade unionists – mostly from the Maoist background, leftist intellectuals and youth to the People’s Party. Thus, a significant fragment of Pakistani left completely failed to recognize the democratic victory of Awami League in the 1970 general elections and the right of self-determination of Bangali masses; this failure led them to support the bloody civil war, imposed by the establishment of West Pakistan on East Pakistan. Interestingly, Pakistan gained support from both China and the US during the war. The Sino-Pakistan courtship was seen by the US with apprehension, but its strategic concern to counter Soviet influence in South Asia suggested that the emerging relation between China and Pakistan could be exploited to achieve that goal.
Even today, a particular brand of Pakistani leftists – not all of them – is indulged in premature and idealistic analyses of critical issues such as Islamic radicalization. Our insignificant left is majorly divided over the issues of religious fundamentalism and the war on terror. While the viewpoint that Islamic terrorist forces were originated by the United States as a Cold War tactic is shared by a majority of leftists, there are still others who have a soft corner for the former in the ongoing battle against the latter. The notion that the Taliban are some sort of ‘rural, poor, Pashtun workers, struggling for the betterment of their material conditions, while battling US imperialism’ is no less than some bizarre political joke from the Cold War era which glorified the mujahedeen just because they were resisting the Red Army.
It is surprising to see several self-proclaimed Marxists considering these Islamo-Fascists as some sort of anti-imperialist radical force of our time. They fail to recognize the difference between Islamists’ anti-Americanism, a prejudice against a country and its people – in isolation of its economy – and the leftist theory of anti-imperialism, an intellectual resistance against the global hegemony of capitalism.
Most of these left intellectuals refer to themselves as ‘internationalists’ and are based in western countries. Some veterans, including Tariq Ali, even left the country during the 60s and the 70s and hardly visit home. Yet, they are seen as experts on Pakistan and their confused opinion on these matters is appreciated with great respect.
Furthermore, we have several smaller leftist groups and parties who don’t hesitate even a little bit declaring the religious militants as self-styled revolutionaries. For instance, an international Trotskyist tendency in Pakistan has similar views about the Taliban whose opposition of the US gives them a hope against western imperialism. One of its activists shared his opinion on this,
“Our educated middle class did not fight ruling class’s oppression and did not champion the cause of the rural and urban poor. In such a vacuum, another segment of society mustered the courage to fight back the ruling class and took up the cause of Pashtun rural poor, under religious symbols and language, but actually for its material interests and championing due share in economic and political power for the under-privileged and excluded Pashtun lower classes.”
Many new leftists even see Malala’s appraisal by the UN as ‘white-man’s burden’ and ‘capitalist propaganda’. Some of them even have some preconceived notions about the ‘justice system of the Taliban’. A Pakistani Marxist - a doctoral candidate in Canada – said, “The Taliban have often fought against Khans (feudal lords) and have established quick justice systems. Are those objectively in the interests of subordinated classes? Of course they are.”
If one starts seeing through their prism, the situation would seem quite revolutionary in Pakistan: ‘The poor, downtrodden, workers and peasants, long suffering under neo-colonial and neo-liberal oppression, have begun getting united. The proletarians and rural peasantry of FATA and KP have identified the ugly face of US imperialism and are marching forward to overthrow its tyranny. Our armed comrades in the tribal areas are aware that the West lives on the sweat and blood of the East. So what if their language and symbolism is religious, their objectives are very material and they’re fighting for social equity. The Pakistani bourgeoisie, liberals and far-leftists support the war on terror because they oppose the people’s resistance against imperialism. Pakistan is ripe for a people’s revolution.’
This mindset is not very different from the ludicrous thinking of the Indian Maoists who used to refer to the Pakistani military dictator Ayub Khan as ‘comrade’ just because of his ‘comradeship’ with Chairman Mao!
Indeed, it is political idiocy to consider Taliban as a nationalist-reactionary force waging a war against imperialism. Both prevailing narratives, that if you oppose either the US or Taliban, you support the other, are nothing but a logical fallacy. The left needs to oppose both if they want to change anything at all.
After spending the last seven years in the left-wing circles as an activist, I believe that only leftists have ever understood our society fully. And they got it wrong.
Ammar Aziz