By Dr. Sawraj Singh
Indian thought laid the foundation of Eastern thought and also forms its climax. Relativism and pluralism are hallmarks of Indian philosophy. Marxism got tilted toward western absolutism in the beginning because of prevailing circumstances at that time, when newly emerging science was heavily tilted toward absolutism. Eastern relativism and pluralism could have corrected this tilt. However, Indian Marxists never deeply studied Indian philosophy. As a result of this, their knowledge of Indian philosophy was very superficial and shallow. They could not appreciate superiority and greatness of eastern relativist and pluralist philosophy as compared to absolutist western philosophy.
Unlike Chinese communists, Indian Marxists never tried to learn correct lessons from Indian history and Indian philosophy. They never tried to modify Marxism according to Indian conditions, and tried to apply Marxism to Indian society mechanically. The result was that Marxism could not take deep roots in India. Marxism in India never truly became a mass movement, and it mostly remained an elitist philosophy mainly confined to academic or political elite. Marxism was never able to build a true mass base in India.
The essence of Indian thought is pluralism, and the hallmark of today’s capitalist globalization is uniformity. Globalization is trying to make everybody a consumer who follows its consumer culture. Indian thought always promotes diversity. There were six shastras (Indian schools of philosophy) which coexisted. Hindu religion was never uniform. There were followers of Shiva, Vishnu and Maha Kali and many other deities. Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the climax of Indian thought, is a great advocate of pluralism. Sri Guru Granth Sahib defines eternal truth or ultimate reality as being one. However, there can be different ways to realize this. Therefore, while Dharma is universal, Panth or Margs (meaning Way) can be different.
Today, the main struggle in the world is between uniformity and pluralism. Consumer culture of globalization wants to finish all other cultures. Different cultures are struggling to maintain their independent existence. This is the main cause of turmoil in the world today. Out of all other cultures, Islamic culture is facing the biggest conflict with consumer culture of the west. Islamic culture can be called counter-culture to western consumer culture.
Many Indian Marxists continue to deny this new role of culture in globalization, and continue to believe that economics plays the central role in modern capitalist society, and culture is just a super-structure manifestation of economic infrastructure without its own independent existence. This outlook puts them in the camp of uniformity rather than pluralism. They are objectively siding with globalization rather than opposing it. However, diversity is natural whereas uniformity is unnatural. Globalization and its supporters are in a conflict with nature. Man can coexist with nature but cannot win against nature. Therefore, sooner or later these people will realize that they are on the losing side.
Many Marxists in India were under the wrong impression that first, India should develop as a capitalist society, only then a socialist resolution could be brought to India. Therefore, they had to support leaders like Nehru and a party like the Congress party. On the other hand, Chinese communists developed their own theory for bringing revolution in China. The Chinese communists succeeded, while the Indian communists could never become a significant force in India and were marginalized. In Punjab, the same thing happened. Many communists believed that the Green Revolution, with its capitalist mode of production, was a good thing for Punjab. These communists do not want to accept the fact that there was a successful peasant revolution in Punjab under the leadership of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur. In both these situations, they made mistakes because of their adulation for western thought and their disdain for the Indian thought. The disastrous consequences of the Green Revolution for Punjab are now apparent.
Many Marxists have not understood the difference between Religion and Dharma. Dharma is an eastern concept with no equivalent in the west. It is a multi-dimensional concept with ethics as its main component. If Marx had known the difference, then he would have clarified that he did not mean to criticize Dharma. However, many Marxists continue to criticize Dharma because they have never deeply studied Indian thought. Many Indian Marxists continue to promote the Freudian concept of mind without realizing the fact that the concept of mind in Sri Guru Granth Sahib is much wider and more elaborate. I always make this point in my lecture “Concept of mind in Guru Granth Sahib.”
In a way, many Indian Marxists have disinherited themselves from the rich Indian heritage. Similarly, many Marxists in Punjab have disassociated themselves from their Sikh heritage. They have also helped in pushing the Jatt-Sikh community away from its Sikh heritage. This phenomenon has done tremendous damage to Punjab by inciting Ujjadwad (Anti-intellectualism). Some people call it Jattwad(Jatt Chauvinism). However, I feel that this is not caste related, but is the result of depriving people of what is best in their heritage.
I feel that once Indian Marxists deeply study Indian thought, they will better understand where they have gone wrong and will have a more useful purpose by serving the people.
Dr. Sawraj Singh, MD F.I.C.S. is the Chairman of the Washington State Network for Human Rights and Chairman of the Central Washington Coalition for Social Justice. He can be reached at [email protected].
