Marxism and India
In reviewing SEMINAR 178, the June 1974 number on "Marxism and India", E M S Namboodiripad (SOCIAL SCIENTIST 25, August 1974) found a biased and negative approach in the assessment of the revolutionary political practice and theoretical work of the Indian communist movement. Ajit Roy follows up by concentrating on P C Joshi's SEMINAR 178 contribution, ^Towards a Renewal^ and joins issue with him on the cideas and criteria5 introduced in the paper.
NO Indian Marxist can honestly deny that weaknesses and shortcomings have hampered the fulfilment of the revolutionary role of Marxist-oriented movements in this country. Critical assessments of the historical evolution of the communist movement in India should therefore be entirely welcome to all Marxists, as criticisms and self-criticisms are an integral part of Marxism itself. Even a measure of "irate abuse55 from smug bourgeois pen-pushers is not entirely unwelcome. For, as Lenin used to declare by quoting lines from the Russian poet Nckfasov:
In savage cries of irritation
We hear the voice of approbation,
Not in dulcet sounds of praise.
Seminar, a monthly journal published from New Delhi, brought out in June 1974 a number devoted to Marxism and India. The editorial introduction to the central theme of the issue records its 'approbation5, Nekrasov-st} Ie, of the Marxist movement in India when it observes in the movment^ history only "vacillations between blunders and ntelevan-cies, both accompanied by a unique courage5^, or when it "is left wondering about the intellectual process of those professing to be Marxists.55 The readers of Social Scientist obviously need no refutation of these profundities. But there are other pieces in this issue of Seminar which deserve notice. What follows is an attempt at critical assessment of the paper "Towards a Renewal55 by P CJoshi of the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi. This particular contribution deserves special attention because of its