As is clear from the research of the author, the struggle for a definite expression among the socialists of the Indian subcontinent has been beset with contradictions. All movements are supposed to have a modicum of contradictions or certain diversity in the process of interpretation of an ideology. But the Indian Muslims involved were particularly led into a dark alley because the torch of the movement or the realisation of the thought in the political arena was not held by those who were the practitioners of it here.
In other words the ground realities of the Indian subcontinent were best known to the Indians and any top down directions or control had to be superficial to what the situation on ground was. The Third International that oversaw the socialist movements outside the borders of the Soviet Union by its dominant "I know better" attitude was above reproach and could not be challenged. Any dissidence meant being ostracised, expelled from the Party or relegated to some secondary unimportant position.
According to the author the first persons to be infected by the bug of socialism or communism were from the lower classes. They were not that well educated in the formal sense and came from the lower middle classes compared to the second generation of socialists who came from the upper classes and were exposed to university education and other strands of thinking that was quasi socialistic in nature.
The first batch of socialists was anti-imperialistic and so anti-British and so was the second batch. But with the beginnings of tensions in Europe, a split in unanimity of objectives resulted. The pact between Hitler and Stalin reinforced the anti-British sentiments and policies but with Germany attacking Soviet Russia there was a sudden change that found a sympathetic chord among those in sympathy with the British.
This created a wedge between the Congress and those anti imperialistic forces and brought the latter closer to the Muslim League which had not condemned the British on the war in Europe and hence was helping the war effort at home. The close partnership of the communists and Muslim League resulted in their supporting the call for a separate homeland for the Muslims. Labelling it the right of self-determination of people within India sowed the seeds of the two working together or at least not in opposite directions that eventually fortified the movement that led to the partition of India.
It was called the struggle of the people and a joint front was established for the support and consolidation of the new state of Pakistan in the early years. But the direction changed as the left castigated the ruling groups within the country from being the exploiting classes. This too was the consequence of the cold war and our ruling elite’s decision to join the West. This created a wedge between the two -- within Pakistan, and the government attitude started to toughen.
Then another U-turn resulted in the communists supporting the army in trying to bring about a change in society. This top down approach was contrary to the home-grown support originating from the grassroots and eventually resulted in the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case, the banning of the PWA and then the communist party in 1954. The paths of the two finally parted, rather were actually seen as going in opposite directions, eventually leading to a collision course.
Perhaps the greatest contribution of the socialistic thought was not in politics where many summersaults discredited and landed them in the mire of paradoxical positions but in arts, literature, theatre and film. The author has correctly pointed this out by recounting the various sterling contributions to the various fields of arts. The list of both the artistes and the contributions is indeed very impressive for a whole new vista opened for them to cultivate the plant of their sensibilities and then reap its artistic fruit.
The exploration of the artistes and the work then took the author to the origins or the circumstances in which they were born and bred. The focus of the qasbati culture is very informative as the qasbas did play a very significant role in the cultural spectrum of North India and the various shrines, the sufi orders and the cultural mix did produce a culture of a certain flavour which may have been distinct from the cultural of the highest courts of the land.
How these persons then were influenced by the changing realities and took up positions accordingly as the survey and a macro review of the culture and the origins of qasbas and the role that it played is very well conducted. But to draw a one to one relationship of the circumstances with the creative output of the persons is, as always, fraught with the possibility of it being too simplistic.
The same charge cannot be ruled out in this case as well, because if true in these cases, it may not be true in equal or larger number of cases. To find the real motivation of what made a poet of artistes in the circumstances of his birth or his environment is only half the truth. The other half is what is made out of those circumstances by the person himself or herself and there the ready made analytical framework does not hold out with any degree of consistency.
Khizar Hayat Ansari is a professor of Islam and Cultural Diversity and Director of the Centre of Minority Studies, Department of History at Royal Holloway, University of London. He has written extensively on the subject of Muslims in the Western Societies, South Asia ethnic diversity, and identity and cross cultural issues. He was awarded the OBE in 2002 for his services to higher education and race relations in the community.