In Bengal village, CPM office is spruced up with NREG funds
Bidyut Roy
Sat, Apr 26 02:47 AM (Indian Express)
Land development, irrigation projects, afforestation and roads, or any labour involving earthwork for creating assets is eligible for mobilisation of the rural jobless under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme under the NREG Act. But does renovating a CPM office in a remote village qualify as a "scheme" under the NREGA?
West Bengal's ruling Left Front - or at least the party that controls it - thinks so.
In Saikapatna in West Midnapore's Narayangarh block, on land owned by the panchayat, there stands a hut with bamboo-curtain walls and an asbestos roof. This is the office of the CPM's Madhabchak branch committee.
West Midnapore district is home to Panchayat Minister Surjya Kanta Mishra.
The hut was renovated by the CPM last month with help of mandays taken from the NREG scheme. Sudhanshu Sekhar Saha, secretary of the Konarpur gram panchayat - also the monitoring authority for NREGS - said that it required "250 mandays" (at Rs 70 a day) to do the job. The plot had to be leveled with earth brought in from elsewhere, bamboo-screen walls repaired and broken asbestos-sheet roof replaced.
When asked how renovation of a party office could be done with public funds, Saha said: "Yes, it is a mistake. We have told the party to move out and take their office somewhere else...They have promised to vacate after panchayat elections next month."
Eeasier said than done because the CPM built the office on land that falls in the compound of a Sishu Shiksha Kendra (SSK) or children's school that is part of the Centrally sponsored Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). "The party office was renovated with NREGA funds but what's wrong? Officially, the money was released to renovate the SSK," said Haripada Maity, local CPM member who works out of this office. Said Joint Secretary in the Panchayat department Shekhar Sengupta: "There is absolutely no way NREGA money can be used to build a party office."
http://in.news.yahoo.com/indianexpress/20080426/r_t_ie_nl_politics/tnl-in-bengal-village-cpm-office-is-spru-0058794_1.html?printer=1
Friday, April 25, 2008
Hired goons of CPI-M in Nandigram
Arms build-up ahead of polls in Nandigram
Biswabrata Goswami (Statesman, Kolkata, 26 April 2008)
NANDIGRAM, April 25: In the run-up to 11 May’s three-tier panchayat polls, a huge cache of sophisticated bombs, arms and ammunition are piling up at various points in Nandigram. These are being hoarded by both CPI-M cadres and supporters of the Bhumi Ucched Protirodh Committee (BUPC). Strife-torn Nandigram might again be witness to another bloody battle during the fast-approaching panchayat polls.
Spiraling violence and attacks by armed supporters of the CPI-M who are moving about freely in villages here, coupled with the build-up of arms and ammunition in the area, have compelled a worried district police to rethink their strategy of handling the political situation.
Police are also worried about a large number of smuggled guns that were used by CPI-M-hired goons during the bloody recapture of Nandigram in November last year. Most of these sophisticated guns have yet to be seized, because of alleged interference from CPI-M top guns.
A visit to Nandigram and its outskirts revealed that the CPI-M has already started mobilising cadres in all villages neighbouring Nandigram, which the BUPC controls at the moment. The move is being seen as the last step towards bringing Nandigram under their complete control by unleashing a reign of terror on Opposition supporters.
According to a CPI-M party insider, the plan to wash out the Opposition’s dominance from these villages before 11 May, was drawn up three weeks back during a meeting between two top CPI-M leaders from East and West Midnapore. An MP from Midnapore East and a district secretariat member from Midnapore West were also present in the meeting.
Party insiders said the main point of discussion was how to bring back all villages of Nandigram under CPI-M dominance before the panchayat polls. Like the Nandigram recapture operation, the party will use cadre ~ local criminals mostly involved in dacoity cases ~ for the operation. These cadres will come mostly from Keshpur and Garbeta areas because the party has already won all seats in these areas. A huge cache of bombs and firearms will be stocked at various hideouts in Khejuri and a few hideouts in Nandigram. Local cadres, headed by trained cadres from outside, will start intimidating villagers by using mild strong-arm tactics in the villages where the Opposition has still dominance, said the party insiders.
Asked about the matter, Mr Ashok Guria, district secretariat member of the CPI-M, said: “They (the BUPC) are constantly attacking our men, they are moving around with arms and threatening our cadres. Is it possible to digest their threats? They will have to first give up their arms before police, only then will peace and democracy return to Nandigram. If they attack with arms, we will have to resist it with arms to protect our supporters and cadre. We have asked police to seize firearms stored illegally by the BUPC workers.”
Mr Bhabani Das, a BUPC and SUCI leader, alleged: “Revenge has become the CPI-M’s buzz word. They want to regain lost ground at any cost. The government and the party are fused into one. Instead of the ‘rule of law’ they believe in the ‘rule of the party’. Both became handy tools of the party bosses’ sinister game plans to recapture Nandigram in the same manner as zamindars used to fight to gain or regain. Ahead of the polls, they have already started mobilising their cadres and storing arms at their hideouts.”
The district superintendent of police, Mr SS Panda said: “This is nothing new. For the last two years, both sides have been busy stocking bombs and firearms and using these in attacks. Ahead of the polls, they may store these at hideouts but we are trying to seize these illegal arms from them.”
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=10&theme=&usrsess=1&id=201288
Fear still reigns in Nandigram
Biswabrata Goswami (Kolkata, Statesman, 24 April 2008)
SONACHURA, April 23: In Nandigram’s villages, people still live in fear of the CPI-M and police. Opposition candidates who have filed their nomination papers for the forthcoming panchayat poll fear they may have to cancel their candidature should the pressure become unbearable.
Mr Sheikh Alam, a Trinamul leader, said: “It is not the CPI-M that we fear but the support it enjoys from police. Most of the attacks on villagers here took place in the presence of policemen. Given the deteriorating situation, we might withdraw our candidature at the last minute. We have intimated this to the local SDO.”
An aged woman draped in a saree slammed shut the window of her mud house when this correspondent asked for a reaction on the political scene in her home ~ Sonachura village, Nandigram. Others, who were nervously peeping out of their houses, did the same. A middle-aged man came out of his house and whispered, “Please don’t stay here for long. They will beat us and torture our women if they see us talking to outsiders. Even you may be attacked.”
In the Nandigram-I block of Midnapore East, “they” are CPI-M cadres. A few days before “normalcy” returned to these villages following the CPI-M’s bloody recapture of Nandigram in early November last year, the political scene was quite different from what it is now. The entire area was a stronghold of the Bhumi Ucched Protirodh Committee (BUPC). But after re-establishing their political dominance, the CPI-M is now desperately trying to hold on to these villagers by following a three-pronged strategy.
First, they chalked out plans to win the villagers’ faith by implementing various Central development schemes. They allocated huge funds for the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and various health schemes through panchayats.
Secondly, they worked insidiously to break the Opposition’s unity. Foreseeing a split in the BUPC over selection of candidates for the forthcoming panchayat poll, they filed the nomination of a Trinamul Congress leader in Nandigram I panchayat samity, Mr Ranjan Patra, as an independent candidate backed by the Left Front. The CPI-M leadership here tactfully nominated many new candidates who are mostly members of anti-Left Front families in those areas to cut a large piece out of the Opposition’s vote-bank.
Trinamul Congress chief Miss Mamata Banerjee has decided to keep both the BJP and the Congress at a distance during the panchayat polls. As most anti-Left parties are also members of the BUPC, there are rifts in the Opposition; many Opposition candidates have filed nominations as independents, which has helped the CPI-M to penetrate into Nandigram’s villages.
Thirdly, the CPI-M is unleashing “silent” terror among supporters of the Opposition. They have planned to enlist the help of local police to arrest prominent Opposition workers and leaders in connection with old cases ahead of the polls.
The CPI-M has been successfully able to unite its partners and solve seat-sharing disputes. Of 115-gram panchayat seats in Nandigram, the CPI-M has fielded 75 candidates, the CPI has fielded 33, the RSP three, the FB two and the SP has fielded two candidates. Of 27 panchayat samity seats, the CPI-M has filed nominations in 21, the CPI in five and the RSP in one, while in the two Zilla Parishad seats, the CPI-M and the CPI have fielded one candidate each.
Although the CPI-M-sponsored terror in Nandigram had united the Opposition and the CPI-M lost heavily in school committee elections, the Opposition will not be able to retain their influence unless they can retain their unity in the panchayat poll.
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?clid=10&id=227580&usrsess=1
Biswabrata Goswami (Statesman, Kolkata, 26 April 2008)
NANDIGRAM, April 25: In the run-up to 11 May’s three-tier panchayat polls, a huge cache of sophisticated bombs, arms and ammunition are piling up at various points in Nandigram. These are being hoarded by both CPI-M cadres and supporters of the Bhumi Ucched Protirodh Committee (BUPC). Strife-torn Nandigram might again be witness to another bloody battle during the fast-approaching panchayat polls.
Spiraling violence and attacks by armed supporters of the CPI-M who are moving about freely in villages here, coupled with the build-up of arms and ammunition in the area, have compelled a worried district police to rethink their strategy of handling the political situation.
Police are also worried about a large number of smuggled guns that were used by CPI-M-hired goons during the bloody recapture of Nandigram in November last year. Most of these sophisticated guns have yet to be seized, because of alleged interference from CPI-M top guns.
A visit to Nandigram and its outskirts revealed that the CPI-M has already started mobilising cadres in all villages neighbouring Nandigram, which the BUPC controls at the moment. The move is being seen as the last step towards bringing Nandigram under their complete control by unleashing a reign of terror on Opposition supporters.
According to a CPI-M party insider, the plan to wash out the Opposition’s dominance from these villages before 11 May, was drawn up three weeks back during a meeting between two top CPI-M leaders from East and West Midnapore. An MP from Midnapore East and a district secretariat member from Midnapore West were also present in the meeting.
Party insiders said the main point of discussion was how to bring back all villages of Nandigram under CPI-M dominance before the panchayat polls. Like the Nandigram recapture operation, the party will use cadre ~ local criminals mostly involved in dacoity cases ~ for the operation. These cadres will come mostly from Keshpur and Garbeta areas because the party has already won all seats in these areas. A huge cache of bombs and firearms will be stocked at various hideouts in Khejuri and a few hideouts in Nandigram. Local cadres, headed by trained cadres from outside, will start intimidating villagers by using mild strong-arm tactics in the villages where the Opposition has still dominance, said the party insiders.
Asked about the matter, Mr Ashok Guria, district secretariat member of the CPI-M, said: “They (the BUPC) are constantly attacking our men, they are moving around with arms and threatening our cadres. Is it possible to digest their threats? They will have to first give up their arms before police, only then will peace and democracy return to Nandigram. If they attack with arms, we will have to resist it with arms to protect our supporters and cadre. We have asked police to seize firearms stored illegally by the BUPC workers.”
Mr Bhabani Das, a BUPC and SUCI leader, alleged: “Revenge has become the CPI-M’s buzz word. They want to regain lost ground at any cost. The government and the party are fused into one. Instead of the ‘rule of law’ they believe in the ‘rule of the party’. Both became handy tools of the party bosses’ sinister game plans to recapture Nandigram in the same manner as zamindars used to fight to gain or regain. Ahead of the polls, they have already started mobilising their cadres and storing arms at their hideouts.”
The district superintendent of police, Mr SS Panda said: “This is nothing new. For the last two years, both sides have been busy stocking bombs and firearms and using these in attacks. Ahead of the polls, they may store these at hideouts but we are trying to seize these illegal arms from them.”
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=10&theme=&usrsess=1&id=201288
Fear still reigns in Nandigram
Biswabrata Goswami (Kolkata, Statesman, 24 April 2008)
SONACHURA, April 23: In Nandigram’s villages, people still live in fear of the CPI-M and police. Opposition candidates who have filed their nomination papers for the forthcoming panchayat poll fear they may have to cancel their candidature should the pressure become unbearable.
Mr Sheikh Alam, a Trinamul leader, said: “It is not the CPI-M that we fear but the support it enjoys from police. Most of the attacks on villagers here took place in the presence of policemen. Given the deteriorating situation, we might withdraw our candidature at the last minute. We have intimated this to the local SDO.”
An aged woman draped in a saree slammed shut the window of her mud house when this correspondent asked for a reaction on the political scene in her home ~ Sonachura village, Nandigram. Others, who were nervously peeping out of their houses, did the same. A middle-aged man came out of his house and whispered, “Please don’t stay here for long. They will beat us and torture our women if they see us talking to outsiders. Even you may be attacked.”
In the Nandigram-I block of Midnapore East, “they” are CPI-M cadres. A few days before “normalcy” returned to these villages following the CPI-M’s bloody recapture of Nandigram in early November last year, the political scene was quite different from what it is now. The entire area was a stronghold of the Bhumi Ucched Protirodh Committee (BUPC). But after re-establishing their political dominance, the CPI-M is now desperately trying to hold on to these villagers by following a three-pronged strategy.
First, they chalked out plans to win the villagers’ faith by implementing various Central development schemes. They allocated huge funds for the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and various health schemes through panchayats.
Secondly, they worked insidiously to break the Opposition’s unity. Foreseeing a split in the BUPC over selection of candidates for the forthcoming panchayat poll, they filed the nomination of a Trinamul Congress leader in Nandigram I panchayat samity, Mr Ranjan Patra, as an independent candidate backed by the Left Front. The CPI-M leadership here tactfully nominated many new candidates who are mostly members of anti-Left Front families in those areas to cut a large piece out of the Opposition’s vote-bank.
Trinamul Congress chief Miss Mamata Banerjee has decided to keep both the BJP and the Congress at a distance during the panchayat polls. As most anti-Left parties are also members of the BUPC, there are rifts in the Opposition; many Opposition candidates have filed nominations as independents, which has helped the CPI-M to penetrate into Nandigram’s villages.
Thirdly, the CPI-M is unleashing “silent” terror among supporters of the Opposition. They have planned to enlist the help of local police to arrest prominent Opposition workers and leaders in connection with old cases ahead of the polls.
The CPI-M has been successfully able to unite its partners and solve seat-sharing disputes. Of 115-gram panchayat seats in Nandigram, the CPI-M has fielded 75 candidates, the CPI has fielded 33, the RSP three, the FB two and the SP has fielded two candidates. Of 27 panchayat samity seats, the CPI-M has filed nominations in 21, the CPI in five and the RSP in one, while in the two Zilla Parishad seats, the CPI-M and the CPI have fielded one candidate each.
Although the CPI-M-sponsored terror in Nandigram had united the Opposition and the CPI-M lost heavily in school committee elections, the Opposition will not be able to retain their influence unless they can retain their unity in the panchayat poll.
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.arcview.php?clid=10&id=227580&usrsess=1
Doublespeak by Marxists: Balbir K Punj
Doublespeak by Marxists
By Balbir K. Punj (Deccan Chronicle, 25 April 2008)
The better part of the world has condemned China’s violation of human rights and deprivation of democracy for the Tibetans. In every country that enjoys freedom of expression, local people have joined Tibetans to protest against the Beijing Olympics as a way of bringing to international notice the cause of Tibet. So widespread and deep is the condemnation of China and sympathy for the Dalai Lama and his supporters that the Olympic torch had to avoid public exposure in places like San Francisco, London and Paris. In New Delhi, the torch procession was a sham.
The French President is among those who have decided not to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing. Even those who are attending are not hiding their displeasure at China. But our “China patriots” would not give up. CPI(M) central committee member Nilotpal Basu not only defends China’s Tibet policy but even draws a comparison between Tibet and Kashmir. He claims that the charge that China is violating human rights in Tibet is from the same quarter that blamed India for human rights violations in Kashmir and was not prepared to accept India’s claim over the Valley.
Confronted on the issue of not letting Tibetans choose their government, the Marxist leader claims that there are different perceptions of democracy. Mr Basu defends China by arguing that all countries have accepted Tibet as an integral part of China while they have not given similar acceptance to the Indian claim over Kashmir. Therefore, he says, China has a better claim to reject the global protests over Tibet.
Earlier, party boss Prakash Karat had defended China on Tibet; Speaker Somnath Chatterjee too had dismissed the Tibetan issue as China’s internal matter, thereby affirming his old Marxist loyalty. Significant in the Marxists’ doublespeak on the Tibet-China issue is the absence of even a word of condemnation of China on appropriating a section of Kashmir extending up to 5,800 sq. km in the Shaksgam valley along the Karakoram range with the connivance of Pakistan.
At this juncture, one recalls the notorious comment of Jawaharlal Nehru’s defence minister then and crypto-Communist V.K. Krishna Menon that this is an area where “not a blade of grass grew.” This reveals the pattern in the Marxist mind: China is always right because it is a Communist country and India is wrong. And these are the knights who in their recent political resolution projected themselves as the defenders of national sovereignty. The Marxists conveniently forget that the core issue in Tibet is not the acceptance of the area as part of China but the denial of basic rights of Tibetans in their own country.
The wave of protests last month within Tibet brought to the world’s notice the fact that Tibetans resent the “Hannisation” of Tibet. Eyewitness accounts trickling out of Tibet by independent travellers from different countries have exposed the Chinese move to crush local culture and change demography by importing large numbers of ethnic Chinese natives into that area.
Therefore, the Marxists’ attempt to draw a comparison with Kashmir is totally misleading. In Jammu and Kashmir, only the local people can acquire and hold property. Besides people there enjoy special rights under Article 370 of the Constitution. What the world has accepted regarding Tibet is that it is, as the Chinese themselves describe it, “an autonomous region of China.” The world now wants to know: Where is the autonomy? A bulk of Tibetans, including their acknowledged spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, are outside of that plateau in other countries.
The Dalai Lama has publicly expressed his willingness to accept the position for his country as an autonomous region — as per the Nehru-Zhou Enlai agreement of 1958. But China refuses to respond to the offers that the Dalai Lama makes. Tibetans do not rule this autonomous region; Chinese do. Even Chinese President Hu Jintao was once the Chinese commissar in Tibet. There is no scope for political expression for Tibetans in their own country. And yet China wants the world to believe otherwise.
What the Chinese Communists deny the Tibetans in Tibet brings us to the type of regime Communists everywhere impose on people they govern. This is not surprising. As the ruling party in West Bengal the CPI(M) has built a formidable fortress where incursions by any other political activist is met with instant punishment. The breach in this fortress occurred first in Singur and then in Nandigram. The violence that was witnessed at both the places, particularly at the latter, was an index of the Marxist concern. Similar things are now taking place at Kannur in Kerala, another Marxist fortress.
While on Tibet, two more things should be noted. One, the way the fellow travellers in Nehru’s entourage tricked India into signing for recognition China’s “sovereignty” on Tibet. The agreement between India and China during the 1950s was actually for recognising China’s “suzerainty” over Tibet. But the draft of the subsequent treaty that the foreign office in New Delhi sent to the Indian ambassador in China, Sardar K.M. Panikkar, changed this word into “sovereignty.”
Panikkar was agitated and wrote to the foreign secretary K.P.S. Menon. But he was asked to shut up and get the Chinese officials’ signature. The Indian foreign office at that time was under two influences — K.P.S. Menon and V.K. Krishna Menon. K.P.S. Menon later became a Soviet lobbyist in India heading the Indo-Soviet friendship setup and was a frequent visitor to Moscow.
The criticism then that Jawaharlal Nehru failed to bring up the pending questions on the border between India and China and get a quid pro quo from Zhou Enlai for accepting China’s claim over Tibet was dismissed. The second point is that the same Communists who dismiss Tibetans’ agony as China’s internal matter and want India not to support the Dalai Lama are all too eager to uphold mass killers like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, the Iranian establishment and the former Taliban government of Afghanistan.
When it comes to Palestine, the Communists urge the government to turn against Israel, which supplies us a whole range of defence technologies and weapons, and support the terrorist elements among the Palestinians whom their own elected President wants to bring under control. The Iraqi leader who used chemical gas to exterminate thousands of Kurds is their favourite, not the Dalai Lama. Is there a limit to doublespeak?
http://deccan.com/Columnists/Columnists.asp?#Doublespeak%20by%20Marxists
By Balbir K. Punj (Deccan Chronicle, 25 April 2008)
The better part of the world has condemned China’s violation of human rights and deprivation of democracy for the Tibetans. In every country that enjoys freedom of expression, local people have joined Tibetans to protest against the Beijing Olympics as a way of bringing to international notice the cause of Tibet. So widespread and deep is the condemnation of China and sympathy for the Dalai Lama and his supporters that the Olympic torch had to avoid public exposure in places like San Francisco, London and Paris. In New Delhi, the torch procession was a sham.
The French President is among those who have decided not to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing. Even those who are attending are not hiding their displeasure at China. But our “China patriots” would not give up. CPI(M) central committee member Nilotpal Basu not only defends China’s Tibet policy but even draws a comparison between Tibet and Kashmir. He claims that the charge that China is violating human rights in Tibet is from the same quarter that blamed India for human rights violations in Kashmir and was not prepared to accept India’s claim over the Valley.
Confronted on the issue of not letting Tibetans choose their government, the Marxist leader claims that there are different perceptions of democracy. Mr Basu defends China by arguing that all countries have accepted Tibet as an integral part of China while they have not given similar acceptance to the Indian claim over Kashmir. Therefore, he says, China has a better claim to reject the global protests over Tibet.
Earlier, party boss Prakash Karat had defended China on Tibet; Speaker Somnath Chatterjee too had dismissed the Tibetan issue as China’s internal matter, thereby affirming his old Marxist loyalty. Significant in the Marxists’ doublespeak on the Tibet-China issue is the absence of even a word of condemnation of China on appropriating a section of Kashmir extending up to 5,800 sq. km in the Shaksgam valley along the Karakoram range with the connivance of Pakistan.
At this juncture, one recalls the notorious comment of Jawaharlal Nehru’s defence minister then and crypto-Communist V.K. Krishna Menon that this is an area where “not a blade of grass grew.” This reveals the pattern in the Marxist mind: China is always right because it is a Communist country and India is wrong. And these are the knights who in their recent political resolution projected themselves as the defenders of national sovereignty. The Marxists conveniently forget that the core issue in Tibet is not the acceptance of the area as part of China but the denial of basic rights of Tibetans in their own country.
The wave of protests last month within Tibet brought to the world’s notice the fact that Tibetans resent the “Hannisation” of Tibet. Eyewitness accounts trickling out of Tibet by independent travellers from different countries have exposed the Chinese move to crush local culture and change demography by importing large numbers of ethnic Chinese natives into that area.
Therefore, the Marxists’ attempt to draw a comparison with Kashmir is totally misleading. In Jammu and Kashmir, only the local people can acquire and hold property. Besides people there enjoy special rights under Article 370 of the Constitution. What the world has accepted regarding Tibet is that it is, as the Chinese themselves describe it, “an autonomous region of China.” The world now wants to know: Where is the autonomy? A bulk of Tibetans, including their acknowledged spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, are outside of that plateau in other countries.
The Dalai Lama has publicly expressed his willingness to accept the position for his country as an autonomous region — as per the Nehru-Zhou Enlai agreement of 1958. But China refuses to respond to the offers that the Dalai Lama makes. Tibetans do not rule this autonomous region; Chinese do. Even Chinese President Hu Jintao was once the Chinese commissar in Tibet. There is no scope for political expression for Tibetans in their own country. And yet China wants the world to believe otherwise.
What the Chinese Communists deny the Tibetans in Tibet brings us to the type of regime Communists everywhere impose on people they govern. This is not surprising. As the ruling party in West Bengal the CPI(M) has built a formidable fortress where incursions by any other political activist is met with instant punishment. The breach in this fortress occurred first in Singur and then in Nandigram. The violence that was witnessed at both the places, particularly at the latter, was an index of the Marxist concern. Similar things are now taking place at Kannur in Kerala, another Marxist fortress.
While on Tibet, two more things should be noted. One, the way the fellow travellers in Nehru’s entourage tricked India into signing for recognition China’s “sovereignty” on Tibet. The agreement between India and China during the 1950s was actually for recognising China’s “suzerainty” over Tibet. But the draft of the subsequent treaty that the foreign office in New Delhi sent to the Indian ambassador in China, Sardar K.M. Panikkar, changed this word into “sovereignty.”
Panikkar was agitated and wrote to the foreign secretary K.P.S. Menon. But he was asked to shut up and get the Chinese officials’ signature. The Indian foreign office at that time was under two influences — K.P.S. Menon and V.K. Krishna Menon. K.P.S. Menon later became a Soviet lobbyist in India heading the Indo-Soviet friendship setup and was a frequent visitor to Moscow.
The criticism then that Jawaharlal Nehru failed to bring up the pending questions on the border between India and China and get a quid pro quo from Zhou Enlai for accepting China’s claim over Tibet was dismissed. The second point is that the same Communists who dismiss Tibetans’ agony as China’s internal matter and want India not to support the Dalai Lama are all too eager to uphold mass killers like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, the Iranian establishment and the former Taliban government of Afghanistan.
When it comes to Palestine, the Communists urge the government to turn against Israel, which supplies us a whole range of defence technologies and weapons, and support the terrorist elements among the Palestinians whom their own elected President wants to bring under control. The Iraqi leader who used chemical gas to exterminate thousands of Kurds is their favourite, not the Dalai Lama. Is there a limit to doublespeak?
http://deccan.com/Columnists/Columnists.asp?#Doublespeak%20by%20Marxists
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Governor's intervention urged in Nandigram:
Governor's intervention urged in Nandigram
Narendra Ch 24 April 2008, Thursday
IN A memorandum submitted to the West Bengal governor, the forum expressed its deep concern about the series of incidents occurring in the state for the last few days. It said that Radharani Ari, a resident of Gokulnagar in Nandigram, has reportedly once again been gang-raped by the CPM goons on the night of April 18. The same lady was one of the victims of gang-rape of March 14, 2007 when the CPM hoodlums killed and raped innocent villagers of Nandigram to bring them under their control.
Ari has now been admitted to SSKM hospital along with two others – Sri Pratap Ari (husband of Ari) and Narmada Shit, both of whom were seriously wounded by the CPM hoodlums when they tried to protect Ari.
They allege that the local police played the role of mute spectators when the attacks took place.
It is also reported that the CPM activists and supporters coming from Khejuri and outside are continually attacking the members of the Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC) threatening the villagers, ransacking their houses in order to create an atmosphere of panic before the panchayat polls.
Just after the attack, loot, arson and gang-rape on Ari, Mamata Bandyopadhyay, MP and leaders of some other political parties wanted to visit the village to console the tortured people. Their convoys were attacked by the CPM supporters in presence of the local police and the OC of Nandigram Police station (PS) at Gokulnagar on April 20.
It is also reported that the CPM activists and their henchmen continue to terrorise the opposition to obstruct their men to participate in the election process in a planned way, when the police administration act in favour of the miscreants in most cases.
Pressure is also being created on different cultural and performing groups and individuals whose performances the ruling party considers as contrary to its interests. On some occasions, they are prevented from showing their performances. The normal democratic right of expression is thus being curbed.
http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=132992&catID=2&category=India
Narendra Ch 24 April 2008, Thursday
IN A memorandum submitted to the West Bengal governor, the forum expressed its deep concern about the series of incidents occurring in the state for the last few days. It said that Radharani Ari, a resident of Gokulnagar in Nandigram, has reportedly once again been gang-raped by the CPM goons on the night of April 18. The same lady was one of the victims of gang-rape of March 14, 2007 when the CPM hoodlums killed and raped innocent villagers of Nandigram to bring them under their control.
Ari has now been admitted to SSKM hospital along with two others – Sri Pratap Ari (husband of Ari) and Narmada Shit, both of whom were seriously wounded by the CPM hoodlums when they tried to protect Ari.
They allege that the local police played the role of mute spectators when the attacks took place.
It is also reported that the CPM activists and supporters coming from Khejuri and outside are continually attacking the members of the Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC) threatening the villagers, ransacking their houses in order to create an atmosphere of panic before the panchayat polls.
Just after the attack, loot, arson and gang-rape on Ari, Mamata Bandyopadhyay, MP and leaders of some other political parties wanted to visit the village to console the tortured people. Their convoys were attacked by the CPM supporters in presence of the local police and the OC of Nandigram Police station (PS) at Gokulnagar on April 20.
It is also reported that the CPM activists and their henchmen continue to terrorise the opposition to obstruct their men to participate in the election process in a planned way, when the police administration act in favour of the miscreants in most cases.
Pressure is also being created on different cultural and performing groups and individuals whose performances the ruling party considers as contrary to its interests. On some occasions, they are prevented from showing their performances. The normal democratic right of expression is thus being curbed.
http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=132992&catID=2&category=India
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Ganamukti Parishad roots for ouster of CPM
Ganamukti Parishad roots for ouster of CPM
Intellectuals root for CPM ouster in rural polls
Statesman News Service
KOLKATA, April 15: A section of the state's intellectuals, under the banner of Ganamukti Parishad, today appealed to Opposition parties to set up one-to-one battles in the panchayat poll arena, so as to dethrone the CPI-M and free people of the state from “30 years of misrule”. The intellectuals warned that if the Opposition gave in to petty bickering among themselves and failed to defeat the CPI-M in the coming rural poll, the repercussion would be felt at the Centre, where the CPI-M would sit as “a representative of China”.
At a function to release the booklet called “Panchayat Polls May 2008: We need a one-to-one election”, Mr Debabrata Bandopadhyay, former secretary for the government of West Bengal, said the state government was an “illegal” one as it had not listened to the High Court ruling which named police officers and constables who were held responsible for the “illegal” firing on innocent villagers in Nandigram on 14 March 2007. “This government has not paid any heed to the HC ruling. The police personnel responsible for the 14 March bloodletting are walking free because they followed the party's orders. Can this government be called legal?” He gave a call for the dismissal of the CPI-M-led Left Front from power in the state. Writers and educationalists such as Mr Amlan Dutta, Mahaswheta Devi, Kabir Suman and Mr Sunanda Sanyal signed an appeal to Opposition parties to fight the CPI-M as a unit during the panchayat polls, due to be held in May.
They asked Opposition parties to pit one candidate who would be most likely to defeat the CPI-M candidate at the hustings, withdraw the other candidates and support the sole Opposition candidate.
Mr Sunanda Sanyal, president of Ganamukti Parishad, said: “Not only in Nandigram and Singur, the CPI-M is killing villagers in other villages of the state. They are continuing to threaten Opposition party candidates from standing for the panchayat poll. We ask Opposition parties to only pit one candidate against a CPI-M candidate ~ someone who has the highest chance of defeating the ruling party candidate. If they don't do this and resort to bickering among themselves instead, it only prove that the Opposition is actually supporting the CPI-M's win.”
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=22&theme=&usrsess=1&id=199632
Intellectuals in Kolkata want Opposition to unite against CPM
Express news service
Posted online: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 0112 hrs IST
Kolkata, April 15
A section of the city-based intellectuals today called for defeating the Left candidates in the forthcoming panchayat elections.
Under the banner of Gana Mukti Parishad, they said that Opposition parties should ensure one-to-one contest against the Left Front candidates to prevent division of anti-Left votes in the state.
Noted litterateur Mahasweta Devi, educationist Sunanda Sanyal and Amlan Dutta said that this was the right time to unite the Opposition parties.
They believe that the Left candidates can be defeated if the Opposition selects a single candidate in every seat in the three-tier panchayat polls.
Earlier, the intellectuals had organised protest rallies against the Left Front government on various issues like Nandigram, Singur and the unnatural death of Rizwanur Rehman.
After the March 14 police firing at Nandigram and “recapture” of villages there by the CPM workers in last November, intellectuals sharply criticised the role of the Left Front government of West Bengal as well as the CPM leadership.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Intellectuals-in-Kolkata-want-Opposition-to-unite-against-CPM/297418/
Intellectuals root for CPM ouster in rural polls
Statesman News Service
KOLKATA, April 15: A section of the state's intellectuals, under the banner of Ganamukti Parishad, today appealed to Opposition parties to set up one-to-one battles in the panchayat poll arena, so as to dethrone the CPI-M and free people of the state from “30 years of misrule”. The intellectuals warned that if the Opposition gave in to petty bickering among themselves and failed to defeat the CPI-M in the coming rural poll, the repercussion would be felt at the Centre, where the CPI-M would sit as “a representative of China”.
At a function to release the booklet called “Panchayat Polls May 2008: We need a one-to-one election”, Mr Debabrata Bandopadhyay, former secretary for the government of West Bengal, said the state government was an “illegal” one as it had not listened to the High Court ruling which named police officers and constables who were held responsible for the “illegal” firing on innocent villagers in Nandigram on 14 March 2007. “This government has not paid any heed to the HC ruling. The police personnel responsible for the 14 March bloodletting are walking free because they followed the party's orders. Can this government be called legal?” He gave a call for the dismissal of the CPI-M-led Left Front from power in the state. Writers and educationalists such as Mr Amlan Dutta, Mahaswheta Devi, Kabir Suman and Mr Sunanda Sanyal signed an appeal to Opposition parties to fight the CPI-M as a unit during the panchayat polls, due to be held in May.
They asked Opposition parties to pit one candidate who would be most likely to defeat the CPI-M candidate at the hustings, withdraw the other candidates and support the sole Opposition candidate.
Mr Sunanda Sanyal, president of Ganamukti Parishad, said: “Not only in Nandigram and Singur, the CPI-M is killing villagers in other villages of the state. They are continuing to threaten Opposition party candidates from standing for the panchayat poll. We ask Opposition parties to only pit one candidate against a CPI-M candidate ~ someone who has the highest chance of defeating the ruling party candidate. If they don't do this and resort to bickering among themselves instead, it only prove that the Opposition is actually supporting the CPI-M's win.”
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=22&theme=&usrsess=1&id=199632
Intellectuals in Kolkata want Opposition to unite against CPM
Express news service
Posted online: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 0112 hrs IST
Kolkata, April 15
A section of the city-based intellectuals today called for defeating the Left candidates in the forthcoming panchayat elections.
Under the banner of Gana Mukti Parishad, they said that Opposition parties should ensure one-to-one contest against the Left Front candidates to prevent division of anti-Left votes in the state.
Noted litterateur Mahasweta Devi, educationist Sunanda Sanyal and Amlan Dutta said that this was the right time to unite the Opposition parties.
They believe that the Left candidates can be defeated if the Opposition selects a single candidate in every seat in the three-tier panchayat polls.
Earlier, the intellectuals had organised protest rallies against the Left Front government on various issues like Nandigram, Singur and the unnatural death of Rizwanur Rehman.
After the March 14 police firing at Nandigram and “recapture” of villages there by the CPM workers in last November, intellectuals sharply criticised the role of the Left Front government of West Bengal as well as the CPM leadership.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Intellectuals-in-Kolkata-want-Opposition-to-unite-against-CPM/297418/
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Circus clowns, self-caricaturists of CPM: Udayan Namboodiri
More than one circus
Lookback: Udayan Namboodiri (Pioneer, April 5, 2008)
Even as intellectual gymnastics were being performed in Coimbatore this week to justify the CPI(M)'s frank preference for Mammon over Marx, party cadre were shutting down Haldia Petrochemicals and AV Birla outlets in West Bengal. A Saturday Special focus on the 19th party congress features a CPI(M)-linked ideologue and a former MP of the RSP
Mr Jyoti Basu and Mr Harkishan Singh Surjeet, who passed into history this week after seven decades each in Indian Communism, may have reflected sardonically on at least one aspect of the CPI(M)'s just-concluded triennial party congress -- the new leadership's fatal attraction for more and more trivia. Their single-minded pursuit of instant fame based on vacuous and banal rhetoric.
In their heyday, party congresses were about raising dangerous-sounding slogans for not just regime change, but world-change. Articulate prophets like Putchalapally Sundarayya, Pramod Dasgupta, EMS Namboodiripad and even the poker-faced Basu could instill newer generations of comrades with whatever pride could be felt in the Communist struggle. But in Coimbatore, what Mr Basu and Mr Surjeet probably recognised was something more profound in terms of its wastefulness. Indian Communism, from a powerful bonding of men and women with revolutionary zeal, has degenerated into a body of inveterate self-caricaturists with a yen for media attention. Not one string of words was generated that was not done to death over the past three years. Also absent was an attempt at new policy formulation. Since 1988, the party has been conceptualising funnier and funnier versions of the "lesser evil" theory. Yet, the paroxysm of delight that emanate during the regurgitation process never seem to end.
For the regiments of babalog journalists who descended on the southern textile town, there were bytes galore on all outstanding national and international issues. What better way to begin a party congress without baiting the Congress? After all, isn't it only natural for a party that has played gadfly to the Congress for four decades? 'Third Frontery' (a term up for patenting) is the CPI(M)'s old way of repaying the Congress for its kind acts of cutting into the non-Left votes in West Bengal and playing tame Opposition in Kerala. The Congress, as we know from history, has an interest in 'third frontery' -- it helps keep the BJP out of power in post-election situations.
So, how to fill three whole days? General secretary Prakash Karat thought up a wonderful way to keep the media on tenterhooks till it was time to announce the highest point of the 19th party congress -- his own "re-election". So we had two days of wordsmithery over contentious issues like Nandigram-Singur, SEZs, foreign investment in retail, etc. But eventually, that too was déjà vu.
The Organisational Report, itself a caricature of Sovietism, was silent on most issues. Nandigram was dismissed with just one sentence. To placate the West Bengal comrades, who, under Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee are pushing the case for Reliance's takeover of the State's agricultural retailing for no apparent reason other than assure a steady fund flow to the party machinery in the rural areas, it was OK for domestics, but no for foreign players in retail. Though sections of the media saw a hula-hoop here, they soon realised that Marxism-Leninism is about more than one circus.
Even as words were lassoed, spaced and punctuated for Mr Bhattacharjee's benefit in Coimbatore, CPI(M) workers in Sodepur and Uttarpara of Hooghly district were forcing the Aditya Birla group's "More" chain to down shutters. At the height of the Coimbatore event, sceptics wondered where the real show was happening. In Kerala, home to the country's third-highest farmer suicides? Or in Mr Bhattacharjee's own turf where Marxists were not only forcing shut retail outlets but also the only showpiece of West Bengal's industry, the Haldia Petrochemicals plant? And, what about the 120-year-old Bengal Engineering College in Shibpur and the 10-year-old Satyajit Ray Institute of Film and Television Institute which also entered the news this week for being the latest victims to Communist hooliganism?
With nothing new to offer the political discourse of the country, Karat and his comrades decided to stage a pathetic defence of Mr Bhattacharjee's "industrialisation" of Bengal. The Chief Minister tried his best to sound like the odd one out at the mad hatter's party, but failed to convince when he sought to explain away the CPI(M)'s Janus-headed policy on Special Economic Zones: OK in West Bengal but no Posco in Orissa. "We are of the view that SEZs should be granted only for those industries where advanced technology is required. The second category could be for the export-oriented sectors," said Mr Bhattacharjee to confirm the adage "little knowledge is dangerous". On the other hand, Mr Nirupam Sen, his forked tongued Industries Minister, who has also found a berth in the Politburo, claimed fantastic achievements have been made by his Government in industry. However, evidence as supplied by the Planning Commission, Central Statistical Organisation and the Union Government, tell a completely different story.
Saturday Special had approached quite a few CPI(M)-cleared columnists to contribute a perceptive piece on the Coimbatore event. However, after everybody ducked, one, an up-and-coming ideologue from Delhi, agreed. But, on the 11th hour, he too cried out. It's probable that nobody is quite sure of what's going on there right now and are fearful that their written words would damn them in the event of a purge in the near future. Eventually, Basab Dasgupta, a Kolkata-based CPI(M) card-carrying intellectual, who has been with the party since its formation, agreed to articulate the mixed feelings now sweeping through the heads of all Marxist-Leninists now. "Isn't it time we changed the name of our party", one was heard saying in reaction to the brazen celebration of Mammon over Marx that one saw in Coimbatore. In The Other Voice, we feature Debabrata Bandopadhyay, a former Revolutionary Socialist Party MP and presently its general secretary, who would like to remind the CPI(M) that "you can fool some of the people some of the time, all the people some of the time, but never all the people all the time".
-- The writer is Senior Editor, The Pioneer
Lookback: Udayan Namboodiri (Pioneer, April 5, 2008)
Even as intellectual gymnastics were being performed in Coimbatore this week to justify the CPI(M)'s frank preference for Mammon over Marx, party cadre were shutting down Haldia Petrochemicals and AV Birla outlets in West Bengal. A Saturday Special focus on the 19th party congress features a CPI(M)-linked ideologue and a former MP of the RSP
Mr Jyoti Basu and Mr Harkishan Singh Surjeet, who passed into history this week after seven decades each in Indian Communism, may have reflected sardonically on at least one aspect of the CPI(M)'s just-concluded triennial party congress -- the new leadership's fatal attraction for more and more trivia. Their single-minded pursuit of instant fame based on vacuous and banal rhetoric.
In their heyday, party congresses were about raising dangerous-sounding slogans for not just regime change, but world-change. Articulate prophets like Putchalapally Sundarayya, Pramod Dasgupta, EMS Namboodiripad and even the poker-faced Basu could instill newer generations of comrades with whatever pride could be felt in the Communist struggle. But in Coimbatore, what Mr Basu and Mr Surjeet probably recognised was something more profound in terms of its wastefulness. Indian Communism, from a powerful bonding of men and women with revolutionary zeal, has degenerated into a body of inveterate self-caricaturists with a yen for media attention. Not one string of words was generated that was not done to death over the past three years. Also absent was an attempt at new policy formulation. Since 1988, the party has been conceptualising funnier and funnier versions of the "lesser evil" theory. Yet, the paroxysm of delight that emanate during the regurgitation process never seem to end.
For the regiments of babalog journalists who descended on the southern textile town, there were bytes galore on all outstanding national and international issues. What better way to begin a party congress without baiting the Congress? After all, isn't it only natural for a party that has played gadfly to the Congress for four decades? 'Third Frontery' (a term up for patenting) is the CPI(M)'s old way of repaying the Congress for its kind acts of cutting into the non-Left votes in West Bengal and playing tame Opposition in Kerala. The Congress, as we know from history, has an interest in 'third frontery' -- it helps keep the BJP out of power in post-election situations.
So, how to fill three whole days? General secretary Prakash Karat thought up a wonderful way to keep the media on tenterhooks till it was time to announce the highest point of the 19th party congress -- his own "re-election". So we had two days of wordsmithery over contentious issues like Nandigram-Singur, SEZs, foreign investment in retail, etc. But eventually, that too was déjà vu.
The Organisational Report, itself a caricature of Sovietism, was silent on most issues. Nandigram was dismissed with just one sentence. To placate the West Bengal comrades, who, under Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee are pushing the case for Reliance's takeover of the State's agricultural retailing for no apparent reason other than assure a steady fund flow to the party machinery in the rural areas, it was OK for domestics, but no for foreign players in retail. Though sections of the media saw a hula-hoop here, they soon realised that Marxism-Leninism is about more than one circus.
Even as words were lassoed, spaced and punctuated for Mr Bhattacharjee's benefit in Coimbatore, CPI(M) workers in Sodepur and Uttarpara of Hooghly district were forcing the Aditya Birla group's "More" chain to down shutters. At the height of the Coimbatore event, sceptics wondered where the real show was happening. In Kerala, home to the country's third-highest farmer suicides? Or in Mr Bhattacharjee's own turf where Marxists were not only forcing shut retail outlets but also the only showpiece of West Bengal's industry, the Haldia Petrochemicals plant? And, what about the 120-year-old Bengal Engineering College in Shibpur and the 10-year-old Satyajit Ray Institute of Film and Television Institute which also entered the news this week for being the latest victims to Communist hooliganism?
With nothing new to offer the political discourse of the country, Karat and his comrades decided to stage a pathetic defence of Mr Bhattacharjee's "industrialisation" of Bengal. The Chief Minister tried his best to sound like the odd one out at the mad hatter's party, but failed to convince when he sought to explain away the CPI(M)'s Janus-headed policy on Special Economic Zones: OK in West Bengal but no Posco in Orissa. "We are of the view that SEZs should be granted only for those industries where advanced technology is required. The second category could be for the export-oriented sectors," said Mr Bhattacharjee to confirm the adage "little knowledge is dangerous". On the other hand, Mr Nirupam Sen, his forked tongued Industries Minister, who has also found a berth in the Politburo, claimed fantastic achievements have been made by his Government in industry. However, evidence as supplied by the Planning Commission, Central Statistical Organisation and the Union Government, tell a completely different story.
Saturday Special had approached quite a few CPI(M)-cleared columnists to contribute a perceptive piece on the Coimbatore event. However, after everybody ducked, one, an up-and-coming ideologue from Delhi, agreed. But, on the 11th hour, he too cried out. It's probable that nobody is quite sure of what's going on there right now and are fearful that their written words would damn them in the event of a purge in the near future. Eventually, Basab Dasgupta, a Kolkata-based CPI(M) card-carrying intellectual, who has been with the party since its formation, agreed to articulate the mixed feelings now sweeping through the heads of all Marxist-Leninists now. "Isn't it time we changed the name of our party", one was heard saying in reaction to the brazen celebration of Mammon over Marx that one saw in Coimbatore. In The Other Voice, we feature Debabrata Bandopadhyay, a former Revolutionary Socialist Party MP and presently its general secretary, who would like to remind the CPI(M) that "you can fool some of the people some of the time, all the people some of the time, but never all the people all the time".
-- The writer is Senior Editor, The Pioneer
CPM will split: RSP
Right-Commies like Buddha will split CPM
Debabrata Bandopadhyay | General secretary, RSP (Pioneer, April 5, 2008)
When a Communist party decides to discard the socialist dream the inevitable happens -- a split. Thanks to Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, that's a distinct possibility in the post-Coimbatore era
While waiting for a factual report on what exactly happened at the CPI(M) party congress, we can only speculate from media reports on what happened there. It's clear from the reports that the CPI(M) is in the throes of a great dilemma over dialectics. Actually, many would say it's more than just a dilemma. The very foundations of the party have been devastated in the public's perception. Henceforth the party will only be fuelled by duplicity because it has dumped everything that was ideal in the Left movement.
The current Marxist debate is all about 'greater evil versus lesser evil'. This is based on a theory circulated by some of its leaders whose sole motivation is to stay close to power in New Delhi. There are many in the party who have serious doubts about this theory, but cannot speak openly about it. In Stalinist Russia, many leaders were compelled to believe that American imperialism was preferable to fascism. The Marxists here are of the same mould. They have been told to believe that the Congress party is a lesser evil than the BJP. This totally ignores the evidence that there is no basic difference between the economic policies of the two parties.
The current Marxist dichotomy becomes more evident when talk about 'third alternative' explodes on the public discourse. One wonders how the Marxists propose to stay tuned to the 'lesser evil', that is the Congress, and simultaneously dream of forming this 'third alternative'. It is clear that the Bengal axis, led by Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and Mr Biman Bose, dominates the Marxist political outreach on a national scale. The party today gives more importance to what Mr Bhattacharjee and Mr Bose think than what Mr Prakash Karat and Mr Sitaram Yechury say. Similarly, the CPI(M)'s labour arm, Citu, is divided between leaders like Mr MK Pandhe and Mr Shyamal Chakrabarty. While Mr Pandhe has openly expressed reservations against the capitalist tilt of the Marxist forces, Mr Chakrabarty has preferred to toe the Buddha line.
Today, Indian Marxists are confronted by a post-Soviet unipolar world dominated by the US. And the likes of Mr Bhattacharjee feel an urgent need to toe the US line. This is bizarre as even a few years back they despised Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and depicted the US as the biggest enemy of the proletariat. But now, they have started backing limited FDI even if that means the ruination of the small traders. It is clear that in the name of pragmatism, the Buddha lobby is only trying to subvert the essence of Marxism.
It will not be an exaggeration to say that the current leadership was trying to endorse the Congress-preached ideology to derive political mileage. Special Economic Zones (SEZ) is one area where the Marxists have made a huge compromise. Irrespective of what Mr Bhattacharjee feels about SEZs, there is no doubt that these would only lead to food shortages and promote the real estate business.
Though the Marxist leadership tried its best to paper over these differences, the Coimbatore party congress only brought out the cracks it in a bigger way. There was a big round of orchestrated applause for Mr Bhattacharjee, who is seen as a man who has struck a golden mean between labour and capital. But, in reality, the endorsement of the Buddha line has only given the impetus to parallel thought in that party.
There are still many leaders who do not subscribe to the views of right-wing, anti-socialist Leftists like Mr Bhattacharjee. Their new logic is: Since revolution cannot take place in a backward country, capitalism has to be developed fully. A revolution will then be born in the womb of capitalism only after it develops to the fullest. This is a fatal deviation from the Marxist-Leninist theory.
Such a mindset was common in the Soviet Union when a lot of people held the view that a socialist revolution could not take place on the plinth of backwardness. But then, Lenin blasted Pravda saying 'what nonsense are you writing?' He said Russia must fight the capitalist bourgeoisie, which followed the Czars to power. Mr Bhattacharjee seems to have taken his party along with him in his designs to install a deviated right-wing Marxist culture if we may say so. The part congress is a proof of that. But in this congress is embedded the seeds of a future break-up as there are many Marxist leaders who will accept his line after much grumbling.
This disenchantment would surely lead to a split some day. Traditionally, Communist parties have always been breeding grounds of conflict. They are prone to remain divided on ideological lines for years. It is this ideological division which led to the split of the 1960s, giving birth to the CPI(M),which again split up to form the CPI(ML) and subsequently Maoist and other extreme Leftist forces. The predominance of Buddha-like Right-wingers would one day be the nemesis of the CPI(M).
-- As told to Saugar Sengupta
Debabrata Bandopadhyay | General secretary, RSP (Pioneer, April 5, 2008)
When a Communist party decides to discard the socialist dream the inevitable happens -- a split. Thanks to Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, that's a distinct possibility in the post-Coimbatore era
While waiting for a factual report on what exactly happened at the CPI(M) party congress, we can only speculate from media reports on what happened there. It's clear from the reports that the CPI(M) is in the throes of a great dilemma over dialectics. Actually, many would say it's more than just a dilemma. The very foundations of the party have been devastated in the public's perception. Henceforth the party will only be fuelled by duplicity because it has dumped everything that was ideal in the Left movement.
The current Marxist debate is all about 'greater evil versus lesser evil'. This is based on a theory circulated by some of its leaders whose sole motivation is to stay close to power in New Delhi. There are many in the party who have serious doubts about this theory, but cannot speak openly about it. In Stalinist Russia, many leaders were compelled to believe that American imperialism was preferable to fascism. The Marxists here are of the same mould. They have been told to believe that the Congress party is a lesser evil than the BJP. This totally ignores the evidence that there is no basic difference between the economic policies of the two parties.
The current Marxist dichotomy becomes more evident when talk about 'third alternative' explodes on the public discourse. One wonders how the Marxists propose to stay tuned to the 'lesser evil', that is the Congress, and simultaneously dream of forming this 'third alternative'. It is clear that the Bengal axis, led by Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and Mr Biman Bose, dominates the Marxist political outreach on a national scale. The party today gives more importance to what Mr Bhattacharjee and Mr Bose think than what Mr Prakash Karat and Mr Sitaram Yechury say. Similarly, the CPI(M)'s labour arm, Citu, is divided between leaders like Mr MK Pandhe and Mr Shyamal Chakrabarty. While Mr Pandhe has openly expressed reservations against the capitalist tilt of the Marxist forces, Mr Chakrabarty has preferred to toe the Buddha line.
Today, Indian Marxists are confronted by a post-Soviet unipolar world dominated by the US. And the likes of Mr Bhattacharjee feel an urgent need to toe the US line. This is bizarre as even a few years back they despised Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and depicted the US as the biggest enemy of the proletariat. But now, they have started backing limited FDI even if that means the ruination of the small traders. It is clear that in the name of pragmatism, the Buddha lobby is only trying to subvert the essence of Marxism.
It will not be an exaggeration to say that the current leadership was trying to endorse the Congress-preached ideology to derive political mileage. Special Economic Zones (SEZ) is one area where the Marxists have made a huge compromise. Irrespective of what Mr Bhattacharjee feels about SEZs, there is no doubt that these would only lead to food shortages and promote the real estate business.
Though the Marxist leadership tried its best to paper over these differences, the Coimbatore party congress only brought out the cracks it in a bigger way. There was a big round of orchestrated applause for Mr Bhattacharjee, who is seen as a man who has struck a golden mean between labour and capital. But, in reality, the endorsement of the Buddha line has only given the impetus to parallel thought in that party.
There are still many leaders who do not subscribe to the views of right-wing, anti-socialist Leftists like Mr Bhattacharjee. Their new logic is: Since revolution cannot take place in a backward country, capitalism has to be developed fully. A revolution will then be born in the womb of capitalism only after it develops to the fullest. This is a fatal deviation from the Marxist-Leninist theory.
Such a mindset was common in the Soviet Union when a lot of people held the view that a socialist revolution could not take place on the plinth of backwardness. But then, Lenin blasted Pravda saying 'what nonsense are you writing?' He said Russia must fight the capitalist bourgeoisie, which followed the Czars to power. Mr Bhattacharjee seems to have taken his party along with him in his designs to install a deviated right-wing Marxist culture if we may say so. The part congress is a proof of that. But in this congress is embedded the seeds of a future break-up as there are many Marxist leaders who will accept his line after much grumbling.
This disenchantment would surely lead to a split some day. Traditionally, Communist parties have always been breeding grounds of conflict. They are prone to remain divided on ideological lines for years. It is this ideological division which led to the split of the 1960s, giving birth to the CPI(M),which again split up to form the CPI(ML) and subsequently Maoist and other extreme Leftist forces. The predominance of Buddha-like Right-wingers would one day be the nemesis of the CPI(M).
-- As told to Saugar Sengupta
Cretinism in, Marx out
Basab Dasgupta (Pioneer, April 5, 2008)
The 19th party congress of the CPI(M) will be recalled as one in which the general secretary presided over the destruction of the founding ethos of the party
The 19th congress of the CPI(M), which hogged the headlines through the week, saw the so-called hard-liner, Mr Prakash Karat, presiding over the destruction of Marxism. He has indicated his aversion for not only classical Communism, but also the neo-revolutionary philosophy. He has sought to send a firm message on this by keeping Mr Jyoti Basu and Mr Harkishan Singh Surjeet out of the Politburo. The offer to retain them both as "permanent invitees" is only a ploy. Actually, their presence would be a source of embarrassment for a general secretary who wants to destroy the fundamentals of the party.
We are now seeing Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee being lauded as a Chief Minister who wants to bring back the "glory of Bengal" in the field of industry. He feels no shame in recalling the "glory" of the Raj era when imperial forces held sway over the industrial scene of Bengal. A whisper campaign has been started by the present generation of CPI(M) leaders and cadre that Mr Basu was guilty of dragging West Bengal into its economic morass.
But if one recollects the truthful history of the recent past, it should be amply clear that it was Mr Basu who stood accused in January 1995 when he had unfurled a pro-investor industrial policy at a CII conference. Mr Basu stated in his defence at the time that since he was operating within a capitalist framework, he had no option but accept the joint sector model of industrialisation. He further submitted that it was the duty of the state to invite foreign capital and vet each proposal for compliance with existing policies and laws. The Marxist priesthood placed him on the dock to explain his "departure" from the classical line.
Sincere introspection would lead to the conclusion since the inception of the CPI(M) in 1964, the official line adopted by P Sundarayya and Promod Dasgupta was out-and-out against the concept of economic progress within capitalist parameters. According to them, participation in parliamentary democracy was only a tactical move. To quote Promod Dasgupta in his Strategy of Constitutional Subversion From Within, the ultimate objective was "insurrection and seizure of State power".
Dasgupta even believed that because of the uneven development of the Communist movement in India, the party should not adopt a policy of wait and watch. He wanted the "armed struggle" to start from West Bengal, using Bangladesh as hinterland.
Added to it was the theory of contiguous area comprising Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala which would be plunged into guerrilla warfare. This theory was originally Sundaraiya's. Naturally, the obvious objective was to paralyse the blood circulation of the bourgeois economy.
The leadership of the party was overwhelmed by militants who considered Mr Basu a "revisionist". But his tremendous mass popularity restrained the apparatchik from targetting him. From 1977 onwards, though Mr Basu was the Chief Minister, the party more or less traversed the path led by Promod Dasgupta. Mr Biman Basu, Mr Bhattacharjee and others were ardent followers of Promod Dasgupta and spared no efforts to adopt the wayward line to ensure that Mr Basu could not implement his "revisionist" objectives.
Surprisingly, these same leaders now slight Mr Basu for not being industry-friendly enough. They are themselves now transformed as champions of industrialisation. When the ordinary people see Mr Bhattacharjee and his ilk extending their hands to Reliance and others, should they call this an act of deviation or betrayal? They have gone to the extent of violating the concept of MRTP, which was a Nehruvian deterrent to curtail aggressive monopoly.
Mr Karat has also revived the call for a 'Third Front'. Nowhere in India has a 'Third Front' been possible. Left Fronts have been in existence in West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura, but a coalition comprising Communists and others joined by some new-fangled adhesive called 'secularism' does not work. There is nothing common between the CPI(M) and Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mr Lalu Prasad Jadav and Mr Chandrababu Naidu. Is there such a thing as a common economic and political agenda?
The pursuit of a 'Third Front' is nothing but pure and simple tailism to secure a few seats here and there. There is not an iota of ideological conviction behind the forging of such an alliance.
In fact, the CPI(M) under Mr Karat has not only left the path of mass movement, but also of class struggle. To recall Vladimir Lenin, what the CPI(M) is pursuing today is "Parliamentary Cretinism". Engels wrote: "Parliamentary Cretinism is an incurable disease, an ailment whose unfortunate victims are permeated by the lofty conviction that the whole world, its history and its future are directed and determined by a majority of votes of just that very representative institution that has the honour of having them in the capacity of its members".
This expression was applied by Lenin to those who considered the parliamentarian system all-powerful, and parliamentarian activities the sole form of political struggle
It is an irony that the very boys who were groomed by P Sundarayya and Promod Dasgupta with an eye to leading the armed revolution, are today championing naked class collaboration. It would be wrong to think that the delegates to the 19th Party Congress were unanimous on all the debated topics. Some of them could not betray their feeling when the issue of Nandigram was raised. A section of delegates criticised the two faces of the CPI(M). How could the same party that opposes Posco in Orissa follow a diametrically different line?
In the truest sense of the term, Mr Karat and his comrades are keen to end the legacy of Mr Basu and Mr Surjeet. It is said parting should be graceful. But lo and behold, they bid good-bye to both the stalwarts without paying any tribute, which is so far a customary practice in the Communist movement.
Mr Nirupam Sen, the new entrant in Politburo, is known to be a serious student of Marxism. He is reported to be one of the few leaders of West Bengal who still reads. But he has his own method to look into things. Basically, Mr Sen is now the ideologue who leaves no stone unturned to prove that the "experiment" in West Bengal is a creative extension of Marxism. In view of the incomplete democratic revolution, he opines, it is the task of the CPI(M) Government to abate capitalism. He forgets that in Russia and China, the post-revolutionary capitalist phase was completed by the working class itself.
Mr Sen also has a simplistic explanation for the end of Russian socialism. He says it happened because it was not preceded by capitalism. I would request him to read the debate between Lenin and Georgi Plekhanov in 1917 along with Lenin's famous theory of "Weakest Link"? Perhaps he is aware of it, yet he defends his profuse love for the Tatas and the Ambanis.
Basab Dasgupta (Pioneer, April 5, 2008)
The 19th party congress of the CPI(M) will be recalled as one in which the general secretary presided over the destruction of the founding ethos of the party
The 19th congress of the CPI(M), which hogged the headlines through the week, saw the so-called hard-liner, Mr Prakash Karat, presiding over the destruction of Marxism. He has indicated his aversion for not only classical Communism, but also the neo-revolutionary philosophy. He has sought to send a firm message on this by keeping Mr Jyoti Basu and Mr Harkishan Singh Surjeet out of the Politburo. The offer to retain them both as "permanent invitees" is only a ploy. Actually, their presence would be a source of embarrassment for a general secretary who wants to destroy the fundamentals of the party.
We are now seeing Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee being lauded as a Chief Minister who wants to bring back the "glory of Bengal" in the field of industry. He feels no shame in recalling the "glory" of the Raj era when imperial forces held sway over the industrial scene of Bengal. A whisper campaign has been started by the present generation of CPI(M) leaders and cadre that Mr Basu was guilty of dragging West Bengal into its economic morass.
But if one recollects the truthful history of the recent past, it should be amply clear that it was Mr Basu who stood accused in January 1995 when he had unfurled a pro-investor industrial policy at a CII conference. Mr Basu stated in his defence at the time that since he was operating within a capitalist framework, he had no option but accept the joint sector model of industrialisation. He further submitted that it was the duty of the state to invite foreign capital and vet each proposal for compliance with existing policies and laws. The Marxist priesthood placed him on the dock to explain his "departure" from the classical line.
Sincere introspection would lead to the conclusion since the inception of the CPI(M) in 1964, the official line adopted by P Sundarayya and Promod Dasgupta was out-and-out against the concept of economic progress within capitalist parameters. According to them, participation in parliamentary democracy was only a tactical move. To quote Promod Dasgupta in his Strategy of Constitutional Subversion From Within, the ultimate objective was "insurrection and seizure of State power".
Dasgupta even believed that because of the uneven development of the Communist movement in India, the party should not adopt a policy of wait and watch. He wanted the "armed struggle" to start from West Bengal, using Bangladesh as hinterland.
Added to it was the theory of contiguous area comprising Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala which would be plunged into guerrilla warfare. This theory was originally Sundaraiya's. Naturally, the obvious objective was to paralyse the blood circulation of the bourgeois economy.
The leadership of the party was overwhelmed by militants who considered Mr Basu a "revisionist". But his tremendous mass popularity restrained the apparatchik from targetting him. From 1977 onwards, though Mr Basu was the Chief Minister, the party more or less traversed the path led by Promod Dasgupta. Mr Biman Basu, Mr Bhattacharjee and others were ardent followers of Promod Dasgupta and spared no efforts to adopt the wayward line to ensure that Mr Basu could not implement his "revisionist" objectives.
Surprisingly, these same leaders now slight Mr Basu for not being industry-friendly enough. They are themselves now transformed as champions of industrialisation. When the ordinary people see Mr Bhattacharjee and his ilk extending their hands to Reliance and others, should they call this an act of deviation or betrayal? They have gone to the extent of violating the concept of MRTP, which was a Nehruvian deterrent to curtail aggressive monopoly.
Mr Karat has also revived the call for a 'Third Front'. Nowhere in India has a 'Third Front' been possible. Left Fronts have been in existence in West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura, but a coalition comprising Communists and others joined by some new-fangled adhesive called 'secularism' does not work. There is nothing common between the CPI(M) and Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mr Lalu Prasad Jadav and Mr Chandrababu Naidu. Is there such a thing as a common economic and political agenda?
The pursuit of a 'Third Front' is nothing but pure and simple tailism to secure a few seats here and there. There is not an iota of ideological conviction behind the forging of such an alliance.
In fact, the CPI(M) under Mr Karat has not only left the path of mass movement, but also of class struggle. To recall Vladimir Lenin, what the CPI(M) is pursuing today is "Parliamentary Cretinism". Engels wrote: "Parliamentary Cretinism is an incurable disease, an ailment whose unfortunate victims are permeated by the lofty conviction that the whole world, its history and its future are directed and determined by a majority of votes of just that very representative institution that has the honour of having them in the capacity of its members".
This expression was applied by Lenin to those who considered the parliamentarian system all-powerful, and parliamentarian activities the sole form of political struggle
It is an irony that the very boys who were groomed by P Sundarayya and Promod Dasgupta with an eye to leading the armed revolution, are today championing naked class collaboration. It would be wrong to think that the delegates to the 19th Party Congress were unanimous on all the debated topics. Some of them could not betray their feeling when the issue of Nandigram was raised. A section of delegates criticised the two faces of the CPI(M). How could the same party that opposes Posco in Orissa follow a diametrically different line?
In the truest sense of the term, Mr Karat and his comrades are keen to end the legacy of Mr Basu and Mr Surjeet. It is said parting should be graceful. But lo and behold, they bid good-bye to both the stalwarts without paying any tribute, which is so far a customary practice in the Communist movement.
Mr Nirupam Sen, the new entrant in Politburo, is known to be a serious student of Marxism. He is reported to be one of the few leaders of West Bengal who still reads. But he has his own method to look into things. Basically, Mr Sen is now the ideologue who leaves no stone unturned to prove that the "experiment" in West Bengal is a creative extension of Marxism. In view of the incomplete democratic revolution, he opines, it is the task of the CPI(M) Government to abate capitalism. He forgets that in Russia and China, the post-revolutionary capitalist phase was completed by the working class itself.
Mr Sen also has a simplistic explanation for the end of Russian socialism. He says it happened because it was not preceded by capitalism. I would request him to read the debate between Lenin and Georgi Plekhanov in 1917 along with Lenin's famous theory of "Weakest Link"? Perhaps he is aware of it, yet he defends his profuse love for the Tatas and the Ambanis.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Power and Protest fault line of CPM
Issue Date: Friday , April 4 , 2008 (Kolkata, Telegraph)
Power & protest fault line
BISWAJIT ROY
Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee in Coimbatore on Wednesday. (PTI)
Coimbatore, April 3: The CPM’s concessions to Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s policies often caused tension at the party congress, provoking attacks on his government by delegates from other states.
As some of the delegates spoke of “revisionism” and questioned the handling of Nandigram, central leaders told them they should be defending rather than criticising “our governments”.
Most delegates approved the “spirit” of the policy guidelines for Left-ruled Bengal, Kerala and Tripura that set down industrialisation as a necessary goal, particularly in Bengal. But some demanded stricter policies, especially on land acquisition for industry and special economic zones (SEZs).
The 40 delegates from Andhra Pradesh were the most vocal, and were backed up by the 16-member Maharashtra team and the 49 comrades from Tamil Nadu, insiders said.
“This would be a revisionist line if we have separate policies for states where we are in power and those where we are not. If we are to oppose land-grabs for SEZs, and those by realtors, we should do it everywhere,” an Andhra leader said. One delegate asked: “How can a Left government fire on farmers even if (their resistance) is Opposition-instigated?”
Another Andhra leader said: “We, too, faced the allegation of instigation when police killed our supporters in Khammam.”
This was after Bengal higher education minister Sudarshan Ray Chaudhuri had called Nandigram a US “conspiracy” and Howrah party secretary Sridip Bhattacharjee termed it an Opposition “plot”.
Politburo member M.K. Pandhe was moved enough to say: “Party leaders from other states must appreciate the difficulties of the party and governments in Left-ruled states. The difference in priorities in (different) states will be resolved through discussion and practice, but party workers across the country should defend our governments and highlight their achievements.”
General secretary Prakash Karat tried win the sceptics over this morning as he replied to the discussion on the policy framework.
“We are not running socialist governments…. After staying in power for 30 years in Bengal, we can’t tell the people, ‘We can’t deliver or fulfil your expectations because of our limited power’. So our policies should address the new challenges,” a delegate quoted him as saying.
Karat made it clear the party couldn’t grow in other states without defending the Left-ruled states, but urged the three CPM-led governments to ensure their policies did not work at cross-purposes with the party’s plan for growth in other states.
Bengal industries minister Nirupam Sen, who was promoted to the politburo today, admitted that the two priorities were yet to be in sync.
“We have held important discussions on how to run governments within the confines of a federal structure in some states without harming the interest of the party and people’s movements in other states,” he said.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080404/jsp/nation/story_9094604.jsp#
Power & protest fault line
BISWAJIT ROY
Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee in Coimbatore on Wednesday. (PTI)
Coimbatore, April 3: The CPM’s concessions to Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s policies often caused tension at the party congress, provoking attacks on his government by delegates from other states.
As some of the delegates spoke of “revisionism” and questioned the handling of Nandigram, central leaders told them they should be defending rather than criticising “our governments”.
Most delegates approved the “spirit” of the policy guidelines for Left-ruled Bengal, Kerala and Tripura that set down industrialisation as a necessary goal, particularly in Bengal. But some demanded stricter policies, especially on land acquisition for industry and special economic zones (SEZs).
The 40 delegates from Andhra Pradesh were the most vocal, and were backed up by the 16-member Maharashtra team and the 49 comrades from Tamil Nadu, insiders said.
“This would be a revisionist line if we have separate policies for states where we are in power and those where we are not. If we are to oppose land-grabs for SEZs, and those by realtors, we should do it everywhere,” an Andhra leader said. One delegate asked: “How can a Left government fire on farmers even if (their resistance) is Opposition-instigated?”
Another Andhra leader said: “We, too, faced the allegation of instigation when police killed our supporters in Khammam.”
This was after Bengal higher education minister Sudarshan Ray Chaudhuri had called Nandigram a US “conspiracy” and Howrah party secretary Sridip Bhattacharjee termed it an Opposition “plot”.
Politburo member M.K. Pandhe was moved enough to say: “Party leaders from other states must appreciate the difficulties of the party and governments in Left-ruled states. The difference in priorities in (different) states will be resolved through discussion and practice, but party workers across the country should defend our governments and highlight their achievements.”
General secretary Prakash Karat tried win the sceptics over this morning as he replied to the discussion on the policy framework.
“We are not running socialist governments…. After staying in power for 30 years in Bengal, we can’t tell the people, ‘We can’t deliver or fulfil your expectations because of our limited power’. So our policies should address the new challenges,” a delegate quoted him as saying.
Karat made it clear the party couldn’t grow in other states without defending the Left-ruled states, but urged the three CPM-led governments to ensure their policies did not work at cross-purposes with the party’s plan for growth in other states.
Bengal industries minister Nirupam Sen, who was promoted to the politburo today, admitted that the two priorities were yet to be in sync.
“We have held important discussions on how to run governments within the confines of a federal structure in some states without harming the interest of the party and people’s movements in other states,” he said.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080404/jsp/nation/story_9094604.jsp#
Thursday, April 3, 2008
What a shame ! CPM dictates to Cong. on foreign policy
http://www.freepressjournal.in/03042008/Edit2.htm
What a shame! CPM dictates to Cong on foreign policy
By M.V.KAMATH
[ There was a time when gherao was the prescribed form of throttling private enterprise in West Bengal. It was frightening. Today, violence takes other forms. The CPM, shockingly, now dictates to the Congress in the Central Government in matters of foreign policy and the Congress submits to pressures, meekly. It is to this sad state of affairs, that the Congress has been reduced.]
Isn’t there any way to bring the Communist Party to its senses? Throughout the years since first the party was established in India around 1929 it has played a divisive and sometimes murderous role. Particularly repulsive was its stand on the Quit India Movement. It is not necessary, in this context, to separate the CPM from the CPI. They are twins and share the same DNA.
Violence has been in their blood and the Communists, whatever their internal differences have been, have revelled in murder. The violence indulged by the CPM in Nandigram is consistent with its character. The murderous role of the Maoists is only too well known for reiteration. The CPM came to Power in West Bengal through violent techniques. It has stayed in power for the last three decades also through consistent use of violence. As Sunanda Sanyal, president of the Ganamukti Parishad wrote in Mainstream (27 December 2007) “the fact is, such a party as the CPM cannot survive in power without knocking hell out of the lives of the people”.
So infuriated were the intellectuals of Kolkata over the Singur and Nandigram events that 10 million of them marched on 14 November 2007, in unison, in Kolkata, to express their anger. According to Mainstream, itself a Leftist paper, “free India has rarely witnessed such a huge rally of intellectuals”. But the Nandigram massacre almost pales into insignificance in the context of the brutal killings in Kannur, a district in Kerala, where the CPM has been going crazy. Its target is the BJP and RSS, both of which are steadily gaining ground in the state.
In the first week of March, CPM goons hacked to death four RSS men while the police looked on helplessly. As a report in The Pioneer (March 8) noted, “Police stood helpless in Thalassery, Koothuparambu, Panoor and other areas of Kannur District known for the murderous politics of the CPM”. In one village, Dharmadom, houses of two RSS workers were bombed by CPM goons. The former were compelled to retaliate.
According to Mr. L. K. Advani, five BJP and RSS workers have been hacked yes, hacked to death by the CPM murderers since March 5.One RSS worker, who was also a teacher, was recently killed right in front of young students when he was taking a class. The scene is best not described in all its gory details. The Congress keeps mum. It wants CPM’s support to stay in power, even when its Leftist ally threatens to withdraw it on the issue of signing the 123 Agreement.
No self-respecting party would have accepted Communist support, considering its bloody role in the past. Is Sonia Gandhi, for instance, aware of the CPI’s role during the quit India movement? People’s War, the then United Communist Party’s organ ridiculed the quit India resolution and denigrated the clarion call issued by the Mahatma to do or die.
The paper went on to damn the Congress as a fascist organisation, naming as guilty not just the Mahatma but other Congress leaders as well. Subhash Chandra Bose who had escaped to Japan was similarly condemned as a Fascist what else? To curry favour with the British, CPI leader P.C.Joshi submitted to the government a 120-page report on how the communists have been disrupting the quit India movement in province after province, with total dedication.
That report could not have been improved upon by any other collaborator of the British or by any quisling. Joshi was so anxious to prove his party’s utility to the British rule that he claimed that he was doing a better job of stemming the Quit India movement than the British government itself! What is even worse, the CPI, in a thesis proclaimed that India was not one nation, but a collection of separate nationalities, that the demand for Pakistan was a just and democratic one and that the Congress must concede to the Muslims the right of self-determination.
In addition, the Communists helped police to arrest several hundred Congress volunteers, who were actively participating in the post 1942 freedom struggle and had them tortured. During the 1942 movement, the Communists were more loyal to the British than the King of England. They heaped insults on Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose and Jayaprakash Narayan, ran down the Quit India Movement as an indication of bankruptcy of Ideas and sided with China in the Sino-Indian conflict in 1962.
That, surely, was the most traitorous act, and so far, no apology has come from the party. The CPM turned out to be just an Indian branch of the Chinese Communist Party. In the last week of June 1967, Radio Peking announced that “a phase of peasants” armed struggle led by the revolutionaries of the Indian Communist party has been set up in the country side in Darjeeling District” and that “this is the front paw of the revolutionary armed struggle launched by the Indian people, under the guidance of Mao Tse-Tung’s teachings”
Yes, Mao’s teachings, not the Mahatma’s! China hailed the emergence of this revolutionary armed revolution, in the actual words of Radio Peking. Is Sonia Gandhi reading this? While the first sparks of so-called revolution were being lit in Naxalbari, another group of Marxists, under the direction of CPM leader B.T.Ranadive, were preparing for action in Andhra Pradesh. Their leader was Tarimala Nagi Reddy, who proclaimed the futility of the parliamentarian path and deliberately took to violence.
The Nehru Government had to respond by arresting and detaining as many as 50,000 CPM workers and sympathisers. The CPM today will argue that internal rivalries within the Communist movement as a whole led by different segments of the original party to various forms of violent activities should not be used to condemn Communism in toto. That is a poor excuse. For the ordinary people, unaware of the niceties of ideological differences, all Communists are the same violent prone, and it really does not matter whether different segments call themselves as CPI, CPI(M) or CPI(Marxist-Leninist).
There was a time when gherao was the prescribed form of throttling private enterprise in West Bengal. It was frightening. Today, violence takes other forms. The CPM, shockingly, now dictates to the Congress in the Central Government in matters of foreign policy and the Congress submits to pressures, meekly. It is to this sad state of affairs, that the Congress has been reduced. At every period of Indian history, since 1929, Communists have shown their true colour. First, they served Soviet interests. Subsequently, they were to serve Chinese interests which the CPM still does: Who can forget how the CPM described itself during the brief Sino-Indian War?”
It declared Chairman Mao as its own Chairman and it gave both overt and covert support to him. It is this party that is presently holding the Congress to ransom. The Congress quivers with fear and helplessness. But what can one expect from a party whose sole objective is not serving the country but staying in power? What do Sonia Gandhi and her sycophants know of India’s History for us to expect from them a sense of self-respect? A party once known for Gandhian non-violence is at the mercy of a party whose professed ideology is endless violence. It is to this sorry state that they have today come. Jai Hind! Jai Bharat!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT by Capt. (Retd.) Balakrishnan, IN : For a greater and detailed expose of these "RED QUISLINGS" , please read - "THE ONLY FATHERLAND: COMMUNISTS , 'QUIT INDIA' AND THE SOVIET UNION" - ARUN SHOURIE - ASA Publications, New Delhi".
A MUST READ IN MY OPINION.
BALA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMIE SPEAK!!!
- At the time of the British conquest, that is, towards the middle of the 18th century, the economic and political evolution of India was such that her people could be called ‘RATHER A NUMBER OF NATIONALITIES INHABITING A CONTINENT THAN A COMPOSITE NATIONAL UNIT. (REF: G. ADHIKARI (ed), ‘DOCUMENTS OF THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, 1971, pp 382.
- The Revolt of 1857 was a ‘reactionary flare-up of ‘decadent feudalism. Socially it was a ‘reactionary movement’ because it wanted to replace British Rule by the revival of ‘FEUDAL IMPERIALISM’ EITHER OF THE MOGHULS OR THE MARATHAS. (pp 383.)
- The overwhelming majority of the population lived in villages, steeped in ignorance and submerged in social stagnation. Politics, forms of government, National subjugation or freedom remained outside their concern and beyond their comprehension. (pp 383.)
- THE ONLY SECTION OF THE PEOPLE SHOWING ANY SIGN OF LIFE WAS THE MODERN INTELLECTUALS EDUCATED IN WESTERN METHODS AND THOUGHTS. THESE ‘DENATIONALISED’ INTELLECTUALS WERE INSTRUEMENTAL IN BRINGING TO INDIA, ‘FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER LONG EVENTFUL HISTORY, POLITICAL PATRIOTISM. (pp 383-384)
- he constitutional democracy or the ‘EVOLUTIONARY NATIONALISM’ advocated by the ‘LIBERAL BOURGEOISE’ led by the intellectuals spelled doom to the old social heritage and religious orthodoxy. And these ‘REVOLUTIONARY FORCES’ were crystallizing in the Congress under ‘radical leaders’ whose programme was NOT to revive the India of the ‘rishis’ with its contented handicraft workers saturated with ignorance and dosed in the name of ‘religion’, but to build a ‘NEW SOCIETY’ on the ‘RUINS OF THE OLD’. (pp 389-390).
- The struggle of the ‘RADICAL INTELLIGENTSIA’ was not against an effete and antiquated political institution but for the ‘DEMOCRATISATION OF THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT WHICH’- - - was the ‘MOST ADVANCED THE COUNTRY HAD TILL THEN. (pp 384)
- ‘ORTHODOX NATIONALISM’, in the social sense, ‘WAS THE RESISTANCE OF FORCES OF REACTION AGAINST THE OMINOUS RADICALISM OF THE DENATIONALISED INTELLECTUALS WHO LED THE CONGRESS’. The same forces whose military explosion was the Mutiny of 1857, ‘COULD BE DISCOVERED BEHIND THE POLITICAL THEORIES OF THE ORTHODOX NATIONALISM OF HALF A CENTURY LATER. (pp 390)
- Although its political philosopher and leader were found subsequently in the persons of AUROBINDO GHOSE and BIPIN CHANDRA PAL, respectively, ‘ITS FUNDAMENTAL IDEOLOGY WAS CONCEIVED BY A YOUNG INTELLECTUAL OF PETIT-BOURGEOIS ORIGIN. HE WAS NARENDRA NATH DUTT SUBSEQUENTLY KNOWN BY THE RELIGIOUS NOMENCLATURE OF SWAMI VIVEKANANDA- - -. LIKE TILAK, DUTT WAS ALSO A PROPHET OF HINDU NATIONALISM. HE WAS ALSO A BELIEVER IN THE CULTURAL SUPERIORITY OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE, AND HELD THAT ON THIS CULTURAL BASIS SHOULD BE BUILT THE FUTURE INDIAN NATION.’ ‘HE PREACHED THAT HINDUISM, NOT INDIAN NATIONALISM, SHOULD BE AGGRESSIVE. HIS NATIONALISM WAS A SPIRITUAL IMPERIALISM’. (pp 391-392)
- Thus an intelligently rebellious element which otherwise would have been the vanguard of the ‘exploited class’ in a social struggle, had to give in to national pre-occupations and contribute itself to a movement for the immediate overthrow of foreign rule, NOT FOR PROGRESS FORWARD, BUT IN ORDER TO GO BACK TO AN IMAGINARY GOLDEN AGE, THE FOUNTAIN-HEAD OF INDIA’S SPIRITUAL HERITAGE.’ ‘IN THEIR RELIGIOUSNESS AND WILD SPIRITUAL IMPERIALISM, THEY EMBODIED THE REACTIONARY SOCIAL FORCES.’ (pp 393)
- The ‘extremists’, now called ‘NON-COOPERATORS’, have had better success than the ‘MODERATES’ in drawing the masses under the influence of NATIONALISM---. But they could not develop the potentiality of the mass movement by leading it in accordance with the economic urges and social tendencies. Their tactics was to strengthen the nationalist movement by the questionable method of ‘exploiting’ the ignorance of the masses. AND THE BEST WAY OF EXPLOITING THE IGNORANCE OF THE MASSES WAS TO MAKE A RELIGION OF ‘NATIONALISM’. ‘THIS TACTICS LED TO THE APPEARANCE OF MOHAN DAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI ON THE POLITICAL HORIZON, AND THE ECLIPSE OF ALL OTHER POLITICO-SOCIAL TENDENCIES IN THE SHADE OF GANDHISM’. (pp 394)
- ‘ IN GANDHISM CULMINATE ALL THE SOCIAL TENDENCIES THAT HAVE ALWAYS DIFFERENTIATED THE PRINCIPAL TENDENCIES OF INDIAN NATIONALISM. IN FACT, GANDHISM IS THE ACUTEST AND MOST DESPERATE MANIFESTATION OF THE FORCES OF REACTION TRYING TO HOLD THEIR OWN AGAINST THE OBJECTIVELY REVOLUTIONARY TENDENCIES CONTAINED IN THE LIBERAL BOURGEOIS NATIONALISM. THE IMPENDING WANE OF GANDHISM SIGNIFIES THE COLLAPSE OF THE REACTIONARY FORCES AND THEIR TOTAL ELIMINATION FROM THE POLITICAL MOVEMENT’. (pp 394-395)
- ALTHOUGH SOMEWHAT UNIQUE IN ITS IDIOSYNCRASIES AND FANATICISM, THE GANDHI CULT IS NOT AN INNOVATION. DIVESTED OF THE REBELLIOUS SPIRIT AND THE SHREWD POLITICIAN IN HIM, TILAK WOULD RESEMBLE GANDHI IN SO FAR AS RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND SPIRITUAL PREJUDICES ARE CONCERNED. BUT FOR HIS VERSATALITY IN MODERN THOUGHT AND CHARACTERISTIC LOOSENESS OF CONVICTION, BIPIN CHANDRA PAL WOULD PERCHANCE JOIN THE MAHATMA IN THE PASSIONATE DENUNCIATION OF EVERYTHING THAT ADDS TO THE MATERIAL COMFORT OF MAN.’ HAD HE BEEN MORE OF A MONOMANIAC THAN A PROFOUND THINKER WITH METAPHYSICAL PREOCCUPATIONS, AUROBINDO GHOSE WOULD SUBSCRIBE TO GANDHI’S PHILOSOPHY.’( pp 396-397)
What a shame! CPM dictates to Cong on foreign policy
By M.V.KAMATH
[ There was a time when gherao was the prescribed form of throttling private enterprise in West Bengal. It was frightening. Today, violence takes other forms. The CPM, shockingly, now dictates to the Congress in the Central Government in matters of foreign policy and the Congress submits to pressures, meekly. It is to this sad state of affairs, that the Congress has been reduced.]
Isn’t there any way to bring the Communist Party to its senses? Throughout the years since first the party was established in India around 1929 it has played a divisive and sometimes murderous role. Particularly repulsive was its stand on the Quit India Movement. It is not necessary, in this context, to separate the CPM from the CPI. They are twins and share the same DNA.
Violence has been in their blood and the Communists, whatever their internal differences have been, have revelled in murder. The violence indulged by the CPM in Nandigram is consistent with its character. The murderous role of the Maoists is only too well known for reiteration. The CPM came to Power in West Bengal through violent techniques. It has stayed in power for the last three decades also through consistent use of violence. As Sunanda Sanyal, president of the Ganamukti Parishad wrote in Mainstream (27 December 2007) “the fact is, such a party as the CPM cannot survive in power without knocking hell out of the lives of the people”.
So infuriated were the intellectuals of Kolkata over the Singur and Nandigram events that 10 million of them marched on 14 November 2007, in unison, in Kolkata, to express their anger. According to Mainstream, itself a Leftist paper, “free India has rarely witnessed such a huge rally of intellectuals”. But the Nandigram massacre almost pales into insignificance in the context of the brutal killings in Kannur, a district in Kerala, where the CPM has been going crazy. Its target is the BJP and RSS, both of which are steadily gaining ground in the state.
In the first week of March, CPM goons hacked to death four RSS men while the police looked on helplessly. As a report in The Pioneer (March 8) noted, “Police stood helpless in Thalassery, Koothuparambu, Panoor and other areas of Kannur District known for the murderous politics of the CPM”. In one village, Dharmadom, houses of two RSS workers were bombed by CPM goons. The former were compelled to retaliate.
According to Mr. L. K. Advani, five BJP and RSS workers have been hacked yes, hacked to death by the CPM murderers since March 5.One RSS worker, who was also a teacher, was recently killed right in front of young students when he was taking a class. The scene is best not described in all its gory details. The Congress keeps mum. It wants CPM’s support to stay in power, even when its Leftist ally threatens to withdraw it on the issue of signing the 123 Agreement.
No self-respecting party would have accepted Communist support, considering its bloody role in the past. Is Sonia Gandhi, for instance, aware of the CPI’s role during the quit India movement? People’s War, the then United Communist Party’s organ ridiculed the quit India resolution and denigrated the clarion call issued by the Mahatma to do or die.
The paper went on to damn the Congress as a fascist organisation, naming as guilty not just the Mahatma but other Congress leaders as well. Subhash Chandra Bose who had escaped to Japan was similarly condemned as a Fascist what else? To curry favour with the British, CPI leader P.C.Joshi submitted to the government a 120-page report on how the communists have been disrupting the quit India movement in province after province, with total dedication.
That report could not have been improved upon by any other collaborator of the British or by any quisling. Joshi was so anxious to prove his party’s utility to the British rule that he claimed that he was doing a better job of stemming the Quit India movement than the British government itself! What is even worse, the CPI, in a thesis proclaimed that India was not one nation, but a collection of separate nationalities, that the demand for Pakistan was a just and democratic one and that the Congress must concede to the Muslims the right of self-determination.
In addition, the Communists helped police to arrest several hundred Congress volunteers, who were actively participating in the post 1942 freedom struggle and had them tortured. During the 1942 movement, the Communists were more loyal to the British than the King of England. They heaped insults on Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose and Jayaprakash Narayan, ran down the Quit India Movement as an indication of bankruptcy of Ideas and sided with China in the Sino-Indian conflict in 1962.
That, surely, was the most traitorous act, and so far, no apology has come from the party. The CPM turned out to be just an Indian branch of the Chinese Communist Party. In the last week of June 1967, Radio Peking announced that “a phase of peasants” armed struggle led by the revolutionaries of the Indian Communist party has been set up in the country side in Darjeeling District” and that “this is the front paw of the revolutionary armed struggle launched by the Indian people, under the guidance of Mao Tse-Tung’s teachings”
Yes, Mao’s teachings, not the Mahatma’s! China hailed the emergence of this revolutionary armed revolution, in the actual words of Radio Peking. Is Sonia Gandhi reading this? While the first sparks of so-called revolution were being lit in Naxalbari, another group of Marxists, under the direction of CPM leader B.T.Ranadive, were preparing for action in Andhra Pradesh. Their leader was Tarimala Nagi Reddy, who proclaimed the futility of the parliamentarian path and deliberately took to violence.
The Nehru Government had to respond by arresting and detaining as many as 50,000 CPM workers and sympathisers. The CPM today will argue that internal rivalries within the Communist movement as a whole led by different segments of the original party to various forms of violent activities should not be used to condemn Communism in toto. That is a poor excuse. For the ordinary people, unaware of the niceties of ideological differences, all Communists are the same violent prone, and it really does not matter whether different segments call themselves as CPI, CPI(M) or CPI(Marxist-Leninist).
There was a time when gherao was the prescribed form of throttling private enterprise in West Bengal. It was frightening. Today, violence takes other forms. The CPM, shockingly, now dictates to the Congress in the Central Government in matters of foreign policy and the Congress submits to pressures, meekly. It is to this sad state of affairs, that the Congress has been reduced. At every period of Indian history, since 1929, Communists have shown their true colour. First, they served Soviet interests. Subsequently, they were to serve Chinese interests which the CPM still does: Who can forget how the CPM described itself during the brief Sino-Indian War?”
It declared Chairman Mao as its own Chairman and it gave both overt and covert support to him. It is this party that is presently holding the Congress to ransom. The Congress quivers with fear and helplessness. But what can one expect from a party whose sole objective is not serving the country but staying in power? What do Sonia Gandhi and her sycophants know of India’s History for us to expect from them a sense of self-respect? A party once known for Gandhian non-violence is at the mercy of a party whose professed ideology is endless violence. It is to this sorry state that they have today come. Jai Hind! Jai Bharat!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT by Capt. (Retd.) Balakrishnan, IN : For a greater and detailed expose of these "RED QUISLINGS" , please read - "THE ONLY FATHERLAND: COMMUNISTS , 'QUIT INDIA' AND THE SOVIET UNION" - ARUN SHOURIE - ASA Publications, New Delhi".
A MUST READ IN MY OPINION.
BALA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMIE SPEAK!!!
- At the time of the British conquest, that is, towards the middle of the 18th century, the economic and political evolution of India was such that her people could be called ‘RATHER A NUMBER OF NATIONALITIES INHABITING A CONTINENT THAN A COMPOSITE NATIONAL UNIT. (REF: G. ADHIKARI (ed), ‘DOCUMENTS OF THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, 1971, pp 382.
- The Revolt of 1857 was a ‘reactionary flare-up of ‘decadent feudalism. Socially it was a ‘reactionary movement’ because it wanted to replace British Rule by the revival of ‘FEUDAL IMPERIALISM’ EITHER OF THE MOGHULS OR THE MARATHAS. (pp 383.)
- The overwhelming majority of the population lived in villages, steeped in ignorance and submerged in social stagnation. Politics, forms of government, National subjugation or freedom remained outside their concern and beyond their comprehension. (pp 383.)
- THE ONLY SECTION OF THE PEOPLE SHOWING ANY SIGN OF LIFE WAS THE MODERN INTELLECTUALS EDUCATED IN WESTERN METHODS AND THOUGHTS. THESE ‘DENATIONALISED’ INTELLECTUALS WERE INSTRUEMENTAL IN BRINGING TO INDIA, ‘FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER LONG EVENTFUL HISTORY, POLITICAL PATRIOTISM. (pp 383-384)
- he constitutional democracy or the ‘EVOLUTIONARY NATIONALISM’ advocated by the ‘LIBERAL BOURGEOISE’ led by the intellectuals spelled doom to the old social heritage and religious orthodoxy. And these ‘REVOLUTIONARY FORCES’ were crystallizing in the Congress under ‘radical leaders’ whose programme was NOT to revive the India of the ‘rishis’ with its contented handicraft workers saturated with ignorance and dosed in the name of ‘religion’, but to build a ‘NEW SOCIETY’ on the ‘RUINS OF THE OLD’. (pp 389-390).
- The struggle of the ‘RADICAL INTELLIGENTSIA’ was not against an effete and antiquated political institution but for the ‘DEMOCRATISATION OF THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT WHICH’- - - was the ‘MOST ADVANCED THE COUNTRY HAD TILL THEN. (pp 384)
- ‘ORTHODOX NATIONALISM’, in the social sense, ‘WAS THE RESISTANCE OF FORCES OF REACTION AGAINST THE OMINOUS RADICALISM OF THE DENATIONALISED INTELLECTUALS WHO LED THE CONGRESS’. The same forces whose military explosion was the Mutiny of 1857, ‘COULD BE DISCOVERED BEHIND THE POLITICAL THEORIES OF THE ORTHODOX NATIONALISM OF HALF A CENTURY LATER. (pp 390)
- Although its political philosopher and leader were found subsequently in the persons of AUROBINDO GHOSE and BIPIN CHANDRA PAL, respectively, ‘ITS FUNDAMENTAL IDEOLOGY WAS CONCEIVED BY A YOUNG INTELLECTUAL OF PETIT-BOURGEOIS ORIGIN. HE WAS NARENDRA NATH DUTT SUBSEQUENTLY KNOWN BY THE RELIGIOUS NOMENCLATURE OF SWAMI VIVEKANANDA- - -. LIKE TILAK, DUTT WAS ALSO A PROPHET OF HINDU NATIONALISM. HE WAS ALSO A BELIEVER IN THE CULTURAL SUPERIORITY OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE, AND HELD THAT ON THIS CULTURAL BASIS SHOULD BE BUILT THE FUTURE INDIAN NATION.’ ‘HE PREACHED THAT HINDUISM, NOT INDIAN NATIONALISM, SHOULD BE AGGRESSIVE. HIS NATIONALISM WAS A SPIRITUAL IMPERIALISM’. (pp 391-392)
- Thus an intelligently rebellious element which otherwise would have been the vanguard of the ‘exploited class’ in a social struggle, had to give in to national pre-occupations and contribute itself to a movement for the immediate overthrow of foreign rule, NOT FOR PROGRESS FORWARD, BUT IN ORDER TO GO BACK TO AN IMAGINARY GOLDEN AGE, THE FOUNTAIN-HEAD OF INDIA’S SPIRITUAL HERITAGE.’ ‘IN THEIR RELIGIOUSNESS AND WILD SPIRITUAL IMPERIALISM, THEY EMBODIED THE REACTIONARY SOCIAL FORCES.’ (pp 393)
- The ‘extremists’, now called ‘NON-COOPERATORS’, have had better success than the ‘MODERATES’ in drawing the masses under the influence of NATIONALISM---. But they could not develop the potentiality of the mass movement by leading it in accordance with the economic urges and social tendencies. Their tactics was to strengthen the nationalist movement by the questionable method of ‘exploiting’ the ignorance of the masses. AND THE BEST WAY OF EXPLOITING THE IGNORANCE OF THE MASSES WAS TO MAKE A RELIGION OF ‘NATIONALISM’. ‘THIS TACTICS LED TO THE APPEARANCE OF MOHAN DAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI ON THE POLITICAL HORIZON, AND THE ECLIPSE OF ALL OTHER POLITICO-SOCIAL TENDENCIES IN THE SHADE OF GANDHISM’. (pp 394)
- ‘ IN GANDHISM CULMINATE ALL THE SOCIAL TENDENCIES THAT HAVE ALWAYS DIFFERENTIATED THE PRINCIPAL TENDENCIES OF INDIAN NATIONALISM. IN FACT, GANDHISM IS THE ACUTEST AND MOST DESPERATE MANIFESTATION OF THE FORCES OF REACTION TRYING TO HOLD THEIR OWN AGAINST THE OBJECTIVELY REVOLUTIONARY TENDENCIES CONTAINED IN THE LIBERAL BOURGEOIS NATIONALISM. THE IMPENDING WANE OF GANDHISM SIGNIFIES THE COLLAPSE OF THE REACTIONARY FORCES AND THEIR TOTAL ELIMINATION FROM THE POLITICAL MOVEMENT’. (pp 394-395)
- ALTHOUGH SOMEWHAT UNIQUE IN ITS IDIOSYNCRASIES AND FANATICISM, THE GANDHI CULT IS NOT AN INNOVATION. DIVESTED OF THE REBELLIOUS SPIRIT AND THE SHREWD POLITICIAN IN HIM, TILAK WOULD RESEMBLE GANDHI IN SO FAR AS RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND SPIRITUAL PREJUDICES ARE CONCERNED. BUT FOR HIS VERSATALITY IN MODERN THOUGHT AND CHARACTERISTIC LOOSENESS OF CONVICTION, BIPIN CHANDRA PAL WOULD PERCHANCE JOIN THE MAHATMA IN THE PASSIONATE DENUNCIATION OF EVERYTHING THAT ADDS TO THE MATERIAL COMFORT OF MAN.’ HAD HE BEEN MORE OF A MONOMANIAC THAN A PROFOUND THINKER WITH METAPHYSICAL PREOCCUPATIONS, AUROBINDO GHOSE WOULD SUBSCRIBE TO GANDHI’S PHILOSOPHY.’( pp 396-397)
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Mamata names CPM's Buddha 'merchant of terror'
Mamata names Buddha ‘merchant of terror’
Express news service (April 3, 2008; Indian Express)
Posted online: Thursday, April 03, 2008 at 0124 hrs IST
Kolkata, April 02
Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee today termed Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee as “merchant of terror” for the alleged role of the state government in Nandigram violence.
“Buddhadeb babu has set the whole state on fire and there seems to be no rule of law in the state. He is the merchant of terror. It’s time the people of West Bengal took a pledge and threw his government away,” Mamata said at a citizens’ convention held at Mahajati Sadan which was also attended by Prabhas Ghosh, general secretary of the SUCI.
Mamata said alliance with the SUCI was because of the demand from people she decided to join hands with the SUCI. “What’s wrong with joining hands with SUCI. All the forces who are opposed to the CPM should unite and fight the Fascists,” she added.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Mamata-names-Buddha-merchant-of-terror/291893/
Express news service (April 3, 2008; Indian Express)
Posted online: Thursday, April 03, 2008 at 0124 hrs IST
Kolkata, April 02
Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee today termed Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee as “merchant of terror” for the alleged role of the state government in Nandigram violence.
“Buddhadeb babu has set the whole state on fire and there seems to be no rule of law in the state. He is the merchant of terror. It’s time the people of West Bengal took a pledge and threw his government away,” Mamata said at a citizens’ convention held at Mahajati Sadan which was also attended by Prabhas Ghosh, general secretary of the SUCI.
Mamata said alliance with the SUCI was because of the demand from people she decided to join hands with the SUCI. “What’s wrong with joining hands with SUCI. All the forces who are opposed to the CPM should unite and fight the Fascists,” she added.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Mamata-names-Buddha-merchant-of-terror/291893/
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Scrap CPM and Chinese occupation of Tibet
Scrap CPM and Chinese occupation of Tibet
Karat of CPM utters the K-word; both CPM and Chinese occupation of Tibet should be scrapped, thrown into the dustbin of history.
CPM has shown its true colours as anti-national party. CPM owes allegiance to an extra-territorial power called China. It is time the genocide in Tibet perpetrated by the Chinese troops (calling it fraudulently, ‘peoples’ war’) is fully exposed and the Free World should start demanding immediate independence for Tibet, NOW.
Kalyanaraman
Free Tibet? Karat utters the K-word
- Leader draws parallel with Indian scenario, says protesters doing 'great disservice' to nation
OUR BUREAU (Kolkata, Telegraph, 1 April 2008)
A child at a rally for Tibet in Sydney on Monday. (Reuters)
Coimbatore/Behrampore, March 31: Prakash Karat today said those who supported the movement for an independent Tibet were doing "a great disservice" to India, which too faces the problem of secessionist demands.
"Those in India who want to join this chorus for an independent Tibet will be doing a great disservice to our own country. Are we going to support a free Nagaland? Or a free Jammu and Kashmir? Or those other secessionist demands?" the CPM general secretary asked.
Karat said he appreciated the central government's stand that anti-China activities would not be allowed on Indian soil. He favoured talks between Beijing and representatives of the Dalai Lama within the framework of the "one-China policy" to sort out their differences.
The CPM general secretary said there was a tendency to violate the sovereignty of nations in the "name of human rights" and "ethnic minorities".
He said he detected a "western design" in such attempts to break up nation states, and cited the instance of Kosovo. The CPM is against secessionism, whether it involves China, any other Asian country or a European nation, he said.
Karat attacked the BJP and National Democratic Alliance convener George Fernandes for their positions on China and Tibet.
The BJP has come out with a statement criticising the government's stand. Fernandes has urged the Centre to boycott China and refuse to allow the Olympic torch into India.
When he was defence minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, Fernandes had remarked controversially that China was India's enemy number one. Karat, however, cited how the Vajpayee government had to put on record that Tibet was an autonomous region of China.
"That is the correct position," the CPM chief said. "We want a dialogue between the Chinese government and the representatives of the Dalai Lama. Beijing has already said it is willing to hold talks provided the Dalai Lama does not want to go out of the framework of one China."
He added: "Some Indian politicians are toeing the line of certain western powers like the US which would lead to the break-up of larger states in the name of human rights or rights of ethnic minorities."
Asked for his reaction to the way Beijing had summoned Indian ambassador Nirupama Rao in the middle of the night to protest the attack on its embassy in Delhi, Karat said he was not well-versed in diplomatic practices.
In Behrampore, Murshidabad, foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee repeated the Centre's stand that Tibet was an autonomous region of China.
"In 1959, the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had provided shelter to the Dalai Lama on condition that he would independently (with full freedom) preach his religion but would not indulge in any kind of politics that may affect India-China relations," Mukherjee told reporters after inaugurating a BEd College in Suti, Murshidabad, about 275km from Calcutta. "The Dalai Lama is an honoured guest in India and a religious leader. When the Dalai Lama left Tibet for India, it was a part of China. Today, too, Tibet is very much a part of China."
Asked to comment on Fernandes's demands, he said: "When he (Fernandes) was defence minister, he had said that China was enemy number one. Then he went on a trip to China. It was in 1959 that the Indian government had formulated its stand on China, and it is still unchanged."
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080401/jsp/nation/story_9081131.jsp
Karat of CPM utters the K-word; both CPM and Chinese occupation of Tibet should be scrapped, thrown into the dustbin of history.
CPM has shown its true colours as anti-national party. CPM owes allegiance to an extra-territorial power called China. It is time the genocide in Tibet perpetrated by the Chinese troops (calling it fraudulently, ‘peoples’ war’) is fully exposed and the Free World should start demanding immediate independence for Tibet, NOW.
Kalyanaraman
Free Tibet? Karat utters the K-word
- Leader draws parallel with Indian scenario, says protesters doing 'great disservice' to nation
OUR BUREAU (Kolkata, Telegraph, 1 April 2008)
A child at a rally for Tibet in Sydney on Monday. (Reuters)
Coimbatore/Behrampore, March 31: Prakash Karat today said those who supported the movement for an independent Tibet were doing "a great disservice" to India, which too faces the problem of secessionist demands.
"Those in India who want to join this chorus for an independent Tibet will be doing a great disservice to our own country. Are we going to support a free Nagaland? Or a free Jammu and Kashmir? Or those other secessionist demands?" the CPM general secretary asked.
Karat said he appreciated the central government's stand that anti-China activities would not be allowed on Indian soil. He favoured talks between Beijing and representatives of the Dalai Lama within the framework of the "one-China policy" to sort out their differences.
The CPM general secretary said there was a tendency to violate the sovereignty of nations in the "name of human rights" and "ethnic minorities".
He said he detected a "western design" in such attempts to break up nation states, and cited the instance of Kosovo. The CPM is against secessionism, whether it involves China, any other Asian country or a European nation, he said.
Karat attacked the BJP and National Democratic Alliance convener George Fernandes for their positions on China and Tibet.
The BJP has come out with a statement criticising the government's stand. Fernandes has urged the Centre to boycott China and refuse to allow the Olympic torch into India.
When he was defence minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, Fernandes had remarked controversially that China was India's enemy number one. Karat, however, cited how the Vajpayee government had to put on record that Tibet was an autonomous region of China.
"That is the correct position," the CPM chief said. "We want a dialogue between the Chinese government and the representatives of the Dalai Lama. Beijing has already said it is willing to hold talks provided the Dalai Lama does not want to go out of the framework of one China."
He added: "Some Indian politicians are toeing the line of certain western powers like the US which would lead to the break-up of larger states in the name of human rights or rights of ethnic minorities."
Asked for his reaction to the way Beijing had summoned Indian ambassador Nirupama Rao in the middle of the night to protest the attack on its embassy in Delhi, Karat said he was not well-versed in diplomatic practices.
In Behrampore, Murshidabad, foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee repeated the Centre's stand that Tibet was an autonomous region of China.
"In 1959, the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had provided shelter to the Dalai Lama on condition that he would independently (with full freedom) preach his religion but would not indulge in any kind of politics that may affect India-China relations," Mukherjee told reporters after inaugurating a BEd College in Suti, Murshidabad, about 275km from Calcutta. "The Dalai Lama is an honoured guest in India and a religious leader. When the Dalai Lama left Tibet for India, it was a part of China. Today, too, Tibet is very much a part of China."
Asked to comment on Fernandes's demands, he said: "When he (Fernandes) was defence minister, he had said that China was enemy number one. Then he went on a trip to China. It was in 1959 that the Indian government had formulated its stand on China, and it is still unchanged."
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080401/jsp/nation/story_9081131.jsp
Scrap CPM and Chinese occupation of Tibet
Scrap CPM and Chinese occupation of Tibet
Karat of CPM utters the K-word; both CPM and Chinese occupation of Tibet should be scrapped, thrown into the dustbin of history.
CPM has shown its true colours as anti-national party. CPM owes allegiance to an extra-territorial power called China. It is time the genocide in Tibet perpetrated by the Chinese troops (calling it fraudulently, ‘peoples’ war’) is fully exposed and the Free World should start demanding immediate independence for Tibet, NOW.
Kalyanaraman
Free Tibet? Karat utters the K-word
- Leader draws parallel with Indian scenario, says protesters doing 'great disservice' to nation
OUR BUREAU (Kolkata, Telegraph, 1 April 2008)
A child at a rally for Tibet in Sydney on Monday. (Reuters)
Coimbatore/Behrampore, March 31: Prakash Karat today said those who supported the movement for an independent Tibet were doing "a great disservice" to India, which too faces the problem of secessionist demands.
"Those in India who want to join this chorus for an independent Tibet will be doing a great disservice to our own country. Are we going to support a free Nagaland? Or a free Jammu and Kashmir? Or those other secessionist demands?" the CPM general secretary asked.
Karat said he appreciated the central government's stand that anti-China activities would not be allowed on Indian soil. He favoured talks between Beijing and representatives of the Dalai Lama within the framework of the "one-China policy" to sort out their differences.
The CPM general secretary said there was a tendency to violate the sovereignty of nations in the "name of human rights" and "ethnic minorities".
He said he detected a "western design" in such attempts to break up nation states, and cited the instance of Kosovo. The CPM is against secessionism, whether it involves China, any other Asian country or a European nation, he said.
Karat attacked the BJP and National Democratic Alliance convener George Fernandes for their positions on China and Tibet.
The BJP has come out with a statement criticising the government's stand. Fernandes has urged the Centre to boycott China and refuse to allow the Olympic torch into India.
When he was defence minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, Fernandes had remarked controversially that China was India's enemy number one. Karat, however, cited how the Vajpayee government had to put on record that Tibet was an autonomous region of China.
"That is the correct position," the CPM chief said. "We want a dialogue between the Chinese government and the representatives of the Dalai Lama. Beijing has already said it is willing to hold talks provided the Dalai Lama does not want to go out of the framework of one China."
He added: "Some Indian politicians are toeing the line of certain western powers like the US which would lead to the break-up of larger states in the name of human rights or rights of ethnic minorities."
Asked for his reaction to the way Beijing had summoned Indian ambassador Nirupama Rao in the middle of the night to protest the attack on its embassy in Delhi, Karat said he was not well-versed in diplomatic practices.
In Behrampore, Murshidabad, foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee repeated the Centre's stand that Tibet was an autonomous region of China.
"In 1959, the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had provided shelter to the Dalai Lama on condition that he would independently (with full freedom) preach his religion but would not indulge in any kind of politics that may affect India-China relations," Mukherjee told reporters after inaugurating a BEd College in Suti, Murshidabad, about 275km from Calcutta. "The Dalai Lama is an honoured guest in India and a religious leader. When the Dalai Lama left Tibet for India, it was a part of China. Today, too, Tibet is very much a part of China."
Asked to comment on Fernandes's demands, he said: "When he (Fernandes) was defence minister, he had said that China was enemy number one. Then he went on a trip to China. It was in 1959 that the Indian government had formulated its stand on China, and it is still unchanged."
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080401/jsp/nation/story_9081131.jsp
Karat of CPM utters the K-word; both CPM and Chinese occupation of Tibet should be scrapped, thrown into the dustbin of history.
CPM has shown its true colours as anti-national party. CPM owes allegiance to an extra-territorial power called China. It is time the genocide in Tibet perpetrated by the Chinese troops (calling it fraudulently, ‘peoples’ war’) is fully exposed and the Free World should start demanding immediate independence for Tibet, NOW.
Kalyanaraman
Free Tibet? Karat utters the K-word
- Leader draws parallel with Indian scenario, says protesters doing 'great disservice' to nation
OUR BUREAU (Kolkata, Telegraph, 1 April 2008)
A child at a rally for Tibet in Sydney on Monday. (Reuters)
Coimbatore/Behrampore, March 31: Prakash Karat today said those who supported the movement for an independent Tibet were doing "a great disservice" to India, which too faces the problem of secessionist demands.
"Those in India who want to join this chorus for an independent Tibet will be doing a great disservice to our own country. Are we going to support a free Nagaland? Or a free Jammu and Kashmir? Or those other secessionist demands?" the CPM general secretary asked.
Karat said he appreciated the central government's stand that anti-China activities would not be allowed on Indian soil. He favoured talks between Beijing and representatives of the Dalai Lama within the framework of the "one-China policy" to sort out their differences.
The CPM general secretary said there was a tendency to violate the sovereignty of nations in the "name of human rights" and "ethnic minorities".
He said he detected a "western design" in such attempts to break up nation states, and cited the instance of Kosovo. The CPM is against secessionism, whether it involves China, any other Asian country or a European nation, he said.
Karat attacked the BJP and National Democratic Alliance convener George Fernandes for their positions on China and Tibet.
The BJP has come out with a statement criticising the government's stand. Fernandes has urged the Centre to boycott China and refuse to allow the Olympic torch into India.
When he was defence minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, Fernandes had remarked controversially that China was India's enemy number one. Karat, however, cited how the Vajpayee government had to put on record that Tibet was an autonomous region of China.
"That is the correct position," the CPM chief said. "We want a dialogue between the Chinese government and the representatives of the Dalai Lama. Beijing has already said it is willing to hold talks provided the Dalai Lama does not want to go out of the framework of one China."
He added: "Some Indian politicians are toeing the line of certain western powers like the US which would lead to the break-up of larger states in the name of human rights or rights of ethnic minorities."
Asked for his reaction to the way Beijing had summoned Indian ambassador Nirupama Rao in the middle of the night to protest the attack on its embassy in Delhi, Karat said he was not well-versed in diplomatic practices.
In Behrampore, Murshidabad, foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee repeated the Centre's stand that Tibet was an autonomous region of China.
"In 1959, the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had provided shelter to the Dalai Lama on condition that he would independently (with full freedom) preach his religion but would not indulge in any kind of politics that may affect India-China relations," Mukherjee told reporters after inaugurating a BEd College in Suti, Murshidabad, about 275km from Calcutta. "The Dalai Lama is an honoured guest in India and a religious leader. When the Dalai Lama left Tibet for India, it was a part of China. Today, too, Tibet is very much a part of China."
Asked to comment on Fernandes's demands, he said: "When he (Fernandes) was defence minister, he had said that China was enemy number one. Then he went on a trip to China. It was in 1959 that the Indian government had formulated its stand on China, and it is still unchanged."
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080401/jsp/nation/story_9081131.jsp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
