Skip to main content

A Marxist professor who made students ask questions, was critical of 'dogmatic' Left

By Harsh Thakor* 

Few academics were as scholastic, imaginative or dialectical as Prof Randhir Singh, who cut the tumours of capitalist ideology at the very root. A Marxist intellectual for decades served as professor in Delhi University, Prof Singh died in January 2016, leaving behind the legacy of a teacher who intensively fostered the spirit of questioning in students in contrast to indoctrination.
Not a Maoist or a Stalinist, Prof Singh upheld the positive role of USSR and China and consistently criticised what he considered as the autocratic nature of the Indian parliamentary democracy, the fatal consequences of globalisation from 1991 and the germinating of Hindutva neo-fascism.
Never blindly accepting the analysis of the Marxist-Leninist groups on what caused the demise of socialism, nor those who reduced Marxism to mere armed struggle, Prof Singh respected the view of integrating caste question with class struggle, firmly standing by the genuine democratic movements of the day of any strata of society.
A living example of what someone could do to contribute within the boundaries of an oppressive social order, he moulded the youth towards Marxist ideology in the 1970s, displaying mastery in explaining the dynamics of a capitalistic society, inspiring them to join ranks of progressive movements.
Prof Singh taught us the importance of studying all the bourgeois philosophers, be it Plato, Thoreau or Voltaire, and be a very good student of history. He delved into political thought of Machiavelli and Hobbes, as he did to Marx. Some of his best essays 'Future of Socialism', 'A Note on the Current Political Situation: Some issues and a Conclusion' and ‘Nepal’ were published in 'Monthly Review'. They make readers question the orthodox views of Stalinist or Maoist groups.
Prof Singh's magnum opus “Crisis of Socialism: Notes in Defence of a Commitment”, published a decade ago, was released by another notable Marxist thinker, Aijaz Ahmad, in Delhi. Since then, he published a few more collections – “Indian Politics Today: An Argument for Socialism-Oriented Path of Development” (2009) and “On Nationalism and Communalism in India” (2010).
Unlike many of his contemporary Marxists, Prof Singh classified India as capitalist instead of semi-feudal. A CPI card holder, with the split of the party in 1964, he went along with CPI (Marxist) for a few years. This was also the period when he was viciously attacked by the "official" Communists and was removed from the editorship of the party's theoretical Punjabi journal “Sada Jug” and was  charged with "individualism and intellectual arrogance", for refusing to publish top party leader BT Ranadive’s criticism of Mao Tse Tung.
Born on January 9, 1922, in Moga district of Punjab, Prot Singh's father was an idealist and a doctor (civil surgeon) by profession. He gained his baptism in politics in the anti-colonial struggle in Lahore spending a year in Lahore jail. Prof Singh became a full-time activist of CPI in 1939 at the age of 17, first as an activist of All-India Students Federation (AISF), of which Satya Pal Dang was leader.
He remained underground for quite some time, reaching out to peasants in rural areas. He translated “Communist Manifesto” and some other works of Karl Marx in Punjabi. He was 25 at the time of partition, and after moving to Delhi, he started teaching at the Camp College, which was set up for the refugees from Pakistan.
Prof Singh got a lecturer's job in the Delhi College, where he had the company of colleagues and friends such as progressive Hindi author Bhisham Sahni and historian Bipan Chandra. After spending nearly two decades in Delhi College and a brief stint in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), he was invited by the Delhi University as professor in the political science department in 1972, from where he retired in 1987. In between, while his PhD thesis was rejected, his book “Reason, Revolution and Political Theory: Notes on Oakeshott's Rationalism in Politics” (1967) earned him laurels as a political theorist.
Prof Singh challenged the dogmatic and autocratic character of the Left parties like CPI and CPI(M), which he said did not give respect to democratic functioning. In his writings he was critical of socialist societies like USSR neglecting democracy. He maintained that there were inherent flaws within socialist societies which failed to live up to the expectations of Karl Marx.
In his view we must all go back to Marx. Refusing to continue as a member of a Communist party or accept orthodox Leninism or Maoism, Prof Singh introduced the ideas of the New Left in the campuses like Herbert Marcus, Jean Paul Sartre or Althusser.
Prof Singh admired China under Mao and equally admired Cuba and Vietnam. In his view Cuba was a model for third world people and Che Guevera made path breaking contributions. He did not support Maoist people’s war path but admired the Bolivarian revolution and other movements in Latin America adopting extra-parliamentary forms.
Prof Singh said, "No discussion of socialism today, least of all its future, can bypass what happened in the erstwhile Soviet Union. What we have here, as I have argued at length in my book, is a failed revolutionary experiment: a grievously deformed socialism that was built and the final crisis and collapse of the sui generis class exploitative system it had ultimately degenerated into -- all of which is fully amenable to a Marxist explanation in terms of its method of historical materialism and class analysis.”
Prof Singh was removed from the editorship of the party's Punjabi journal Sada Jug for refusing to publish BT Ranadive’s article
“In other words”, he said, “What failed in Soviet Union was not socialism but a system that came to be built in its name. It is indeed imperative for socialists who wish for a future beyond capitalism to understand what has happened, what was built and what has failed as socialism in the Soviet Union.”
According to him, “They must assess the costs and consequences of this failure, the collapse of what we have described as ‘actually existing socialism’, and some others as ‘authoritarian communism’ -- though they must do so fully mindful of the costs and consequences of ‘actually existing capitalism’ or ‘authoritarian capitalism’ which has rushed in to pick up the pieces.”
He believed, “It was certainly mistaken to see the struggle for socialism in our times as a contest between ‘the socialist world’ and ‘the capitalist world’, as official Marxism in the post-1917 period made it out to be. It was, as always, an international class struggle with several more or less important fronts. The countries of ‘actually existing socialism’, while it lasted, were only one front of this struggle, and while they did condition or influence this struggle, positively as well as negatively, they did not determine or settle the question of its outcome”.
BT Ranadive
He further said, “Nor does the collapse of these countries now or their return to the capitalist fold, in any way settle the question of the future of socialism -- the struggle still goes on and will, so long as capitalism lasts. Nevertheless, these countries constituted what was in many ways a most important front of the ongoing international class struggle and their collapse demands that socialists understand and come to terms with it.”
He added, “The collapse of the Soviet Union does not end or modify the structural logic of global capitalism as manifested in poverty, underdevelopment, deindustrialisation and exploitation in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It has only made global capitalism all the more powerful and given a new edge to its predatory logic. Any social system built on inequality in the command of human and natural resources works in many ways to reproduce itself and to increase the extent of the in-built inequality."
Randhir Singh wrote comprehensive articles on state terrorism and democratic rights in India and presented a paper at the 1991 conference of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee. A very notable article was on the phenomenon of Khalistani and state terrorism in Punjab in the 1980s where he refuted the pro-state views of Bipin Chandra.
Prof Singh was bitterly critical of the attacks on the Sikh community and vocally condemned the collaboration of Left parties with the parties like Congress and BJP. He exposed how fascist Hindutva politics was infiltrating the parliamentary system and breaking the very fabric of democracy. He felt that MK Gandhi made a positive contribution.
He opposed militaristic tendencies of the Maoists in India, but left no stone unturned in condemning Operation Green Hunt. At the same time he defended the contribution of the Maoists in taking up the cudgels for the tribals. He was a strong adherent in utilizing extra parliamentary trends to achieve a radical change, but disagreed with those who blindly adopted the tactic of boycott of elections.
He said, “The revolutionary Left, including the Maoists, need to shift the focus of debate and struggle from violence to politics, to policies and programmes, to the issue of the country’s path of development, which to be pro-people has to be a socialism-oriented path of development. As part of this shift the Maoists also need to reach out to other Naxal formations.”
According to him, “A challenge for the Maoists, this shift and reaching out is a challenge for their ‘civil society’ sympathisers and supporters as well. They must not rest content with their opposition to the government’s war on people or with ‘peace initiatives’ etc. They need to help towards realisation of both this shift and unity among the Naxalites.”
He believed, “Unless this happens and the focus of debates and struggle shifts from violence to politics, above all to the issue of the country’s path of development, Indian politics will remain stranded in the quagmire of violence to the benefit of the ruling establishment, the people’s support for the capitalist path of development will continue to be consolidated, democracy will continue to be eroded, giving way to the authoritarian form of bourgeois rule, misery and suffering, old and new, will continue to be visited upon our adivasi population, all revolutionary advance will stay stalled and winning popular support for a revolutionary transformation of Indian society, for an alternative politics that seeks to realise the Naxalite aspiration for a life worthy of human beings for all, will become increasingly more difficult.”
---
*Freelance journalist

Comments

TRENDING

Women innovators on simple, revolutionary alternate solutions for water problems

By Proshakha Maitra, Mansee Bal Bhargava* The detrimental effects of uncontrolled population rise and accelerated change in the global climate have posed tremendous pressure on the water and sanitation. This calls all stakeholders, from both developed and developing nations, to improve their resilience and to instigate sustainability. It is more crucial than ever to optimise the use of the resources we have on hand since the world population is projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050.

IMA vs Ramdev: Why what's good or bad for goose should be good or bad for gander

By Dr Amitav Banerjee, MD* Baba Ramdev and his associate Balkrishna faced the wrath of the Supreme Court for their propaganda about their Ayurvedic products and belittling mainstream medicine. Baba Ramdev had to apologize in court. His apology was not accepted and he may face the contempt of court with harsher punishment. The Supreme Court acted on a public interest litigation (PIL) moved by the Indian Medical Association (IMA).

Alleged killing of another Bangladesh youth inside Indian territory: NHRC inquiry sought

By Kirity Roy* There was yet another incident of the killing of a Bangladeshi youth by the Border Security Force personnel attached with ‘Barthar’ BOP of ‘G’ Company of 75 BSF Battalion. In last five years several incidents of killings happened under this police station’s jurisdiction and the cases will get the award as “Not Guilty” as usual.

Magnetic, stunning, Protima Bedi 'exposed' malice of sexual repression in society

By Harsh Thakor*  Protima Bedi was born to a baniya businessman and a Bengali mother as Protima Gupta in Delhi in 1949. Her father was a small-time trader, who was thrown out of his family for marrying a dark Bengali women. The theme of her early life was to rebel against traditional bondage. It was extraordinary how Protima underwent a metamorphosis from a conventional convent-educated girl into a freak. On October 12th was her 75th birthday; earlier this year, on August 18th it was her 25th death anniversary.

Modi model, Hindutva icon 'justified' alliance with Muslim League before Independence

By Shamsul Islam*  Our PM describes himself as ‘Hindu’ nationalist and member of RSS. He proudly shares the fact that he was groomed to be a political leader by one of the two fathers of the Hindutva politics, MS Golwalkar (the other being VD Savarkar) and given the task of establishing Hindutva polity in India after eradicating secularism.

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah*   The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

Crusader for people’s causes, this Hollywood actor entered 'unexplored zones' in US

By Harsh Thakor*  Marlon Brando on April 3rd completes his birth centenary. He perished in 2004, on July 1, aged 80 years. Arguably in Hollywood Brando penetrated sensitivity and versatility at an unparalleled scale and discovered new horizons or explored path breaking zones in acting.

Nuclear power expansion: Is AEC's new, 'unrealistic' target fully backed by PMO?

By Shankar Sharma*  Another unrealistic and tall claim by Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) has been announced: India is eyeing 100 GW nuclear power by 2047, the AEC chairman  AK Mohanty   has said. A few years ago, the dream target for the Indian nuclear establishment was 275,000 MWe of nuclear power by 2050 (as per DAE document of 2008 "A Strategy for the Growth of Electricity in India”). Now this target of 100 GW nuclear power by 2047. And as at the end of February 2024, the actual nuclear power capacity was only 7,480 MWe, which formed only 1.7% of the total power capacity in the country. 

'Flawed' argument: Gandhi had minimal role, naval mutinies alone led to Independence

Counterview Desk Reacting to a Counterview  story , "Rewiring history? Bose, not Gandhi, was real Father of Nation: British PM Attlee 'cited'" (January 26, 2016), an avid reader has forwarded  reaction  in the form of a  link , which carries the article "Did Atlee say Gandhi had minimal role in Independence? #FactCheck", published in the site satyagrahis.in. The satyagraha.in article seeks to debunk the view, reported in the Counterview story, taken by retired army officer GD Bakshi in his book, “Bose: An Indian Samurai”, which claims that Gandhiji had a minimal role to play in India's freedom struggle, and that it was Netaji who played the crucial role. We reproduce the satyagraha.in article here. Text: Nowadays it is said by many MK Gandhi critics that Clement Atlee made a statement in which he said Gandhi has ‘minimal’ role in India's independence and gave credit to naval mutinies and with this statement, they concluded the whole freedom struggle.

Indians witnessing 'regression to Hindutva politics' under Modi ahead of elections

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak*  The forthcoming general election in India, scheduled from April 19, 2024, to June 1, 2024, to elect the 543 members of the 18th Lok Sabha and the new Government of India, carries immense significance for the preservation of India's identity as a liberal, secular, and constitutional democracy.