Bhai Lalo or Malik Bhago: Where do you stand?

By Gurnam Singh | Opinion |

One of the positive outcomes of the historic ongoing Indian farmer’s protest on the borders of Delhi that has been running for almost a year is the establishment of unity amongst progressive forces in ways that cut across lines of race, religion, class/caste, gender, and politics. Of particular note was a recent press conference. It involved the Sikh scholar Sarabjit Singh Dhanda, US activist medic Dr. Svemaan Singh and farmers union leader and known Marxist Joginder Singh Ugraha standing shoulder to shoulder.

Following the terrible events of June 1984 and for some decades afterward, much animosity and acrimony existed between progressive leftist groups and Sikhs activists. However, this encounter offers hope that the mistrust and ideological tensions may just be diminishing. The irony is that many Sikh activists that lost their lives at the hands of the Indian state, had formerly been involved in Naxalite movements that too were brutally repressed by the state. As well as being inspired by Marxist ideas, as their literature reveals, the Naxals were also infused by the revolutionary traditions of the Sikh Gurus. So in seeing what were previously disparate factions together on one platform, having identified the real enemy, I get a real sense that a unity of purpose is emerging.

For sure, some will object to this rapprochement. The Hindutva inspired forces, many of whom have infiltrated key Sikh bodies, as well as some of the more blinkered leftists, will not be happy. However, in reality, given their common social program, one cannot separate the revolutionary project of Guru Nanak and leftist ideas associated with the German political philosopher, Karl Marx. Though their respective historical contexts were quite different, in terms of aspirations for ordinary people, arguably there is considerable overlap between the two of them.

Over the years, through a combination of failed communist states and right-wing demonization, the idea of communism has become tarnished; some even argue it belongs to the dustbin of history, and that following the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, as the American political theorist Frances Fukuyama proclaimed, the triumph of liberal capitalism represented the ‘End of History!’

No doubt communist and socialist parties have been on a steep decline over the past 40 years, but that does not mean the basic challenges facing humanity, namely of inequity and human misery, that both Marx and Nanak identified, are not important anymore! In truth, the battle between the have’s and have not’s, the rich and poor, or if you, between the Malik Bhago’s and Bhai Lalo’s of this world, continue to rage.

In simple terms, communism represents a political system in which property is collectively owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. Under these circumstances, each and every human being can engage in a creative and productive life. And if this is the theory, then as well as offering his unique conception of equality and the collective good, Guru Nanak went one step further and established such a utopian arrangement at Kartarpur.

Both Nanak and Marx rejected social division of caste/class, both were critical of individuals accumulating excess wealth, both were against the enslavement and impoverishment of the majority of the population, both supported women’s empowerment, both felt religion was used ideologically by the ruling elites to divide people rather than enabling them to realise their common interest and true potential, and both emphasized the importance of reason and critical thinking.

As for the question of religion, in their unique ways, both identified the divisive nature of religious dogma and rejected the idea of a metaphysical God sitting in judgment in ‘Heaven’. Indeed, underlying their determination to break free from past dogma, both even rejected the beliefs of their parents. Born into a ‘high caste’ Khatari Brahmin family, Nanak rejected beliefs and rituals associated with Brahmanism. Similarly, Marx, who was being groomed to become a Christian priest, turned his back on religion altogether, proclaiming it to be at best only capable of offering temporary emotional support to deep-rooted material inequality. And at worst is simply added to false consciousness and hence allowed suffering to continue.

Both Nanak and Marx were perused that only through a radical transformation of society could ordinary people become truly free. And this would mean a complete redistribution of wealth and power, away from the ruling elites, and priestly classes that were being deployed by the elites to control the minds of the masses. For sure, Nanak and Marx were different people in many respects. Their cultural contexts were quite different, Nanak emerges in the late 15th Century in medieval and largely rural Panjab whereas Marx appears 400 years later in the 19th Century in the midst of the industrial revolution in Europe.

But despite this gap, I have no doubt, they shared a utopian vision where all people could live a useful, creative fulfilling life free from violence and oppression. And in this regard, I have no doubt they had a common vision of a much kinder and more caring world, if you like, they both wanted to create Heaven on Earth.

* This is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Asia Samachar.

RELATED STORY:

Towards a more loving, sharing and caring world in 2021 (Asia Samachar, 22 Dec 2020)