Democratic India was surely not created in a domestic political vacuum, and to suggest Marxist ideas and debates did not play a role in shaping the birth of the nation is obviously facetious.

Are you really trying to suggest that Mahatma Gandhi and others of the era did not read Marx and were not heavily influenced or inspired by the discourse and ideas, to come up with new political ideas and systems and philosophies?

Furthermore, during the cold war, much of the entire 'Western' world was built as an 'answer' to communism. If communism hadn't existed, the world would have been a very different place, ergo, it is definitely important to study it.

And to get back to Germany: without Marx, some of the the ideas of democratic socialism would not be as prevalent and embedded in Germany's and other European countries' policies as they are now.

I agree.

Not entirely discounting the influence of foreign thinkers on Indian policy-making vis a vis welfare but the idea of Antyodaya, Sarvodaya have been fleshed out at length in the works of thinkers like Gandhi.

Pretty stupid to give Marx and associated authors credit for welfare policy or the development of environmental thought in the country.

Lol why stop at law schools? Why not just burn these books all together? Study Chanakya neeti and Manusmriti instead.

Why even study in the first place no? As if any westerner can teach us anything at all. Better we spend our hours reading opindia and drinking cow piss.

I’m constantly surprised by the daft things you smart people come up with.

Critical thinking and reasoning is fundamental to marxist philosophy and thought. The very act of reading history and documenting history on the basis of thesis and evidence is marxist in nature.

Please read more than mis-informed posts on facebook. PS: I'm a corporate lawyer, and very much out of the weak wit displayed by 1.3.

Kian, what you are saying is totally untrue. Marxism has nothing to do with India's laws on social welfare or gender equality. Hindu/Buddhist/Jain/Sikh philosophy encourages the tradition of dana, while India had leaders like Mirabai and Jhansi Ki Rani much before Marxism.

Please do not give false credit to Marxism.

Surely the point of reading Marx in law school is because he accurately described a lot of problems with capitalism that cause social instability, not that it describes a utopian system that should replace every other political system.

And Marx' writings contain perhaps some of the most influential and powerful ideas of the last few hundred years that continue influencing politics to this day.

The continuing influence of his writing and the 'threat' of communism, has no doubt also contributed ideas to many countries' governance and has acted as a tempering force on unadulterated free-market-capitalism.

Surely many European countries, including Germany, as well as India - would not have had as many (or any?) social welfare systems and safety nets, laws protecting workers' rights, gender equality and similar policies if it weren't for Marx and communism?

I am at a top NLU in the penultimate year and this is laughable to say the least. We have never been taught Marx. In 4 years of learning, we've had a grand total of one JNU-educated Professor so far. Our courses are so heavily economic liberal and capital-oriented that this whole thing seems made up. Unless of course by NLU, you mean Non-existent Law University.

Everyone enjoys capitalism in college, when they don't have to work to earn a living.

Everyone wishes for less capitalism after college, when they do have to work to earn a living.

Each system profits off of the labour of others. Its just how the profit is divided that's different.

But I'll give you this-it's easier to justify communism because there is no true communist country left standing. It's also harder to justify capitalism because billionaires are flying rockets shaped like phalluses (literally) to the EDGE of space (not even the whole way into space. Just the tip. Pun intended.) and celebrating it as some sort of grand common achievement for humanity. Its not.

And just in case you are confused about this - you and I are closer to being broke than being billionaires. Unless... Elon is this you, brah?

The entire first year social science subjects at NLUs can be replaced with a single course called Wokeology. That will save students from studying so many subjects. Also, in keeping with the ideology of the subject everyone should get an A but those from privileged backgrounds should get C to properly understand oppression.

NLUs have retained modules on communism in the earnest hope that people like you who have never cared to read anything on Marx's thought, apart from maybe The Manifesto and some delusional social media posts, still get some insights into the corpus of a towering scholar. Whether to love or hate the ideology after that is your choice.

Economically, there has never been a genuinely communist country. All we have seen is state-led capitalism. Read.

Politically, capitalist regimes can be as violent as ostensibly communist ones. E.g., Pinochet's Chile and the Shock Doctrine. Read.

Intellectually, almost all major thinkers in the previous century had their sympathies with communism. Yes, for example, Stalin's communist USSR tried imprisoning the likes of Trotsky, but Trotsky too was a communist. Communism has many iterations, everything is not Gulags and Pol Pot. Go, read.

Aesthetically, you have clearly not seen Soviet mosaics. At any rate, I would rather that millions of urban poor get to live in ugly buildings than squat on the footpaths beside splendid architecture made for the moneyed. Again, read.

Scientifically, Einstien was a communist. Just saying. Once again, read.

All in all, communism needs to be taught so long as "social media scholars" fail to develop both the aptitude and appetite for reading first, then thinking, and then perhaps discussing and commenting. In that order.

PS: Don't start saying now that you have read all there is to read about communism. To say one has not read enough is a figurative expression. You can empirically read everything and still behave like the uninitiated, unlettered.

They even teach us some Hayek and other Austrian economists, quite a few of whose views are wonky to say the least, and speaking of Marx, I speak as somebody who's not really into core left ideology really, he does provide an interesting framework to view many social phenomena. While his policy prescriptions are not very applicable, he was really an expert at pointing out many of the causes of problems in markets, which let's be honest aren't perfect and are always in need of some fine tuning, and even intervention in some cases. Some public goods are best kept away from markets, there are no easy answers, like clearing your bedroom in a Jordan Peterson video, as comforting it maybe. Watching a few grifters online is doesn't create a coherent set of ideas. For better and for worse many of Marx's ideas are here to stay and one can't ignore by putting your head in the sand like you're advocating.

Law Schools and even schools still teach some Adolf Hitler or world war content in History.

Karl Marx's ideology when implemented resulted in 20 crore deaths. All the countries which were based communism have either collapsed or changed.

It's important to study failed/dangerous ideologies - whether it's communism or fascism. So that we can learn a lesson from it and probably never repeat it.

You certainly Haven't attended a NLU if you think Adam Smith is not being taught while Karl Marx is, not going to argue about merits of Communism and Capitalism but depression and recession were caused by capitalism, and if captialism was so good and communism so bad, it wouldn't have required US intervention to fail.
Capitalism is imperialism.

Economically, communism has been an utter failure, making the poor even poorer and enriching a small cabal of politicians and bureaucrats.

Politically, communism has given birth to the most violent and intolerant regimes.

Intellectually, communism has seen many great thinkers imprisoned/murdered and mediocre ones promoted.

Aesthetically, communism had resulted in some of the ugliest architecture in the world.

Scientifically, communism has resulted in no great invention, only technology theft or investment in white elephant defence and space programmes.

So why do NLUs teach Karl Marx? Why not Adam Smith, or our own Jagdish Bhagwati?

Is this a BCI requirement? Or is this something some JNU-educated profs at NLUs are imposing on students?

It's time NLUs rethink the syllabus and teach successful thinkers instead of failed ones.