1. This revolution will be global – merging all national struggles against the common enemy of mankind. This is the most Comprehensive revolution - which will have to involve even the way of life. It is the most powerful one because it is the power of Love before which even the adversary has to yield. It also is the only kind, which will win the Christian heart, which is very essential to tie the hands of the neo Fascist who hails from the Christian world. Hence we should see that the mother and woman of the white race take up this struggle, which will save their children also. It should be an appeal to the mothers of the white race from the mothers of the Islamic people as an appeal to the sisters. The Muslim mothers should start a struggle against every kind of terrorism. In this context, in order to know why the mothers of Islam and those of the white race will take it up and give the lead for this anti-imperialist struggle, It is necessary to know the logic of freedom or free relationship. We should know hence the content of woman’s emancipation.

2. Woman’s freedom is not one for some hypothetical equality with Man. Such a hypothetical equality is still confined to the economic issue. It is not at all what true emancipation should be. True emancipation should be to establish or re-establish the freest possible relationship with Man, which can mean really the most loving relationship. In fact, the woman was enduring her subordination for such a long time only because there was still some love at the basis – transcending economic relationship. When that is destroyed, she has no other alternative than to struggle for re-establishing it. But such a struggle is also the only struggle that can defeat neo fascism, which is based on neo-colonialism. Hence Man has to gladly submit to the demand of the Woman, which no doubt involves his real freedom also. In fact this struggle will be the most Comprehensive one also. It will be a struggle to save the life base too that is the ecological one… It also implies a new epistemology which recognize the cognitive, creative and liberative role of love and loving service, which only can finally eradicate the three kinds of arrogance, namely that of caste, color, of wealth and finally that of intellect or ego. This is the greatest revolution. It is Her own struggle and only She can do it. The Male is simply incapable of it. He can only at most assist Her. He does not bear the labour pain. He does not suckle the child. Only she can bear this pain with pleasure. It is also a struggle involving even death. She knows it. Yet she is prepared to accept it, even invite it. She only can teach the Male true love, helped to grow it, which is like a seed in Him. She has to nourish, nurture and help to develop it. Only she can make him a new Man. She is the ‘upaya’ (cause).

3. In this context we should have a clear idea of the emergence of the new men and women. Without such men and women, the new culture in society is simply unthinkable. How are we to understand the Marxist proposition that Social thinking is determined by the Social being? Which is often said in a brief way that ‘thinking is conditioned by the being!’ Is it the way to understand the materialist proposition that before thought there should be the being. Which is another way of saying that matter should be there before thought? If we mechanically interpret this proposition that thinking is conditioned by the being the new men and women will emerge only after the new socio-economic basis is established and such a basis could be created who are essentially backward in every respect! Nothing can be more absurd than such an idea. Men and women of noble ideals only can work to build a humane society. So, the next great revolution will be the work of thousands of such people. We saw a very similar phenomenon in the earlier revolution also. The economic foundation will be the creation of such new men and women. Such new men and women will be the creation of the great revolution of the immediate future; a revolution created by the women of this globe.

4. In the same way, the first step, the most necessary one will be total disarmament. The new social order at the global level is simply impossible without disarmament. That will be the precondition for the withering of the state – as we know there can be no state without an army and arms. Hence arms form the foundation of the coercive state. This is today clearly pointed out by even McNamara (Robert) and Helen Caldicott. (Mc Namara was the Secretary of Defence for President Kennedy – Johnson. Helen is a pediatrician, and the president of the Nuclear policy Research Institute) who have pointed out that Russia and US as their first duty initiate rapid bilateral disarmament accompanied by the six others (France, Britain, China, India, Pakistan, Israel). According to M Barade, Director of International Atomic Energy Agency,” a clear roadmap for nuclear disarmament should be established. Time is not on our side”. Once disarmament is realized the road is clear. It means mankind has taken the right path. That also means that the new men and new women have become the decisive force. The path of freedom is established – a fearless world is realized. This, the Anthyodaya.

5. Freedom is full only when its opposite also vanishes. It can vanish when slavery becomes freedom! Loving relationship involving loving service to each other in a living context is the only context when slavery itself is freedom. This also is the essence of “Dasa Bavya’. However, in the case of the relationship between an artist and the art or the instrument, this can be very easily understood. The willing slave of the art or the instrument is its master. He/She can have the highest possible freedom with the instrument; it is also the case with any who can be the master in the language. This was clearly realized by the mystics, also by the brilliant Marxist Christopher Caudwel.

Evaluation of Marx

6. Engel’s name was unknown when I was 27 years old. Hence my Marxism was very much an indigenous one. Very similar to that of mass. If Mao could call himself a Marxism (disputed by many western Marxists-Stalinists as well as even by Bottom ore. who admits of his contribution to revolutionary theory, I can also call my self a Marxist. It is simply because of my background that Imp am still quite confident while those who had no roots in our heritage are to day totally disillusioned though they were inspired by no less a person than professor D.D.Kosambi.No doubt I am not at all surprised. Further the defeat of Marxism of Marx and Lenin was inherent in thence even the two of the great revolutionaries could not save the name of Marx

7. In a similar way I could read about the German Greens (the first book) only last year. So my appreciation of the ecological issue too is very much from my own personal experience. I found very little basis for a sound ecological approach in Marx. The very attitude of the official Marxist parties to this very important issue is sufficient. This is in a real way recognized by Smith a student of Adorn (which you should know more) while he discuses the issue of Nature in Marx. Even the young Marx who did deal about alienation, estrangement and did say that nature is the external body of the human being with which this being should have a vital relationship never dealt of the true relationship

8. With nature it is because Marx had almost uncritically accepted the Darwinian theory. -A kind of hostility with nature demanding, conquering, controlling and exploiting it. Trotsky also very candidly expounds this. Lenin too did not have any difference on this issue.

9. I am convinced that the Marxism of the west cannot be of any help to build the great peoples front against the most fatal (as Mao very rightly called it) neo-colonialism.

10. Led by Neofascism. Bush is the voice of it .It is also the voice of the most unlimited arrogance of the dominant Man ((male) we can also understand finally that this kind of Marxism including its paradigm did really only aid though unwillingly and unintentionally on the part of the Marxists themselves. Marxism of the west simply cannot recognize that. Further the liberating force cannot be the working class too. So Marx’s method and means including its economic goal (communism) were the obstacles against his great aim, which was an egalitarian society. In this respect the Gandhi a Gramarajya is the only way, it is not at all a throwback. That was realized by no less a person that Prof.J.B.S.Haldane a brilliant scientist as well a Marxist while discussing the size of a living organism. Hence he came to the conclusion that Gandhi and Marx should be blended. He also became an advocate of non-violent biology.

11. Though Smith did clearly recognize the lacuna in Marx he too did not correct the Basic mistake, neither the Frankfort school because it too did not build the necessary philosophical foundation. That is the reason why the various groups like the Red, Green, Feminist and the Alternate Technology etc inspire of their real intentions for a new culture and a society are simply unable to unite on a principled philosophical foundation. Their unity is no doubt eclectically. That also is the reason why the anti-imperialist front has not yet emerged which has to be global. Further the true deliverer too is not recognized the nature of the liberation struggle also is not properly appreciated. The real liberation should be an act of love. Only then the oppressor too will gladly cooperate with the process. This was very clearly appreciated by the Catalan mystic when he declared that love unites that are free and frees that are united. Can the relationship between the working class and the oppressing owning class ever become one based on love? Hence Marx cold not recognizes the true liberator. Nor the final contradiction, which only can be, resolved leading to a happy situation. Was there the riddle that was there is now solved. The liberating process is one of endearing the estranged beings.

12. It is not surprising that Marx did not recognize the true liberator, simply because he did not recognize the most fundamental logic of freedom or free relationship.

13. His notion does not go beyond that of production relation. Hence he demands the change in it. Such a change has to be brought finally essentially by coercion, which the proletarian dictatorship was expected to do. Hence it cannot be by any ghost of imagination acceptable to the oppressor. To the so-called proletarian dictatorship achieved no doubt shedding blood has withered out and the very name of Marx is erased out. Even the two of the greatest revolutionaries could not save his name.

14. We have to admit that Marx was not at all a feminist, he may not be an anti-feminist but he was certainly not a feminist, so also Lenin That can be clearly recognized once we see that both did not recognize the cognitive as well as the lacerative Role of love and loving service.

15. Further Marx very much admired Shakespeare the anti-feminist, raciest but could not show any great admiration to Oliver Goldsmith who was in a very real way the very opposite of Shakespeare. S wrote “Taming the shrew” and even in the Merchant of Venice the woman had to wear the male dress to appear as a lawyer and her name Portia is the term Up Run Shad (male in Sanskrit) modified .In his dramas most of the women are cruel. Their names too appropriately given like Regent, Gunneries which are simple modifications of the term Dragon. The male who kills the partner is a black Moor. The partner also has the name Desdemona that is a combination of the two terms mess and demon. In Tempest the island is the non-European world inhabited by cannibals (Califon) ‘fit to be ruled’ as slaves and the magic-wand to day cannot but be modern science and all the technologies. On the contrary the great Irish artist Goldsmith unquestionably a humanist was a feminist .He had no national or racial prejudices. His sympathies were for the rural and he saw the virtues in simple lives of the apparently illiterate peasantry. No wonder he gave the title She stoops to conquer (a Taoist idea), Vicar of Wakefield ‘, Deserted village, City Night Peace. And National Prejudices. He was perhaps very much influenced by the Chinese thought (Manias) vie was definitely against the destruction of the rural. No wonder Marx undoubtedly very much a Euro centric who dubbed the non-European cultures as even semi barbaric in his weir civilization apparently starts only from Greece. For instance he declares that the Indian is a superstitious fellow who prostrates before the monkey Hanuman and Cabala the cow. He declares the Asiatic societies as idyllic and despotic stagnant and so on. In fact he even absolves all the crimes committed by the European expansionists

16. Marx is for urbanization. That is the way he conceives the resolution of the contradiction between the urban and the rural. That is realized by industrializing agriculture the same is the approach of Lenin too. In this respect Gandhi is the very opposite of Marx and Lenin. Gandhi sums it up in a pithy sentence. When he states “industrialise and perish’ while the Marxists declare ‘industrialize or perish’ that is also what Visvesvariah also said. In this regard Prof. J.B.S.Haldane, a brilliant scientist, at the same time a Marxist is in agreement with Gandhi that was his mature position and he came to that conclusion while discussing the size of a living organism.

17. Years back the Mexican Liberation Theologies Jose Per Miranda wrote ‘Marx against Marxists,’ His aim perhaps was to make M the first great Liberation Theologist. What ever may have been the attitude of M towards the deity M was in a way rephrasing the message of Christianity by declaring that the world belongs to the meek the underdog .It is hence no surprise when we hear from Hewlett Johnson the dean of Canterbury that Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism Marx gave the working class tremendous confidence. While the church promised the meek only a heaven after death and thereby helped the oppressing class. M told the meek that history was on its side and its struggle for freedom was morally correct because it included the freedom of the oppressor also.

18. Estrangement or, alienation of man as Marx conceives is mainly due to the unequal and inimical production relation. In fact Marx writes’ all the consequences are due to the product is related to the producer in an inimical manner. Hence the solution is to change this fundamental production relation. His also is clearly brought out by Mao when he condemns the ‘theory of productive forces’ put forward by Deng which also is the position of every kind of Stylists as well as majority of Western Marxists. It also means that in his understanding of freedom M does not go beyond the economic relationship. Can the economic equality or the change in the production relation really bring about free relationship? Can that be the basis of real joy? No doubt inequality at the level of economic relationship if it were to be quite steep or if the production relationship is basically inimical there can be no happiness. However the beneficiary too will ever be afraid. So real joy cannot be there. The proletarian dictatorship by no means can be a liberating process because it cannot be a process of endearment or one of changing of the estranged relationship. It cannot a freeing process because it is not based on any kind of loving relationship. Neither Marx nor Lenin could conceive but the freeing power is that of love it means that the working class cannot liberate the oppressing owning class and it cannot develop in any sense any kind of loving relationship it also means but the Woman only can help in this liberating process, only her dominance can be welcome by the male. That is the only kind of contradiction that can be resolved in a loving way. It also means that the appropriation of properties should be done voluntarily. That can be possible only when people realize that real freedom and happiness can be possible only when we reduce our needs. This is called Aparigraha and the Eastern saints very well knew it. Buddha very well brought this out.

19. This also is a big part of Gandhian – programme .It also means that the great as well as the final revolution has to be thoroughly a nonviolent one. Only such a revolution will produce the brave new world or within which there will no fear at all.

20. In this connection we have to understand the great significance of the contribution of Mao, also why he too failed to realize the new society or the thing that really blocked the path. It is also necessary to know where he stopped and what we have to do. At the same time it is very necessary to understand whether Mao could be an advocate of non-violent revolution because most of the admirers as well as the critics of Mao go on quoting his one and only pronouncement namely ‘power comes through the barrel of gun.’ .Can Mao be in any way a supporter of the Gandhyian- approach? It appears that Mao told Mr.Menon the Indian ambassador that India produced only one revolutionary and that was Gandhi. We can be certain that Mao should have known about the Gandian way Lenin also had indicated his admiration of Gandhi. No doubt Gandhy would have appeared a paradox to many even to day he is so. Mao’s Peoples’ War. is really a feminist document on war .When I say so it may surprise many. That is beside the point. Let us not forget that it is Mao who fully recognizes the great importance of loving service, which is the foundation of the revolutionary war. Mao clearly recognizes that the enslaved will never free themselves if weapons determine the fate of man. The central idea that underlies his theory is as to how the weak can win the strong. Hence he will very readily accept the Gandhian non-violent way.

Re defining Marxian programme;( Marxism in the period of Neo colonialism.)

21. Marx thought in a way correctly that capitalism was the penultimate chapter of the human social history and the working class being driven to the lowest level will be compelled to rebuild the humanity because it had lost all semblance of humanity. However there was an escape from that stage. Cecil Rhodes showed the way. Colonial empire was the way. The acute contradiction that Marx saw with in the capitalism of his period was lessened. Consequently the European working class got very much co-opted within the capitalist order. The class formed big unions, entered the parliament, had its own press and so on. So, it did not become a class that had nothing to lose. So, Marx’s statement ‘either overall reorganization at large, or the ruining of the contended classes appeared an erroneous conclusion for many. For many Marxists it appeared a pre mature statement. Hence Imperialism appeared as a necessary chapter to a section of Marxists whom Lenin castigated as revisionists and betrayer of the socialism. However the history of the entire 20th century indicated that the industrial working class did not even attempt to work out any theory to realize socialism in the advanced nations. A big chunk only supported the international war. It did not also support the liberation struggle of the colonial people. Today it has reached another stage which we call neo colonialism, which is in a way the very opposite of the earlier variety of Imperialism. Hence it has created also a lot of illusions. We are now witnessing the final phase of this most fatal kind of Imperialism. It is no more just a national question, nor even a question of a race. It is an issue of mankind as a whole. Secondly the question of war also is solved. No war with material weapons can solve the problem. Any such war will be the beginning of the end. This was clear to Einstein. Hence the war has to be a nonviolent one, which only can make the atom bomb a paper tiger. We can bring all great religions also on the side of the people. Anti-religion has finally degenerated into anti-ethical hedonism another variety of in-humanism. That is the reason why it was not able to win over the masses to its side. Ethics is finally the logic of life. Marx had faith in the tool, the modern science, and its technology. This is also is now questioned by the experience. In this Mao, the Marxist had clearly indicated the path. The same was also the approach of Gandhi. The one profound truth that Gandhi and Marx share is concerned with the liberation. Both agree that the enslaved will be the liberator. The world finally belongs to the meek. The weak will finally win. It is the unarmed one that can also be the boldest struggle. It cannot be challenged. Its voice is not one of challenge. Marx did not realize that the meek is the woman who became the first slave historically. She will be the final liberator too. The riddle of history is now cleared. The future will have to be millions of rural communities, which will be very much self-reliant. That can be the only form of an egalitarian society. The urban will play a complementary role. Yenan indicated this now. That also is what the Gandhians like J.C Kumarappa and Pandit Sundarlal and Kichlu understood after they visited Yenan in 1952-53. They said Mao has realized in New China what Gandhi wanted. The usual socialist model is biased in favor of a highly centralized urban dominated one because it is based on heavy industry. That can never be an egalitarian society. Further it cannot be decentralized. So Marxian planning is counter to Marxian aim. The last hundred years of history has confirmed it. The story of soviet unions, modern china and Eastern Europe is enough proof.

22. In this context I have to reemphasis that freedom and slavery can also be the same. The great artist, a master of a language, or a lover is a willing and happy slave of the art or the grammar of the language or the partner. By only being such a slave the individual is the master, has the great possible freedom with the language or the instrument. Lenin knew this too. However here the slavery is based on love. Hence the long enduring slavery too has to have love at its base. That is the only reason why the women’s slavery to this Man has been enduring so long. Even though the male (purusha) has been quite a cruel rapist. The woman, prakrithi, the body, the Earth has been enduring. This love is totally erased in today’s U.S and in the land of Taliban. There the woman cannot tolerate any more the situation. That is the reason why the women there will take up the great task of true liberation however. On their banner the only slogan will be ‘Love brings freedom’ Freedom brings love’ It is to free the adversary also. Now it becomes necessary that the “future educator should be educated”, which really means that our Muslim sisters and through them the American and European sisters of the white race should be made aware of their great historic role, namely saving mankind from total annihilation. Only now the prophesy of Marx is becoming a potential power. He declared long back that the social order should be changed. He talked about the conflict of the two classes. Now we have to see that it is not the conflict of the two classes. It is Fascism against mankind. The Savior is not the industrial working class. It will be the great Mother ‘prakrithi’. It has to be a struggle for a truly green earth also. That is the way to save the ‘prakrithi’ or the body. That only can save and liberate the Purusha (male) too.

23. Let us have an idea of the situation of women in the present day U.S and the Afghanistan of Taliban. In the present day U.S there is no love between man and woman. Woman ‘loves’ only money and at bests the dog. After all, the dog is a faithful animal. The man is not! Otherwise you cannot explain how the first lady Jacqueline Kennedy embracing the syphilitic debauch, a smuggler, a bootlegger and the old hag Onasis whose daughter was older to her that too when her husband ‘s body had not become cold. Even if she had been in some way related to his assassination one need not be surprised. Apparently the ‘freest’ women in the present day U.S are the prostitutes! In the same way in the land of Taliban where a good section of young men has been mercilessly shot dead the women have been reduced to the level of prostitutes to satisfy the lust and carnal pleasure of senile old hags the Mullas, the priests whom the great prophet had decidedly rejected. These are the lands where today the last particle of love is being erased. No wonder in the U.S homosexuality is attempted to be legalised. Normal sex relationship is hatred. Hence it becomes imperative that women in both these contexts have to emerge to recreate the natural bond, based on love and that is the truly free relationship. That only can help in the continuation of the species also.

24. Marx did not teach the working class that freedom was based on loving relationship. However it is also true that the working class can not love the enslaving bourgeois class. No wonder Marxism conceives freedom as the one based on equality. Further we find nowhere in the vast writings of Marx any thing comparable to the notion ‘love unites that are free or frees that are united’ Freedom based on equality is still within the bounds of economic relationship, after all a bourgeois concept. It is also true that the working class cannot love the enslaving, exploiting antagonistic class. It can at best develop a loving attitude towards nature, which finally can be a love for the woman, the body. So the working class can join the great emancipating struggle of the women who only can extend love even for the antagonist the Male the rapist, simply because she can not be really happy nor enjoy life without the her adversary, the Male. Whereas, the working class cannot be comfortable with its antagonist. Hence the working class banner cannot carry the only word inscribed on it, namely love, the basis of true liberation. That also can be the only reason why Marx could not identify the true liberator, the women nor the true basis of freedom namely loving service, the way clearly hinted by the Tamil saints who hailed Dasa Bhavya’ (slavery as the way to liberation) and ‘piratti’ the woman) can herself be the ‘upaya’ (way) for liberation.

25. This revolution will be creating at first the new women, courageous, confident, with a very large heart. Without the emergence of such new women there is no chance for the great change, further she only can change the man into new man – This revolution will be the most comprehensive one.

26. This defect in Marx is seen in his attitude towards the nonhuman reality too, which he expects to be conquered, controlled and exploited, for the expansion of human freedom. Class struggle too is looked upon as a very important factor in the expansion of productive forces once again to get greater mastery over nature, hence his bias towards modern science and technologies. No wonder the Marxian dream, of a non exploitative egalitarian society of new men and women could not be realized by the methods he advocated, nor the true liberation by the industrial working class or by the Male. Not surprisingly Haldane who discussed about size came to the conclusion that Gandhi and Marx should be blended. No doubt he did not elaborate the theme, because he too did not recognize the cognitive, creative and liberative role of love and loving service. Eastern Marxism should start from the recognition of limitations of Marx and Marxism of the West. This is clearly indicated by Mao.

October Revolution and its impact

27. One problem is troubling my mind. When we discuss problems concerned with social sciences, the epistemological question becomes a very serious one. The kind of honesty, disinterestedness and dispassionateness that are necessary or even just enough in the field of physical sciences are totally or absolutely insufficient even to grasp the truth in the realm of social sciences. F. Engels himself pointed this out long back when he criticised economists like Adam Smith and Mill. He said that their basic defect was their dishonesty. Let me make myself clearer.

28. To be a competent or even a top class physical scientist or a mathematician the following qualifications are not at all essential. One need not be compassionate, charitable, considerate, tolerant, lovable, good to others or honest.

29. Secondly the following traits are not at all a disqualification.

30. One can very well be a rascal, scoundrel, murderer, fraud, pilferer, inhuman, shameless, pimp or a prostitute.

31. The most essential qualifications are just the following:

32. One should be clever, observant, careful in one’s work, diligent efficient, imaginative and well informed in one’s own field of work. In these physical sciences the term ‘good’ can have no other meaning except quite able and intelligent. That is the reason why today many top scientists are prepared to utter the most palpable lies and we have many such people amidst the ‘galaxy’ of Indian scientists.

33. On the contrary to be a good economist, sociologist, anthropologist, historian, a medical man or even an engineer the most essential qualification is tremendous amount of honesty of a very high order where one should be prepared to lay down one’s own life gladly for the sake of one’s fellow beings.

34. One who creates artifacts invariably and necessarily affects the lives of thousands of people in one way or another. Let us clearly understand and accept this.

35. When we talk of an Einstein or a Planck as great physicists we are not in the least concerned about their humanist qualities because these have no relevance to the quality of their physics. But when we discuss a Marx or a Mill as an economist or a social critic we are definitely having at the back of our minds (we may not declare or very explicitly) their ethics because their sociology or economics are really reflections of their humanism or lack of it. We are not merely thinking of their technical competence. Hence Benjamin Farrington was very correct when he said ‘when the political consequences become apparent there is a half–conscious reluctance to pursue the logic’.

36. Now my point is when we are talking about Soviet Union of today the basic standpoint / criterion / yardstick has to be the concern for the people. Only then we can understand what is happening in the Soviet Union and what relevance it has for us. Let me explain.

37. If you do not have love or at least have a concern for the people then your data are of no use to us. Even the altering of data or their abuse is common place. Don’t we know this? That is why we insist very much on the methodology or the yardstick to assess social sciences and social phenomenon

38. One voice, ‘Don’t we need a Yardstick for natural science’?

39. NAGARAJAN: Yes very much. In biological sciences too compassion is absolutely essential. Otherwise you cannot ever become an ecologist at all.

40. Another voice: Compassion in Science?

41. NAGARAJAN: Why not? It is absolutely essential. Generally there are three positions. The capitalist position at best is wedded to the goal – mama jana sukhino bavanthu – let only my people be happy. The next position – sarve jana sukhino bhavanthu – let all human beings be happy – shallow Marxist position. The third position is ‘lokah samasthah sukhino bhavanthu’. Let all in the whole universe be happy – Marxists in the full spirit. Indian thought too very old. If the health and happiness of everybody is the goal we have to see that the atmosphere is healthy, the water is healthy, the soil is healthy and the nexus of insects and micro-organisms are healthy for only then we humans can be healthy. If these things are destroyed in the name of human happiness or humanism mankind will be destroyed. Therefore even if the purpose were limited to assuring merely the happiness of the human species you have to go beyond the human-centred humanism. Unfortunately this dimension is not very clear in Marx if not absent.

42. The point is science and technology would have to be condusive to other creatures too. Otherwise they will be self– defeating

43. BHARADHAN: Interaction with nature should be such that nature also is safeguarded.

44. NAGARAJAN: Very much so. Nature is the mother. In our culture there are two symbols of man–nature relationship. One is that of the suckling mother and child. The other is of embracing lovers: Nayaki-Nayaka Bhava. But in Darwinism imagery nature is conceived at best as the cruel as the cruel paternal factor. Engel’s approach too was not far different. Marx’s was a purely rationalist approach. Love did not have a central place in his scheme of things, leave alone love for other species or reverence for nature. As one who has been working inside the communist movement, I feel the need for a correction of this imbalance if not flaw. For modern science everything is profane, nothing sacred. Sacredness is a meaningless sound for it.

45. BHARADHAN: I want to refer you to only two things. One is Marx writings on primitive accumulation. Could any body without deep love for mankind write it? The other is col. III of Das Capital where in writing this does he not have some feeling for nature? If this the writing of a person who is out to rape nature?

46. NAGARAJAN: Marx humanism is unquestioned. Yet his philosophical approach is of a masculine approach. I come from a ‘Prapatti’ tradition where the feminine approach is dominant. The woman’s love for the child is unconditional and absolute. Father’s love for the son is always conditional.

47. A VOICE: The relevance of this is not yet clear.

48. GHOSH: What he is trying to convey is this. According to him Marx himself was a supremely ethical person. But in his writings he had by passed the question of ethics. He no doubt had great concern for the welfare of mankind but it was like father’s love in which justice and retribution had the control role. The concept of ‘winning by love’ was absent in his scheme of things. Love as an end in itself is absent in Marx. Reverence – yes - reverence for nature was outside the bounds of his rigid rationalism.

49. NAGARAJAN: It is as a communist that I am criticising the Soviet Union, its politics and its pattern of civilisation. My vision, as a Marxist of a desirable society is very different from that of the leaders who have been ruling the Soviet Union over the last several decades. They have rejected the essence of Marxism. For me the essence of Marxism can be summed up in a single sentence namely ‘the product is related to the producer in an alien manner under an exploitative system, hence the task is to change this relationship’. You cannot change the relationship without a revolution. You become more human in this act of revolution too. It is a humanising activity as it is a humane activity. Therefore the test, which inevitably needs to be applied in every situation, is what the relation is between the product and the producer. If the relation is hostile then you are struggling inside the house, within the nation and between the nations. The harmonious relationship has to be established between you and the product, the being and the non-being, the subject and the object. So I see freedom and non-freedom in these relationships. Now what kind of relationship is obtained in the Soviet Union is the crux of the problem.

50. The leaders of the Soviet Union are concerned with machines and technologies not the people so much. They pursue technologies which have their own momentum and which reduce people to mere cogs in these machines. This is not the right kind of technology for man. Here man is subordinated to the technology. This is the genre of technology, which makes man subservient to machines. It seeks to conquer nature and ends up by conquering the vast masses of people for servitude of a few. It destroys man’s soul. It destroys nature, hence man and all living species which are parts of nature. When this kind of technology is in operation superficial efforts in the name of ecological restoration of nature are just feeble counter measures merely to console one’s conscience.

51. Unfortunately it was Lenin who had imported from the U.S.A. the concepts of efficiency, Tailorism etc., Of course the aim namely man’s control over the machine remains very much as a slogan. Actually man loses the control over the machine in this kind of production process itself when rapacious technology of this nature is enthroned. The introduction of such technology is real revisionism, which is the direct path to Fascism. This is replacement of Marx’s humanism by mechanism. We all have to be concerned about it because the USSR like the USA as worshippers of this kind of machines and technology is taking the soviet people and the whole world to a dangerous path. Billions of people are going to perish if things go on like that.

52. There is a different kind of approach namely the proletarian approach – towards Marx. Marx had said no doubt that without sufficient material basis there cannot be a new society. However we all know that though China’s Yenan was no big state. However its potential was large. There arose a remarkably egalitarian society; the potential for a new society matured there. It was not based on very large industries. The Western modern technology was not regarded as the determining factor. It was built on the correct principle that ultimately man is superior and not the machines. Mao repeats this idea in all his articles. When man is not overcome by the dehumanising process initiated and powered from within he wins over the machines. That is why Mao said that the Atom Bomb is a paper tiger and machines as well as arms would not be decisive. If you go to manufacture bombs to decide the nations destiny or the course of history the whole attitude changes; the position gets reversed. That amounts to asking man to surrender to the machine. A country that depends on the solidarity and united will of the people can defeat the machine. Vietnam showed this and previously by the forces, which had their base in Yenan.

53. The lessons from Yenan experience were as follows:

a. No need for fast production.

b. Reject the idea of priority to heavy industries at all costs.

c. There should be clear definition of human needs.

d. The recycling economy is a must. The wasteful throwaway economy must be avoided.

e. A radically new strategy of defense is a must where arms are not decisive.

f. A new kind of state, which does not produce a coercive bureaucratic apparatus, has to emerge.

g. A new kind of party with a humanist ethics at its core must be nurtured.

h. Trade cannot be essential or even a very important aim of production.

54. Of course the state, you may say, has to have armed forces. But when you exaggerate the importance of arms to the extent of belittling the importance of human freedom happiness and voluntary unity you have undermined the very basis or real defense.

55. Great truths are paradoxical. There are opposing statements wherein both are limited truths. When you see each in its proper aspect and do not exaggerate of each side, you follow dialectics truly. But when you exaggerate the one or the other aspect you convert both into untruths. Undue exaggeration of every limited truth turns into its exact opposite. That is what the Soviet Union is doing. In this the USA has become its Guru. The kind of technology - path which West - Europe and the USA have charted has become Russia’s path also.

56. Exaggerating one aspect and overlooking another aspect is not devotion to truth. Once Dr. Radhakrishnan quoted Lenin ‘All countries will reach socialism but all countries need not reach socialism by the same path’. This portion he quoted correctly. But he did not quote the next sentence which is as follows, ‘but no country will reach socialism without the establishment of proletarian dictatorship’ This is one example of garbled truth. Likewise the Soviet Union too had and is having its garbled truth. Marx and Lenin had envisioned the smashing of bourgeois state to create a new kind of state. True, they did not have any guidelines for the new kind of state. But there was no scope for any doubt that in that kind of state the coercive element has to be the lowest. But the Soviet Union’s coercion of the people has been at its height. Can this be socialism? No – because of this machinist path the soul of socialism has been sold.

57. True it is very difficult to handle the delicate balance between man and machine. These are two factors generating a contradiction i.e., two contrary pulls. It is easy to tackle contradictions between you and your enemy. The machine is always thought of as a friend of man. Is this not metaphysics? But it is difficult to handle contradictions between the people themselves and arrive at a balance where technology would reduce backbreaking labour without becoming the master. Soviet leaders however shied away from the very beginning from judging things from this perspective. They kept on strengthening the state machinery at the cost of the people. A new kind of state needed equality as the basis because only then people could have real faith and feel united. Prof. Joseph Needham, writing on ancient China and the Taoist concept has brought out remarkably the fact that if your want to be a good teacher you should know how to make yourself dispensable or how to create conditions where you are no longer needed as a teacher. This kind of negation of oneself is possible where love and loving service for the people are the highest. That kind of approach was seen in Yenan. It was a transparent state, only such a state could keep on withering and thereby make itself ultimately redundant. The state needs to be transparent. The technology needs to be transparent. By transparency I mean that to the extent that machinery was necessary it should be such as is capable of being understood and tackled by common people. It should not be of high complexity as to create a separate class of technocrats forming the society’s new priesthood or magicians. The language you speak has also to be transparent capable of being readily understood by the people.

58. In these respects the Soviet Union could take lessons from Yenan. Unfortunately in China itself the setback to Yenan model came with the introduction of the soviet model in the fifties. Unless we criticise the soviet politics particularly its arm policy and its pattern of science and technology it is going to pose a serious danger. Our country too following the same model is spending large amounts of money on defense. If we move in this direction we will have to witness the death of millions out of poverty and pestilence. Let there be no doubt at all.

59. No society, forget about a good one; can be built on hatred or jealousy. Tremendous love for mankind only has to be the basis. That is the best aspect of our cultural heritage. Hence when I discovered Marx’s humanism in its most developed form, compassion that extends to all creatures and the whole universe, I could wholeheartedly accept it. The Soviet Union has blurred Marxist humanism while the need was to extend and deepen it. Hence unless we seek to correct this aberration of the Soviet Union we will not help the soviet people nor help ourselves.

60. The question is how are we to evaluate the economic date? In a letter to Engels, Marx had said that ‘economics was shit’! He considered himself basically a social critic and hardly ever an economist. I would like to state here why I agree with his evaluation of economics. Marx could have clearly explained the logic of capitalist development and the inevitability of its dissolution without all that analysis of economic law of capitalism. In fact even before he made any economic analysis of capitalism he had arrived at the conclusion that the unbearable internal division of mankind into antagonistic classes with their irreconcilable interests would bring the capitalist system to a state of near collapse because of the development of the most inhuman situation. He has also clearly identified the essential causes of the human predicament. He stated that ‘all the consequences are contained in the definition that the product is related to the producer in a hostile inimical manner. Hence the task is to change it. Hence the need was to change the relationship into a harmonious one’. By his dialectical appreciation of the process he clearly came to be convinced about the need as well as the inevitability of the dissolution of capitalism and of the private property ownership system as a whole which means that he had arrived at such a conclusion through his philosophy. It was just to convince his contemporaries by means other than merely philosophic that he undertook the economic analysis. After all surplus value is nothing but a source of alienation.

61. However the same economic data supplied by the governments become the source of different interpretations by different parties. Often this leaves us in a state of perpetual perplexity.

62. This only shows that conclusions from economic analysis depend mainly upon the valuational point of view of the analyst. Even the selection of data and their organisation depend on this value orientation. Therefore it becomes necessary to examine first and foremost the honesty and the ideological purpose of the analyst.

63. Incidentally by observing the major manifestation of a society’s main trends one can make definite predictions about that society’s future. This method is called semiology. Even ordinary people can practice this method with remarkable success. For instance a Taoist priest had as early as in 1931 predicated the inevitability of the Second World War on the basis of his observations of the broad trends of the Chinese society itself. Prof. Creel* in his book” From Confucius to Mao Tse Tung has narrated his encounter with such a remarkable Taoist priest who had been living in a remote village in northern China who naturally had no experience beyond the rural surroundings. Prof. Creel kept wondering how the Taoist could foresee such an event. It was in fact the outcome of interlining the crucial aspects of the human situation.

64. Before we attempt to give our conclusions regarding the Soviet society from the economic data presented here, I would like to tell you that diametrically opposite conclusions from the same economic material could be arrived at. On the basis of the available economic data almost all the economists tend to call the present day India a developing society and its trend a capitalist one. But by using the semiological method I call India a devastated country and its trend of development an anti–human industrialisation. I call this capitalism thoroughly anti–people and counter–revolutionary. The two approaches lead to opposite conclusions.

65. Will Mr. Banarjee apply the semiological method to all his data regarding the soviet society? What matters is the criterion of humanness the physical and spiritual well being of people and just not impressive figures of production or shadow fights against certain aspects of capitalism in oblivion of the very essential aspects of human existence.

66. Even if the simplest and most obvious yardstick of durable material existence is applied the soviet economy fails to pass the test. Its failure is like that of the capitalist economics. It did not care to build its economy on the principle of recycling nor did it reject the culture of throwaway extravagance. The culture of throwing away of once used ballpoint pens cartons plastic bags used cars and gadgets as junk has reached its acme in the west: It is paraded as sophisticated modernism. In essence this is highly wasteful. The Soviet Union blinded by imitativeness of the West has not even sought any alternative pattern of development. Hence this is really no alternative pattern of economy hence civilisation. You can never disprove anybody or attain a real victory over anybody unless you assimilate his essence and integrate it in your system as Vali (elder brother of Sugriva) of Ramayana could do. None could defeat Vali because the essence of the revealed adversary used to flow into him. Neither the exploitative capitalist system nor the authoritarian soviet society has the quality of integrating nature’s economy and man’s economy, integrating egalitarianism, frugality satisfaction of genuine needs and self-renewal of resource as the basis of the economy.

67. Dr. Sethi says that if things continue in the industrial West and the Soviet–led countries as at present we are bound to face the greatest calamity. I too have come to the same conclusion not by studying economics but – by ‘commonsense’ you may call it, by a practice of some kind of semiology.

68. In our own country we must build up a recycling economy an economy with a regenerating resource base, with the minimum of commerce. Otherwise our people and our country will be ruined.

69. Do you want to connect it with man’s peace and democratic system? I want to tell you that it is only during the genuine patriotic war and patriotic struggle that there is more and more democracy developing in any country. During a patriotic war or struggle more and more democratic traditions develop. In China during the entire war of fifteen years, a remarkable egalitarian society developed in Yenan where both production and distribution were oriented to meet people’s needs. The like of such a society was never achieved during the peace period. So the questions are: what kind of peace is it and what kind of war is it? If a war is predatory or an anti people’s war it will suppress people’s welfare. If it is a genuinely patriotic war it is will develop democracy in that country. By measuring the extent of democracy within the society we can understand the nature of the war itself. I would like to study our defense preparations against Pakistan or the Soviet Union’s defense policy.

70. By that we can understand what kind of a war it is. Hence peace is not the only condition. Peace can also produce an oppressive society. I reiterate that the basic questions are

What kind of peace is it?

What kind of war is it?

It is to be judged by whether it promotes democracy or not?

71. You have not taken that into account.

72. Let me give a piece of information on the origin of bureaucracy. It is not only the centralisation or the excess of state ownership. There is yet another point. There was an interesting note by Trotsky on the problem of speeding up production in one way or the other: when you speed up production and have production as your sole goal bureaucracy is the definite consequence of it. About this I think Ivon Illych has written a lot, which is quite relevant.

73. It would then refer to another issue. They are all allowing the needs to increase. I would like to ask is that, is there any thinking in any of the socialist states on humanist definition of human needs? Only then will this rat race be stopped and there will be real happiness. This kind of possessing all sorts of things and wasting resources has become the symbol of happiness. If we want this kind of happiness we will be ruined. I think we should have a clear definition of human needs.

Participants:

Sri Nanaji Deshmuk, Sri K.R. Malkhani, Prof. N.L. Sondhi, Sri Muruli Manohar Joshi, (All BJP)

Com. A.V. Bardhn, Com. Subratha Banerjee (CPI), Com. Sailendranath Gosh,

Com Basu (Chairman Democratic socialist Party of India)

Sri Bimal Misra (Indian Ambassador to Nepal)

Prof. J.D. Sethi (Former Member of Planning Commission)

Prof. Imtiax Ahmed (Professor of Political Science JNU)

Sri I.K. Gujral (Former Indian Ambassador at USSR and later P.M. of India)

Sri. S.N. Nagarajan (Eastern Marxist)

Delhi Seminar (Dec, 88) on Indian Renaissance

74. I am making a series of apparently arbitrary statements without backing them with sufficient reasoning due to lack of time.

75. Many of the friends gathered here mentioned about Prof. Kosambi. So let me also start with one of his observations. He said that the Indian intellectual should at least spend one month in an year if not more in the villages, live with the peasants and with the workers that work in the workshops to know the worth of their own work or the relevance of their work to them. I do not know as to how many of those that spoke so highly of Kosambi did so. However I took him a bit more seriously .I am living with such people almost eleven months in an year and just a month or so with my academic friends .Hence my views are different from those who just mentioned the name of Prof.Kosambi.

76. Let me now deal about Nehru and his professed scientific temper. However no one here mentioned about Gandhi. In my opinion Gandhi had a better understanding of modern science and its technology than Nehru ever had. Gandhi clearly made the distinction between people’s science and a corresponding technology on the one hand and an elitist, dehumanising and enslaving one. This was very well known to Charlie Chapalin too but certainly not to Nehru. Well, the tragedy is that even most of the so-called Marxists themselves who pride in their class analysis or approach do not make this distinction that Gandhi makes. It appears that Gandhi has become a Marxist! While, the Marxists have become Nehuruites. For all practical purposes when compared to Gandhi, Nehru was an obscurantist. So the temples that Nehru admired (universities and the research centers) can only breed obscurantism. Just a sample survey of the mentality of the so-called elite in them can amply confirm my conclusion.

77. Now let me pass on to the popular notion of the so-called value-free and neutral nature of science and technology. a notion dominating even in the writings of such a remarkable Marxist scientist like Bernal. Let me tell you that no artifact be it a language, knowledge or a machine or even a man -made organisation created by the mediation of the head, hand and a heart (heart is the seat of aim) can be value-free, if not for any other reason but for the fact that it is designed with a purpose or aim which naturally introduces a bias or value in it. This can never be otherwise that too in a class divided society where one section wants to dominate and exploit the other. Let us not forget the fact that the major aim of the capitalist class from the first great rebellion of the working class (Paris Commune) was and remains to this date to emasculate and thereby keep the working class enslaved. Hence we have to examine the instruments.

78. At an earlier time people were taught to accept the tradition, which teach the natural superiority of the upper class or caste; however the capitalist class itself undermined this ideology at an earlier period. Hence this cannot be used to day. Second was the state as an instrument of coercion. Thirdly it was the inability of the working class to launch a long drawn struggle. These were the means at the disposal of the capitalist class to perpetuate its domination at an earlier period. This was the main form till the end of the Second World War.

79. However with the breakthrough in technology to day there are means of a kind by which the workers simply can be chained and emasculated by the machine and the technology themselves, because of which the worker loses even the only weapon i.e., to strike work. This was the great change in the industrial sector. This was the offshoot of information theory (cybernetics) and remote control mechanism as well as the emergence of the most opaque kind of machine and technology, which are beyond the understanding of the worker. It is now deliberately designed so.

80. Correspondingly emerges the new educational system, the expert-production factory system. It produces the insignificant minority of the so-called specialists, which controls the majority, the apparently dumb section. The main aim of this education system is certainly not at all to impart useful knowledge. It is primarily to deprive the majority of that kind of practical knowledge .It is the best sieving system that this exploitative system has devised and refined.

81. Now even agriculture is quickly brought under the control of this elitist technology and through it under Imperialist control. In fact to day the very life of the most independent section namely the peasantry is brought under the draconian grip of the most vicious Imperialism namely the U.S. This is done by destroying the native seed which till yesterday was under the control of the apparently unscientific illiterate peasant all under the grand scheme of green-revolution and the introduction of the so called high-yielding verities which are really pest-producing verities. This sinister scheme too was deliberately designed not merely to exploit the peasantry of the third world but to reduce it to impotent beggary.

82. This elite, the well-paid fat slave, is the most willing pimp and the prostitute of the Imperial master. The same can be said of the academics that have lost every sense of shame and are prepared to utter every kind of falsehood.

83. Let me now pass on to modern science and the so-called scientific temper about which so much is trumpeted. Let me quote Einstein. In his last days, particularly after he saw how he as well as other great scientists of his day could not prevent the explosion of the atom bomb on the innocent children of Asia, declared that, ‘if he were to re-live as a young man of eighteen he would never aspire to become a scientist but would prefer to be a plumber or a peddler’. He knew what this science was. Was this not a verdict on this instrument? I believe that he did not utter so under any alcoholic influence.

84. Let me take another case of scientific temper namely that of the German scientists and technologists, which included even some of the eminent men like Heisenburg whose sympathies with Nazism was well known. When they heard of the atomic explosions on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it appears that they wept. The only reason why they wept was because they could not deliver that weapon to their darling the Germanic superman Hitler, an act that would have assured the eternal domination of their race over the entire globe. I believe that this gathering will not doubt or question about the scientific temper of those German scientists. Of course the Mayavadi Brahmins and the Neo-Brahmins who are totally unconcerned about the lives of the wretched millions of inferiors have also gladly accepted and hence have become the advocates of such a kind of scientific temper all under the name of ‘dispassionate disinterested detachment’

85. Let me also remind you what N.Weiner, another great name mentioned here by several leading lights, said about this new breed of scientists, the post-war products. He simply said that the older generation like the Curies, Planks and Einstein’s etc., is an extinct race. The new breed is one of careerists, which is prepared to sell itself to any bidder. Gandhi would have most unhesitatingly called the term prostitutes. However Weiner also did mean the same.

86. Now let me pass on to the Indian scene. Two of our so-called leading scientists who are also the advisers to our ‘most benevolent government, the government of the Tatas and Bridals and the Neo-Brahmin bureaucracy, are none else than Dr. Swaminathan and Dr. Rajaramanna. Dr.Swaminathan’s wheat’s lycin content varies from conference to conference finally reaching the climax of 16% while the whole world knows that it is only just 1.6%. Yet this is the kind of truth (falsehood) that our so-called leading scientists are prepared to utter with impunity. However the irony is that none of the great advocates of the scientific temper opened the mouth to expose this .No institute also said one word about this. So we have to assume that such a silence also is a part of this scientific temper. If a commission were to be set to investigate this scandal do you know what its final verdict would be? All this, it will solemnly declare ‘is due to our having adopted to the decimal system because of which 1.6 could become 16 just by the omission of a dot, after all a forgivable error! What are we to understand of this scientific temper, please ponder over.

87. In a similar manner Dr.Rajaramanna goes on telling the most palpable lies about clean and safe energy from the atom even after the experience of Chernobyl and the closure of similar units in USA itself. The same kind of nonsense is a regular feature from another top scientist Dr, Srinivasan. I have heard similar inhuman utterances from several scientists at Kalpakkam in Tamilnadu.

88. Are these men and women not the specific products of this scientific activity? Let us not think that scientific activity produces just theories and gadgets, it produces in the process these scientists with specific qualities as well. So to understand the true nature or the essential nature of this science the most reliable way is to examine the psychology of these so called leaders of this science. One of the leading scientific temprists is none other than the French Marxist and the structuralist Althuser. He is satisfied with head and hand. Beyond that he says that science does not need. In his opinion science to be truly objective should not be riddled with ethical consideration. This also is the position of Positivism. Further Althuser demands that the observer should distance his/her self from the object to know it. It may be literal or metaphorical. Distancing is in fact the best way to lose the last particle of humanism in you. When you fly at an altitude say 20,000 thousand feet every thing below is nothing to you. You can drop the most lethal bombs with callous indifference. It won’t touch your mind simply because the objects that are simply annihilated do not enter your vision at all. Your distancing has made you thoroughly dispassionate and disinterested and to that extent impersonal no doubt very much scientific in spirit! So ‘distancing’ is good for every kind slave owner, Imperialist and the, Fascist butchers who did every kind of experiment on living human beings with perfect composure and objectivity .Can we not accept him as the model for scientific temper?

89. I have by the above examples indicated the measure of love or concern of our scientific temperists for our people. No wonder they have no qualm or compunction in suggesting of driving away the tribals of Bastar or doing away with the Ongeys of Andamans, all in the name of nation- building and renaissance. What kind of nation- building or renaissance it can be, I leave it to your own imagination.

90. Now let me pass on to the wonderful suggestion of some of the great scientific temperists in the realm of language for the intended renaissance. Some of the most scientifically minded men said that the existence of so many languages in India is really the single great hindrance for effective communication amidst the various peoples and hence we should evolve a language for the whole of India but such a language should not give any advantage to any one people! So this great impartial person suggests that a language, which is not that of any people, should be the medium! This is the view of scientific objectivity; It can only mean that a totally alien or foreign language is the best vehicle for the Indian renaissance! Wonderful discovery indeed!

91. It is a pity that these nation- builders do not simply realise the fact that language is not a tool for mere communication. It is the very expression of the soul. Of course we cannot expect such an understanding from those who have either no soul or sold it away to the Imperialists. Of course these men may have never spoken or written in their mother tongue. They have been trained to blabber in the alien language English in which we can neither love nor weep. These people do not understand that there can be no cultural renaissance except in one’s own language. To enslave a people with out any revolt or even protest from them the surest way is destroy their rich language in which only they can pour out their soul. That is why the greatest English satirist Swift made the Yahoos (dumb human beasts) deprived of the symbolic language and made the horses speak such a language whereby the horses drove the men (yahoos) That is the only reason why the asses of the white race are riding on these Yahoos who have lost their rich mother tongue. In turn, out of vengeance these Yahoos want to make us their asses. Should we oblige them by abandoning our rich language? Can that be renaissance?

92. Let me pass on to the most scientific way of planning. Life is a classic example of recycling economy. Further it is the acme of efficiency the like of which no man made organisation can come. However our ‘scientifically’ minded have opted to the most wasteful economy. Ivon Illych connected the evils of the modern societies to the ball-bearing while I connect it to the ball-point which symbolises the most wasteful and predatory economy and if this is allowed to continue it will result in the near future in the destitution of millions in the former colonial lands. My dear friends you are also now on the verge of being thrown away, you are no more wanted at the top. You are not merely suspected but actually hated below; so you are now exhausted ballpoints unfit for recycling and fit only to be thrown away. You also know it.

.

93. Now all I have to say is that if at all our people still survive it certainly is not because of you or your scientific planning but in spite of both, thanks to the inefficiency of our bureaucracy; otherwise even in the name of family planning itself a big chunk of our people would have been wiped out to the greatest satisfaction of your Imperial masters who have most candidly stated their aim while giving ‘aid’ (actually bait) to these poor nations. Aid will be given, they have declared, only to those that take the most stringent measures to cut down their useless populations to the size acceptable to them. Should we take this too as the spirit of scientific temper?

94. This tribe, the most servile one, has to carry out this job if not for any other reason but for the fact that it was given degrees and diplomas in those lands and so it is obliged to be grateful to their masters It is also very well paid to carry out such a job. Not merely that .the U.S is permitting the sons and daughters of this beggar elite to settle in U.S their earthly paradise. What kind of renaissance can we expect or hope from such people whose hearts are in the land which is ruled by the bitterest enemies of mankind?

95. Let me finally tell you as to who will really work for the true renaissance of this land. It will be the women and men of the scheduled castes, highly backward castes poor peasants and the tribals .The minorities may also contribute provided they do not beg the rulers for concessions That will be a part of the liberation struggle of mankind. However we can be certain that their conferences will not be held at any rate in these Vignana Bavans!

(Sri. R. Venkataraman the vice-president of India precided)

CRISIS IN THE SOCIALIST MOVEMENT

(COMMUNIST)

96. Amidst the analysts and critics there will be at least two broad trends, one openly hostile to and another sympathetic to socialism. Even inside the socialist movement there will be two trends, if not more. I would prefer to call them Western and Eastern, and I am an eastern analyst. In my opinion the western one has lost much of its value, be it Marxian or Non-Marxian.

97. The present crisis, the most unprecedented one, can be said to have erupted with the revelation of Khrushchev. Though we did not believe that Stalin was an angel, we rejected the version of Khrushchev simply because it lacked self-criticism. Some others traced all the troubles to Leninist party principles as well as to some other errors like the introduction of Taylorism in the production process, banning of political parties and demanding the minority inside the communist party to submit unconditionally to the majority. We felt that they were more the consequences than the cause of the melody because Lenin was a tremendously honest follower of the master Marx. So we concluded naturally that the basic flaw should be sought in the theoretical foundation of the Marxism of Marx himself. I believe that only such a search can show us the path or the grammar of the path for an egalitarian society.

For whom it is of concern and why?

98. Those who are either jubilant or indifferent or complacent about this crisis simply do not know what is at stake. Marx may not have shown the royal road or the way to the great egalitarian order; that is not the issue. Should any one be happy because of it? Who can be really happy, only the selfish philistines who have no heart.

99. On the contrary not merely do I believe in the possibility of an egalitarian order but very much think that if we do not realise the path for such a society and more so the direction in a decisive manner within the next couple of centuries and in the meanwhile the competitive social (dis) order gains the upper hand, the very survival of mankind will be seriously questionable. So it becomes absolutely imperative that we should know the way and we couldn’t know it unless we correct the basic flaw in Marx. However, I believe that it is not within the scope of the modern philosophical equipment of (European enlightenment) Europe. We have come to the above conclusion because after Marx and Lenin there is very little to learn from the West. Hence the Japanese thinker appears to be right when he said that the Western civilisation is dead but not buried.

How to evaluate the crisis?

100. Since the time of Marx this is the fourth period of crisis inside the socialist (worker’s movement). Let us hear what Lenin said of these periods of crisis in 1913 just five years before the October revolution ‘each of the three periods of world history since the appearance of Marxism has brought Marxism new confirmation and new triumphs. But a still greater triumph awaits Marxism, in the period of history that is now coming’. What is the position today, 77 years after these words were written? Let us hear from some of the Marxists of the modern Europe. Miloven Jilas says that ‘Leninist socialism is Utopian’. The Slovakian president Mr. Mucan says ‘Marxism as an analysis of the society will remain a model, subject to changes’. I doubt whether they still have any faith in such a society at all. I believe that the west as a whole has come to accept the bourgeois democracy as the best possible world order. The European working class obviously has surrendered to mammon and hence to the alien class. What does such an act portends? When the European socialist movement got split up for the first time because of the betrayal of a section of the Left, the first inter imperialist war became certain. The same was the story that preceded the second one too. Hence we can conclude that whenever the socialist movement is in deep crisis the bourgeois is on the war–path. It is the pressure of the bourgeois class on the working people that erupts as the crisis inside the socialist movement. Now let us evaluate the present situation, also see the difference of today’s crisis. In the earlier two crises the wars were inter–imperialistic, only indirectly and marginally on mankind. But today it is not an inter–imperialistic one. It is a war of imperialism as a whole against mankind, which is primarily directed against the peoples of the so-called Third–world nations. That is the essence of peace proposal between the two Super powers. This is the greatest betrayal from the Left. When did the pressure start? This pressure can be said to have almost coincided with the end of the second inter–imperialist war. The most inhuman section of the most powerful imperialism of today namely the U.S. began its pressure on the international workers movement. This third war the most insidious one, really a world war, was started by the U.S. imperialism. It has been going on for the last forty-three years, the theatre being the Third world.

101. What Khrushchev wanted was to come to an agreement with U.S. to jointly exploit the world. Of-course at that time U.S. was not prepared to concede that. Today the situation has changed. The two have to come to a gangster’s agreement. If not the other smaller powers will beat them because of the new technological achievements. To put it a bit crudely yet truthfully, the global imperialism is the order of the day. This is the inevitable result of the dialectics of imperialist development itself. An inter–imperialist war is out of question. This is well appreciated by all the gangsters. So they are now bent upon the destruction of the power of their only enemy namely the mass of the working people of the world. In this war as in all wars the first attack is on the poorer sections, which means the peoples of the third world. That is the fundamental reason why I do not consider that the changes that are ushered in the so called socialist world in the name of Perestroika and Glasnost etc., are for an egalitarian order or Gorbochev a genuine communist. He is continuing the philosophy of Khrushchev at a different period; at the same time the opposition to Gorbochev from inside the soviet block too is not in any way neither working for an egalitarian society nor opposed uncompromisingly to imperialism. It is in this context we have to discover the truly humanist forces that are for an egalitarian order. We cannot identify them unless we discover the shortcomings of the Marxist Humanism, which can be called Man–centered Humanism; we have to move beyond that.

Modern Global Imperialism

102. Imperialism of all kinds no doubt will want all the material resources. That is not surprising. However to day it does not want all the poor potential slaves who can be exploited. It wants just a portion of this population that will carry out its dictates with out any protest like dumb creatures. One Dr. Tandon, one of the most cynical representatives of this trend, expressed this aim in the crudest possible way in one of the conferences in our own country in the name of population control as the only way to solve our ‘national’ problem. This age not surprisingly is called the Triage. One of the major aims of Neo-imperialism is to decimate a big chunk of the world’s population in one way or the other. It has, to achieve this, recruited a big army from all the lands. The biggest chunk of that army is the modern elite and Dr. Tandon is one of the thousands of such Indians. Such recruitment is a big part of its strategy. Hence the defeat of the Western socialist movement should make us deeply thoughtful. That is why I say those only morons and inhuman Nazis could be jubilant at this defeat.

103. Let us ask the next anticipatable question and answer that too. Can the reversal to the bourgeois democracy solve the human problem? Today there is no revolutionary bourgeois anywhere in the world, the like of which Marx and Engels describe in their manifesto. The bourgeois as a whole has crossed over to camp of counter– revolution. Secondly let us for a moment forgets that it was the same bourgeois democracy that not only could not prevent the earlier wars but also actually assisted them. This kind of state has no more any place in the human history. So, if the so-called socialists nations opt once again to that kind of a state it is not going to solve the real human problem. The defeat of Marx, the last great mind of the west should compel all those who are for an egalitarian society search for the true way.

Marx’s philosophy

104. It is finally one that teaches man that his freedom lies on his perpetual struggle against the very wealth that he is compelled to produce from dominating and enslaving him. Now let us hear what else he says. ‘The chief defect of all the materialistic schools including that of Feuerbach is that the thing, reality, sensuousness is conceived only in the form of the object of contemplation but not as human activity, practice or subjectively. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice’. Any modern experimental scientist will certainly accept this, including the Marxist biologist who by killing the living organism thinks that he is understanding the laws of life, because in the entire theses of Marx there is no place for any thing like Ethics. In short Marxism is a variety of ‘Atheism without Ethics’. Marx, deliberately by-passed Ethics. He never thought the possible consequences of this omission. Had he been aware of the Ethical Atheism of the East (Buddha) he might have given some thought as to why these social reformers gave that much of weight to Ethics.

105. However it is the same Marx who wrote that all the illusions are due to object–bondage that is absolutely necessary to grasp the truth of the object. This problem does not arise so acutely when you are dealing just with the inanimate objects. The moment you step into the world of life in general and society in particular the situation radically changes. You will see the limitation of the Epistemology. What is the basis of this seems to be due to the fact that Marx never for a moment considered that there could be two kinds of truths and correspondingly two modes of cognising them. To this date this remains an unsolved problem of the West. Only of late the Soviet ideologue Brodov discovers this and writes ‘The division between them (two kinds of truths) indicates evidence of profound penetration (not seen in Hegal to Lenin) of the Isa UpanishadicÅ authors into the essence of the problem and of their historical far–sightedness. This problem would arise on one form or other countries later’. However he misunderstands the nature of this division and labels them as speculative and scientific. Had he read the remarkable discussion between Buddha and his would be Sishya Malunkyaputta he would have understood the true nature of this division. The real division is concerned with the ordinary knowledge (which includes science) and wisdom. The Eastern thinkers declared long back that tons of the ordinary knowledge couldn’t make an ounce of wisdom. This knowledge can help you to get ‘a lot of wealth and comfort, but it will not give you wisdom’, would have said the old Taoist saint.

106. However the latest Euro–centric Mr. Brodov reverts back to state that Marx had resolved this problem. It is not the truth. In fact it was the bone of contention on a later day between Lenin and the revisionists who wanted to divide knowledge into two kinds and Lenin the Marxists accused them of the crime of Kantianism. It is true that Kant also never brought in the most vital issue namely the cognitive and the creative role of love into discussion. Hence the issue was not at all resolved in the West. However, this is the old problem that divided the pure Gnana Marga and the Bakthi (Prema) Marga (of the saint reformers like the Vaishanvite Alvars and the ‘Loveless’ pure and sterile Gnana–Vaada was defeated. This is the essence of the cultural history of his great land. The method enough to understand a rock or a crystal is absolutely inadequate to know your sweet–heart. It is the recognition of this fact that compelled the Eastern Taoist–Marxist revolutionary Mao to add the following very significant instruction in the field of epistemology, ‘Love the cadres, Love the people, serve the people and struggle against the Self’ the like of which you find in no other Marxist literature. However the full significant of this is not realised even by many of the so-called Maoists them-selves.

107. It is a perhaps true as Jose P. Miranda says that Marx was more concerned with the problem of knowing reality than with the methodology of knowing. However the time has come to examine the method because of its tremendous practical significance. One can release the energy stored in an atom by annihilating it. Can it be the way to release the tremendous creative power slumbering in the people? The Fascist may beat the slave; the capitalist may bribe or prostitute to extract work. But neither a revolution nor a great society can be possible by any of those methods. Hence Stalin cannot be simply accused. The other way was simply not found in the book. Lenin too did not add. Hence his ‘Reflection Theory’ remained sterile. There is no reason to suspect that Lenin found any short–coming in the epistemology of Marx. The peasant of China who had no training in any of these modern sciences, does the correction, let us admit. If so what can be the source of this audacity to correct the Western master who even Lenin could not correct? Let us not forget that Lao Tse the Chinese was the greatest dialectician of the ancient times before whom the Ionian thinker Heraclitus is just a child. Mao was a product of a culture in which dialectical mode of thought was a natural one. The same can be said of the Indian culture too.

108. It is the dialectics of this Ionian philosopher that was once again taken up in modern Europe as the starting point of the western dialectics. It is also admitted to day, no doubt most grudgingly, by the most Euro–centric Trotskyites that it is the Chinese peasant Mao that has developed further dialectics. Mao starts with one concept of dialectics, which he says is the essence of dialectics. It is the notion that this reality, which is a process, is a unity of the opposites and the development is in and through contradictions. Is this idea a very new one for us? Certainly not. Thousand years before Hegel, the southern thinkers of this cultural area (Tamil Saints) said that a ‘Identity is in and through and because of difference’ which is more profound than the Western dialectics which stops with the notion of the identity or the unity of the opposites. The West did not know the term ‘because of’. At this point I can boldly assert that the original home of this mode of thought was the East and not Greece, as Engels wants us to believe. Western slave society or culture could not have understood the cognitive role of love. That could be the main reason why its significance could not have occurred to Marx. Is it then surprising that Marx and Engels scoffed and laughed at their atheistic teacher Feuerbach when the latter in his later days was toying with the idea of establishing a new religion based on ‘Love’? Love remains to this date just an emotional phenomenon to the Western thinkers. The manifold manifestations of this basic flaw in the Marxist epistemology in still not brought out by almost all of his admirers or even by his admiring critics. What is the basis of this lapse of the Western dialectics, which for the want of a adequate word I shall call the Masculine version or aspect of Dialectics? Marx as well as the West knew only the masculine version or side. The Feminine version was well known to the eastern thinkers of antiquity. The clear distinction of the two versions can be well appreciated when we deal with the problem of freedom. While the Male version says it that by going against the reality or by enslaving and controlling it you gain the freedom (freedom by correction) the feminine version says on the contrary that by yielding to or going with the reality (non-coercive way) you win your freedom. The latter kind is the more enduring and has an unthreatened kind. Both these notions, however, are based on the general proposition that freedom is the cognition of necessity, which is the Marxian (Hegelian) idea.

109. The epistemological flaw, one of the European Enlightenment itself, is reflected at the ontological level too. Not surprisingly the biggest side of the reality namely the symbiotic relationship is treated as marginal or exceptional. Hence socialist Ecology is yet to develop, so also socialist Geography. ‘Marxist geographical enquiry is still in its infancy in the West’.

110. Socialism or for that matter any kind of knowledge that demands experts and specialists finally will end in the domination over the non expert majority by the small group of experts. This was in a curious way appreciated by the Indian Sanyasi Vivekananda. He wrote, ‘ordinary education will be widespread at that period (socialist) but men of genius will be few’!

111. The greatest truth the East had known some three thousand years back that ‘one who sees one–self in every being only sees (the truth) is still not acceptable to the advanced knowledge of the West. Modern science only shows the non-or the anti–self in every other being. 'Identity in and through and because of difference’ is yet to be realised by the West including its dialectics. Love and loving service of the object are the first condition to realise this profound truth. This takes us beyond the Man-centered Humanism that is the essence of the teachings of Vallalar (Ramalinga) the Tamil Saint of the last century.

112. Man–centered humanism may make man responsible for his action. At the same time it can also make him highly arrogant. You can destroy your self easily but it is not that easy to destroy your Ahankar. Attachment to Ahankar this is the worst kind of object–bondage. Marx knows that it is the object–bondage that is the cause of all the illusions. Yet in his epistemology he does not show the way to free one self from such an object–bondage. Loving service is the easiest and the most dependable way to free one self from this Idol of the Self. Knowledge of the lower kind only can inflate this Ahankar and thereby increase the object–bondage. The most admirable and enviable qualities will turn into abominable ones if they are not governed by compassion and love

Marx’s concept of freedom

113. Marx recognises more than one kind of freedom. One kind basically depends upon the development of the productive forces. This is acceptable as well as easily understandable to any Baconian. The other kind of freedom is dependent upon the nature of production relation. If production relation is inimical the very fast development of the productive forces which is said to increase the freedom which rise to a dual economy which is actually achieved by eating away even the God given freedom of the poorer sections. Those that uphold the first kind will be the advocates of the ‘theory of productive forces’. (Stalin, Gorbochev, Nehru, Ambedkar, Periyar, Bush, Regan, Liu Shochi and Deng Sio Bing, Dange, Namboodripad, Jyothi Basu etc.,). Those that give high value to the second kind are the advocates of the ‘Theory of production relation’ (Gandhi and J.C. Kumarappa). Rejection of the second and the more important side has also aggravated the crisis inside the ‘socialist block’.

114. Then there is a third dimension of human freedom of which Marx is very much concerned. He calls it ‘self-determination’, but while defining this notion Marx says that one who depends on another in any way cannot be self-determined (Swathanthra). At this point Marx is not really upholding the dialectical position. Just as unfreedom or slavery is the consequence of the relationship of two people’ freedom too should be the consequence of the relationship of two. However in this relationship each of the partners becomes more than each in such an association and in their separation each becomes less than the self. It is based upon a loving relationship. This idea is known in the Prema Marg as Prapatti. It is symbolised in the free relationship of Radha and Krishna. It is the freest possible relationship between the Bhagwan (the mighty absolute) and the Baktha (Puny, relative). This is the relationship between the people (absolute) and the small number of guerilla’s and the power that this small group gets from the mighty is due to the loving service of the former to the latter. However this power cannot be used against the people. Hence the anti people, counter revolutionary forces, cannot conduct such a war. This power can neither be the cause nor the consequence of coercion.

115. This kind of loving service is the biggest side of class struggle. This truth is not brought out at all by the Western Marxism. In short Marx did not recognise the power of love; its cognitive role, its creative power not its basis as freest possible relationship, strangely this has resulted in the love of power of the worst kind. Though Marx clearly recognised that freedom as well as unfreedom, are related to subject object relationship still he could not realise the way to develop the free relationship with the object simply because he did not have any notion of the concept or Aparigraha which is well known to the East. Let us hear the Chinese Taoist saint. This is an example of the feminine dialectics too. In answering the question of the great Mangolian emperor Jenghis Khan, Ch’ang Ch’un (1220) says ‘the Tao procreates without possession, (this should be the socialist way) it works without holding, it promotes with out commanding ‘Could Marx have ever dreamt of such kind of a dialectician emerging in the far-east some three thousand years back? What was his view of the East? Did he not declare that the people of Hindustan prostrated before Sabala the cow and Hanuman the Monkey? Marx was a Euro centric. Lenin too had no great opinion of the Wisdom of the East. For all of them Wisdom too was perhaps directly connected with the development of the so-called positive sciences, a view, once again the consequence of their rejection of the two kinds of knowledge.

Marx and the concept of Power

116. It is this basic flaw that effectively prevented both Marx and Engles and later Lenin too from realising the essence of the (power of) the new state though Engels states that it should be the opposite of the kind of bourgeois state; nor they knew the logic or way by which state will whither out. Even today no one seems to know it. However the same Taoist saint would have shown the way. Let us hear him. ‘To rule or over a great realm is like roasting a little fish, one must not rub off their scales, must not shake them too much, must not scorch them, must be tender and easy in the way one handles them’. It is only this kind of dialectics that can indicate the path or the way by taking which the state can indicate the path or the way by taking which the state will wither away. It is this that can be called the Feminine kind of power. The West including Marx and Lenin knew only one kind of power and it was that which was extolled by Machiavalli and followed by Bacon. This is the coercive kind. This is the power of the bullet. This kind of power is always challenged, threatened and always afraid of the object or coercion. This leads invariably to the increase of the internal police force and the standing army. We should know the power that is not afraid of being threatened or challenged. It should be a kind of fearless power. It is that kind of power that makes the subject not powerless but powerful. Hence the object this power influences is quite happy in this kind of ‘over-ladyship’. This power is weightless; it is a power that sustains. It is like an inverted pyramid. Here the relationship between the rulers is of a free one. In such a situation the state will be a place of saints and it will be the most powerful creative centre by perpetually emptying itself, as the Taoist would say. It is the power of the generating creative Mother. Marx wanted that we should see with two eyes and he accused the modern West of looking things with only one eye (metaphysical view) yet he ended a one-eyed giant simply because the other eye got atrophied at one stage. The other would have also developed had he a proper appreciation of the East where it (feminine dialectics) had been well developed. He could see a big chunk of the truth but could not lead the people to the Promised Land just like the Jew of the Old Testament!

117. Finally let me end with a quotation of Marx and a similar statement of mine. Marx said ‘all the consequences are contained in the definition that the product is related to the producer in a hostile inimical manner’. The point is to change it. In a similar manner I can say that while discussing about this crisis, ‘that all the consequences are contained in the total negation of the cognitive and the creative role of love in the epistemology of Marx, the point is to integrate it’. Hence the solution lies in the proper bending of Mao and Kumarappa. Let us not forget that Kumarappa was never absolutely a pure Ahimsavad nor Mao ignorant of the role of loving service.

Marx and Malthus

118. The quarrel between Marx and Malthus though not settled completely still to this date Marx appears to be the loser and Malthus the winner. Some may say that it is because the whole world has not become socialistic. This may be the line of argument of the Menshivic deviation Marx also. He nowhere raises the issue of real human needs. He is building his land of freedom on a society of plenty, which also assumes multiplication of the individual needs. Malthus speaks frankly on behalf of the small aristocracy. So he need not brother about the multiplication of needs. In fact he assumes such a situation as a desirable one. Hence he wants the reduction of the unwanted and unnecessary mouths. Marx could have solved this issue only if he had attempted to he defines the optimum human needs.

119. Can Stalinism be an abnormal out growth of (Western) Marxism? That is what we have to accept if we accept the versions or explanation of Khrushchev & Co. To this date the European communists have not gone one step beyond Khrushchev. Stalin is no more. Everything has been said. Yet the situation is a crisis ridden one. Can any one say that they have solved the problem and shown the great path to build socialism? When there can be no answer to this question there is no meaning to go on accusing or criticising Stalin only. The real problem is deeper. We have to examine the very foundations of Marxism.

120. I believe that it was the great soul of Lenin, which actually prevented the malignancy, the consequence of loveless, non-ethical atheism while he was at the helm of affairs. However he did not see the root of the defect in the epistemology of Marx. Lenin did not also bother about the true or even possible significance of love. Marx never had an idea of the eastern atheism. He knew next to nothing of the great thoughts of Mahaveera, Buddha or Lao Tse. Hence European atheism is a poorer variety of atheism. Ludwig Feuruach too did not create an epistemology incorporating love as an essential element of it, as a cognitive as well as a creative factor. No European philosophy has done this to this date. Only Mao introduces the concept of ‘love the cadres, love the people, serve the people, and struggle against the self’. This basic defect is continued in the area of the relation between man and the non-human reality. It is the problem of the man-centered Humanism. This has not helped in the creation of a genuine socialist ecology. The industrial pattern and production pattern in the Marxism world is still Eco-destructive and it is now recoiling on man. Alternate technology is still not on the agenda. This defect is clearly avoided in Jainist and Buddhist thought. Socialism would have been livelier had it been built on one of the varieties of eastern atheism. Further Marx had accepted a kind of an evolutionary sociology. So much so the European society and the culture as was obtained at his time was in his view the most advanced one. His criterion was one sided hence defective. It is by following him to the letter that the social democrats justified the imperialist expansion as a necessary step to raise the ‘barbarians’ of Asian continent to the advanced culture. Lenin was also of the same opinion so far as the evaluation of the culture was concerned. But Lenin was not prepared to compromise with imperialism. He wanted its liquidation as a necessary condition for the social revolution in Europe. Such a socialist Europe was expected by Lenin to help all the peoples who were at a lower level of culture when compared to Western Europe. Such an evaluation was based on productivity and technology of the particular society. How a society values wealth was not given any great consideration.

121. Marx had not known the second and the more important kind of power. His world was over between Machiavilli and Bacon. The Feminine kind of power was totally unknown to him. Because the feminine version of dialectics was unknown to the west. That is the reason Marx does not show the way for the withering of the state nor the essential nature of the proletarian state. He had also accepted the Baconian version of human freedom, based on the perpetual and ever expanding enslavement of the non-human reality. Hence his concept of freedom also suffers. Marx did not examine the dialectics of the tools, which connect the human beings. This has created a great illusion that the tools are extra-class in character. This lapse may be due to historical limitations. In the same way this science too as a tool should be examined from the class stand point.

122. Apart from all that Marx’s treatment of class struggle also suffers from one sided emphasise. Only Mao rectifies this. Marx’s theory or version of class struggle does not bring out fully the cognitive role of it. This defect is also due to the initial defect in the area of epistemology. The bigger aspect class struggle where willing and loving service to the people is absent in Marx. This kind of work alone can easily destroy object-bondage as well the false ego. This is the very essential precondition to cognise the social truth. Not merely that such a work only can generate the tremendous creative energy from the people. Marx did not recognise the two kinds of truths one that cannot be interpreted (the truths of sciences) and those can be interpreted (Truths of social sciences). The latter are the valuational ones.

123. Mao has shown the correct way to develop Marxism. Similarly we have to do.

Evaluation of Modern West Its contributions

124. Modern science and its technologies – war machinery.

125. Profit motivated capitalist mode of production hence competition – elimination – selection – war during the apparently peaceful period. Ruthless elimination of every kind of obstruction – as the mark of efficiency. Everything a purchasable commodity.

126. Democracy - majority ruled by the minority apparently with the consent – of an emasculated majority – if necessary leading to Fascist rule.

127. Culture: Inhuman individualism – killing instinct lauded – including sports, enslavement and extermination of the weak – justified and accepted as natural.

128. Scientists: Trained liars – landing the so called amoral (really a way to hide or avoid the moral) so called value free method – and truth – prepared to undertake any work – selling one’s self to the best bidder – Trusted slaves of rich rulers – the products of the expert producing – sieving – educations system designed co condemn the mightiest majority as unfits and misfits.

129. Morality – End justifies the means. Marx: Main aim – to destroy the inhuman condition and (re) establish at a new level a really Christian Society – This is clearly spelt out by Engels when he compares the modern workers movement to the early Christian Communities. At any rate Marx could not show the way – because he wanted to realise it with the help of these experts – by using modern science and its technologies. In short he wanted the Satan to take us all to heaven! No wonder he failed. Let us not talk about the most insignificant easily countable minority like Einstein, Curie etc., that race is now almost extinct. Now we have only Swaminathans & Rajaramannas the mercenaries in science. Can there be a better method to evaluate a society? Not surprisingly the most original Marxist Caudwel called it a dying society. It is really stinking. At any rate it has created the worst illusion.

130. So we can or have to call this age, the age of illusion.

Sathyamangalam Nagarajan

131. “SN NAGARAJAN is possibly the most interesting theoretician the Communist movement in India has brought forth in a long, long time. In his fifties, Nagaajan, who works with the radicals, is possibly the only original Marxist thinker in the land who concepualises a direct continuity between traditional Indian thought and contemporary Marxist theory.

132. Trained as a biologist Nagarajan, rejects the predictable confrontation between traditional philosophy and Marxist dogma. In fact, he makes the former a basis for the future of Indian Marxism and constantly propounds the need for a sensible meaningful dialogue.

133. While this makes him very popular with alternative thinkers and those who believe that the future of India depends very largely on our understanding of the past, it leaves him as a loner within the Marxist fold. A courageous, free thinking, intellectually original Marxist, who does not walk the beaten path.

134. That is why he quit the CPI, was thrown out of the CPI-M and even fell out with Charu Majumdar.”

ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY OF INDIA, APRIL, 1985.

The Other Voice and The Other Way

Or

The Voice of the Alienated Untouchable

If the Pariah is not free how can the Brahmin be free?

A Vaishnavite idea

Freedom is indivisible

Marxist idea

Love will unite who are free and will free who are united

Ramon Lull

‘One who does not know love does not know life’

Sri Narayanaguru

Friends hear, only who loves can understand

Kabir

Love the cadres, love the people, serve the people, and struggle against self

Mao Tse Tung

135. ‘The religion, which embodies the protest of an exploited class, becomes creative: itself grows vital and insurgent. Religion, because it is the opium of the people and not the pride of the exploiting class may at times give rise to a revolutionary religion, the weapon of the people’

(The breath of discontentment)

Chritopher Caudwell.

136. When Ramanuja the author of Sri Bashya, (the philosophy of Visishtadvaita) started on his northward journey at the behest of his master Alavandar in his deathbed knew his only purpose. It was certainly not to bring same earth from Gokulam or a brick from Ayodhya for an intended temple in south for Rama or Krishna. In fact Ramanuja would not have gone to Ayodhya at all, where to uphold the cruel Dharmashastra of the Vaideeka priest Vasista. Rama permitted the sacrifice of Sita, the great Mother (Piratti in Tamil) whom Ramanuja held in the greatest honour. Hence his work, the philosophy of Visishtadvaita bears the characteristic name Sri Bashya, essentially a feminine approach. It is not certainly the Purusha–Bashya of the Advaiti Namboodri Brahmin Adi Sankara. In fact on an earlier occasion, Valmiki took Sita away when she was pregnant and he protected her and she became the mother. This was possible only because Valmiki being a hunter did not accept the Dharmasastra of the Vaideeka Brahmins who would demand Sati even today. Further he sent Lava & Kusha only to abrade Rama of his cruelty to their beloved mother.

137. It is well known that Lava and Kusha did not live in Ayodhya. How could they live in that accursed land where their beloved mother preferred to burn herself instead of living with the heartless & suspecting male? Kalidasa, definitely a Vaishnavite, and hence not a supporter of Brahminism states in his Raghuvamsa that the entire population of Ayodhya had deserted it and Ayodhya was swallowed by the wild forest, then it became the haunt of wild beasts, thieves and marauders. Can we then believe that anyone with a heart could have built this temple for Rama? Certainly not. If at all there is a temple for this Rama it should have been built only by the upholders of this inhuman Dharmasastra, the descendent or Manu and the ancestors of the Advanis, Joshis and the Sankracharya of Puri. It could never have been by any Prema Margi who emphatically rejected the inhuman Dharmasastra. It is nor surprising that Kamban (called another Alvar) a Vaishnavite, hence an upholder of the Prema Marga, never wrote the Uttarakanda in his remarkable epic poem Ramayana. His Rama was not the one what Valmiki portrays. So to establish his Rama he conveniently omitted this Uttarakanda. It is also such a Rama that Ramanuja had in his heart & certainly not the Rama of Advanis, Joshis and the Advaitic Sankaracharya of Puri, the heartless male Chauvinists.

138. So, how can the Sudras or the non-brahmin of any shade who are all basically Prema Margis and who stoutly reject the inhumanism of the arrogant Gnana Margi; the upper caste Brahmins, associate with this Ramajanmabhumi affairs?

Ramanuja’s aim

139. We should know the command of his master Alavandar. We should also know whether it has any relation with the recent clamor of the Advanis, Joshis and Vishwa Hindu Parishad who are all bent upon to resurrect this inhuman Ram by building a temple for such a Ram. No one who has any love for the womankind (symbol of love and sacrifice) should go anywhere near such a temple. If the Muslims who have the greatest respect for the widow Fathima, whom Mohammed married (P.B.H.) read what I have written here, will they love to have a mosque, the place of worship, anywhere near such a temple?

140. To know this we should know the sole purpose that compelled Sri Ramanuja to undertake the most hazardous journey to Kashmir. He went to Kashmir to get hold of the original of Badharayana (Bhowdayana) Sutra, which was the source book of Adi Sankara to establish his philosophy of Advaita. It is the basis of the Sankara’s Mayavada. Alavandar’s main aim was to demolish the Advaita Mayavad - the inhuman antilife & Nihilist philosophy of this Namboodri Brahmin. Adi Sankara.

141. If Ramanuja had the intention to refute the thesis of the Bhudayana Vrithi or Brahmasutra it would be amounting to the total rejection of the Vedanta itself. That was not the aim of the Alvars, the Tamil Saints who gave to this world the remarkable philosophy of Prema Marga. (Kain Karya Marga). Even at this stage I can boldly assert that the contribution of these Alvars is highly original and it is not a borrowed stuff form the Sanskrit Vedas. Only those who have no idea of either of the Vedas or of the Divyaprabhandam in remarkable Tamil can go on uttering such nonsense that the entire Hinduism or Indian Heritage is from the Vedas.

The Alvars should have had in mind only one thing. Any philosophy worth the name cannot establish such a kind of inhuman nihilism as expounded by Sankara. So, Alavandar should have contended that the interpretation of Sankara should be highly faulty. It could be so, because after all he was a member of the Namboodri Brahmins where many girls cannot have happy married