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
http://dharma1.blogspot.com/2008/07/iaea-agreement-full-text.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3886481/IAEA-Agreement-text (Thanks to rediff.com http://im.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/iaea.pdf )
See Sheela Bhatt's review at http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/may/09iaea.htm
Points in India nuke text raise red flag at IAEA
Reuters
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.
'ABNORMAL' OMISSION
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: http://www.armscontrol.org/pdf/20080709_India_safeguards.pdf
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Points-in-India-nuke-text-raise-red-flag-at-IAEA/333834/
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.)
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=245&page=42
Thursday, July 10, 2008
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.
http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=10&bKeyFlag=IN&autono=41315
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.
http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=10&bKeyFlag=IN&autono=41315
Monday, June 16, 2008
How a poor CPM worker built a Rs. 2 crore bungalow
Govindasamy fall aftershock: CPM grapples with rot within
Monday June 16 2008 08:51 IST
K Karthikeyan
CHENNAI: The axing of CPM Legislature Party leader C Govindasamy for his ‘corrupt activities’ has sparked doubts among party cadre on whether the party’s ideology reaches the grass roots.
Shocked by Govindasamy’s fall after his rise from humble beginnings, the cadre feels there is a need for a reorientation course on party’s ideology for all functionaries.
A CPM leader said party cadre presented, at an executive committee (EC) meet, a blueprint of a 21 cent bungalow built at a cost of Rs 2 crore in Tirupur constituency and details of Rs 25 lakh transacted between Govindasamy and Tirupur Exporters Association (TEA) for settling a wage dispute.
Govindasamy’s woes were compounded due to his reported SMS correspondence with TEA office bearers on receipt of Rs 25 lakh at MLA hostel in Omandurar Estate in Chennai.
Party sources said CPM State EC member and Hosiery Employees Union Leader K Thangavel of Tirupur made strong remarks against Govindasamy in the meeting even as MP and Tirupur party incharge T K Rangarajan tried to sweep the case under the carpet.
Govindasamy took two senior TEA members to a minister and sought Rs 25 lakh to settle the wage dispute, said party sources. However, the ‘deal’ failed when action continued against mill owners.
This is not the first instance of Govindasamy facing allegations of financial misdemeanour. He was pulled up in 1989 for not surrendering his salary to the party.
Govindasamy also hit the headlines recently when controversy was raked up over streetlights developed through MLA fund in Tirupur constituency. Govindasamy could not be reached for his comments.
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE920080615223013&Page=9&Title=Chennai&Topic=0
Monday June 16 2008 08:51 IST
K Karthikeyan
CHENNAI: The axing of CPM Legislature Party leader C Govindasamy for his ‘corrupt activities’ has sparked doubts among party cadre on whether the party’s ideology reaches the grass roots.
Shocked by Govindasamy’s fall after his rise from humble beginnings, the cadre feels there is a need for a reorientation course on party’s ideology for all functionaries.
A CPM leader said party cadre presented, at an executive committee (EC) meet, a blueprint of a 21 cent bungalow built at a cost of Rs 2 crore in Tirupur constituency and details of Rs 25 lakh transacted between Govindasamy and Tirupur Exporters Association (TEA) for settling a wage dispute.
Govindasamy’s woes were compounded due to his reported SMS correspondence with TEA office bearers on receipt of Rs 25 lakh at MLA hostel in Omandurar Estate in Chennai.
Party sources said CPM State EC member and Hosiery Employees Union Leader K Thangavel of Tirupur made strong remarks against Govindasamy in the meeting even as MP and Tirupur party incharge T K Rangarajan tried to sweep the case under the carpet.
Govindasamy took two senior TEA members to a minister and sought Rs 25 lakh to settle the wage dispute, said party sources. However, the ‘deal’ failed when action continued against mill owners.
This is not the first instance of Govindasamy facing allegations of financial misdemeanour. He was pulled up in 1989 for not surrendering his salary to the party.
Govindasamy also hit the headlines recently when controversy was raked up over streetlights developed through MLA fund in Tirupur constituency. Govindasamy could not be reached for his comments.
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE920080615223013&Page=9&Title=Chennai&Topic=0
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Karat goes to USA to strike a deal to throw the nuke deal into the dustbin? It takes dollars to travel to US, Comrade Karat.
Why does a guy who normally goes to Beijing for a commie tutorial go to USA just two days before approving the signing of the nuke deal?
Karat goes to USA to strike a deal to throw the nuke deal into the dustbin? It takes dollars to travel to US, Comrade Karat. There ain't no free lunch in America, they say, Karat.
Anyone prepared to take a non-dollar bet? The deal will be signed and delivered before announcing the Lok Sabha poll.
Kalyanaraman
Publication:Economic Times Mumbai; Date:Jun 11, 2008; Section:Political Theatre; Page Number:2
Guess where comrade Karat is holidaying?
Our Political Bureau NEW DELHI
THE Communists here may be compulsive critics of George Bush but when it comes to holidaying, US is a preferred destination. CPM general secretary Prakash Karat, who spares no opportunity to lash out at the ‘Great Satan,’ is now chilling out in the Unites States.
To be fair to Mr Karat, he is not the first Indian revolutionary to vacation in the US. Former chief minister of West Bengal Jyoti Basu had to write that he was a Communist when he filled in his visa application for the US when he visited over a decade ago. However, the US has done away with that column in its application forms, which now do not seek details about the applicant’s political affiliations.
Mr Karat’s politburo colleague, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, was planning a visit to the US. But for past several months, problems have been raining for the Bengal chief minister, demanding his presence in the state. This forced a cancellation of the “advance team’s” visit as well. This team was supposed to be led by state commerce minister Nirupam Sen. Mr Karat and his wife Brinda Karat, who is also in the US, are understood to be visiting some relatives. Ms Karat had made a trip to the US last year for the launch of Shonali Bose’s film Amu in which the Marxist leader has a role. Incidentally, the parliamentary committee on women’s bill, of which Ms Karat is a member, is having its crucial meetings in New Delhi.
The CPM general secretary, who is learnt to have left for the US a day after the Manmohan Singh government announced the hike in fuel prices, is expected to return two days ahead of the meeting of the UPA-Left panel on the nuclear deal on June 18. The meeting is likely to witness the US-loathing Left rejecting the government’s plea to allow it to wrap up the India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
Soon after prices of petrol, diesel and LPG were increased, Left parties issued a statement criticising the government for the move and announcing a weeklong agitation. The CPM has been holding the US largely responsible for the global price rise situation and has not missed any opportunity to accuse the UPA government of succumbing to US pressure. The Left had protested president George Bush’s India visit, joint naval exercises and India’s vote against Iran.
AMERICA CALLING: Prakash Karat
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=RVRNLzIwMDgvMDYvMTEjQXIwMDIwMw==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom
Karat goes to USA to strike a deal to throw the nuke deal into the dustbin? It takes dollars to travel to US, Comrade Karat. There ain't no free lunch in America, they say, Karat.
Anyone prepared to take a non-dollar bet? The deal will be signed and delivered before announcing the Lok Sabha poll.
Kalyanaraman
Publication:Economic Times Mumbai; Date:Jun 11, 2008; Section:Political Theatre; Page Number:2
Guess where comrade Karat is holidaying?
Our Political Bureau NEW DELHI
THE Communists here may be compulsive critics of George Bush but when it comes to holidaying, US is a preferred destination. CPM general secretary Prakash Karat, who spares no opportunity to lash out at the ‘Great Satan,’ is now chilling out in the Unites States.
To be fair to Mr Karat, he is not the first Indian revolutionary to vacation in the US. Former chief minister of West Bengal Jyoti Basu had to write that he was a Communist when he filled in his visa application for the US when he visited over a decade ago. However, the US has done away with that column in its application forms, which now do not seek details about the applicant’s political affiliations.
Mr Karat’s politburo colleague, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, was planning a visit to the US. But for past several months, problems have been raining for the Bengal chief minister, demanding his presence in the state. This forced a cancellation of the “advance team’s” visit as well. This team was supposed to be led by state commerce minister Nirupam Sen. Mr Karat and his wife Brinda Karat, who is also in the US, are understood to be visiting some relatives. Ms Karat had made a trip to the US last year for the launch of Shonali Bose’s film Amu in which the Marxist leader has a role. Incidentally, the parliamentary committee on women’s bill, of which Ms Karat is a member, is having its crucial meetings in New Delhi.
The CPM general secretary, who is learnt to have left for the US a day after the Manmohan Singh government announced the hike in fuel prices, is expected to return two days ahead of the meeting of the UPA-Left panel on the nuclear deal on June 18. The meeting is likely to witness the US-loathing Left rejecting the government’s plea to allow it to wrap up the India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
Soon after prices of petrol, diesel and LPG were increased, Left parties issued a statement criticising the government for the move and announcing a weeklong agitation. The CPM has been holding the US largely responsible for the global price rise situation and has not missed any opportunity to accuse the UPA government of succumbing to US pressure. The Left had protested president George Bush’s India visit, joint naval exercises and India’s vote against Iran.
AMERICA CALLING: Prakash Karat
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=RVRNLzIwMDgvMDYvMTEjQXIwMDIwMw==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
CPM-Muslim-Christist bhai-bhai? No more.
CPM-Muslim-Christist bhai-bhai? No more.
The fraudulent, time-serving Marx-Mullah-Missionary alliance is unraveling.
Jayanth Jacob says there is a dent in CPM’s minority base. Read on….
kalyan
Dent in CPM’s minority base
JAYANTH JACOB (Kolkata, Telegraph, 11 June 2008)
http://telegraphindia.com/1080611/images/11court.jpg
New Delhi, June 10: The CPM may style itself a champion of minority causes but the proportion of Muslims among the party’s membership in Bengal has been falling steadily.
The revelation comes a month after the party lost two districts with large minority populations in the panchayat polls. And a year and a half ago, a central government-appointed committee painted a bleak picture of Muslims’ socio-economic condition in Bengal, ruled by the CPM for the past 31 years.
The CPM’s own data show that only 14.67 per cent of its members in Bengal are Muslim (as of 2007), down from 14.90 per cent in 2004 and 15.2 per cent in 2001. In absolute terms, there are only 47,190 Muslims among the 321,682 members of the country’s most vocally secular party in its citadel state.
In May, the Trinamul Congress had wrested from the CPM the zilla parishads in East Midnapore and South 24-Parganas, where land-acquisition fears are believed to have been compounded by Muslim disenchantment with the Left following the Sachar report.
The report, submitted to the Centre in November 2006, showed that Bengal’s Muslims lagged as badly in education, jobs and income as anywhere else in the country.
Bengal CPM leader Nilotpal Basu, however, said: “The minorities and weaker sections always believed in the policies of the CPM. I don’t think this percentage drop is something that can give one a definite conclusion about Muslims not joining the party ranks.”
Yet a similar trend is seen in many other parts of the country too (see chart). In Gujarat, where Muslims may be thought to be in dire need of a secular champion, only 6.38 per cent of the CPM’s members are Muslim compared with 9.59 per cent in 2004.
Tamil Nadu, a supposedly sunrise state for the CPM where it held the last party congress, also throws up an uninspiring picture. The minorities (Muslims and Christians are counted together in the state) make up just 2.74 per cent of the CPM’s total membership, down from 4.4 per cent in 2004.
Proving that the plunge in percentage has not been caused by Hindus joining the party in droves, the total CPM membership in the state has dipped from 94,343 in 2004 to 90,291.
In BJP-ruled Rajasthan, where the CPM is struggling to get a toehold, Muslim membership has nearly halved from 9.78 per cent in 2004 to 5.13 per cent in 2007.
Lok Sabha MP and CPM central committee member Mohammed Salim refused to call this a trend. “A drop in percentage in some states can’t be taken as a trend of minorities moving away from the party. Our party neither favours nor discriminates against anyone on the basis of caste or religion. Our members are from all religions,” the leader from Bengal said.
The CPM data do show a marginal increase in the proportion of Muslim members in Left-ruled Kerala and Tripura. But the percentage in these states is still very low, far below that in Bengal.
At the all-India level, Muslims make up 10.22 per cent of the party’s membership — 100,376 members out of 982,155. No corresponding figure was available for 2004.
However, the political organisation report placed at the CPM’s 19th party congress at Coimbatore had said: “More efforts should be made to recruit Muslim and Christian minorities in the party.”
“We need to come up with more action plans to inspire the Muslims and other minorities to join the party,” a CPM leader acknowledged.
http://telegraphindia.com/1080611/jsp/frontpage/story_9395243.jsp#CPM-Muslim-Christist bhai-bhai? No more.
The fraudulent, time-serving Marx-Mullah-Missionary alliance is unraveling.
Jayanth Jacob says there is a dent in CPM’s minority base. Read on….
kalyan
Monday, June 9, 2008
CPM, china-patriots in South Block
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-3111987,prtpage-1.cms
Red Star Over South Block
9 Jun 2008, 0105 hrs IST,
G PARTHASARATHY
As the Manmohan Singh government enters its last year in office, the contradictions in the approach to national security and foreign policy issues between a mainstream national party like the Congress on the one hand and the communist parties, which appear determined to make India a client state of China on the other, are becoming increasingly evident from the communist opposition to the Indo-US nuclear agreement. There are also other serious differences between the approach of the communists and virtually all other national parties on crucial issues of defence, national security and foreign affairs — differences that cannot be papered over any longer.
In its 2004 election manifesto, the CPM has advocated talks between India and Pakistan for a "denuclearised environment" in South Asia. This CPM formulation would result in India acceding to the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) by the back door and in China to becoming the only nuclear weapons power in Asia.
Interestingly, this formulation coincides with what China has constantly advocated since 1998, when it demanded that India should give up its nuclear weapons, sign the NPT and agree to UN intervention in Jammu and Kashmir, as demanded in the UN Security Council Resolution 1172 of 1998. These demands have been reiterated when China speaks of its reservations on the Indo-US nuclear deal.
The real reasons for Chinese opposition to the Indo-US nuclear agreement were voiced in an article in the August 2007 issue of the influential Renmin Jiabao magazine, which stated: "The US-India nuclear agreement has strong symbolic significance (for) India achieving its dream of becoming a powerful nation...In fact, the purpose of the US to sign a civilian nuclear agreement with India is to enclose India into its global partners' camp. This fits in with India's wishes". The CPM finds fault with the India-US nuclear agreement for precisely the same reasons as China.
While decrying India's nuclear weapons programme and making China the sole guarantor of nuclear security in Asia, the CPM overlooks the entire China-Pakistan nuclear nexus. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are of Chinese design. China has, over the past three decades, clandestinely provided Pakistan with nuclear weapons designs and technology, including plutonium facilities for manufac-turing thermonuclear warheads. Even if we sign a bilateral agreement for a denuclearised South Asia as the CPM proposes, how do we deal with clandestine Chinese proliferation to Pakistan? Moreover, the Shaheen-I and Shaheen-II missiles that Pakistan periodically tests, which are capable of striking at cities across India, are of Chinese origin. Despite this, the CPM joins the Chinese in expressing opposition to missile defence systems. Does the party want Indian population centres to be defenceless against attacks of nuclear-tipped missiles? Have CPM leaders ever voiced concern about the Pakistan-China nuclear and missile nexus to their Chinese comrades during their visits to the Middle Kingdom?
In July 2000, a CPM delegation including Jyoti Basu and Somnath Chatterjee visited Israel, met then Prime Minister Ehud Barak and discussed possibilities of increased investments and cooperation in a number of areas including agriculture, information technology and electronics, for projects in West Bengal. But, the CPM now vociferously objects to defence collaboration with Israel, knowing fully well that apart from sophisticated systems like missiles and airborne warning systems, the electronic monitoring systems that Israel supplies are crucial for checking infiltration across the LoC and safeguarding the lives of our soldiers. In its manifesto, the CPM steadfastly avoids any reference to Pakistan-inspired cross-border terrorism, while championing the cause of India-Pakistan dialogue, primarily to contain American influence, while Chinese influence in the region grows. One has yet to hear a CPM leader unequivocally condemning Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.
While condemning the foreign policies of the NDA government as being supportive of "US Imperialism", the 2004 CPM manifesto asserted that on foreign policy there is no difference between the Congress and the BJP. Unlike the CPM, which wants China to be the dominant power in Asia, with India denuclearised, the Congress party's 2004 manifesto promised to "fine-tune" India's nuclear and missile capabilities, while reiterating the country's commitment to nuclear disarmament. Moreover, while there is a broad-based national consensus on improving ties with China, virtually every political party in India has been forthright in condemning continuing Chinese claims to Tawang and indeed to the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh. The communists alone continue to waffle on Chinese border claims and maintain that it was India and not China that was guilty of aggression in the 1962 conflict!
Despite the Indo-US nuclear agreement, there is strong opposition in the non-proliferation lobby in the US to ending nuclear sanctions against India. An American academic opposed to ending sanctions recently noted: "We did not realise that your communists are as opposed to your nuclear programme as the Chinese. We believe that they would be as good allies as the Chinese in joining us to end your nuclear weapons programme. It's a pity that we did not realise this earlier". What our communist comrades fail to realise is that wittingly or unwittingly, their recipes for foreign policy and national security fit in beautifully with Chinese long-term objectives of isolating India by strengthening their own growing ties with the US, while getting others to undermine India's relations with the United States.
The writer is a former high commissioner to Pakistan.
Red Star Over South Block
9 Jun 2008, 0105 hrs IST,
G PARTHASARATHY
As the Manmohan Singh government enters its last year in office, the contradictions in the approach to national security and foreign policy issues between a mainstream national party like the Congress on the one hand and the communist parties, which appear determined to make India a client state of China on the other, are becoming increasingly evident from the communist opposition to the Indo-US nuclear agreement. There are also other serious differences between the approach of the communists and virtually all other national parties on crucial issues of defence, national security and foreign affairs — differences that cannot be papered over any longer.
In its 2004 election manifesto, the CPM has advocated talks between India and Pakistan for a "denuclearised environment" in South Asia. This CPM formulation would result in India acceding to the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) by the back door and in China to becoming the only nuclear weapons power in Asia.
Interestingly, this formulation coincides with what China has constantly advocated since 1998, when it demanded that India should give up its nuclear weapons, sign the NPT and agree to UN intervention in Jammu and Kashmir, as demanded in the UN Security Council Resolution 1172 of 1998. These demands have been reiterated when China speaks of its reservations on the Indo-US nuclear deal.
The real reasons for Chinese opposition to the Indo-US nuclear agreement were voiced in an article in the August 2007 issue of the influential Renmin Jiabao magazine, which stated: "The US-India nuclear agreement has strong symbolic significance (for) India achieving its dream of becoming a powerful nation...In fact, the purpose of the US to sign a civilian nuclear agreement with India is to enclose India into its global partners' camp. This fits in with India's wishes". The CPM finds fault with the India-US nuclear agreement for precisely the same reasons as China.
While decrying India's nuclear weapons programme and making China the sole guarantor of nuclear security in Asia, the CPM overlooks the entire China-Pakistan nuclear nexus. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are of Chinese design. China has, over the past three decades, clandestinely provided Pakistan with nuclear weapons designs and technology, including plutonium facilities for manufac-turing thermonuclear warheads. Even if we sign a bilateral agreement for a denuclearised South Asia as the CPM proposes, how do we deal with clandestine Chinese proliferation to Pakistan? Moreover, the Shaheen-I and Shaheen-II missiles that Pakistan periodically tests, which are capable of striking at cities across India, are of Chinese origin. Despite this, the CPM joins the Chinese in expressing opposition to missile defence systems. Does the party want Indian population centres to be defenceless against attacks of nuclear-tipped missiles? Have CPM leaders ever voiced concern about the Pakistan-China nuclear and missile nexus to their Chinese comrades during their visits to the Middle Kingdom?
In July 2000, a CPM delegation including Jyoti Basu and Somnath Chatterjee visited Israel, met then Prime Minister Ehud Barak and discussed possibilities of increased investments and cooperation in a number of areas including agriculture, information technology and electronics, for projects in West Bengal. But, the CPM now vociferously objects to defence collaboration with Israel, knowing fully well that apart from sophisticated systems like missiles and airborne warning systems, the electronic monitoring systems that Israel supplies are crucial for checking infiltration across the LoC and safeguarding the lives of our soldiers. In its manifesto, the CPM steadfastly avoids any reference to Pakistan-inspired cross-border terrorism, while championing the cause of India-Pakistan dialogue, primarily to contain American influence, while Chinese influence in the region grows. One has yet to hear a CPM leader unequivocally condemning Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.
While condemning the foreign policies of the NDA government as being supportive of "US Imperialism", the 2004 CPM manifesto asserted that on foreign policy there is no difference between the Congress and the BJP. Unlike the CPM, which wants China to be the dominant power in Asia, with India denuclearised, the Congress party's 2004 manifesto promised to "fine-tune" India's nuclear and missile capabilities, while reiterating the country's commitment to nuclear disarmament. Moreover, while there is a broad-based national consensus on improving ties with China, virtually every political party in India has been forthright in condemning continuing Chinese claims to Tawang and indeed to the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh. The communists alone continue to waffle on Chinese border claims and maintain that it was India and not China that was guilty of aggression in the 1962 conflict!
Despite the Indo-US nuclear agreement, there is strong opposition in the non-proliferation lobby in the US to ending nuclear sanctions against India. An American academic opposed to ending sanctions recently noted: "We did not realise that your communists are as opposed to your nuclear programme as the Chinese. We believe that they would be as good allies as the Chinese in joining us to end your nuclear weapons programme. It's a pity that we did not realise this earlier". What our communist comrades fail to realise is that wittingly or unwittingly, their recipes for foreign policy and national security fit in beautifully with Chinese long-term objectives of isolating India by strengthening their own growing ties with the US, while getting others to undermine India's relations with the United States.
The writer is a former high commissioner to Pakistan.
Friday, June 6, 2008
CPM -- the sinking ship being deserted
Imminent implosion?
Lookback: Udayan Namboodiri
Once hailed as an example of a perfect coalition, the Indian Left is coming apart at the seams. This week, the RSP formally gave notice to the 'big brother', but it remains to be seen whether the CPI(M)'s other diminutives are willing to stand up
Saturday Special is a sub-brand of a Right-wing paper. So why should we complain when the Leftists find themselves in an identity crisis, splinter off into warring groups, trade invectives, kill each other's cadre, etc? We think we should. As upholders of democracy's highest traditions, the Indian Right should not celebrate when its denouement time in the Leftist camp. Rather, the Left should be encouraged to recall their original raison d'etre and clean up their act.
In the process, India would benefit. The terrible wrongs that are perpetrated in the name of "globalisation", "liberalisation" and "restructuring" needs greater and greater armies of resisters. Dattopant Thengadi, the late founder of the RSS' trade union movement, often reflected that life would be much better for India's downtrodden if only the Indian Left discarded its Communist baggage. This week, Thengadiji almost found vindication when the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) announced on a national scale what its leaders had been mumbling in Bengali and Malayalam for quite some time. At a Press conference in Delhi, the RSP practically gave notice to the rest of the Left: Let's rebuild our movement or the revolution is doomed.
This should also be an opportunity to puncture the Left-lib bombast that holds that the Indian Right as necessarily capitalist, and, ergo, an American agency. Actually, a shakha-going chaddiwallah practices more socialism in his daily life than any JNU jholawallah. Simple living-high thinking had been celebrated as the basic sine quo non of the Hindu existence for some 7,000 years before some bearded Europeans in ugly clothes coined that ridiculous S-word. The poorest of the poor have a better chance in life in BJP-ruled Gujarat than Marxist West Bengal. Therefore, it's time Right-wingers reached out to their misguided friends on the Left, "detoxified" them of their foreign germs and marshalled their positive energies in the fight for equity and justice.
Saturday Special requested Abani Roy, a senior RSP leader and Rajya Sabha member from West Bengal. His home in New Delhi was host to a significant Press conference this week in which high-principled leaders from West Bengal and Kerala articulated for the benefit of the national Press the many strands of disquiet that they and their cadre felt in relation to the Left movement. Obviously, in a world that demands chew-size platitudes, the RSP was forced to spell out whether it is prepared for a Left movement that does not include the "big brother", the CPI(M). And, finally, Roy's party showed spine. Yes, was the unequivocal answer.
In his no-holds-barred reflections (Main Article), Roy justifies the RSP's decision not to walk out of the Left Front. The RSP was one of the first to moot the idea of a Leftist combine. The party had issues with the undivided CPI, but its founding leaders decided that these were secondary to the greater necessity of building a powerful coalition of parties committed to true socialism. So, the RSP fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the CPI in the movement to reduce tram fares in Calcutta (1953), the two food movements (1959 and 1966) and was part of all the Leftist coalitions beginning with the United Front in 1967 to Left Front in 1977. The picture in Kerala was identical. So, says Roy, why should the RSP ditch its own child? The sub-text is equally significant. If the CPI(M) has problems, then it should leave.
The other components in the Left Front are watching the developments keenly. At various times, the CPI and the Forward Bloc had not desisted from pulling punches. The Singur mayhem and Nandigram massacre had dragged much of the internal contradictions in the Left to the fore. Dirty linen, miles of them accumulated over three decades, began to be washed in public. But none other than the RSP exceeded the lakshman rekha. Its senior leaders in West Bengal often appeared more vociferous as critics than the sum total of the Trinamool Congress, the BJP and the Congress combine. For this, the RSP had to pay with blood. Last month, on the eve of the State's panchayat polls, CPI(M) hordes did not make a distinction between Trinamool Congress and RSP supporters in their frenzied determination to enforce one-party domination. In Basanti block of South 24 Parganas district, three RSP supporters were killed and their houses burnt. Left Front unity was manifest in only three of the 17 districts of the State. So, in the aftermath of the election, a time when the CPI(M) goes about avenging defeats, they did not even spare "RSP villages" in Nanur block of Birbhum district, where, on July 25, murderous Marxists massacred 11 Trinamool supporters.
Is this infighting? Actually, not quite. While their less fortunate comrades are dying and getting raped by CPI(M) cadre, the RSP's leaders are wringing their hands. These gentlemen have compromised with the devil for far too long and are paralysed by the fear of rootlessness that would surely grip them once they are out of the Front. In 1987, Jatin Chakraborty, one of the most venerable Leftist leaders of West Bengal, had to eat humble pie for defying the CPI(M). In his last days, he was seen sharing platforms with Mr LK Advani, then a sworn enemy of the Left.
Perhaps, Roy and his comrades entertain a faint hope that the CPI and the others would follow suit. Then, reading Manju Kumar Majumdar (The Other Voice), it is clear that the CPI(M) still wields absolute control. But accusations of "back-stabbing" or playing footsie with the Opposition cannot be good enough as adhesives. The ideological content having vanished, nothing but lucre of office holds the Left together. But that, in turn, is no insurance against an implosion. History holds up many such lessons.
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=oped&file_name=opd1%2Etxt&counter_img=1
Rebuilding the Left
Abani Roy
The crisis facing the Indian Left is deeper than ever before, says a plaintive voice from within. But who is listening?
India's Left movement is in a shambles. Many people thought that with the coming of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government to power on the back of Left support, there would be course correction in the country's neo-liberal economic reforms agenda. That has been proved wrong because the components of the Left movement are working at cross-purposes.
Therefore, the Revolutionary Socialist Party has taken up the onerous task of developing a sharper focus and saving Indian socialism. On June 2, we announced a giant meeting of all Leftist parties committed to making India a truly socialist state. The Maoists who wish to abandon the violent path and take to democratic methods are also welcome. There are many Left adventurists who are waiting for the right platform and this is the first time one such is going to be offered.
Questions have been raised whether this constitutes an act of rebellion on the part of the CPI(M)'s partners in the existing Left Front. At one level, this is nothing but a move to spread a unified Leftist, democratic struggle beyond West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. There are RSP, Forward Bloc, CPI and CPI(M) units in other States as well, but they rarely act in a co-ordinated way. But when perceived from the standpoint of Nandigram, Singur and all other flashpoints not only in the West Bengal CPI(M)--Opposition track but also with respect to the intra-Left disputes that they generated, our June 2 announcement naturally raises apprehensions. We don't deny that this is a warning to the CPI(M). They must undertake course correction and recall the original purpose of their birth. On the other hand, the CPI(M) has been invited to participate in the rally.
The CPI(M)'s top leadership, both in Delhi and the States, is peopled by arrogant people who often act in an immature way. They seem to think that they can do without consulting other Left parties. Mr Jyoti Basu is often recalled from retirement to patch up differences. The 93-year-old leader was once so distressed by the CPI(M)'s attitude that he publicly appealed to them not to break up the Left Front for at least as long as he is alive.
The Left movement has never been in such a perilous state. We supported the UPA because we thought it would check the rise of the BJP. But the opposite happened. The BJP has won most of the State elections since 2004. The Left did not undertake a single programme against the communal parties. Instead, it fought with the UPA on most issues. Here too, we did not insist on matters that affected our core concerns. The DMK had leveraged its strength in the UPA to block the privatisation of Neyveli Lignite Limited. But the Left parties merrily participated in the neo-liberal policies of the UPA. It is often said that when a Communist becomes a capitalist, he becomes much more evil than a life-long capitalist. That is exactly what has happened to Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, Mr Nirupam Sen, Mr Biman Bose and all those who justified land acquisition. Today, they are eating humble pie. They have scrapped the Dankuni and Salem project, but the damage has been done.
Recently it has come to light that the same Left parties that had shouted themselves hoarse over protecting the public sector, had blocked Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) from supplying equipment to the Sagardighi Thermal Power Plant in West Bengal. They misrepresented BHEL saying the public sector giant did not have the necessary expertise and the contract was given to a Chinese firm. Now, it is found that the Chinese sold the West Bengal Government sub-standard equipment.
The people of India are disgusted with the Left today. For this we have only ourselves to blame. People perceive the Left as blackmailers, deal-makers, China agents and all sorts of things. This is strengthening the BJP's cause. The UPA Government has also stopped consulting us. The UPA-Left Coordination Committee has lost all purpose. That's why the RSP decided to pull out. On Thursday, we saw how the CPI(M) used threats and intimidation to enforce a bandh in West Bengal. What was their game? Do they expect the people to believe that they were helpless in preventing the runaway increase of prices?
Mr Bhattacharjee had said at a public meeting in Kolkata soon after the UPA was sworn in that the Manmohan Singh Government would need the CPI(M)'s permission to do everything. And now, the same man is trying to fool people into believing that he could not have prevented the petroleum price hike.
Over the past two years, ever since the Singur land scam came to the fore, the RSP has been an outspoken critic of the Bhattacharjee Government's appeasement of capitalists. Now we are saying openly that the CPI(M) has not only weakened the Left movement, but also itself. The politicisation of the police force is so comprehensive that even I, as a Member of Parliament, find it difficult to get a FIR registered in a police station.
A CPI(M) local committee secretary has more powers than an IAS or IPS officer. In Bastanti, the CPI(M) murdered three RSP supporters and when the police came, a member of the victim's family was hauled away to the police station. Now, thanks to a very credible Opposition struggle, the people are finding the courage to give the CPI(M) a taste of its own medicine. We saw this happen in last month's panchayat elections in West Bengal. The same people who once rigged elections in West Bengal to help the CPI(M) win, now rig to help the Opposition win. Resultantly, the Left Front lost 50 per cent of rural seats. This may be the beginning of the end.
A question often asked is, why doesn't the RSP leave the Left Front if it is so unhappy with the CPI(M)'s big brotherism? There are two answers to this. First, the RSP has painfully built up Left unity right from the early 1950s in West Bengal and Kerala. We don't recognise the CPI(M) as the owner of the Left Front, but just another partner. So, we want to strengthen it further. Second, we would be nowhere in Indian politics if we leave the Left Front.
-- The writer is a Rajya Sabha member and RSP leader
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=oped&file_name=opd2%2Etxt&counter_img=2
Some of our allies are playing footsie with Opposition
The other voice: Some Communist partners are blissfully concentrating on weakening the Left Front. They even don't mind shaking hands with the enemy camp, writes the CPI's Manju Kumar Majumdar
Propping up a friend's foe is not only absurd but also goes against the ethics of coalition politics. Likewise, it is ridiculous to consider friend's enemy a friend. But some Left partners have earned the dubious distinction of finding friends in enemy camps.
These political outfits prefer to bask in the protective comfort of the Left Front. But at the same time, they have developed the treacherous cult of backing Left extremist forces who are avowed enemies of the Left Front. These Left adventurists not only hesitate to target the Left Front leaders at will but also philosophise the idea of subverting the Indian democratic system.
Clearly, the so-called nonconformist Left Front partners have lost direction as their dichotomous political stance might suggest. It looks quite outlandish for a political party with a distinct history to broach the idea of creating an "alternative greater Left Front" -- teaming up with the Maoists and other "compatible groups" -- and in tandem go about mollycoddling the Trinamool Congress, which was born in the lap of capitalism -- just because it opposes the CPI(M).
It is amusing to watch one responsible Front partner courting Opposition parties with mutually insoluble ideologies in an attempt to settle scores with another partner. This is not only new in the history of the Left Front but also underscores a one-eyed agenda to demean and soak away a powerful political ally. One would not have to go far to seek out a better example of political opportunism.
The loss of an adhesive in the Front can be explained in terms of a violent urge for settling political scores and a ballooning lust for expanded space in an already cramped political environment. Contrary to what one might have expected, equations have not improved after the panchayat elections.
Whether the post-poll situation will change only time will tell. But for now it seems that the odd-balls in the Front are out to make the most of the discomfitures of CPI(M) even if that means hitting the bigger partner below its belt.
Ideological differences sustain alliance politics. Thirty years of Left Front rule has seen partners differing on various issues. But things were handled successfully. The smaller partners, too, saw to it that such conflicts were not taken to a point of no return. Once out of the front meetings, the leaders never washed dirty linen in public. The Left unity became proverbial point of reference for the Opposition parties as well.
In alliance politics all constituents have their rights to express their views. As a Left Front partner the CPI also has its own ideological differences with other constituents, particularly the CPI(M). But our party believes in sorting things out behind the Front closed doors.
The Left Front was born through a history of class struggle. After repeated experiments we came together on the basis of a common minimum programme that the Front Government had by far managed to implement in a satisfactory way, even though we had to perform in a bourgeois democratic setup.
There is no doubt that the parties that back the Maoists on one hand and court the Trinamool on the other have anything but a Left alternative force in mind. Now they want the CPI to join their cause. But how can we promote political big-snatch in the name of constructive opposition?
Painting the bigger partner in bad light has become the order of the day. It is easier to criticise but difficult to practice self-introspection. It seems that the common vision of a Left alternative we had in mind before the formation of the Left Front has lost its relevance for some partners. They now want to carve out a political space for themselves when the 'elephant' has fallen in the ditch.
In other words, the conduct of these lesser outfits puts a question mark on their real intent. It seems a disintegrated and not a united Left Front is what they want. Whether or not the Left Front will be able to sustain this backstabbing only time will tell, but certainly it will help the capitalist forces, which have put on the garb of socialism.
Some Communist partners blissfully discount that achievement and concentrate on weakening the Left Front. While they go about shaking hands with the enemy camp, the question that remains is: Do you really need enemies while you have friends like these in the Left Front.
-- The Writer is the CPI's West Bengal secretary
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=oped&file_name=opd3%2Etxt&counter_img=3
Lookback: Udayan Namboodiri
Once hailed as an example of a perfect coalition, the Indian Left is coming apart at the seams. This week, the RSP formally gave notice to the 'big brother', but it remains to be seen whether the CPI(M)'s other diminutives are willing to stand up
Saturday Special is a sub-brand of a Right-wing paper. So why should we complain when the Leftists find themselves in an identity crisis, splinter off into warring groups, trade invectives, kill each other's cadre, etc? We think we should. As upholders of democracy's highest traditions, the Indian Right should not celebrate when its denouement time in the Leftist camp. Rather, the Left should be encouraged to recall their original raison d'etre and clean up their act.
In the process, India would benefit. The terrible wrongs that are perpetrated in the name of "globalisation", "liberalisation" and "restructuring" needs greater and greater armies of resisters. Dattopant Thengadi, the late founder of the RSS' trade union movement, often reflected that life would be much better for India's downtrodden if only the Indian Left discarded its Communist baggage. This week, Thengadiji almost found vindication when the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) announced on a national scale what its leaders had been mumbling in Bengali and Malayalam for quite some time. At a Press conference in Delhi, the RSP practically gave notice to the rest of the Left: Let's rebuild our movement or the revolution is doomed.
This should also be an opportunity to puncture the Left-lib bombast that holds that the Indian Right as necessarily capitalist, and, ergo, an American agency. Actually, a shakha-going chaddiwallah practices more socialism in his daily life than any JNU jholawallah. Simple living-high thinking had been celebrated as the basic sine quo non of the Hindu existence for some 7,000 years before some bearded Europeans in ugly clothes coined that ridiculous S-word. The poorest of the poor have a better chance in life in BJP-ruled Gujarat than Marxist West Bengal. Therefore, it's time Right-wingers reached out to their misguided friends on the Left, "detoxified" them of their foreign germs and marshalled their positive energies in the fight for equity and justice.
Saturday Special requested Abani Roy, a senior RSP leader and Rajya Sabha member from West Bengal. His home in New Delhi was host to a significant Press conference this week in which high-principled leaders from West Bengal and Kerala articulated for the benefit of the national Press the many strands of disquiet that they and their cadre felt in relation to the Left movement. Obviously, in a world that demands chew-size platitudes, the RSP was forced to spell out whether it is prepared for a Left movement that does not include the "big brother", the CPI(M). And, finally, Roy's party showed spine. Yes, was the unequivocal answer.
In his no-holds-barred reflections (Main Article), Roy justifies the RSP's decision not to walk out of the Left Front. The RSP was one of the first to moot the idea of a Leftist combine. The party had issues with the undivided CPI, but its founding leaders decided that these were secondary to the greater necessity of building a powerful coalition of parties committed to true socialism. So, the RSP fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the CPI in the movement to reduce tram fares in Calcutta (1953), the two food movements (1959 and 1966) and was part of all the Leftist coalitions beginning with the United Front in 1967 to Left Front in 1977. The picture in Kerala was identical. So, says Roy, why should the RSP ditch its own child? The sub-text is equally significant. If the CPI(M) has problems, then it should leave.
The other components in the Left Front are watching the developments keenly. At various times, the CPI and the Forward Bloc had not desisted from pulling punches. The Singur mayhem and Nandigram massacre had dragged much of the internal contradictions in the Left to the fore. Dirty linen, miles of them accumulated over three decades, began to be washed in public. But none other than the RSP exceeded the lakshman rekha. Its senior leaders in West Bengal often appeared more vociferous as critics than the sum total of the Trinamool Congress, the BJP and the Congress combine. For this, the RSP had to pay with blood. Last month, on the eve of the State's panchayat polls, CPI(M) hordes did not make a distinction between Trinamool Congress and RSP supporters in their frenzied determination to enforce one-party domination. In Basanti block of South 24 Parganas district, three RSP supporters were killed and their houses burnt. Left Front unity was manifest in only three of the 17 districts of the State. So, in the aftermath of the election, a time when the CPI(M) goes about avenging defeats, they did not even spare "RSP villages" in Nanur block of Birbhum district, where, on July 25, murderous Marxists massacred 11 Trinamool supporters.
Is this infighting? Actually, not quite. While their less fortunate comrades are dying and getting raped by CPI(M) cadre, the RSP's leaders are wringing their hands. These gentlemen have compromised with the devil for far too long and are paralysed by the fear of rootlessness that would surely grip them once they are out of the Front. In 1987, Jatin Chakraborty, one of the most venerable Leftist leaders of West Bengal, had to eat humble pie for defying the CPI(M). In his last days, he was seen sharing platforms with Mr LK Advani, then a sworn enemy of the Left.
Perhaps, Roy and his comrades entertain a faint hope that the CPI and the others would follow suit. Then, reading Manju Kumar Majumdar (The Other Voice), it is clear that the CPI(M) still wields absolute control. But accusations of "back-stabbing" or playing footsie with the Opposition cannot be good enough as adhesives. The ideological content having vanished, nothing but lucre of office holds the Left together. But that, in turn, is no insurance against an implosion. History holds up many such lessons.
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=oped&file_name=opd1%2Etxt&counter_img=1
Rebuilding the Left
Abani Roy
The crisis facing the Indian Left is deeper than ever before, says a plaintive voice from within. But who is listening?
India's Left movement is in a shambles. Many people thought that with the coming of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government to power on the back of Left support, there would be course correction in the country's neo-liberal economic reforms agenda. That has been proved wrong because the components of the Left movement are working at cross-purposes.
Therefore, the Revolutionary Socialist Party has taken up the onerous task of developing a sharper focus and saving Indian socialism. On June 2, we announced a giant meeting of all Leftist parties committed to making India a truly socialist state. The Maoists who wish to abandon the violent path and take to democratic methods are also welcome. There are many Left adventurists who are waiting for the right platform and this is the first time one such is going to be offered.
Questions have been raised whether this constitutes an act of rebellion on the part of the CPI(M)'s partners in the existing Left Front. At one level, this is nothing but a move to spread a unified Leftist, democratic struggle beyond West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. There are RSP, Forward Bloc, CPI and CPI(M) units in other States as well, but they rarely act in a co-ordinated way. But when perceived from the standpoint of Nandigram, Singur and all other flashpoints not only in the West Bengal CPI(M)--Opposition track but also with respect to the intra-Left disputes that they generated, our June 2 announcement naturally raises apprehensions. We don't deny that this is a warning to the CPI(M). They must undertake course correction and recall the original purpose of their birth. On the other hand, the CPI(M) has been invited to participate in the rally.
The CPI(M)'s top leadership, both in Delhi and the States, is peopled by arrogant people who often act in an immature way. They seem to think that they can do without consulting other Left parties. Mr Jyoti Basu is often recalled from retirement to patch up differences. The 93-year-old leader was once so distressed by the CPI(M)'s attitude that he publicly appealed to them not to break up the Left Front for at least as long as he is alive.
The Left movement has never been in such a perilous state. We supported the UPA because we thought it would check the rise of the BJP. But the opposite happened. The BJP has won most of the State elections since 2004. The Left did not undertake a single programme against the communal parties. Instead, it fought with the UPA on most issues. Here too, we did not insist on matters that affected our core concerns. The DMK had leveraged its strength in the UPA to block the privatisation of Neyveli Lignite Limited. But the Left parties merrily participated in the neo-liberal policies of the UPA. It is often said that when a Communist becomes a capitalist, he becomes much more evil than a life-long capitalist. That is exactly what has happened to Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, Mr Nirupam Sen, Mr Biman Bose and all those who justified land acquisition. Today, they are eating humble pie. They have scrapped the Dankuni and Salem project, but the damage has been done.
Recently it has come to light that the same Left parties that had shouted themselves hoarse over protecting the public sector, had blocked Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) from supplying equipment to the Sagardighi Thermal Power Plant in West Bengal. They misrepresented BHEL saying the public sector giant did not have the necessary expertise and the contract was given to a Chinese firm. Now, it is found that the Chinese sold the West Bengal Government sub-standard equipment.
The people of India are disgusted with the Left today. For this we have only ourselves to blame. People perceive the Left as blackmailers, deal-makers, China agents and all sorts of things. This is strengthening the BJP's cause. The UPA Government has also stopped consulting us. The UPA-Left Coordination Committee has lost all purpose. That's why the RSP decided to pull out. On Thursday, we saw how the CPI(M) used threats and intimidation to enforce a bandh in West Bengal. What was their game? Do they expect the people to believe that they were helpless in preventing the runaway increase of prices?
Mr Bhattacharjee had said at a public meeting in Kolkata soon after the UPA was sworn in that the Manmohan Singh Government would need the CPI(M)'s permission to do everything. And now, the same man is trying to fool people into believing that he could not have prevented the petroleum price hike.
Over the past two years, ever since the Singur land scam came to the fore, the RSP has been an outspoken critic of the Bhattacharjee Government's appeasement of capitalists. Now we are saying openly that the CPI(M) has not only weakened the Left movement, but also itself. The politicisation of the police force is so comprehensive that even I, as a Member of Parliament, find it difficult to get a FIR registered in a police station.
A CPI(M) local committee secretary has more powers than an IAS or IPS officer. In Bastanti, the CPI(M) murdered three RSP supporters and when the police came, a member of the victim's family was hauled away to the police station. Now, thanks to a very credible Opposition struggle, the people are finding the courage to give the CPI(M) a taste of its own medicine. We saw this happen in last month's panchayat elections in West Bengal. The same people who once rigged elections in West Bengal to help the CPI(M) win, now rig to help the Opposition win. Resultantly, the Left Front lost 50 per cent of rural seats. This may be the beginning of the end.
A question often asked is, why doesn't the RSP leave the Left Front if it is so unhappy with the CPI(M)'s big brotherism? There are two answers to this. First, the RSP has painfully built up Left unity right from the early 1950s in West Bengal and Kerala. We don't recognise the CPI(M) as the owner of the Left Front, but just another partner. So, we want to strengthen it further. Second, we would be nowhere in Indian politics if we leave the Left Front.
-- The writer is a Rajya Sabha member and RSP leader
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=oped&file_name=opd2%2Etxt&counter_img=2
Some of our allies are playing footsie with Opposition
The other voice: Some Communist partners are blissfully concentrating on weakening the Left Front. They even don't mind shaking hands with the enemy camp, writes the CPI's Manju Kumar Majumdar
Propping up a friend's foe is not only absurd but also goes against the ethics of coalition politics. Likewise, it is ridiculous to consider friend's enemy a friend. But some Left partners have earned the dubious distinction of finding friends in enemy camps.
These political outfits prefer to bask in the protective comfort of the Left Front. But at the same time, they have developed the treacherous cult of backing Left extremist forces who are avowed enemies of the Left Front. These Left adventurists not only hesitate to target the Left Front leaders at will but also philosophise the idea of subverting the Indian democratic system.
Clearly, the so-called nonconformist Left Front partners have lost direction as their dichotomous political stance might suggest. It looks quite outlandish for a political party with a distinct history to broach the idea of creating an "alternative greater Left Front" -- teaming up with the Maoists and other "compatible groups" -- and in tandem go about mollycoddling the Trinamool Congress, which was born in the lap of capitalism -- just because it opposes the CPI(M).
It is amusing to watch one responsible Front partner courting Opposition parties with mutually insoluble ideologies in an attempt to settle scores with another partner. This is not only new in the history of the Left Front but also underscores a one-eyed agenda to demean and soak away a powerful political ally. One would not have to go far to seek out a better example of political opportunism.
The loss of an adhesive in the Front can be explained in terms of a violent urge for settling political scores and a ballooning lust for expanded space in an already cramped political environment. Contrary to what one might have expected, equations have not improved after the panchayat elections.
Whether the post-poll situation will change only time will tell. But for now it seems that the odd-balls in the Front are out to make the most of the discomfitures of CPI(M) even if that means hitting the bigger partner below its belt.
Ideological differences sustain alliance politics. Thirty years of Left Front rule has seen partners differing on various issues. But things were handled successfully. The smaller partners, too, saw to it that such conflicts were not taken to a point of no return. Once out of the front meetings, the leaders never washed dirty linen in public. The Left unity became proverbial point of reference for the Opposition parties as well.
In alliance politics all constituents have their rights to express their views. As a Left Front partner the CPI also has its own ideological differences with other constituents, particularly the CPI(M). But our party believes in sorting things out behind the Front closed doors.
The Left Front was born through a history of class struggle. After repeated experiments we came together on the basis of a common minimum programme that the Front Government had by far managed to implement in a satisfactory way, even though we had to perform in a bourgeois democratic setup.
There is no doubt that the parties that back the Maoists on one hand and court the Trinamool on the other have anything but a Left alternative force in mind. Now they want the CPI to join their cause. But how can we promote political big-snatch in the name of constructive opposition?
Painting the bigger partner in bad light has become the order of the day. It is easier to criticise but difficult to practice self-introspection. It seems that the common vision of a Left alternative we had in mind before the formation of the Left Front has lost its relevance for some partners. They now want to carve out a political space for themselves when the 'elephant' has fallen in the ditch.
In other words, the conduct of these lesser outfits puts a question mark on their real intent. It seems a disintegrated and not a united Left Front is what they want. Whether or not the Left Front will be able to sustain this backstabbing only time will tell, but certainly it will help the capitalist forces, which have put on the garb of socialism.
Some Communist partners blissfully discount that achievement and concentrate on weakening the Left Front. While they go about shaking hands with the enemy camp, the question that remains is: Do you really need enemies while you have friends like these in the Left Front.
-- The Writer is the CPI's West Bengal secretary
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=oped&file_name=opd3%2Etxt&counter_img=3
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
