ELEGY FOR A COMRADE WHO LOST HIS WAY: A
REVIEW OF JAMAL NAQVI’S BIOGRAPHY
·
Written by Eric
Rahim
·
Thursday, 29 May 2014 19:36
Jamal Naqvi joined the Communist Party of Pakistan (Karachi) in
the early 1950s, played an active part in the students’ movement of the time.
In the 1960s he assumed an important position in the party and later led it as
a member of the politburo. He spent something like eight years in prison, more
than one in solitary confinement during the regime of General Ziaul Haq. Around
1990, after a period of ‘inner party struggle’ and a visit to Russia (on an
invitation from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) he became
‘disillusioned’ with the party, Marxism, communism, socialism, the Left
generally, and all that. Now at the age of 82 he has written an
autobiographical memoir covering the period from his early childhood in
Allahabad (India), migration to Pakistan around 1949-50, his work in the Communist Party of (West) Pakistan, experience in prison and the process of his
final ‘disillusionment’. (See footnote.)
It needs to be emphasised that the book is not (and is not
intended to be) a history of the Left movement in Pakistan; it is a very
personal account of Naqvi’s participation in the movement. Nevertheless, it is
a useful account of the events during the period covered by the book – though,
as I said, necessarily from a personal perspective. For this reason the book
deserves careful attention. It is to be hoped that others, Naqvi’s
contemporaries in the Left movement in Pakistan, will emulate him in this respect.
Naqvi was born
in Allahabad, India, with a book of Shakespeare’s sonnets in his hand, instead
of the proverbial silver spoon. His grandfather was a lawyer, an advocate, his
father a professor of zoology, and he had a mother passionately devoted to the
education of her children. All his siblings grew up to distinguish
themselves in the academia. The family lived in a Hindu neighbourhood in an
atmosphere of peaceful coexistence. But with the creation of Pakistan the
family moved to Karachi, and the young Naqvi, who had enrolled in the English
department of Allahabad University, now joined Islamia College.
I report these
facts because it was young people with a similar background and outlook who
after migrating to Karachi during the 1947-50 period provided the bulk of the
membership of the Karachi Communist Party, then being reorganised by Hassan
Nasir, who himself was a recent migrant. It was also these young people from
middle class families, with secular outlook and exposure to the independence movement,
who provided the leading cadre of the students movement in Karachi.
On entering
Islamia College Naqvi joined the newly formed Democratic Students Federation
(DSF). There are sections in the first two chapters of the book that give a
good and detailed account of the students movement of the time. Those
interested in the history of this movement will find this account, though
necessarily partial, useful.
At this time,
Naqvi also joined the Communist Party. Unfortunately, he says very little
about the activities of the party. For the record I will mention that besides
playing an active – I would say, the leading – role in the students movement,
the Karachi district committee was active on the industrial front, promoting
the formation of trade unions in, for instance, the Pakistan
International Airlines, the textile mills that were being established
in and around Karachi, the Karachi Union of Journalists, and so on. It
established the Pakistan-Soviet Cultural Association, Pakistan-China Friendship
Society, and a film society – their objective being to bring to public
attention the achievements of the socialist countries. Its members
also played an active part in the Progressive Writers Association,
strengthening its Left orientation.
In the second
chapter Naqvi skips too rapidly over some important events, for instance, the
1954 arrest and incarceration in Karachi jail, for nearly a year, of something
like twenty-five students, teachers, journalists and trade unionists. Most of
them were members of the Party and the arrests did an irreparable damage to the
Karachi communist party that was still in its early period of development.
Naqvi was one of these arrested but unfortunately he says nothing about life in
the prison.
I noted a
lapse of memory on Naqvi’s part. Among the people who were brought to Karachi
jail he mentions the names of GM Syed, Sobho Gianchandani and Hassan Nasir.
They were definitely not in Karachi jail. I noted two other lapses that
need to be mentioned. He says that the Azad Pakistan Party was formed as a
cover for the Communist Party after it was banned in 1954. The Azad Pakistan
Party was in fact established well before the ban, I think, in 1951. Further,
the National Awami Party (NAP) (formed in 1957) was not created by the Communist
Party (as Naqvi claims). The Party – at least its West Pakistan wing - had no
contribution in its formation. (I may add here in passing that Mian
Iftikharuddin, the leader of the Azad Pakistan Party, and the only
progressive leader at the (West Pakistan) national level, though he played a
leading role in the formation of NAP was never comfortable with other West
Pakistan leaders like Abdul Ghaffar Khan. He thought they were narrow
minded nationalists who had little interest in land and other progressive
reforms.)
Chapters 3 and
4 convey a good idea of Naqvi’s personal life and work as a college lecturer
(including suspensions, etc.) and progress ‘up the ladder’ in the Communist
Party (West Pakistan). Of particular interest here is his experience in prison
during the martial law of Ziaul Haq. The discussion neatly conveys the
irrationality and stupidity of the regime.
I come now to
what is the central issue in the book (and provides its title, Leaving the
Left Behind). A subsidiary issue is the standpoint he
adopted after leaving the
Left behind. I do not wish to say much about his new standpoint, but for the
benefit of those who will not read the book I will make a brief mention. On the
new standpoint that he now adopted, Naqvi writes: ‘I was always a democrat
[but] my actions were not in conformity with my beliefs, and standing
between the two was an ideology [Communism, Marxism] that put blinkers on my
eyes...’ (p.180). The new vision that he now saw on his road to Damascus was
that of abandoning ‘the myopic politics of Left and Right’ for ‘the enlightened
concept of Right and Wrong’ [front cover blurb]. Note that Naqvi’s ‘democracy’
without Left and Right is in fact nothing but democracy without politics; and
he treats Right and Wrong as universal concepts so that that what is ‘right’
(or ‘wrong’) for the oppressor is also ‘right’ (or ‘wrong’) for the oppressed.
Sadly, Naqvi has retreated into a world of abstractions.
Now to the
more substantive issue of the ‘disillusionment’, and the reasons behind it. The
disillusionment came in two forms: with the Party after some disagreements with
other leaders and the general membership, and with Marxist theory after a
disappointing visit to the Soviet Union during its last dying days.
To take the split
from the Party first. While still in prison (under the Zia regime) he knew that
when he came out he would have to deal with certain ‘undesirable’ elements who
had infiltrated into the Party (p.113). Chapter 7, ‘The Chaos Within’, deals at
length with the struggle against the ‘undesirables’. We learn on p.148 that
this struggle was successful. ‘The party was well and truly back in our hands.’
And then on the same page, one paragraph later, we are told that his friend and
partner in the struggle (Imam Nazish, who had been in exile while Naqvi was in
prison) had some ‘reservations’ about the circular on the basis of which (it
seems) the fight had been won. He writes: ‘It was the first time ever that
there had been any friction between the two of us. But that did not change the
fact that he was the one who was re-installed as the CCP [Communist Party of
Pakistan] secretary-general. The party was back in his hands, not mine.’
The remarkable
point here is that we have absolutely no idea what happened? What were the
issues – theoretical or personal – on the basis of which Nazish was
‘re-installed’ as the general-secretary. Was it simply the fact that Naqvi had
been at the helm during Nazish’s absence abroad and when the latter returned he
was ‘re-installed’ in his earlier position. We do not know.
The story of
Naqvi’s disillusionment continued after his disenchanting visit to the USSR.
The experience of the visit seems to have been an ‘eye opener’ for him and he
returned with his faith in Marxism, Socialism, Communism shaken to the core. He
seems to have discussed this experience with the leadership, but no details are
given (p.172). This was late 1990. He spoke to Jam Saqi (an old veteran like
himself and Nazish) who had by now replaced Nazish as general secretary of the
party ‘about the need to broaden the party base and make it a party of the
masses’ (p.172). It was agreed that the issue should be debated at the party
congress ‘which was due in a few days time.’ He addressed the congress. He
writes: ‘Hardly five minutes into my speech, I was booed down. There was
blanket hostility and I could clearly hear shouts questioning my commitment to
the Party’ (p.172). He walked out of the hall and that was the end of his
nearly forty years of association with the Party, and the Left generally.
Again it is
remarkable that the reader has absolutely no idea what the real issue was that
led to his walkout from the hall. What did he say in those five minutes? What
did it mean that the Party should ‘broaden its base’ and ‘become a party of the
masses’? Did he suggest that the party should jettison its Marxist outlook? We
have absolutely no idea? In fact, nowhere in the book Naqvi tells us what the
main theoretical or practical issues discussed in the party were (apart from the
making and unkmaking of alliances and united fronts with other parties).
Nor, even more
surprisingly, does he tell us what, during the period of his leadership of the
Party, it actually did, what its activities were. He tells us that in the ‘late
1980s ... the party membership was somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000’, and that
its supporters numbered about 15,000 (p.168). What were these members and
sympathisers doing? He does not tell us. (I recall that in 1953-54 the
Karachi Party had no more that twenty-five members.)
I turn now to
the second aspect of Naqvi’s disillusionment. As I mentioned earlier this
aspect of disillusionment came after his visit to the Soviet Union. What he had
seen there did not impress him and at this point (sitting in Moscow airport’s
departure lounge) he realised that Marx’s theory of surplus value did not make
sense. (I do not see any connection with what he saw in the Soviet Union and
the theory of surplus value. But let that pass.) He writes:
‘As I started thinking about it, my mind got filled with nothing but confusion.
The capitalist brings to the table the premises, the building, the machines,
the utilities and the raw material. He pays for everything just like he pays
the labor. The output is the product of what I call ‘industrialism’, not to the
labour or working class (sic). The Surplus Value, therefore should [my italics) result in fair wages for the labor
and fair profit for the capitalist according to the ratio of their input in the
final product’ (p.164).
It follows
that (according to Naqvi) capitalism is a fair and just system. All those who
make a contribution to the product get their fair reward. Since some readers of
Naqvi’s book may find the claim that as the capitalist ‘makes a contribution to
production’ the capitalist system must necessarily be fair and morally just
plausible, I devote the next section entirely to a discussion of this point.
Is Capitalism a fair
and just system?
To try to
answer this question I will briefly consider two standpoints that are
fundamentally opposed to each other – that of modern orthodox economic theory
(which forms the core of economics teaching in colleges and universities), and
that of Marx. The modern economic theory provides a theoretical rationale of
capitalism – only it does not call it capitalism, instead it describes the
system as the free-market economy. Marx of course holds a different view of
capitalism. I will only consider the standpoints of these two theoretical
systems in general terms, avoiding all technical detail.
According to the orthodox
economic theory we all have certain resources (property) that we bring to the
market and engage in cooperative production. A worker’s property consists in
his labour power, that is, his ability to perform certain physical and mental
tasks, and the capitalist’s property takes the form of capital goods,
such as machines and raw materials. These capital goods contribute to
production just as the worker’s labour power does. And thus both share in the
final product. (I leave aside the important question of the proportions in which they share the net product for it would
take us into details that I wish to avoid.) The point to note here is that it
is the fact ofownership of capital
goods (capital) that is responsible for the capitalist’s share in the product,
just as is the fact of the worker’s ownership of labour power.
According to
this theory the source of worker’s ownership of property – labour power – lies
in his physical and mental powers and he receives his fair share because of the
‘sacrifice’ (‘disutility’) he makes in terms of the hours spent in labour .
What is the source of the capitalist’s property – capital? The answer given by
this theory is that it lies in the owner’s abstinence from
consumption; the capitalist decides to abstain from spending his income on
consumption goods and instead saves part of it to derive greater consumption in
the future. The source of capital accumulation lies in this form
of sacrifice (‘disutility’) on the part of the capitalist.
To put it
another way, the worker has to be induced (by society) to work, that is, to
forego his leisure time (which he could have spent at the swimming pool or hill
walking) by offering him a reward in terms of the wage, the capitalist is
induced to sacrifice his present consumption (and save and invest) by the
prospect of a certain amount of profit in the future. (Some readers of this
article may be asking themselves as to how many of the richest businessmen in
Pakistan accumulated their wealth through abstinence and self-denial.)
This is the
justification of profit, capitalist’s fair share in the net product. It is this
claim that gives moral endorsement to capitalism or the free-market
economy.
The point I
wish to emphasise is that in this theory the relationship between the
capitalist and the worker, between profit and wages, issymmetrical, it is a
relationship of equality, as it would be between two peasants exchanging their
products – beans for peas – with each other. There is also a symmetry in time
between wages and profits. They are paid at the same time (after the production
has taken place).In this theory there is no relationship of power between the
capitalist and the worker.
Marx’s standpoint is, as one would expect, very different from that
of the orthodox economic theory. Marx starts with a real society, one that
exists in historical time. It is a class society, there are those who own
property and others who only have their labour to sell in order to survive. The
relationship between the two classes is asymmetrical, one of inequality. Further, the distribution of
the social product, the division between wages and profits, emerges through
social processes, rather than through individual choices. It emerges through
the bargaining powers between the two classes, through class struggle.
By way of
illustration, I take a simple model to make the point. Imagine a society in
which people can produce no more than what they need to subsist on, in
physiological terms. In such a society there is no scope for private property,
nor for social classes and exploitation of one by the other.
But when
labour productivity is such (because of improved technology) that people
produce more than what they need for their basic subsistence - that is,
when society produces a surplus over and above
its necessary consumption - there is scope
for private property and for social classes to emerge. When that happens this
surplus is appropriated by the propertied class. That is exploitation. This exploitation is always the result of some
kind of power of one class over the other.
Again, by way
of illustration: take the case of a slave society. Here the entire labour of
the slave is at the disposal of the master. The slave’ssurplus labour, that is,
labour over and above what is needed to provide for the slave’s own necessary
(physiologically conceived) subsistence, belongs to the slave owner. The
mechanism of appropriation (exploitation) is direct physical control.
In the
European feudal system the serf (who was tied to the land and was therefore not
a free man) worked a certain number of days (without any payment) on his lord’s
land; the rest of the time he was free to work on his own plot. The days when
he worked on the lord’s land without any recompense was surplus labour. The
product of this labour – surplus product – belonged to the lord. The mechanism
of appropriation was direct, clearly observable and sanctioned by law.
Marx extends
this idea of surplus labour to the case of capitalism. Under capitalism this
process is opaque. The mechanism of exploitation has to be discovered through
analysis; one has to go behind the observed reality. Here the worker is free to
choose his profession and employer. (Free movement of labour is an essential
condition for the development of capitalism.) Labour power has become a
commodity (in one respect) like any other – it is bought and sold in the
market. Marx, as noted, has now to discover the mechanism through which the
capitalist can appropriate the surplus labour and surplus product of labour
that is appropriate to the form of freedom enjoyed by the worker. He calls this
mechanism the wage-labour system. Marx’s theory of value plays a key role in
this mechanism but we will avoid technical arguments and state his position as
simply as possible.
A fundamental
feature of production is that it takes time. Even in simple agriculture there
is a period of months between the sowing of the seeds and harvesting of the
crop, and even simple investments in irrigation facilities take time to bear
their full fruit. Some investments take years to produce result. This means
that capital must already have been accumulated before the production process
can begin, and over this period labour must be fed and maintained, that is,
wages must be ‘advanced’ over the period (say, in weekly or monthly
instalments) before the product is produced and marketed.
Thus, for
capitalist production to take place two conditions must be satisfied:
there must be a class of people who have accumulated capital which they invest
in order to make profit, and there must be another class of people who
have no means of subsistence of their own and therefore must sell their labour
power (their only ‘resource’)in order to survive.
In the early
stage of capitalist development in Western Europe, stretching over centuries
from around 1500 towards the later part of the 18thcentury, this
capital came from merchant capital, usury, improvements in agriculture,
colonisation, piracy, slave trade, outright plunder of public resources, and so
on. There is a graphic account of this process in the section on ‘primitive
accumulation’ in the first volume ofcapital.
Later,
when capital has been accumulated in sufficient volumes, that is, in developed
capitalism, capital accumulation comes from the appropriation of surplus value
(profit). This is then the sources of capital accumulation, not self-denial on
the part of the capitalist.
The mechanism
of the appropriation of labour’s product by the capitalist has a neat parallel
with the situation under feudalism: the worker works part of the time to
produce the equivalent of his own maintenance, and the rest of the time for the
benefit of the capitalist. Thus in a working day of ten hours, he may work six
hours to produce the equivalent of his own maintenance, the rest is the surplus
labour (and surplus product) appropriated by the capitalist.
To put it
another way: What the worker sells to the capitalist is not labour, but his labour-power which is the worker’s capacity to perform useful
labour. The price of the commodity labour-power (the wage that the worker
receives) is determined, like the prices of all other commodities, by the costs
of their production . What is the cost of producing labour-power? The answer:
the worker’s ‘necessary consumption’, that is, the equivalent of goods and
services required to reproduce his labour-power (and to support a family to
provide workers for the future). The worker is able to do produce the
equivalent of his own maintenance in less time than the labour time actually
bought by the capitalist (ten hours in the example above).
Now what is
the labour’s ‘necessary consumption’? It varies from one situation to
another. In a slave economy the slave’s necessary consumption – what is needed
to keep him alive and maintain him in working condition- may be physiologically
determined. But that is not the case under capitalism. Marx discusses this
point in chapter 6 (‘The Sale and Purchase of Labour-power’) in the first volume
of Capital.The suggestion he makes there is that labour’s
‘necessary consumption’ (the wage) is determined by social and historical
factors. Ultimately, it is determined by the power relations prevailing between
the two classes involved, their bargaining power. Workers can resist and obtain
a larger proportion of the surplus, and eventually overthrow the system of
exploitation.
To return to
the question, is capitalism a fair and just system? Marx never talked
about fairness and justice of a political and economic system. What he thought
of capitalism was stated plainly in the Communist Manifesto. Capitalism is
a highly productive system. ‘The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly
revolutionising the instruments of production.’ At the same time, for the
capitalist labour is and will always remain a cost of production which it must
try to minimise in order to maximise his profit. Class conflict is inherent in
the system.
Footnote: Syed
Jamaluddin Naqvi , with Humair Ishtiaq, Leaving the Left Behind, Pakistan
Study Centre, University of Karachi, Karachi,
