No proper history of the movement of the Left has been written in Pakistan. Surkh Salam is a welcome beginning to an analytical probing into the movement that was so powerful once, or appeared to be so. It then did not really live up to the early promises that had motivated and inspired so many, both against imperial hegemony and in the desire to built an equitable order.

The intention of the author is to highlight the contribution of those who made an honest attempt to usher in an egalitarian order after pushing for independence from the colonial rule. Quoting academic Michel-Rolph Trouillot, in the history of nations there has been silence about a phase or an episode. For Asdar Ali it was time to break the long silence, particularly about the role and execution of a movement in history that spoke about the rights of the farm and industrial labour. It needed to be highlighted compared to the single narrative that has been touted since the creation of this country.

Though in the last ninety odd years or so, eversince the Communist Party was formally launched in the Indian subcontinent, it has seen many ups and downs and changes of positions/perspectives and has been through various vicissitudes, this book covers only the first twenty five years since the creation of Pakistan and the trajectory that it took in those years. With India’s partition, the communist movement or the movements of the left that were unified had to cope with conditions that were totally different in the two independent countries, India and Pakistan. The focus had been on the state of the movement in Pakistan where economic conditions were backward and politics very different. The state, too, reacted to political developments very differently.

Before the partition, the Muslim nation was not seen as a monolith even by those who were sympathetic to the question of Muslim nationalism. This was divided into language groups and territories where they were a demographic majority.

However, they went back and forth in their desire not to succumb to the formula of religion -- equals -- nationality, yet at times remained within the same conceptualisation and reiterated the terms of the debate that they sought to negate.

The primary issue then was to keep the territorial integrity of the country intact while safeguarding the national right of the minority communities or those with different linguistic and cultural background. The proposition of oppressed nationalism and oppressed nationalities was further divided into advanced and less advanced nationalisms and so the right to succeed was acknowledged but deemed undesirable until a certain level of social development was achieved.

Since Sajjad Zaheer argued that the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan was the logical expression of the development of the political consciousness among the Muslims of India, it should be understood as an affirmation of the right of each community to determine its own future. So in the 1945-46 elections, communists worked closely with the Muslim League but the long-term effects of the collaboration did not produce the structural transformation that the communists were pushing for. Muslim League used the communist connection for creating a mass base but did not allow the communist sympathisers any formal position in the party.

After the partition, in 1948, it was decided by the Communist Party of India that there would be two parties, one each for India and Pakistan. Since both the states were dominated by reactionary capitalists and landlords who collaborated with the imperialists, the central task of the future communist movements in India and in Pakistan was declared identical in order to radically change the existing social order and struggle towards the creation of peoples’ democratic state in both the countries.

There have been many pitfalls. Possibly the policies that were being framed in the Soviet Union or the meta policies that laid down the guidelines and the local policies in individual countries framed or formulated by the local communists parties were not always in synch and the dice was always loaded in favour of the meta policies that further confounded the situation. In the case of India it caused irreparable damage. From an anti-colonial struggle or a war between imperialist powers the sudden and seismic change to it becoming a war for the safety and security of the fatherland unhinged the party, doing great harm to it in the long run.

Similarly, in the post-colonial period, there was this policy of bringing in change from the top and in many countries the army with its might and discipline was allowed to take the lead in this regard. It appears that the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case can also be seen in the same light with people with good intentions wanting to bring about a change through force. They did not have the advantage of hindsight to know the pitfalls in such an adventure.

It is clear from the book that there were many options open for the political leadership to choose from and was not deterministically tied in any necessary way to the state of economic relationships. It is not a mechanical relationship and many options could have been exercised, if there was sufficient freedom given.

It was also bedevilled by a dogmatic Marxist interpretation of the politico-economic situation of India. The local conditions were not properly taken into account with the result that the analytical framework was not that well-grounded. It appeared that the communists were trailing the events rather than being on top guiding the course of events in the second half of the twentieth century. The world war, the partition of the subcontinent, the alignment with the camps in the post war or cold war period, the schism between Soviet and Chinese communists were all in reaction to the changes that took place and they were in no position to lay down the guidelines of the policies and enforce them because these were being dictated from the top.

The role and the contribution of all these individuals has been the victim of the conspiracy of silence for an alternative narrative has never been allowed to prosper. The state has similarly been silent about the creation of Bangladesh and no worthwhile debate or analysis has ever been encouraged.