The Communist's of India
March 10th, 2009
Communism historically has a very unique twin track approach. On paper the ideals of communism are just wonderful and almost utopist in nature. When one walks through the utopian stage and dons the role of a full fledged communist the finer details emerge. The “The communist Manifesto” written by the demigod of communism Mr. Karl Marx makes quite an impact. His objectives did leave an impression on many and inspired a lot many after his time. He was a profound thinker and like most thinkers he was successful in drawing many to his thoughts. His writings appealed to the rebel in each Individual, by questioning everything. It questions civil and human rights, capitalism, and amongst others religion. It talks about class struggle. It promised a solution, an almost perfect solution that aims to rid the world of poverty, & class struggle and by bringing in an equal society. Almost like the speeches of today's politicians before elections in a democratic set up. It has an appeal that was and is hard to resist.
For a young heart, any kind of rebellion is adventurous, daring and fun because it promises action against today's evils and offers the solution that can change the world. That fatal attraction has drawn many a youth across various parts of the world to the ideology called communism. These youth fought with a song of revolution on their lips in the many of their battles against regimes across the world.
Since communist thinking was to change the existing set up, any one who prefers the continuation of the present set up is its enemy, and enemies are not ordinary enemies but enemies of the state, so they have to be eliminated. And that was done with great fervor. Consider these statistics
61 million killed in the Soviet Union
35 million killed in the People's Republic of China
2 million killed in North Korea
2 million killed in Cambodia
1 million killed in Vietnam
1 million killed in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1.7 million killed In Africa
1.5 million killed In Afghanistan
150,000 in killed Latin America
Indian communists have haven't been able to beat those numbers but the Nandi-gramam episode recently in West Bengal / India, demonstrated that given a chance they are capable of catching up to the numbers above and may compete quite passionately to propel themselves into the top 5. The communist chief minister of west Bengal said this statement after police firing on farmers who were protesting the take over the land, “They have been paid in their own coin”. Basically what he was saying was that we do thuggery in the form of governance. Indian Media would react in a principled way against any errors in governance but it’s natural to expect them to play safe when writing about all forms of thuggery in the form of governance.
Coming back to communism, unfortunately for Mr. Karl Marx his theory of communism though had a strong run seems to be on the ebb today, with the break of Soviet Union and a systemic break down approach by the west, both by psychological intimidation and capitalistic development platform. The other big communist country China is still going strong as a communist because it has shown remarkable pragmatism in blending communism with capitalism, in a way that doesn't upset the communist grip over the nation but at the same time moving in the direction of progress and prosperity. Cuba is set up in the communist mould because people may be tired of another revolution and more over its leaders have mastered the lust and privileges of being in power. Talking about lust, yahoo online reported that the Cuban leader Mr. Fidel Castro had had sex with a different woman each day all through his regime. Unlike Indian communists who show a tendency to stop socialism at their doorsteps, he welcomed it even to his bedroom. That was his passion for socialism.
Communism & Religion: There is famous statement in communism, "Religion is the opium of the masses”. Communism has had this fundamentally strong dislike towards religion. It appears that religion comes in the way of the communists exercising their control over the masses. They prefer to be the sole authority when it comes to having a control over the masses. That is the reason the communist rulers of the former Soviet Union banned religious practices and most of the orthodox Soviet church went underground and there were hardly any services. However with the break up of the communist regime, true feelings are coming out openly and the Russian Orthodox church is active once again, with even the supremo of Russia Mr.Putin, an ex KGB agent proclaiming his religion without fear or prejudice. Closer to home, in China the only path to God was taking a membership of the communist party of China. Indian communists however seem to quite confused. While publicly they are forced by their chosen ideology to be atheists, we all know that quite a few times their mask has come out. They participate in religious activities while their families visit religious places as any devout religious person would do. However in India communism does not seem to have a uniform policy against religion. They show surprising agility when it comes to influencing Hindu behavior and Hindu religious practices with communist ideology while simultaneously displaying an almost servile respect when it comes to minority religions in India. This seems be a primary bone of contention between communists and Hindus.
Dr Babu Suseelan writes, “For several years, Marxists in Kerala and West Bengal have been tinkering with our education, revising temple festivals, rituals, and spiritual practices. Their goal is to obliterate our culture and our customs by systematic deconstruction. Marxists have introduced Devasom Bill in Kerala for the takeover of Hindu temples including Guruvayoorappan Temple, Sabarimala Temple and various high income producing Hindu temples. Marxist government has introduced several restrictive ordinances to permanently ban traditional percussion, fireworks and timeline to permanently ban temple festivals and traditional cultural programs. For Hindus, the temple is the abode of God, the focus for all aspects in life of Hindus-religious, spiritual, cultural and social. It is a center where God can be approached and where divine knowledge can be discovered. Marxists are keen on destroying our temples founded on a platform with a devilish mixture of deception, coercion, and propaganda and government power. It represents one of the most deceptive and dangerous cultural destruction plan in India- a fact which most pseudo secularists and political leaders either do not know or choose to ignore. There is something sick in these destructive plans to loot temple wealth and permanently destroy and exterminate or vanquish our cultural values. These morally aberrant policies have the infinite capacity to inflict harm to Hindu society”.
This philosophy of communists manifests itself into a multitude of anti- Hindu activities at the street level which are being absorbed by the ever tolerant Hindu, albeit in quite disbelief. Hindu anger is building up as tiny rivulets from across the streets, towns and cities of communist ruled India. These tiny rivulets are then further attacked by a combination of anti Hindu forces. The attacks are in the form of a smear campaign. The attackers are emboldened by the passive non-confrontationist approach lifestyle of the average Hindu. Any practicing Christian or Muslim would erupt in anger when the control of their religious places of worship is taken away by the communist or other government's, but the passivity of Hindus seems like a deep spring from which the fountain of patience, kindness, endurance and in-difference flows incessantly. This fountain can have the inherent power to work against its adherents even before the rivulet of anger takes shape into a flood of meaningful thinking.
The eruption of Christian and Muslim anger and its backlash has been demonstrated time and again in India and most Indian politicians, the communist included respect the gene of servility in them and hence stay clear. The "Anger of Indian Christian's" is backed by support of Christian western governments and "Anger of Indian Muslim's" is backed by support of Muslim countries of the Gulf. A classic example of Christian international support is the “advice” by US against the toothless anti conversion bill introduced by some states in India and the example of International Muslim support is the routine IOC resolutions against India on various matters relating to the internal affairs of India. The combination of home-grown protests and the international backing for such protests could be the reason for the absolutely zero interference by Communist governments of India in the religious affairs of Christians and Muslims. While there are a multitude of organizations and groups operating freely in India who have their "valid" reasons to molest Hinduism, for communists of India its communist ideology. This anti-religious fervor of communists seems to waft to and fro from the northern border. The recent attempt to take over the Hindu temple of Nepal by the new born communists of Nepal, is a page from the leaf of what China has been doing to religious Tibet for the past 50 + years. The levels of in-sensivity to the aspirations, sentiment and self-dignity of the common man by communist governments, may make Mr Karl Marx re-think his thoughts on communism.
Primary Objective of Communism in India: Indian Prime Minister Mr.Man Mohan Singh has said that Marxist violence in parts of the country is the biggest threat sweeping the nation. An entire patch from central India to southern India is under the grip of Marxist violent movements known in India as naxalism. There is no government administration in such areas as no government official dares to go there. This is a complex issue where the mis governance of successive governments has given place to deep resentment against the government. This resentment has been hijacked by the communist movement under the guise of socialism. They wage war against the government with real arms and ammunition.Its interesting to note that there is little or no naxalism in states which are governed by Communist parties like West Bengal or Kerala, because the goal has been achieved, that is to gain power. It’s equally interesting that they use their mantra of revolution only in states they are not in power. They indulge in Marxist propaganda with positive sounding slogans such as "inclusion", "human rights", "feminist empowerment", "classless society", "women's rights", “ equality”, “ fight against oppression” to mobilize the poor people. For the poor and oppressed this seems like the divine opening they have been praying all their lives and are moulded into believing that take cudgels against the government of India on behalf of the communist parties will bring in a solution to their problems. They have invited the security forces of India to their door step thus pushing them into being enemies of the democratic state.The poor who have endured the worst of corruption in governance are now forced to bear the baton and bullet of the security forces. There is an extension of their inherited suffering. All this in the name of socialism.
While on one had the communists enjoy power both at states and in the centre by some clever political maneuvering, they at the same time engineer unrest in states they don't rule with the sole aim of coming to power. So is communist ideology in India just a rue to come to power. This unfortunately seems to be the reality as is with any other political party of India. If we assume that what we are writing cannot be true, then quality of life and governance in communist ruled states of India must be on par with developed countries.. right? To challenge us please take a walk through the communist ruled states of India and advice us that we are wrong. We will concede if proven wrong. Rich and powerful Marxist leaders live in luxury houses, drive deluxe limousines, send their children at expensive boarding schools and lead an elite life. The Marxist political leaders are at a huge, incalculable distance from the average citizen deeply ensconced in the twin towers of power and communist ideology.
It is said that winning elections is done in true communist traditions. Elections are under the tight grip of the communist party member’s right down to the street level. People are gently advised to vote for the communist party and offered "pleasant" experiences if they do not. Every movement of the ordinary people is tracked to make sure that votes are cast only for the communist party. Its authoritarian rule under the mask of democracy. That may explain the reason why the communist parties have managed to remain in power for as long as memory can know in West Bengal. The communist parties of India are on the same platform as other political parties of India. They indulge in corruption, work towards gaining personal wealth, demonstrate bad governance, display lack of vision on issues of welfare, infrastructure development and prosperity. They also give selective holidays to their communist ideology and engage in multiple forms of political alignments in order to capture / retain political power.
Nationalism vs. Ideology: Two things come to mind, The Nuclear deal with USA episode and the silent support of Indian communists to China on the 1962 war and subsequent non resolved border dispute between India and china. The vehement opposition of the Indian communist parties to the nuclear deal was based on the cold war ideology of the communist movement to oppose any dealings with the progressive west. So when they opposed it, the primary objective was its adherence to its ideology over what can be a perceived benefit to the Nation. It’s said at least on paper that the nuclear deal with US would open the door to overcome the power shortage that India is currently facing and also address the future power needs of the power hungry India. We don't know if that objective would really be achieved or if that stated objective is the real objective. But the communists of India opposed it. They had a chance to poke a thumb at the west, their eternal enemy. It did not matter to them that opposition would mean depriving the nation of that extra wattage of power. That adherence to ideology even it means working against national interest is a shocking reality that seems to have got immersed unquestioned and un challenged into the torrid waters of great churning lake called “the Kurushetra of modern Indian politics”. The communists of India seem to have given ideology a preference over common sense thinking of neighboring china. If china were to follow the same communist ideology of opposing any dealing with the west, would it have registered a trade surplus? Consider this report from the China daily,According to China customs statistics, China's exports to the United States were US$52.1 billion in 2000 and reached US$162.9 billion in 2005, an increase of 212 per cent. According to US customs statistics, the US exports to China were US$16.2 billion in 2000 and reached US$41.8 billion in 2005, an increase of 157 per cent. Had Indian communists raised issues like nuclear safety, it would amount to showing interest in the safety and welfare of Indians, but they did not do that. This approach of not blending national priorities as part of their Ideology can be a hindering factor in the development of India. Wish the commonsense nationalistic approach of communist china rubs onto to Indian communists.
As for the support of Indian communists to China, It was reported that during the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971, China more or less asked the Indian naxalites to support the side of Pakistan. An interesting paper by Mr.D.S.Rajan (He was earlier Director, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, and New Delhi ) in the online portal http://www.saag.org/common/uploaded_files/paper1565.html presents the collusion between communists of India and China. That makes quite an insightful reading. As a starter it would be nice if at least on public platforms Indian communists blend nationalism with communist ideologies. They should step out of their cocoon of ambiguity and come out strongly in support of India on the border dispute with China.
The passive and non-mainstream communists of India scattered across the nation in various "avatars" are effectively complementing the "work" of main stream communists by an gusto that combines ignorance and misinterpreted affinity to ideology. This includes the "The Hindu" God "Shri Ram" who resides on the Mount road of Chennai, south India. Surprisingly there also seems to be a preference for " communist anonymity" and also a tendency to present a "secular" face to the public.
Indian communists haven't been air-dropped onto India.Its the blood of India that runs in them.They are Indians at heart, body and soul..Look at this picture of Ms. Brinda Karat, one of the leaders of one of the communist parties in India.
In spite of being both an atheist and an communist this picture of the Indian communist leader identifies itself with Hindu culture, much to the dismay of the pink chaddi spirit of modern India. The question is why don't Indian communists come out in open and acknowledge their Hinduistic true form which is their inherent foundation. If all or some choose to come out in the open and acknowledge both, their communist avatar and the inherent Hindutvam then we would extend a warm welcome with open hands to The communists of India!.
References:
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/pol_pot.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
The Communist Chinese Ant Hill Suzanne Labin, Edward Fitzgerald
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
http://sneakpeaks.blogspot.com/2008/03/worlds-most-beautiful-politicians.html
The Marxist invasion of India : Dr Babu Suseelan
http://theundercurrent.ca/ind_pol_10.htm?id=8522
Friday, March 27, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Bengal blues for the reds
Bengal Blues, Left Woes
Pratap Bhanu Mehta Posted online: Mar 21, 2009 at 1602 hrs
One of the most fascinating contests in this electoral season will be in West Bengal. For the first time in three decades the Left looks seriously vulnerable. If recent trends in panchayat elections are any indication, a Congress-Trinamool alliance will give the Left a run for their money. Even the BJP has been making marginal inroads into this one impregnable bastion.
The leadership of the Left is acknowledging that this will be the toughest election the party has faced in years. The state government is itself responsible for things coming to this pass. Buddhadeb Babu may be well intentioned in his recognition that the state needs a new development model. But his own party is now seriously responsible for the unconscionable governance failures in West Bengal. The Singur agitation was not so much a sign of anti-capitalism in the state, as it was a sign of the breakdown of elementary governance capacities.
The governance failures of West Bengal, on virtually every indicator that matters -- roads, health, education, nutrition, poverty, infant mortality -- have recently been well documented in searing report by my colleague Bibek Debroy and his co-author Laveesh Bhandari. Even the much touted success in growth in agricultural productivity and decline in rural poverty has been tapering off for years. There is no question that West Bengal is ripe for a paradigm shift in its development model.
There is also no question that the local CPM has become a huge obstacle to the progress of the state. No matter how much Bengali intellectuals, out of a sense of misplaced nationalism, sanitise the issue, the CPM’s implication in violence, intimidation and coercion is extensive. It is now deeply implicated in the political economy of petty corruption in the state. It has virtually destroyed intellectual life in main institutions of the state.
The CPM has freely capitalised on its record on communalism. But the simple fact is that under the surface, there are deep currents of communalism brewing in West Bengal. The Taslima Nasreen case and the arrest of the editor of The Statesman were, in their own minor ways, indications of the warped and bizarre interpretation of secularism the party has operated with. But deeper down, there are rumblings of discontent on the Bangladeshi migration issue. And the CPM, despite having been thirty years in power, has barely been able to change the tenor of debate on these issues amongst the middle classes in Bengal. In fact, a case could be made that if the BJP had got its act together, Bengal would have provided a propitious fishing ground. The calm surface of politics there is deceptive.
It is in this context that Mamata’s achievement should be gauged. No matter what one may think of her policies or her mercurial ways, the simple fact is that she has single handedly kept political opposition alive in West Bengal. Anyone who knows how difficult it is for any non-Left force to operate in the state, the risk of violence it entails, will appreciate the sheer courage and doggedness it has taken on Mamata’s part to keep open a political space. I suspect the BJP did not engage in mass mobilization in Bengal, not because there was no traction for them. In some ways the state is ripe for a critique of pseudo-secularism. It was simply that they were too afraid. Mamata’s armchair detractors in Delhi underestimate this achievement.
She probably overplayed her hand in the Singur agitation. But the fact is that the demands she made on behalf of the poor were not unreasonable. She knew the possibility existed that the Tatas could move. But what no one could have bargained for was the fact that Gujarat would not just offer land to the Tatas, but such a huge implicit subsidy from public funds. It was natural that the Tatas would take the deal. But two things have to be acknowledged. First, the terms of the deal have not received as much public discussion as they should. And it has certainly reduced the Tatas' incentives for a reasonable settlement.
But it is important to draw the right lessons from this episode. It would be a mistake to conclude that the Trinamool is some kind of Luddite anti-capitalist party, while Buddhadeb is the saviour of capitalism. The right lesson is that the state government has diminishing capacity to manage conflict, and an insurgent politician was stepping into the breach to portray herself as a defender of the poor.
The election outcome is still an open question. Will urban Bengal rally around Buddhadeb? What will be the effects of delimitation? Will the CPM party machine kick in? These are all open questions. But we should keep our fingers crossed for West Bengal. When longstanding, somewhat authoritarian, regimes begin to weaken, all kinds of forces begin to emerge. It is hard to predict how it will all turn out. West Bengal is ripe for such a churning.
It is also such an unconscionable shame that the CPM could not use its immense political hold on the state to do better for its citizens. At the national level, there is also a great need for a sensible Left. At the national level it was the only party that for five years performed. At the very least, its cautionary breaks on our unthinking embrace of the United States, was a sign of its better judgment. But the evidence from West Bengal is now decisively in: the party has become an obstacle to creating opportunities for the poor.
There are signs of immense confusion within the Left. It is encouraging the Third Front, because it recognizes its weaknesses in its home bases in West Bengal and Kerala. Its best shot at remaining relevant and to consolidate, is intelligent alliances elsewhere. It is right to insist that there is enough disenchantment with both the BJP and Congress to open up the space for something new. But it is mistaken in supposing that it has a leg to stand on. It risks losing its distinctiveness even more. It obdurately resisted playing the caste card for fifty years, when that card carried some pretence of empowering the marginalized. But just at the point where the caste card has become not a vehicle for empowerment, but of raw assertion of political power, the Left has gone and embraced it wholesale. The ideological confusions in the Left are a sign that it cannot run on its governance record, and is now flailing. Perhaps if it had paid as much attention to Buddhadeb’s weaknesses as it had to Bush’s, it might not have been in such a state.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story_print.php?storyid=437375
Pratap Bhanu Mehta Posted online: Mar 21, 2009 at 1602 hrs
One of the most fascinating contests in this electoral season will be in West Bengal. For the first time in three decades the Left looks seriously vulnerable. If recent trends in panchayat elections are any indication, a Congress-Trinamool alliance will give the Left a run for their money. Even the BJP has been making marginal inroads into this one impregnable bastion.
The leadership of the Left is acknowledging that this will be the toughest election the party has faced in years. The state government is itself responsible for things coming to this pass. Buddhadeb Babu may be well intentioned in his recognition that the state needs a new development model. But his own party is now seriously responsible for the unconscionable governance failures in West Bengal. The Singur agitation was not so much a sign of anti-capitalism in the state, as it was a sign of the breakdown of elementary governance capacities.
The governance failures of West Bengal, on virtually every indicator that matters -- roads, health, education, nutrition, poverty, infant mortality -- have recently been well documented in searing report by my colleague Bibek Debroy and his co-author Laveesh Bhandari. Even the much touted success in growth in agricultural productivity and decline in rural poverty has been tapering off for years. There is no question that West Bengal is ripe for a paradigm shift in its development model.
There is also no question that the local CPM has become a huge obstacle to the progress of the state. No matter how much Bengali intellectuals, out of a sense of misplaced nationalism, sanitise the issue, the CPM’s implication in violence, intimidation and coercion is extensive. It is now deeply implicated in the political economy of petty corruption in the state. It has virtually destroyed intellectual life in main institutions of the state.
The CPM has freely capitalised on its record on communalism. But the simple fact is that under the surface, there are deep currents of communalism brewing in West Bengal. The Taslima Nasreen case and the arrest of the editor of The Statesman were, in their own minor ways, indications of the warped and bizarre interpretation of secularism the party has operated with. But deeper down, there are rumblings of discontent on the Bangladeshi migration issue. And the CPM, despite having been thirty years in power, has barely been able to change the tenor of debate on these issues amongst the middle classes in Bengal. In fact, a case could be made that if the BJP had got its act together, Bengal would have provided a propitious fishing ground. The calm surface of politics there is deceptive.
It is in this context that Mamata’s achievement should be gauged. No matter what one may think of her policies or her mercurial ways, the simple fact is that she has single handedly kept political opposition alive in West Bengal. Anyone who knows how difficult it is for any non-Left force to operate in the state, the risk of violence it entails, will appreciate the sheer courage and doggedness it has taken on Mamata’s part to keep open a political space. I suspect the BJP did not engage in mass mobilization in Bengal, not because there was no traction for them. In some ways the state is ripe for a critique of pseudo-secularism. It was simply that they were too afraid. Mamata’s armchair detractors in Delhi underestimate this achievement.
She probably overplayed her hand in the Singur agitation. But the fact is that the demands she made on behalf of the poor were not unreasonable. She knew the possibility existed that the Tatas could move. But what no one could have bargained for was the fact that Gujarat would not just offer land to the Tatas, but such a huge implicit subsidy from public funds. It was natural that the Tatas would take the deal. But two things have to be acknowledged. First, the terms of the deal have not received as much public discussion as they should. And it has certainly reduced the Tatas' incentives for a reasonable settlement.
But it is important to draw the right lessons from this episode. It would be a mistake to conclude that the Trinamool is some kind of Luddite anti-capitalist party, while Buddhadeb is the saviour of capitalism. The right lesson is that the state government has diminishing capacity to manage conflict, and an insurgent politician was stepping into the breach to portray herself as a defender of the poor.
The election outcome is still an open question. Will urban Bengal rally around Buddhadeb? What will be the effects of delimitation? Will the CPM party machine kick in? These are all open questions. But we should keep our fingers crossed for West Bengal. When longstanding, somewhat authoritarian, regimes begin to weaken, all kinds of forces begin to emerge. It is hard to predict how it will all turn out. West Bengal is ripe for such a churning.
It is also such an unconscionable shame that the CPM could not use its immense political hold on the state to do better for its citizens. At the national level, there is also a great need for a sensible Left. At the national level it was the only party that for five years performed. At the very least, its cautionary breaks on our unthinking embrace of the United States, was a sign of its better judgment. But the evidence from West Bengal is now decisively in: the party has become an obstacle to creating opportunities for the poor.
There are signs of immense confusion within the Left. It is encouraging the Third Front, because it recognizes its weaknesses in its home bases in West Bengal and Kerala. Its best shot at remaining relevant and to consolidate, is intelligent alliances elsewhere. It is right to insist that there is enough disenchantment with both the BJP and Congress to open up the space for something new. But it is mistaken in supposing that it has a leg to stand on. It risks losing its distinctiveness even more. It obdurately resisted playing the caste card for fifty years, when that card carried some pretence of empowering the marginalized. But just at the point where the caste card has become not a vehicle for empowerment, but of raw assertion of political power, the Left has gone and embraced it wholesale. The ideological confusions in the Left are a sign that it cannot run on its governance record, and is now flailing. Perhaps if it had paid as much attention to Buddhadeb’s weaknesses as it had to Bush’s, it might not have been in such a state.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story_print.php?storyid=437375
Monday, January 12, 2009
Left front breached
Mamata breaches Left’s fort
Shikha Mukerjee (Pioneer, Monday, January 12, 2009)
By defeating the CPI(M)-led Left Front in the Nandigram by-election, the storm petrel of West Bengal politics has proved a point. But can she forge a meaningful alternative?
In Nandigram, the Trinamool Congress’s labour has yielded exactly the outcome that it worked to achieve. The by-election result in this intensely controversial constituency, which was the battleground between the dominant CPI(M) and every other political party, organisation and individual in 2007 over the possibility of locating the petrochemical Special Economic Zone, has revealed that the Trinamool Congress, backed by the Congress, has consolidated its base at the cost of the Left.
Three by-election results were declared on January 9 and the diversity of underlying causes that produced these outcomes reveals the complexities that pose a challenge to the ruling CPI(M)-led Left Front in its crusade to transform the State’s economy and integrate it with that of the rest of India and so build a link to the changing global economic environment. The way voters have made their choices it has became clear that West Bengal would have to first live through and survive a fierce conflict between deeply rooted conservatism defended by the Trinamool Congress and also the Congress, and a change-inducing CPI(M).
The ferocity of the conflict that erupted in places like Nandigram has surprised many, because the unsuspected depths of conservatism in progressive West Bengal were never seriously acknowledged. Because West Bengal had voted the Left since 1967; because the ‘renaissance’ had started here; because social movements challenging obscurantist practices within religion blossomed here, there was little understanding of and sensitivity to the strongly emotional attachment to the old ways.
As a run up to the Lok Sabha election, the Nandigram result is good news for the Trinamool Congress and depressing for the CPI(M)-led Left Front. It has to come to terms with the fairly conclusive evidence that voters have transferred their allegiance. Instead of regaining ground lost in Nandigram over the proposal to set up the SEZ, CPI(M) must adjust to the new politics of eroding popularity and an ascendant Trinamool Congress.
Instead of there being no serious alternative to the Left in West Bengal, the Nandigram result shows that for voters in that place, the Trinamool Congress is the alternative. Apprehensions of Ms Mamata Banerjee’s detractors about the planks that make up her populist appeal are irrelevant, because Nandigram prefers to be represented by Firoza Bibi, mother of a martyr, whose usual arena of activity has been her home rather than Premanand Bharati, a school teacher, put up a candidate by the Communist Party of India.
By making its choice, Nandigram has confirmed what some had suspected: There are deeply rooted pockets of antipathy to the processes of modernisation in West Bengal. For those who do not want modernisation, the antipathy has spilled out as a vote against the ruling Left and its commitment to change. It must also be noted that in Nandigram it hardly mattered that the candidate was from the CPI; to the voter the Left was subsumed under the overarching dominance of the CPI(M).
While it is possible to explain the Nandigram outcome as a consequence of the cumulative discontent born of disappointment and resentment over the high-handed ways of the CPI(M), which took it for granted the opinions and concerns of the people, a simpler and startling explanation could be that just over half of the people in Nandigram do not want change. Since they are free to exercise their choice, the thumbs down to change, progress, modernisation, integration with the trajectory that India’s economy is pursing is irrefutable evidence that West Bengal’s politics will henceforward be a bitter fight between those who propose change and those who oppose it.
However, Nandigram’s is not the only verdict and in other places, it seems, the Trinamool Congress’s brand of conservatism, dressed up a righteous jihad against the CPI(M), does not sell. In obscure Para, a reserved Schedule Caste constituency in Purulia district, which has a significant tribal population, the CPI(M)’s brand of progressive politics continues to accurately capture and reflect the aspirations of the voter. Ms Mina Barui has won from Para, confirming that the CPI(M) is a significant vote catcher even in troubled times.
Congress’s win in Sujapur, the fiefdom of the Ghani Khan Chowdhurys, reveals yet another aspect of politics in West Bengal, where loyalty to a family takes precedence over everything. Ms Mausam Benazir Nur is a global citizen, but that hardly matters; to the voter she is ‘the family’.
Sentiment over science (Marxism to its believers is a science), conservatism against Communist ideology, a simulation of the world of rural Bengal vis-a-vis the real describes the ways in which voters make up their minds. Different sets of voters prefer different ways of life. In as much as the CPI(M) and its transforming agenda have been challenged, the by-election lifts and drops a question on the Trinamool Congress plate — can it gather together all the conservative voters and make a credible bid as an alternative, necessarily with the backing of the Congress?
http://dailypioneer.com/149270/Mamata-breaches-Left%E2%80%99s-fort.html
Shikha Mukerjee (Pioneer, Monday, January 12, 2009)
By defeating the CPI(M)-led Left Front in the Nandigram by-election, the storm petrel of West Bengal politics has proved a point. But can she forge a meaningful alternative?
In Nandigram, the Trinamool Congress’s labour has yielded exactly the outcome that it worked to achieve. The by-election result in this intensely controversial constituency, which was the battleground between the dominant CPI(M) and every other political party, organisation and individual in 2007 over the possibility of locating the petrochemical Special Economic Zone, has revealed that the Trinamool Congress, backed by the Congress, has consolidated its base at the cost of the Left.
Three by-election results were declared on January 9 and the diversity of underlying causes that produced these outcomes reveals the complexities that pose a challenge to the ruling CPI(M)-led Left Front in its crusade to transform the State’s economy and integrate it with that of the rest of India and so build a link to the changing global economic environment. The way voters have made their choices it has became clear that West Bengal would have to first live through and survive a fierce conflict between deeply rooted conservatism defended by the Trinamool Congress and also the Congress, and a change-inducing CPI(M).
The ferocity of the conflict that erupted in places like Nandigram has surprised many, because the unsuspected depths of conservatism in progressive West Bengal were never seriously acknowledged. Because West Bengal had voted the Left since 1967; because the ‘renaissance’ had started here; because social movements challenging obscurantist practices within religion blossomed here, there was little understanding of and sensitivity to the strongly emotional attachment to the old ways.
As a run up to the Lok Sabha election, the Nandigram result is good news for the Trinamool Congress and depressing for the CPI(M)-led Left Front. It has to come to terms with the fairly conclusive evidence that voters have transferred their allegiance. Instead of regaining ground lost in Nandigram over the proposal to set up the SEZ, CPI(M) must adjust to the new politics of eroding popularity and an ascendant Trinamool Congress.
Instead of there being no serious alternative to the Left in West Bengal, the Nandigram result shows that for voters in that place, the Trinamool Congress is the alternative. Apprehensions of Ms Mamata Banerjee’s detractors about the planks that make up her populist appeal are irrelevant, because Nandigram prefers to be represented by Firoza Bibi, mother of a martyr, whose usual arena of activity has been her home rather than Premanand Bharati, a school teacher, put up a candidate by the Communist Party of India.
By making its choice, Nandigram has confirmed what some had suspected: There are deeply rooted pockets of antipathy to the processes of modernisation in West Bengal. For those who do not want modernisation, the antipathy has spilled out as a vote against the ruling Left and its commitment to change. It must also be noted that in Nandigram it hardly mattered that the candidate was from the CPI; to the voter the Left was subsumed under the overarching dominance of the CPI(M).
While it is possible to explain the Nandigram outcome as a consequence of the cumulative discontent born of disappointment and resentment over the high-handed ways of the CPI(M), which took it for granted the opinions and concerns of the people, a simpler and startling explanation could be that just over half of the people in Nandigram do not want change. Since they are free to exercise their choice, the thumbs down to change, progress, modernisation, integration with the trajectory that India’s economy is pursing is irrefutable evidence that West Bengal’s politics will henceforward be a bitter fight between those who propose change and those who oppose it.
However, Nandigram’s is not the only verdict and in other places, it seems, the Trinamool Congress’s brand of conservatism, dressed up a righteous jihad against the CPI(M), does not sell. In obscure Para, a reserved Schedule Caste constituency in Purulia district, which has a significant tribal population, the CPI(M)’s brand of progressive politics continues to accurately capture and reflect the aspirations of the voter. Ms Mina Barui has won from Para, confirming that the CPI(M) is a significant vote catcher even in troubled times.
Congress’s win in Sujapur, the fiefdom of the Ghani Khan Chowdhurys, reveals yet another aspect of politics in West Bengal, where loyalty to a family takes precedence over everything. Ms Mausam Benazir Nur is a global citizen, but that hardly matters; to the voter she is ‘the family’.
Sentiment over science (Marxism to its believers is a science), conservatism against Communist ideology, a simulation of the world of rural Bengal vis-a-vis the real describes the ways in which voters make up their minds. Different sets of voters prefer different ways of life. In as much as the CPI(M) and its transforming agenda have been challenged, the by-election lifts and drops a question on the Trinamool Congress plate — can it gather together all the conservative voters and make a credible bid as an alternative, necessarily with the backing of the Congress?
http://dailypioneer.com/149270/Mamata-breaches-Left%E2%80%99s-fort.html
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Amartya Sen’s blow to Left Front policy
Amartya Sen’s blow to Left Front policy 04.01.2009
Uday Basu
Year 2009 ended badly for the CPI-M. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, whom the homegrown Marxists look upon as one of the champions of their political creed, virtually dealt a knockout punch to their controversial industrialisation initiatives in general and the aborted Tata Motors small car project in particular.
Almost at the same time, far from the city’s madding crowd, a small landowner, Mr Probir Roy, supervising the threshing of paddy grown on his land in Birbhum district, nailed the Marxists’ lies about stagnation in agriculture and the imperative need for industrialisation on farm land. He traced the root of the current turmoil in rural Bengal to the Marxists’ land reforms that led to severe fragmentation of land.
If the economist came to his conclusion after poring over weighty tomes and documents, the hard-working owner of agricultural land could see through the folly of the ruling combine with his field experiences.
For the past two years, CPI-M leaders starting from Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee to lower level party functionaries had been tireless in their propaganda that far too many people were engaged in agriculture and the yield was too inadequate. The only way to generate employment for “thousands of educated youth in rural and urban areas” was to set up industries through acquiring “wasteful” farmland.
“Factories can’t come up in the air”, was the common refrain of the Marxists of all denominations to justify their clarion call of evicting farmers from their fertile lands so that industries could be set up.
The statistics reeled off by the chief minister can’t be wrong, since they are backed up by the findings of various central and state agencies. But true to Marxist tradition, Mr Bhattacharjee never told the whole truth. The yield from land is bound to be low as a logical corollary to the much-hyped land reforms policy the Marxists implemented since they came to power in 1977.
When they effected the reforms, they believed they were ushering in a revolution of sorts as big landlords were being cut to size and small and marginal farmers and landless labourers were being freed from the clutches of oppressive jotedars (rich peasants).
What was the upshot of this revolution?
In the language of the small landowner, the land reforms have created a situation where only those who have other sources of livelihood can hope to get reasonable returns from land. But, those who solely depend on their landholdings can hardly ever rise above the subsistence level.
“According to the land ceiling act an individual farmer can own a maximum of 18 bighas of land, a family of five 35 bighas and for extra members two to two and a half bighas each not exceeding a total of 52 bighas. If land weren’t fragmented in such a manner one could have invested considerable amount of money for irrigating a large tract of land ensuring greater yield. But such investment is out of the question on small plots earmarked by the ceiling,” Mr Roy said.
Therein lies the rub.
It’s entirely wrong for Mr Bhattacharjee and his comrades in arms to blame agriculture for its low returns and project industrialisation as a panacea for economic ills. They created this sorry rural economy by splitting land in a way that has eventually rendered it far less productive.
This is not to hold brief for big landlords or exploitation of rural poor by rich peasants. What Mr Roy sought to demonstrate was the inherent weakness of the Marxists’ land reforms policythat in the ultimate analysis is responsible for the stagnation in agriculture.
There’s no harm for the Marxists to admit their mistakes and try to rebuild the system. This was precisely the second theme that Professor Sen elaborated at the debate in the presence of the chief minister, several of his Cabinet colleagues and other Left leaders.
The force and bluntness with which he spoke his mind sounded intriguing and left people wondering why he sought to debunk the top CPI-M leaders in public in such a fashion.
Describing himself as a fellow traveller of the Marxists, Professor Sen said that since his student days at Presidency College he had been adhering to Leftist thinking and “nothing has happened to make any reappraisal of that position”. Having said this he stunned the audience by saying that the process of de-Stalinisation was being carried out in Russia, Vietnam and other places, but surprisingly the CPI-M hadn’t openly decried the wrongs of Stalin. “There’s no harm in admitting mistakes,” he said.
As if to rub salt into injuries, Professor Sen said land acquisition for industrialisation can only be “the last recourse” and that the Tatas should have bought land from the farmers for the Singur project as part of the dynamics of market economy especially when they could pay huge amounts for buying the British steel major.
Such a position is not only a marked departure from Professor Sen’s earlier stand on the issue, but is diametrically opposite to his Marxist friends and admirers’ view who have been advocating that industrialisation can’t be done without acquiring farmland.
The question that automatically arises is: Was the whole show of turning the CPI-M’s industrialisation policy virtually on its head stage-managed? Or, are the Marxists having a second thought on their pet industrialisation overdrive?
The latter can be convincing only if an economist of Professor Sen’s stature lends his voice to it. Is it for this reason that the CPI-M heavyweights invited him to deliver the lecture and contradict their own policy so that they can suitably modify it and attribute the change to Professor Sen and economists of his standing?
Perhaps this is the only course left for the Marxists to extricate themselves from the predicament they are in with the Opposition wresting vast swathes of their support base slowly but steadily.
If that is true, it’s rather too late. The damage is done.
(The writer is Special Representative, The Statesman)
“De-Stalinisation is going on in Russia, Vietnam and other places, but the CPI-M doesn’t openly do so. I have been a Leftist and I believe one has to admit mistakes one has made.”
~ Nobel laureate Amartya Sen.
“Market economy should have been followed in getting land for the (Nano) project. We talk about market forces which should also have applied in the case of Singur. When the Tatas could buy a world steel major, there was no reason why they didn’t buy the land.”
~ Professor Amartya Sen
Uday Basu
Year 2009 ended badly for the CPI-M. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, whom the homegrown Marxists look upon as one of the champions of their political creed, virtually dealt a knockout punch to their controversial industrialisation initiatives in general and the aborted Tata Motors small car project in particular.
Almost at the same time, far from the city’s madding crowd, a small landowner, Mr Probir Roy, supervising the threshing of paddy grown on his land in Birbhum district, nailed the Marxists’ lies about stagnation in agriculture and the imperative need for industrialisation on farm land. He traced the root of the current turmoil in rural Bengal to the Marxists’ land reforms that led to severe fragmentation of land.
If the economist came to his conclusion after poring over weighty tomes and documents, the hard-working owner of agricultural land could see through the folly of the ruling combine with his field experiences.
For the past two years, CPI-M leaders starting from Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee to lower level party functionaries had been tireless in their propaganda that far too many people were engaged in agriculture and the yield was too inadequate. The only way to generate employment for “thousands of educated youth in rural and urban areas” was to set up industries through acquiring “wasteful” farmland.
“Factories can’t come up in the air”, was the common refrain of the Marxists of all denominations to justify their clarion call of evicting farmers from their fertile lands so that industries could be set up.
The statistics reeled off by the chief minister can’t be wrong, since they are backed up by the findings of various central and state agencies. But true to Marxist tradition, Mr Bhattacharjee never told the whole truth. The yield from land is bound to be low as a logical corollary to the much-hyped land reforms policy the Marxists implemented since they came to power in 1977.
When they effected the reforms, they believed they were ushering in a revolution of sorts as big landlords were being cut to size and small and marginal farmers and landless labourers were being freed from the clutches of oppressive jotedars (rich peasants).
What was the upshot of this revolution?
In the language of the small landowner, the land reforms have created a situation where only those who have other sources of livelihood can hope to get reasonable returns from land. But, those who solely depend on their landholdings can hardly ever rise above the subsistence level.
“According to the land ceiling act an individual farmer can own a maximum of 18 bighas of land, a family of five 35 bighas and for extra members two to two and a half bighas each not exceeding a total of 52 bighas. If land weren’t fragmented in such a manner one could have invested considerable amount of money for irrigating a large tract of land ensuring greater yield. But such investment is out of the question on small plots earmarked by the ceiling,” Mr Roy said.
Therein lies the rub.
It’s entirely wrong for Mr Bhattacharjee and his comrades in arms to blame agriculture for its low returns and project industrialisation as a panacea for economic ills. They created this sorry rural economy by splitting land in a way that has eventually rendered it far less productive.
This is not to hold brief for big landlords or exploitation of rural poor by rich peasants. What Mr Roy sought to demonstrate was the inherent weakness of the Marxists’ land reforms policythat in the ultimate analysis is responsible for the stagnation in agriculture.
There’s no harm for the Marxists to admit their mistakes and try to rebuild the system. This was precisely the second theme that Professor Sen elaborated at the debate in the presence of the chief minister, several of his Cabinet colleagues and other Left leaders.
The force and bluntness with which he spoke his mind sounded intriguing and left people wondering why he sought to debunk the top CPI-M leaders in public in such a fashion.
Describing himself as a fellow traveller of the Marxists, Professor Sen said that since his student days at Presidency College he had been adhering to Leftist thinking and “nothing has happened to make any reappraisal of that position”. Having said this he stunned the audience by saying that the process of de-Stalinisation was being carried out in Russia, Vietnam and other places, but surprisingly the CPI-M hadn’t openly decried the wrongs of Stalin. “There’s no harm in admitting mistakes,” he said.
As if to rub salt into injuries, Professor Sen said land acquisition for industrialisation can only be “the last recourse” and that the Tatas should have bought land from the farmers for the Singur project as part of the dynamics of market economy especially when they could pay huge amounts for buying the British steel major.
Such a position is not only a marked departure from Professor Sen’s earlier stand on the issue, but is diametrically opposite to his Marxist friends and admirers’ view who have been advocating that industrialisation can’t be done without acquiring farmland.
The question that automatically arises is: Was the whole show of turning the CPI-M’s industrialisation policy virtually on its head stage-managed? Or, are the Marxists having a second thought on their pet industrialisation overdrive?
The latter can be convincing only if an economist of Professor Sen’s stature lends his voice to it. Is it for this reason that the CPI-M heavyweights invited him to deliver the lecture and contradict their own policy so that they can suitably modify it and attribute the change to Professor Sen and economists of his standing?
Perhaps this is the only course left for the Marxists to extricate themselves from the predicament they are in with the Opposition wresting vast swathes of their support base slowly but steadily.
If that is true, it’s rather too late. The damage is done.
(The writer is Special Representative, The Statesman)
“De-Stalinisation is going on in Russia, Vietnam and other places, but the CPI-M doesn’t openly do so. I have been a Leftist and I believe one has to admit mistakes one has made.”
~ Nobel laureate Amartya Sen.
“Market economy should have been followed in getting land for the (Nano) project. We talk about market forces which should also have applied in the case of Singur. When the Tatas could buy a world steel major, there was no reason why they didn’t buy the land.”
~ Professor Amartya Sen
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Higher education is starving--Why donate Rs 23 Crore to Harvard?
Why didn't Prof. Amartya Sen himself part with part of his Nobel Prize in Economics to finance the Harvard U. which employs him?
kalyan
Higher education starves, but a $4.5m gift to Harvard’s fine?
R Vaidyanathan
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:42:00 AM
The news item was not in the front pages of any major newspaper. It was published by some national dailies in the inside pages.
It is about the Government of India gifting $4.5 million (nearly Rs 23 crore) for Harvard University to establish a fund in honour of Prof Amartya Sen, which would help Indian students pursue higher education in that institution. This was to celebrate the 75th birth day of the renowned economist in recognition of his “extraordinary accomplishments” (PTI, December 11, 2008).
The government had earlier given £3.2 million (nearly Rs 26 crore) to the Cambridge University’s Judges Business school to celebrate Nehru’s entry as a student of Trinity College (see my article in DNA Money, February 12, 2008).
Both the news items, though important, were not debated by academicians nor commented upon by editors. To start with, there are questions regarding using government money to facilitate the fund-raising activity of Harvard or Cambridge. It is common knowledge that post-Thatcher era, the educational institutions in the UK are forced to raise the fees particularly for foreign students and even then, the fees do not cover even 25% of the cost of running these institutions. And hence, most of the British educational institutions are going around the world with a begging bowl, camouflaged as road shows, for their graduate and undergraduate courses.
Harvard, which recently lost more than $8 billion (nearly 22% of its corpus), is so much more desperate to augment its resources in the context of the global meltdown and deep US recession (WSJ, December 4, 2008).
Now, why should a developing country like India fund the cash-starved institutions of the West?
If Cambridge was so fascinated about Nehru entering it as a student or about the ‘India Story’, then it should have approached a private financier or some company in the UK to fund this endowment.
Ditto for Harvard, which could have asked many leading philanthropies in the US or business groups in India to fund the centre.
I know of several centres in China, which are funded by these universities or US companies. But India is a peculiar country, which funds centres in foreign universities, facilitating/ enhancing their finances. This gesture is not going to make others recognise us as a global economic power.
The higher educational institutions in India are starved of funds and crying out. After the decision of the government regarding reservation for other backward castes and the Supreme Court judgments thereon, it has become imperative for centrally funded institutions to increase their strength by at least one-and-half times and hence they need funds to expand their physical infrastructure. The government is not much forthcoming on this and expects the Central institutions to fend for themselves. There is a need for buildings and various other physical infrastructure in all the Central institutions of higher learning, leave alone the lower levels of education.
It is also surprising that the traditional rebels without a pause, namely the Left liberals, are totally silent on this. The usual Marxist crowd berating US imperialism, etc is also silent. May be the recessionary imperialism is not to be bothered about. The academic community is silent and some may be positioning themselves for future opportunities.
In the context of starving Indian institutions, gifting nearly Rs 50 crore to institutions in the UK/US is, to say the least, callous and may be construed as the result of the embedded colonial gene in our systems. The courtiers and family retainers may be already crowding around relevant ministries and power centres to get the positions, but that does not justify this subsidy.
Due to our distorted Nehruvian socialistic thinking, we believe that government is the embodiment of wisdom since it can tax and provide subsidies. We still live in the era of Kings where the whims and fancies of the Chakravarthi could get huge gifts to the courtiers and other foreign poets/ scholars. All one need do is stand in the queue and sing praises — particularly in this Dhanur month. Of course, if your colour is white, then just stand, not necessarily in the queue. Gifts will be bestowed and you will be profusely thanked for your presence and acceptance of the same.
There are many NRIs and Indian business groups who could have provided this subsidy/ alms to Harvard, but that was not the deal. Harvard I presume has arm-twisted the Government of India to get the funds to minimise the impact of its losses on the hedge funds. Anyhow, Indian government is the best hedge against such situations; due to the colonial hang-up and because we think Americans have done a great favour to us.
That is the reason our Ambassador to the USA, Ronen Sen (of the ‘headless chicken’ fame) profusely thanked the president of the Harvard University for accepting the gift.
We all should be very happy that Harvard condescended to accept our cheque since each of us was worried they may not!
Will the Indian mind ever get de-colonised?
The writer is professor of finance and control, Indian Institute of Management —Bangalore, and can be reached at vaidya@iimb.ernet.in. Views are personal.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1214632&pageid=0
kalyan
Higher education starves, but a $4.5m gift to Harvard’s fine?
R Vaidyanathan
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:42:00 AM
The news item was not in the front pages of any major newspaper. It was published by some national dailies in the inside pages.
It is about the Government of India gifting $4.5 million (nearly Rs 23 crore) for Harvard University to establish a fund in honour of Prof Amartya Sen, which would help Indian students pursue higher education in that institution. This was to celebrate the 75th birth day of the renowned economist in recognition of his “extraordinary accomplishments” (PTI, December 11, 2008).
The government had earlier given £3.2 million (nearly Rs 26 crore) to the Cambridge University’s Judges Business school to celebrate Nehru’s entry as a student of Trinity College (see my article in DNA Money, February 12, 2008).
Both the news items, though important, were not debated by academicians nor commented upon by editors. To start with, there are questions regarding using government money to facilitate the fund-raising activity of Harvard or Cambridge. It is common knowledge that post-Thatcher era, the educational institutions in the UK are forced to raise the fees particularly for foreign students and even then, the fees do not cover even 25% of the cost of running these institutions. And hence, most of the British educational institutions are going around the world with a begging bowl, camouflaged as road shows, for their graduate and undergraduate courses.
Harvard, which recently lost more than $8 billion (nearly 22% of its corpus), is so much more desperate to augment its resources in the context of the global meltdown and deep US recession (WSJ, December 4, 2008).
Now, why should a developing country like India fund the cash-starved institutions of the West?
If Cambridge was so fascinated about Nehru entering it as a student or about the ‘India Story’, then it should have approached a private financier or some company in the UK to fund this endowment.
Ditto for Harvard, which could have asked many leading philanthropies in the US or business groups in India to fund the centre.
I know of several centres in China, which are funded by these universities or US companies. But India is a peculiar country, which funds centres in foreign universities, facilitating/ enhancing their finances. This gesture is not going to make others recognise us as a global economic power.
The higher educational institutions in India are starved of funds and crying out. After the decision of the government regarding reservation for other backward castes and the Supreme Court judgments thereon, it has become imperative for centrally funded institutions to increase their strength by at least one-and-half times and hence they need funds to expand their physical infrastructure. The government is not much forthcoming on this and expects the Central institutions to fend for themselves. There is a need for buildings and various other physical infrastructure in all the Central institutions of higher learning, leave alone the lower levels of education.
It is also surprising that the traditional rebels without a pause, namely the Left liberals, are totally silent on this. The usual Marxist crowd berating US imperialism, etc is also silent. May be the recessionary imperialism is not to be bothered about. The academic community is silent and some may be positioning themselves for future opportunities.
In the context of starving Indian institutions, gifting nearly Rs 50 crore to institutions in the UK/US is, to say the least, callous and may be construed as the result of the embedded colonial gene in our systems. The courtiers and family retainers may be already crowding around relevant ministries and power centres to get the positions, but that does not justify this subsidy.
Due to our distorted Nehruvian socialistic thinking, we believe that government is the embodiment of wisdom since it can tax and provide subsidies. We still live in the era of Kings where the whims and fancies of the Chakravarthi could get huge gifts to the courtiers and other foreign poets/ scholars. All one need do is stand in the queue and sing praises — particularly in this Dhanur month. Of course, if your colour is white, then just stand, not necessarily in the queue. Gifts will be bestowed and you will be profusely thanked for your presence and acceptance of the same.
There are many NRIs and Indian business groups who could have provided this subsidy/ alms to Harvard, but that was not the deal. Harvard I presume has arm-twisted the Government of India to get the funds to minimise the impact of its losses on the hedge funds. Anyhow, Indian government is the best hedge against such situations; due to the colonial hang-up and because we think Americans have done a great favour to us.
That is the reason our Ambassador to the USA, Ronen Sen (of the ‘headless chicken’ fame) profusely thanked the president of the Harvard University for accepting the gift.
We all should be very happy that Harvard condescended to accept our cheque since each of us was worried they may not!
Will the Indian mind ever get de-colonised?
The writer is professor of finance and control, Indian Institute of Management —Bangalore, and can be reached at vaidya@iimb.ernet.in. Views are personal.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1214632&pageid=0
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Dial CPM Brinda and Teesta for cash-for-false-affidavits
Dial CPM Brinda and Teesta for cash-for-false-affidavits
Gujarat-based NGO processed payment from CPM relief fund
Navin Upadhyay | New Delhi (Pioneer, 20 Dec. 2008)
A controversial Gujarat-based NGO was instrumental in organising payment of Rs 1 lakh each to as many as ten witnesses in various post-Godhra riot cases. The money came from the CPI(M) relief fund and was distributed months before the witnesses deposed in the courts, five years after the clashes took place. Four other eyewitnesses received Rs 50,000 each.
The revelation comes in the backdrop of reports that a host of Gujarat riot case victims were misled into signing affidavits giving false information at the behest of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an NGO headed by social activist Teesta Setalvad.
Incidentally, those who were both victims and eyewitnesses received Rs 1 lakh and Rs 50,000 while the victims got mere Rs 5,000 each. This has raised eyebrows over the selection of beneficiaries and the purpose of paying a disproportionately large sum to the eyewitnesses before the trial.
Chief Coordinator of CJP Rais Khan told The Pioneer that he had submitted the name of beneficiaries to the CPI(M) on instruction from Teesta Setalvad. "Setalvad identified the people and I merely followed her instruction and forwarded the list to CPI (M)," Khan said.
When contacted, Setalvad said she was present at the function on an invitation from the CPI(M) and had nothing to do with fund raising. "It was CPI(M) money and I was a mere guest at the function," she claimed.
Yasin Naimudin Ansari, one of the eyewitnesses who got one lakh rupees, told The Pioneer on phone from Ahmedabad that he was approached by someone from Teesta Setalvad's organisation. "I vaguely remember this. But I don't remember the name of the person," he said.
The function took place in Ahmedabad on August 26, 2007 and the witnesses were handed out demand drafts by CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat, Teesta Setalvad and Rais Khan.
Brinda Karat admitted that the CPI(M) had raised the money, adding that as far the party was concerned it was giving relief to the victims. "Our party is not involved in any court cases involving Gujarat riots, and for us, distributing relief was merely a humanitarian gesture," she said.
Not disputing that she had taken the help of local NGOs to identify the victims, Brinda said, "We had received a lot of applications and money was distributed in different phases."
The 14 DDs (Nos 567540 to 567554 all dated 01/08/2007) were handed over to these witnesses by Teesta, Brinda and Rais Khan. Seven DDs were payable at Ahmedabad and seven at Baroda. Interestingly, one of the recipients is Yasmin Banu Sheikh, the estranged wife of Zahira Sheikh's brother Nafitullah.
The Pioneer is in possession of letters written by beneficiaries thanking Brinda, Teesta and Rais Khan for the payment.
Yasmin Banu Ismailbhai Shaikh (aunt of Zahira) of Baroda, who received Rs 50,000 (DD No 567552 dated August 1, 2007). Yasmin is a complainant in case No. 114/04 at Baroda. It is interesting to note that, when no substance was found in her complaint, she was directed to face lie detection test by the court and ever since she has not appeared in the court.
Among the recipients are four Best Bakery case witnesses and nine are appearing as witnesses in Ahmedabad-related Naroda Patia, Shahpur, Khanpur and other 2002 riot cases.
The information has been gleaned through a string of petitions under the Right to Information Act by one H Jhaveri from various agencies, including banks.
The four Best Bakery case witnesses are:
Sailun Hasan Khan Pathan of Ahmedabad who was paid Rs 1 lakh; Tufel Ahmed Habibullah Siddiqui of Baroda who received 50,000; Sehjad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan of Baroda who was paid Rs 50,000 and Rais Khan Amin Khan Pathan of Baroda who too got Rs 50,000.
There are nine witnesses relating to Ahmedabad riots who are testifying in local riot cases. All of them were given Rs 1 lakh and they are: 1.Kureshabibi Harunbhai Ghori of Baroda, witness in case No. 11/02 registered in Khanpur Police Station.
2. Husenabibi Gulambhai Shaikh, also of Baroda and witness in case No. 11/02 filed in Khanpur police station.
3. Rasidabanu Yusufkhan Pathan of Ahmedabad, witness in 2002 riots cases.
4. Fatimabanu Babubhai Saiyyed of Ahmedabad and witness in Case No. 100/02 registered in Shahpur Police Station.
5. Badurnnisha Mohd Ismail Shaikh of Ahmedabad, witness in Case No. 49/0 3 of Shahpur Police Station.
6. Mohd Khalid Saiyyed Ali Saiyyed of Ahmedabad, witness in Naroda-Patiya case. His first application was registered on March 7, 2008 and second on May 29, 2008.
7. Mohd Yasin Naimuddin Ansari of Ahmedabad, witness in 2002 riots cases.
8.Shaikh Azharuddin Imamuddin of Ahmedabad. During 2002 riots he was injured. At that time he was 10 years.
9. Sarjahah Kausar Ali Shaikh of Baroda. No details available.
List of Victims who were paid Rs 5,000 on 11/10/2007.
Mohammed Rafiq Abukar Pathan , Aslamkhan Anwarkhan Pathan, Pathan Saiyedkhan Ahmedkhan, Imtiyazhhan Saiyedkhan Pathan, Rashidkhan A. Pathan, Sairaben Salimbhai Sanghi, Ashraf Sikandarbhai Sanghi.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/144856/Godhra-riot-witnesses-got-Rs-1-lakh-each.html
Gujarat-based NGO processed payment from CPM relief fund
Navin Upadhyay | New Delhi (Pioneer, 20 Dec. 2008)
A controversial Gujarat-based NGO was instrumental in organising payment of Rs 1 lakh each to as many as ten witnesses in various post-Godhra riot cases. The money came from the CPI(M) relief fund and was distributed months before the witnesses deposed in the courts, five years after the clashes took place. Four other eyewitnesses received Rs 50,000 each.
The revelation comes in the backdrop of reports that a host of Gujarat riot case victims were misled into signing affidavits giving false information at the behest of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an NGO headed by social activist Teesta Setalvad.
Incidentally, those who were both victims and eyewitnesses received Rs 1 lakh and Rs 50,000 while the victims got mere Rs 5,000 each. This has raised eyebrows over the selection of beneficiaries and the purpose of paying a disproportionately large sum to the eyewitnesses before the trial.
Chief Coordinator of CJP Rais Khan told The Pioneer that he had submitted the name of beneficiaries to the CPI(M) on instruction from Teesta Setalvad. "Setalvad identified the people and I merely followed her instruction and forwarded the list to CPI (M)," Khan said.
When contacted, Setalvad said she was present at the function on an invitation from the CPI(M) and had nothing to do with fund raising. "It was CPI(M) money and I was a mere guest at the function," she claimed.
Yasin Naimudin Ansari, one of the eyewitnesses who got one lakh rupees, told The Pioneer on phone from Ahmedabad that he was approached by someone from Teesta Setalvad's organisation. "I vaguely remember this. But I don't remember the name of the person," he said.
The function took place in Ahmedabad on August 26, 2007 and the witnesses were handed out demand drafts by CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat, Teesta Setalvad and Rais Khan.
Brinda Karat admitted that the CPI(M) had raised the money, adding that as far the party was concerned it was giving relief to the victims. "Our party is not involved in any court cases involving Gujarat riots, and for us, distributing relief was merely a humanitarian gesture," she said.
Not disputing that she had taken the help of local NGOs to identify the victims, Brinda said, "We had received a lot of applications and money was distributed in different phases."
The 14 DDs (Nos 567540 to 567554 all dated 01/08/2007) were handed over to these witnesses by Teesta, Brinda and Rais Khan. Seven DDs were payable at Ahmedabad and seven at Baroda. Interestingly, one of the recipients is Yasmin Banu Sheikh, the estranged wife of Zahira Sheikh's brother Nafitullah.
The Pioneer is in possession of letters written by beneficiaries thanking Brinda, Teesta and Rais Khan for the payment.
Yasmin Banu Ismailbhai Shaikh (aunt of Zahira) of Baroda, who received Rs 50,000 (DD No 567552 dated August 1, 2007). Yasmin is a complainant in case No. 114/04 at Baroda. It is interesting to note that, when no substance was found in her complaint, she was directed to face lie detection test by the court and ever since she has not appeared in the court.
Among the recipients are four Best Bakery case witnesses and nine are appearing as witnesses in Ahmedabad-related Naroda Patia, Shahpur, Khanpur and other 2002 riot cases.
The information has been gleaned through a string of petitions under the Right to Information Act by one H Jhaveri from various agencies, including banks.
The four Best Bakery case witnesses are:
Sailun Hasan Khan Pathan of Ahmedabad who was paid Rs 1 lakh; Tufel Ahmed Habibullah Siddiqui of Baroda who received 50,000; Sehjad Khan Hasan Khan Pathan of Baroda who was paid Rs 50,000 and Rais Khan Amin Khan Pathan of Baroda who too got Rs 50,000.
There are nine witnesses relating to Ahmedabad riots who are testifying in local riot cases. All of them were given Rs 1 lakh and they are: 1.Kureshabibi Harunbhai Ghori of Baroda, witness in case No. 11/02 registered in Khanpur Police Station.
2. Husenabibi Gulambhai Shaikh, also of Baroda and witness in case No. 11/02 filed in Khanpur police station.
3. Rasidabanu Yusufkhan Pathan of Ahmedabad, witness in 2002 riots cases.
4. Fatimabanu Babubhai Saiyyed of Ahmedabad and witness in Case No. 100/02 registered in Shahpur Police Station.
5. Badurnnisha Mohd Ismail Shaikh of Ahmedabad, witness in Case No. 49/0 3 of Shahpur Police Station.
6. Mohd Khalid Saiyyed Ali Saiyyed of Ahmedabad, witness in Naroda-Patiya case. His first application was registered on March 7, 2008 and second on May 29, 2008.
7. Mohd Yasin Naimuddin Ansari of Ahmedabad, witness in 2002 riots cases.
8.Shaikh Azharuddin Imamuddin of Ahmedabad. During 2002 riots he was injured. At that time he was 10 years.
9. Sarjahah Kausar Ali Shaikh of Baroda. No details available.
List of Victims who were paid Rs 5,000 on 11/10/2007.
Mohammed Rafiq Abukar Pathan , Aslamkhan Anwarkhan Pathan, Pathan Saiyedkhan Ahmedkhan, Imtiyazhhan Saiyedkhan Pathan, Rashidkhan A. Pathan, Sairaben Salimbhai Sanghi, Ashraf Sikandarbhai Sanghi.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/144856/Godhra-riot-witnesses-got-Rs-1-lakh-each.html
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Commie VIPs !
Commie VIPs !
Over 45,000 men protect our VIPs
Aloke Tikku , Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, December 18, 2008
Last Updated: 01:14 IST(18/12/2008)
As the post-26/11 debate on whether politicians need more security than the public rages on, facts hidden in government figures show how India can be safer if only our VIPs do not turn security into a status symbol.
On paper, threat assessments dictate security cover and the extent of protection. Politics often replaces threat assessments in practice. More than 45,000 policemen protect the pool of VIPs in India that grew at 20 per cent — 12 times faster than the annual population growth rate — between 2004 and 2005. This means more security personnel guard 13,319 VIPs than the number of policemen in any Indian city — Delhi and Mumbai included. This is more than the police strength of all states bar the nine largest.
An estimated Rs 825 crore of taxpayers’ money is spent annually on the salary of the security staff alone, assuming — conservatively —that all on duty are constables earning Rs 15,000 each.
The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) headquartered in Delhi had compiled the figures more than a year ago.
Police officers said the actual number of policemen protecting the VIPs — ministers, members of Parliament, state legislators, judges and bureaucrats among others — would be at least twice this figure. In Delhi, more than 14,000 personnel are on VIP duties. The report, Data on Police Organisations in India, only counted about 4,900 security personnel deployed for more than six months as on January 1, 2006.
“A total of 11,012 VIPs were provided police protection for more than six months during the year 2004… It shows an increase of 20.9 per cent over the previous year,” the report said.
“The increase in the VIP protection deployment has strained the limited manpower resources of State Police,” the report said, suggesting that the grounds for providing security were skewed.
On paper, threat assessments dictate security cover and the extent of protection. Politics often replaces threat assessments in practice.
Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh’s is the latest example. His threat perception suddenly increased this year to the highest level, Z-Plus, around the same time that the UPA government’s life was hanging in balance after the Left pullout.
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati too had got herself home ministry clearance for her car to drive up to the aircraft at the Delhi airport after she extended support to the government more than a year ago. She withdrew support this year, but the privileges continue.
BPR&D said the deployment of police for VIP protection should be rationalised by reviewing it against need-based assessment. According to figures in its report, West Bengal has the most number of VIPs -- 1,999. Assam comes next with 1,610 and Uttar Pradesh, a close third at 1,506. Maharashtra, on the other hand, had reported about 122 VIPs.
Terror-torn Jammu and Kashmir, however, has only 170 VIPs.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=9d7c2725-b9d1-4b24-85e4-7bea32d4aac7
Over 45,000 men protect our VIPs
Aloke Tikku , Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, December 18, 2008
Last Updated: 01:14 IST(18/12/2008)
As the post-26/11 debate on whether politicians need more security than the public rages on, facts hidden in government figures show how India can be safer if only our VIPs do not turn security into a status symbol.
On paper, threat assessments dictate security cover and the extent of protection. Politics often replaces threat assessments in practice. More than 45,000 policemen protect the pool of VIPs in India that grew at 20 per cent — 12 times faster than the annual population growth rate — between 2004 and 2005. This means more security personnel guard 13,319 VIPs than the number of policemen in any Indian city — Delhi and Mumbai included. This is more than the police strength of all states bar the nine largest.
An estimated Rs 825 crore of taxpayers’ money is spent annually on the salary of the security staff alone, assuming — conservatively —that all on duty are constables earning Rs 15,000 each.
The Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) headquartered in Delhi had compiled the figures more than a year ago.
Police officers said the actual number of policemen protecting the VIPs — ministers, members of Parliament, state legislators, judges and bureaucrats among others — would be at least twice this figure. In Delhi, more than 14,000 personnel are on VIP duties. The report, Data on Police Organisations in India, only counted about 4,900 security personnel deployed for more than six months as on January 1, 2006.
“A total of 11,012 VIPs were provided police protection for more than six months during the year 2004… It shows an increase of 20.9 per cent over the previous year,” the report said.
“The increase in the VIP protection deployment has strained the limited manpower resources of State Police,” the report said, suggesting that the grounds for providing security were skewed.
On paper, threat assessments dictate security cover and the extent of protection. Politics often replaces threat assessments in practice.
Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh’s is the latest example. His threat perception suddenly increased this year to the highest level, Z-Plus, around the same time that the UPA government’s life was hanging in balance after the Left pullout.
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati too had got herself home ministry clearance for her car to drive up to the aircraft at the Delhi airport after she extended support to the government more than a year ago. She withdrew support this year, but the privileges continue.
BPR&D said the deployment of police for VIP protection should be rationalised by reviewing it against need-based assessment. According to figures in its report, West Bengal has the most number of VIPs -- 1,999. Assam comes next with 1,610 and Uttar Pradesh, a close third at 1,506. Maharashtra, on the other hand, had reported about 122 VIPs.
Terror-torn Jammu and Kashmir, however, has only 170 VIPs.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=9d7c2725-b9d1-4b24-85e4-7bea32d4aac7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
