A Dangerous Convergence
By Pratyush Chandra
02 September,
2008
Countercurrents.org
Prominent sociologist Dipankar Gupta's cynical article in The Times of India (Aug 30, 2008) (1) is itself an expression of middle-class disenchantments, which he talks about. And Buddhadeb with his frank anti-worker statements is undoubtedly in his brigade. In his anti-communist verbosity displayed in the article Gupta does exactly what he criticises. For him "the poor has never revolted"; it is the leadership, which everywhere rises in her name. Ironically, even to deny that the poor has ever revolted, it is a middle class intellectual like Gupta who has the privilege to proclaim this! Obviously in his discourse "they" will remain as "they" - "Why They Don't Revolt". So why should we accept his privileged denial about the poor(wo)man's revolt, if he censures us for accepting the socialists' claim that s/he does revolt, on the ground that they are elites?
According to Gupta, since the leaders came from the middle class or elite families the revolutions couldn't be popular. This shows his ignorance about political processes, including class processes. Obviously he cannot be faulted for this, the disciplinarian divide that characterises the bourgeois academia does not require him to see things holistically (that's the job of a generaliser, not an expert) - he is after all a sociologist! How can he understand that revolts/revolutions are conjunctural - their character are not simply determined by the membership of their leadership rather by the societal stage in which they occur? How can he understand that the process of class-ification, not the fixed descriptive sociological classificatory pigeonholes, allows revolutionary intellectual organicity to individuals from diverse backgrounds? How can he understand that revolution is not only a moment but also a process which comprises many "guerrilla fights" against "the encroachments of capital" before and after the "revolutionary moment" passes away? This was Marx's understanding of the "revolution in permanence" or Mao's notion of a "continuous revolution" or Lenin's "uninterrupted revolution".
Obviously within the commonsensical notion of revolution, for which the OMs (Official Marxists, as Kosambi characterised them) are most responsible, the 1949 event in China paints into insignificance the Hunan peasants' self-organisation and struggle (as marvellously described by Mao in his Hunan Report) or the processes that constituted "Fanshen", "Shenfan" and the Cultural Revolution. Within this framework a revolution loses its processual character, and is reduced to a moment and even a few elite figures. But why should we expect Dipankar Gupta to go beyond common sense? After all he is a "middle class" solipsist who sees the world made in his image - his class dominating everywhere, doing everything.
In fact, we can find a deep resonance between Gupta's analysis and India's chief security advisor MK Narayanan's recent McCarthyist indictment of intellectuals (2). Both experts (in their respective fields) attempt to reduce movements to agencies, however the former does it as an expression of his academic cynicism, while MK Narayanan to find scapegoats to curb grassroots militancy. But both converge at a dangerous moment.
Yes, Prof Gupta, you are right - that really hurts!
Notes:
1. Dipankar Gupta, "Why They Don't Revolt", The Times of
India, August 30, 2008. URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Editorial/
Why_They_Dont_Revolt/articleshow/3423522.cms
2. Ravi
Velloor, An Interview with MK Narayanan, Straits Times, 11 August
2008. URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/
STIMEDIA/pdf/20080811/Q&A
