Sunday, July 27, 2008

Are CPM members citizens of Indis? -- Rudrangshu Mukherjee

FANTASY WORLD OF KARAT (Telegraph, July 28, 2008)

- The CPI(M) must explain why it disregards the Constitution
Rudrangshu Mukherjee

In Stalin’s footsteps

The Communist Party wants a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy. — B.R. Ambedkar in his closing speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949.

Nearly fifty years later, is there any need to change this assessment of Ambedkar, which was made when the Communist Party of India was pursuing the policy of overthrowing the Indian State through armed insurrection? The answer is, in substance, no. The communists participate in parliamentary democracy and do not openly condemn the Constitution, but in practice pay scant respect to it.

Recent events have revealed the contempt communists have for the Constitution and its conventions. One of the most glaring instances has been the treatment meted out by the CPI(M) to the speaker of the Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee. He was summarily expelled from the CPI(M) because he had refused to resign from the post of speaker as the party had ordered him to do. The word summarily is used advisedly. Chatterjee wasn’t even given a chance to explain himself, or to put forward his own case. This is a clear case of the violation of the norms of natural justice that occurs frequently in barbaric and non-democratic societies, and such occurrences in civilized and democratic ones are almost always condemned. This kind of arbitrariness is not unrelated to the CPI(M)’s attitude to the Constitution.

When the Left decided to withdraw support from the UPA government, Prakash Karat and two other Left leaders went to the president with a list of MPs who were withdrawing support. (This incident itself calls for comment and I will come back to it later.) The list contained the name of Somnath Chatterjee. What did this inclusion mean? It meant that according to Karat and Co., Chatterjee, even though he was the speaker, actually belonged to the CPI(M). They had thus eroded the position of neutrality that goes with the office of the speaker. Following this came the request/order from the party that Chatterjee should step down. Chatterjee refused on the grounds that it was his constitutional responsibility not to show his party colours and to remain non-partisan. This led directly to his expulsion. There was a clear conflict here between loyalty to the party and loyalty to the Constitution. Chatterjee’s conscience told him that his loyalty to the Constitution was more important, hence his refusal to step down. Chatterjee is thus being punished by the CPI(M) because he remained true to the spirit of the Constitution and to parliamentary procedure and convention.

It will not be wrong to suspect from this that the CPI(M) considers its own rules and regulations to be more important than the Constitution, especially when the two are in conflict. This suspicion is confirmed by what many comrades have said about the importance of party rules.

Let me turn now to the incident that I flagged in an earlier paragraph. Karat and the other two Left leaders who went to meet the president with the list of MPs have no constitutional standing. They are not elected representatives of the people; they have no right or authority to speak for MPs. The correct procedure would have been for the leader(s) of the Left parties to have gone collectively or individually to the president to express their intent. Karat took upon himself this responsibility, thus showing either his ignorance or his disregard for constitutional propriety. (To be fair, it should be pointed out that the president should not have accepted the list from Karat and the other two.)

My argument is that this disregard for the Constitution among leaders of the CPI(M) is rooted in the basic contradiction to which Ambedkar drew attention even before the Indian republic was formally born. The CPI(M) sees itself as a monolithic and authoritarian party driven by something called democratic centralism. Its fantasy is that it is akin to the Bolshevik Party in Russia: a closed and underground party trying to bring about a revolution. Its delusion is that bourgeois democracy in India is a passing phase to be overtaken, sooner rather than later, by the dictatorship of the proletariat and the total dominance of the communist party. It does not believe that there should be any distinction between the party and the government, and the party and the State. All three — party, government and State — should be subservient to the general secretary of the party. This is what happened in Soviet Russia under V.I. Lenin and Josef Stalin. This is the power and position to which Prakash Karat aspires, as did general secretaries like B.T. Randive before him.

The practice of summary expulsion comes straight from the Soviet Union under Stalin. Stalin not only expelled, but even executed his victims without giving them a chance to speak. The charges were often trumped up, and the “confessions” obtained under duress. The victims were always subsequently maligned. Karat and the comrades can only expel and malign because members of his party, however much they criticize bourgeois democracy, enjoy the full protection of the bourgeois rule of law. The CPI(M) disregards the Constitution when it suits its petty political purpose, but it is not reluctant to enjoy the protection and the benefits that the Constitution offers to all citizens of India.

Prakash Karat and other communist leaders are quick to appropriate the moral high ground of Indian politics. During the drama over the trust vote, many communist leaders spoke about the incorruptibility of CPI(M) MPs. The assumption here is twofold. One is the MPs belonging to the CPI(M) cannot be bought at any price; and two, financial corruption is the only form of political immorality.

This happens again and again because of the contradiction between the CPI(M)’s fantasy and its reality. Its fantasy is that of a revolutionary party (politburo, central committee, democratic centralism and other shibboleths familiar to its members are straight out of the Bolshevik lexicon), and thus its party organization and discipline are all along Stalinist lines. But its reality is that it is forced to function in a multi-party democracy. When the mask of democracy falls, we see the CPI(M)’s ugly Stalinist face. Prakash Karat in the present conjuncture is that face.

The truth is that, as the illusion of the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes like the ever-receding horizon, communists have very little to hang on to. So a party like the CPI(M) clings on to its Stalinist organization. It provides them with the security that all is not lost. But it also makes them look ridiculous. At a more serious level, it raises the question: does the CPI(M) believe that the Constitution of India is above all other allegiances and loyalties? On the answer to this question — Karat and the comrades owe the country an explanation on this score — will depend if members of the CPI(M) can be considered citizens of India.

Unfortunately for Mr Karat, when he wakes up he will find the Indian Constitution is still here.

Karat compliments ‘comrade’ Chatterjee
BISWAJIT ROY (Kolkata Telegraph, July 28, 2008)

Calcutta, July 27: Prakash Karat is learnt to have spoken of Somnath Chatterjee’s worth in Parliament and referred to him as a “valuable comrade”, apparently to smooth ruffled feathers in the state CPM over the summary expulsion.
The general secretary today explained to the party state committee the “compulsions” that led to the expulsion after several leaders, like MP Tarit Topdar and minister Kanti Ganguly, joined state secretariat member Subhas Chakraborty in publicly cautioning about the damage it could do.

Some leaders suggested that it would be difficult to explain the action as people saw it as an act of revenge after the UPA government won the trust vote with Speaker Chatterjee presiding over it. Others said the expulsion had diverted people’s attention from the fight against the nuke deal and price rise and added to the Opposition’s ammunition months before the elections.
“We consider him a valuable comrade who was in the party for 40 years. We recognised his role in Parliament and did not want to lose him. It was unfortunate that we had to expel him since we could not compromise on party discipline. But we don’t harbour any animosity towards him,’’ a state committee member quoted Karat as telling the closed-door meeting.

In public, Karat maintained the tough posture. Asked if the party would allow an appeal by Chatterjee against the politburo decision, he said: “Our party constitution has various provisions for appeal. I don’t want to say anything more.”
The CPM constitution allows suspended or expelled members to appeal before state or central commissions.

Chatterjee has so far shown no inclination to knock at the commissions’ doors. The Speaker will be in the city tomorrow and is likely to meet party patriarch Jyoti Basu.

Karat denied any contradiction between his public position, which had left the Speaker free to decide whether to quit, and the expulsion for not toeing the party line. “It was for him to decide whether he would continue as Speaker. But it was for the party to decide whether he would continue in the party,’’ Karat said.
He said his presence at the two-day state committee meeting was “not unexpected or unscheduled”. It had apparently been planned to review the party’s showing in the recent panchayat polls.

At the meeting, Karat apparently said the leadership had given a long rope to Chatterjee before throwing him out. “We had left it to his conscience. But his conscience didn’t match the party’s conscience.”

CPM leaders had claimed that Chatterjee had agreed to step down despite his initial reluctance, but went back on his words later.

Karat said the Speaker had written to him after the Left’s withdrawal of support.
A central committee member said Chatterjee had tried to avoid a clash with the party. “Somnathda had declined to step down as Speaker before the vote as he was opposed to voting with the BJP. But he had offered alternatives.”

Quoting Karat, sources said Chatterjee had first wan-ted the party to allow him to continue till August 11 in view of “commitments” that included a trip to Kuala Lumpur for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meet and Amartya Sen’s lecture in Parliament. “Since it was not acceptable to the party, Somnathda was ready to step down before (the vote) but he refused to vote with the BJP. He also said he would resign from Parliament if he was forced to vote,” a leader said.

According to the party, Chatterjee had agreed to resign following Basu’s intervention but changed his mind later, saying he would step down after the July 22 vote. On July 21, the politburo had promised to consider his request on not voting with the BJP, but it wanted him to step down immediately. Chatterjee declined.
The politburo expelled him when he did not resign by July 23 evening.

Most state committee members said they were “satisfied” with Karat’s explanation, but the CPM’s embarrassment and worries were evident from its media communique, which neither mentioned the expulsion nor the explanation.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

CPM expels Somnath Chatterjee

CPI(M) expels Somnath Chatterjee

Special Correspondent (The Hindu, 23 July 2008)

The 10-time MP ‘seriously compromised’ the party’s position by refusing to quit as Speaker


Somnath continued as party member after his election as Speaker

CPI(M) asked him to resign before special Lok Sabha session

NEW DELHI: The Communist Party of India (Marxist) expelled Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee on Wednesday for “seriously compromising the position of the party.” The decision was taken at a meeting of the party’s Polit Bureau.

“The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M),” a press release said, “has unanimously decided to expel Somnath Chatterjee from the membership of the party with immediate effect. This action has been taken under Article XIX, clause 13 of the Party Constitution for seriously compromising the position of the party.”

Associated with the CPI (M) for the past four decades, Mr. Chatterjee, a ten-time MP, assumed the office of Lok Sabha Speaker after the United Progressive Alliance government came to power in mid-2004. He became the first Communist MP to be elected to the high post.

Official sources maintained that the expulsion would not have any legal implication for the position of Mr. Chatterjee as Speaker. The CPI(M) did not issue a whip binding Mr. Chatterjee – who was elected on its ticket but refused to resign his office. Under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, a member, on being elected Speaker of the Lok Sabha, is protected only in a qualified way. The provision is that he “shall not be disqualified under this Schedule…if he, by reason of his election to such office, voluntarily gives up the membership of the political party to which he belonged immediately before such election and does not, as long as he continues to hold such office thereafter, rejoin that political party or become a member of another political party.” Had a whip been issued binding him, Mr. Chatterjee would not have been protected from disqualification, as he continued to be a party member.

After the Left parties withdrew support to the UPA government on July 9, Mr. Chatterjee let it be known that he was determined to continue as Speaker. The 79-year old barrister turned down subtle hints as well as explicit messages from the CPI(M) leadership, including Jyoti Basu, who wanted him to quit the Speaker’s post. The party wanted him to resign before the two-day special session of the Lok Sabha, which began on July 21.

The meeting of the Polit Bureau, chaired by general secretary Prakash Karat, discussed Mr. Chatterjee’s defiance. It concluded unanimously that his conduct seriously compromised the party’s political position. The CPI(M) invoked Article 19(13) of its constitution to expel him. This provision dealing with party discipline states that in exceptional circumstances, party committees in their discretion may resort to summary procedure in expelling members for grave anti-party activities. The Central Committee of the party, which met recently, authorised the Polit Bureau to take appropriate action against Mr. Chatterjee at an appropriate time.

Somnath defiant

Mr. Chatterjee was defiant, taking the stand that he was above party politics given the nature of the post of Lok Sabha Speaker. He insisted that he would decide for himself and would not submit himself to any party line. The CPI(M) leadership would have none of this, pointing out that Lok Sabha Speakers such as the Congress’s Shivraj Patil or the Shiv Sena’s Manohar Joshi made no secret of their party loyalties and did not claim they were above the party or exempted from its discipline.

The Speaker’s office declined comment on his expulsion.

Defiant Speaker wins first round against party

Uday Basu
KOLKATA, July 22: Though the Manmohan Singh-government won the trust vote today, the Lok Sabha Speaker Mr Somnath Chatterjee won a different battle against his own party hands down.
The way he conducted the proceedings of the House, tongue-lashing his own “Comrades” who were trying to disrupt the debate, showed his no-nonsense and almost brutal neutrality, while making it clear that he was determined to give his party leadership a piece of his mind.
It was the CPI-M MP, Mohammed Salim, who incurred the wrath of the Speaker when he repeatedly interrupted the finance minister, Mr P Chidambaram's speech. The minister was explaining the legal intricacies involving the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement ~ the lynchpin of the Left's opposition to the nuke deal - and China's plan for the next two decades to step up its nuclear energy from the present 2 per cent. He tried to dissuade Mr Salim from interrupting him with the plea that he had “patiently heard him when he spoke yesterday” and expected the same “courtesy” be extended to him as well.
The Speaker immediately intervened, pulled up Mr Salim and told him that the House was “not a meeting place”.
Then it was the turn of a couple of Left MPs who joined Mr Salim in disrupting the proceedings. “I won't allow such indiscipline in the House. The whole nation is watching. Don't you belong to a disciplined party ? You are glorifying neither your party nor yourself,” he chastised them. The worst that the CPI-M MPs could expect from the Speaker was still in store for them. When the House was resumed after the unprecedented and “shameful” episode involving three BJP MPs displaying wads of money inside the House, the Speaker allowed representatives of some small parties to take part in the debate before the Prime Minister wrapped it up. He was determined not to let anyone else disrupt the proceedings any longer.
Mr Salim suddenly rose to his feet and tried to raise the alleged pay-off.
Immediately, the Speaker was at his acerbic best and asked Mr Salim whether he had personal knowledge about the alleged deal. “If so, why don't you come to this side (meaning the Chair)...” he taunted him. The Speaker had been at the centre of an unprecedented intra-party feud within the CPI-M as its general secretary, Mr Prakash Karat, was adamant that he step down before the trust-vote, while he was equally determined to defy him. His conduct in the House was another defeat of Mr Karat.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Commie regimes -- theory and practice; CPM's duplicity on nuke deal

Two related topics:

Full text of IAEA agreement.
Commie regimes -- theory and practice.

The two topics are related because Commies led by Prakash Karat have made a song and dance (so has the Congress spokesperson Shri Manoj Tiwari) about the agreement with IAEA on the nuke deal. Transparency? What transparency can be suspected among politico's of the empress variety making trips to St. Petersburg on chartered Reliance jets or the Karats variety seeking holidays in USA? (Prakash Karat has not denied so far his holiday in June in USA reported by Economic Times).

Why has Karat become a cry baby? Why didn't he ask for the draft IAEA agreement on day 1 of the coord meet with the empress of 10 Janpath supported by chamcha Pranab Mukherjee (with Manmohan playing difficult to get)?

It is all about deals, deals cut for saving the sattaa using the IAEA deal as a cover to avoid discussions on what concerns the aam aadmi. Poverty. See how commies deal with poverty in the scorching attack mounted by Kesavan Nair, a fellow-traveller.

kalyanaraman (Thanks to )

See Sheela Bhatt's review at

Points in India nuke text raise red flag at IAEA


Posted online: Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 0744 hrs IST

The draft nuclear safeguards pact India submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency on Wednesday contains ambiguities that must be clarified before the UN watchdog approves the deal, a leading expert said.

The IAEA said the safeguards text, which India hammered out with IAEA inspectors early this year and is a key element in a landmark 2005 US-Indian nuclear cooperation deal, had been sent to the agency's 35-nation board in Vienna after the New Delhi government gave the green light.

The draft, which was circulated by Washington-based think tanks, contained several points that "raise questions that board members need to get clarity on" because they would restrict international monitoring of India's atomic programs, said Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association.

He said a key red flag is raised by a clause in the draft that says India "may take corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies."

Disruption of fuel supplies would happen only if India were to resume testing of nuclear weapons and that loophole would blunt any IAEA effort to keep that country's civil nuclear power program from being used to augment its atomic arsenal.

"Does that mean that India intends to withdraw from what are supposed to be permanent safeguards if it tests and other states decide to terminate fuel supplies?" asked Kimball.

"If so, that is a big problem and the Indian government has not clarified what that means," he said.


India - one of just three nations outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - developed atomic bombs in secret and conducted a nuclear test in 1974, prompting the United States to ban sales of US nuclear fuel and reactor technology.

The draft, which in many respects resembles IAEA agreements with other countries, also omits a list of nuclear facilities that India has voluntarily agreed to place under IAEA safeguards, said Kimball, calling that "abnormal".

India's motives were not clear, he said, but added that it appeared "they're trying to preserve their options to put some reactors in or take some out" from IAEA scrutiny, depending on future bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements.

In addition to getting IAEA governors' approval, India must also obtain a waiver for the nuclear deal from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, where some members may resist the deal because NSG regulations ban trade with non-NPT states.

Proponents of the US-India accord say it will move the Asian giant's trade and diplomatic relations closer to the West and more broadly promote an alternative to high-polluting and expensive oil and gas energy in developing nations.

Critics say it will encourage nuclear proliferators and weaken the Western case against the nuclear ambitions of Iran or North Korea.

Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a former Bush administration official and proponent of the deal, said fears of another Indian nuclear weapons test were theoretical and India had too much to risk by testing.

"With the investments that they have made in this deal, the incentives not to test actually grow," he said.

"If India tests in the future, it will not be the first to test. It will test most likely in response to somebody else testing," added Tellis.

The Arms Control Association published the draft at:

Marxism failed in both theory and practice

By Jayapradeep Viswanath

(This article is based on the book written by Marxist leader

P. Kesavan Nair. He is frustrated with Marxism and his

expose has become a bestseller in Malayalam.)

As he seems, unlike other communist-turned-

anti-communists, Nair is never emotional. His

critical narration exposes Marxism. Cleverly he

quotes Bertrand Russell.

"Russell was one of the greatest scholars of 20th

century. Philosopher, mathematician, writer, etc., his battles

for world peace are legendary. Russell disapproved and

dissented Marxism till his end. The history gave

flamboyant approval to Russell's criticism on Marxism.

His reservations against communist governments are harsher

than against Marxism. Russell had been seeking answer to

two questions: 1. Whether Marxism is truth. 2. The

implementation of that gave human beings peace and

happiness. In the celebrated article 'Why I am not

Communist', Russell quests for the answer. Marxism is

not only not truth but also it supplies

only chaos, were his findings. The history

of socialist governments and Marxism

justify the findings."

"The concept of dialectical materialism and historical

materialism of Marx do not merge with the philosophy

originated from the modern science," Nair's theoretical

analysis goes on. "Marx imagined that the dialective materialism

is a law which rules the universe. He also considered it a

universal force which rules the human history, independent

of human ambitions. It is the same value that religion gives

to God's rules, that the Marx gives to the dialective

materialism. The communists misunderstood the

dialective materialism as the science of science. This

history-discarded principle is still the basic principle of the

strategy and swindle of the communists. The approach of

the communists, snuggling the failed techniques, is

highly conservative', Kesavan Nair swears.

From the theory he comes to the epitomes. "The incidents in

the socialist countries proved the theory and practice of

Marxism has no correlation. The destruction of Soviet Union

and Eastern Europe are examples. In regard to the

Marxist theories, these incidents are very important. According

to the Marxian view the theory is to be proved through practice. In that view, the devastation in Soviet Union

and Eastern Europe proves that in practice the

Marxian theory is a failure. In those countries and in China

the practice of Marxism ended in the bullying of predominance

of party leaders and their gourmet pursue. Communist

party leaders rejoiced in luxury, extravagance,

corruption, hedonism and wealth. Marxism was

establishmentlised in socialist countries. In China so-called

market-socialism is going on. Economy is capitalism while

the political system is 'socialism' ! In capitalist countries

the monopolists control the economical-political systems. But

in Marxism the economy decides politics. But Chinese

communist party says that the political system is decided

by economic system. What an irony! In China the party leaders

are the shareholders or veneer owners of the

industrial-commercial establishments."

"Imperialism is the apex state of capitalism, Leninism

says. Theoretically and pragmatically the prime opponent

of communism is imperialism. America is the main envoy

of imperialism. But the most favoured nation of America is

China. America's enormous investments flows into China.

Virtually now-a-days China is under the American boots.

Red China spread red carpet to Henry Kissinger, Nixon,

George Bush and Bill Clinton and now to the junior Bush.

Under the leadership of Communist party, capitalism is

bullying China. In normal capitalist countries

'independent democracy' is the camouflage of capitalism. In

China the camouflage is 'communism'."

"It was not with the people's involvement the 1917

October revolution cropped up in Russia. It was a

planned, conspired sabotage against the Kerenski government by the Bolshevik party led by Lenin during

the tail end of first World War. Lenin and those

intellectuals around him depicted it as a

labour-class revolution. Lenin who came to power in

Russia became the unquestionable leader of international Communism through shortcuts. After Lenin, more autocratically than Tsar, annihilating all the old revolutionarists, Stalin established the 'Commissar' empire. The brutality of Stalin beneath the iron curtain is indescribable. It was Khrushchev who lifted the iron curtain a little through his confessing speech in the 20th party congress of CPSU. The artists and writers who pointed out the autocracy of communist rule were branded as the enemies of working-class. The 75-year-long despotism of Communist rule ended up not due to any external force, but by the natives themselves."

"The government led by Lenin in the post-revolutionary period also was an oppression machine. The governmental terrorism was at its zenith when it was ruled by Stalin. With the rule of Stalin the identity of individuals waned out. The emotion, likes and dislikes, independent personality, the value of life, etc, become taboos. In the working-class totalitarianism, an individual withers to a scapegoat to scarify in the revolution."

The reason of becoming of Communist leaders as autocrats, is to be sought in the concept of Marx about revolution. Marxism opened up a vast vista for autocracy. 'Labour-class-totalitarianism' was brought about by removing the existing governments, and those who criticise such labour-class governments were, without any mercy, annihilated or wiped off. That were the basic lessons taught by Marx and Angels. In Communist countries, all those reign on the saddle of power become autocrats. Workmen and farmers have no role in the Governments. The ruling Communist leaders themselves become a 'Ruling class'.

'The Communists give an impression that, the working-class-totalitarianism is a rule of the majority. Not at least one example is available to show that the Communist Government is the equipment of the majority. During the devastation period of the Soviet Union, the apology of CPSU is worth notable. 'All country men' narrowed to 'working-class'. 'Party' constricted to its central committee, central committee to Politburo, Politburo to the General Secretary. Working-class totalitarianism and democratic-centralisation is the foundation. Democratic-centralisation transformed to the power-centralisation of the Secretary. In democratic-centralisation the difference between 'upper' and 'lower' become severe. The directions from 'up's are strict orders. Those who are in the lower committees are the slaves of upper committees.

'Between 1825 and 1917, under the rule of Tsar, the total slay was 6321. But, after the 1917 revolution, within the two months of 1918, the 'red terrorism' declared officially by Lenin did 15,000 killings. In the famine occurred due to the implementation of collective farming in 1932-33, the total carnage was 60 lakhs. In the cleaning process done by the party bumped off 7,20,000 people. Between 1934 and 1941, 70 lakhs innocent people were jailed in the notorious 'Gulags'. Of them the majority found their end within that camps. When Stalin expires 27.5 lakhs prisoners were in the Gulags. For vindictiveness towards their own people, the Communist leaders are more cruel than those of capitalists countries. In the famous book 'Gulag Archipelago', the celebrated writer Solzhenitsyn imparts that, 6 crores people were put to sleep in the Communist experiment in Russia due to the cruelty of the governments.'

'During the era of Tsar, the Russia was the granary of Europe. 1/6th land of the earth, with plentiful natural resources and minimal populace were the blessings of Soviet Union. Though they were ahead in Astronomy, Nuclear physics and Armoury, Soviet Union was trailing behind in agriculture and industry. Under Communists' rule the agony of Soviet people was relentless. Everything was in dearth. From bread to butter people queued up for hours. The Russian breadlines were notorious. Two crores of people involved in black marketing. Meanwhile curious voices for food and clothing were muffled like anything. During the rule of Communists', the workers and farmers of Soviet Union got only chains but no new world.'

'The turmoil is similar in China, Cambodia, North Korea and Eastern Europe. In China, the cultural revolution bestowed mass slaughter. Including Liu Shaoqi, the No.2 in the party leadership, with other top leaders ( the foes of Mao), one crore pretty 'comrades' were numbed in the name of cultural revolutions. A section of the world still believe that the toll is three crores. It is pity to find that those who killed and kill are Communists. In the ''Great Leap Forward'', lead by Mao, due to famine, another four crores of people dead. Nobody knows that, how many people were killed in Tiananmen square.

'The Pol Pot, the leader of Cambodian Communist party rejoiced by heaping skulls and bones in the 'killing fields'. During his regime, 30 million people were slaughtered. The red terrorism ran riot in north Korea and Eastern Europe.' 'The ideas and opinions of not of them were suppressed by Communism. Talented writers and scientists were forced to flee from those countries.

'Though the pre-streams are there, Marxism did not expounded in Western Europe. Though the political set up were based on Capitalism, Communism could not mature there. In the capitalist countries also, they could not mellowed. The poverty in the undeveloped & under developed countries welcome Communism, says Russell. Communism is the philosophy of poverty. It is the philosophy of insurgence and hatred. Poverty and starvation usher the Communist devil and its proliferation can be stopped only by poverty eradication.'

'The Marxism exported by the Communist totalitarianism-Government of Soviet Union to the countries like India, turned up like a bad penny as opium to the so called left intellectuals. They betrayed their poor brothers and sisters with its intoxication'.

(The author is a practising lawyer in Kerala High Court and Editor of 'Neethi' Magazine.)

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

CPI gets a beating in Bengal municipal polls

Left slips in Bengal municipal polls
BS Reporter / Kolkata July 02, 2008, 14:57 IST Telegraph

The Left Front lost further ground in the municipal polls in West Bengal, as the Trinamul Congress snatched away three municipalities of Medinipur (close to Nandigram), Habra and Guskara, while the Congress won Dalkhola in central Bengal and Dubrajpur, close to Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee's seat of Bolpur.

Trinamul retained its Diamond Harbour municipality 45km south of Kolkata, while the Congress retained its Haldibari municipality in north Bengal.

The Left Front retained its traditional red fortress, Barddhaman, 100km west of Kolkata and possibly the state's most prosperous non-metro municipality, as also Panihati and Chakdaha, two municipalities in industrial belts north of Kolkata, and Mekhliganj, Balurghat and Alipurduar in central and north Bengal.

As a result, the tally in the 13 municipalities that elected their boards was Left Front five, and the Trinamul and Congress four civic bodies each.

While the opposition parties were elated, CPI(M) leaders like Amal Haldar downplayed the significance of the results saying that voters in each of the civic bodies numbered some thousands only and did not represent a wave or a swing.

However, he admitted that the Left had not expected to lose so many seats. The opposition victory in Guskara, in Bardhhaman district, and Dubrajpur in Birbhum district, were real surprises as both the districts were Left fortresses where the opposition made a dent for the first time.

Opposition parties including the BJP which has opened its tally for the first time in the state at this level, said voters had turned against the economic policies of the Left which neglected overall development and favoured a few select industry groups for who the state was acquiring land from farmers indiscriminately.