I've seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by capitalism,
no longer starving, hysterical, naked,
but portly, Prozac fed, Armani clad,
dragging themselves through neon shopping malls at dawn looking for a
cashflow fix,
angelheaded hype-stars burning for a brand name connection - Victoria's
Secret, maybe, or Starbucks - to open up another outlet, to milk the
sacred cow of commerce and make things predictable, tedious, subject to
a national marketing strategy;
WHO once in poverty and tatters, hollow-eyed and high, sat up smoking in
the supernatural darkness...
WHO were expelled from the academies for craziness & publishing obscene
odes on the windows of the skull, and
WHO are now engaged in the most mammoth dumbing down of culture the
world has ever seen,
WHO wringing their hands in car retrieval lobbies of Intercontinentals,
after six hour feasts, impatient for the stretch Rolls, sing madrigals
to global consumerism, sternly reminding me of Soviet horrors, Tianamen
Square, famines, secret police ...
and anyway, the entire population of China deserves to be shod in Nike,
with their distinctive polyurethane airbag cushions,
containing sulphur hexafluoride,
the world's most lethal greenhouse gas,
with a global warming hit 22,000 times greater than
carbon dioxide,
and which hangs in the atmosphere for 500 years;
yes, produced by girls in Indonesia for five bucks,
strikes outlawed, overtime compulsory, 20 cents an hour,
Nike's inflate on-the-shelf to $200.
Asked about onerous conditions,
the area manager shrugs:
"I don't know that I need to know".
Bliss.
Shimmering on Fortune's list of fabulous
rates of return to investors, (46.9%),
Nike is a Shareholder Superstar,
to the best minds of my generation,
not a Sweatshop Slavelord.
These are the minds
WHO manipulate, degrade and exploit the ass end of pop culture in all
its forms, using tabloid sadism, salivating weeklies, splatter-trash
cinema ("it's art! it's art!"), footie fetishism, and gluttony elevated
to haute cuisine,
WHO justify intellectual slumming, star-fucking-then-crushing, fad
promotions, supergossip, with the
ineluctable logic of economic rationalism,
the most odious of opiates,
the cruellest of illusions,
WHO, knowing the decline of health & happiness outside their elite
zones, persist in formenting the great Dumbing Down (including their own
minds, once finegazing at starry nights with radiant cool eyes, poetry
on their lips and no thought of material excess), yes, subsidising the
hip vulgarity of media scams with ads, promos and "tie-ins" for
objects objects objects
of destruction,
either of self,
or the swirling backyard we 5.6 billion inhabit, and
WHO, by fostering commercial falsehoods,
shield us from the truth,
and each other,
either in small matters, like wrinkle banishing lotions or
big myths, like multi millionaires being good for the planet because
gold trickles down to the peasants in Brazil, ha!
(and to avoid too many cliches you'll notice I haven't mentioned
resource depletion);
WHO don't know that they need to know, these growth-rate trippers
hallucinating Sydney 2000 real estate,
WHO provoke the scandalised descendants of Victor Hugo to call for "a
halt to the pillage of Disney", after their ancestor's story was stolen
and his name excluded from posters plastering the planet, nor honoured
in the merchandised debauch of fluffy toys, CD's & video nasties;
WHO so excessively reward the chairman of Disney
that it would take a Mickey Mouse pyjama seamstress in Haiti
three lifetimes
to earn what Michael Eisner makes in a day,
WHO pride themselves on stretching the frontiers of youth marketing,
even beyond alco-pop, "the most important teen drinking trend in
decades", to the irresistable alchemy of ...
alco-milk;
WHO, because of soaring US profits of the female shaving industry,
Target Europe with a $20 million campaign to render women uncouth &
smelly unless they reach for a
plastic pink handled Lady Protector,
every day,
WHO once screamed out of windows in despair until rescued by throngs of
songsters dreaming gleaming impossible utopias, for the hell of it, for
the high of it, and now, looking back, plan to sanitize & bastardize it
as
a 1000 acre Woodstock Theme Park
of museums, train rides, theatres, and jelly vats writhing with
skinny-dipping hippie robots,
a Hard Rock cafe franchise and,
to promote Mega Virgin Global,
a sky-flying inflatable Jimi Hendrix;
(Why not?
Che Guevara is already a Swatch watch);
as the likelihood of real political change recedes,
we are told,
people need symbols of resistance -
it makes them feel better;
WHO in everyday seeming unimportant ways
connive in their own dumbing down -
as did John Travolta, recently on David Letterman worldwide, (isn't
everything?) hugging, schmoozing, drivel-drooling, playing to the
brain dead gallery,
anything to stop futon spuds channel drifting,
never to say anything of import, or even for a moment
think aloud
in case it unleashes the wrath of an unseen ratings god
and crush a career,
(Maybe they're right.
It's why Dennis Potter called his cancer
Rupert),
WHO realise that outside their gilded enclaves are gridlocked
slumblocks,
cars cars cars,
exeeding 500 million this year
airports airports airports ,
annual release of carbon dioxide 23 bilion tonnes,
casinos multiplying, like youth suicides, tides of landless, jobless,
homeless, swarming citywards,
trees felled, salt rising, heat rising, cancer rising, coasts wrecked -
a strip of Bali three McDonalds already - everywhere mangroves uprooted
for hotels, dugongs gutted,
countless mammal species,
168 bird species judged critically endangered,
goodbye, goodbye,
who know in their hearts of this hellshock, yes, these best minds of my
generation, who control & mould the global brainbox and cannot bear to
recognise the most obvious connections between what they do
and don't do
and the destiny of this toxic orb.
In my dreams you walk dripping from a lost journey on the superhighway
in tears
to my clifftop door in the Western night.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Write an essay on 'the movement for Pakistan'. How would you evaluate Muhammad Ali Jinnah's leadership of that 'movement'?
Introduction and Stand:
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate and analyse the contributions of Mohamed Ali Jinnah to the creation of Pakistan as a sovereign state. It also aims to criticise his aims and ambitions in doing so. With the aim of depicting M.A. Jinnah as a man who led the movement for Pakistan with personal power as one of his motivating factors, this essay will prove the aforesaid hypothesis and yet go on to show that despite his own motivations, M.A. Jinnah led the movement in a highly admirable manner.
Jinnah's Beginning:
To begin at the beginning, the idea of a separate state for Muslims was not an idea that Jinnah liked or supported. Being a highly secular man, trained in British law and practicing constitutional, democratic politics, the idea of a separate state was not something he encouraged until his return to India after his self-imposed exile in Britain (1937). When the idea of a separate Muslim state was first conceptualised by the Islamic poet, Mohamed Iqbal and a nationalistic minded student in Britain told Jinnah of the plan, he slapped the student in outrage . He resented being typecast as a 'Muslim', according to his good friend, “He was very very British” . Being a member of both the Muslim League and Indian National Congress, he spent his early political career working to bring them together. It was due to Jinnah's leadership and liaison role that the 1915 session of the Muslim League coincided with that of Congress, and at that session, Jinnah played a significant role in negotiations, which resulted in the Lucknow pact of 1916. This pact was one of the first formal Hindu-Muslim agreements granting rights to Muslims, and it was the only time that the Muslim League and Congress came to a voluntary agreement about India. The Lucknow Pact granted Indian Muslims a separate electorate, and 'weightage' in legislative councils that had a Muslim minority. It had but a temporary effect on Hindu-Muslim relations as it represented only the agreement of a 'tiny political elite' of the two communities. There were many reasons that resulted in the most dramatic change in a man that history has ever seen; religious, personal and otherwise. The aim of the question is to 'evaluate' Jinnah's 'leadership' of the 'movement' for Pakistan, as such, before analysing his work, we must first analyse the situations before and after his 'policies' were put into action.
His 'Transformation':
The main reason for the increasing sense of nationalism among the Indian Muslims at that time was due to a growing fear of their increasing marginalisation, and not just in India.
It is often suspected that Jinnah's sudden change from secular constitutional leader to a pro-Islam figure had a lot to do with his disillusionment of the non-constitutional and increasingly Hindu-oriented policies practiced by his fellow congress leader and good friend Mohandas K. Gandhi. It was Gandhi's 'Civil Disobedience Campaign' that Jinnah was ill-at-ease with and he resigned soon after Gandhi gained control of the Congress party in 1920. There was in India at that time, a growing fear of the 'British Raj' being replaced by 'Ram Raj' . Jinnah was shrewd enough to realise that Hindu extremists could make life difficult for Muslims in India.
Increasing this fear was the marginalizing of minorities in Germany under Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime. Golwalkar's 'We Or Our Nationhood Defined' (1938), which argued that, if German Jews could be exterminated by Hitler, so could Indian Muslims by Hindus. Jinnah commented in relation to the increasingly tense situation of Indian Hindus and Muslims that, “Hitler's attempt at purity was a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by” . The sheer enormity of his linking the German genocide to India showed his growing concern, and that of the masses of Muslims in South Asia about the growing threat of Hindu extremism.
Another factor frequently attributed to the growing fear of being sidelined among the Muslims was the collapse of Ottoman Caliphate Empire. This was the loss of one of the biggest Islamic powers in the world. However, although Jinnah sympathized with his fellow Muslims, he was not convinced that Muslims should march out of British India and migrate to Muslim states like Afghanistan.
Another reason often attributed to Jinnah's sudden departure to England was the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms of 1919. These reforms posed a significant setback to Jinnah's career; education, public works and local self-governance were all transferred to the control of local ministers in a diarchal system. This was a good opportunity for politicians with strong local support which Jinnah lacked as he had always seen himself representing India in its entirety and lacked a landed or tribal powerbase. Although he tried to carry on in his previous role as a Hindu-Muslim negotiator, he was not on the best terms with Nehru and many of his proposal were often rejected , and his mediatory role was taken over by Mian Fazl-I-Husain who had a much stronger provincial base and thus greater authority in negotiating on the behalf of Muslims in India.
His return and alliances formed:
One of the biographers of M. A. Jinnah, Stanley Wolpert of UCLA said: "Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three. Hailed as 'Great Leader' (Quaid-I-Azam) of Pakistan and its first governor-general, Jinnah virtually conjured that country into statehood by the force of his indomitable will. His place of primacy in Pakistan's history looms like a minaret over the achievements of all his contemporaries in the Muslim League." "We are a nation," Jinnah said, three years before Partition, "with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, aptitude and ambitions - in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life." When in 1934 the Muslims of India elected Jinnah as their representative to the Central Legislative Assembly, in his absence, and the 1935 Government of India Act gave him an opportunity to regain his former influence, Jinnah returned to India and worked towards the creation of a separate state for Muslims by uniting the various disparate Muslim groups scattered throughout India
Jinnah knew exactly what he was doing throughout his leadership of the Pakistan movement. He was “an able, single-minded political tactician who took full advantage of the dramatic political changes which occurred after India's entry into the Second World War” . However, even before the advent of the Second World War, Jinnah made his alliances and manipulated them to benefit his cause. His alliance with Sikander Hayat Khan, after the 1937 elections where the Unionist Party won the majority of Muslim votes, was a recognition of the latter's power and the need for the support of rural landowners who controlled the majority of rural votes. In exchange for Khan's support in National politics, Jinnah allowed him control over the organisation of the Muslim League. By 1939, the Muslim League had greatly increased their influence; this was largely due to the blunders of Congress. After the 1937 elections, Congress had won the mandate to form ministries in 7 out of 11 provinces, which put many Muslims under Congress (largely Hindu) rule. This would have been an apt opportunity for Congress to establish itself as an all-India party and shed its 'Hindu' mantle, however, the reality was quite the opposite. Congress made no effort to empathize with or respect Muslim culture and religion . This boosted the Muslim League's rhectoric that it alone could safeguard Islamic interests in India. It was after this period that the demand for Pakistan intensified. Even the British agreed with this viewpoint, in 1939, Linlithgow dubbed Congress 'a Hindu organisation', implicitly accepting the right of the Muslim League to speak for all Indian Muslims.
It could be said that the outbreak of World War Two was a watershed in the movement for Pakistan. World War Two served to firstly accelerate British departure and also to put Muslim League and Congress on the same platform. The 1942 Crippes Mission, which was a British attempt to garner wartime support from India in exchange for self-government, conceded the theory of partition. “The British could not contemplate the transfer of their present responsibility for the peace and welfare of India to any system of government whose authority is directly denied by large and powerful elements in India's national life.”
The Psychological Game:
Jinnah's creation of a 'modern Muslim persona' was the binding force that brought about the uniting of the Muslims in India. The main divisions among them at that time were a common dress, language, political organization, sect and territory. Jinnah brought together the various factions with his vociferous talk for a 'common land' - Pakistan. In this 'Muslim utopia', Urdu would be the common language; the Muslim League a central political organisation and Jinnah's own dress sense and lack of any particular sect the common practices. Just as Nehru and Gandhi used clothes to unite and bring together the majority of Hindus, Jinnah amalgamated the various forms of Islamic dress to form a common attire that would appeal to all sects of Muslim society. By dressing in an Islamic fashion, he managed to completely divide himself from his previous counterparts, Gandhi, Nehru and the largely Hindu Congress party. When he was once asked for his sect (Sunni or Shia), he responded by asking what was the prophet . This again brought about a sense of unity among the Muslims of India, divided among themselves on the basis of their Islamisation. Some were Hindu converts from the time of the Mughal empire, others were of Arab or Turkish descent. Jinnah's answer, radical as it might have been for that time, united all of them as Muslims.
Also, Jinnah made all Muslims feel an affinity with this new 'dream nation', which would have a place for all Muslims, and thus served to unite the people of the future Pakistan. Professor Ziauddin Ahmad, the biographer of “Quaid-e-Azam”, commented, "When he defined Muslim nationhood in such tangible terms, every Muslim found himself testifying to the justice of this claim, and subscribing to the logical corollary of the fact and recognition of separate Muslim nationhood, viz., the demand for a Muslim homeland."
There are many factors that go to show that Mohamed Ali Jinnah did ensure that the newly created nation of Pakistan would be a fair and just nation for all its citizens, regardless of sect or gender. In a social system where women were, more often than not, oppressed, Jinnah brought about woman's rights, human rights and minority rights.
Was it all for power?
His sincerity in ensuring the creation of a land for his followers could be seen in his repeated rejection of the offer to be the first Indian prime minister in exchange for giving up the idea of Pakistan and maintaining a united India. There is a common misconception that Jinnah wanted a separate state for Muslims, even if it was at the expense of many innocent lives. However, Jinnah did actually accept the Cabinet Mission plan for a united India with Muslim-majority areas to be under Muslim rule. The Cabinet Mission plan advocated a union of India comprising both British India and the Indian States, with a central government to deal with foreign affairs, defence and communications. The union would have an Executive and a Legislature. Each province would maintain power over all other areas. The provinces were also to be divided into three sections. Provinces could opt out of any group after the first general elections. Lastly, there would be an interim government having the support of the major political parties. It was only when Nehru rejected the plan as a 'stop-gap' , after Congress had first accepted it on 24th May 1946, that Jinnah, for the first time in his political career, turned to a non-constitutional move and called for a communal mobilisation among the Muslims, resulting in rapidly spreading horrific violence, starting in Calcutta, India seemed to be on the brink of a civil war . It was only when Viceroy Wavell invited the League to join Congress in forming the interim government that the violence decreased.
Conclusion:
Jinnah began his leadership of the Pakistan movement around the time he turned 40, the age Muslims believe is a turning point in life. The death of his wife ended his family commitments and his children were grown. Repeated appeals to return to India to guide the Muslims could have been a way for him to get back with God and Islam. Whatever his motivations, Jinnah was indeed a leader who despite his personal motives, served to unite the Islamic people of India and give them a land to call their own.
By analysing his motives however, we can see that he seemed to be motivated largely by both a quest for personal power and to a desire to carry out his politics in the diplomatic manner he saw fit as opposed to Gandhi's anti-British movements, and to perhaps prove the superiority of constitutional politics as opposed to anti-constitutional means.
His psychological method of using himself as an example in terms of dress, religion and politics to unite the Muslims was an extraordinary. His inclusion of minority and women's rights made him a politician with support on all sides and a very wide base to work with. He realised after the 1937 elections and the poor showing of the Muslim League that theories were good but grassroots participation was needed to establish power.
He was shrewd in his dealings with his opponents and made use of the unionists to garner support crucial for the Muslim league in 1936 and then moved to essentially put them down in 1944
Jinnah leadership of the moment was impeccable for the uniting of the disparate Muslim factions but it was lacking in that there was no 'successor' capable of replacing Jinnah's place after his death. Knowing that his death was close, Jinnah ought to have groomed a successor to prevent Pakistan from falling into the quagmire it did. However his quest for power could have stood in the way of that. The other factor that could have possibly influenced his decision not to 'share' his power and leadership could have been that at that stage, Pakistan needed one strong leader and power could not have been shared. As such, as Lord Mouthbatten called Jinnah, a “psychopathic case ” or otherwise, Mohamed Ali Jinnah used the Pakistan demand to hoist himself to power and succeeded remarkably at the same time managing to create a nation-state which was, for a short time, the dream of many an Indian Muslim.
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate and analyse the contributions of Mohamed Ali Jinnah to the creation of Pakistan as a sovereign state. It also aims to criticise his aims and ambitions in doing so. With the aim of depicting M.A. Jinnah as a man who led the movement for Pakistan with personal power as one of his motivating factors, this essay will prove the aforesaid hypothesis and yet go on to show that despite his own motivations, M.A. Jinnah led the movement in a highly admirable manner.
Jinnah's Beginning:
To begin at the beginning, the idea of a separate state for Muslims was not an idea that Jinnah liked or supported. Being a highly secular man, trained in British law and practicing constitutional, democratic politics, the idea of a separate state was not something he encouraged until his return to India after his self-imposed exile in Britain (1937). When the idea of a separate Muslim state was first conceptualised by the Islamic poet, Mohamed Iqbal and a nationalistic minded student in Britain told Jinnah of the plan, he slapped the student in outrage . He resented being typecast as a 'Muslim', according to his good friend, “He was very very British” . Being a member of both the Muslim League and Indian National Congress, he spent his early political career working to bring them together. It was due to Jinnah's leadership and liaison role that the 1915 session of the Muslim League coincided with that of Congress, and at that session, Jinnah played a significant role in negotiations, which resulted in the Lucknow pact of 1916. This pact was one of the first formal Hindu-Muslim agreements granting rights to Muslims, and it was the only time that the Muslim League and Congress came to a voluntary agreement about India. The Lucknow Pact granted Indian Muslims a separate electorate, and 'weightage' in legislative councils that had a Muslim minority. It had but a temporary effect on Hindu-Muslim relations as it represented only the agreement of a 'tiny political elite' of the two communities. There were many reasons that resulted in the most dramatic change in a man that history has ever seen; religious, personal and otherwise. The aim of the question is to 'evaluate' Jinnah's 'leadership' of the 'movement' for Pakistan, as such, before analysing his work, we must first analyse the situations before and after his 'policies' were put into action.
His 'Transformation':
The main reason for the increasing sense of nationalism among the Indian Muslims at that time was due to a growing fear of their increasing marginalisation, and not just in India.
It is often suspected that Jinnah's sudden change from secular constitutional leader to a pro-Islam figure had a lot to do with his disillusionment of the non-constitutional and increasingly Hindu-oriented policies practiced by his fellow congress leader and good friend Mohandas K. Gandhi. It was Gandhi's 'Civil Disobedience Campaign' that Jinnah was ill-at-ease with and he resigned soon after Gandhi gained control of the Congress party in 1920. There was in India at that time, a growing fear of the 'British Raj' being replaced by 'Ram Raj' . Jinnah was shrewd enough to realise that Hindu extremists could make life difficult for Muslims in India.
Increasing this fear was the marginalizing of minorities in Germany under Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime. Golwalkar's 'We Or Our Nationhood Defined' (1938), which argued that, if German Jews could be exterminated by Hitler, so could Indian Muslims by Hindus. Jinnah commented in relation to the increasingly tense situation of Indian Hindus and Muslims that, “Hitler's attempt at purity was a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by” . The sheer enormity of his linking the German genocide to India showed his growing concern, and that of the masses of Muslims in South Asia about the growing threat of Hindu extremism.
Another factor frequently attributed to the growing fear of being sidelined among the Muslims was the collapse of Ottoman Caliphate Empire. This was the loss of one of the biggest Islamic powers in the world. However, although Jinnah sympathized with his fellow Muslims, he was not convinced that Muslims should march out of British India and migrate to Muslim states like Afghanistan.
Another reason often attributed to Jinnah's sudden departure to England was the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms of 1919. These reforms posed a significant setback to Jinnah's career; education, public works and local self-governance were all transferred to the control of local ministers in a diarchal system. This was a good opportunity for politicians with strong local support which Jinnah lacked as he had always seen himself representing India in its entirety and lacked a landed or tribal powerbase. Although he tried to carry on in his previous role as a Hindu-Muslim negotiator, he was not on the best terms with Nehru and many of his proposal were often rejected , and his mediatory role was taken over by Mian Fazl-I-Husain who had a much stronger provincial base and thus greater authority in negotiating on the behalf of Muslims in India.
His return and alliances formed:
One of the biographers of M. A. Jinnah, Stanley Wolpert of UCLA said: "Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three. Hailed as 'Great Leader' (Quaid-I-Azam) of Pakistan and its first governor-general, Jinnah virtually conjured that country into statehood by the force of his indomitable will. His place of primacy in Pakistan's history looms like a minaret over the achievements of all his contemporaries in the Muslim League." "We are a nation," Jinnah said, three years before Partition, "with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, aptitude and ambitions - in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life." When in 1934 the Muslims of India elected Jinnah as their representative to the Central Legislative Assembly, in his absence, and the 1935 Government of India Act gave him an opportunity to regain his former influence, Jinnah returned to India and worked towards the creation of a separate state for Muslims by uniting the various disparate Muslim groups scattered throughout India
Jinnah knew exactly what he was doing throughout his leadership of the Pakistan movement. He was “an able, single-minded political tactician who took full advantage of the dramatic political changes which occurred after India's entry into the Second World War” . However, even before the advent of the Second World War, Jinnah made his alliances and manipulated them to benefit his cause. His alliance with Sikander Hayat Khan, after the 1937 elections where the Unionist Party won the majority of Muslim votes, was a recognition of the latter's power and the need for the support of rural landowners who controlled the majority of rural votes. In exchange for Khan's support in National politics, Jinnah allowed him control over the organisation of the Muslim League. By 1939, the Muslim League had greatly increased their influence; this was largely due to the blunders of Congress. After the 1937 elections, Congress had won the mandate to form ministries in 7 out of 11 provinces, which put many Muslims under Congress (largely Hindu) rule. This would have been an apt opportunity for Congress to establish itself as an all-India party and shed its 'Hindu' mantle, however, the reality was quite the opposite. Congress made no effort to empathize with or respect Muslim culture and religion . This boosted the Muslim League's rhectoric that it alone could safeguard Islamic interests in India. It was after this period that the demand for Pakistan intensified. Even the British agreed with this viewpoint, in 1939, Linlithgow dubbed Congress 'a Hindu organisation', implicitly accepting the right of the Muslim League to speak for all Indian Muslims.
It could be said that the outbreak of World War Two was a watershed in the movement for Pakistan. World War Two served to firstly accelerate British departure and also to put Muslim League and Congress on the same platform. The 1942 Crippes Mission, which was a British attempt to garner wartime support from India in exchange for self-government, conceded the theory of partition. “The British could not contemplate the transfer of their present responsibility for the peace and welfare of India to any system of government whose authority is directly denied by large and powerful elements in India's national life.”
The Psychological Game:
Jinnah's creation of a 'modern Muslim persona' was the binding force that brought about the uniting of the Muslims in India. The main divisions among them at that time were a common dress, language, political organization, sect and territory. Jinnah brought together the various factions with his vociferous talk for a 'common land' - Pakistan. In this 'Muslim utopia', Urdu would be the common language; the Muslim League a central political organisation and Jinnah's own dress sense and lack of any particular sect the common practices. Just as Nehru and Gandhi used clothes to unite and bring together the majority of Hindus, Jinnah amalgamated the various forms of Islamic dress to form a common attire that would appeal to all sects of Muslim society. By dressing in an Islamic fashion, he managed to completely divide himself from his previous counterparts, Gandhi, Nehru and the largely Hindu Congress party. When he was once asked for his sect (Sunni or Shia), he responded by asking what was the prophet . This again brought about a sense of unity among the Muslims of India, divided among themselves on the basis of their Islamisation. Some were Hindu converts from the time of the Mughal empire, others were of Arab or Turkish descent. Jinnah's answer, radical as it might have been for that time, united all of them as Muslims.
Also, Jinnah made all Muslims feel an affinity with this new 'dream nation', which would have a place for all Muslims, and thus served to unite the people of the future Pakistan. Professor Ziauddin Ahmad, the biographer of “Quaid-e-Azam”, commented, "When he defined Muslim nationhood in such tangible terms, every Muslim found himself testifying to the justice of this claim, and subscribing to the logical corollary of the fact and recognition of separate Muslim nationhood, viz., the demand for a Muslim homeland."
There are many factors that go to show that Mohamed Ali Jinnah did ensure that the newly created nation of Pakistan would be a fair and just nation for all its citizens, regardless of sect or gender. In a social system where women were, more often than not, oppressed, Jinnah brought about woman's rights, human rights and minority rights.
Was it all for power?
His sincerity in ensuring the creation of a land for his followers could be seen in his repeated rejection of the offer to be the first Indian prime minister in exchange for giving up the idea of Pakistan and maintaining a united India. There is a common misconception that Jinnah wanted a separate state for Muslims, even if it was at the expense of many innocent lives. However, Jinnah did actually accept the Cabinet Mission plan for a united India with Muslim-majority areas to be under Muslim rule. The Cabinet Mission plan advocated a union of India comprising both British India and the Indian States, with a central government to deal with foreign affairs, defence and communications. The union would have an Executive and a Legislature. Each province would maintain power over all other areas. The provinces were also to be divided into three sections. Provinces could opt out of any group after the first general elections. Lastly, there would be an interim government having the support of the major political parties. It was only when Nehru rejected the plan as a 'stop-gap' , after Congress had first accepted it on 24th May 1946, that Jinnah, for the first time in his political career, turned to a non-constitutional move and called for a communal mobilisation among the Muslims, resulting in rapidly spreading horrific violence, starting in Calcutta, India seemed to be on the brink of a civil war . It was only when Viceroy Wavell invited the League to join Congress in forming the interim government that the violence decreased.
Conclusion:
Jinnah began his leadership of the Pakistan movement around the time he turned 40, the age Muslims believe is a turning point in life. The death of his wife ended his family commitments and his children were grown. Repeated appeals to return to India to guide the Muslims could have been a way for him to get back with God and Islam. Whatever his motivations, Jinnah was indeed a leader who despite his personal motives, served to unite the Islamic people of India and give them a land to call their own.
By analysing his motives however, we can see that he seemed to be motivated largely by both a quest for personal power and to a desire to carry out his politics in the diplomatic manner he saw fit as opposed to Gandhi's anti-British movements, and to perhaps prove the superiority of constitutional politics as opposed to anti-constitutional means.
His psychological method of using himself as an example in terms of dress, religion and politics to unite the Muslims was an extraordinary. His inclusion of minority and women's rights made him a politician with support on all sides and a very wide base to work with. He realised after the 1937 elections and the poor showing of the Muslim League that theories were good but grassroots participation was needed to establish power.
He was shrewd in his dealings with his opponents and made use of the unionists to garner support crucial for the Muslim league in 1936 and then moved to essentially put them down in 1944
Jinnah leadership of the moment was impeccable for the uniting of the disparate Muslim factions but it was lacking in that there was no 'successor' capable of replacing Jinnah's place after his death. Knowing that his death was close, Jinnah ought to have groomed a successor to prevent Pakistan from falling into the quagmire it did. However his quest for power could have stood in the way of that. The other factor that could have possibly influenced his decision not to 'share' his power and leadership could have been that at that stage, Pakistan needed one strong leader and power could not have been shared. As such, as Lord Mouthbatten called Jinnah, a “psychopathic case ” or otherwise, Mohamed Ali Jinnah used the Pakistan demand to hoist himself to power and succeeded remarkably at the same time managing to create a nation-state which was, for a short time, the dream of many an Indian Muslim.
Feminism -should feminist politics aim to establish gender equality or difference
Introduction:
The aim of this essay is to prove the impossibility of achieving equality and the futility of aiming to establish equality in feminist politics. In feminist politics, equality and difference have been understood to be alternative concepts; difference has become the reverse side of equality. Over the years, one of these terms has gained the laurel of being a positive term and the other a negative term. Before analysing whether or not equality is indeed possible, a brief overview of feminism and equality is needed. There are three schools of feminist thought, which are namely Liberalist, Marxist and Radicalist.
The Liberal school of thought believes that 'gender equality can be brought about through incremental reform' . They believe that all of society has the ability to govern itself, including women and they need to be elevated to power in order to use their governing abilities, this elevation can be brought about by reforms. This is in significant contrast to the Radical feminists' viewpoint, where a significantly more negative view of the order of things exists. This branch of feminism sees 'gender divisions to be the most politically significant of social cleavages, and believes that they are rooted in the structure of domestic life' . Basically, radical feminists see the world as 'run by men… for men' . Their point of view is not completely different from that of Marxist feminists, who believe in much the same thing but see things from a more economic point of view as opposed to the gender inequality point of view of radical feminists. Thus, it is apparent, that despite the differences in the different branches of feminism, the quest for equality, albeit in different forms, is a common thread among them.
Stand:
Equality is in itself a word with many connotations. It could mean parity or sameness, among other meanings. Now, to be 'same' would be impossible in this context given the biological differences between males and females. Parity, however, is what feminists seek to implement when gender equality is mentioned. Seeking similar levels of opportunities in careers, a level ratio in political representation, and in some countries, namely strongly Islamic states, levels of freedom that are on par with that received by males.
Equality and difference theories both aim to establish women in a better position in society, the end in similar, just the method that is different. The option that feminists face is to pursue either 'gender neutrality' - equality, or 'gender visibility' - difference. This essay takes the stand that gender difference ought to be established instead of gender equality due to the differing concerns of men and women in society and politics. After all, gender-neutrality would mean to imply that women lose the right to leave and continued job security when having babies. This would definitely be unacceptable because in the rapidly aging populations of many developed nations, childbirth is counted as socially necessary work, and women at this stage have unique needs which must be fulfilled for the better good and continuation of society.
Differences between Masculine and Feminine peoples:
In a study conducted to find the differences between political inclinations and interests of masculine and feminine people, it was seen that masculine people expressed greater interest in the generic term 'politics' whereas feminine people expressed more interest in particular issues such as women as candidates and public officials, abortion and the equal rights amendment. This study goes to prove that men focus on generalities and women on particularities.
In the highly general aspect of the world, society at large and politics, it is then apparent why men have been dominant in this realm, thus far. With women focusing largely on personal and domestic politics, it does not make sense to put them in charge of volatile international affairs or national defence arenas, which could be a possibility if complete gender equality was somehow achieved. As such, feminist politics, ought definitely to aim to establish gender visibility as opposed to gender neutrality.
To bring out the best in each gender instead of ignoring sex and gender differences, not just in the area of politics, but also in terms of career opportunities and domestic issues. Specialisation of labour according to one's strong points is definitely preferable to trying one's hand at something with the possibility of failure.
Probability of Gender Equality:
Other than the previous argument regarding the possibility of aiming for gender equality decreasing the quality of output produced, by men or women in society, there is another important argument; which is that achieving gender equality is a nigh impossible task, which should not even be attempted. As Mackinnon said,
to require that one be the same as those who set the standard - those which one is already socially different from - simply means that sex equality is designed never to be achieved. Those who most need equal treatment will be the least similar, socially, to those whose situation sets the standard as against which one's entitlement to be equally treated is measured. Doctrinally speaking, the deepest problem of sex inequality will not find women 'similarly situated' to men. Far less will practices of sex inequality require that acts be intentionally discriminatory.
In fact, some feminists themselves agree that the 'struggle' against gender inequality and the establishment of feminist politics requires the dropping of 'equality' for 'autonomy' .
“Equality… implies a measurement according to a given standard.”
“Autonomy… implies the right to accept or reject such norms or standards according to their appropriateness to one's self-definition. Struggles for equality… imply an acceptance of given standards and a conformity to their expectations and requirements. Struggles for autonomy, on the other hand, imply the right to reject such standards and create new ones.”
As such, to aim for equality would not just be to agree that the actions of men today are right but would also be to 'become the enemy', to do what you have fought against. As such, the stand of this essay is reaffirmed, that feminist politics ought to aim for gender difference as opposed to gender equality. If women want to be free to redefine social roles, as they please to suit the modern woman of today, then autonomy and not equality should be their rallying cry and aim in mind.
Autonomy:
If autonomy were to be the aim of feminists, then some of the policies they would suggest would include the right to represent themselves in sectors of government that directly affect their interests, including abortion, human rights legislation, women's charter, domestic violence, etc. These are some of the areas of particular interest to feminine peoples.7 The right to choose areas of governance to involve themselves in, would certainly drive home their rejection of the 'male-stream' values of today's society and state.
Policies regarding childcare benefits and maternity leave ought to be restructured so as to better suit women's job schedules and allow them greater opportunities in applying for jobs.
A major obstacle in the employment of women in today's workforce is their domestic 'duties'. It has come to a stage where employers do not wish to employ newly married women or those who are at an age where their biological clock is ticking loudly, for fear that they would soon apply for maternity leave and childcare and medical benefits, which would not contribute to the company's profits in any way.
Merits of Equality (Flipside):
It must however be mentioned that equality, despite the many complications it does present, has proved to be more than efficient over the years. It is through the concept of equality that women gained the legislation to vote and managed to prevent (at least to some extent) the arbitrary treatment of women. It is only, that as mentioned above, the main problems with the notion of equality is that they not only cause women to become more 'masculine' but also that they ruin the specialised balance of labour and power that biological and physiological differences in men and women have wrought in society over the years. Equality is based on the premise that en and women are essentially similar and as such, women can be compared by the same yardstick that applies to men. This however, completely ignores the nurturing process that girls go through that makes them completely unsuitable for male tasks. Men better understand defence issues due to conscription and armed forces service, whereas women learn to abhor war due to massive loss of loved ones. Men are trained to be physically more able than women and thus are better equipped for certain jobs and gender equality can simply never be achieved because physically, women are and will always be disadvantaged.
Conclusion:
Thus, women could only make a more significant impact in the workforce and political arenas by playing up their skills in jobs that require the 'human touch' and greater 'emotions' as opposed to trying to 'compete' with men; competition being a 'masculine' obsession anyway . In the political scene, they ought to campaign for offices that focus on areas that particularly interest them. It is on this basis that women can then propel themselves further and into other realms of politics and careers, based on the success they first achieve in these areas. As such the establishment of differences between the 2 genders would serve the purposes of feminist politics far more than the aim to establish equality ever
The aim of this essay is to prove the impossibility of achieving equality and the futility of aiming to establish equality in feminist politics. In feminist politics, equality and difference have been understood to be alternative concepts; difference has become the reverse side of equality. Over the years, one of these terms has gained the laurel of being a positive term and the other a negative term. Before analysing whether or not equality is indeed possible, a brief overview of feminism and equality is needed. There are three schools of feminist thought, which are namely Liberalist, Marxist and Radicalist.
The Liberal school of thought believes that 'gender equality can be brought about through incremental reform' . They believe that all of society has the ability to govern itself, including women and they need to be elevated to power in order to use their governing abilities, this elevation can be brought about by reforms. This is in significant contrast to the Radical feminists' viewpoint, where a significantly more negative view of the order of things exists. This branch of feminism sees 'gender divisions to be the most politically significant of social cleavages, and believes that they are rooted in the structure of domestic life' . Basically, radical feminists see the world as 'run by men… for men' . Their point of view is not completely different from that of Marxist feminists, who believe in much the same thing but see things from a more economic point of view as opposed to the gender inequality point of view of radical feminists. Thus, it is apparent, that despite the differences in the different branches of feminism, the quest for equality, albeit in different forms, is a common thread among them.
Stand:
Equality is in itself a word with many connotations. It could mean parity or sameness, among other meanings. Now, to be 'same' would be impossible in this context given the biological differences between males and females. Parity, however, is what feminists seek to implement when gender equality is mentioned. Seeking similar levels of opportunities in careers, a level ratio in political representation, and in some countries, namely strongly Islamic states, levels of freedom that are on par with that received by males.
Equality and difference theories both aim to establish women in a better position in society, the end in similar, just the method that is different. The option that feminists face is to pursue either 'gender neutrality' - equality, or 'gender visibility' - difference. This essay takes the stand that gender difference ought to be established instead of gender equality due to the differing concerns of men and women in society and politics. After all, gender-neutrality would mean to imply that women lose the right to leave and continued job security when having babies. This would definitely be unacceptable because in the rapidly aging populations of many developed nations, childbirth is counted as socially necessary work, and women at this stage have unique needs which must be fulfilled for the better good and continuation of society.
Differences between Masculine and Feminine peoples:
In a study conducted to find the differences between political inclinations and interests of masculine and feminine people, it was seen that masculine people expressed greater interest in the generic term 'politics' whereas feminine people expressed more interest in particular issues such as women as candidates and public officials, abortion and the equal rights amendment. This study goes to prove that men focus on generalities and women on particularities.
In the highly general aspect of the world, society at large and politics, it is then apparent why men have been dominant in this realm, thus far. With women focusing largely on personal and domestic politics, it does not make sense to put them in charge of volatile international affairs or national defence arenas, which could be a possibility if complete gender equality was somehow achieved. As such, feminist politics, ought definitely to aim to establish gender visibility as opposed to gender neutrality.
To bring out the best in each gender instead of ignoring sex and gender differences, not just in the area of politics, but also in terms of career opportunities and domestic issues. Specialisation of labour according to one's strong points is definitely preferable to trying one's hand at something with the possibility of failure.
Probability of Gender Equality:
Other than the previous argument regarding the possibility of aiming for gender equality decreasing the quality of output produced, by men or women in society, there is another important argument; which is that achieving gender equality is a nigh impossible task, which should not even be attempted. As Mackinnon said,
to require that one be the same as those who set the standard - those which one is already socially different from - simply means that sex equality is designed never to be achieved. Those who most need equal treatment will be the least similar, socially, to those whose situation sets the standard as against which one's entitlement to be equally treated is measured. Doctrinally speaking, the deepest problem of sex inequality will not find women 'similarly situated' to men. Far less will practices of sex inequality require that acts be intentionally discriminatory.
In fact, some feminists themselves agree that the 'struggle' against gender inequality and the establishment of feminist politics requires the dropping of 'equality' for 'autonomy' .
“Equality… implies a measurement according to a given standard.”
“Autonomy… implies the right to accept or reject such norms or standards according to their appropriateness to one's self-definition. Struggles for equality… imply an acceptance of given standards and a conformity to their expectations and requirements. Struggles for autonomy, on the other hand, imply the right to reject such standards and create new ones.”
As such, to aim for equality would not just be to agree that the actions of men today are right but would also be to 'become the enemy', to do what you have fought against. As such, the stand of this essay is reaffirmed, that feminist politics ought to aim for gender difference as opposed to gender equality. If women want to be free to redefine social roles, as they please to suit the modern woman of today, then autonomy and not equality should be their rallying cry and aim in mind.
Autonomy:
If autonomy were to be the aim of feminists, then some of the policies they would suggest would include the right to represent themselves in sectors of government that directly affect their interests, including abortion, human rights legislation, women's charter, domestic violence, etc. These are some of the areas of particular interest to feminine peoples.7 The right to choose areas of governance to involve themselves in, would certainly drive home their rejection of the 'male-stream' values of today's society and state.
Policies regarding childcare benefits and maternity leave ought to be restructured so as to better suit women's job schedules and allow them greater opportunities in applying for jobs.
A major obstacle in the employment of women in today's workforce is their domestic 'duties'. It has come to a stage where employers do not wish to employ newly married women or those who are at an age where their biological clock is ticking loudly, for fear that they would soon apply for maternity leave and childcare and medical benefits, which would not contribute to the company's profits in any way.
Merits of Equality (Flipside):
It must however be mentioned that equality, despite the many complications it does present, has proved to be more than efficient over the years. It is through the concept of equality that women gained the legislation to vote and managed to prevent (at least to some extent) the arbitrary treatment of women. It is only, that as mentioned above, the main problems with the notion of equality is that they not only cause women to become more 'masculine' but also that they ruin the specialised balance of labour and power that biological and physiological differences in men and women have wrought in society over the years. Equality is based on the premise that en and women are essentially similar and as such, women can be compared by the same yardstick that applies to men. This however, completely ignores the nurturing process that girls go through that makes them completely unsuitable for male tasks. Men better understand defence issues due to conscription and armed forces service, whereas women learn to abhor war due to massive loss of loved ones. Men are trained to be physically more able than women and thus are better equipped for certain jobs and gender equality can simply never be achieved because physically, women are and will always be disadvantaged.
Conclusion:
Thus, women could only make a more significant impact in the workforce and political arenas by playing up their skills in jobs that require the 'human touch' and greater 'emotions' as opposed to trying to 'compete' with men; competition being a 'masculine' obsession anyway . In the political scene, they ought to campaign for offices that focus on areas that particularly interest them. It is on this basis that women can then propel themselves further and into other realms of politics and careers, based on the success they first achieve in these areas. As such the establishment of differences between the 2 genders would serve the purposes of feminist politics far more than the aim to establish equality ever
Authoritarian and Totalitarian Experiments in Europe - The Bolshevik Seizure of Power (November - December 1917) - Lenin's relevance to today's world
The aim of this essay is to link Lenin and the early Bolshevik era of Russia to Asia and the modern world. It also aims to explain how Lenin's policies regarding internationalism bear weight in today's world and how his actions had repercussions on the world at large and how these effects live on today.
The document covers four main areas, World War 1 and the ensuing Bolshevik revolution and overthrow of the provisional government in Russia; followed by the effects and policies implemented by the new Bolshevik government, including a government that was meant to be one of the people and for the people, a secret police force and stringent censorship laws. The last two points went completely against the communist and Bolshevik pre-revolution rhetoric which could have been a significant reason in communism being relatively short lived in most parts of Asia with the exceptions of China and Vietnam, and even then being practiced in an altered manner.
Lenin, otherwise known as Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov was the 'germ' that the Germans secreted into Russia towards the end of World War 1 to topple the existing political scene. The leader of the Bolshevik party spent the majority of his time in exile until 1917 when he was secreted back to Russia from Switzerland. Russia had overthrown the Czarist system in February 1917 and a provisional government of liberal Duma leaders, led by Alexender Kerensky had been installed. However this government was still rooted in the 'mindset' of war and supported one 'last' offensive in the summer of 1917, the failure of this offensive toppled the government. With his rhetoric of “land, bread and peace”, Lenin reached the masses and addressed their most basic needs instead of espousing Marxist theories to them. This united the people and with 'generally brief' fighting, the 'never strong' grip of the provisional government was broken. The Bolshevik revolutionaries, led by Lenin, formed the new government.
The bulk of Lenin's time in power was spent battling bloody wars with various factions all trying to topple the communist Lenin government. As one American journalist commented, “it took more like five years than then days” for the Bolsheviks to master Russia but “it was the retention rather than the seizing of power that earned the Bolsheviks their place in history”. By Lenin's demise in 1924, the communists were finally in control of Russia.
Communism preached a classless society and equality, however in practice, Lenin's rule of Russia was far from classless and equal. The document very clearly shows how he ruled Russia with an iron fist. Nonetheless, in one of his speeches on Marxism, Lenin had justified that before a classless society could be formed, in the transition from a capitalist society, there had to be a period of authoritarianism to restore stability after the workers' revolution.
However, invoking a secret police and enforcing extreme censorship was not in his rhetoric. It created on the world outside Russia a warped view of communism that today is called Leninism. In most parts of Asia, communism took off very well because it posed a way of managing a very large and divided country very well, with complete power in the hands of one leader. China, Vietnam and Laos are some examples that succumbed to communism whereas Malaya, Indonesia and others fought hard to prevent it.
Lenin used Marx's ideals as a base but he changed his concept slightly in that he while he did believe the workers had to rise up against the government in order to overthrow it, he also felt that the 'educated' had to play a leadership role in the bringing about of the revolution. Lenin himself was the son of a school administrator and began his political career as a student demonstrator, being one of the relatively well educated. Lenin saw communism as something all countries would have to resort to eventually, which is something that has relevance even in today's context as Francis Fukuyama mentioned in his “The End of History”, communism being the last major political change the world would see. "Experience has proved," Lenin wrote in 1920, in speaking of both the Russian revolution and the post-October development of the world revolutionary process. ''That, on certain very important questions of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably have to do what Russia has done." In his book 'Left-wing' Communism - an Infantile Disorder' Lenin examined the Russian experience from the standpoint of the pressing problems relating to international Communist tactics, and of applying to the work and the policies of the Communist Parties of other countries "whatever is universally practicable, significant and relevant in the history and the present-day tactics of Bolshevism." In Lenin's writings one finds the most profound analyses of the economic, social and political development and the revolutionary movement in such countries as the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Many of his articles deal with the national liberation and revolutionary movements in China, India, Indonesia and the Middle East. In his writings, Lenin did not just focus on the political scene of the Soviet Union but also devoted a large part of his writings to drawing up a number of important, often programmatic, documents for the international working-class and communist movement.
One of the greatest divides in post-Lenin Russia ensued between Lenin's real right-hand man, Trotsky and Stalin, who made out that he was Lenin-s right0hand man. Stalin wanted Russia to focus on building itself up whereas Trotsky wanted to continue Lenin's work of looking at the world and working towards global communism. That Lenin wanted to influence world politics and bring up communism was indisputable looking at his writings and speeches that focused on world issues. Lenin saw Russia to be the base of world communism and wanted to extend aid to nations fighting to establish communism, namely china and Vietnam at that time. The Socialist Revolution in Russia had opened up a new era in the worldwide proletarian struggle for emancipation. Soviet Russia did indeed become the base and stronghold and a catalyst of the world revolutionary process. "Our socialist Republic of Soviets," Lenin said with fervour in one of his speeches, "will stand secure, as a torch of international socialism and as an example to all the working people.
It was Lenin who set up the Third Communist International (Comintern) which played an important role in promoting the liberation movement of the working masses, in facilitating the forming and strengthening of Communist Parties, in evolving working-class tactics and strategies, and in bringing to the fore and training outstanding leaders of the communist movement.
Ho Chih Minh of Vietnam and Mao Zedong of China were both avid participants of the Comintern and received significant amounts of aid to pursue the proletarian revolutions in their own countries. The Malayan communist party and Indonesian communist party also worked very closely with the Comintern. Before and after Comintern congresses, Lenin would take the time to interact with individual leaders of various communist parties and learn about their problems. These interactions aided the world communist movement greatly and provided a window for non-soviet communists to feel closer to the 'comradeship' of communism.
At a time when many nations were waging nationalistic battles, Lenin's suggestions, such as those in his book “Left-Wing Communism - an Infantile Disorder”, and his success in the formation of a communist republic in one of the largest European countries spurred on the eastern nationalists and also provided them with a model to work towards, however skewed that model might have been in terms of economic and social practices. It was on the model of the Soviet Union that communist China was founded, picking up many of its policies, including severe censorship of the press, even attempting in later years to censor the Internet. The formation of secret police forces in Russia and later in China went against the basic communist theory of classlessness. The secret police were endowed with unchallenged power and could arrest and censure without trial or justification other than mere suspicion of being a defector or planning to defect.
Communism has spread like wildfire throughout the world and largely so in Asia. Even in 'democratic' nations , the control practiced by Lenin in terms of censorship and economy is practiced. To take Singapore as an example, the press is under stringent controls as is the economy. However, the growing power of America is affecting the world at large and economies everywhere, including
China are opening up.
Lenin's set up of a communist country that wielded significant power in the world is a lasting legacy that still has repercussions on the world today, especially because of the way he chose to control that state. Russia being under Lenin's authoritarian rule not only affected Russia but true to Lenin's dream, his actions affected the modern world, including Asia at large.
The document covers four main areas, World War 1 and the ensuing Bolshevik revolution and overthrow of the provisional government in Russia; followed by the effects and policies implemented by the new Bolshevik government, including a government that was meant to be one of the people and for the people, a secret police force and stringent censorship laws. The last two points went completely against the communist and Bolshevik pre-revolution rhetoric which could have been a significant reason in communism being relatively short lived in most parts of Asia with the exceptions of China and Vietnam, and even then being practiced in an altered manner.
Lenin, otherwise known as Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov was the 'germ' that the Germans secreted into Russia towards the end of World War 1 to topple the existing political scene. The leader of the Bolshevik party spent the majority of his time in exile until 1917 when he was secreted back to Russia from Switzerland. Russia had overthrown the Czarist system in February 1917 and a provisional government of liberal Duma leaders, led by Alexender Kerensky had been installed. However this government was still rooted in the 'mindset' of war and supported one 'last' offensive in the summer of 1917, the failure of this offensive toppled the government. With his rhetoric of “land, bread and peace”, Lenin reached the masses and addressed their most basic needs instead of espousing Marxist theories to them. This united the people and with 'generally brief' fighting, the 'never strong' grip of the provisional government was broken. The Bolshevik revolutionaries, led by Lenin, formed the new government.
The bulk of Lenin's time in power was spent battling bloody wars with various factions all trying to topple the communist Lenin government. As one American journalist commented, “it took more like five years than then days” for the Bolsheviks to master Russia but “it was the retention rather than the seizing of power that earned the Bolsheviks their place in history”. By Lenin's demise in 1924, the communists were finally in control of Russia.
Communism preached a classless society and equality, however in practice, Lenin's rule of Russia was far from classless and equal. The document very clearly shows how he ruled Russia with an iron fist. Nonetheless, in one of his speeches on Marxism, Lenin had justified that before a classless society could be formed, in the transition from a capitalist society, there had to be a period of authoritarianism to restore stability after the workers' revolution.
However, invoking a secret police and enforcing extreme censorship was not in his rhetoric. It created on the world outside Russia a warped view of communism that today is called Leninism. In most parts of Asia, communism took off very well because it posed a way of managing a very large and divided country very well, with complete power in the hands of one leader. China, Vietnam and Laos are some examples that succumbed to communism whereas Malaya, Indonesia and others fought hard to prevent it.
Lenin used Marx's ideals as a base but he changed his concept slightly in that he while he did believe the workers had to rise up against the government in order to overthrow it, he also felt that the 'educated' had to play a leadership role in the bringing about of the revolution. Lenin himself was the son of a school administrator and began his political career as a student demonstrator, being one of the relatively well educated. Lenin saw communism as something all countries would have to resort to eventually, which is something that has relevance even in today's context as Francis Fukuyama mentioned in his “The End of History”, communism being the last major political change the world would see. "Experience has proved," Lenin wrote in 1920, in speaking of both the Russian revolution and the post-October development of the world revolutionary process. ''That, on certain very important questions of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably have to do what Russia has done." In his book 'Left-wing' Communism - an Infantile Disorder' Lenin examined the Russian experience from the standpoint of the pressing problems relating to international Communist tactics, and of applying to the work and the policies of the Communist Parties of other countries "whatever is universally practicable, significant and relevant in the history and the present-day tactics of Bolshevism." In Lenin's writings one finds the most profound analyses of the economic, social and political development and the revolutionary movement in such countries as the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Many of his articles deal with the national liberation and revolutionary movements in China, India, Indonesia and the Middle East. In his writings, Lenin did not just focus on the political scene of the Soviet Union but also devoted a large part of his writings to drawing up a number of important, often programmatic, documents for the international working-class and communist movement.
One of the greatest divides in post-Lenin Russia ensued between Lenin's real right-hand man, Trotsky and Stalin, who made out that he was Lenin-s right0hand man. Stalin wanted Russia to focus on building itself up whereas Trotsky wanted to continue Lenin's work of looking at the world and working towards global communism. That Lenin wanted to influence world politics and bring up communism was indisputable looking at his writings and speeches that focused on world issues. Lenin saw Russia to be the base of world communism and wanted to extend aid to nations fighting to establish communism, namely china and Vietnam at that time. The Socialist Revolution in Russia had opened up a new era in the worldwide proletarian struggle for emancipation. Soviet Russia did indeed become the base and stronghold and a catalyst of the world revolutionary process. "Our socialist Republic of Soviets," Lenin said with fervour in one of his speeches, "will stand secure, as a torch of international socialism and as an example to all the working people.
It was Lenin who set up the Third Communist International (Comintern) which played an important role in promoting the liberation movement of the working masses, in facilitating the forming and strengthening of Communist Parties, in evolving working-class tactics and strategies, and in bringing to the fore and training outstanding leaders of the communist movement.
Ho Chih Minh of Vietnam and Mao Zedong of China were both avid participants of the Comintern and received significant amounts of aid to pursue the proletarian revolutions in their own countries. The Malayan communist party and Indonesian communist party also worked very closely with the Comintern. Before and after Comintern congresses, Lenin would take the time to interact with individual leaders of various communist parties and learn about their problems. These interactions aided the world communist movement greatly and provided a window for non-soviet communists to feel closer to the 'comradeship' of communism.
At a time when many nations were waging nationalistic battles, Lenin's suggestions, such as those in his book “Left-Wing Communism - an Infantile Disorder”, and his success in the formation of a communist republic in one of the largest European countries spurred on the eastern nationalists and also provided them with a model to work towards, however skewed that model might have been in terms of economic and social practices. It was on the model of the Soviet Union that communist China was founded, picking up many of its policies, including severe censorship of the press, even attempting in later years to censor the Internet. The formation of secret police forces in Russia and later in China went against the basic communist theory of classlessness. The secret police were endowed with unchallenged power and could arrest and censure without trial or justification other than mere suspicion of being a defector or planning to defect.
Communism has spread like wildfire throughout the world and largely so in Asia. Even in 'democratic' nations , the control practiced by Lenin in terms of censorship and economy is practiced. To take Singapore as an example, the press is under stringent controls as is the economy. However, the growing power of America is affecting the world at large and economies everywhere, including
China are opening up.
Lenin's set up of a communist country that wielded significant power in the world is a lasting legacy that still has repercussions on the world today, especially because of the way he chose to control that state. Russia being under Lenin's authoritarian rule not only affected Russia but true to Lenin's dream, his actions affected the modern world, including Asia at large.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
