1. For a succinct background on the Mughalpura workshops and their usefulness for shedding light on various dimensions of railway labor in colonial India more broadly, see, Kerr, Ian J., “The Railway Workshops and Their Labour: Entering the Black Hole”, 27 Down: New Departures in Indian Railway Studies, 2007, 231–75Google Scholar. For the first academic investigation of the workshops, which also marks an attempt to subsume this labor movement within nationalist historiography, see Jagga, Lajpat, “Colonial Railwaymen and British Rule: A Probe into Railway Labour Agitation in India 1919-1922,” Studies in History 3 (1981)Google Scholar. For a recent reappraisal, see Azhar, Ahmad, Revolution in Reform : Trade-Unionism in Lahore, c. 1920-70, New Perspectives in South Asian History (Hyderabad, 2019)Google Scholar.

2. The metaphor of the dream directly invokes the writings of Jacques Ranciere in the context of labor history. Ranciere is frequently cited in writings on South Asian labor and Left traditions. However, his argument is never taken to its most radical conclusions, as it is here. Ranciere's body of work constitutes a relentless (auto) critique of labor history by pointing to its imbrication with discourses that perpetuate the very distinction between worker and intellectual. See Rancière, Jacques, Proletarian Nights : The Workers’ Dream in Nineteenth-Century France (London and New York, 2012)Google Scholar. Rancière, Jacques, The Ignorant Schoolmaster : Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation (Stanford, CA, 1991)Google Scholar.

3. The idea of the formal sector as a “labor aristocracy” of South Asia is most comprehensively worked out in the writings of historian-anthropologist Jan Breman. See, especially, Breman, Jan, “The Study of Industrial Labour in Post-Colonial India—The Formal Sector: An Introductory Review,” Contributions to Indian Sociology 33, 1–2 (1999): 1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Breman, Jan, “The Study of Industrial Labour in Post-Colonial India—The Informal Sector: A Concluding Review,” Contributions to Indian Sociology 33, 1–2 (1999): 407–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Anthropologists have also given us dense and empathetic depictions of the inner lives of “informal” workers. For two excellent examples, which complement each other by focusing respectively on the experiences of men and women of the informal sector, see Parry, Jonathan P., “Ankalu's Errant Wife: Sex, Marriage and Industry in Contemporary Chhattisgarh,” Modern Asian Studies 35, 4 (2001): 783–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Barua, Rukmini, “Matters of the Heart: Romance, Courtship, and Conjugality in Contemporary Delhi,” International Labor and Working-Class History 97 (2020): 109–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Joshi, Chitra, “On ‘de-Industrialization’ and the Crisis of Male Identities.,” International Review of Social History 47, S10 (2002): 159–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. See the introduction to 'Alī, Raz̤ā, Roy, Franziska, and Zachariah, Benjamin, The Internationalist Moment: South Asia, Worlds, and World Views, 1917–1939 / Edited by Ali Raza, Franziska Roy, and Benjamin Zachariah. (Los Angeles, 2015), xxixGoogle Scholar. This volume served as a clarion call of sorts, unleashing a flood of articles and monographs on the intellectual and social histories of the Punjabi Left (revolutionaries get the bulk of attention) with an explicit focus on drawing out their “internationalist” tendencies. These writings, referred to later, constitute a self-conscious effort at reorienting what is presented as a Left historiography that was insular, rigid, and uncomplicated by one that valorizes openness, fluidity, and nuance. For a slightly earlier example of this scholarship, and one that anticipated many of the debates subsequently taken up, see Maia Ramnath, Haj to Utopia: How the Ghadar Movement Charted Global Radicalism and Attempted to Overthrow the British Empire (Berkeley, CA, 2011). My disagreements with this new historiography, which for the most part touches upon similar biographical materials and has the same avowed goal of writing grassroots histories of the Left, will be explicitly stated at the opportune moment in the following narrative.

6. Recent scholarship on the Left in Pakistan has demonstrated a distinct aversion to using this vocabulary of success and defeat. This is a choice made in order to move beyond the narrow confines of the framework initially put in place by the colonial state, interested as it was in ultimately defeating the movement. As some of the recent works on the Pakistani Left demonstrate, this strategy allows for appreciating the unrealized possibilities of specific moments. Walter Benjamin's concept of the “monad” is deployed in both of the following references, for example. Raza, Ali, Revolutionary Pasts: Communist Internationalism in Colonial India. (Cambridge, 2020), 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See, also, Ali, Kamran Asdar, Communism in Pakistan: Politics and Class Activism in 1947-72 (London, 2015)Google Scholar.

7. Miller's entrance on the scene is first noted by the intelligence department as follows: “J.B. Miller was born in 1880 in Ceylon. He started his career on the EIR [East India Railway] but was dismissed from service during the EIR European loco men's strike of 1907. Then he served for a while in the canal factory at Rurki and also served in the army before he rejoined the ORR [Oudh and Rohilkhand Railway] as a guard in Saharanpur. He was again dismissed from service during the ORR loco strike in 1920 . . . ” quoted in Jagga, “Colonial Railwaymen and British Rule,” 120.

8. As mentioned at the outset, the Mughalpura workshops were the largest single employer of industrial labor in Punjab during the late colonial and post-independence decades, employing between ten and twenty thousand workers during the interwar period. This number shot up during World War II and hovered around the figure of thirty thousand at the time of partition. For more detailed quantitative data on the workshops for the late colonial period, see Lajpat Jagga's unpublished PhD thesis, Lajpat, Jagga, “Formation of an Industrial Labour Force and Forms of Labour Protest in India: A Study of the Railways, 1919-1937” (New Delhi, 1983)Google Scholar. See, also, appendices, Azhar, Revolution in Reform. These numbers declined beginning in the 1990s and today the workshops employ a maximum of ten thousand workers, lending these cavernous structures a deserted look on slack days.

9. The writings of some of the most empathetic and sophisticated theorist-practitioners of revolutionary workers’ organization have historically reflected the tension between a desire to celebrate the workers’ self-activity while simultaneously bemoaning their spontaneity, between the obsessive pursuit of discipline and control over democratic workers’ movements by a vanguard of intellectuals and the stark recognition that no work, however manual, is devoid of an intellectual component. For a classic formulation of these ideas, see Forgacs, David, The Antonio Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings, 1916-1935 (New York, 2000)Google Scholar, esp. the chapters on working-class education and culture.

10. Weekly Report of the Director of Central Intelligence, March 1, 1920, Home Political, Deposit, Proceedings, OIOC (Oriental and India Office Collection), BL (British Library) [emphases mine]: “The dismissed railway guard Miller has, for some time past, been haranguing large crowds in Lahore and inducing men to join the railway labour union which he has brought into being . . . the meetings that he arranges and the speeches that are delivered thereat by himself and his intimate co-workers are looked upon as a sort of amusement and relaxation by the riffraff of Lahore bazaar who muster strong at these gatherings.”

11. “O. M's All-India Letter Dated 15th March 1920-with Letters from the Provinces,” Prog. no. 57, Home Political, Deposit, March 1920, OIOC, BL., “Mr. Miller's activities are the talk of the town of Lahore. His interesting methods of persuading the people to join him are described by the people with delight. ‘Are you a man or a woman?’ asked he of a booking clerk. ‘I am a man’ replied the latter. ‘Come and sign this paper and join the railway labourer's union’ and the man joined. This is his method and he is said to have enlisted five thousand men up to now.” And, “This is the grain I live upon and shall continue to live upon it till I get you promotions.” He shows the parched grain and eats it up before the audience and thus he wins the applause of the people.

12. “NWR Railway Strike,” Civil and Military Gazette, April 27, 1920: “On Saturday afternoon as the men were about to enter their special [train] to return to the city, they were stopped from doing so by the leaders of the railway union who came in to Mughalpura on horseback with a band and the ‘Union Jack’. They ordered the men to fall in, four abreast, and marched them to the city.”

13. See chapter 2, Azhar, Revolution in Reform, for details on these overlaps.

14. The communist contenders to the leadership of the railway workers were most critical of M.A. Khan's bourgeois roots. Defence Statement of K.N. Joglekar, Meerut Conspiracy Case (MCC) Proceedings, Zentrum Moderner Orient (ZMO), Berlin, “It may be stated here that M.A. Khan was an ex-railway servant. He went to England to qualify himself for some nice job carrying fat salary but to his dismay he found himself on his return being treated rather with indifference. He expected some high post of an A.T.S. or something of the like, but instead he was placed as a subordinate of some ordinary second-class station. This injured his vanity and thus was the motive with which he interested himself in the union work.”

15. Report on publications registered in Punjab during the year 1920, Punjab Home Proceedings, July 1921, Part A, OIOC, BL, 10., “The praises of Mr Miller, the leader of the railway strikers, have been sung by some street “poetasters” in their popular poems having little poetic merit but plenty of fun.”

16. For several translated excerpts from these Urdu newspapers published from Lahore, see chapter 2, Azhar, Revolution in Reform.

17. Secret Punjab Police Abstracts of Intelligence [henceforth, SPPAI], National Documentation Centre [henceforth, NDC], Islamabad., 1920, para. 493. “[H]e [Miller] was not an agitator and did not mean to fight government . . . the Afghans and the Bolshevists . . . are coming shortly and the empty stomached persons would be obliged to join hands with them . . . they were hungry and demanded food. They were naked and demanded clothes, and were not in need of anything else.”

18. See the following piece, “Theory and Practice,” Civil and Military Gazette, Colindale Newspaper Archive, London, May 12, 1920: “Here is a fair sample of the argument of the strike organisers who are seeking a dubious notoriety as the champions of the ‘hungry army.’”

19. Memorandum titled “What Workers Want,” submitted by the Punjab Labour Board, Lahore, on February 24, 1932, in Report of Indian Delimitation Committee, Punjab, IOR/Q/IFC/27, OIOC, BL. “Labour . . . has never taken part in the anti-Government movements. The cry of Swaraj, we believe, is a capitalistic cry and we condemn it as such. . . . A few capitalists whom the government . . . mistakenly favoured in the past have now so ungratefully taken up cudgels against it in a true capitalistic spirit. . . . Labour is humble. Labour is weak. Labour is grateful . . . kindly for the sake of dumb millions whom God has entrusted to Your Excellency's care for whom we speak and implore, suppress it [Congress] and thus save us from hoisting a ‘Red Flag’.”

20. Memorandum submitted by the General Workers’ Union, NWR, Lahore, to the Royal Commission on Labour in India in the Report of the Royal Commission on Labour in India, Evidence (henceforth, RCL), Vol. VIII, pt. I (Railways), 398.

21. For a detailed discussion on the strike and its context, see chapter 2, Azhar, Revolution in Reform.

22. “Karachi Recognised Union wants Arbitration,” The Tribune, May 27, 1925, “literate sections of the staff have taken no part whatever in the strike and in many places are totally against it.”

23. Oral Evidence of M. A. Khan (President and General Secretary, General Workers’ Union), RCL, Evidence, Vol. VIII, pt. II (Railways), 16.

24. Mazdur generally means unskilled worker but in this context, it was meant to encompass both skilled and unskilled proletarians. The term babu is open to various interpretations. Technically, it denoted white-collar, “educated” (in the Western tradition, of course) Indians. When used by anti-colonial radicals, it becomes a charge of Anglophilia, pathetic mimicry, collaboration, and importantly, self-deception. Used by the mazdurs of Mughalpura it conveyed proletarian anxieties toward certain white-collar comrades. Fueling these antagonisms were various changes made to workplace hierarchies, in the name of efficiency and to appease the nationalist demand for “Indianisation.” The combined effect of both was the intrusion of “literate” Indians (babus) in workshop operations that had previously been the domain of “illiterate” but skilled workers (mazdurs). For details on these changes in the labor process and how they were resented by the workmen, see chapter 3, Azhar, Revolution in Reform.

25. The railway management had also in this period introduced “staff committees” (comprised overwhelmingly of skilled workers who were classified as illiterate; mazdurs) with the stated goal of facilitating direct communication between the “illiterate” mazdur and the management, eliminating the need, it was hoped, of the mediation of babus. Wrapped up in this language of paternalism, the workers discerned a trap. As far as they could tell, the management's goal was not to shield them from “outside” currents but to isolate them from the broader sphere of popular politics and to cut off vital sources of support from bourgeois quarters. Ibid., 65. The phenomenon of the “outsider” has provoked much debate in the historiography of labor in India. The polemic was sparked by Dipesh Chakrabarty's provocative suggestion that South Asian workers remained entrapped in pre-modern/pre-capitalist social relations, as exemplified by the bhadralok leadership of the working classes of colonial Bengal. Chakrabarty, Dipesh, Rethinking Working-Class History: Bengal 1890-1940 (Princeton, NJ, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Chakrabarty's conception of the nature of “outside” intervention has been contested from various angles in subsequent writings on labor. See, for instance, the introduction to Joshi, Chitra, Lost Worlds: Indian Labour and Its Forgotten Histories (Delhi, 2003)Google Scholar. For another polemic against Chakrabarty, see the introduction to and Dasgupta, especially, Chandavarkar, Rajnarayan, The Origins of Industrial Capitalism in India : Business Strategies and the Working Classes in Bombay, 1900-40 (Cambridge, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Dilip Simeon, “Outer Space and Inner Agency: Reflections on the Realm of the Outside in the Labour Movement,” South Asia Citizens Web (blog), May 17, 2014, available at: http://www.sacw.net/article8705.html. Simeon's is an interesting and original intervention that suggests a new approach to understanding the very notion of the domains of the “inside” and “outside” and their production.

26. Memorandum submitted by the General Workers’ Union, NWR, Lahore, to the Royal Commission on Labour in India in RCL, Evidence, Vol. VIII, pt. I (Railways).

27. For a description of the complicated interwar labor situation in Amritsar, see Azhar, Ahmad, “The Making of a ‘Genuine Trade Unionist’: An Introduction to Bashir Ahmed Bakhtiar's Memoirs,” in Working Lives and Worker Militancy: The Politics of Labour in Colonial India, Ahuja, Ravi, ed. (New Delhi, 2013)Google Scholar. For an excellent recent article on Dadas, Barua, Rukmini, “The Textile Labour Association and Dadagiri: Power and Politics in the Working-Class Neighborhoods of Ahmedabad,” International Labor and Working Class History 87 (2015): 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. For Bakhtiar's memoirs, translated in English, see Bakhtiar, Bashir Ahmad, “The Labour Movement and Me,” in Working Lives and Worker Militancy: The Politics of Labour in Colonial India, Ahuja, Ravi, ed. (New Delhi, 2013)Google Scholar. Bakhtiar is discussed also at great length in, Azhar, Revolution in Reform.

29. Bakhtiar, not unlike the genuine trade unionists of Lahore, had a distinct penchant for socialist rhetoric and symbolism in rallying workers. In fact, socialist rhetoric permeated the speech of these genuine trade unionists prior to the formation of the Communist Party and was deployed freely in the long phases of outright competition in the interwar period. The “reformist” trade-unionists on trial in Meerut proclaimed this truth when they insisted in their depositions that the “ideology of socialism” was “not the patrimony of any political party” and that the essence of genuine trade unionism was obscured by labelling it “reformist.” For, they argued, theirs was a true revolutionary path, leading to the workers’ escape from the proletarian condition. Azhar, Revolution in Reform. 101–23. For recent reappraisals of Meerut see also, Stolte, Carolien, “Trade Unions on Trial: The Meerut Conspiracy Case and Trade Union Internationalism, 1929-32,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 33, 3 (December 2013): 345–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Louro, And Michele L., “‘Where National Revolutionary Ends and Communist Begins': The League against Imperialism and the Meerut Conspiracy Case,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 33, 3 (December 2013): 331–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. See the aforementioned, Raz̤ā 'Alī, Franziska Roy, and Zachariah, The Internationalist Moment. One of the editors to this volume has since made quite a few contributions to this genre. See, Raza, Revolutionary Pasts. Raza, Ali, “Provincializing the International: Communist Print Worlds in Colonial India,” History Workshop Journal 89 (February 2020): 140–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Other recent monographs dealing with the revolutionary politics of Punjab in the period include, Moffat, Chris, India's Revolutionary Inheritance: Politics and the Promise of Bhagat Singh (Cambridge, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. MacLean, Kama, A Revolutionary History of Interwar India: Violence, Image, Voice and Text (New York, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. For instance, the revolutionary Ghadr Party headquartered in San Francisco supervised the Kirti Kisan Party in Punjab, which in turn provided many of the cadres of the labor wing of the provincial Communist Party during the inter-war years. The definitive work on Ghadr, from an internationalist perspective, remains, Ramnath, Haj to Utopia.

32. Ahuja, Ravi, “Capital at Sea, Shaitan Below Decks? A Note on Global Narratives, Narrow Spaces, and the Limits of Experience,” History of the Present 2, 1 (April 2012): 78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Ahuja offers a trenchant critique of the trend toward “experiential reductionism in social and cultural history, i.e., the propensity of abstracting the experiences of (individual or collective) historical actors from larger, very concrete, but in the eyes of contemporaries, often opaque historical processes in an attempt to avoid grand narratives.” Ahuja, in his later writings, builds on and refines this argument for re-embedding historical actors in the web of quotidian structures and hierarchies which always colored their experience of freedom and mobility, Ahuja, Ravi, “A Freedom Still Enmeshed in Servitude: The Unruly ‘Lascars’ of the SS City of Manila or, a Micro-History of the ‘Free Labour’ Problem,” in Working Lives & Worker Militancy: The Politics of Labour in Colonial India (2013), 97–133Google Scholar. For a general critique of “globalization” as an analytical category see Cooper, Frederick, “What Is the Concept of Globalization Good for? An African Historian's Perspective,” African Affairs 100, 399 (2001): 189–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I share his unease with what he euphemistically refers to as the “Dance of flows and fragments” perspective.

33. Raza, “Provincializing the International: Communist Print Worlds in Colonial India.” Ramnath, Haj to Utopia.

34. Stolte, “Trade Unions on Trial: The Meerut Conspiracy Case and Trade Union Internationalism, 1929-32.”

35. Azhar, Revolution in Reform.

36. Video recording of interview with Mirza Muhammad Ibrahim, February 6, 1998, conducted by Chaudhry Mohammad Anwar, South Asia Partnership Pakistan (SAP), Lahore office, (Henceforth, Ibrahim Interview 1).

37. Sarkar, Sumit and Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi, eds., Towards Freedom: Documents on the Movement for Independence in India, 1946, vol. 1 (New Delhi, 2007)Google Scholar. Ahuja, Ravi, “‘Produce or Perish.’ The Crisis of the Late 1940s and the Place of Labour in Post-Colonial India,” Modern Asian Studies 54, 4 (July 2020): 1041–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Kamtekar, Indivar, “The Shiver of 1942,” Studies in History 18, 1 (2002): 81–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. See Azhar, Revolution in Reform.Bakhtiar, “The Labour Movement and Me.”

39. M.N. Roy had an eventful career in the interwar decades, starting out as the representative of international communism in India in the 1920s to one of its most despised opponents by the 1940s. It is well beyond the scope of this paper to chart his tortuous trajectory. Unfortunately, even his biographers have been cursory in their exploration of his concrete involvement in labor politics. Still, for a political biography (again from a “transnational” perspective), see Manjapra, Kris, M.N. Roy: Marxism and Colonial Cosmopolitanism (New Delhi, 2010)Google Scholar.

40. Ahuja, “‘Produce or Perish.’ The Crisis of the Late 1940s and the Place of Labour in Post-Colonial India.”

41. For a sense of the broader context of West Pakistan's labor politics in the decades following independence, see Malik, Anushay, “Alternative Politics and Dominant Narratives: Communists and the Pakistani State in the Early 1950s,” South Asian History and Culture 4, 4 (2013): 520–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Malik, Anushay, “Public Authority and Local Resistance: Abdur Rehman and the Industrial Workers of Lahore, 1969–1974,” Modern Asian Studies 52, 3 (2018): 815–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Ali, Kamran Asdar, “Communists in a Muslim Land: Cultural Debates in Pakistan's Early Years,” Modern Asian Studies 45, 3 (2011): 501–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Shaheed, Zafar, The Labour Movement in Pakistan. Organization and Leadership in Karachi in the 1970s (Oxford, 2007)Google Scholar.

42. Report of District Committee Lahore, June 1946 (Translated from Urdu by me), Gurharpal Singh Collection, Modern Records Centre Warwick University (MRC). Documents from this archive are explored in chapter 7, Azhar, Revolution in Reform.

43. Ibid.

44. Maḥmūd, K̲h̲ālid, Friters, Gerard M., and Ahmad, Muneer, Trade Unionism in Pakistan (Department of Political Science, University of the Panjab, 1958)Google Scholar.

45. Ibrahim Interview 1 and Video Recording of interview with Mirza Muhammad Ibrahim, August 11, 1999, conducted by Mohammad Tahseen, (SAP) (Henceforth, Ibrahim Interview 2). Excerpts translated into English with permission of SAP.

46. Ibrahim Interview 1. “There was less direct repression [under Bhutto]. He corrupted the workers. I told the political leftists that I do not disapprove, just be clear that he is not a communist, he is not opposed to feudalism, he is not opposed to capitalism. He would lie and bluff, he caused a lot of damage, created anarchy . . . ” Azhar, Revolution in Reform, 180–81.

47. Ibrahim Interview 1. It is of course deeply insightful that Ibrahim introduces him in terms of his educational qualification; clearly for Ibrahim this fact is the most useful one for socially situating Jai Gopal.

48. Such religious metaphors are perfectly in line with Ibrahim's own repeated assertion that communism was his faith [emaan].

49. “These people like Mazhar [Ali Azhar], Tahira [Mazhar], Abid Manto, make a great sacrifice in betraying their class and allying with us. It should not go to waste. It should not be ignored. But they also carry over countless things from their khaandani [aristocratic] background. That should be criticised as well.” Ibrahim Interview 2.

50. Forget what Lenin did or what Stalin did, the world has moved on […] this system cannot continue. It will have to be completely overhauled. How will this change happen? It won't happen through Faiz's poetry, Manto's eloquent English and legal victories will not bring about this change. This neck will have to be guillotined; this head smashed […]. Ibid.

51. “Thinkers, researchers, intellectuals, after studying the imperial system of the world and line of action and formulas and an exhaustive study of Marxism, can build a communist party. I cannot do it. However, I can change the face of the universe. I can grow wheat and fruits. I can create the air-conditioning that you enjoy. All these needs of yours only I can satisfy, you cannot. But you are the researchers.” Ibid.

52. Ibrahim Interview 1.

53. Ibrahim Interview 1.

54. Interview with Saif-ur-Rehman, April 8, 2016, Lahore. All subsequent references are from this interview.

55. The late 1960s witnessed the beginnings of a long-lasting alliance between left academics, students and workers in Lahore. The nucleus of this self-styled “Professors’ Group” was the Punjab University (the largest public sector university of Punjab); two of the original group of “professors” were my colleagues (one of whom is a relative also) for several years at a private university of Lahore that they joined after retiring from Punjab University. Another somewhat younger colleague that shared their experiences with me was a mentee/devotee of the professors, involved in student politics at Punjab University and in conducting study circles amongst the worker militants of Mughalpura during the mid to late-1980s. Yet another member, the de facto, founder of the “Professors’ Group” is a friend of the family—such close associations of course only lend further credence to the charge that the renegade bourgeoisie of Lahore has traditionally been drawn from a close-knit social group; almost like a caste. For further evidence of this, see caste-like cohesion of the left intellectuals of Punjab, preface to Ali, Communism in Pakistan: Politics and Class Activism in 1947-72. The professors all are reluctant to speak publicly of their political past and there are no authorized histories of their group. However, there are mentions in a few recent histories. See Anushay Malik, “Public Authority and Local Resistance: Abdur Rehman and the Industrial Workers of Lahore, 1969–1974,” 828. And Azhar, Revolution in Reform, chapter 7 and epilogue.

56. Rancière, The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation.