Polemics on an Interview with 'The Hindu': Kobad Ghandy Responds to KN Ramachandran's Critique

K. N. Ramachandran (KNR) is the General Secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Red Star. Recently, KNR wrote a critique of Marxist ideologue Kobad Ghandy's interview with 'The Hindu'.  

Link to KNR's article: http://www.cpiml.in/cms/articles-news-statements-2/articles/item/2635-a-respose-to-kobad-ghandy-s-interview-in-the-hindu-magazine-k-n-ramachandran

Kobad Ghandy's response to KN Ramachandran's criticism

Reply to K.N. Ramchandran (KNR)

I am not able to understand as to what KNR sought to achieve from this critique. At times he seems he was trying to put the gun on my shoulder to target others; at others it seems he was targeting me personally to agree to his mode of thought or else banding me a a Menshevik, Narodnik, and many other names.  Besides, it is rather superficial that he writes such a lengthy critique without so much as reading the book, merely basing on an interview in the Hindu. Can such a short interview reflect the entire views put in my book Fractured Freedom. The problem with KNR  is that even if he read the book, judging from his tone, he is willing to cut his feet to fit the shoe. i.e he has a preconceived view which he will some how portray as long as it does not fit his mode of thinking. So, for example, without reading the book he accuses me of not being self-critical, when I start with that. I also clearly state that what I have presented is an individual viewpoint and it will therefore have the limitations from not being that of a group or organisation. Inspite of this he makes such sweeping statements. Ofcourse that is his prerogative, yet if he were to present his achievements over the past half century maybe I could follow in his trail. But there is not a word on that; and merely an approach that “I have been correct from the start and I am correct now; at least now accept what I am saying”. But where is the practice to show it?

But before taking up some of the major points I must clarify that KNR is merely parroting the police/govt view of my supposed political association (with what intention I don’t know) even though the courts have decided otherwise and I have clearly stated that too. KNR seems taken in by the media and police rather than seeing the reality. Though in the entire book I have no where singled out any party/group he jumps to the conclusion that my critique is off a particular party/group. This is the type of dishonesty in many a left group/individual that is not willing to analyse their own years of activity but seeks to find fault with others to cover up their own failings.  

The reason I have raised these critiques is very clear in the book (as also my 6 articles on Freedom written in 2012 from Tihar jail); but KNR is blind to this. They are:

1) Why has the international communist movement faced such a major setback when peoples conditions are even worse today that when we started our activities and communism was an alternative

2) Why in India are both the parliamentary and non-parliamentary trends in India facing such stagnation and retrogression. 

It was in this broader connection that I sought to structure my critique both in 2012 as also now in the Book. But KNR prefers to read with his blinkers on and not try and see what I am trying to say. He is obsessed with what he supposedly discussed with me and Anu decades back which has absolutely no relevance to the issue under discussion. 

Also his approach is so typical of the dogmatic approach of many of the left circles in India which mechanically quote the Marxist classics without any relevance to the condition and situation here. 

The classic example of this is how he attacks the heading of The Hindu article: “revolution is not inevitable”. He immediately says Marx never said so and quotes the Manifesto. Such dogmatists are unable to distinguish general principles from their application to the concrete conditions. They differ little from the religious bhakts who find the answer for everything in the Gita or Koran. Why I make this statement today is due to the concrete context of today where capitalism, no matter what the crisis and collapse, will not fall on its own, unless there is a viable socialist/communist alternative. And unless we conceptualise this fact we will never look to understand our own failures and lack of growth even though capitalism is in such a crisis. The tendency is to continue our activity mechanically like a ‘monk tolling the bell’ being satisfied with illusory ‘gains’. This is a strong tendency reflected also in KNR’s critique, as otherwise in that long piece he would have acknowledged somewhere that all is not well with the communist/left. But no; he is only pointing fingers at others while he claims to be correct from the start. If so why after so many years he is not a force to reckon with in the country.  

And yes indeed the farmer’s movement is historic. One needs to study it and learn from it. Many movements in history were a source of knowledge, as the Paris Commune was for Marx. But again to use it to give legitimacy to one’s rigid theories, as KNR implies, is unethical. To what extent have we been successful to spread that movement to our areas of work is more pertinent. 

It would be best for KNR to first reflect on his own practice rather than being obsessed with others. 

[The views expressed from both ends are the sole responsibility of the corresponding activists. 'The Diligent' promotes constructive exchanges and neither rejects nor endorses either views.]