The Indian Constitution was drawn up by the Constituent Assembly. The whole process was steered by Dr. Ambedkar. This essentially reflects the values of the epic Indian freedom struggle - which had in turn been informed with, inter alia, the intellectual achievements of occidental civilisation - of which Nehru was a, but only one of quite a few, front ranking leaders. Dr. Ambedkar was no part of it. His services were coopted by the Congress - the principal vehicle of the freedom struggle, despite history of mutual bitterness, in recognition of his erudition and stellar role in the undertaken emancipation of those at the bottom of the caste ladder and thereby oppressed and humilated for centuries.
There was and still remains a large gap between the Constitutional values and the values of the proverbial person on the street. Dr. Ambedkar had explicitly and specifically underlined this gap and issued cautionary notes, while discharging his role in steering the Constitution. Bridging that gap is an ongoung stuggle, with its ups and downs. Right now, we're really faced with a very tough situation. The problem was well acknowledged. As regards intellectual achievements of the Inidians, even if we disregard the Taj Mahal etc. or Harappan civilisation or Kalidasa or Upanishads and the likes, it's back in 1913, an Indian was awarded the Nobel Prize, in literature - as a representative of the ancient Orient. The British rule, obviously predatory and oppressive in nature, had, of course, opened up a new vista of knowledge etc. The epic freedom movement itself, very much unlike its predecessor - the 1857 revolt, as has been acknowledge above, was informed with the values picked up from the West. Sukla On 06/05/2018, Xavier William <[email protected]> wrote: > The different stages of man's socio-economic evolution are reasonably well > explained in the bestseller Third Wave by Alvin Toffler. > In the primitive state violence reigned supreme and might was right. In the > agrarian state kings and emperors reigned and violence was even more > pronounced and arable land was the main ingredient of production. But with > the industrial revolution capital was power. Marx came at the initial stage > of the industrial revolution when land was still the main factor of > production though capital was also making its mark. > Communism was supposed to be backlash against capitalism. Instead in > Russia, China, Cuba etc it was about land and agriculture. What is more for > capitalism/industrialization, knowledge workers and specialists were also > necessary. Communism turned on these knowledge workers and tortured them in > Russia, China, Cuba etc. But the most violent reaction against knowledge > workers was in Cambodia where teachers, doctors etc were massacred. > I have said that in the agrarian age might was right whereas in the > industrial age money or capital is power. It was in a scenario of > transition from the agrarian age to the industrial age that Marx formulated > his theories of communism based on proletarian supremacy which in turn is > based on numbers or quantity of workers. But now things have gone on to the > digital age where human resources or quality of workers are the main factor > of production. Now value addition and knowledge is power as against > violence and money in the past when Das Capital was written. So Das Capital > is as relevant to the modern age as the Bible or the Vedas which were > relevant to agrarian societies are relevant to the industrial age. > We are evolving biologically, culturally, economically etc. In the course > of our biological evolution many of our organs became irrelevant like the > appendix. These are called vestigial organs. Similarly slavery, caste etc > were institutions of the agrarian age which became vestigial with > industrialization. In like manner communism which was formulated in an age > where capital was the prime mover for production is now vestigial. With the > modern digital age which Toffler called the third wave, capital has lost > its clout in the face of knowledge and the quality of human resources and > consequently communism is growing more and more irrelevant . > > On 6 May 2018 at 02:58, Eddie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Vijay & Leftword Books, >> >> *Leftword Books rightly celebrate Marx’s great legacy but I am not quite >> sure how relevant it is to India.* >> I’d welcome your views in the matter. If anyone can clarify, it is you. >> >> Poor India has always been intellectually weak, too wrapped up in its >> gods >> and godmen. >> *Virtually every Indian facility & institution has been put in place by >> the British:* infrastructure, the State, admin, educational & legal >> systems, Parliamentary system (complete with two Houses & Speaker), army, >> etc >> Nehru transplanted the British democratic system but was not bright >> enough >> to adapt it to Indian conditions such as the rigid caste system. The >> British were good enough to ban the barbaric Hindu practices, SATI >> (burning >> of widows but not widowers) and THUGEE (murdering wayfarers to propitiate >> some goddess Kali) but they left caste alone to use it for their own >> advantage. >> >> Indians seem unable to generate their own ideas; they have got this habit >> of latching on to ideas and political ideologies of others. The Brits >> were >> generous enough to educate a set of Indians in England and introduce them >> to new ideas. Some of them, Dr Ambedkar, in particular, decided to draft >> a >> European-type document called a state Constitution. As the Indians had no >> experience of governance, they fished around for European material. >> Ambedkar largely picked on the India Government Act (1935) and, together >> with a few other Euro documents, drafted the Indian Constitution in >> English. >> In due course, a pompous Preamble was attached: >> >> [image: PREAMBLE to CONSTITUTION] >> Do Indians speak or understand this kind of English? In fact, at >> independence Indian literacy rate was just 12 %. >> That Indians have to accept a document with borrowed contents & written >> in >> a foreign language does suggest a national inferiority, doesn’t it? Note >> the use of very European concepts : *sovereign, socialist, secular, >> democratic, republic* completely alien to Indian thought. What is a >> native of the cowbelt (UP, MP, Bihar etc) to make of these terms? Yogi, >> semi-literate CM of UP would be alienated, not impressed. >> Next, Indians drawn to socialism were unable to construct a native brand. >> Indian Communists opted for foreign brands, either Marxist or Maoists. >> I notice you focus on Marxism but have little or nothing to say about >> Maoism. *Socialist Worker *explains the difference: >> >> >> Unlike classical Marxism as developed by the Russian revolutionaries >> Lenin >> and Trotsky, in which the [European] urban working class was seen as the >> main source of revolution, Mao focused on the peasantry as the >> revolutionary force and the model was based on the Chinese Communist >> rural >> insurgency of the 1920s and 1930s, which eventually brought the Communist >> Party of China to power in the late 1940s. In Marxism, the core players >> were not the peasants but workers. >> [European] socialists give priority to the urban working class. That is >> because workers have a collective response to social injustice and >> oppression, and so tend to develop a collective consciousness. The >> peasantry, in contrast, tends to develop individualist responses, usually >> around the demand for land. >> Marxists argue that large scale industrial development is a positive >> insofar as it creates a force that has collectivity as its centre – the >> working class. Maoism, on the other hand, tends to make rural development >> the priority as a strategy for national liberation. Maoism focuses first, >> on national liberation, then later in the future, on social revolution. >> Whereas, workers in towns and cities would prefer to see social change as >> the key priority now. In China, Mao's strategy was essential during the >> early stages in a country where most of the people were peasants. >> Maoists believe the peasantry can be mobilised to undertake a “people’s >> war” of armed struggle involving guerrilla warfare >> ----------------------------------------- >> Do you agree with this? I’d be grateful for for your clarifications. >> >> Eddie >> ============================================ >> >> From: LeftWord Books >> Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2018 1:15 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Karl Marx, Going Strong at 200 >> >> "No question that Marx’s analysis . . . provides a u seful analytical >> framework to understand our more complex capitalism – a capitalism that >> spans the globe, one that has withdrawn investment from industrial >> production to finance and a virtual economy. . . . Almost a billion >> people >> cannot find work that sustains them, while those who have work find their >> humanity broken by their jobs. Profits race to the rich, who have ceased >> to >> pay taxation . . . . Social wealth, which should provide social goods, is >> now protected by security services and the Law as private wealth. Gated >> communities are the mirror image of the slums. All of this is anticipated >> and developed in the theorems of Marx’s massive oeuvre. It is what we >> read >> and re-read in order to better understand the harsh world that has become >> harsher since his death and that we read and re-read to develop our own >> antithesis to capitalism." >> >> *LeftWord Books* Chief Editor Vijay Prashad pays tribute to the most >> outstanding revolutionary theorist of the modern era. >> -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
