E3. A | Aasim Sajjad Akhtar on the evolution of Leftist thought in Pakistan
Translation:
Arsalan: Hello everyone, I am Arsalan, and you are listening to Jamhoor Radio.
Jamhoor Radio’s first season is on Left politics in Pakistan. In our third episode we speak with Aasim Sajjad Akhtar who has a very active role in today’s left in Pakistan. He is part of the Awami Workers Party (AWP). Until very recently he was the President of AWP Punjab. He is also a professor of political economy in Quaid-i-Azam University. Let’s find out what Aasim’s analysis is on Left politics in Pakistan today.
What is the position of Left politics in Pakistan today, and where do you see it going?
Aasim Sajjad: We can’t say it’s great; in mainstream political circles, the Left is nothing to speak of. We have a constituency, and in modern politics it has a voice to some extent, especially digitally, but it can’t be said that we have a big presence or that a lot of people know us. I will certainly say that if I look at my own journey, 20 years ago when I got involved in the inner circle of the Left, I think today we are better off, at least in this way if not others, in that a lot of young people - and a big proportion of Pakistan’s population is the youth - a lot of young people, for their own reasons and conditions like the problems of educational institutions and lack of jobs, have lots of questions and are seeking answers. And I felt this in the last few years - and sure, it’s not on a very wide scale, but there is a tendency - a direction towards ideas that don’t get taught in schools or get exposure in the media, but somehow...of course we [the Left] make efforts, and they [the students] also search.
So in that sense, as they say, the organic potential is present, more than it was 15-20 years ago, but it remains to be seen how well we can take advantage of that, and that is our challenge in the Left. How can you bring youth into the ranks of the Left, and make yourself a viable yet alternative - we must be an alternative, different from mainstream options, but must also be seen to be viable, not just something to speak of. The youth should feel like we [the Left] have some ability. That’s our challenge, and that’s what our collective situation is like.
Arsalan: Until recently you were the president of AWP [Punjab], and the AWP has been there for almost 7 years now. What’s your analysis on this experiment?
Aasim Sajjad: Yes, the Awami Workers Party has been around for about 7 years now, It was a distinct experiment to bring together [Left] parties that would never even come close to one another prior to the merger. Like I was saying, it was a successful experiment from the perspective that, in my assessment - and I don’t mean to dismiss anyone - this party has raised aspects and fundamental questions from a Left perspective that older parties in the past did not raise. Such as patriarchy - to call itself feminist, or to have feminist perspectives in the foundational ideology of the party; to champion the question of the environment; to update our analysis of Pakistani society and capitalist ideology forward from at least the 1980s, and not keep repeating things from 30, 40 years ago - we have done this, and to some extent, through an online presence, we keep reaching new people. Nevertheless, because people have come into this party from different places and perspectives of the past, there are problems, internal tensions, there are always ups-and-downs. But it’s all a part of how things go, and it’s going, and the experiment was necessary. The experiment continues, and we hope to keep taking it forward.
But I feel like the experiment makes it clear that today, in Pakistan or anywhere else, if you want to make Leftist politics and ideas popular, you need to seriously...I mean you can't say that we are the pure, truthful, upright people who are still carrying forward the true ideology - which some groups still do in our country, to some extent. This is ok for self gratification, but for new people, who don’t understand old ideas, or have only received propaganda about those ideas, this is not a helpful strategy. It is our job to make our ideas and politics appealing to modern conditions and people today. Our party has worked on this, and we have had some good experiences, but we can’t say that we’ve had a big breakthrough, and even today, we are trying, through various attempts, to get to a better position.
Arsalan: So you see AWP’s journey as a break from the puritan politics of the 60s and 70s, which was divided amongst the Chinese and Russian camps, you have broadened it to include other important progressive questions alongside the question of class.
Aasim Sajjad: We’ve tried and...well, puritan may not be the appropriate term. See, each era has its own conditions; it's clear that the revolution or Left politics of the 20th century, and even there it differed from place to place [were different]. We are seeking to establish a Left politics relevant to today’s conditions. We see ourselves as a continuation of the old experiments as well, it’s not as if we consider those to be wrong, nor do we consider them to be the absolute truth. These are experiments: if we analyze human society on the basis of how a society evolves over time, how its nature or structure changes, how its governing order or state evolves, then our politics should also adapt to the ways and organizational modes, and so on and so forth.
You cannot say our politics will stay just the way it was; if everything else has changed, capitalism is evolving in a certain way, the entire world’s ideas about politics are evolving...see how the methods of politics have changed, as a result of digital technologies. If we accept all of this, then our methods and our organizational strategy...we must continually think about them and modify them - and to modify them does not mean that we forget the principles and try something new altogether. Your principles should remain the same, but according to the context, you have to innovate and continuously think. So it’s not puritan versus not puritan, it’s just that...it’s almost like we have no choice but to assess the context and conditions and prepare strategy accordingly.
Arsalan: Ok Aasim, related to this, what is your fundamental philosophy of change?
Aasim Sajjad: See, the basic principles are not too different. A revolutionary in any era would say the same, and so do we: that we want to make a society where one person is not exploited at the hands of another, and one where all people are able to reach their potential. So whether we speak of economic exploitation or any other type of oppression, we are against them, we fight them, we struggle against them, even if we cannot root them out entirely, because contradiction after all remains in human society. But of course this society and state that are founded on capital, which are present since the beginning of the modern era, we want to end them and make something else.
Now it is clear that this is a general statement. In the past it was easy, right, if someone asked you what you wanted, you would point to the Soviet Union or China. Today we don’t have this, this easy response. And in a way this is good too. Because if we look at the Left’s experiences of the 20th century, maybe there was too much of this, in our country and in many other countries. There was this dependence, that one day revolution will come from there, slowly, and our work is [to support it]. This is my opinion, and I don’t mean to blame anyone, but what I have heard and understood, from those who were involved in the Left’s politics back then, that there was a lot (at least more than necessary)...we worked in our own area, in our own society as well, and we tried to understand them, but there was too much hope placed in the Cold War and its associated geopolitics.
And when those did not materialize, and when everything ended, then you also saw its results, right: splits, depression, because we were hoping that we would get such a push [from outside] that we would also cross capitalism and we would also make a new society...and maybe this is what some people still think, and it is not wrong. There is a world order, the extent to which capital has captured the entire world and is directing affairs around a single focus, this was not the case earlier. One cannot say that we will have a socialist island in a capitalist ocean, but what it means is, whatever we do, for example we have to join with the oppressed peoples of the world, but we don’t have the option to say that there is a big state backing us. Now, according to our own conditions, we have to understand, make efforts and establish ventures with our own people. Leftists and revolutionaries in other countries do their own work and one day...of course, we will all try that one day on a global scale we are able to make something significant. But for now it is not the case. In one way, this takes us towards a more pragmatic approach, because we cannot depend or rest our hopes on any other country or foreign power, that they will come and, so to speak, take you to a place that you fantasize about. And it’s difficult too, you think about how it will happen?
In recent years there have been experiments around the world, some have been good experiments, but in many it has been proven, whether it was Latin America’s Pink Tide or an experience like Syriza in Europe, or Corbynism, or Sanders in America, these can be called a resurgence to some extent, but everywhere it is being proven that it is very difficult to try something different and separate from the global turmoil, given how globalized capitalism is. It’s very difficult, we cannot deny this, but it doesn’t mean we needlessly get depressed about it. That we say, until there is a bloc...and maybe this is why so many people attached their hopes to the BRICS, that there is a Western hegemonic imperialist bloc and now BRICS is being established [in opposition] (Ed note: BRICS is an acronym for Brazil, India, Russia, China, and South Africa, emerging national economies that exercise significant regional influence). This...in a way this is our inability to look ahead, we think that just because in the 20th century there were two blocs, we must have two blocs again in the 21st century, only then will we be heard. But this, I think, is not appropriate. We have what we have. There is no state in the world that I think is particularly pro-people, such as the states that were formed after freedom from colonialism, or Cuba, or the Soviet Union, or China, or Vietnam, where there were socialist revolutions. I don’t think we have the notion of a state as it existed then, which we can depend on for anything.
Arsalan: So if we come to Pakistan, the military has a very big role in the power structure and politics here. What is the position that you and your party have on the military and its related power tussle?
Aasim Sajjad: Yes our position, this is a simple question in some ways, our position has always remained the same, that this has been a highly militarized state from the first day, a garrison, which has always served imperialism, and imperial countries have supported it. So there is a mutually beneficial relationship between our rulers (especially the army) and foreign powers, which use this state for their own ends, whether they are army bases or geographical access. And now resource extraction, such as in Balochistan, or even in Sindh, in the tribal areas, which are not spoken of. There it is only said that there are the Taliban and they must be killed. There are natural resources there as well. This has been the state of affairs, and the army is in pole position.
Then there is the issue of their dominance over the state, they have a strong influence in the economy as well, and what is necessary to keep all of these in place is, as they say themselves, protectors of ideological borders of Pakistan. This is the story of Pakistan for the last 70 years, there is a state, whose people are taught that there are enemies in every direction, and we will protect you, and it is a sensitive time, and this is a fortress of Islam, etcetera etcetera, and this is the true foundation of their strength. If today there were a different social contract, or if the state were based on a different perception, then maybe the army wouldn’t be so powerful, or it wouldn’t remain so powerful. And of course the existential war is firstly with India and then Afghanistan. The question of India has always remained central in Pakistan’s politics, economy, ideological structure, and will remain so.
We are clear on this and we have been saying it for a long time, and even today we hold those who raise consciousness about this and struggle on this question as our closest political allies. But, as you know, this story has been going on for 70 years, and there is no guarantee that it will be resolved any time soon. It could be, too. But our position on this is quite clear and has remained thus; I imagine most of those who call themselves progressive will have similar opinions on this matter.
Arsalan: Ok Aasim, related to this is the question of imperialism. As you said this military has always been dominated by American imperialism. Now even China’s influence in this region has increased. Many people now speak of Chinese imperialism, and view CPEC in that light. What is your position on American and Chinese imperialism, and how to you view CPEC?
Aasim Sajjad: Obviously, imperialism and indeed imperialisms are a pillar of the world order; it is a capitalist world, and in order to keep capitalist structures in place, imperialist wars and powers have remained, and continue to this day. I think in the modern era, and even if you go back to ancient times, the question of imperialism today is different in one way. For the first time you see that the world’s most powerful army is America’s, but - and this is how we have to modify our understanding of imperialism - the same imperialist country has the strongest army and also has the world’s reserve currency, but from a productive standpoint it is no longer the most powerful. That is China now.
So this is a change, certainly in the modern era; if at one point Portugal was the biggest imperial power, then the Dutch, then the British, and after World War 2, America, they always dominated in both the military and the economy. Now you see a difference.
Then we have other imperial undertakings, such as Saudi Arabia’s, actually the Arab influence, which support a specific religious imagination and support religious forces. So for us, by Allah’s command, we have been in the jaws of many different imperial powers, in different times, and remain to this day. And as I said before, this is our state’s custom, to have this give-and-take with different foreign powers, and you know, it sells its services for different rents, to be straightforward. And this is still going on, and clearly the people are crushed in this, because the people and their interests are never even considered.
So this is it, whether it is America, CPEC, there are all these questions, and there is a lot of confusion as well, and many arguments as well, in a way. But it is not our job to make anyone happy or to talk about this in hiding, our job is to provide an analysis, as I said in the beginning. Our job is not to cry out a slogan, just because it was used a hundred years ago. We have to see its principles, its spirit, which is that we are with the downtrodden peoples of the world. That is it, right? It’s straightforward. Whatever is in the interest of the people, I am in favor of it. Whatever is not in the interest of the people, I will speak on it. Even if I can’t stop it - we are not in mainstream government - but at least we can talk about it, right? So that tomorrow, when we are in a better position, then people will say yes, these people have been saying this all along. They never traded [their principles], they never compromised, they said whatever was in front of them.
I think we have to talk...like I said, today, there is no country in the world that is pro-people or is challenging capitalism. The only battle is for who has more power, or who can show their strength, not that the conception of strength is entirely different, based in the power of the people. That is nowhere. This is why imperialism has different faces. There are the financial institutions, which to some extent you can say are of no nation but nevertheless are a pillar of the Western imperial order, which use loans and impose special economic policies. So this is a very complex structure, which has various branches, and to understand and explain these, can be our minimum role. At least we can illuminate them and clarify our point of view on them. It is a separate matter that we don’t have the strength to set up a wall or dam against anything or join the people in large scale struggle to end or stop these things, but hopefully that time will come soon.
Arsalan: In today’s era, how do you see CPEC as a project?
Aasim Sajjad: Regarding CPEC, our party had said this from the first day, which I said as well. To say we reject CPEC - we can say that, but we don’t have the ability to stop it. So as a result our party’s position was, we recognize the importance of escaping Western imperialism, and are in favor of regional cooperation. For example if we have friendship with India and Afghanistan, that would be a very good thing and in the favor of the people, in principle - it is a different matter if we go into the details. But generally speaking. So there is China, a country, it is part of our area of the world, so from the principle of regional cooperation, if we look at it in a simple way, it is a good thing. But clearly regional cooperation - if you go into the details, it must be in the interest of the people. Not in the interest of capital, but in the interest of labor and laborers. There should be environmental protections, not environmental degradation. So this has been our stance, and I think it is the right stance. From a financial perspective as well, let’s say a country is coming and giving you loans - and it is a loan, not free money - but if their loans, interest and other conditions are better than the IMF or borrowing from America, then it is relatively better.
But if all of these facets [are considered]: there is cooperation but what are the people getting? Or what are local businesses getting? Are local small industries getting invigorated, what is happening in the environment, what are the interest rates. So slowly we are learning these things, and where they are not in the interest of people, and it is clear in many places that they are not in the interest of people, and if things are progressing in the same way as if a Western institution or country were to give us a loan...that is the basic principle, and whatever it is, we will speak accordingly, and that is our organization’s stance as well.
Fade out.
Arsalan: This was the first part of our interview with Aasim Sajjad. Part 2 of this interview will be released next week. Do not forget to subscribe to our podcast.
You can also become our patron. The link for this is on our website jamhoor.org.
Take care, and thank you.
For Part 2 of this interview and other Jamhoor Radio episodes, visit jamhoor.org/radio