A Tragic Tale of Regression into Bundist Nationalism, National Chauvinism and Trotskyism In the Name of Contemplation on Marxism and National Question
Shivani
Recently a new tendency has raised its head within the movement which has exhibited a strange amalgamation of two dangerous deviations against which Lenin had waged an uncompromising struggle throughout his lifetime: Bundist Nationalism and Trotskyiism. Last year, a detailed written critique of this Trot-Bundist position had been presented. We are sharing here only select few excerpts from this critique for the readers of ‘Anvil’ owing to paucity of space. Interested readers can read the entire critique which has been published by Rahul Foundation in Hindi and Punjabi; English edition will be published soon. – Editor
Some Preliminary Fundamental Points
Pratibadh’s article not only whimsically and capriciously misinterprets the classical Marxist position on the national question, but also presents the propositions in the Marxist writings by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Kautsky, et al out of context. Moreover, the article takes a very muddled and confused position on the national question. It tries, in vain, to run away from the main points of contention, viz. what is the national question, what constitutes national oppression, in what way is Punjab an oppressed nation, etc. They have also said that our terming them “suffering from nationalist and linguistic identitarian deviation” results from our class reductionism, as our apathy towards the national question, and as our prioritizing of only “workers’ issues” and “education and employment issues”. Truth be told, we were not expecting any different reply!
Because taking the correct Marxist position on the national question is not merely an academic exercise, but is directly linked to the program of the proletarian revolution, hence, any illusory, chimerical, abstract, and ethereal position will take you to equally illusory, chimerical, abstract, and ethereal conclusions, as can be seen from Sukhwinder’s article.
More importantly, such an ethereal discourse will not only cause ideological errors in the formulation of a concrete program and political demands pertaining to national question as well as the concrete practical tasks arising out of these, but will also take one towards an absolutely incorrect political line. In his article, Sukhwinder has reduced the national question, and national oppression, at least as far as Punjab is concerned, to cultural-linguistic oppression, and termed it national oppression. We will, in our critique, demonstrate how this position is a negation of the Marxist Leninist position, a deviation from this position, and in its essence, is a Bundist, cultural-national autonomist, and Trotskyist position.
We have stated above that Sukhwinder, in his article, instead of positively asserting his position, has resorted to negatively state it. What the writer is bent on proving is as follows: (1) the national question can exist without the colonial question; (2) the national question can exist in the absence of the agrarian question/land question; (3) the national question can exist without the existence of a single dominant nation; and (4) nations can be oppressed even without the oppression of the bourgeoisie.
We will, first of all, focus on these propositions, as the main motive of his article is to prove them. We will show how these propositions govern all the arguments in his article. Sukhwinder, at the beginning of the article itself, without explicitly saying so, declares what he wants to prove through this article. He wants to prove through this, and perhaps other upcoming articles (he has said that upcoming issues of ‘Pratibadh’ will publish articles on ‘The national question in India’ and ‘The national question in Punjab’.) that Punjab is an oppressed nation, an oppressed nation where neither the colonial question, nor the agrarian/land question exists, and where there is no oppressed bourgeoisie either. That is why, when he talks of the “unresolved national question” in India, when speaking of the national oppression of Kashmir and the North-East, he points to the militarization and the liberation struggles of those nations. But when he speaks of the “unresolved” national question in “mainland” India (mainly, Punjab!), he characterizes national oppression thus:
Therefore, various nationalities residing here are being crushed under the wheel of oppression. The Constitution claims India has a federal structure but the tendency of Indian ruling class has always been towards a unitary structure. Sometimes brazenly and often through shrouded attempts, Hindi is imposed on various nationalities residing in India. Provision of school instruction in various national languages is frequently prohibited, their schools are closed. (Sukhwinder, ‘National Question and Marxism’, Pratibadh-33)
That is, according to Sukhwinder, in “mainland” India, the “unsolved” national question takes the following form: linguistic oppression and disregard of the federal structure.
How puerile this reasoning is, and how ugly a distortion of the classical Marxist position on the national question this position is, can be seen here itself. Now you can understand why the writer came to the conclusions that have been listed above. Evidently, this is being done to prove Punjab to be an oppressed nation. This is also being done because classical Marxist texts clearly state that the national question is nothing but the existence of national oppression, and national oppression exists only if the oppressed nation has the colonial question (in other words, the question of territorial annexation or colonization of the oppressed nation) and the existence of an oppressed bourgeoisie, or the agrarian question and the existence of an oppressed bourgeoisie, as in the case of semi-feudal semi-colonial nations. If none of these two conditions exist, we cannot talk of national oppression. The most important factor, which is present in every instance of national oppression, is the oppression of the bourgeoisie. National oppression can exist in this form and in this form alone. An oppressed nation means nothing but that the bourgeoisie of that nation is oppressed by the ruling classes of a dominant nation/s, and does not have an independent political existence of its own; whether it wages a struggle against this oppression or not and whether it steps into the national movement against this oppression radically or not is an entirely different matter. Whether it takes a radically anti-colonial or anti-imperialist position, or whether it is at all able to take such a position bears no relation to the question of whether it is oppressed or not oppressed.
Especially, in the era of imperialism, the task of a national democratic revolution transgresses the bounds of the bourgeois democratic revolution, and hence, generally, the national bourgeoisie becomes a vacillating ally in taking the task of national liberation to its culmination, and many a times refrains from doing so, because it is afraid of a proletarian uprising. In such cases, the middle and small bourgeoisie, and the entire peasantry shoulder the role of the national bourgeoisie, as Lenin and Mao have said, and as we too will demonstrate further in this piece. Whenever this national bourgeoisie gets terrified of a proletarian and peasant uprising, it starts entering into bargains and compromises with the bourgeoisie of the oppressor nation. This does not mean that it is not an oppressed bourgeoisie. We will also demonstrate this, along with references, in this article.
This only means that in the era of imperialism, the bourgeoisie becomes incapable of even completing the task of a national democratic revolution radically and through a consistent democratic method, and the proletariat should also assume leadership of this task, and allying with the peasantry, petty bourgeoisie, and the most radical and revolutionary elements of national bourgeoisie, should accomplish the task of the peoples’ democratic revolution. Yet, even if the national bourgeoisie shows such a vacillating behaviour, it does not mean that it is not oppressed. At least the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist position says so. Now, in his effort to prove the national oppression of Punjab, if Sukhwinder is formulating a new theorization of the national question, then it is a different matter altogether. There is nothing wrong in doing this, only that he should say so in no uncertain terms, and also demonstrate that the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist position on this question is erroneous. In order to prove his assumptions correct, he should not distort Marxist-Leninist theory, should not trim and truncate it, nor resort to revising Marxist theory instead of changing his incorrect perception.
Coming to India, the oppressed nations of Kashmir and the North East have been annexed/colonized by the Indian State by force. The bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie of these nations have been oppressed. That is why there has been the national oppression of these nations, and the national question there is yet to be resolved. Needless to say, this national oppression begins with the economic and political oppression of the national bourgeoisie, and then expands to the oppression of the entire nation, and linguistic oppression, or the suppression of political rights emanate from this national oppression, which are faced by the working masses of these oppressed nations as well. This is always the character of political oppression. Like there cannot exist a ‘nation’ unless a certain extent of capitalist development, and the existence of a bourgeoisie, similarly, there cannot be an oppressed nation without an oppressed bourgeoisie. In other words, the concept of national oppression without the oppression of the bourgeoisie is unfounded.
Marxists-Leninists-Maoists all across the world know this fact, as we shall show, citing their works. We are forced to repeat such a basic point again and again because either the writer of Pratibadh’s article is unable to grasp such a fundamental concept or else is purposefully feigning ignorance. It does not matter that the territories of India and these nations (Kashmir and nations of the North-East) are contiguous. It is not that a colony or an occupation is considered a colony or an occupation only if it is far away or across seven seas. Ireland and Poland are cases in point. This makes no difference to national question, as Lenin had shown, and we, too, shall show, citing his works. Kashmir and the states of the North East, too, are regions colonized by the Indian state. Therefore, Pratibadh’s author will have to demonstrate how the national question is unresolved, generally in “mainland” India, and especially in Punjab, in this context. Lenin had said that national oppression implies keeping a nation, against its own will, forcibly within the bounds of another state, irrespective of whether their territories are contiguous, or one territory has historically been a part of the other, or the two are separated by seas. We will cite quotes on this later in the article.
Remember that we are talking of nations here, not minority nationalities. Everyone from Lenin to Mao has differentiated between the two, and we, too, must differentiate between the two politically and scientifically. Nations have a territorial character, whether it be a small nation or a big one, like Punjab, or Kashmir, or Maharashtra, or North Eastern states, etc. Minority nationalities are those which do not have any territoriality. For example, Jews in Europe, Italians in Switzerland, Puerto Ricans in the USA, etc. all are minority nationalities. The Italians in Switzerland cannot demand an independent nation of their own, they cannot demand for the right to self-determination. The Kashmiri population that has settled anywhere else in mainland India cannot demand for self-determination wherever they have settled, because there they are a minority nationality, not a nation capable of forming a state, which has the right to self-determination. Such nationalities struggle mainly for the demands of a consistent democracy, political equality, and linguistic rights.
It is imperative to understand that the national question can exist only in this form. National oppression is a political concept; it is linked to the arena of political democracy. Any other definition of national oppression, any sort of culturalization or etherealization of national oppression, is not only anti-Marxist, but also signifies a dangerous outlook towards the real struggles of the oppressed nations, and will ultimately take you towards revisionist and reformist conclusions.
Sukhwinder has called us class-reductionist, and said,
“…They don’t take a bold stand for the independence of Kashmir and nationalities of North-east; limiting themselves to mere lip-service”; reject national questions, sing the tune of the rulers of Delhi on national questions, are insensitive towards national feelings, etc. (sic. Sukhwinder, op. sit.)
These are serious allegations, and if they are true, then he should have demonstrated, with references and arguments, where exactly we have taken a class reductionist stance on the national question. That we do not consider Punjab to be an oppressed nation does not mean that we reject the existence of the national question or national oppression entirely. Moreover, it is he who has to prove Punjab to be an oppressed nation, not us! However, regrettably all his hard work in the article seems to be a rather futile attempt toward this end. On the contrary, we will, in our critique, proceed to show how ‘Pratibadh’ author’s “over-enthusiastic” attitude on national issues is only reserved for Punjab, and is not only anti-Marxist, but is also rife with extreme Punjabi bourgeois national chauvinist deviation.
There are no parallels in any state or nations in the mainland India to the inhuman national oppression of Kashmir and the North East. Kashmir is one of the most militarized regions of the world, and even Sukhwinder mentions this in his article. Through the perpetual enforcement of AFSPA, a kind of military rule has been put in place by the Indian state in Kashmir and the North East, and these nations have been forced to be assimilated into India against their will. In these regions, there is the kind of hatred towards the Indian state that every oppressed nation in the colonies have towards the colonizers. Exactly what and how much of a role the oppressed bourgeoisie plays in the liberation struggles of these nations does not matter, their character will still be that of an oppressed bourgeoisie. Of course, there is a section of this bourgeoisie, which is non-national, comprador bourgeoisie that acts as the puppets of the Indian state, and will continue to do so in the future, as is the case with most oppressed nations. But this does not disprove the fact that the national bourgeoisie of these nations is oppressed and that is exactly why these nations are oppressed. This became even more apparent after August 5th, 2019, when even the political representatives of the Kashmiri bourgeoisie were jailed, and not even the most compromising ones were spared. Everybody knows how Sheikh Abdullah was treated. Except for the emergency, which was just an expression of the political crisis of the Indian state, not a policy of national oppression, which other national bourgeoisie has been treated like this? Everybody also knows the sham of the elections that are conducted there by the Indian rulers. The press and the media face terrible repression. Internet services have been shut down for a long time. Even commuting, walking on the streets, meeting people is subjected to policing and restrictions. Arbitrary stop-and-frisk and other such checks, and even killings, by the military and paramilitary forces have become a common occurrence. Checkposts have been set up on every corner. The autonomy of educational institutions had been destroyed long ago. The readers can themselves weigh this against the condition of Punjab, or, in Sukhwinder’s words, “the unresolved national question” of “mainland” India. Sukhwinder’s comparison of Punjab’s alleged “national oppression” with that of Kashmir or the North-East itself shows that either Sukhwinder has not at all understood the Marxist-Leninist conception of national oppression, or, his motivations lie somewhere else.
Now let us come to the critical analysis of Sukhwinder’s views on the concept of national oppression. We will also support our own positions that we have stated above, with quotes and references from Marxist-Leninist classics in the process.
The Differentia Specifica of National Oppression: The Oppression of the Bourgeoisie
Let us begin with some quotations from Mao. Underlining the two-facedness of the national bourgeoisie in China towards imperialism on the one hand and national oppression on the other, Mao says that because the national bourgeoisie is subjected to national oppression, it will be counted among the revolutionary forces in the struggle against imperialism. But, at the same time, because it is economically and politically weak, and because some of its interests are linked to imperialism, the national bourgeoisie cannot decisively and spiritedly fight in this struggle to the finish. Look at what Mao says:
The contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation and the contradiction between feudalism and the great masses of the people are the basic contradictions in modern Chinese society. Of course, there are others, such as the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and the contradictions within the reactionary ruling classes themselves. But the contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation is the principal one. (Mao Tse-Tung, The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party, Selected Works, Volume-2, Foreign Language Press, Page-551-52, emphasis ours)
Mao adds further:
The Chinese bourgeoisie is also a victim of imperialist oppression…
There is a distinction between the comprador big bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie…
The national bourgeoisie is a class with a dual character.
On the one hand, it is oppressed by imperialism and fettered by feudalism and consequently is in contradiction with both of them. In this respect it constitutes one of the revolutionary forces. In the course of the Chinese revolution it has displayed a certain enthusiasm for fighting imperialism and the governments of bureaucrats and warlords.
But on the other hand, it lacks the courage to oppose imperialism and feudalism thoroughly because it is economically and politically flabby and still has economic ties with imperialism and feudalism. This emerges very clearly when the people’s revolutionary forces grow powerful.
It follows from the dual character of the national bourgeoisie that, at certain times and to a certain extent, it can take part in the revolution against imperialism and the governments of bureaucrats and warlords and can become a revolutionary force, but that at other times there is the danger of its following the comprador big bourgeoisie and acting as its accomplice in counter-revolution.
The national bourgeoisie in China, which is mainly the middle bourgeoisie, has never really held political power but has been restricted by the reactionary policies of the big landlord class and big bourgeoisie which are in power, although it followed them in opposing the revolution in the period from 1927 to 1931 (before the September 18th Incident). In the present war, it differs not only from the capitulationists of the big landlord class and big bourgeoisie but also from the big bourgeois die-hards, and so far has been a fairly good ally of ours. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to have a prudent policy towards the national bourgeoisie. (ibid, p. 555-66, emphasis ours)
Mao defines the national bourgeoisie, which is a victim of national oppression, in China thus:
Middle Bourgeoisie. This class represents the capitalist relations of production in China in town and country. The middle bourgeoisie, by which is meant chiefly the national bourgeoisie, is inconsistent in its attitude towards the Chinese revolution: they feel the need for revolution and favour the revolutionary movement against imperialism and the warlords when they are smarting under the blows of foreign capital and the oppression of the warlords, but they become suspicious of the revolution when they sense that, with the militant participation of the proletariat at home and the active support of the international proletariat abroad, the revolution is threatening the hope of their class to attain the status of a big bourgeoisie. Politically, they stand for the establishment of a state under the rule of a single class, the national bourgeoisie. (Mao Tse-Tung, Analysis of the classes in Chinese Society, Selected Works, Volume-1, Foreign Language Press, Page-5, emphasis ours)
Pointing out the vacillating attitude of the national bourgeoisie under imperialism, Mao says,
Being a bourgeoisie in a colonial and semi-colonial country and oppressed by imperialism, the Chinese national bourgeoisie retains a certain revolutionary quality at certain periods and to a certain degree–even in the era of imperialism–in its opposition to the foreign imperialists and the domestic governments of bureaucrats and warlords (instances of opposition to the latter can be found in the periods of the Revolution of 1911 and the Northern Expedition), and it may ally itself with the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie against such enemies as it is ready to oppose…
At the same time, however, being a bourgeois class in a colonial and semi- colonial country and so being extremely flabby economically and politically, the Chinese national bourgeoisie also has another quality, namely, a proneness to conciliation with the enemies of the revolution. Even when it takes part in the revolution, it is unwilling to break with imperialism completely and, moreover, it is closely associated with the exploitation of the rural areas through land rent; thus it is neither willing nor able to overthrow imperialism, and much less the feudal forces, in a thorough way. So neither of the two basic problems or tasks of China’s bourgeois-democratic revolution can be solved or accomplished by the national bourgeoisie. (Mao Tse-Tung, On New Democracy, Selected Works, Volume-2, Foreign Language Press, Page 617-19, emphasis ours)
While analyzing the different stages of the revolutionary movement in China, including the following classes in the Chinese oppressed nation in the fourth stage of the revolutionary movement, Mao says,
The fourth period is that of the present anti-Japanese war. Pursuing its zigzag course, the Chinese revolution has again arrived at a united front of the four classes; but the scope of the united front is now much broader because its upper stratum includes many members of the ruling classes, its middle stratum includes the national bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie, and its lower stratum includes the entire proletariat, so that the various classes and strata of the nation have become members of the alliance resolutely resisting Japanese imperialism. (ibid., Page-671-72)
We saw in Mao’s quotes how the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation facing national oppression is also oppressed, and owing to political-economic reasons it is the main target of national oppression. Here it does not matter that the Chinese bourgeoisie was also oppressed by feudalism, that oppression was, by itself, in essence not national oppression, and generally could be termed national oppression only inasmuch as the feudal classes and the comprador bourgeoisie were subordinated by imperialism. Mao has, in the first quote cited by us, stated that the contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation and the contradiction between feudalism and the Chinese masses are the basic contradictions in contemporary Chinese society, but amongst these too the contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation is the principal one. If we could remove the element of national oppression by imperialism, then the Chinese democratic revolution would not have a national task, and thus, it would essentially be an anti-feudal democratic revolution. The essence of national oppression here is the oppression of the bourgeoisie by imperialism, and it is a different matter that the domestic classes subordinated to imperialism, i.e. the Chinese feudal lords and comprador bourgeoisie were acting as the instruments of national oppression for imperialism. China being a semi-colonial semi-feudal country makes no difference. We have seen above that it is not a necessary condition for the existence of national oppression. What is necessary is the bourgeoisie being oppressed. The bourgeoisie being nationally oppressed does not mean that other sections of the population are not subjected to national oppression.
It is no exaggeration to say that the great Turkish Maoist Ibrahim Kaypakkaya further developed Lenin and Mao’s theorization of the character of national oppression. Most Maoists around the world generally agree on this. Ibrahim Kaypakkaya writes with reference to the Kurdish nation that:
Kurdish workers, poor and medium peasants, semi-proletarians, urban petit bourgeoisie, the entire Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords are included in the scope of the Kurdish nation. National oppression is not only implemented against the Kurdish people, but the entire Kurdish nation, with the exception of a handful of large feudal landlords and a few large bourgeois who have entirely coalesced with the Turkish ruling classes. The Kurdish workers, peasants, urban petit bourgeoisie and small landlords suffer from national oppression. Moreover, the real target of national oppression is the bourgeoisie of the oppressed, dependent and subject nation, for the capitalists and landlords want to own the wealth and markets of the country without rivals. They wish to retain the privilege of founding a state. They want to ensure “linguistic unity” which is absolutely necessary for the market, by banning the other languages. The bourgeoisie and landlords belonging to the oppressed nation are a significant obstacle to these ambitions, for they wish to possess their own market, control it as they wish and exploit its material wealth and the labour of the people. These are the strong economic factors that set the bourgeoisie and landlords of the two nations at each other’s throats; for this reason the bourgeoisie and landlords of the ruling nation engage in ceaseless national oppression, which targets the bourgeoisie and landlords of the oppressed nation (Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, Selected Works, Nisan Publishing, p.212, emphasis ours)
Elucidating this point further, Kaypakkaya writes,
National oppression is not just implemented against the Kurdish people, but against the Kurdish nation as a whole, including the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, all minority nationalities are subjected to national oppression, not just the Kurdish people. The Draft Programme, by claiming national oppression is only implemented on the Kurdish people closed its eyes to the democratic struggle of other minority nationalities. Secondly, it makes one of the following two errors: either the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords are considered to be included within the scope of the term Kurdish people, in which case, by concealing the bourgeois-feudal character of the Kurdish national movement which is developing to oppose oppression, and seeing the national movement as the workers’ and peasants’ class movement is to fall into the line of the Kurdish nationalists. Or, the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords are not included within the scope of the term Kurdish people. In this case the progressive character of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords’ struggle against national oppression is entirely rejected, and the line of Turkish nationalism is adopted. (ibid., p.106, emphasis ours)
Explaining how the Kurdish national movement is not a people’s movement but a national movement, Kaypakkaya underlines the following distinction between the two:
The Kurdish movement, first and foremost, is a national movement, not a popular movement. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the class movement of the Kurdish proletariat and toilers, that is, the Kurdish people, from the national movement engaged in a struggle against national oppression for democratic rights, the “equality of nations” and “self-determination. (Ibid., p. 108, emphasis ours)
Here, once again Kaypakkaya has brilliantly explained the difference between the nation and the people, and hence between the national movement and between the class movement of the people. We request the readers to carefully consider Kaypakkaya’s quote below, because this will help them understand how Sukhwinder has terribly conflated and muddied both these concepts.
According to Shafaq Revisionists, national oppression is applied to the Kurdish people. This is to not understand the meaning of national oppression. National oppression is the oppression imposed by the ruling classes of ruling, oppressing and exploiting nations on the downtrodden, dependent subject nations. In Turkey national oppression is the oppression applied by the ruling classes of the dominant Turkey nation on the entire Kurdish nation, not just the Kurdish people, and also not solely on the Kurdish nation, but on all minority subject nations. People and nation are not the same things. The concept of people today generally covers the working class, poor and middle peasantry, semi-proletarians and the urban petit bourgeoisie. (Ibid, p.208-9, emphasis ours)
Kaypakkaya writes further,
Kurdish workers along with semi proletarians, poor and middle peasants, urban petit bourgeoisie and the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords are all subjected to national oppression. And these classes constitute the ranks of the Kurdish national movement. (Ibid., p.214, emphasis ours)
That is, both the people (workers, peasants, etc.,) and the bourgeoisie are included in the concept of a nation. If the bourgeoisie is removed from the nation, only the people are left. Certainly, the people face dual oppression and exploitation, i.e. economic exploitation by capitalism-imperialism, and national oppression by the ruling class of the oppressor nation. However, the entire nation, that is, the entire population including the bourgeoisie, faces national oppression. A nation is itself a phenomenon of the capitalist era. To speak of national oppression without the oppression of the national bourgeoisie is the same as speaking of capitalism without a capitalist class. But, instead of trying to understand this, Sukhwinder is hell-bent on proving fictional hypotheses! We will explain the ridiculous conclusions that his bizarre theoretical inventions lead to in the case of Punjab, in a short note at the end of this section, and once again demonstrate the baselessness of Sukhwinder’s theorization of national oppression by applying it on the concrete example of Punjab.
The Bizarre and Laughable Outcome of Applying Sukhwinder’s Theory of National Oppression to the Situation in Punjab
Now let us see what results we get when we apply Sukhwinder’s theory of national oppression to Punjab. Remember, that we are not doing this for entertainment only, though you will be thoroughly entertained in the process!
The writer wants to prove the national oppression of the Punjabi nation. But he considers Punjabi bourgeoisie neither to be oppressed nor comprador, au contraire, he considers it a politically independent bourgeoisie. This is the reason why Sukhwinder dug up two quotes so that he would be able to prove that despite the Punjabi bourgeoisie not being oppressed (or comprador), Punjab can be considered an oppressed nation. As we have seen above, Stalin and Lenin are not saying anything even remotely close to this, and Sukhwinder has relied more on the flights of his imagination than on reason and rationality in interpreting them.
Let us now apply Sukhwinder’s theory to Punjab.
If the national question exists in Punjab, then this can mean only one thing with respect to Punjab, which is that there exists national oppression in Punjab, and the correct communist position will be the one that supports the right of Punjab to form a separate nation-state, and fights for this right. The reason is that Punjab is a nation, not a minority nationality sans territoriality. There is no other way that adheres to the Marxist position. As the word “nation” itself implies, it includes the bourgeoisie (excluding the comprador bourgeoisie), because no nation can come into existence without a bourgeoisie, and the project of the formation of nation-states is itself a bourgeois project. Whether the bourgeoisie is strong enough and able enough to carry out this project does not change the class content of this task. Thus, in the oppressed nation of Punjab, either the whole bourgeoisie is oppressed, or that part of the bourgeoisie is oppressed which is not comprador. Who is this oppressed bourgeoisie of Punjab? Sukhwinder evades answering this question articulately, and instead starts spouting general theory, claiming that national oppression is possible even without the oppression of the bourgeoisie. For a moment, let us grant the assumption that the oppression of the Punjabi nation is possible without the oppression of the Punjabi bourgeoisie and let us see what ridiculous results the application of this ridiculous theory to reality brings out.
If no section of the Punjabi bourgeoisie is oppressed, and it is not comprador either, on the contrary, is politically independent, and the Punjabi nation is being oppressed by the Indian ruling class, i.e. the big bourgeoisie of India, as Sukhwinder says, then this raises several questions.
First question, what is the attitude of the politically independent Punjabi bourgeoisie towards this national oppression? Is it a party to this oppression? Or does it oppose this oppression?
If it is a party to this oppression, there are only three possible results:
First, that the Punjabi bourgeoisie is a comprador bourgeoisie, which is a party to the national oppression of the Punjabi nation by the Indian state and is its agent. But both we and Sukhwinder have rejected this possibility from the outset. This is not a real possibility because the Punjabi bourgeoisie is primarily an industrial-financial bourgeoisie, and even in agriculture, it is engaged in the productive sector, and, therefore, cannot be comprador. It is not primarily a commercial or bureaucratic bourgeoisie. Now let us look at the second possibility.
The second possible outcome is that Sukhwinder is saying that the Punjabi bourgeoisie is silent on the oppression of the Punjabi nation by the Indian ruling class, and it does not take any position on this! We know that this is a foolish proposition because the Punjabi bourgeoisie is a politically conscious bourgeoisie that has organized its class interests. It is, in Marx’s words, not just a social class, but a political class, and a political class takes a position or maintains a charter on every question, which represents its interests. If this is not the case, then we must conclude that the Punjabi bourgeoisie has not organized itself as a political class. Evidently, the Punjabi bourgeoisie is not in such a position.
The third possible outcome is that the Punjabi bourgeoisie itself has a share and stake in the Indian ruling class. In that case Sukhwinder will reach a ridiculous conclusion yet again, which is that the Punjabi bourgeoisie is carrying out the national oppression of the Punjabi nation, in other words, the Punjabi nation is carrying out its own self-oppression. Since national oppression means the oppression of one nation by another oppressing nation or nations. If the Punjabi bourgeoisie is itself oppressing the Punjabi people, then the concept of national oppression itself becomes irrelevant. You can see the ridiculous results that Sukhwinder’s theory of national oppression leads to, when applied to reality.
When Sukhwinder speaks of there being 80 Gujaratis in the top 100 wealthiest Indians, it sounds as if the Punjabi bourgeoisie does not have a share in the bourgeoisie of India. If this is the case, then it means that the Punjabi bourgeoisie is oppressed! Sukhwinder should accept this without any shame, and should form a front with the Punjabi bourgeoisie for national liberation! Because it is in the definition of an oppressed bourgeoisie that it does not have a share in political power, which robs it of the right to establish and maintain its own domestic market. It is politically oppressed by other bourgeoisie, which prevents its independent economic development, and keeps it dependent on the oppressor bourgeoisie. We do not know whether Sukhwinder will reach such a conclusion in the future, but there are clear indications of this in the things that he is saying. Let us move further.
Now let us come to the second question arising out of the application of Sukhwinder’s theory of national oppression on Punjab.
The second question is what is the national character of the Indian ruling class, i.e. the Indian big bourgeoisie? This question is unrelated to the question of whether it comprises only one oppressor nation, or is based on an agreement between multiple oppressor nations, implying that it has a composite multinational character, as Lenin had detailed in the case of Austria. Sukhwinder gives no answer to this question, and it seems as though he conceives a ruling class that does not have any national character. There is no such anational ruling class that has descended from Mars! A ruling class can have a mononational character or a multinational character. Sukhwinder is forced to do this because if he accepts that the Indian ruling class has a multinational character, and that the second most powerful bourgeoisie, by national origin, after the Gujarati bourgeoisie, is possibly the Punjabi bourgeoisie itself, then he will land in a contradiction. Because then it will not be possible to prove that Punjab is facing national oppression.
So, to prove the national oppression of Punjab, Sukhwinder first claims that national oppression is possible without the bourgeoisie being oppressed; then claims that there is an oppressing Indian ruling class that does not have any national character because by doing so he wants to hide the share and partnership of the Punjabi bourgeoisie in the Indian ruling class; and then finally declares that based solely on linguistic oppression, Punjab is an oppressed nation! And so the national oppression of Punjab becomes an entirely impressionistic matter, i.e. because there is inequality with the Punjabi language in Punjab, so the Punjabi nation is an oppressed nation. In a later section, we will also limn out why injustice is being inflicted on Punjabi in Punjab, and who is inflicting it.
In our discussion so far, we saw how all these four of Sukhwinder’s propositions stand on extremely rickety foundations: (1) the national question can exist without the colonial question; (2) the national question can exist without the existence of an agrarian/land question (which required no proof); (3) the national question can exist without the dominance of any single nation; and (4) nations can be oppressed without the oppression of the bourgeoisie, and we also saw that the political and ideological smokescreen that Sukhwinder tries to create in an attempt to prove the national oppression of Punjab, makes him not a Marxist thinker, but a Bundist clown.
Then What is National Oppression?
Actually, the definition of national oppression becomes clear from the difference between the people and the nation itself. A nation implies a population which has undergone capitalist development and as a result, a bourgeoisie has come into existence. If only the people are being oppressed, and not the bourgeoisie, then the question is, what is the position of its bourgeoisie on this oppression? It is either a comprador bourgeoisie, which is subservient to the ruling class of the oppressor nation or nations that are carrying out national oppression, is not politically independent and is therefore not ‘national’, or, that bourgeoisie is itself oppressed.
How radically it can oppose this oppression, and fight in the struggle for national liberation does not change the fact of it being oppressed, or not oppressed. As a matter of fact, generally and especially in the period of imperialism, the national bourgeoisie of any oppressed nation always takes a vacillating attitude in the struggle for national liberation. That is why Lenin had called on the proletariat to assume leadership of the national liberation struggle and the national democratic revolution as well, and said that, under imperialism, the completion of the general democratic process is generally no longer possible within the framework of the bourgeois democratic revolution, and it is difficult to complete this task under the leadership of the bourgeoisie. Based on this, Lenin gave his theory of a people’s democratic revolution, which will be accomplished by forging a joint front of the working class, the peasantry, the small capitalist class and the most radical and revolutionary elements from the national bourgeoisie.
This means, if a nation is oppressed, its national oppression is impossible without the oppression of its bourgeoisie. It is not possible that the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation is politically independent, neither is any section of it comprador, nor is it oppressed. The third possibility is that that the bourgeoisie has itself become a part of the ruling class. But in that case, the nation is no longer oppressed, because then we will have to say that that nation is oppressing itself! This will be absurd at all levels. Maoists all over the world understand this fundamental Marxist-Leninist theory. Let us look at a few representative examples.
There was a similar debate on whether Quebec is an oppressed nation in Canada, within the Maoist organizations there, which reached the conclusion that because the bourgeoisie of Quebec is not oppressed, and it has a share in the ruling classes of Canada, hence the nation of Quebec is not oppressed. Let us look at one passage from one of the documents of the debate:
There is more than one position on the Québec national question. There is also more than one set of interests to be defended. The Québec bourgeoisie defends its interests; the different parts of the Canadian bourgeoisie are also doing so. What we commonly hear about the Québec national question concerns these interests. This is what is at stake and explains the nature of the contention with this matter for more than 30 years.
The existence of a Québec bourgeoisie ruling its political and economical development with its own tools—which includes a “strong” state—clearly shows that as a nation, Québec is no longer subjected to any form of oppression that would prevent its own development and would then justify—as some people still want us to believe—a national liberation struggle including all the classes in this province in order to achieve political independence.
The complete document of Canada’s Maoist party, ‘Revolutionary Communist Party, Canada’ can be accessed here: (http://www.pcr-rcp.ca/en/archives/114)
There was another similar debate within the Marxist-Leninists of Britain regarding the Scottish bourgeoisie, which also reached the conclusion that Scotland is not an oppressed nation, because its bourgeoisie is not oppressed, and has a share in power. Their documents can be accessed here: (https://archive.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=1079)
In both these debates, the Marxists-Leninist comrades of Canada and Britain have taken the right position. Without the oppression of the bourgeoisie, the concept of national oppression itself becomes irrelevant. These are only two examples. Marxist-Leninist and Maoist organizations and parties from all over the world uphold this fundamental principle of Marxism-Leninism.
It is only Sukhwinder who, with an iron resolve to make a fool out of himself before the whole world, has come out with such new theorizations. A nationalist thought fuels this resolve, as we will show in detail, later in this article.
National oppression means to keep a nation within the boundaries of a state by force, against its will. Clearly this is not possible without the oppression of the bourgeoisie of that nation. National oppression can take place with nations whose territorial boundaries are shared with the state/s of oppressor nation/s. (as in the case of Ireland, or in our country, Kashmir and the states of the North East), or separated by seas from the oppressor nations, as we have shown through the quotes of both Lenin and Stalin. Lenin has written a separate subsection in ‘The Discussion on Self-determination Summed Up’ to clarify exactly this point, in which he explains that in this regard, we cannot differentiate Europe and Asia, Africa etc., and we have already discussed this earlier in this essay. Be it Ireland, or Poland, or the Czech nation of the late 19th-early 20th centuries, or the British and French colonies in Asia and Africa, they will be considered colonies/annexed nations, and insofar as national oppression is concerned, they are all oppressed nations, and there is only one path to the resolution of their national question: the right to national self-determination. And, this right to self-determination means only one thing: the right to political self-determination, that is to say, the right to secession. Acting on this right, if several nations wish to come together in a federation, or a union, or wish to establish a system of national autonomy, or wish to secede, it is their own wish. The first task of communists is that they must unconditionally support the nations’ right to self-determination, irrespective of whether they consider those nations oppressed or otherwise. To remind the readers once again, we are not talking of minority nationalities here, which do not have any territoriality. For them the communist program is the program for a struggle for a consistent democracy. Comrades who wish to better understand this distinction can read Lenin’s drafts of the ‘Bill on the Equality of Nations’ (1914), and the ‘National Equality Bill’ (1914).
Secondly, supporting the right to secession, and supporting the act of secession itself are two different things. We can campaign in the masses against the act of secession while supporting the right to secession. Lenin has repeatedly clarified the difference between the two repeatedly and at various places.
The right of nations to self-determination means only the right to independence in a political sense, the right to free, political secession from the oppressing nation. Concretely, this political, democratic demand implies complete freedom to carry on agitation in favour of secession, and freedom to settle the question of secession by means of a referendum of the nation that desires to secede. Consequently, this demand is by no means identical with the demand for secession, for partition, for the formation of small states. It is merely the logical expression of the struggle against national oppression in every form. The more closely the democratic system of state approximates to complete freedom of secession, the rarer and weaker will the striving for secession be in practice; for the advantages of large states, both from the point of view of economic progress and from the point of view of the interests of the masses, are beyond doubt, and these advantages increase with the growth of capitalism. The recognition of self-determination is not the same as making federation a principle. One may be a determined opponent of this principle and a partisan of democratic centralism and yet prefer federation to national inequality as the only path towards complete democratic centralism. It was precisely from this point of view that Marx, although a centralist preferred even the federation of Ireland with England to the forcible subjection of Ireland to the English. (Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and The Right of Nations to Self-Determination)
Lenin also says:
The demand for a “yes” or “no” reply to the question of secession in the case of every nation may seem a very “practical” one. In reality it is absurd; it is metaphysical in theory, while in practice it leads to subordinating the proletariat to the bourgeoisie’s policy. The bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront, and does so in categorical fashion. With the proletariat, however, these demands are subordinated to the interests of the class struggle. Theoretically, you cannot say in advance whether the bourgeois-democratic revolution will end in a given nation seceding from another nation, or in its equality with the latter; in either case, the important thing for the proletariat is to ensure the development of its class. For the bourgeoisie it is important to hamper this development by pushing the aims of its “own” nation before those of the proletariat. That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation. (Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination)
Lenin writes further,
The proletariat is opposed to such practicality. While recognizing equality and equal rights to a national state, it values above all and places foremost the alliance of the proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers’ class struggle. This call for practicality is in fact merely a call for uncritical acceptance of bourgeois aspirations. (ibid)
Elsewhere Lenin writes,
People who have not gone into the question thoroughly think that it is “contradictory” for the Social-Democrats of oppressor nations to insist on the “freedom to secede”, while Social-Democrats of oppressed nations insist on the “freedom to integrate”. However, a little reflection will show that there is not, and cannot be, any other road to internationalism and the amalgamation of nations, any other road from the given situation to this goal. (Lenin, The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up)
That is why Lenin had advised the Polish communists in 1916 to campaign against the secession of Poland, but he also forbade them to interpret this as not lending support to Poland’s right to secession. Similarly, all the Maoists of Catalonia, while supporting Catalonia’s right to secession, and the referendum held on the question of secession as an exercise of this right, stood against its secession, and declared that they will vote ‘no’ in this referendum. The same applies to Scotland. We accept supporting the right to secession of any nation as a universal principle, but in which cases should we support the act of secession, and in which we should oppose it, depends on the evaluation of the domestic and international situation of the time. Sukhwinder fails to understand the distinction between these two. So, it will be interesting to see how he demonstrates that Punjab is an oppressed nation, and then what program he presents for the same.
Because, if Punjab is an oppressed nation, then Sukhwinder must support not only its right to secede, but also its act of seceding as well, because if we evaluate the current national and international situation, we can see that this secession will not harm the cause of the proletariat in any way. The reason why Lenin had advised Polish Social-Democrats to campaign against the secession of Poland because it would have led to an imperialist war (which Lenin did not support), instead of a national liberation struggle (which Lenin supported), and this would have harmed the proletariat in Germany, Russia, and Poland, and that is why Lenin advised the Polish Social-Democrats presently campaign against the secession of Poland, although even then, he was unconditionally in support of Poland’s right to secede, and was criticizing the Polish Social-Democrats for not doing the same.
But, if Punjab is an oppressed nation, and it secedes, it will not set off any imperialist war, and internally too, only through supporting the struggle to end Punjab’s national oppression can we establish a unity between the proletariat of Punjab and of the other nations, and only then can the struggle against the Indian state for a socialist revolution be taken forward, because national oppression weakens this unity. So, if Punjab is an oppressed nation, then Sukhwinder must support not only its right to secede, but also, in the present situation, support and campaign for the actual secession of Punjab, instead of demanding a federation, which is wrong anyway, and to even make such a demand within capitalism is, for communists, equivalent to falling into the pit of Austro-Marxist reformism. Also, the main political demand cannot be that of regional autonomy. That demand can be justified only when all nations agree to come together in a shared state, without any form of national oppression. In that case, our political demand is that of regional autonomy (as opposed to non-regional cultural autonomy). Hence, if Punjab is an oppressed nation, then only one demand is politically the right demand: the demand for the right to secession. And in this particular case, communists will support not only the right to secession, but also the act of secession itself, because the national and international situation is absolutely favourable for this. We are saying all this assuming, for the moment that Punjab is an oppressed nation, as Sukhwinder is saying. In truth, we do not consider Punjab to be an oppressed nation. So, we are eagerly waiting to see what Sukhwinder has to say on the national oppression of Punjab and the question of its resolution.
So, according to Sukhwinder the bourgeoisie of Punjab is neither comprador nor oppressed; but still Punjab is an oppressed nation; then what is Punjabi bourgeoisie saying about this national oppression? What is it doing? What is its position? Is it a partner in carrying out this oppression? But then this implies that the Punjabi nation is oppressing itself! Who is the Indian ruling class, what is its composition, and what place does the Punjabi bourgeoisie occupy in it? These are the questions that Sukhwinder never asks, because his rickety argument starts collapsing the moment these questions are asked.
Summarily, though Sukhwinder has written about the national question and national oppression, however, in the process he also showed that he needs to seriously study the fundamentals of Marxism and the national question. He is trying to prove his argument right by filling 85 of his 107 pages with quotes, but we have demonstrated how he fails to understand the contexts, and meanings of the quotes that he himself has cited, or intentionally rips them out of context to use them to hide his nationalist deviation, and misinterprets them.
(translated from Hindi by Nimish Wagh)
