Book Launch of Nain Sukh new title (Reporting and other things)

Book Launch of Nain Sukh New Title (Reporting, Recordings & other things)

Attended by Professor Aziz udin Ahmad, Shahbaz Mian, Dr Nadeem Omar Taror, Dr Naveed Alam, Dr Yaqoob Bangash, Hafiz Rashid Mahmud, Iqbal Haider Butt, Irfan Malik, Professor Zubair Ahmad, Syeda Diep, Shafat Khan, Naved Pushkan, Azhar Sukhera, Yaser Jawad, Afzal Sahir, Aamir Riaz and many more.

LAHORE: `Aai Purapy Di Waa` (The East Wind Comes), the fourth short stories collection of poet and fiction writer Nain Sukh whose real name is Khalid Mahmood, was launched at the Lahore Press Club on Sunday. Besides short stories, Nain Sukh, who got his pen name from a painter of 18th century India, has got a novel and a collection of poems to his credit. Book Is available @ Readings, Lhore Click and order and get discount too. Author reading his short story, a video clip from Lok Lhar Radio Show (Complete link of program is there in the end) Listen the Author , in his own voice..Watch it His poetry collection, Kikkar Day Angoor, was followed by short stories collections of, Theekrian, Uthal Pathal and Shaheed? However, Aai Puray Di Waa is a slightly different in terms of style of writing and subject. A clip of Dr Yaqoo Bangash https://www.facebook.com/aamirr/videos/10155417962464032/ `Nain Sukh`s last bool(, Shaheed?, was written with a lot of anger and angst,` said Professor Zubair Ahmad. `But this current book seeps from a lot of love for his characters. He pointed out that in today`s context, what was happening in the country, the level of radicalism would never have stood a chance in front of any of the characters in his book. Concluding Remarks by Professor Aziz ud din Ahmad https://www.facebook.com/aamirr/videos/10155418108504032/ The book revolves around a fictionalised account ofsixrealcharacters from real life, including ID Shahbaz, a priest who translated into Punjabi the Christian (or the Book of Psalms as some scholars believe it to be). `Today`s youth do not even know about these people and theirachievements. Women don`t know, for example, about the struggle of Nasreen Anjum Bhatti. It is a sad situation,` Zubair lamented. It was a quality of Nain Sukh`s fiction that everything was real apart from the names, he added. Dr Yaqoob Bangash termed the story of ID Shahbaz very important. Afzal Sahir reading a short story of author https://www.facebook.com/aamirr/videos/10155417533734032/ `It`s an exceptionally researched book which contextualises the man, ID Shahbaz, in the society he lived in rather than speaking about his works only. And it spells out what the society was going through, especially with so many conversions going on. Dr Bangash added that ID Shahbaz never changed his name or his identity after his conversion and that was important because it showed that the Punjabi Christian identity was developing,especially sincemost Christians in the north of united India were settled in Punjab and most missions came to this region. Dr Naveed Alam (BNU) is sharing his views regarding Nain Sukh New book https://www.facebook.com/aamirr/videos/10155418045479032/ `Yet his work had touched millions. His translated Punjabi hymns were sung all over the subcontinent and by people of other languages too. `In today`s country and milieu, it is important to situate this person and through this particular story we learn also that Punjabi culture itself has the characteristic to assimilate into other cultures. The other characters in the book are Ubaidullah Sindhi, Dada Amir Haider, Agha Khan Sehotra, a Dalit leader of his time, Aliya Begum, afilm, stage and TV actress, and Nasreen Anjum Bhatti, Punjabi feminist poet. In an interview with Dawn, Nain Sulch said his stories always revolved around history, culture, and politics set in a dynamic social order. `The common thread among these people (characters in the book) is that they were all liberals, all of them represented the masses who struggled for their causes,` he said. `What is happening today would have appalled these people all of them. Speaking about the Punjabi as a language, he said although there was an impression that Punjabi was a `dying language` but it was not completely true. `There are many people who are trying their best to keep it alive. In India, the Gurmukhi script is being used while here we use the Urdu script for writing but writing is being done. Nain Sukh said there was more Punjabi poetry in the Pakistani side of Punjab while more prose on the Indian side. Excerpts of all chapters were read out and discussions over them were held. Speakers included Professor Azizuddin Ahmed, Abbas Siddiqui, Nadeem Muhammad, Iqbal Haider Butt, Hafiz Rashid Mehmood, Akram Warraich, Diep Saeeda, Naveed Alam while the session was conducted by Punjabi poet Afzal Sahir and Aamir Riaz.

Link of the news

https://epaper.dawn.com/DetailNews.php?StoryText=27_11_2017_177_011

Radio Show & extracts

https://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2017/11/listen-discussion-about-new-book-of.html

Listen a Discussion about New book of Historical Fiction in Punjabi by Nain Sukh

Listen a Discussion New book of Historical Fiction in Punjabiby Nain Sukh 

Stories of 6 Punjabis including one of the founders of communist struggle in our lands DADA Ameer Haider, Visionary of his times Mollana Ubaid Ullah Sindhi, 
Padri I D Sahbaz, ladies in struggle like Nasreen Anjum Bhatti and Alya Begum and revolutionary Masalli (dallat) leader Aga Khan Sahotra 

News of radio show

Radio Show recorded at MastFM103 in regular weekly Talk Show LOK LHAR 16 November 2017. Guests Iqbal Haider Butt, Zubair Ahmad and Irfan Malik

First watch a Video Clip of the program

Click HERE
For order the book click this link
http://www.readings.com.pk/pages/BookDetails.aspx?BookID=754175

For complete 

Radio show recording Click HERE

News of the book 

http://www.wichaar.com/news/153/ARTICLE/33687/2017-11-20.html

Some extracts

https://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2017/11/lok-lhar-nain-sukh-new-book-short.html

Note: Book launching of the book is at Sunday, 26 November 2017 at Lhore Press Club from 2.30 to 5.00 pm, Shimla Pahari, Davis road  

Lok Lhar: Nain Sukh New Book: Short Stories about 6 unsung Punjabis

LOK LHAR Radio Show about 

Nain Sukh New book AYE PURAY DI WAH @ MastFm103 Thursday 16 November 2017 live From 4 to 6pm

Short Stories of 6 Unsung Punjabis

Padri I D Shahbaz, Dada Ameer Haider, Mollana Ubaidullah Sindhi, Alya Begum, Aga Khan Sahotra & Nasreen Anjum Bhatti

Book will available @ Readings, lhore and market next week 19 November 

مُڈھ قدیم توں لے کے اج تائیں لکھاں کروڑاں جی جمّے، جیوے تے اوڑک موئے جیہناں چوں گِنتی دے بُت انسانی چیتے وچ اَمر ہوئے۔ حاکم ٹابری راجیاں، سُورمیاں تے عاشقاں بارے اپنی مرضی دے قِصّے لکھوائے۔ ہُن پِچھلے تِن سو سالاں توں دُنیا وطنی ریاستاں وچ ونڈی جاچکی جیہدے وچ دھرمی ادھرمی جَتھے بندِیاں ایس کم نوں اپنے سیاسی تے مالی لوبھ پاروں ہور اَگے ودھایا۔ تے اج مطلب دِیاں توارِیخاں دا بھنڈار ساڈے ساہمنے کیوں جے حالے لوکائی دی نِرپکھ وار اوہدی اپنی بولی وچ کسے پورے طور چھیڑی نہیں۔ بادشاہِیاں توں وطنی ریاستاں تِیک پیپلز ہِسٹری تے لوک ادب دی گل کراہے پئی رہی۔ خورے نَین سُکھ ایہو سوچ کے چھ اجیہے جِیاں بارے کہانیاں لِکھیاں نیں جیہڑے لوکائی دا لشکارا۔ جیہناں وچ مسافری تے دیس نکالا بھوگن والے کامریڈ دادا امیر حیدر تے مولانا عبیداللہ سندھی، چُوڑھیاں تے مُصلّیِاں وچ جوت جتن کرن والے پادری آئی ڈی شہباز تے آغا خاں سہوترا، اتے دو کجاک سوانِیاں جیہناں چوں عالیہ بیگم، ایکٹرس تے نسرین انجم بھٹی، شاعرہ۔ ایہناں کہانیاں دے سارے آہری مُکھ پاتر نمانے پر آہرے جی۔ لکھاری ایہناں کُھردِیاں بُھردِیاں ’ٹھیکرِیاں‘ نال اوس ویلے دی سیاسی سماجی ’اُتھل پتھل‘ نوں کہانیاں وچ کیویں اُجاگر کیتا، ایہہ تُساں آپ جانو۔
عامر ریاض
26اکتوبر2017،لہور

Some extracts, will update and add more extracts soon

I D Shahbaz

Mollana Ubaidullah Sindhi

Was the Russian Revolution a Marxist revolution? by Eric Rahim

Revolution Debate after 100 Years Revisiting Our Common Progressive Past

I would say the Russian revolution of 1917 was not a Marxist revolution. It did not develop according to the theory of social change that Marx had worked out. I would say it was a communist revolution that took place in conditions (both national and international) that were not appropriate for achieving socialism. I say it was a ‘communist revolution’ in the sense that it was led by the communist party which derived its inspiration from the teachings of Marx, but departed from them or re-interpreted them in the light of the situation that confronted them.

Introduction:  Sometime back I was asked by some friends to comment on a question that was the subject of discussion among them. That question provides the title of this essay. I think behind this question lie doubts raised by the collapse or the dismantling of communism in the former USSR. It will be noted that I have given much space to discussing Marx’s most important contribution of to social thought - the materialist conception of history. The reason for this is that this conception contains Marx’s thinking on the nature of social revolution, more generally, of social change. An understanding of this conception is essential for discussing the question posed here.


The materialist Hypothesis 

According to this hypothesis changes in society take place through internal forces. This means that the human society is conceptualised in organic terms. A child grows into an adult because it is an organism which has internal powers of self-generation; it is more than a mass of atoms because the atoms of which it is made are organically related to each other. A machine is not an organism, it can be changed only by an external agency or an outside force. It has no powers of self-generation of its own. Marx’s conception of the communist society of the future rests on this view – human beings are social in nature, man is socialised man, he is an ensemble of his social relations; we depend upon each other as the organs of an organism do. An individual organ is no use in isolation from the total organism. The individual achieves self-realisation only as member of a   society. 

Thus, development takes place organically, it is a gradual, cumulative process, small changes accumulating over time. One stage of development prepares the ground for the next stage; that is, the latter stage grows out of the former stage. The result of these quantitative changes (that take place within the existing mode of production) that accumulate over time is that they lead to a qualitative change – you move from one mode of production to the next. This involves a break in the gradual process – a revolution. The leading factor here is the changes in the material conditions of production – the manner in which people make their living. 

To take an example: In Europe, the bourgeois mode of production developed over a long period within the structure of feudalism. The growth of capitalist production and the dissolution of feudalism proceeded simultaneously. The growth of capitalist development eventually reached a stage when feudal institutions (e.g. serfdom) were unable to accommodate the forces of capitalist development. (For example, the bourgeois mode of production requires a free labour market, whereas under feudalism the serf is tied to the land on which he works.) The bourgeoisie wanted a share in political power so that these institutions could be altered, and the state power could be used to facilitate the development of capitalism  This is how Marx analysed the English revolutions of the 17th century and the French revolutions of 1789 and 1830. Changes within a mode of production result from changes in material conditions of production; and at the same time struggle between the old, dominant class and the new emerging class becomes intense. The change in the mode of production, from the old to the new, is effected through class struggle. I will give an illustration of this process.  

Marx spent something like twenty years of his life working on his Das Kapital (Capital). In this he worked out a theory or model of the 19th century capitalism trying to demonstrate theoretically that the development of capitalism will lead to socialism. So we can legitimately say that in Capital he attempted to provide a model of revolution (change from one to another, more advanced mode of production). It shows how capitalism prepares the ground for socialism or how a socialist society grows out of capitalism. I summarise the leading points that are relevant to the present discussion. 
 
1. It has been the historic function of capitalism to raise the productive capacity of human society. This it has done by applying a rational, scientific approach to production. It may or may not have raised the standard of living of the mass of the people, and it is certainly an exploitative system, but it has raised society’s capacity to produce an abundance of goods. This means that a necessary condition for socialism is satisfied because you cannot establish socialism in a poor country. People will continue to fight over scarce goods. 

2. Capitalist production over time necessarily results in large-scale production (large enterprises, large factories, etc.) This creates the basis for social control of production. You cannot establish socialism in a society of peasant producers; social production is too fragmented for it to be socially controlled.      

3. The development of large-scale production is inevitably associated with the development of the proletariat, which, at the stage of advanced development of capitalism, is the largest social class. Large-scale production means concentration of large numbers of workers in factories. When concentrated in large numbers, workers can organise themselves and through collective action develop their class consciousness. 

4. For a socio-economic system to fail (to be superseded by another), it must have developed internal contradictions that it is unable to resolve; the ruling class must be unable to adapt to changes that are required for social progress; its institutions do not meet the requirements of new methods of production.  In other words, this mode of production must have become moribund so that it is incapable of delivering progress. In the case of capitalism, it must have come to the point where it is unable to resolve the economic crises from which it periodically suffers. 

The conclusion is that the revolution comes when all the material conditions for the success of the new order have been fulfilled. I may even go as far as to say that the revolution comes to put the final seal on the economic and social changes that have already taken place. This is broadly speaking the hypothesis. 

However, we should take note of the fact that a hypothesis such as this can only deal with what we might call internal factors, such as those enumerated above. In actual life a revolution may fail for external reasons. Natural catastrophes are an obvious example of external factors. But more relevant to our present discussion is the intervention of other capitalist countries who may thwart a revolution even when the internal conditions for its success are satisfied. Thus, at the time Marx was writing, a revolution in a country like Belgium would have been thwarted by the intervention of England and France. That is, at the time Marx was writing a revolution to be successful had to be a Europe-wide revolution or to have developed in large, advanced countries.  Thus, what the model outlined above is telling us is not that the fulfilment of the conditions listed above would guarantee the success of the revolution; what it is saying is that these are the necessary conditions, but you have to consider the external circumstances also.  

Objective versus subjective factors 

In what I have said so far nothing has been said about the party, individual leadership, etc., that is, about the role of the conscious human agency. The hypothesis has been stated entirely in terms of objective factors, to the complete neglect of the subjective factor. Since revolutions (and other social changes) are made by human beings, you may well ask, what about the role of the party, leadership, etc? 

Let me explain. Historical development (evolution) takes place through the actions of human beings, but not according to their intentions.  For example, capitalist development takes place through the actions or plans of individual capitalists or entrepreneurs, say, with respect to their policies regarding investment, innovations, etc., but the development of capitalism (in one country or the world) is not planned by them. If that were the case there would be no business failures, no economic crises. Capitalist development takes place through the behaviour of capitalists and entrepreneurs, but this behaviour is determined by the way that the capitalist system works, not according to their subjective intensions and motivations. So, when Marx theoretically investigates the ‘laws of motion of capitalism’, he is studying an objective phenomenon (like a natural phenomenon), not the subjective, psychological propensities of individual capitalists.  

Does this mean that laws of motion of human society are like the laws of astronomy on which humans have no control?; that men are like puppets obeying some cosmic law?  Marx would have thought such an interpretation utter nonsense. Thus, the question is – What is the role that Marx assigns to the conscious human agency, such as the party, leadership, etc? (How ‘objective’ is the process of development?) We recall Marx’s famous statement: until now philosophers have only tried to understand the world, the point however is to change it. I recall also another of Marx’s insightful statements according to which we make our own history, but not in circumstances chosen by us. The circumstances – objective conditions – are there, they are the material conditions created by our ancestors that we have inherited. These conditions place limits on what we can and what we cannot do. It is for us to understand these limits and design our actions accordingly. If we go beyond those limits, we will fail in our purposes, we will not be able to act on our principles. What Marx is saying is this: what material conditions we inherit from the past do is to create a range of possibilities (circumstances) and it is for us (the human agency) to understand what these possibilities are and act according to our best judgment. It is we who make history. But note also that we are the product of our material and the associated ideological conditions. Our ideas and capabilities do not descend from heaven. We are free to act on the circumstances but within these limitations. In the end there has to be congruence between political will (the subjective agency) and the objective circumstances. Marx does not give us a formula. 

An Ambiguous Legacy 

Marx left behind him a rather ambiguous legacy on the issue under discussion. He was totally opposed to conspiracies, coups, putsches and terrorist acts that are aimed at achieving political power. In 1850, the Communist League was split between the Marx-Engels faction and another group that advocated insurrection (in Germany). At this time, Marx wrote: 

While we tell the workers: ‘You have to endure and go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil war in order to change the circumstances, in order to make yourselves fit for power’ – instead of that you [the other faction that favoured insurrections] say: ‘We must come to power immediately, or otherwise we may just as well go to sleep’. … I have always opposed the ephemeral notions of the proletariat. We devote ourselves to a party which is precisely far from achieving power. Would the proletariat have achieved power, then it would have enacted not proletarian, but petty-bourgeois legislation. Our party can achieve power only if and when conditions permit it to realise its own views. Louis Blanc serves as the best example of what can be achieved when one attains power prematurely.


I can quote numerous passages from Marx’s writings and letters where he condemns insurrections and coups to achieve political power. (Even if you did achieve political power through a coup, you will not be able to implement socialist policies.) Marx wished to emphasise that his socialism was quite different from that of other, utopian or conspiratorial, socialists. His socialism was based on a deep understanding of social and historical processes. It was the duty of communists to spread this understanding among the working classes. And the point of this understanding was that the proletariat should be able to undertake political activity that would facilitate the realisation of revolution when the circumstances make this realisation possible. 

While he was steadfastly opposing premature attempts at revolutions, he was at the same time always (almost always) talking of revolution, as if it were almost around the corner. The next economic crisis in Europe will bring the upheaval, he kept saying. He certainly thought that development in England had reached a stage that capitalism was undergoing significant internal changes. Always a revolutionary optimist, in 1858 he wrote to Ferdinand Lassalle: ‘All in all, the present period is pleasant. History is evidently bracing itself to take again a new start, and the signs of decomposition everywhere are delightful for every mind is not bent upon the conservation of things as they are.’  In 1877, after an initial defeat suffered by Russia in its war with Turkey, he wrote to a friend that Russia had long been standing s ‘on the threshold of an upheaval. The gallant Turks have hastened the explosion by years with the thrashing they have inflicted not merely on the Russian army and the Russian finances, but on the persons of the dynasty... This time the revolution begins in the East.’ At one point in the mid-1850s, writing in New York Daily Tribune he even contemplated the possibility of a revolution in China, which would then impact on Europe. 

His followers could pick and choose as they liked! We Marxists have to use our own heads. He said himself – ‘Take nothing on authority!’ 

The Russian Revolution 

Now let us come to the Russian revolution. I construct a certain scenario to make my point. 

Perhaps the first thing to be said is that Russia was one of most backward European countries in the 19th century. For example, serfdom was abolished only in 1861. Right from the beginning of the 20th century, its state structure was collapsing. It 1905, the country suffered an ignominious defeat in war with Japan, the first time a European power was humiliated by an Asian country. In the same year, it had what is referred to as the 1905 revolution when there was a sailors mutiny on the Battleship Potemkin, and hundreds of peaceful demonstrators were killed by the army. The Tsar promised a constitution, but soon went back on his promise. In 1914, the country entered the first world war against Germany; its army was ill-equipped and poorly fed and it suffered casualties in hundreds of thousands. In February 1917 there was a spontaneous revolution. There were strikes in St Petrograd and striking workers’ demonstrations were joined by hungry and deserting soldiers. Petrograd workers organised themselves into a soviet. The leaders of the army confronted the Tsar and told him to abdicate. He obliged but wanted his brother to take his place. The brother soon found out that there was no support for the monarchy. That was the end of the Ramonov dynasty. A provisional government was formed under prince Lvov and elections and a constituent assembly were promised. At the same time there was a famine in the country. Workers’ demonstrations continued and these were increasingly joined by deserting soldiers. Defeats on the front continued, but the provisional government kept Russia in the war. Petrograd workers’ soviet by this time had become so powerful that it was successfully competing with the government for power. Lvov was replaced by Alexander Kerensky. He also decided to keep Russia in the war while defeats and desertions continued. The commander-in-chief Kornilov attempted to overthrow the provisional government, but his attempted coup was defeated - only with the support of the Petrograd soviet. In July there was a mutiny in the Petrograd garrison. 

To repeat: I say all this to point out that in 1917 the Russian state structure was crumbling. As someone  put it, state power was lying on the pavement. The only question was who will pick it up. What were the options available to the Bolsheviks? Collaborate with the Provisional government (which was refusing to come out of the war) and hold elections? In the chaos that was developing in the country – as a result of famine and large numbers of soldiers deserting the army – would the provisional government, supported by the Bolsheviks, last? What would elections achieve in this situation? Would the Petrograd workers and starving soldiers sit quietly and wait for the results of the elections? I have no expert knowledge of Russian history, but on the basis of what little I know, I speculate that the objective situation prevailing in Russian at this time demanded a dictatorship. If it were not a Bolshevik dictatorship, it would have been a military one. A general more competent than Kornilov would probably have taken over and tried to restore order. In this situation, should the Bolshevik have said: ‘As good Marxists we must wait until capitalism in Russia has fully developed and conditions for a socialist revolution have been met?’ A military government – if it had come to power instead – would probably have rounded up all the Bolsheviks and sent them off to Siberia. 

I would say the Russian revolution of 1917 was not a Marxist revolution. It did not develop according to the theory of social change that Marx had worked out. I would say it was a communist revolution that took place in conditions (both national and international) that were not appropriate for achieving socialism. I say it was a ‘communist revolution’ in the sense that it was led by the communist party which derived its inspiration from the teachings of Marx, but departed from them or re-interpreted them in the light of the situation that confronted them. I think that only a Marxist analysis can give us an understanding of what happened both during and after the revolution. 

First published in viewpointonline.net in August 1212.