Sunday, May 30, 2010

A sinister attempt

Statement issued to the Press by Porattom condemning the attempt to attribute the responsibility of Bengal train tragedy on the Maoists

Sabotage of train at West Midnapur in West Bengal and the carnage caused by, have nothing to do with Maoism and Maoist style of activities. Maoism disdains to justify any attack aimed at common people.

In spite of the statement from P.C.P.A (Peoples Committee against Police Atrocities) disowning their responsibilities with sabotage and carnage the haste to attribute the responsibility on P.C.P.A and to raise the Maoist phobia are sinister and with a wicked motive. This is explicit from the reports about finding out posters attributed to P.C.P.A from the site and the hasty campaign for a military intervention at the struggle affected area .It creates more mystery around this heinous sabotage and the carnage.

We condemn this and demand for a threadbare investigation to expose the truth so soon.

Chairman, Porattom

Acting Secretary, Struggle India
Ph: 9249713184

PCPA denies hand in train derailment, alleges CPI-M role

Sun, May 30 06:28 PM

Amidst allegations that the People's Committee against Police Atrocities played a role in Jnaneswari Express derailment, the Maoist-backed organisation on Sunday denied any involvement in the incident and charged the CPI-M with "hatching the plot".

"We have no intention to target trains and we condemn and mourn such a colossal loss of civilian lives," PCPA convener, Asit Mahato said over telephone and charged the CPI(M) "with hatching the plot".

A day after the state police claimed to have identified two persons of the PCPA recently released on bail having a hand in the derailment of the train's 13 coaches, Mahato said, "Politically motivated statements are being issued to separate us from the masses."

"We will take out a procession in the Jangalmahal to mourn the dead in the train disaster. We strongly condemn such acts which take lives of common, innocent men and we express deep shock," Mahato said.

Countering police's claim, the PCPA leader named four CPI-M district and local leaders and alleged "Under their leadership, the CPI(M) has opened camps in the last 15 days at Burjoli, Kolla, Patri and Dahimara villages close to Sardiha where the express train derailed."

The mishap that occurred in the wee hours Friday has claimed 148 lives so far.

Mahato further alleged the four CPI(M) leaders "conspired to create panic by triggering a train mishap and the objective is to malign us and take us away from the people in Jangalmahal by creating a bad name for us."

The PCPA leader said "CPI(M) had plans to politically isolate Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee so that she is forced to resign under directive of the UPA government after the train mishap".
"We strongly protest against such a conspiracy by the CPI(M) which led to such a heinous crime," Mahato said.

The Railway Minister had said Saturday that there was "a political conspiracy" in the derailment of the Jnaneswari Express two days ahead of the civic polls in the state.

"Whoever did it... it was a political conspiracy. The accident has happened two days before the (civic) election. One may be politically against us, but I feel bad the way the incident was engineered to fulfil one's political interests", Banerjee had said.

CPI (Maoist) and PCAPA deny any involvement in Friday train derailment

Statement from the Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF):

Yesterday’s( 28 May 2010) Gnaneshwari Express and a goods train tragedy near Kharagpur in West Bengal in which 80 people were killed and 200 injured was attributed to CPI(Maoist) and Peoples Committee Against Police Atrocities (PCAPA) by the media. The media unscrupulously played false news stories blaming CPI (Maoist) and Peoples Committee for two days. Some political parties like Trinomial Congress and the ruling CPI(Marxist) also blamed these organisations without any verification. Significantly Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram has declined to attribute the blame on the CPI (Maoist) and also announced that there was no evidence of any bomb blast in the incident.

The Union Home Minister has ordered an enquiry to find out any possibility of sabotage. During the day the leaders of CPI (Maoist) clarified through a long statement that they were not responsible for the train tragedy and condemned any possible sabotage work if any force involved behind the incident. They have also expressed their condolences for the families of deceased. The PCAPA also clarified that their activists are not involved in this incident. They suspected the ruling CPI(Marxist) to have been involved in the sabotage desperately trying to tilt the public opinion against the fighting forces.

Purposefully the media did not cover the statement issued by the CPI (Maoist) while playing the false stories and commentaries blaming the CPI (Maoist) for the incident. Some all India newspapers like The Hindu wrote editorials blaming the CPI (Maoist) for the incident. Many other newspapers wrote major articles decrying the CPI (Maoist) as terrorist attributing the blame on them. Now when the clarifications come from CPI (Maoist) and PCAPA, will these media houses withdraw their false stories and give the facts to the people? Will they regret for propagating the false news?

These two days of false propaganda is made with a malicious intension of maligning the CPI (Maoist) and PCAPA.

I attach here news reports covering the statement of clarification from the CPI (Maoist) and PCAPA by a section of newspapers in West Bengal. The same newspaper didn’t cover it in their editions coming from all other cities.

G N Saibaba

Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF)


Statement on Train(Jnaneswari Express) accident by the Maoists

The following report was published in the Bengali Ananda Bazar Patrike dt. 29 May 2010, page 7, Kolkata edition. It bore the caption ‘Denying allegations about their involvement, the Maoists demand enquiry’ and written by Prasun Acharyya. The statement was issued in the name of Aakash, the Maoist WB State Committee leader.

On Friday night, the following statement was issued on behalf of the CPI(Maoist) WB State Committee. “We are in no way involved in this incident. We did not carry out any explosion in the railway line. Killing innocent people by sabotaging railway line is not our agenda. When we carry out any action, there are always some specific reasons behind. We also acknowledge responsibility for that. Whenever we commit mistakes we admit it. However, responsibility is being placed on us now for an incident in which we are in no way involved”. Accusing the CPI(Marxist) of putting blame on them the Maoists said “The CPI(M) is haunted by the prospect of a landslide defeat in the coming municipal elections. Thus they have opted for a strategy of killing two birds with a single stone. On the one hand, attempts are being made to brand us as terrorists and thus isolate us from the people. On the other hand, they are seeking to prove that Mamata Banerjee is completely misfit as the railway minister”. The Maoists did not directly state that the CPI(M) was involved in the incident. But what they said is: “In the coming days also such unfortunate incidents can take place in order to malign Mamata and the Maoists”. The WB State Committee of the Maoists strongly condemned this act and stated: “This act deserves unequivocal condemnation. We are extending our sympathies to the members of the bereaved families. We also wish the speedy recovery of those who are injured”.

Meanwhile, the People’s Committee Against Police Atrocities has accused the CPI(M) of being involved in it. In reply to a query, the Maoists said: “We are not accountable for whatever one might say. We are not saying that the CPI(M) was involved in it. Let the railways make enquiry. The members of our party have made investigation after the incident. It was the removal of fish plates that led to the accident. There was no line for one metre stretch, side-clips were open. That led to derailment. Let the railways enquiry why side clips were open at the junction points of rail lines. No explosion took place at the site. Had there been any explosion, stones would have broken up and thrown out. But nothing like it happened”.

The Maoists said that whenever any untoward incident takes place along the railway route, the tendency is always to accuse them for such incidents. “Three days back, eleven bogies of the New Delhi -Gwahati Rajdhani Express were derailed near Naogachhia Station in Bihar. It was not a major accident. However, initially the blame was put on us. Later on, it was found that it was the fault of the railways that led to such a mishap”.

Even though the Maoists claim not to have directed any attack on the innocent people, why did they carry put land mine explosion in a passenger bus at Dantewada? The statement reads follows: “Special Pollce Officers(SPOs) and the CRPF were travelling in that bus. We have told people in Chhattisgarh time and again not to travel in the same bus along with the police and CRPF personnel. But it was the state government which had forced the common people to travel along with the police in the same bus. That is why common people also died along with the police”.

The Maoists accepted responsibility for the Dantewada incident; but not for this mishap. “We are not involved in the Sardiha incident, so we take no responsibility of it”, the Maoist statement said.

The Hindustan Times dt. 29 May 2010 carried only a brief statement from the Maoists: “Killing innocent civilians is not on our agenda. We have no links with this tragic incident, and we sympathise with the families of the deceased and the injured”.

Akash, Member, CPI(Maoist) State Committee, West Bengal.

‘Not We, CPI(M) is to blame’

Both the CPI(Maoist) and PCAPA have denied their involvement in the Friday train derailment of the Maharashtra-bound Gyaneshwar Express, and condemned it as an act of criminal conspiracy on part of the ruling CPI(M), as reported by the Bengali daily Sangbad Pratidin, 29 May).

The statement by CPI(Maoist) state committee secretary, Kanchan, says, “This incident is against the line practised by our Party. We are not involved in it. CPI(M) and Police have jointly conspired to effect it.”

Confirming it, Com Khokan representing the State Committee leader Akash of CPI(Maoist) said, “We are not at all involved in this incident. We do not kill innocent people. Fearing losing its rule, this is a ploy by CPI(M) to kill two birds with one stone. To paint the Maoists as terrorists and to declare the Railway minister, Mamata Banerjee as incapable. Even before this when the Rajdhani met with an accident, the State government pointed the finger on us. Our State Committee fully condemns this act. We share the pain with the families of the deceased and stand by them in this hour of grief.”

The PCAPA has also denied its involvement with the incident, and declared it as an act of sabotage by the ruling CPI(M). Its leader, Asit Mahato said, “We are not involved with this incident. CPI(M) is directly involved in it, and writing posters in our name and planting the same on the site, is trying to put the blame on us.”

Meanwhile the student union, USDF, leader Soumya Mandal also said, “Whether this incident is a handiwork of the CPI(M) or the Maoists, we completely condemn it. We offer our condolences to the families of the deceased and demand a comprehensive inquiry into the incident.”

Thursday, May 27, 2010

India: Responses to the Maoist Attack on a Bus in Dantewada

Monthly Review

PUCL strongly condemns the brutal killing of the innocent civilians traveling in a bus at Chingavaram on the Dantewada-Sukhma road in Chhattisgarh on 17 May 2010.

Killing of innocent civilians is the most heinous crime against the humanity and has no justification whatsoever. PUCL feels that no objective could be desirable that is sought to be achieved at the cost of human lives and security. As is evident from the past experience dialogue remains the most potent and viable means of lasting peace.

It is reported in the press that Home Minister has offered for talks with the CPI (Maoists), subject to cession of violence. PUCL appeals to the good sense of the fighting parties to come to the negotiating table and resolve the outstanding issues through the process of a dialogue.

Pushkar Raj, General Secretary

New Delhi -- "The dastardly attack on a civilian bus by the Maoists in Dantewada district in Chhattisgarh on 17 May 2010 killing at least 35 people including 24 civilians and 11 Special Police Officers (SPOs) is uncondonable," stated Asian Centre for Human Rights in a press release today. Several others injured when the Maoists blew up the civilian bus between Gadiras and Chingavaram in Dantewada district.

"Any attack on civilians by the Maoists cannot be condoned. Such attacks on civilians violates international humanitarian law and constitute war crime under Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court," stated Suhas Chakma, Director of the Asian Centre for Human Rights.

"This is not the first dastardly attack on civilians by the Maoists which is a clear violation of the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions," further stated Mr Chakma.

ACHR urged the Maoists not to attack civilians. The ACHR also recommended that security forces should not travel on civilian buses as this increases the risk to the lives of the civilians.

* * *
Human Rights Forum, 18 May 2010

The blasting of a private passenger bus near Chingavaram in Dantewada district of Chattisgarh on May 17 by the Maoists is a horrible incident. The Human Rights Forum condemns it unreservedly.

Whatever the sins of the Chattisgarh and Central governments, it is inhuman on the part of Maoists to have lain in wait and blown up a private vehicle in which a large number of unarmed civilians were travelling. According to reports, over 30 people, including 15 civilians have died in the blast.

We recall that the Maoists had fired upon a private jeep near RV Nagar in the Visakhapatnam Agency of AP on May 10. Six adivasis, including a woman, sustained bullet injuries on that occasion. Fortunately, there were no fatalities and all the injured are recovering. The adivasis were returning from a weekly shandy when that incident took place. There were a few policemen in the jeep, but the presence of a number of tribals should have been reason enough for the Maoists not to fire upon the vehicle and put the lives of civilians at risk. That the Maoists still resorted to the firing reflects a callousness that is unacceptable.

HRF is of the view those who claim to struggle for the people must do so responsibly and with full accountability. We demand that the Maoists desist from such inhuman acts.

S Jeevan Kumar (HRF president)

VS Krishna (HRF general secretary)

* * *
Kishenji, qtd by Press Trust of India, The Hindu, 19 May 2010

On the Dantewada killings he [Kishenji] said "We are very sorry for death of the innocent people, but we request people not to travel with the police in the same vehicle. Our fight is not with the people, but with the government".

* * *
Arundhati Roy, Outlook, 19 May 2010

Media reports say that the Maoists have deliberately targeted and killed civilians in Dantewara. If this is true, it is absolutely inexcusable and cannot be justified on any count. However, sections of the mainstream media have often been biased and incorrect in their reportage. Some accounts suggest that apart from SPOs and police, the other passengers in the bus were mainly those who had applied to be recruited as SPOs. We will have to wait for more information. If there were indeed civilians in the bus, it is irresponsible of the government to expose them to harm in a war zone by allowing police and SPOs (carriers of the mantle of all the crimes of Salwa Judum) to use public transport. Also, for a sense of perspective, let's not forget that right at this moment, in Kalinganagar and Jagatsingpur in Orissa, hundreds of police are firing on unarmed people protesting the corporate takeover of their land

India: Maoist ‘land reforms’ for tribals & landless

The Telegraph – Calcutta
Wednesday , May 26 , 2010

Dharampur (West Midnapore), May 25: Maoists in Lalgarh have said they would distribute among the poor and landless the land and property belonging to CPM leaders and workers who have fled the area.

A local Maoist leader said on Sunday that the rebels would resist if the administration tried to “hamper” their “land-reform initiative”.

“CPM leaders like Anuj Pandey (the zonal committee secretary of Binpur), whom we consider anti-people, have become rich by exploiting the poor. We have taken the decision (to distribute land and property) for the benefit of the tribals. We will fight back if the government tries to hamper our mission,” Ratan, a member of the Dharampur local committee of the CPI(Maoist), told The Telegraph.

The Naxalites are distributing leaflets, informing the residents of Lalgarh and Dharampur — where they plan to start the “mission” — about the move.

“These reactionaries (CPM leaders and workers in Lalgarh) are anti-people. They have fled their villages because of the people’s movement. We will have to take possession of their land and property and distribute them among landless farmers and day labourers. If there is not much land, then farming should be done by forming co-operatives,” the leaflet said.According to CPM sources, more than 50 party leaders, workers and supporters have fled their homes in Lalgarh and Dharampur in the past two years. In June last year, Maoists drove out Pandey from Dharampur and demolished his two-storey house.

Explaining the “new initiative” of the Maoists, Ratan said that while distributing land and other assets among the poor and the landless, they would “take into account their financial condition and daily earnings”.

“We will turn the ponds belonging to the escaped CPM leaders into fisheries, which will be run by co-operatives. We are creating a database of the land and other assets available,” Ratan added.
Pandey, who has taken refuge in Midnapore town, said he was helpless. “I have left everything behind. What can I do if they (the Maoists) take away my land and property?” he said.
West Midnapore superintendent of police Manoj Verma said the police would take action if the victims lodged complaints. “If we receive any complaint, we will register a case of trespassing against the offenders and initiate legal action. We can also start a suo motu case if we have enough evidence that land has been forcibly occupied,” he said.

Intelligence sources said they had informed the state government that Maoists from Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Jharkhand had assembled at the Bhalukbasha forest, 30km from Lalgarh town, on Tuesday.

“A group of 42 armed Maoists has arrived at the Bhalukbasha forest. They are carrying explosives like gelatine sticks. We believe that they have come to either carry out a major operation or resist any attempts by the government to stop the Maoists’ initiative,” an intelligence official said.

Philippines: NPA Raids Army Base, Seizes 11 High-Powered Rifles

Regional Political Department, Merardo Arce Command, NPA-Southern Mindanao
A composite team of the New People’s Army’s 3rd Pulang Bagani Company and Front 18 Operations Command in Southern Mindanao raided the 28th Infantry Battalion-AFP patrol base Monday, May 24 at 12 noon in Sitio Chapter, Brgy. Maputi in Banaybanay, Davao Oriental. Three were instantly killed and four were wounded on the enemy side, while two surrendered and were freed by the Red fighters.
The NPA seized 11 high-powered rifles: two minimi sub-machine guns, two M203 grenade launcher, three M14 rifles, three Garand rifles and one M16 rifle. One comrade was martyred in this operation.

Mordechai Vanunu, Whistle Blower on Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Program, Jailed Again

By Eileen Fleming

23 May, 2010, Counter

Beginning in 1986, Mordechai Vanunu’s life was sacrificed on the altar of TRUTH largely because THE MEDIA failed at its commission to go, seek and report THE TRUTH, no matter how inconvenient, ugly or brutal.
“Vanunu told the world that Israel had developed between one hundred and two hundred atomic bombs [in 1986!] and had gone on to develop neutron bombs and thermonuclear weapons. Enough to destroy the entire Middle East and nobody has done anything about it since.”-Peter Hounam, 2003 for the BBC.
On April 30, 2007, the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court, convicted Vanunu on 14 [out of 21] counts of violating a court order prohibiting him from speaking to foreign journalists in 2004. Vanunu was also convicted for traveling the four miles from Jerusalem to Bethlehem when he hoped to attend Christmas Eve mass at the Church of the Nativity, his first Christmas after being released from 18 years in jail [most of it in solitary] on April 21, 2004.
On July 2, 2007, Israel sentenced Vanunu to six more months in jail for speaking to foreign media in 2004. On September 23, 2008, the Jerusalem District Court reduced Mordechai Vanunu’s six-month jail sentence for speaking with foreign media in 2004, to three months, “In light of (Vanunu’s) ailing health and the absence of claims that his actions put the country’s security in jeopardy.”
Vanunu is scheduled to return to jail on May 23, 2010, because the Israeli Supreme Court refused his offer to do community service in occupied east Jerusalem, as they do not view that side of town to be a part of their community.
The restrictions that have held Vanunu captive ever since he emerged from 18 years in a windowless tomb sized cell for telling THE TRUTH, come from the Emergency Defense Regulations, which were implemented by Britain against Palestinians and Jews after World War II.
Attorney Yaccov Shapiro, who later became Israel’s Minister Of Justice, described the Emergency Defense Regulations as “unparalleled in any civilized country: there were no such laws in Nazi Germany.”
Israel kidnapped Vanunu in 1986, but Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “No one shall he subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention”, including abduction of a person by agents of one state to another state.
Vanunu was charged with and convicted of treason and espionage.
Section 99 of the Israeli Penal Code, treason is defined as “an act calculated to assist (an enemy) in time of war…delivering information with the intention that it fall into the hands of the enemy.”
Section 113 defines aggravated espionage as “deliver(ing) any secret information without being authorized to do so and with intent to impair the security of the state” and a sub-clause provides for a penalty of seven years for the unauthorized collection, preparation, recording or holding of secret information; if this is done with intent to impair the security of the state and then, the penalty is increased to 15 years.
Vanunu served 18 years in jail and has been subjected to 24/7 surveillance ever since 21 April 2004.
During my interviews with Vanunu, he informed me that, “All the secrets I had were published in 1989 in an important book, by Frank Barnaby, The Invisible Bomb: Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East.”
Frank Barnaby, the Nuclear Physicist, who was hired by the London Sunday Times to interrogate Vanunu, testified at his closed door trial, “I very vigorously cross-examined Vanunu, relentlessly asking the same questions in a number of different ways and at different times…I found Vanunu very straightforward about his motives for violating Israel’s secrecy laws he explained to me that he believed that both the Israeli and the world public had the right to know about the information he passed on. He seemed to me to be acting ideologically.”
But, Vanunu was rendered defenseless during that closed door trial when the court ruled that his motivations were not ideological and they refused to allow Vanunu’s own statements regarding his intentions to even be considered in his defense.
On November 24th, 2006 Vanunu wrote:
“My lawyer succeeded to reveal a few very important facts: This General of the Army also was not allowed to see all the secrets that he is required to protect by these restrictions that they claim I know them. So, he gave orders of restrictions without knowing what he is protecting or that he is also following orders blindly, and Mossad Sheen Bet using its authority for just punishing me. He testified that it is not a crime for me to talk with foreigners in general anywhere. He testified that I can speak freely to any Israeli citizens about anything; it is not his concern what I am saying to them. These Israelis can give this information to any foreigners. It was difficult for the Judge to understand why this dichotomy exits between foreigners and Israelis. It means that it is not about secrecy but about something else.”
The “Something Else”
In 2004, Yossi Melman wrote for Haaretz:
“This is the secret that hasn’t yet been told in the affair: the story of the security fiasco that made it possible for Vanunu to do what he did, and the story of the subsequent attempts at cover-up, whitewashing and protection of senior figures in the defense establishment, who were bent on divesting themselves of responsibility for the failure.
“The 18-year prison term to which Vanunu was sentenced is almost exactly the same period as that in which Yehiel Horev has served as chief of internal security in the defense establishment [who has been] involved in the affair as deputy chief of security at the Defense Ministry, and also after Vanunu’s abduction and arrest, as a member of an investigative commission.” [1]
Melman described Horev as devoted to duty and bland, petty and acutely suspiciousness, but also a man of personal integrity with a desire to expose corruption and failures coupled with a penchant for vengefulness.
“The affairs of the secrets that leaked from the two places considered Horev’s holiest sites – the Biological Institute, which produced a senior spy in the person of Prof. Marcus Klingberg, and the Dimona nuclear plant, about which secret information was revealed through Mordechai Vanunu – were formative events in the development of his world view. Shortly after taking office as chief of security at the Defense Ministry, Horev began to take punitive measures to hobble Vanunu. He is responsible for the harsh conditions in which Vanunu was held, which included years in solitary confinement, and the sharp limitations on the number of visitors he could have…[and has fought] a rearguard battle to prevent Vanunu from leaving Israel and to place him under supervision and restrictions that will be tantamount to house arrest. Horev has always been considered the strictest of all the security chiefs in Israel, especially in regard to the protection of institutions such as the Dimona facility and the Biological Institute. He is apprehensive that if Vanunu goes abroad, he will continue to be a nuisance by stimulating the public debate over Israel’s nuclear policy and the nuclear weapons he says Israel possesses…all the hyperactivity being displayed by Horev and those who support his approach is intended only to divert attention from what has not yet been revealed: the security blunders and their cover-ups.” [Ibid]
In 2005, Vanunu told me:
“President Kennedy tried to stop Israel from building atomic weapons. Kennedy insisted on an open internal inspection.
“When Johnson became president, he made an agreement with Israel that two senators would come every year to inspect. Before the senators would visit, the Israelis would build a wall to block the underground elevators and stairways. From 1963 to ’69, the senators came, but they never knew about the wall that hid the rest of the Dimona from them.
“Nixon stopped the inspections and agreed to ignore the situation. As a result, Israel increased production. In 1986, there were over two hundred bombs. Today, they may have enough plutonium for ten bombs a year.”
And President Obama persists to TRY to bullshit US as exposed by a real Journalist: Helen Thomas, whose got thatchers bigger than all the balls in THE PAID MEDIA Corp:
Helen Thomas on her one question for Obama
On March 26, 2006, Vanunu told me:
“Many journalists come here to the American Colony, from CNN and NY Times. They all want to cover my story, but their EDITORS say no…CNN wants to interview me; but they say they can’t do it because they don’t want problems with the Israeli censor. BBC is doing the same thing.
“Sixty Minutes from the United States from the beginning they wanted to do a program, but because of the censor situation they decide not to do it. Also big media from Germany, France, Italy, Japan. None of them wants problems with the Israelis.”
Vanunu also told me that his brother Meir had the great idea that all The Media who Vanunu had granted interviews with in 2004 [and thus are culpable in his ongoing misery!] should help pay his legal expenses.
I had more faith in regular people to do something, and so I asked Vanunu for a video interview which began with this question:
“If the British Mandate has expired why not the British Mandate’s Emergency Defense Regulations? “
Vaunu replied, “The reason given is security but it is because Israel is not a democracy unless you are a Jew. This administration tells me I am not allowed to speak to foreigners, the Media, and the world. But I do because that is how I prove my true humanity to the world. My freedom of speech trial began January 25, 2006 for speaking to the media, the same day as the Palestinian elections.”
When I returned to America, I snail-mailed “60 Minutes” and dozens of other U.S.A. mainstream media outlets as well as walked the halls of Congress to deliver DVD copies of “30 Minutes with Vanunu.”
As of this writing, NOT one Media, Congressional rep or President of the U.S. has ever responded to what Vanunu said:
“30 Minutes with Vanunu”WAWA’s exclusive uncensored interview from March 24, 2006that did NOT go through Israeli Military censors
Click here to download entire 30 minute video(Taped March 24, 2006)(Windows Media)
Click here to View 30 Minute Video Message on Google Video
Eileen Fleming, Producer “30 Minutes with Vanunu” and “13 Minutes with Vanunu”
Founder of
A Feature Correspondent for Arabisto.comStaff Member of Salem-news.comAuthor of “Keep Hope Alive” and “Memoirs of a Nice Irish American ‘Girl’s’ Life in Occupied Territory”
Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear whistle blower is sent back to prison today for speaking to foreign media. Here is a mail he sent to Eileen Fleming before he was sent to jail
From: Vanunu Mordechai J C.
To: [me]Date: Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:10 AM
FREEDOM AND ONLY FREEDOM I NEED NOW.VANUNU MORDECHAI John Crossman.KIDNAPPED IN ROME SEP’ 30 TH’-1986.18 YEARS IN ISRAEL PRISON.OUT IN APR’-21-2004.Waiting In East Jerusalem. To Be Free,To Leave .YouTube – vanunuvmjc http:/ Email. This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view itMobile ( 9 7 2 ) 0 5 2 3 7 4 4 5 6 9.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Pew Poll: Support for Socialism Growing in US

The more interesting story, though, is about Democrats. We hear endlessly about Blue Dog Democrats. But the Pew poll shows a surprisingly progressive Democratic base. Democrats are almost equally split in their appraisal of capitalism and socialism. Forty-seven percent see capitalism as positive but 53% do not. And 44% of Democrats define socialism as positive, linking their negativity about capitalism to a positive affirmation of socialism.

Capitalism: Big Surprises in Recent Polls

by Charles Derber

According to the conventional wisdom, the US is a center-Right country. But a new poll by Pew casts doubt on that idea. It shows widespread skepticism about capitalism and hints that support for socialist alternatives is emerging as a majoritarian force in America’s new generation.Carried out in late April and published May 4, 2010, the Pew poll, arguably by the most respected polling company in the country, asked over 1500 randomly selected Americans to describe their reactions to terms such as “capitalism,” “socialism,” “progressive,” “libertarian” and “militia.” The most striking findings concern “capitalism” and “socialism.” We cannot be sure what people mean by these terms, so the results have to be interpreted cautiously and in the context of more specific attitudes on concrete issues, as discussed later.
Pew summarizes the results in its poll title: “Socialism not so negative; capitalism not so positive.” This turns out to be an understatement of the drama in some of the underlying data.
Yes, “capitalism” is still viewed positively by a majority of Americans. But it is just by a bare majority. Only 52% of all Americans react positively. Thirty-seven percent say they have a negative reaction and the rest aren’t sure.
A year ago, a Rasmussen poll found similar reactions. Then, only 53% of Americans described capitalism as “superior” to socialism.
Meanwhile, 29% in the Pew poll describe “socialism” as positive. This positive percent soars much higher when you look at key sub-groups, as discussed shortly. A 2010 Gallup poll found 37% of all Americans preferring socialism as “superior” to capitalism.
Keep in mind these findings reflect an overview of the public mind when Right wing views seem at a high point – with the Tea Party often cast as a barometer of American public opinion. The polls in this era do not suggest a socialist country, but not a capitalist-loving one either. This is not a “Center-Right” America but a populace where almost 50% are deeply ambivalent or clearly opposed to capitalism. Republicans and the Tea Party would likely call that a Communist country.
The story gets more interesting when you look at two vital sub-groups. One is young people, the “millennial generation” currently between 18 and 30. In the Pew poll, just 43% of Americans under 30 describe “capitalism” as positive. Even more striking, the same percentage, 43%, describes “socialism” as positive. In other words, the new generation is equally divided between capitalism and socialism.
The Pew, Gallup and Rasmussen polls come to the same conclusion. Young people cannot be characterized as a capitalist generation. They are half capitalist and half socialist. Since the socialist leaning keeps rising among the young, it suggests—depending on how you interpret “socialism”—that we are moving toward an America that is either Center-Left or actually majoritarian socialist.
Turn now to Republicans and Democrats. Sixty-two percent of Republicans in the Pew poll view capitalism as positive, although 81 % view “free markets” as positive, suggesting a sensible distinction in their mind between capitalism and free markets. Even Republicans prefer small to big business and are divided about big business, which many correctly see as a monopolistic force of capitalism undermining free markets.
The more interesting story, though, is about Democrats. We hear endlessly about Blue Dog Democrats. But the Pew poll shows a surprisingly progressive Democratic base. Democrats are almost equally split in their appraisal of capitalism and socialism. Forty-seven percent see capitalism as positive but 53% do not. And 44% of Democrats define socialism as positive, linking their negativity about capitalism to a positive affirmation of socialism.
Moreover, many other subgroups react negatively to capitalism. Less than 50% of women, low-income groups and less-educated groups describe capitalism as positive.
So much for the view that Obama does not have a strong progressive base to mobilize. In fact, “progressive,’ according to the Pew poll, is one of the most positive terms in the American political lexicon, with a substantial majority of almost all sub-groups defining it as positive.
You may conclude that this all add ups to little, since we can’t be clear about how people are defining “capitalism” and “socialism.” But in my own research, summarized in recent books such as The New Feminized Majority and Morality Wars, attitudes registered in polls toward concrete issues over the last thirty years support the interpretation of the Pew data, at minimum, as evidence of a Center-Left country.
On nearly every major issue, from support minimum wage and unions, preference for diplomacy over force, deep concern for the environment, belief that big business is corrupting democracy, and support for many major social programs including Social Security and Medicare, the progressive position has been strong and relatively stable. If “socialism” means support for these issues, the interpretation of the Pew poll is a Center-Left country.
If socialism means a search for a genuine systemic alternative, then America, particularly its youth, is emerging as a majoritarian social democracy, or in a majoritarian search for a more cooperativist, green, and more peaceful and socially just order.
Either interpretation is hopeful. It should give progressives assurance that even in the “Age of the Tea Party,” despite great dangers and growing concentrated corporate power and wealth, there is a strong base for progressive politics. We have to mobilize the majority population to recognize its own possibilities and turn up the heat on the Obama Administration and a demoralized Democratic Party. If we fail, the Right will take up the slack and impose its monopoly capitalist will on a reluctant populace.
Charles Derber, professor of sociology at Boston College and author of Corporation Nation and Greed to Green. He is on the Majority Agenda Project’s coordinating committee.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Spring Thunder Over India

Tomorrow is Naxalbari day. It was on May 25th 1967 , theNaxalbari movement started in West Bengal. At a time when India is witnessing an upsurge in Naxal revolution it would be worthy to read the Editorial of People's Daily that proclaimed the advent of a new revolution. It was the People's Daily that described the Naxal Revolution as Spring Thunder.

Spring Thunder Over India

Transcriber’s note: This article was highly significant to the militants giving leadership to the Naxalbari struggle (referred below). For this radical members of the then undivided CPI(M) [CPI(M) stands for Communist Party of India (Marxist)] it constituted a powerful ideological victory over the CPI(M) leadrship which had just presided over the CPI(M) contesting its first election, in which it won three ministerial seats in the newly formed West Bengal United-Front Government. Charu Majumdar, the principal ideologue of the Naxalbari movement, had previously written his ‘Eight Documents’, in which he vehemently propounded the Maoist strategic and tactical line. Liberation was the central organ of the All India Co-ordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (AICCCR) that was set up in the wake of the Naxalbari uprising in 1967, and of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) or CPI(ML) after the dissolution of the AICCCR. The reader should note that the CPI(ML) and Liberation are politically, ideologically and methodologically entirely different from the now-existing CPIML(Liberation) which is one of the many political parties in India taking part in a parliamentary democracy 

A peal of spring thunder has crashed over the land of India. Revolutionary peasants in the Darjeeling area have risen in rebellion. Under the leadership of a revolutionary group of the Indian Communist Party [Transcriber’s note: This group comprised the radical members of the erstwhile undivided Communist Party of India (Marxist), a fore-runner of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), see above], a red area of rural revolutionary armed struggle has been established in India. This is a development of tremendous significance for the Indian people’s revolutionary struggle.

In the past few months, the peasant masses in this area, led by the revolutionary group of the Indian Communist Party, have thrown off the shackles of modern revisionism and smashed the trammels that bound them. They have seized grain, land and weapons from the landlords and plantation owners, punished the local tyrants and wicked gentry, and ambushed the reactionary troops and police that went to suppress them thus demonstrating the enormous might of the peasants’ revolutionary armed struggle. All imperialists, revisionists, corrupt officials, local tyrants and wicked gentry, and reactionary army and police are nothing in the eyes of the revolutionary peasants who are determined to strike them down to the dust. The absolutely correct thing has been done by the revolutionary group of the Indian Communist Party and they have done it well. The Chinese people joyfully applaud this revolutionary storm of the Indian peasants in the Darjeeling area as do all Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people of the whole world.

It is an inevitability that the Indian peasants will rebel and the Indian people will make revolution because the reactionary Congress rule has left them with no alternative. India under Congress rule is only nominally independent; in fact, it is nothing more than a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country. The Congress administration represents the interests of the Indian feudal princes, big landlords and bureaucrat-comprador capitalists. Internally, it oppresses the Indian people without any mercy and suck their blood, while internationally it serves the new boss, U.S. imperialism, and its number one accomplice, the Soviet revisionist ruling clique, in addition to its old suzerain British Imperialism, thus selling out the national interests of India in a big way. So imperialism, Soviet revisionism, feudalism and bureaucrat-comprador capitalism weigh like big mountains on the backs of the Indian people, especially on the toiling masses of workers and peasants.

The Congress administration has intensified its suppression and exploitation of the Indian people and pursued a policy of national betrayal during the past few years. Famine has stalked the land year after year. The fields are strewn with the bodies of those who have died of hunger and starvation. The Indian people, above all, the Indian peasants, have found life impossible for them. The revolutionary peasants in the Darjeeling area have now risen in rebellion, in violent revolution. This is the prelude to a violent revolution by the hundreds of millions of people throughout India. The Indian people will certainly cast away these big mountains off their backs and win complete emancipation. This is the general trend of Indian history which no force on earth can check or hinder.

What road is to be followed by the Indian revolution? This is a fundamental question affecting the success of the Indian revolution and the destiny of the 500 million Indian people. The Indian revolution must take the road of relying on the peasants, establishing base areas in the countryside, persisting in protracted armed struggle and using the countryside to encircle and finally capture the cities. This is Mao Tse-tung’s road, the road that has led the Chinese revolution to victory, and the only road to victory for the revolutions of all oppressed nations and peoples.

Our great leader, Chairman Mao Tse-tung, pointed out as long as 40 years ago: “In China’s central, southern and northern provinces, several hundred million peasants will rise like a mighty storm, like a hurricane, a force so swift and violent that no power, however great, will be able to hold it back. They will smash all the trammels that bind them and rush forward along the road to liberation. They will sweep all the imperialists, warlords, corrupt officials, local tyrants and evil gentry into their graves.”

Chairman Mao explicitly pointed out long ago that the peasant question occupies an extremely important place in the people’s revolution. The peasants constitute the main force in the national-democratic revolution against imperialism and its lackeys; they are most reliable and numerous allies of the proletariat. India is a vast semi-colonial and semi-feudal country with a population of 500 million, the absolute majority of which, the peasantry, once aroused, will become the invincible force of the Indian revolution. By integrating itself with peasants, the Indian proletariat will be able to bring about earth-shaking changes in the vast countryside of India and defeat any powerful enemy in a soul-stirring people’s war.

Our great leader, Chairman Mao, teaches us: “The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, for China and for all other countries.”

The specific nature of the Indian revolution, like that of the Chinese revolution, is armed revolution fighting against armed counter-revolution; Armed struggle is the only correct road for the Indian revolution; there is no other road whatsoever. Such trash as “Gandhi-ism”, “parliamentary road” and the like are opium used by the Indian ruling classes to paralyse the Indian people. Only by relying on violent revolution and taking the road of armed struggle can India be saved and the Indian people achieve complete liberation. Specifically, this is to arouse the peasant masses boldly, build up and expand the revolutionary armed forces, deal blows at the armed suppression of the imperialists and reactionaries, who are temporarily stronger than the revolutionary forces, by using the whole set of the flexible strategy and tactics of people’s war personally worked out by Chairman Mao, and to persist in protracted armed struggle and seize victory of the revolution step by step.

In the light of the characteristics of the Chinese revolution, our great leader, Chairman Mao, has pointed out the importance of establishing revolutionary rural base areas. Chairman Mao teaches us: In order to persist in protracted armed struggle and defeat imperialism and its lackeys, “it is imperative for the revolutionary ranks to turn the backward villages into advanced, consolidated base areas, into great military, political, economic and cultural bastions of the revolution from which to fight their vicious enemies who are using the cities for attacks on the rural districts, and in this way gradually to achieve the complete victory of the revolution through protracted fighting.”

India is country with vast territory; its countryside, where the reactionary rule is weak, provides the broad areas in which the revolutionaries can manoeuvre freely. So long as the Indian proletarian revolutionaries adhere to the revolutionary line of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung’s Thought and rely on their great ally, the peasants, it is entirely possible for them to establish one advanced revolutionary rural base area after another in the broad backward rural areas and build a people’s army of a new type. Whatever difficulties and twists and turns the Indian revolutionaries may experience in the course of building such revolutionary base areas, they will eventually develop such areas from isolated points into a vast expanse, from small areas into extensive ones, an expansion in a series of waves. Thus, a situation in which the cities are encircled from the countryside will gradually be brought about in the Indian revolution to pave the way for the final seizure of towns and cities and winning nation-wide victory.

The Indian reactionaries are panic-stricken by the development of the rural armed struggle in Darjeeling. They have sensed imminent disaster and they wail in alarm that the peasants’ revolt in Darjeeling will “become a national disaster.” Imperialism and the Indian reactionaries are trying in a thousand and one ways to suppress this armed struggle of the Darjeeling peasants and nip it in the bud. The Dange renegade clique and revisionist chieftains of the Indian Communist Party are vigorously slandering and attacking the revolutionaries in the Indian Communist Party and the revolutionary peasants in Darjeeling for their great exploits. The so-called “non-Congress” government in West Bengal openly sides with the reactionary Indian Government in its bloody suppression of the revolutionary peasants in Darjeeling. This gives added proof that these renegades and revisionists are running dogs of U.S. imperialism and Soviet revisionism and lackeys of the big Indian landlords and bourgeoisie. What they call the “Non-Congress government” is only a tool of the landlords and bourgeoisie.

But no matter how well the imperialists, Indian reactionaries and the modern revisionists may cooperate in their sabotage and suppression, the torch of armed struggle lighted by the revolutionaries in the Indian Communist Party and the revolutionary peasants in Darjeeling will not be put out. “A single spark can start a prairie fire”. The spark in Darjeeling will start a prairie fire and will certainly set the vast expanses of India ablaze. That a great storm of revolutionary armed struggle will eventually sweep across the length and breadth of India is certain. Although the course of the Indian revolutionary struggle will be long and tortuous, the Indian revolution, guided by great Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, will surely triumph.

Attack on Reliance Godown: Porattom activists remanded

Thrissur: The Porattom activists who were arrested in connection with the attack on Reliance godown have been remanded in judicial custody. To read the news on this in Malayalam click here


Sunday, May 23, 2010

Porattom attacks secret Reliance Godown in Kerala

Thrissur: Activists of Porattom today attacked a secret godown of Reliance in Thrissur district of Kerala. The activists who carried out surprise attack smashed computers and printers at the godown which had been functioning here at Kuriachira. After the attack Porattom activists including P.J. Manuel courted arrest.

It is pointed out that the attack exposed the double standards of CPI(M) led LDF governemnt which had done all assistance to function the godown smoothly even while conducting agitations against unprecedented price rise in the state. At a time when the people of Kerala is reeeling under price rise Reliance had been hoarding food items in their godown.
Source: Mathrubhumi

Friday, May 21, 2010

The great Indian poet K. Satchidanandan responds to Indian revolution

When the people are fighting for their survival and dignity, can a true poet with commitment to the people profess ignorance on that struggle. After all, poetry like most other art forms is a product of history too. So when the Dalits and Adivasis of India are engaged in a people's war with the oppressor Indian State the great Indian poet from Kerala K. Satchidanandan could not sit idly. This week's Mathrubhumi weekly carries a great poem by Satchidanandan. Those who know Malayalam may read it here. If for some reason you find it difficult to read it here you may save the poem first and read it after zooming in.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Indian Maoists: Police Are Using Civilians as Human Shields

A top Maoist leader regretted the death of civilians during Monday’s attack on a bus by the rebels in Chhattisgarh’s Dantewada district.

CPI (Maoist) Special Zone Committee member of Dandakaranya, Ramanna, spoke to CNN-IBN’s Rupashree Nanda from Bastar over phone. Ramanna said Maoists regretted the killing of civilians but alleges that the police used them as human shields. He also rejected the offer of conditional talks by Home Minister P Chidambaram.

CNN-IBN: What you have to say about Monday’s killing of civilians?

Ramanna: In yesterday’s (Monday’s) incident it is alleged that Maoists targeted civilians. Our target were Koya commanders. Our aim was precise and correct and 16 Koya commanders are dead. Police was using civilians as human shields.

CNN-IBN: If the government did a wrong thing by using civilians as human shields, can you say that you did the right thing in blasting a bus and killing innocent and poor people?

Ramanna: You are right. Out target were not civilians. Our target were the Koya commanders. The administration is using civilians as a human shield, so they got killed. But I regret this.

CNN-IBN: Chidambaram has offered talks if you give up violence. Are you ready to give up violence and accept the offer for talks?

Ramanna: Our party has already responded to his offer. The government did not even believe us. Over here when there is a heavy presence of security forces, and their atrocities are continuing every day, villagers are fleeing. What is the purpose of talks?

CNN-IBN: Sir, don’t you think if you engage the government in talks, some solutions can emerge, that it is worth giving talks a chance?

Ramanna: First, administration has to stop operation Green Hunt and create an atmosphere of peace. We cannot give up our weapons. We are not ready to give up our weapons.

CNN-IBN: If you don’t lay down arms, how will the government talk with you. Are you being reasonable?

Ramanna:In Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, in this country and the world even in Nepal discussions were always held as the rebels still held weapons. Why is the government asking us to give up weapons? The government is using its military option to displace people and hand over the land, forest, and water to private companies. We can never agree to that.

CNN-IBN: Do you have anything to say to Chidambaram, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi?

Ramanna: They must stop operation Green Hunt, and withdraw forces. Chidambaramji does not know about people. He is a corporate director and works like one. He is not a political leader, he does not think like a political leader, he has no understanding of the issues of ordinary people; he does not have the right to be a political leader.

CNN-IBN: So who in the Congress party is a political leader? Who would you talk with?

Ramanna:There is no one in the Congress party. Our party has already named some people (from civil society).

CNN-IBN: If the government does not withdraw operation Green Hunt, what will be your strategy?

Ramanna: We will continue to fight; we will take the struggle forward. We have the support of the people. Our people’s organisation constitutes of lakhs of people. We will continue to do what we have been doing.

CNN-IBN: Chidambaram has offered talks if you abjure violence?

Ramanna: He is making fools of the media. No one will believe him.

CNN-IBN: What are your issues? What can be done so that people stop killing and being killed?

Ramanna: We also agree that the killing has to stop but it is the government (shashan ) that is killing its own people. In operation Green Hunt they have already killed 150 adivasis (tribals). The Gompad massacre is still being heard in the Supreme Court. They have burnt down 3000 houses. More than 200,000 adivasis have become refugees. The government has to first rehabilitate the displaced people. When people are being displaced, how can you hold discussions? When people are not here, who will you discuss with?

CNN-IBN: If you target civilians, don’t you fear that you will lose popular support?

Ramanna: Yes. Civilian deaths constitute less than 1 per cent of the killings. In every operation we exercise extreme caution that ordinary people should not suffer. That is the discipline we follow. That is our code of conduct. About yesterday, we agree we made a mistake, we regret it. We don’t have a policy of killing people. We serve people. You can come, investigate and find out how many innocent civilians we have killed.

CNN-IBN: Our viewers would want to know whether you will target civilians again?

Ramanna: No we will not target civilians We have not done that before, are not doing it now and will not do it in the future. It is the police, which brought the civilians in the bus.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Kinalur - Kerala's Nandigram ; Police terror in Kerala village

Kozhikode: The police of the CPI(M)-led LDF Government on Thursday unleashed terror on the people of an entire village, Kinalur, in Kozhikode district following the instructions of Elamaram Kareem - The Industrial Minister.

The brutal violence was unleashed against public who exposed the nexus of CPM leaders and Real estate mafia when protesters tried to block Revenue Department officials who reached there for survey jobs for the construction of a 30-metre-wide four-lane road , where no mega-industrial projects were existing or proposed.

At present the only Industry there is of VKC Footwear owned by a former CPM MLA VKC Mammad Koya.At least 50 persons including women and elderly men were injured – some of them seriously – when the police used lathis, teargas shells and stun grenades to disperse the protestors who blocked the road to the village to prevent the survey team.

The Government had earlier projected the plot as an industrial growth centre, but not even the Kozhikode district administration has any idea as to what sort of industrial units would come up there.

Policemen in riot gear were seen trying to break open house doors and beating up and abusing even old men. The law-enforcers, armed with canes and stones, also damaged vehicles parked in the courtyards of the houses.

The unfortunate incidents were a sequel to the announcement last week by Industries Minister Elamaram Kareem, a lieutenant of the neo-liberalist CPI(M) faction headed by secretary Pinarayi Vijayan, that the road would be built at any cost.

A fact finding team of human rights activists and cultural activists including Janakeeya Manushyavakasa Prasthanam secretary Adv.Thushar Nirmal Sarathy

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Bob Marley Cultural Fest 2010

Bob Marley has been, the world over, an inspiration for those who upholds and take pride in their own culture. At a time when imperialist globalization is literally wiping out native cultures, memories of Bob Marley and the cultural resistance put up by him is worthy to commemorate. Cultural resistance becomes all the more important in India as the Home Minister of India himself is out there with his Operation Green Hunt to teach the Dalits and Adivasis some lessons in upper caste Hinduism and thereby continue the centuries old exploitation of these people.

Bob Marley Cultural Fest to be held at Comrade Abu Square at Fort Kochi (near the beach)from 9th to 11th this month is a platform for cultural activists and musicians who declines to conform to the existing establishment to get together and perform and express their views. This is the second year Bob Marley Cultural Fest is held in Fort Kochi by Bob Marley Cultural Collective. _____________________________________________________________

Detailed programme notice _____________________________________________________________


At Comrade Abu Square, Fort Kochi

Inaguration: Gauri Lankesh


Day one May 9 (Sunday)

10.a.m Inagural session

Inaguration: Gauri Lankesh Seminar -- Cultural Resistance in the Time of Globalization

Intervention: K.P Sethunath

Speakers : A.Marx



Dr.T.P. Sajeevan






Moderator: Mohammed Irshad

3.p.m : Drama

5. p.m: Rock show music event (Glen James)

7.p.m : Screening of Bob marley's songs

Day two May 10 (Monday)

10.a.m. Inaguration : Anirudh Raman

Participants : V.B.Venu

Mohandas N.N

Sasi Memuri

Workshop and exhibition of paintings and sculptures

5.p.m: Sitar concert by Vinod Sankaran

Tabala: Jithesh sisarkar

7.p.m: Screening of documentaries

Day three May 11 (Tuesday)

10.a.m: Bob Marley Commemoration

Inaguration : Kureepusha Sreekumar

Commemoration Speech : Charu Nivedita

11 a.m : Nadya Vadya Tharang

12.30: Folk songs (Adiyar Nattukoottam Adoor Rajagopal and team)

3.p.m : Porattu natakam (nanthiyodu Krishnan and team from Palakkadu)

5.p.m : Mehfil, Gazal, and Adivasi performances

7.p.m : Screening of Bob Marley songs and documentaries


BobMarleys famous Song War

Until the philosophy which hold one race superior

And another


Is finally

And permanently


And abandoned -

Everywhere is war -

Me say war.

That until there no longer

First class and second class citizens of any nation

Until the colour of a man's skin

Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes -

Me say war.

That until the basic human rights

Are equally guaranteed to all,

Without regard to race -

Dis a war.

That until that day

The dream of lasting peace,

World citizenship

Rule of international morality

Will remain in but a fleeting illusion to be pursued,

But never attained -

Now everywhere is war - war.

And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes

that hold our brothers in Angola,

In Mozambique,

South Africa

Sub-human bondage

Have been toppled,

Utterly destroyed -

Well, everywhere is war -

Me say war.

War in the east,

War in the west,

War up north,

War down south -

War - war -

Rumours of war.

And until that day,

The African continent

Will not know peace,

We Africans will fight - we find it necessary -

And we know we shall win

As we are confident

In the victory

Of good over evil -

Good over evil, yeah

Good over evil -

Good over evil, yeah!

Good over evil -

Good over evil, yeah


and here is Bob Marley's Get Up and Stand Up

Whither Maoists?

This article appeared in Sanhati
April 28, 2010

By Saroj Giri (Guest Contributor, Sanhati)


Congress heavy-weight Digvijay Singh’s attack on the pro-corporate and hawkish Home Minister Chidambaram’s approach to the ‘Maoist problem’ seems to strengthen civil society initiatives calling for talks and dialogue. However in declaring that the Maoists are not really against corporate interests and are integrated in business as usual at the local level, Singh revealed attempts at a liberal-left appropriation of Maoists, in order to settle scores with the Chidambaram faction. If Operation Civil Society is the name for such an appropriation, then this might prove as dangerous for Maoists as Operation Green Hunt. This means that unless they are able to advance the (class) struggle into new areas and new classes, it might be difficult for their ‘correct line’ to stop them from going the way of the Nepali Maoists. Physical liquidation of the Andhra model might be replaced by democratic liquidation.


“The sheen of Maoist political ideology seems to be wearing off… do we have an instance where Maoists have stopped mining operations in affected areas or have taken up the cause of the tribals for higher wages or better living and working conditions for them? If they have done so sometimes, the issue has been resolved amicably after some deal was struck.”– Digvijay Singh criticizing Chidambaram’s hawkish approach to Maoists.

“They are no enemies… We must talk to our Naxal (Maoist) friends”– Congress leader Keshava Rao in the Rajya Sabha.

The recent guerrilla action killing 76 CRPF jawans seems to show that the Maoists are not only here to stay but can also hit back and unnerve the state machinery. Its fall-out seems even graver now that dissensions within the Congress on the Maoist question are out in the open. A Congress heavy-weight like Digvijay Singh publicly taking on another heavy-weight the Home Minister, perhaps with the tacit consent of Sonia and Rahul Gandh, is not a trivial matter. If they want, Maoists thus have good reasons now to gleefully applaud themselves for inciting ‘contradictions within the ruling classes’. But is there need for a serious concern here?

Indeed the Maoists today seem to stand on the cusp of a major transformation in terms of their strengths and capacities, as they have over the past two years catapulted onto the national scene like never before. So far they had only a more spectacular presence, portrayed as engaging in dramatic acts of kidnapping, blocking the Rajdhani Express or carrying out armed actions, jailbreaks and so on. Similarly, the Prime Minister portrayed the Maoists in dramatic, spectacular, almost hysterical, terms as the largest internal security threat in the country.

However, with Digvijay Singh’s recent article, ‘Re-think counter-Maoist strategy’, attacking Chidambaram and his pro-corporate ‘law and order’ approach, there are signs that a more cool-headed and concrete appraisal of the Maoist phenomenon is taking place in the ruling circles. That is, it will be terribly mistaken to regard this as just a Singh versus Chidambaram spat – for sure, that is all that might be visible to those like us outside the charmed circles of power, but there are indications that much is happening.

What is emerging is such a ‘realist’ thinking: now that the Maoists do not seem to be fizzling out anytime soon, nor getting decimated by Operation Green Hunt or military actions, they might be as well be engaged with, if not accepted, as a stakeholder of power, at least as a structure of command, control and power which the dominant ruling classes must reckon with. Such a ‘sane’ appraisal of the Maoist presence seems clear from Singh’s piece. Further, Congress leader K Keshava Rao announces in the Rajya Sabha, post-CRPF massacre, that Naxals are no enemies and we must talk to “our Naxal friends”. What is needed is a ‘political process’: thus former Chief Minister of Chattisgarh Ajit Jogi points out in support of Singh that “there are three aspects to the Maoist problem: the socio-economic, the law and order side and the political process”. It is important to note that ‘political process’ is the new addition to this discourse.

This is already in addition to Mani Shankar Aiyar’s extremely vocal statements against the hawkish approach and ‘1000 per cent’ support to Singh’s article. Further, Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi seem to be tacitly even if ambiguously supporting these voices. The two Gandhis have either avoided saying anything much on the Maoists or have pointed out lack of development and just government policies as the real problem – what also seems in line with the Congress’s aam admi approach.

With this soft stance towards Maoists emerging from within the ruling party, the possibility of talks increases. But what can also be expected is the machinations and maneuvers of all kinds of vested interests taking a progressive, liberal-left stance in favour of talks and dialogue with the government. To start with, one must notice that Singh’s appraisal of the Maoists is not just the vintage socio-economic approach pitted against the law and order approach attributed to Chidambaram. Crucially, Singh claims that the Maoists are not really against corporate interests and it is in portraying such a less-than-revolutionary face of the Maoists that he is able to challenge the need and rationale of Operation Green Hunt against them and argue for talks instead.

The aam admi faction seems to portray, fashion, appropriate Maoists in ways that allow them to take on the hawkish faction – a mere ruling class game, at one level. But is there a tacit suggestion here that talks can materialise under pain of, one way or the other, rendering Maoists less-than-revolutionary? If the Maoists are really serious about talks should they then strike a tacit deal, ‘a gentleman’s agreement’ with the pro-talk, aam admi faction within the Congress? Flipping the question around, is this faction piggy-riding on the Maoists to settle their scores with the hawkish faction? In any case, at a slight stretch, it seems not utterly futile to ask: is Operation Civil Society silently at work scripting what could be a ‘democratic liquidation’ of the Maoists? It is an ungrateful question but also an ungrateful task, my task here, exploring it.

The political terrain

Marking the present politico-ideological terrain is of course the fact that Singh’s views echo Congress’s, as in Sonia and Rahul Gandhi’s ‘progressive’ aam admi agenda of reaching out to the poor. Also Singh’s opposition to Chidambaram’s line would find approval among a large section of what the media has termed the jholawalas, lefties and NGOs. Chidambaram, on the other hand, is presented as alienating the Congress from the aam admi and instead playing along with hawkish upper middle class jingoism who are all for a strong state and free rein to corporate interests. We cannot then overlook this terrain constituted by the contention between the two factions within the Congress mobilising different social bases, ‘the masses and the classes’, for their political power. Thus, the same Congress-led government see-saws between the pro-corporate Special Economic Zone Act and the ‘pro-people’ Employment Guarantee Act: carrot-and-stick policy.

The internal composition and particular configuration of the social basis of political power within the ruling Congress today is to a very large extent determined by this contention and tension between the two factions. It is within this context of the murky waters of interests and counter-interests, the machinations of power blocs, played out currently as corporate vs. aam admi approaches, that the Maoist comes to be cognized by those in power. However the corporate versus aam admi divide cuts across parties beyond the Congress and then gets translated state-wise in regional Maoist-affected contexts in slightly changed idioms. Recent Lok Sabha debates were marked by every party accusing the other of colluding with the Maoists: Singh himself wrote BJP is colluding, BJP says Congress colluded in Andhra, Mamata of course saying Maoists are same as CPIM, CPIM in turn accusing Trinamool of colluding, Shibu Soren and Nitish Kumar too colluding and apparently unwilling to implement Operation Green Hunt so on. Muddling waters further Arun Jaitley insinuates that Mamata Banerjee and Mani Shankar Aiyar are ‘half-Maoists’ and ‘consultants to insurgents’ sitting in the House. It is as though all these parties have to displace their own hidden illegality onto the Maoists, to be able to present themselves as constitutional, legal and legitimate in the first place!

Factional enframing of the Maoists

That is, the conflict and competition between these two factions within the ruling bloc means that the Maoist gets portrayed in different ways by each of them. Now the first kind of enframing coming from Chidambaram faction that the Maoists are out to violently overthrow the India state, and are against the very idea of India, is clearly applauded by large sections of the upper middle classes. The BJP fully backs this up and so do large sections within the Congress. Arun Jaitley was overly shrill in the Lok Sabha calling upon the Congress to rally behind the Home Minister and his hard approach towards the Maoists. What is it about the Maoists that allows such a hawkish approach to be adopted by a large section of the ruling classes? And here we know that this shows that the Maoists are indeed true to their political ideology, leading the struggle for a ‘violent’ overthrow of the Indian state and the establishment of communism. This means that the Maoists are indeed to a large extent on the path of protracted people’s war – testified therefore by the Indian’s state antagonistic and repressive actions against them. Or, for the more skeptical, they are at least arraigned against corporate interests and waging some kind of a struggle, perhaps a class struggle.

While then this first enframing follows from Maoist revolutionary politics, the second seems to offer a different picture – of Maoists who have lost the sheen of their political ideology. The second enframing is of course the left-liberal one propounded by Singh, Mani Shankar Aiyar and in fact large sections of liberal civil society and democratic rights groups. And here we have Singh himself in his article.

He makes three points. One, he challenges the narrow approach of the Home Minister, who “is treating it purely as a law and order problem without taking into consideration the issues that affect the tribals”, issues of “governance and livelihood” and instead “converting the serene and calm environment of Bastar into a battlefield”. Interestingly, another Congress leader Amaresh Mishra, close to Singh, had written elsewhere how “the Congress’s reformist agenda however was not liked by a powerful lobby of upstart corporate interests”, clearly pointing fingers at the Chidambaram lobby. Second, Singh presents an ambiguous picture of the Maoist approach towards corporates, and towards mining and other activities. There is no “instance where Maoists have stopped mining operations in affected areas”. And if at all the Maoists raised issues of wage increase for tribals or better living conditions, “the issue has been resolved amicably after some deal was struck”. Third, Singh calls for focusing primary attention on the plight of the tribals on issues related to governance and development, land and resources, and the need for benign policies in order to undercut the Maoist base.

While the contention between these two corporate factions in the Congress is evident, what is interesting is how this contention not only centres around working out the right approach in countering the Maoists but also offers a new appraisal of the latter. This new liberal-left appraisal does not just say that Maoists cannot be treated as a law and order problem and must be treated as primarily if not exclusively a socio-economic problem – implement PESA, Forest Rights Act and so on. It says something more and this is new: it says that the Maoists are not against corporate interests and in fact are quite well integrated in the local economy and business as usual wherever they are strong. “The sheen of their political ideology seems to be wearing off” as they facilitate business as usual. Thus “traders, forest contractors, industrialists and mining companies carrying on their business without a problem, in fact, quite merrily, in the Naxalite dominated areas. The Maoists, simply, are collecting protection fees.” In fact, after the massacre of CRPF jawans, when you would imagine that corporates are going to run for their lives from Maoist areas, Tata Steel MD H. M. Nerurkar calmly tells this about their steel venture in Chattisgarh: “We are not dropping the project on account of the naxal problem.”

Now there are two aspects to this issue of Maoists not being seen by sections within the ruling circles to be as radical as the ideological claims they make. One is of course the actual activities of the Maoists and their relationship with corporates in the different areas they are strong in. This is one which needs empirical verification which we cannot do here. The other aspect is the imperatives of the ruling parties that drive them to view Maoists as such, as fulfilling a particular role and function which is in consonance with the internal needs of the particular faction – and the liberal-left faction cannot present itself as going soft on a force which is openly against corporate capital. Thus here the liberal-left faction enframes the Maoist as not inimical to the overall corporate interests and business, except for the tax and levies they charge.

Liberal-left allied to corporate capital

What we see is that the liberal-left approach cannot of course break from the dominant order of corporates and big capital. So it somehow has to present the case of tribal upliftment and addressing socio-economic issues without antagonizing corporate capital. Thus it cannot advocate adopting a socio-economic approach to the Maoist problem, in the face of the ongoing corporate-backed military strategy of Chidambaram, without assuring that Maoists are not against corporates as such and that they arise out of the issue of alienation of tribals from their land and resources.

Now such a liberal-left approach aligned finally with big capital is nothing new. Right since the days of so-called Nehruvian socialism large sections of the left, often including the CPI and later the CPIM, have played second fiddle or openly facilitated the depredations of capital in the country. Post-liberalisation of course we see the CPIM at the vanguard of implementing some of the most aggressive policies of capital and the state. On the other hand, it can be argued that NREGA and a host of other social policies including the Forest Rights Act were all designed to contain social discontent and cushion the effects of market globalization as much as to garner votes through populist policies.

What is new then about this liberal-left in the light of the strong Maoist presence, as also of so many other movements against corporate plunder today, is that the ‘social discontent’ which pro-poor policies are trying to ‘ameliorate’ or ‘contain’ has now taken a distinct form, gone out of hand and getting articulated as a political force, as in fact counter-veiling power. Since now this power, the Maoists, do not seem to be petering out soon or decimated whenever the powers that be so desire, they are now being cognized by the liberal-left as a force to be engaged with. In cognizing the Maoists as such, it is imperative on the liberal-left to portray and appropriate them in ways that suit its own interests – hence as not inimical to corporate interests. Earlier, the Expert Committee on Left Wing Extremism of the Planning Commission too carried on such an approach of trying to enframe Maoists as some kind of less-than-revolutionary, radical social democrats (ok sometimes with a gun!) out there to seek justice. But then this means that there is here also a veiled suggestion to the Maoists as to what they should do if they want to endear themselves to the pro-talk, liberal-left faction, how they should in fact dilute their political ideology and so on. Will this have any impact on the Maoists, leading them to act as less-than-revolutionary?

Revolutionary movements at the service of reformist ones?

Thus if rendering the Maoists less-than-revolutionary is the hidden basis on which the talks and dialogue are to take place then one must raise certain questions about Operation Civil Society. Do scrapping Chidambaram’s hawkish policy and then talks and dialogue only mean the possibility of democratic liquidation of the Maoists, wearing off of their political ideology and so on? Do those opposing Operation Green Hunt do so thinking, as it seems Rahul Gandhi and Digvijay Singh and Mani Shankar Aiyar do, that Maoists dilute their political ideology in practice and can definitely be contained through socially oriented policies – and in turn be made the reason why more such policies be brought about, strengthening thereby the left-wing of capital and the state.

The more Operation Green Hunt fails to decimate the Maoists and the more Maoists are able to expand and proliferate, the more assertive the liberal-left is going to get, proffering their approach and solution. No wonder Singh’s article comes after the massacre of the CRPF jawans, when it seemed like Operation Green Hunt is not taking off. The Maoist presence and Chidambaram’s failure to eliminate it will clearly bring cheers to the liberal-left and allow them great leverage within the corridors of power. If this happens of course this might mean a larger realignment within the ruling bloc in favour of more people-oriented policies and applying some restraint on private capital and economic reforms – thanks to the Maoist presence!

On the other hand, objectively speaking the Indian state and ruling classes have lost touch with vast masses of people, particulary adivasis so that Maoists came to be the only credible force, to fill up what CPI leader from Bastar Manish Kunjam called a ‘political vacuum’ (Frontline, April 24 – May 7, 2010). Now apart from the subjective intentions of the Maoists the point is that objectively speaking big capital and the state in India today might look to the Maoists as facilitating this mediation between the tribals and the corporates - unless big capital is willing to go for an all out extermination of the tribals and capture the land and resources. This is the context in which we must understand ruling class parties accusing each other of being soft on the Maoists to secure electoral victories in Maoist areas – the Congress is supposed to be soft on Maoists to secure electoral gains in states like Chattisgarh with a BJP government. This only means that one way or another these parties are forced to deal with the fact that the Maoists are the only credible force with mass support in certain areas of sharp struggle against corporate capital.

Thus in terms of the internal composition of the ruling bloc today there is a possibility of talks and dialogue between the Maoists and the government, in fact of reconciliation too. However as we saw the enframing horizon within which such dialogue and reconciliation is envisioned clearly means co-opting the Maoist challenge in order to revive and refuel the old Nehruvian left ideals in the times of corporate globalization. No wonder arch-Nehruvian Aiyar declared his ‘one thousand percent’ support to Singh’s critique of Chidambaram. Social movements and civil society groups too have become more vocal demanding proper implementation of PESA, Panchayats, gram sabhas, different progressive Acts.

What is interesting and a paradox if you like, is that the Maoist movement far from rekindling a radical left or Marxist imagination consonant with the Naxalbari legacy, has instead fuelled and activated generally welfarist, left-of-centre sections – and in fact increased their bargaining power vis-à-vis those favouring corporate capital and a strong state. Is Maoist revolutionary subjectivity at the service of reformist movements? Prachanda’s promised fusion between people’s war and peoples movement in Nepal too turned out to be people’s war sacrificed towards a broad and vague peoples movement to the advantage of otherwise popularly hated, mainstream political parties. Bhoodan movement and the Gandhian movement itself got a new lease of life after Independence when it presented itself as a response or ‘humane solution’ to the Telegana armed uprising. This question of the subsumption of radical, revolutionary, ‘violent’ movements into infusing life and legitimacy in the existing order, with the ‘official left’ playing the intermediary, comprador role has to posed again today. Perhaps it is a problem of articulation, perhaps it is more substantive than that, or perhaps it is a sign of the overall logic of society, state and politics today – this needs more understanding.

Coming back to the present situation: the Maoists physically are not doing too bad confronting the military heat of Operation Green Hunt and the hawks within the Home Ministry; but what they seem not yet fully aware of is this ideological streamlining and sequestration of their subjectivity, twisted to rejuvenate the progressive ideals of the self-same Constitution and the progressive legislation ‘the sham of Indian democracy’ has churned out in no small quantities. If they realize, Maoists are today reeling under both Operation Green Hunt and Operation Civil Society! There is a however a tendency among the Maoists to be a bit too jubilant whenever civil society hotshots shower recognition and praise on them.

Now whether Maoists, in the face of conciliatory gestures and proposals from the liberal-left, will slowly come to some kind of an understanding with the Indian state or it will continue with its revolutionary aim and objective of New Democratic Revolution is a question we cannot settle here. What we can do is reflect on this model of armed struggle inflected and refracted in and through contradictions within the ruling circles and the calls and possibilities for talks and dialogue through some kind of civil society intervention and mediation. This way we can perhaps see that the ability of sections of the ruling classes to enframe the Maoists in ways that help reconfigure and renew the legitimacy of dominant power, might be a fall-out of a particular way of doing armed struggle.

Armed struggle ‘model’?

At the risk of oversimplification, let me outline the realist (definitely not the Marxist) account of armed struggle of the Maoists.As pointed out by several writers, Maoists started work in areas where the Indian state is weakest or hardly has any presence as in Dandakaranya, where there exists intense exploitation and oppression by agents of the state like Forest Department officials or by private contractors and traders. Maoists then, what has been narrated better by other writers, took up struggle for wage increase, higher prices for forest produce from traders, against women’s oppression and landlordism and so on.

In most cases Maoists soon gain a lot of popularity. They become a major power network there, running people’s courts, collecting taxes, levies on local contractors and traders. In any case, the Maoists soon gain real power on the ground, which becomes counter-power to the dominant order. They are able to challenge the armed might of the state too. Once this is achieved, the key point is whether this power allows Maoists to further radicalize the struggle and eventually build up towards a total replacement of the existing state order and society. Or, with this not happening, whether it starts negotiating with the already established dominant state order. Of course there are no binaries like that – for negotiations can be a step towards intensifying the struggle through strategic retreat. In any case, no matter what the objective, Indian Maoists are, as of today, keen to negotiate or go for talks and do not seem to be able to take the movement to a higher level. And this seems to be following on the features of a traditional armed struggle model.

In this model, the state response is of course to initially overlook them, if they have not become a credible threat yet to the ruling order, to business as usual and the authority of the state and parliamentary political process. The same was the case when the Maoists launched their people’s war in 1996 in Nepal: they were totally marginal to national politics. In fact this was the approach of the Indian state till recently. But then once they start being seen as a threat and also expanding, there are two kinds of responses. To physically eliminate them, particularly if the ruling order is not itself split from within and is internally cohesive in its approach. Or, as we saw with the liberal-left approach, to simultaneously befriend them if the internal dissensions within the ruling bloc mean that this threat can be used to buttress the claims of this one faction against the other faction.

In this realist account of the model of armed struggle, then, the rebels first establish themselves as a major power network (as a revolutionary force); the state and established order then try to dislodge them; if they cant, then there is a tendency to accommodate them; talks and negotiations begin, figuring out possible outcomes and compromise positions. But even though Maoists have emerged as a structure of power, not easily dislodged, the government today is not readily willing to negotiate and is putting strong conditionalities like ‘abjure violence’ and so on. This has of course to do with corporate capital’s strong linkages with the state. Companies like Vedanta, Arcelor Mittal, Tata Steel, Essar are openly and brazenly promoted by the Indian state.

More importantly, the government today feels that it does not lose its democratic legitimacy in making ‘war on its own people’. And that has to do with the upper middle class support base which is cheering on Chidambaram to go ahead and finish off the Maoists. Calls for using maximum force to finish off the ‘anti-national’ Maoists, egging on Chidambaram to go on no-holds barred, were on full display in the aftermath of the killing of 76 security personnel in Dantewada. On this count, negotiations are still not so much on the cards for the Indian state.

The other reason is also of course that precisely due to such a nature of the upper middle classes and intense corporate hegemony even among the lower classes, radical resistance among urban workers is extremely sporadic and falls short of acquiring a critical mass. And if they are unable to expand, Maoists might be more willing to go for talks and negotiations as a way out of being restricted in limited areas or expanding in sociologically homogeneous areas (forest areas, or among adivasis only) – thereby reinforcing the armed struggle model. It is the confidence and continued legitimacy of the state and its policies among the upper middle classes that allows it to ignore the Maoists as a legitimate force even when Digvijay paints them as not so dangerous, well integrated in business as usual, collecting taxes from local traders, contractors and businesses and so on.

Generalising the struggle or perpetuating power?

The key question for the Maoists is this: how can they transcend the traditional armed struggle model and go ahead with their political goals, intensifying the class struggle and so on? Are the janatam sarkar and the revolutionary peasant committees headed towards an alternative political power or are they only excellent but interim ways of organizing production and consumption at the local level only?

Thus it seems clear that if the Maoists are not able to expand their struggle in new areas, new classes and precipitate a larger crisis for the Indian state, the traditional armed struggle model would invariably set limits on it. Talks and dialogue in themselves are neither good nor bad: what is important is the larger dynamic of the struggle, of the ability to generalize the struggle and precipitate a wider crisis for the state – something much more pertinent given that the present government does not really derive legitimacy from the masses in Dantewada or Lalgarh but from the urban middle classes. From what one can see, Maoists seem to be pinning much hope on the initiatives by the intelligentsia and urban civil society groups, rather than mobilizing masses in urban areas, drawing thereby a line of generalization to the ‘base struggle’ in Dantewada, Lalgarh and elsewhere.

In Nepal, even after the Maoists spread to almost 70 per cent of the country, they still could not figure out how to expand to urban areas, particularly among the middle classes. It was only after they entered into the Nov 2005 12-point agreement with the seven political parties that they started expanding in urban areas – but that was only after they suspended their people’s war. So the question: how does one expand the people’s war among urban workers and the middle class? While Indian Maoists have more or less rightly critiqued the Nepali Maoists, they do not seem to have answers to such questions, to the real problems that the path of protracted people’s war encounters. The choice is between generalizing the struggle or eventually getting suckered in the flows of capital and state power.

After all, if the Maoists are not dynamically expanding in new areas, among new classes and winning new allies (for example the nationality movements and anti-caste struggles), there is always a chance that their present revolutionary base areas would get enmeshed in the larger circulation of quantities and masses which is global capitalism today – liberated zones can start wilting from within. Of course this might sound a bit too pessimistic today when the movement exudes a lot of revolutionary energy if not dynamism. Hence we can put it this way: Maoists today seem poised between either generalizing the struggle, advancing the class struggle to new heights, or lapsing into dominant, constituted, ossified (local) power, albeit rendering the dominant system progressive and humane in the process. Without an advancing class struggle, civil society initiatives, if taken a bit too seriously, for all their good intentions, cannot but push Maoists towards the latter, now also buttressed by liberal-left voices within the ruling party.

The liberal-left or civil society opposition to Operation Green Hunt and towards talks and dialogue is a double-edged sword as it tends to piggy-ride on the Maoist movement to establish its own agenda vis-à-vis the dominant neoliberal Chidambaram lobby – best exemplified in the catch-all expression ‘peace with justice’. Thus for example the choice offered between Operation Green Hunt or the (liberal-left) socio-economic approach, through effective implementation of PESA/Forest Rights Act and so on, is a false choice. While the possibility of a physical liquidation of the Andhra model remains, a new threat of democratic liquidation too can become a possibility. Unless Maoists are able to break their dalliance with civil society and advance their struggle to newer classes and urban areas, they might badly succumb.

Invisible hand

Lastly, let us come back to the attempted liberal-left appropriation of Maoists, against the hawkish pro-corporate faction, particularly in Singh’s article. While this is ‘ruling class contradiction’, we must not however fail to point out that, from a revolutionary standpoint, there is a truth contained in Singh’s assertion that Maoists are violent and do threaten the state but are not against business as usual, not against corporate interests. Indeed, Maoist politics is marked by the juxtaposition of a highly revolutionary, antagonistic relationship towards the state and its apparatus, including its political process of legitimization (boycott elections), with a highly ambiguous relationship to private trade and business at the local level. This is of course the difficult question of state versus capital, of state versus commodity production – where state is easily located and identified while capital and commodity production are diffuse, decentred and cannot be a target for revolutionary action. It is easier to confront the state and target it as a structure of oppression than be able to see how the market, private trade and exchange ‘spontaneously’ produces inequalities of power and wealth. The invisible hand of the market is sometimes far more instrumental in forestalling revolutions than the visible hand of the state.

Surely, the Maoists need to get a grasp of this problem, which has historically existed right since the days of Lenin when after capture of state power the Bolsheviks swung between War Communism (banning private trade and money) and the New Economic Policy (allowing a quantum of private trade and free market) in 1919-21. The Cultural Revolution in turn showed us that the old state and old classes might go but the existing conditions of production, in particular the wage system and the operation of the law of value (the capitalist market) in turn ‘spontaneously’ generates a new bourgeoisie, well… as Mao pointed out, from within the Communist Party.

Undoubtedly, Maoist practice particularly the experience of the janatam sarkars must be one way or another encountering this problem and must have tried to address it. The Maoists of course cannot shy away from actively relating to the trade and business (including looting banks) in areas under their control. However, to view it as only a local practical exigency (we all need money, don’t we?) and not relating it to the course of the overall revolutionary process can prove dangerous