CHAOS IN NATION FORMATION: CASE OF PUNJAB
T.G. Jacob
Odyssey, 1990
Pb; pp. 218
Why and when do we say that a particular book is worth reading? Obviously different persons will treat the question differently, depending on different points of view. But surely one possible point of view is to ask whether the particular book has anything to say, whether what it has to say is said well, in a reasoned manner etc. Over and above, if the book is of a controversial and/or provocative character that may be taken as a bonus. In short, in considering the worth of a book, the question of agreement or disagreement with the author is neither here nor there, the real point being whether it makes the reader think.
The present reviewer’s approach to the work under review becomes clear from the above prefatory remarks. Few will differ when it is said that the Punjab problem has been the biggest and hardest faced by the Indian state since 1947. More properly it may be made clear that the problem that is Punjab really stems from the revolt of a section of the Sikhs who are not prepared to stop at anything in their quest for a state order of their liking. It is no wonder that there are wide differences of opinion as regards the diagnosis, the prognosis and the suitable treatment of the malady affecting Punjab and the Indian state. Here is a work which deals with this in a thorough manner, though naturally from a particular point of view but with plenty of logic and punch. It is a work that deserves to be read widely and pondered over deeply. Therefore, instead of trying to provide a summary account as per the usual practice no such summary account can take the place of a through reading of the entire work—it is proposed to raise a few questions to indicate the kind of reaction it produces or is likely to produce, questions that may just perhaps find an echo in the minds of others going through the work.
To begin with, one cannot help feeling that the work is somewhat overtaken by events that have developed thick and fast over the last couple of years. While this affects the wider background of theory in the context of which the author has arranged what he has to say, there are questions regarding the latter as well. “The basic premise is that present-day India is multi-national in character and the unity existing now is neither organically developed nor voluntary.” While the idea is not entirely new, it raises points which have not been met. Thus, we are entitled to know the definition of the key term nation and a list of the nations that comprise India. Again, we may also want to know what makes a people into a nation. We have been told that there are some elements at work behind the formation of a nation but that none of these elements can be regarded as really essential, nor is nation an automatic end product of a summation of all the elements. Indeed, it appears that most pundits are inclined to the view that a people become a nation if and when they believe firmly to be so.
Secondly, accepting for the sake of argument the ‘basic premise,’ the point becomes that a struggle for dominance among the different national groups may be said to be natural and then the question is, which national group or groups is or are in power at present? How have they managed to capture power and how do they manage to continue? In other words, the question of identification becomes urgent.
Thirdly, here the class approach comes very handy but that also does not answer all the questions. It is said that a coalition of the dominant economic classes of several national groups has managed to capture power and is using all means and methods to maintain, preserve and extend, if possible, such power, then it will have to be explained and explained convincingly why the dominant economic class in Punjab, or more correctly, the dominant economic class among the Sikh people, is not allowed to join the ruling coalition, especially when it is clear that the ruling coalition is certain to acquire more strength and stability as a result of such a joining up and when on the other sie there is a clear risk of the goose that lays golden eggs being killed.
Fourthly, the ruling group has been characterized as Hindu and Brahminical, that is, the dimensions of community and caste have been added. While it may be too much to say that all the elements—national, class, caste and community—just cannot be harmoniously integrated into a self-consistent theory, certainly there is no evidence that the author has been successful in dovetailing the various disparate elements into coherence.
Fifthly, it is really amazing to see that the so-called national struggle of the Sikhs is discussed at such great lengths but with little or no reference to the spate of senseless, mindless killings indulged in by those who are supposed to be trying to set up a national state, which is at the same time a ‘holy order.’ Of course, the employment of terror or killing is supposed to be a natural part of a national liberation movement at its early, immature stage. Even then, the moot point remains whether the kind of killing that is resorted to is justified morally or ideologically. It also remains a fact that while the force and violence employed by the state deserve to be and in fact are condemned by almost one and all, the same cannot be said about the equally reprehensible means and methods of the other side.
And an allied question relates to the issue of Pakistani help provided to those fighting against the Indian state. It can be said categorically that Pakistani help and connivance cannot explain everything, at the same time it can be and should be said equally categorically that such help and connivance are undeniable facts to deny which indicates a sad lack of intellectual and moral honesty, to say the least.
Sixthly, the author has given us a lucid analysis of the Anandapur Sahib resolution, which clearly brings out its internal contradictions, its backward-looking social-cultural outlook etc. But one feels there should have been a copy of the said resolution, which not only has at least three versions but may be interpreted as predominantly an attempt by a self-appointed group to capture almost uncontrolled power in the name of religion and caring little for the weak and the dispossessed and the oppressed.
Seventhly and finally, in the context of a proliferation of Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist, Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist, and what not parties in the country, the author has done us a service through his clear exposition of the positions of these various parties on the question at hand, an exposition that brings out clearly, in the light of historical analysis, the numerous shifts which are shown predominantly to be products of wrong understanding of theory, of the objective situation, of wrong application of theory and also of less honourable factors like the desire to resort to shortcuts and have a share of the pie. In fact, the author thinks the entire left stand has been riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and also influenced by communal and caste considerations.
While on the point of the stand adopted by the left, another point, rather sensitive and of a somewhat tangential nature, may be made. The author is severely critical of the stands adopted by the various Marxist groups, but himself unmistakably belongs to the same brand of thinking. That is why it become pertinent to question the validity or correctness or appropriateness in the present circumstances of that line of thinking. Not that the line of thinking cannot provide any explanation, but how can one deny that it is no longer possible, or one may even say permissible, to look upon this line of thinking as an infallible aid to solve all problems. And of late the point has been brought home by reality which refuses to be brushed aside. If the establishment of the first Marxist state in the world is the most important event of the twentieth century, certainly the next most important event is its disintegration like a house of cards after a life span of three quarters of a century. For explaining such a momentous development is it enough to blame that “bastard of imperialism”, Gorbachev, the CIA etc.? Distortions in practice, aberrations of one or more individuals—can there be a satisfactory explanation in these terms alone? Does not intellectual and moral honesty—supposed to be the greatest value for those dedicated to revolution—require a fresh, a deep, hard and critical look at the theory or philosophy itself? Indeed, to deny that the rather impressive edifice is today in shambles and a beginning has to be made from the scratch again, may be temporarily satisfying to the severely shocked ego, but does not in the least help in the painful necessity of coming to terms with the reality around.
Nevertheless, when all is said and done, I still stick to the view that it is a book worth reading for the simple reason that it provokes thinking. And I may call upon that old-fashioned liberal John Stuart Mill in my support when in spite of my numerous doubts and misgivings I plead for the widest circulation of the work in question because I still find value in his assertion that no thinking mind should rest content with received truth, that all truths should constantly be made to undergo a contest, that “there are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realised until personal experience has brought it home.”
[Review by Biswanath Banerjee in the journal Society and Change, 8 (1), 1992]