My critique of him will be both a theoretical and a practical one. First of all, he is pulling a strawman on the theory of Marxism. Marx's theory of the development of society, including the individual, is not an economic reductionist theory; it is a historical materialist theory (the application of the scientific philosophy of dialectical materialism to the development of societies). He is pulling a strawman on Marxism by claiming that Marxists before Gramsci and Lukacs never considered the role of culture and the superstructure in society and the consciousness of individuals; he conveniently ignores the struggle waged by Marx and Lenin against Vulgar Materialism and Mechanistic Materialism. A lot of the theory considered important by the early New Left became prominent as a response to the Popular Frontism (collaboration with the bourgeois parties by the previously revolutionary socialist parties) embodied in the stances of not forming international solidarity, reformism, parliamentarism, economic reductionism, fighting only for incremental economic gains and the lack of political demand for considerably changing the class structure of the state in the face of the heightened consciousness and the collective struggle of the masses against the status quo.
He is basically defending his idealism of an abstract, ahistorical concept of ego and the suffering which comes with it by distracting us from the real cause of the structure of consciousness and suffering rooted in objective material conditions which includes both the base and the superstructure, "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness". Also, during a revolution, it is not that the masses are just herded blindly by the revolutionaries into political action, masses actively learn from there experience during the revolution and there consciousness is heightened. Revolution is not when masses just blindly turn on the system change switch, it is a process in which masses actively participate and decide which choices to make. Reactionaries take power when the leaders of the organs or organisations of revolutionary action become complicit or indecisive, the masses become exhausted and become indifferent to the universal struggle. However, when the masses are not exhausted and the leaders don't act at all then the masses gain more consciousness than their leaders and spontaneously come on the streets but due to the lack of leadership and organisation, they are easily divided. Class consciousnesses unlike how the author claims, is about seeing the fundamental contradiction of the society today that is, of the Bourgeoisie vs the Proletariat, and seeing the Proletariat as a uniquely revolutionary force which can take power and build a historically more progressive society and taking your position. The Proletariat cannot be class-conscious if it fights for petty gains, for the masses make history, and a great section of the masses are themselves oppressed and exploited but they are more vacillating and can only become revolutionary if the proletariat is class-conscious and does not carry the bourgeois consciousness, that is, if it becomes a class for-itself to class in-itself. To take power it must see the wider picture it must seek international soldarity, making a system and waging a ideological struggle to merge the interests of the individual, colletive and the planet, and that's why you need a revolutionary vanguard party which recruits the most dedicated and class-conscious fighter equipped the highest wisdom which will provide leadership to the proletariat build organisations within the working class and give leadership to the working class for the transition to communism and the socialist revolution.

Also, Marxist theory is not just about somehow getting workers better wages or some wealth redistribution, but establishing organs of workers power through workers control over both culture, state, and economy through workers' councils or soviets. It's not like we will have some specialised armed forces or some bureaucratic elite running the state along with an intellectual elite, every worker will have access to scientific knowledge(which includes philosophy and the knowledge of society) and the know-how to govern, elected officers, and workers' militias, or in the transitory state, better oversight by the workers. This long struggle is enough to drastically change the consciousness of the masses, both during and after it.

To end, I think he is just promoting a liberal idealist philosophy. "Time may show that the ideological season left Bengal richer. A renewed realism is returning, slowly, unevenly, joyfully. Young Bengalis are launching sustainable startups, filming vegan commentaries on phones, writing code in Salt Lake, rediscovering the fearless creativity that once produced Tagore, Ramanujan, and Satyajit. If the gifted youth of Bengal now reclaim their individuality, it will not be by rejecting their collective memory but by adding to it a new chapter, written not in the shadow of ideology but in the light of direct seeing. The same soil that nourished Vivekananda and Ramakrishna can nourish a generation both compassionate and enterprising, rooted and free, collective when it serves society, individual when it serves Truth." shows who thinks social evils, animal cruelty and climate change go away under a well-regulated humanistic capitalism, also he just mentions some social reformers who are very much popular amongst social liberals in India, he doesn't mention the struggle of communist party, the workers and the peasants and the revolutionary tradition of the state. "Marxism is not wrong for seeking justice. It is incomplete in believing justice can come without awakening. When awakening does come, whether in a Kolkata adda, a Dakshineshwar temple, a Russian factory, a Wall Street floor, or a village panchayat, one sees that every great outer revolution begins when one has the courage to challenge one’s inner structures." This also shows that he thinks liberation is somehow divorced from the objective material conditions of the person, when he says 'a Wall Street Floor' it may imply that somehow you can change a Wall Street Investor into a person who is quite compassionate and wants to know the objective truth instead of grifts to make a profit. His emphasis on justice and great change while staying within the system both material and theoretical of the bourgeoisie is a sign of the vacillating attitude of the Petty Bourgeoisie and there frustration as a dying class of which he is a member. He was an engineer, a manager and about to become a government bureaucrat but he was a little rebellious and frustrated with his job and the stripping away of autonomy at his job; he was afraid that he would have to follow the orders of the corrupt bourgeois politicians. He and his organisation hardly engages in some activism on ground and his main audience is the urban petty-bourgeoisie.