Friday, February 19, 2010

International Campaign against the War on People in India–Launched



This is an important new initiative that can play a crucial role in exposing and isolating the brutal Indian government, which has launched an unprecedented military offensive to seize the lands of this country’s poorest people, the adivasis or tribal peoples.

The International Campaign Against War on the People of India (ICAWPI) is being launched to work as a coordinating centre seeking international support for the resistance of the people of India against the all out military offensive of the Indian state against its own citizens.

ICAWPI is an international extension of widespread opposition and initiatives against this genocidal war to forcefully crush the heroic resistance of the tribal peoples in the heartlands of India and to hand over these lands rich in minerals and raw materials to international corporations such as Vedanta, Rio Tinto, Posco and others.

This overt war serving to facilitate the looting of the land and resources by Indian and international corporations for fabulous profits and the destruction of the livelihood of the countless numbers of the poorest of the poor in India is named as “Operation Green Hunt”. While in different regions of the country the same operation may be named differently, the Indian state shamelessly tries to hide this banditry against the people of India and utterly open servitude to the imperialism as “war against the Naxalites”– imposing a severe reign of terror and repression on progressive and democratic forces and individuals everywhere across the country.

Countless intellectuals, authors, film makers, academics, and other professionals such as lawyers and doctors who abhor the Indian state’s total lies and open disregard for civil and human rights have joined mass gatherings and rallies and various forums in India in order to raise their own voices and join forces to oppose the State and to defend the just cause of the oppressed tribal people in India.

In the course of this gathering movement countless people have been arrested and imprisoned. Untold suffering and restrictions have been imposed on the people.

Yet, international public opinion is kept grossly in the dark about these issues while the mainstream media continue to follow and repeat the Indian State’s claims that “India is the largest democracy in the world” and that the Maoists, as the biggest security threat to this “democracy” must wiped out at all costs. Thus they justify their silence and bless the Indian State in perpetrating these crimes in the name of a “war on terror”.

Already more than one hundred tribal people have been killed in Chhattisgarh, Orissa, West Bengal and Jharkhand as part of this brutal war, “Operation Green Hunt”. Several thousand tribal people have been tortured, maimed, and pushed out of their villages, women raped, houses burnt and villages burnt to ashes. Though the Government of India unofficially imposed a censor on media to publish reports from the killing fields, democratic journalists, and civil rights bodies have been making efforts to bring the facts of this war out for the public.

ICAWPI aims to reach out to all democratic and freedom loving people across the world concerned about the plight of the people in India to unite and take initiative to break this silence internationally and to rally much needed support and solidarity to the just struggles of the people of India.

Information on Operation Green Hunt and the people’s resistance are available through www.icawpi.org – a website designed to carry material related to this issue and the campaign.

We request all democratic and progressive formations to take initiative and coordinate their efforts with ICAWPI. All reports of actions, meetings and letters of solidarity and concern will be published at this site.

In order to launch this campaign, ICAWPI calls on everyone to join demonstrations and protest actions in front of Indian embassies and consulates on February 5, 2010 where ever possible. A list of organized events will be published on the website as they become available. Further actions, events and meetings are being planned and will be announced soon after.

The website will also publish information about events in Europe and elsewhere, for discussion about the issue and to find ways of raising local awareness and taking joint actions.

Please contact ICAWPI through info@icawpi.org to inform us of your proposals to bring the campaign to your area.

Feb 3, 2010

** In order to receive regular updates on breaking news about Operation Green Hunt and the international campaign, please join the public mailing list of the campaign by sending a blank email to info-request@lists.icawpi.org with a subject line: “subscribe” or simply contact info@icawpi.org

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Jan Myrdal Interviews CPI(Maoist) Leader Ganapathy





This interview was posted in Sanhati.

In conversation with Ganapathy, General Secretary of CPI(Maoist)

By Jan Myrdal and Gautam Navlakha

JANUARY 2010


[Note from the authors : Far inside the jungles of the Eastern Ghats we met the general secretary of the CPI (Maoists) Ganapathy aka Mupalla Laxman Rao. After welcoming us and inquiring from us whether we, in particular Jan Myrdal, faced any problem having to travel the rough terrain, the interview began. Following is the summary of the interview with him. We have retained the interview in the form in which it was given, read and approved by him with some minor language changes. In particular we draw attention of readers to the General Secretary laying down concisely his party’s stance on the issue of talks in light of the disinformation spread by the Union Minister of Home P Chidambaram that CPI(Maoist) had “scoffed” at the Indian Government’s offer for talks. Indeed he told us:

“To put concisely the main demands that the party has placed in front of the government [of India] for any kind of talks are 1) All-out war has to be withdrawn; 2) For any kind of democratic work, the ban on the Party and Mass Organizations have to be lifted; 3) Illegal detention and torture of comrades had to be stopped and they be immediately released. If these demands are met, then the same leaders who are released from jails would lead and represent the Party in the talks.”

However, we consider the full text of the interview of importance for all those who want to know more about the policies of the party which the Government of India considers its main internal security threat.]

Q : How do you envisage the linking of this struggle with a general struggle in India in terms of class ? Chairman Mao after 1935 took the Long March to Yenan created a base for national level and part of which was the united front with the Chiang Kai-Sheik. Thereby it became the main national power in China. How do you envisage becoming to a national power in India?

A : In China, in which condition Long March to Yenan took-place and created a base and a part of it formation of a United Front with Chiang Kai-Sheik for national level is different to our present situation of New Democratic Revolution(NDR) of India. Chinese revolution had took-place in first half of the 20th century. Since then several significant changes have occurred in the world. Those are, firstly emergence of a Socialist Camp and its subsequent down fall, secondly downfall of colonialism and emergence of neocolonialism, thirdly emergence of so-called parliamentary system as the common political system throughout the world, fourthly, a long gap emerged in the revolutionary upsurge after success of revolutions in Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos in-spite of some upsurges and significant struggles in several countries. If we look into the entire world history, after emergence of working class on the globe, it is confronting with the bourgeoisie class and all other reactionary forces and seized power from them in Paris for a short-while and then in Russian, China and several European countries for a long time and shocked the entire globe. In this trajectory, there were various ups and downs in the World Socialist Revolution but nonetheless the struggle continuous. It is like waves at times and it slowed down, but it never ceased. So we have to see any revolution of a country in the light of historical context.

In relation to our revolution, first of all I would like to introduce our history in a short account to understand the present condition correctly. Our unified Party, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) was formed on 21st September 2004 by merging two Maoist revolutionary streams of India, the Communist Party of India(Marxist Leninst) [CPI (ML)]and Maoist Communist Centre (MCC). Our great beloved fore-founder leaders and teachers, Comrades Charu Mazumdar(CM) and Kanhai Chatterji(KC) who led an ideological and political struggle ceaselessly for a long time against revisionism and modern revisionism of Communist Party of India and CPI(Marxist). Through this struggle only backbone of the revisionist parties’ had broken down which resulted in a breakthrough in the Indian communist movement. By the result of this great struggle in all spheres by comrade CM and other genuine Maoists, the great Naxalbari armed peasant uprising broke-out like a Spring-Thunder. Then a new history began. Then onwards our two great leaders upheld the red banner of Naxalbari and lead the New Democratic Revolution. The revolutionary movement spread like prairie-fire to almost all parts of the country in a different scale. During this revolutionary course in a short period two Parties, CPI(ML) and MCC were founded on 22nd April 1969 and 20th October 1969 under the direct leadership of comrades CM and KC respectively. Due to several historical reasons we failed to form a unified Maoist Party at that juncture itself. But our basic ideological and political line, path and strategy of the revolution, and several other basic positions on important questions which we confronted at the same time were basically same.

The Indian ruling classes unleashed a reign of terror on all revolutionary movements starting with the Naxalbari armed agrarian uprising. At the end of 1972, after the arrest and martyrdom of comrade CM and even prior to it we lost a large number of leaders and cadres in the hands of the enemy. Due to these loses we suffered a countrywide setback. Prior to the martyrdom of comrade CM, intensive internal political and ideological struggle started against right arch-opportunist clique SNS and others in 1971 itself. Party had disintegrated into several groupings due to our serious tactical mistakes, state terror, severe losses, lack of proper leadership and negative effect of two line struggle within the Communist Party of China. Since 1972 July to 1980 our Party, the CPI(ML) was dominated by several splinters most of them lead by right and left-adventurist leadership and disarray spread over. But on the other side, under the leadership of MCC armed agrarian revolutionary peasant struggle in Kanksha took-place and it suffered a setback in a short period due to state terror but steadily expanded to Bihar, and to some extent to Assam and Tripura.

We uphold basic ideological and political line of a genuine Maoist Party, learned lessons from practice, seriously engaged in the class struggle and firmly stood for correct positions on several ideological and political questions which confronted in the country and international arena. Due to these positions only from CPI(ML) Stream, on 1978 the CPI(ML)-Party Unity(PU) and on 22nd April 1980 CPI(People’s War)(PW) emerged. Due to this only once again we, MCC, PW and PU Parties build armed agrarian revolutionary movement in different parts of the country, particularly Andhra Pradesh and Bihar. We strengthened our Party, revolutionary mass movement and armed struggle considerably in 1980s and 1990s which culminated in the great unity and formation of our new party in September 2004. Since 1977 a large number of genuine Maoist forces had merged and consolidated in the CPI(ML)[PW], MCCI and CPI(ML)-PU and also still this process is continuing to some extent after the formation of the new Party. But in this period most of the right and left Maoist groups had been gradually disintegrated and disappeared and some of the right groups still exist even though they are weak. Still a tiny section of Maoist forces exist but they are suffering from sectarianism for a long time.

We opine that our struggle within the CPI and CPM is an integral part of the great struggle conducted in the International Communist Movement headed by the Communist Party of China under the direct leadership of comrade Mao. We also opine that the internal struggle with in the CPI(ML) which took-place for several years is connected directly or indirectly with the internal struggle of the CPC even before and after Mao’s demise. Modern revisionist Deng clique which usurped power in China damaged much not only to our Party and revolution but also to the world revolution. We firmly stick to Mao Though and opposed Deng clique and Lin Piao clique. Our experience clearly shows that Indian revolution had influenced a lot with the positive and negative developments of International Communist Movement(ICM).

We, the Indian Maoist Party has traverse through a tortuous path for a long period. After formation of Unified Party, most favorable situation emerged for the advancement of revolution. We lost this good chance between 1969 and 1972. The biggest boon of this merger has been the result of synthesis of over 35 years of experience of Indian revolution. It has given us enriched basic documents in terms of strategy, tactics and policies. Our merger brought about a significant change from two different parties working in distant separate areas or small pockets to a Party with an all India character. Before merger, in-spite of both Parties having CC, there was a serious limitation to them in functioning as Central Bodies with all India perspective. But after merger, our understanding further enriched about the uneven development of the country and uneven development of the revolutionary movement. Now we can plan at an all India level in a better way. It is not at complete but atleast the disadvantages have been done away with. A clearer and enriched line has emerged in terms of both India and world context. And other aspect in this advantage, is that it had its effect internationally too. Before this, mostly we could not see this much of international support. But, still it is nascent, nonetheless it had developed. In recent years, we suffered several loses. Despite which we have to think how to avoid this much of losses. But our CC has said that we should avoid mistakes to avoid losses and boldly face the enemy and go ahead.

At present in our country other Maoist Parties are not in a position to provide leadership to the masses due to their right deviationist line and limited strength. The progressive and democratic forces are lacking any revolutionary basic program of action and also at present they are having a limited area of influence. Besides all these limitations no party has people’s armed force to defend. I reiterate that at present no one Party or Organization is capable enough to be a rallying centre for all revolutionary, democratic, progressive and patriotic forces and people. Hence, at present juncture our Party can play a significant role in rallying all revolutionary, democratic, progressive and patriotic forces and people. Because our party has an all India character, good political militant mass base in several States, a People’s Liberation Guerilla Army(PLGA) fighting enemy in several States and emerging New Democratic People’s power in Dandkaranya [an area in central India which comprises predominately tribal districts of five states of India namely Andhra Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Orissa], Jharkhand and some other parts of India. We have a clear-cut understanding to unify all revolutionary, democratic, progressive, patriotic forces and all oppressed social communities including oppressed nationalities against imperialism, feudalism and comprador bureaucratic capitalism. Our New Democratic United Front(UF) consists of four democratic classes, i.e. workers, peasants, urban petty-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie. If we wish to form a strong United Front then it must be under the leadership of proletariat, basing on worker and peasant alliance. If we wish to form a strong United Front then it must be supported and defended by the People’s Army. Without People’s Army people have nothing to achieve or to defend. Hence enemy is seriously trying to eliminate our Party leadership with the aim of destroying a revolutionary and democratic centre of Indian people. So the condition has matured further to rally around one centre and revolution could go ahead under the leadership of the CPI(Maoist).

At the same time, the world economic crisis, the anti-people and pro-imperialist policies of the Indian ruling classes and the rising state repression, infuriated the masses in the country increasing the revolutionary scope now that there is a single revolutionary party. For a long time, since Comrade CM’s martyrdom, India was lacking a single revolutionary platform. Even in the international scenario, there were many cleavages in the Maoist movements. In this particular juncture the emergence of our Party provides new hope to the people.

I want to say that the Party has no illusion about the so called parliamentary system and knows well Indian state’s might as well as we clearly know our limitations and shortcomings, even after unity [formation of Communist Party of India (Maoist)]and the weaknesses of Maoist forces in the country and other countries.

The favorable revolutionary conditions, the widespread bitter class struggle rising in Indian society and the development of the armed struggle are being keenly observed by the enemy who is taking it most seriously. So, no opportunity is being given to these struggles by the Indian ruling classes who are also compradors of imperialism. So immediately in the context of world revolution also putting together the experiences of Philippines, Peru, Nepal, and India, imperialism is most concerned about the development of a bitter class struggle emerging in India. In the present situation of world, if the Maoist revolution in India can advance to a new stage, it will become a grave threat to world capitalist system. That is why imperialism, particularly America has taken these developments seriously.

So, on the one side, there are more favorable conditions for revolution, and on the other side there is enemy’s full onslaught to suppress the revolution. In this situation, our entire plan is to fully utilize the favorable conditions while resisting the enemy which will determine our plan.

In this context, at present, main hurdle in the way of Indian Revolution is the all-out war unleashed by the enemy. This war is principally against Maoist movement but not limited to this movement and aimed enough against all revolutionary, democratic, progressive and patriotic movements and the movements of oppressed communities of our society including oppressed nationalities. At this juncture, all these forces have to think together how to face this mighty enemy and for this how to unite to go ahead.

How can we resolve the problem of all-out war? For resolution of any problem, we have to analyze it deeply to identify the root cause of the problem. Firstly, why this war? Who’s imposing it? On whom it is imposing? What is the nature of this war? How long it continues? Can we accept this war or not? Who should counter it? How to counter it? What is the aim of resistance to war?, etc.

This war is meant for destroying the revolution which is gradually emerging as an alternative political power to the existing reactionary political power in the country and plundering massive minerals and other rich natural resources of the vast areas of Adivasi people and other local people from Lalgarh to Surjagarh. They are imposing this war on those who are against this war, i.e. Maoist revolutionaries, Adivasi and local people of the vast forest areas, workers, peasants, urban middle class, small and medium bourgeoisie, Dalit, women, religious minorities and oppressed nationalities, democratic organizations, progressive and patriotic forces who comprise more than 95% of the population. It is completely an unjust war. This war is imposed by the Comprador Bureaucratic Bourgeoisie, Feudal forces of this country and imperialists, particularly America. These are real looters, plunderers, corrupters, blackmailers, hoarders, scamsters, murders, conspirators, oppressors, suppressers, autocrats, fascists, most reactionaries and number one traitors. These reactionaries plan to continue this war for a long time till they achieve their goal.

Any Maoist, democrat, progressive, patriot, and people will not accept this unjust war imposed by the rulers. People will completely oppose this unjust, most cruel, inhumane and treacherous war. It will be defied by all people of our country and people of world. This unjust war is totally against the interest of the people and the interest of the country. People will unite and counter this unjust war by waging a just war. People will never tolerate any kind of unjust war. In the history of entire class society people never tolerated any kind of unjust war for ever but they fought back every unjust war by paying price of their own blood and ultimately won it. Immediate aim of this just war is to defeat the unjust war completely and then advance towards changing present social conditions which are giving scope to unjust wars. If we look at the political developments of the country, this inhumane all-out war is giving a tremendous scope to unite vast masses of people and certainly it will become counter productive to the ruling classes.

After 15th August 1947 we never saw such integration of Indian economy, defense, internal security, polity, culture and entire state with the imperialists, particularly with the US imperialists. Nuclear Deal and several defense deals, glaring interference after terrorist attacks in Mumbai on 26th November 2008 and Union Home Minister Chidambaram’s visit to US and crucial agreements related to internal security are some glaring instances. Due to this significant change the Indian expansionists are playing a crucial role in the South-Asia. The fundamental contradiction between imperialism and Indian people has further sharpened. It will give great scope to unite people against imperialists and fight back imperialism.

From several decades entire Kashmir and North East are under military and paramilitary domination. On the other hand drastic change has been seen in internal security due to role of military in the internal security. Indian army was deployed at the time of historic Telangana armed agrarian revolution (1946-52) and for a short-while [in 1971] in some pockets of West Bengal after great Naxalbari peasant armed uprising of 1966. But today in long term perspective, the Indian army is being reorganized. Under the dictates of global war against terror, three years back Indian army has declared its new policy [Doctrine of Sub-conventional Warfare] to deal with internal security and needs of the modern war with other countries. Under this restructured plan Indian army is training a large number of its forces according to needs of wide-spread counter-insurgency operations. Now onwards Indian army is being used in a vast area of our country against its own people in the name of internal security. If it [Indian Government] is really a people’s government, how can it use its own army against its own people? The Indian state is functioning as an autocratic and fascist rule in the garb of democracy. All the gains that were made by revolutionary and democratic people’s struggles are being challenged by the fascists. But this will also force the vast masses of the people to unite and resist with whatever means to defend and ultimately it will also become counter-productive to the ruling classes.

We must also talk about the current world economic crisis, particularly crisis of US imperialists and other imperialist countries. This crisis is in certain aspects even deeper than the great depression of 1930s. But capitalism does not die on its own without a revolution. Now to come out of this crisis imperialist will try to increase exploitation of working class and middle class of its own countries and increase plunder of third world countries. Multi National Corporations (MNCs) and Comprador Bureaucratic Bourgeoise (CBB), the collaborators of imperialists concentrated on the large tracts extended from Lalgarh in Bengal to Surjagarh in Maharashtra. To exploit this rich region, primarily Adivasi (tribal) region, state and central governments have signed 100s of MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding). Indiscriminate loot of this region will destroy environment and bring long term ecological changes. The most oppressed community of Indian society, the Adivasis and local people have come under a great threat. Probably for the first time in the world, such huge populations of indigenous people are being threatened. A new situation is being created and with a concrete program these oppressed sections must advance. It is evident that without the emancipation of these people, we cannot advance nor the Indian revolution succeed. Our Party is working on this problem and more and more people will unite and fight back the arch enemies of the Indian people, namely the imperialists, CBB, feudals and fascist state.

People of North Eastern oppressed nationalities and Kashmiri are fighting for their liberation from decades. They have advanced to some extent and faced unprecedented sufferings. But they did not succeed and still they are continuing their fight. While we have had some successes in guerilla warfare, they (oppressed nationalities) see some hope in the Maoists. There is a new hope that if the Maoist revolution advances, it will hasten the national liberation struggles also. In this context, in accordance with MLM (Marxism Leninism and Maoism) the Party had always maintained the position of the right to self-determination including secession of all oppressed nationalities. They (oppressed nationalities) understand this policy and their fight need to be strengthened. This has to be utilized to unite with them and try for a united front. For instance, when the Naga forces were deployed in Chhatisgarh or when the Mizo battalions were placed here, there were some protests in Nagaland and Mizoram respectively by soldiers own family members as well as by the democratic people. They said that they oppose the war on people; they don’t want to send their children for suppressing other people. Strategically it is creating a better condition to unite people of all nationalities, workers, peasants, middle class and national capitalists and the suppression going on everywhere on the people is gradually becoming counter-productive to the rulers itself.

Overall, enemy has declared all-out war on the people in the name of internal security, and in the name of danger from Maoists. We are relatively strong in several rural areas of the country. But at present our forces are weak, we are weak in urban areas, and we are also weak in workers and among petty-bourgeois. People’s army too is weak and its weapons are inferior to the enemy. These are our weaknesses in general. To strengthen the people’s army and work in urban areas are some of most important urgent tasks. The Unity Congress of our Party has clearly announced a strategic plan and has given enriched documents for improving in these fields. On the other hand, social contradictions are sharpening very fast. Along with above urgent tasks, our Party is concentrating to unite more and more people. If we succeed in this, we can make a leap in the revolution. We are hopeful about the emergence of a united front. In this new situation, it is one of the foremost tasks of Indian revolution. We strongly feel that it is not only ours task but the task of all revolutionary, democratic, progressive forces. Along with this contradiction within the enemy classes are sharpening. It can be seen in Nandigram and to some extent in the Lalgarh struggles. We are utilizing this contradiction and it is necessary to utilize everywhere to advance the class struggle. We are also working with other democratic organizations and people and some individuals belonging to ruling classes on different issues of the masses by forming tactical fronts. We and all fighting Parties, Organizations and people have to understand the importance of unity between them and formation of a united front. We are providing impetus to unity of the people and building a strategic united front and tactical fronts. This strategic united front will be between the oppressed people against imperialism, feudalism and comprador bureaucratic capitalism. In-spite of intensification of the contradiction between imperialism and Indian people our country is not attacked by any imperialist country or has not become a direct colony by any other means. So, at present our condition is different from that of China in mid 1930s in which CPC formed an anti-imperialist united front against Japan imperialism.

Q : How would the Party deal with the difficulties in the formation of the united front and along with the objective conditions, what does the party think about the subjective conditions in today’s scenario ?

A : Comrades, firstly, as the first aspect, Maoist party would like becoming a centre for the people of the country and their development, represent their aspirations. We are representing above 95% of population. There is more favorable objective condition for uniting people and people also want a party that will serve their interests. We are not working for partial reform within the bourgeois and exploitative system. We are fighting for the socio-economic demands of the people as well as for the qualitative change of the very basic structure of the society. If we succeed in clearly explaining it to the people, we will succeed to mobilize and organize them in the war and will win.

Whenever protracted people’s war, as well as national liberation war had been fought, experience shows that without mass base, army, liberated area, people did not succeed in forming a strong united front. In course of revolutionary struggle, forming army and establishing base areas we can form several tactical united fronts and even fragile strategic united front. We have to strive hard to mobilize masses in the war against their enemies and build own army and establish stable base areas and march forward to build a strong united front.

Q. What are the ways and methods to win-over friends?

A. For broadest possible unity, we cannot have sectarian approach towards friends of NDR. At present several forces are lined up against the enemy. We have to let them develop too. In the united front on some issues, there would also be representatives of oppressive classes. We can not expect them join our ranks, which is a long way ahead. Right now we need to firmly stick to our strategic goal, and for that tactically we need to remain flexible.

More clearly, there are two different kinds of United Fronts. One, between people, and the other between people and enemy (a section/group/persons from enemy classes) using the contradictions among the enemy. Party has to do that. This scope is there to some extent on some issues. We call it the indirect reserves of the revolution which can be used carefully. If we have clear understanding that they are not our class allies, then we would not have right opportunist deviations. We need united fronts of this kind for the success of the revolution. The Indian Left largely, like CPI and CPM, had trailed behind the bourgeoisie and degenerated.

Last aspect is each class has a separate class interest and a world view. The united front in this sense is also a struggle front. But overall if the struggle is against the main enemy, then this struggle becomes secondary, while unity becomes primary. The real issue is how this struggle and unity can be balanced and used effectively. The enemy classes will never side with the people. Even after the seizure of power, struggle will continue within the society for a long time. So, united front and class struggle should continue simultaneously. For that it is an utmost important task is to concentrate on the ideological and political education of the masses. If we can do this successfully, then we can win-over those sections too and allow them to join our ranks. These parties also have people under a corrupt leadership. If we can win-over the people through political and ideological struggle, we can win-over large number of their primary membership. Revolutionary breakthrough is linked to this process. The Chinese and Nepalese Party have developed through leaps and bounds by doing the same. Both the cadre force as well as the army can expand through this politically and ideologically also. If this dialectical relationship between the united front and the political and ideological struggle can be handled carefully, we will succeed in forming a strong united front and isolate the main enemy.

Ideologically the bourgeois class influence can be removed on the basis of the historical lessons of Marxism as a scientific theory. By doing this, we can wingover people and even change their world outlook and transform them with Marxist outlook.

We have talked about our basic understanding of a united front. About the subjective conditions the revolutionary intellectuals and democratic people are aligned in a favorable position for people. But this has to be made practically beneficial. The second question being the fierce repression, how can all this be achieved?

We recognize that we are a small Party still. But our real strength lies in Marxist ideology, the classes it represent, its line and policies. And to achieve united front what are the methods? CBB, landlords and imperialists are the enemy against whom vast masses need to be united on the basis of mass line and class line. If we keep to the interests of the masses and use both the mass line and class line correctly, we will definitely succeed and develop from a small force to a big national force.

Q. But practically how do you do it ?

A. I talked about our strength even while we are physically small. I described where our main strength lies. But physical strength is also needed to fight. We need powerful army and strong mass base along with strong Party. This is practically a must. If this is not there, no matter how strong we are ideologically, it would lead to failure. So, we have to grow. For this, while facing the enemy repression, we have to use the correct tactics. In our assessment, enemy is going for all-out war. But it is creating its own trap. If we can understand that and effectively handle our guerilla war, we will succeed.

In practical terms there are two issues. One, Ruling class contradictions : There exist old contradictions in the society and new contradictions that will emerge among the ruling classes that must and should be utilized for the advantage of the people. Not only to defeat enemy and for immediate gains, but for a longer revolutionary purpose, this is required. We should strengthen our mass base and fronts which are the main shields of our power. Comrade Mao said that for developing army and war people are the decisive. We must mobilize the vast masses against the enemy and utilize the contradictions of the enemy to smash them one after another.

Second, while waging guerilla war in Andhra we had a setback; but we have not completely abandoned; nonetheless it is a setback. From Godavari valley (in Andhra Pradesh) to Maharashtra, Orissa, Bihar, Jharkhand to West Bengal border, we have to intensify and expand guerilla war. Enemy must be resisted by our forces but it must be according to our advantage basing on the concrete situation. At present we have to utilize cleverly the tactics of hit and run basically. We have to develop guerilla war into mobile war and guerilla army into a regular army. We need active involvement of people. Our strength lies in the people. The enemy will strive to limits us to armed confrontation only. And they want to limit us to a limited area. They are dividing our areas into various sections and encircle us. But we can also chase their base camps like honey bees by mobilizing the people. In areas where the enemy camps are located, even in those villages, we have Revolutionary People’s Committees where work is still going on. Hundreds of people built up ponds in complete knowledge of the security forces in the camps. So as the enemy is splitting our masses, we are also trying to expand our base, and trying to encircle the enemy camps/bases. We have to keep in mind the strategic importance of guerilla war. They are bringing 1 lakh (100,000) soldiers. They have decided to bring and deploy Rashtriya Rifles (A special contingent of Indian army’s counter-insurgency force) from Jammu and Kashmir. But still Lalgarh to Surjagarh means crores (one crore equals ten million) of people. If we succeed in actively mobilizing the masses to fight back the enemy forces, then we can make this very war a basis for revolutionary change. It is definitely a challenge before us but we are confident that there is an advantage in the long run which cannot be achieved in a short period. But unlike what the enemy wants, to finish this in a short period, we want to stretch this war and transform the situation to our advantage favorable to the revolution.

They are trying to limit our area, while we are attempting to expand. They are building Gram Suraksha Samithis to fight so-called anti-socials and thereby doing their best to contain us. But people are inviting us. Even new, less experienced cadres who are meagerly armed are being asked to visit these areas by the people. For example, Sonebhadra in the Orissa, the villages invited us themselves. Then again our plans to expand from Raigad to Nayagad in the form of Operation Ropeway under which the Nayagad Raid was orchestrated enabled us to expand into this area in as little as 8-10 months. So, the Nayagad raid not only had military significance but also political significance as there was strategic reasons behind the raid. Then again Operation Vikas was undertaken to expand into the Manpur (Chattisgarh) area in the plains. And people are inviting us and their confidence is on the high. If we expand in this way, we will grow definitely and expand the guerilla war. If we proceed like this and successfully stretch the war, then in the longer run the political and economic situations are bound to change and under pressure the state will crumble. Presently, the state is willfully spending in military expenses, but as the war stretches and expand in to newer and newer areas, the more it will spend in the longer run it would lead to failure. We are waging our war with this strategic plan.

I already explained the second aspect of this question in my answer to your first question.

Q : Is it possible at this juncture for the Party to be at the centre of United Front? For instance, while working in Delhi where the Party is weak, how does it envisage an united front?
A : It is an utmost important task to keep the Party in the centre of united front.

I already answered first aspect of your question in my answer to your first question.

About my second aspect for your question, in Delhi if you could do that it would be easier to work. But that is not the condition today. So, the party after analyzing the situation, decided to keep the party in centre through various other means possible. There are other means – through other Maoist forces, democratic and other progressive forces. And therefore, in places like Delhi, where there is limited scope for the Party directly, we have to work in other ways. Our forces must rise to the occasion, deploy capable forces for united front, identify the most reliable forces and organize a joint understanding at any important place. Different arrangements need to be made. Other democratic, progressive and Maoist forces need to be brought together and in the interim they should be made to lead.

Q : The situation in the early days of the Lalgarh movement was such that intellectuals in large numbers came out in support of the Lalgarh movement. But of late, the intellectuals have had differences in terms of the later stages of the movement, and the focus has been shifted to such issues as opposition to laws like Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). How do you perceive the situation?
A : If I had the latest state committee report, it would have been easier for me to answer this question. But still I would like to say that initially there was lot of support among urban intelligentsia. Now depending upon the enemy’s onslaught and the nature of struggle, it will also lead to changes in reaction to the support base. Some people may also go over to the opposition side of the Lalgarh movement. In Bengal, our influence in the Civil liberty groups and in urban areas is not much strong. We need to do more to develop this. We need to strengthen our work in urban areas. A lot would depend on our work there and the development of Lalgarh movement to a higher stage. There is a lot of difference between working among the basic masses and working among intellectuals. As the latter involves several complex factors. In this context, if the intellectuals are united around any issue, even being UAPA, considering that it is not in contradiction to the larger struggle, it would be positive for us. Those who cannot come to directly support the violent phases of the movement can come together in other issues like that. So, demands may change but these must be slogans of the people. And both, Lalgarh and new slogans need to be balanced. I would say that the Party will definitely take positive criticisms from any quarter of people even those who may not agree with our basic line but stood up for people. We welcome criticism from people to rectify our mistakes and strengthen our Party. The movement against UAPA is bound to be used in immediate and long term interest of the people. And in general terms, as such any mobilization in this field in the longer run is not contradictory to the interests of the Party.

Q : Where do you place democracy in the working of the Party ? Meaning the right to strike, the right to dissent, and the right to freedom of expression.

A : This is a very important question; however there is no confusion in our Party. We need a new democratic state in which other than CBB, the landlords and imperialists all others will have real or genuine freedom. Other than enemies of the people, for everybody there would be real or genuine democracy. In addition, I may say that while preparing Policy Program of Revolutionary people’s Committees (RPCs)/Jantana Sarkars, we have studied the experience of Graam Raajyaas of historic Telangana armed agrarian revolution, Policy Program of Chinese Soviets, People’s Barrio committees of Philippine, Revolutionary People’s Committees of Peru, United Revolutionary People’s Councils of Nepal and also studied the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. In accordance with above we have all the fundamental rights including that every voter has the right to recall any elected person. Even has the right to bring any one in position of authority, who works against interest of the people, to court in order to prosecute them. In terms of the four great freedoms declared by Chairman Mao during the Cultural Revolution, other than the character posters on the wall, all the rest freedoms have been ensured by the policy Program of the RPC/Janathan Sarkar. As the level of development in the Janatana Sarkar advances we would also follow the freedom for character posters. According to the constitution no physical punishment for political opposition will be allowed, anybody had right to politically differ and even unionize. The Indian state is trying to control dissent and therefore people want revolution. We would not repeat the same mistake. Besides, for any mistakes in prosecution, the person has the right to appeal to the village Revolutionary People’s Committee, to higher levels and even to the Party. For instance, in one of the extension areas, there was an incident where in collusion with the Inspector General of Police, 33 members belonging to two villages became agents of the enemy. In this context our comrades went and handled the issue. While villagers wanted to give capital punishment to the main agent of the police, party interceded to give a chance to that person to realize his mistake.

Q : In an united front, everybody might not join. Some Maoist outfits and democratic organizations can even remain outside. How will you handle that?
A : Those in opposition are people’s enemies and more than 95% of the oppressed people would be against them. But even 5% is a big number in the Indian context. Our Party believes that over the course of the protracted peoples’ war it gives scope to destroy the enemy’s political power both directly as well as culturally as many followers are helped to transform. In China, Madam Sun Yet Sen till the last day was in power, although never a member of the Party. They can stay only as long as they serve people and have support of the people. When socially and politically they will become irrelevant, they will automatically vanish. It is possible for them win in elections if such parties have support of the people. This provision is there in our policy Program of RPCs too even other persons belonging to other Parties/organizations can join RPCs if they are voters and they have right to be elected to RPCs. This being our understanding, it has to be practically practiced on ground too. We have to develop this sphere. Nepal had made some advances in this respect.

We give scope to small and medium bourgeoisie to grow with some restrictions so that they may not become anti-people, and black marketing, stock piling and speculating can be controlled. We only restrict big capital of CBB and foreign, for instance in 1998-99 the government had stopped small traders to deal in forest products, so as the Khirjas (local traders) protested we fought for them in a movement, though we stopped usury and have controlled indiscriminate exploitation, we are not stopping products from out side to come in. This is capitalist development of one kind, but we are controlling it. It is needed to develop the people’s economy. If traders did not cooperate, how would we have survived? Under the Janatana Circar, the trade and industry department is handling the small traders so that the bourgeois outside cannot take advantage. So full freedom continues even if there are collaborators attempting to win them over. It is only in life and death context, that physical punishment is allowed. However right now, while facing repression and war, we are in a complex situation which has to be acknowledged.

Q. What is your party’s stance on Talks?

A. In general people and Maoist revolutionaries do not want violence or armed confrontation with anybody. In unavoidable condition only they take-up arms and resist their enemies and they are waging liberation war by learning from the history. So, we see this as a war of self-defense. In this context of all-out war, we must recognize that the state of Andhra Pradesh has 130 thousand forces, there are 45 thousand forces in Chattisgarh (to soon increase this by more than 20 thousand forces), 160 thousand forces in Maharashtra. Thus each state has a police force which is more than the national level forces of many European countries. The most cruel and dangerous special forces have been trained by the state along with various anti-people draconian laws. Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Jharkhand, Chattisghad, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh along with Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have between them more than 700 to 800 thousand of police forces. Out of this, 250 to 300 thousand police forces are directly engaged against the people. And alongside 100 thousand central paramilitary forces have been deployed in these areas. Here people are combating against a stronger force than the movements in North East and Jammu-Kashmir. This is a brutal and violent repression campaign aimed at the suppression of the political movement of the people, and for exploitation of the minerals.

In this context, if possible we can hope for some respite. Longer the respite better for people. Democratic work needs this context. But while government is holding automatic gun on one hand, one cannot talk about this. People will keep fighting. While pumping bullets people never drop weapons and people never surrender. All democratic, progressive, patriotic forces need to unite and fight against the all-out war on the people by the central and state governments. To put concisely the main demands that the party has placed in front of the government for any kind of talks are 1. All-out war has to be withdrawn; 2) For any kind of democratic work, the ban on the Party and Mass Organizations have to be lifted; 3) Illegal detention and torture of comrades had to be stopped and immediately released. If these demands are met, then the same leaders who are released from jails would lead and represent the Party in the talks.

Introduction on the development of our Party

Since Jan Myrdal wrote the book “India Waits” in 1980s in which he talked about the movement there have been several developments in various aspects both political and military. It was since then, that we saw the development of a perspective, taking into account the concrete Indian specificity. There were only few experienced leaders that were left from the days of Com. CM. Many had gone into right deviation, some into left deviation and only few had come here. So, largely it was a new generation, a new youth, and to turn them into experienced cadre, a lot of time had to be invested. When you JAN MYRDAL had come here IN 1980, the party was still undergoing this problem. It was only another 6-7 years, that proper leadership would emerge in the context of PW. When JM visited AP in 1980, that time there was only CPI(ML) state committee along with the TN State Committee. There was also a Central Committee but ofcourse only confined to these two states, its scope was limited. The MCC was working in Bengal and Bihar in that period; however in Bengal it was very weak. In the same way PW was working in AP and Tamil Nadu, but in TN it was very weak. It is a retrospective observation of work in these two centers, in these two regions. Com. Kobad Gandhi and some other comrades from Maharashtra later joined PW. In MCC Com. KC started some work including Assam but in a very limited way. Now we have presence in 20 states but the Party is still very weak in many of these areas. So there is an uneven development under the protracted people’s war where according to our strength there are different levels of the movement in different regions. In this context, we must observe the development and the role of a revolutionary party which is important and which I will say.

Comrades, In 1980s the Party was trying to emerge from a setback. It was trying to reorganize and consolidate. On the one side, there was the problem of sectarianism and on the other hand, the mass base was largely lost. So we had to revive every thing both in terms of mass struggle and military. Accordingly, our tactics also changed. At that time it was mainly the anti-feudal struggles and the anti-imperialist propaganda-agitation that had been launched to create an anti-state opinion and open movements in the urban areas.

Previously, under Com. Charu Mazumdar the line had been to disregard mass organizations. Later we rethought and after going through an intense self-critical review, we acknowledged that there were some mistakes in the earlier years and on that basis, in order to advance, we rebuilt the movement. The Self-Critical Review was made in 1974, it was by 1977 August that forces within the party were convinced. And in practice it was reaffirmed by Party AP State Conference in September 1980 that marks the beginning of a new practice.

It was since then, that we saw the development of a perspective, taking into account the concrete Indian specificity. There were only few experienced leadership that were left from the days of Com. CM. Many had gone into right deviation, some into left deviation and only few had come here. So, largely it was a new generation, a new youth, and to turn them into experienced cadre, a lot of time had to be invested. When you had come here, the party was still undergoing this problem. It was only another 6-7 years, that proper leadership would emerge in the context of PW.

First a revolutionary party needs a leadership for understanding national and international conditions, as well as the economic and political conditions to make tactics accordingly. Some of the perspectives that I talked of, in the post-80s period, if we add those experience, we would see that in later years we had made some developments in this sphere of understanding.

Secondly, a revolutionary party needs to organize people and lead class struggle. From the strategic perspective plans were made and spots were selected and some development was made since 1980s in terms of people struggling under leadership of the party which came up as a concrete development.

Thirdly, for a revolutionary party, it is important to organize armed struggle. The CP Reddy group had the name of the CPI(ML) and was part of the PCP under the leadership of SNS. It was only they who had some squads in the Godavari area at that time which you had visited. People’s War had started some armed squads in the shape of peasant squads only then, while they already had 60-70 armed cadres by that time.

Later as we developed class struggle according to the idea of area wise seizure of power, to build people’s army, the PW here and the MCC there started making armed guerilla squads at the levels of 5,7,9,11. Some platoons and guerilla zones thereby emerged. In some areas just before the 2004 merger, even companies emerged. The erstwhile PW had People’s Guerilla Army while MCC had People’s Liberation Guerilla Army. In the merger process we found the PLGA under CPI(Maoist). The next stage is battalions moving progressively towards the formation of PLA. Depending on the basic tenets, we have evolved the higher stages of political and military power and the political power of the people. The vision was there even before the 80s. MCC was also there. But practically it was only achieved in terms of concrete development after the merger.

There are two more developments that I would like to point out. A party which in practice is evolving tactics or policy involving a large mass in its rank and files has to practice involving people in thousands and lakhs (a lakh equals one hundred thousand). In practice, while facing the problem and while rectifying the mistakes there were bitter internal and external struggle. It is only through the process of this bitter ideological and political struggle that we have reached today’s position. After the rectification and review of 70s, the PW had emerged and it had to face grave internal crisis in the form of 1. Sectarianism and dogmatism in the mid-80s, and 2. the hurdle posed by the leadership of Com.Kondapalli Seetharamiah in the beginning of 90s. Then again, the clashes between MCC and PW had been a bitter and unforgettable experience, a black chapter in history. In order to face ideological and political challenges, the party tactically evolved two approaches: discussion and review and struggle. All three times the party emerged successfully from the crisis. The MCC also in the same way emerged from its own internal crisis. A section of it intended to continue the fight, they were also differences pertaining to Maoism and dogmatism through which it emerged successfully. The PU too fought against forces that opposed protracted people’s war and agrarian revolution and emerged successfully. The PW and MCC even at this stage get smaller. While the Vinod Mishra and Satya Narain Singh groups get stronger and influential. While VM moved to left opportunism, SNS moved into right opportunism. And in practice, they split and finally faced virtual liquidation with extremely nominal presence today.

Earlier, along with the fight against revisionism we faced the problem of having a line that was only talked of seizing state power and that other political questions like the nationality question, the women question, the dalit (untouchables or schedule castes) question and the question of religious minorities would automatically be addressed. However, later we rectified this stand and merged both immediate slogans and ultimate slogans together. This was a must for the success of NDR and development towards it. While various other ML groups only raised immediate slogans and thereby went into reformism, we for a long time only gave the ultimate slogan. But now, by putting together both immediate and ultimate slogans we move towards better development.

For Party education, there are several Party Magazines at Central, State and District level. Around 25 of them are Party’s. Several others are Mass Organizations’ Magazines. E.g. Centrally we are publishing People’s War/Laal Pathaaka an Ideological and Political Magazine simultaneously in English and Hindi and in other languages; Awami Jung, a Military Magazine in different languages; Maoist Information Bulletin in English.
In DK we are publishing following Magazines
1. Prabhath (Hindi, Party Political Magazine)
2. Viyyukka (Ideological and Political Magazine, in Gondi/Koyam)
3. Padiyora Pollo (Military Magazine, Gondi/Koyam)
4. Sangharsharath Mahila (KAMS Magazine, in Hindi)
5. Jhankar (Literary and Cultural Magazine in multi-lingual)
At Division/District level in Gondi/Koyam: South Bastar Division: Pituri (rebellion); West Bastar Division: Midangur (fire place); Darbha Division: Moyil Gudrum (Thunder); north and South Divisions of Gadichiroli: Poddhu(Sun); Maad and North Bastar Joint Division: Bhoomkal (Earth quake); East Bastar Division: Bhoomkal Sandesh(rebellion message); Other than this the Janatana Sarkar also has made a Magazine called Janatana Raj(People’s State).

There are also study classes that are organized with study notes and syllabus. Political classes are organized at different state levels, some times rectification campaigns are organized for 4-6 month to one year when the history of the Chinese, Philippines and Peru revolutions are discussed for political and ideological training. There are military instructor teams for military schools and Awami Jung as the military magazine of Central Committee.

The Party in the DK area faces the problem of illiteracy and lack of primary education and so we organized the MAS (mobile education) for the purpose of primary academic education of party cadres. Hundreds of cadre have been trained since its beginning. The mass organizations also run academic programs with their own syllabus which is made in consultation with the leadership and committee members.

Introduction on the development of People’s Army (At present called People’s Liberation Guerilla Army)

I request you refer our central documents for complete picture of our army development in specific conditions of the country and in which international situation it is formed. I request you to give attention on this due to its vitality in any revolution

Introduction on the development of UF

In terms of mass organizations, we over the years, developed in several fronts including peasant, women, students, youth, civil rights groups, literary and cultural groups, children, nationality, workers, employees and so on. The stronger the party in a state, the larger the organization and the fronts. In the weaker areas there are fewer mass organizations at the state level in accordance with the strength of the party. Right now, the party has mass organizations both at the state and all India level, and the idea is to represent the four-class organizations in accordance with the four-class alliance and other sections too. With the emphasis is being to mass organizations, we presently have 30-40 of them working in various fronts. During by the 80s MCC had few mass organizations working secretly in a limited scope in AP the peasantry, the students and the literary-cultural sections along with the youth had some influence but now with the development of our understanding different mass organizations from village level to the state level to the all India level exists. In the 9th Congress of the PW it was decided to develop mass organizations and united fronts which would be issue-based and tactical. At some issues even enemy classes and local leaders could come together in immediate and medium terms. These developed further after the merger. So the class struggle needs to be waged at sectional, underground as well as open levels. Legal opportunities needs to be utilized, there are some mass organizations working with MLM general guideline, while there are some that are working under complete cover even with others.

On International Relations

In the 1980s beginning both MCC and PW had been regional in scope, because of which we failed to a large extent in connecting at the larger international movements. However mid-1990s onwards, both Parties and particularly after the formation of the CPI(Maoist), is now playing a role in the internationally too. We are participating in international debates and sending delegations to international forums though much progress needs to be made in this front. It is nonetheless better than in the 1980s and 1990s. In terms of RIM, MCC had joined it in 2002. The PW however opposed to join in RIM as it believed that it is only after thorough deliberations, understandings and discussions that such an international platform could be evolved in order to avoid a sectarian approach. Therefore the PW did not join the RIM, while MCC went ahead. After merger, though it was decided that whatever the new Party decide would be put to practice. And since then as per the decision of the whole Party, it kept itself out of RIM. We kept outside RIM which by now has become virtually defunct. It is important for the success of the Indian revolution as an inseparable part of great world socialist revolution, actively defend MLM, fighting imperialism and supports the class struggle throughout the world and also take the support of the international Maoist Parties/Organizations/Forces, proletariat and people. For this purpose, maintain fraternal relations with Maoist and anti-imperialist forces. We believe that it is both important to extend help as well as take international help for the success of any revolution but because of the ongoing repression. Overall, I once again say that we stuck to basics of MLM. We invite critical suggestions from any Maoist Party/Organization..

We believe that CPI (Maoist) is a detachment of world proletariat revolution. If it succeeds, we would say one part of the world would succeed - it is not independent. It would work as a part of the world socialist revolution and it is strictly related to the success or failure of the world socialist revolution. More working class struggles in the imperialist/capitalist countries will have a favorable impact on Indian revolution.

[Jan Myrdal is a Swedish author, political writer, journalist, and advocate of anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist and popular liberation movements; Gautam Navlakha is the editorial consultant of EPW (Economic and Political Weekly) and also a leading democratic rights activist (attached to People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), Delhi).]

Friday, February 12, 2010

MINE

Mine, narrated by Joanna Lumley, tells the story of the remote Dongria Kondh tribe's struggle to protect Niyamgiri, the mountain they worship as a God. London-based mining company Vedanta Resources plans a vast open-pit bauxite mine in India's Niyamgiri hills, and the Dongria Kondh know that means the destruction of their forests, their way of life, and their mountain God. Watch the vedio Mine

Thursday, February 11, 2010

The Economics, Politics, and Ethics of Non-violence


Sanhati.com


By Radha D’Souza


The devil’s advocate?



It was a bizarre spectacle, Karan Thapar interviewing Dr. Binayak Sen on CNN-IBN on Maoist violence in India. The subject of Maoist violence, more than any other at present, agitates the powers that be, including the media. The choreography of the debate follows a similar pattern. Invite a respectable person(s) for a “debate” on the issue of violence, lure them into believing they are invited because the media wants to present a contrary point of view; once there, corner the person, prevent them from making their point of view, heckle them if necessary, and somehow wring a statement, even if by slip of tongue, that can be bandied about as endorsement for the military offensive against the Maoists, as a moral justification for the so called “war on terror”. This desperation for moral endorsement from respected citizens like Dr. Sen, is itself evidence of the moral bankruptcy of the powers that be.

Dr. Sen tried, heroically, to make the point that one third of the people of India suffer from chronic malnutrition, that over 50% of the Adivasis and 60% of Dalits are bordering on starvation (dear readers, put these numbers in perspective by bearing in mind that India is one-sixth of humanity), that over 50% of India (1/12th of world population) is undernourished, and that state policies that create and sustain the conditions for this mass starvation fall within the definition of “genocide” in international law. One would have thought that the enormity of what Dr. Sen was saying, and its implications for what we have become as a nation, made his point of view, at least, worth listening to. But no, Thapar had lured Dr. Sen into the platform to wring a public condemnation from him against Maoists, and he was determined to do that come what may. Half the nation may have turned into semi-starved ghosts, but we need to condemn Maoist violence, first and foremost, to feel morally good about ourselves; and it was Thapar’s job to make the nation feel they stood on high moral ground. Any competing ethics, or higher moral principle, would deflate the performance choreographed for the nation.

“I am not talking on behalf of the Maoists. I am talking from the point of view of a human rights worker”

Dr Sen said as he tried desperately to stand his ground. Again and again he tried to make the point about state violence.

“I will come to the state. I promise you and I will handle the state later but first I want to hear you clearly say that annihilation which is an acceptable and justified policy of the Maoists is one that you completely, totally condemn”

Karan Thapar persisted, literally putting words into Dr. Sen’s mouth. Note too his words “I”, Thapar, “want you to clearly say…” etc. Of course Thapar never came to the state as he promised, we knew he wouldn’t, there is only that much time allocated for a show, and that time was up. The show was never about hearing Dr. Sen’s point of view; it was a choreographed performance to corner a respected citizen into endorsing the moral justifications touted out for the state’s military offensive. Ironically the show was called the “Devil’s Advocate” –Karan Thapar, the Devil’s Advocate?

No, this is no time for humorous asides. Let’s turn to the moral outrage. Ethics is important, and moral awareness is the essence of being human. It is important we do not walk away from ethics, especially when there is a widespread perception among ordinary Indians that the nation has lost its moral compass. Thapar too is bound by ethics. Basic principles of media ethics require that an interviewee is given an opportunity to make his/her point of view clearly, that their views are not misrepresented, that there is no ulterior motive or collateral purpose, and to ensure that views of the interviewee are fairly represented. Thapar clearly breached rules of fairness and representation in media ethics. Paradoxically, there appears to be a correlation between the length of the code on media ethics in India and falling ethical standards in the media. When there were no codes we had a vibrant independent press. Over the years as scepticism about the media has grown so has the length of the code from one page in 1992 to 112 pages today (see Norms of Journalistic Conduct, Press Council of India, 1992, 1996, 2005, 2010). Let’s not judge this only through narrow legalistic lenses.

We are proud of the spiritual foundations of our society a tad bit more than others. In the Indian tradition, when we invite a guest we are required to show him/her due respect, and treat them with some indulgence. Amartaya Sen wrote about how we are an “argumentative society” and about how the ethos of public debate goes back a long time in our history. In a moving scene at the end of the Kurkshetra war (in the Mahabharata), the philosopher Charvaka publicly accused Krishna of bringing ruin upon the entire society by his actions. Everyone heard him out, including a subdued Krishna. Clearly Dr. Sen was Thapar’s athithi (guest). But Thapar was not going to let any Western legal principles of media ethics, any Indian codes of athithi dharma (codes of right conduct towards guests) or the glorious Indian cultural traditions of public debate to get in his way. Freedom of the press it appears is freedom from all constraints: legal, cultural, ethical. Are we surprised that so many ordinary Indians feel the nation has lost its moral anchor?

I have used this interview to exemplify how ethics gets confounded in the media and in public debate, but the point can be extended to all sorts of public debates in the Indian media today. If the job of the media is to inform and educate, that purpose is defeated either because viewers and readers are left bewildered as a result, or condemned to vitriolic mindlessness. The first is the basis for cynicism and the second, for fascism. This production of mindlessness requires closer scrutiny.

Institutional and individual violence

At the heart of the controversy over Maoist violence is an issue that is foundational to modern societies, an issue that Thapar went out of his way to ensure did not register in public minds: the difference between institutional and individual violence. Only human beings can make ethical judgments because only human beings have a psyche capable of moral differentiation. For that reason in criminal trials, for example, intention is decisive. Institutions are not human beings, they are literally “mindless”. Institutions are complexes of laws that structure society and allocate people their places within it. When an institutional system is founded on violence, violence becomes the necessary condition for the continued existence of those institutions, in other words, the institution cannot survive without violence, it becomes like the proverbial vampire that will die if it cannot suck blood. This type of violence is fundamentally different from individual and group violence. However brutal, or obnoxious, or vicious it may be, individual violence is still human violence, it involves the mind, rightly or wrongly, and it invariably invites contestation over ethics in society. Institutions founded on violence, on the other hand, will collapse if violence is taken away. Individuals in charge of institutions must, therefore, continue to engage in violence if they are to save the institution from collapse. Let me exemplify this.

In a controversial TV interview to 60 Minutes (5/12/96) Lesley Stahl the TV host, when questioning the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on U.S. sanctions against Iraq, asked her:

“We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

Her reply was:

“I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

This statement scandalised a large cross section of people in the United States and elsewhere. Imagine by some miracle if a total pacifist were to occupy the White House. It is estimated that sixty percent of the American economy is directly or indirectly dependent on defense. Corporate America: the Lockheeds, the Boeings, the Northrops, will collapse like a pack of cards, taking with them the thousands they employ. Most technological innovations of the West that invest their institutions with so much power and capabilities are the result of militarism. Even banal things like food packaging, gyms and exercise regimes, dietetics, aging research, are driven by militarism. The internet and the communication technologies were military innovations. The incorporation of civilian and military uses of technologies through dual-use policies makes the intermeshing of militarism and economy virtually inseparable. The entire society is organized in a “warlike way” to use Marx’s phrase. In such a military-industrial-finance-media complex waging war becomes a necessity for survival of those institutions. If Iraqi children die in their millions in the process, it is sad, but necessary. Albright was not wrong. She was speaking as Secretary of State for the US state and economy. Her only ethics, if there was one, was to save those institutions from collapse.

Our messiah of peace in the White House will have to reorganize life in America, bottoms-up, get people to plant potatoes and cabbages, run their own local communal power plants, dismantle the supermarkets and get them to preserve and cook their own food, and turn them into a community of people affiliated to land, instead of a community of interest groups affiliated to different types of market institutions. The messiah of peace will, without doubt, be branded a trouble maker, a revolutionary, a terrorist, even a Maoist perhaps, who knows. He will without doubt be liquidated before long. Only the people of America can undertake such a task, and that too only when they feel so committed to building a non-violent society that they are prepared for the sacrifices, and violence and bloodshed the task will necessarily invite.

The Indian armed forces are the fourth largest in the world. Unlike the United State, the Indian military has been used primarily against the Indian people: against Kashmiris, Nagas, Assamese, North-eastern peoples, Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis, or… Maoists. This is a fundamental difference between capitalist nations like the US, and India. The Indian state must colonise its own people to remain affiliated to the military-industrial-finance-media complex that rules. Is the price worth it? The NDTVs and the CNN-IBN journalists are too terrified to pose this question to the ministers of the Indian state as Lesley Stahl did with Madlinene Albright. Understandably so. Colonising one’s own people is far more terrifying than colonising all those “out there” somewhere.

We in India are more fortunate, however, because our task of building a non-violent society is much less daunting. It is less daunting precisely because fifty percent of our people, at least, are already outside the formal, institutionalised, globalised, militarist political economy. Many more, such as the urban poor for example, are only marginally or loosely tied to it. Of course, that is also the reason why they are being slowly starved to death, or driven to commit suicide, as with the two hundred thousand farmers. Only a numerically small, but economically powerful section is tied to the political economy of violence, and they must defend it come what may.

The violence of individuals and political groups pales into insignificance in comparison. The nation faces its worst crisis ever as swathes of land is auctioned off to powers that be and people turned into cannon fodder for the military-industrial-finance-media complexes of vampire states. The Maoists are desperate to get the message across to a nation besotted with the vampire, and they do it using desperate means. Are we going to shoot the messenger because we do not like the message, or, ostrich-like, bury our heads in the sand because we do not want to know about the message?

The message will not go away because we do not like how the message is delivered. If anything it will feed the vampire institutions with more blood. This has nothing to do with our revulsions for the methods of the messengers. Remember, institutions do not feel? They have no psyche? The message and the desperate messengers are part of the same problem, the problem of the political economy of violence. Paradoxically, the institutions founded on violence, the military-industrial-finance-media complexes, are the ones that preach the ideology of non-violence in unequivocal terms; and those who advocate peace with justice end up advocating violence. How are we to understand this paradox? We cannot say it is because the institutions are hypocrites because, if institutions are mindless, they cannot be hypocrites.

Merchants, people of the land, and political violence

In his book The Great Transformation, written during the World Wars, a time when states and economic institutions were collapsing, as now, Karl Polanyi points out that during the hundred years between 1815-1914, for the first time in their histories, European powers did not go to war with one another (except minor forays) and he inquires into the reasons for this extraordinary century of non-violence. The reasons he argues was “haute finance” the emergence of financial institutions that

“functioned as the main link between the political and economic organization of the world”.

Let us not rush to the conclusion that there was global peace during that time. Polanyi adds:

“They were anything but pacifists; they made their fortune in the financing of wars; they were impervious to moral consideration; they had no objection to any number of minor, short, or localized wars. But their business would be impaired if a general war between the Great Powers should interfere with the monetary foundations of the system.”

For the merchants, just the right level of war is good because it allows for sale of weapons and provides access to markets; but too much war destroys trading systems. In the merchant’s world view non-violence is a way of limiting and containing wars. Modern capitalism projects the merchant’s world view as the human world view: violence in economy through usury, expropriation, whatever; and containment of violence in politics through ideology of non-violence. See how the UN writes PEACE in large bold letters in its Charter, but retains veto powers with the victorious Allies in the Security Council? When the Cold War ended the Euro-American states hailed it as new era of peace for the world. The Pentagon, however, spent many anxious hours trying to work out what a defence policy in the era of peace should look like. After much deliberation, it adopted the “two-wars” policy. If somehow wars to be limited to two at a time, America would just about manage to survive peace. We witnessed great euphoria about peace simultaneously with new forms of militarism. The Pentagon’s logic makes perfect sense, but only to those who subscribe to the merchants’ world view or “haute finance” as Polanyi calls it. The recipients of violence are not merchants however, they are “people-of-the-land”; and their ideas of violence and non-violence differ fundamentally from those of the merchants’.

The Maori word “whenua” means land/earth and umbilical cord, and whanau, derived from whenua, means biradri or extended family from common ancestry. For people of the land, land is the umbilical cord that ties them to this world. Cut it, and it is like a new born child thrown away from its mother; it means certain death. People-of-the-land have always defended their land, non-violently if possible, violently if necessary, because land is life itself. This is the case with indigenous peoples anywhere in the world, and our own Adivasis and Dalits are no exception. It is not surprising therefore that with the new round of aggressive “haute finance”, with liberalisation and globalisation, indigenous peoples everywhere have been at the forefront of defending the land. People-of-the-land throw the peace plans of merchants, the “two-war” strategies of “haute finance”, the “rights based approach to development” and such, into disarray. The Adivasis and Dalits tar the shine on “shining India”. See the fifth Afghan war? The mandated territories of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and many more that the League of Nations distributed to the Great Powers to keep the peace? Did the people-of-the-land quietly fade away with the years?

And what of our own people-of-the –land? First we said, don’t fight, after Independence you will be okay, then we said don’t fight we will give you special place in the Constitution, don’t fight we will give you land reforms, don’t fight we will give you jobs in the factories that we build on your land, and now we are saying, don’t fight, we will kill you non-violently, by slowly starving you to death. Are we prepared to be party to an economy founded on cheap labour and confiscated land? Are we going to allow our land and people to be auctioned in the global bazaars? Are we people-of-the land? Or, are we not?

Dear readers, I can see many of you pouncing on me at this point, wagging your fingers and saying to me: but the Maoists are not Adivasis and Dalits. I will concede the point to the sceptical reader; I will agree that we cannot conflate Maoists with Adivasis and Dalits. But I must insist that you answer my question: are you people-of-the-land? Are you a bystander who watches your people and land auctioned in global bazaars? Or, are you going to defend it by whatever means you are capable of? If India is auctioned off, all of us, without exception, lose the ground on which we stand rightfully. Are you going to leave the your fate to the Vedantas and Stanley Morgans, up today, down tomorrow; or the military-industrial-finance-media complexes always on the prowl hunting for “rogue states”, today Iraq, tomorrow Iran, the day after India?

Do you want to be counted as the people-of-the-land, or, are you happy to remain a citizen who wants to be allocated a place in the institutions of the political economy of violence? The urgency of this question drives many to take desperate steps. When we fail to answer this question unequivocally we create the political spaces for Maoism.

Is there a difference between citizens and people-of-the-land?

Civilisation, Nation-State, and Comprador State

The Indian subcontinent is home to an ancient civilisation, a fact that people of the subcontinent are conscious of. The problem with such an inheritance is that we have to live up to it. A civilisation defines its place in the world, provides the people with their conceptual resources, their languages, forms their relationship to their natural environments, and helps people to locate themselves in society and to make sense of the world they live in. Citizenship, in contrast, is a relationship of individuals to the state which is an institution, a constitutional order that oversees a range of economic and political institutions. Clearly, we have forfeited our claims to be a civilisation if we cannot create the conditions that sustain life for our people. Actually we are not even a nation-state properly speaking, because a nation state integrates all its citizens, even the poorest, and most discriminated, in its military-industrial-finance-media complexes, in its institutions, from dole queues to defence. Nation-states bludgeon other states to keep their “civil society” integrated into the state machine. Can you see Germany or Sweden launching Operation Green Hunt against their poor? The Indian state in contrast leaves out half if population from its institutions, it leaves them to fend for themselves, and it is on the prowl, always, to confiscate anything they may have: their land, resources, labour, and starves them to death. The other half, it leaves to the vagaries of global markets, pledges them to the military-industrial-financial-media complexes, the real nation states. Juridical recognition alone is not enough to be a state. We are a comprador state, a dalal state, which will collapse if we start getting fancy ideas about our place in the world.

This is the reason why we are unable to respond to the present crisis. The Maoist say: constitutionalism has failed our people, and we say, true it has failed, but what can we do, let us try once more. The Maoists say: India has become a violent society, forty percent of our parliamentarians have a track record of violence, our democratic political parties have their militias, we kill freely in the name of Ram, our army with its vast arsenal has waged war against our people for sixty-three years, and therefore, they say violence is the order of the day. We say: all this is true, but you Maoists should not be violent.

The Adivasis and the Dalits (see, I am not conflating them with Maoists) raise a more fundamental question about human life, one that touches a raw nerve in modern societies. They say land and labour can never become commodities. That human life can only be lived out on land in relation with nature; that land, labour and nature are necessary conditions for human life; that it is not possible to gouge out “The Economy” from society and cast it into different sets of institutions, insulate “The Economy” from people. Doing this is violence par excellence. Civil society displaces people from land, and promises them a place in market institutions: labour markets, consumer markets, property markets, whatever. That capitalism is made possible, and underpinned by colonisation of land and labour, nature and culture. What do we say to them? We say: all this is true but let us turn to the very colonial inheritances for our conceptual resources, for knowing our place in the world, for nurturing our land and people. We are unable to think beyond ideas of liberal democracy, economic and political rights, individualism and constitutionalism, and all the conceptual, philosophical, ethical, legal inheritances we have from our colonisers. Macaulay must be laughing in his grave.

India stands at historical crossroads at present. The challenge it faces is the task of real and actual decolonisation: of the mind, of the institutions, of the political economy for the first time since Columbus set sail on that unfortunate voyage five hundred years ago; a daunting task by any measure. India cannot meet this challenge by turning the clock back, for the cycle of time rotates without beginning or end.

The Cycle of Violence

Violence, no doubt, begets violence. We can all agree that the vicious cycle must be broken. But who should break the cycle? The case can be argued both ways: the state is violent therefore the Maoists are violent, or, the Maoists are violent therefore the state is violent.

To the best of my knowledge (and I am open to correction here) the Buddha was the first thinker to address this question directly. It is useful to recall the context in which he spoke about the cycle of violence and the onus of breaking it. He too lived in difficult times.

King Prasanjit, a follower of the Buddha, was attacked by Ajatasatru, a powerful king with expansionist ambitions. Ajatasatru mobilised a large army, defeated Prasanjit, confiscated his kingdom and took his people as slaves. Prasanjit fled and lived as a demoralised refugee, incognito. A merchant named Ananthapindika offered to finance Prasanjit and help him raise an army to regain his kingdom. Prasanjit took the merchant’s support, raised an army and defeated Ajatasatru. The defeated Ajatasatru pleaded with Prasanjit to end his life. Prasanjit took Ajatasatru, instead, to the Buddha instead and said: he attacked me, therefore I attacked him, but really I want nothing from him, I want to let him go. The Buddha agreed that Prasanjit was right in defeating Ajatasatru first, but equally, in wanting to free him, because the onus of breaking the cycle of violence is on the victor, the strong, and the more powerful. Note too, that Prasanjit does not see himself beholden to the merchant forever.

If we are to extend the analogy to our times, we must insist that the state, clearly the more powerful party, must cease its violence first, must stop displacement of people, stop forcible acquisition of land, stop unending suffering. Sadly, we live in a mindless modern state. If we could get the state to end violence we could stand on high moral ground and say to the Maoists what the Buddha said to Prasanjit and Ajatasatru: “Victory begets hatred; defeat begets suffering. They that are wise will forgo both victory and defeat. Insult is born of insult, anger of anger. They that are wise will forgo both victory and defeat. (The Life of Buddha, by A. Ferdinand Herold, tr. by Paul C Blum [1922])

It is a hallmark of civilisation that the strong, the more powerful, the better armed are called upon to renounce it first. We are not a civilisation any longer, we cannot think for ourselves about the destiny of our people and society. We take our moral cues from heads of nation-states: “war on terror”, “axis of evil” and such. The Buddha said:

The Killer begets a killer;

One who conquers, a conqueror.

The abuser begets abuse,

The reviler, one who reviles.

Thus by the unfolding of karma,

The plunderer is plundered.

We witness before our eyes the “killer begetting a killer”, and the “unfolding” of the karma of the conquerors and abusers and revilers and plunderers. But we live in strange times of equality, liberal rights, and individual freedoms, and somehow these lenses do not help us to see the difference between abuser and abused, between plunderer and plundered, between cause and effect, the begetter and the begotten.

Postscript

In 1873, when India faced famines, starvation deaths, disease, and political unrest, another medical professional someone we would call a human rights campaigner today was invited to speak on the situation in India. She told the gathering:

It is not, however, more enquiry that is most needed. Enquiry and investigation are the curse of India, as of any country where we do not act up to the light we have : where evils are investigated and re -investigated fifty times over, simply as an excuse for doing nothing. […]Under the permanent settlement the share of the produce of the soil left to the cultivator is often too little for health. A process of slow starvation may thus go on, which so enfeebles the great mass of the people, that when any epidemic sets in they are swept off wholesale. Land is let and sublet to a degree unknown anywhere else. […]Such is the relation between the State and the ‘ creatures of its own creation,’ the Zemindars.

What is the answer given by modern ‘financial policy ‘ or impolicy ? […] Is it not as though we said : It is ‘ unsound financial policy ‘ to live unless you have money in your stocking […]?Is it cheaper to let a man ‘ get dead ‘ than to feed him or house him, on borrowed capital ? […].But one must live in order to be a subject for sanitary considerations at all; and one must eat to live. If one is killed off by famine, one certainly need not fear fever or cholera. [ “Life Or Death In India” Paper read at the Meeting of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, Norwich, 1873 LONDON :Harrisons and Sons (1874)]


That health professional and campaigner was Florence Nightingale. Fortunately for Nightingale, there were no NDTVs and CNN-IBNs at that time and she was allowed to complete what she had come to say.

Friday, February 5, 2010

West Bengal’s “Communist” Leaders Amass Huge Fortunes


This very revealing article appeared in The Week on February 7, 2010. It gives some perspective on why the adivasis of the Lalgarh region, the farmers of Nandigram and Singur, and increasing numbers of the oppressed in West Bengal are targeting the ruling party, the Communist Party (Marxist) as an exploiting and repressive force.

Comrade bourgeois: Many communist leaders in West Bengal amass huge fortunes

Rabi Banerjee


Himangshu Das is the zonal committee secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in Khejuri, Nandigram. A member of local zilla parishad, he gets a salary of Rs 1,500 a month. As district committee member of the party in East Midnapore he earns another Rs 1,500. These are his only known sources of income.

But, people of Nandigram say Das is a crorepati [one crore = 10 million]. He has a palatial house with air-conditioned rooms in Khejuri, and owns a car and a bike. Villagers allege that he siphoned off funds meant for the local civic bodies. In August 2009, they attacked his house, dragged him out and beat him up in public. Das fled the village with family and is yet to return. “How could a communist leader amass such huge wealth? He had become a crorepati and behaved like an industrialist,” said Manik Maity, a villager.

Not long ago, communist leaders in West Bengal were known for their simple lifestyle. Today, three decades after the Left Front started ruling the state, they live in palatial houses, drive expensive SUVs, own shopping malls and factories, and wear branded clothes. Ironically, they are still driven by the same philosophy—uplift the proletariat.

Anuj Pandey, a Marxist leader from Lalgarh, was jobless before joining the party. As the Lalgarh zonal committee secretary, he earns Rs 1,500 a month, his only known source of income. A couple of years ago, Pandey built a sprawling house on 20 acres—the only big house in the tribal-dominated Lalgarh. In the tribal upsurge in August 2009, the villagers raided the house and destroyed everything including air-conditioners, LCD television, refrigerator and expensive furniture.

“He did not think twice before building such a huge house in the middle of thatched huts. Is he really a communist? No way,” said Chunibala Hansda, local legislator. Pandey and family are yet to return to Lalgarh, which is now known as a Maoist-controlled territory. “Had people like Pandey not been there, Lalgarh would have never seen such massive tribal movements. Tribes got united seeing these communists looting government properties,” said Haripada Hansda, a local tribal leader.

But how did Das and Pandey, who are just district-level leaders, amass such wealth? Some local CPI(M) leaders said they were closely associated with the Central government -sponsored projects in the areas. The projects to improve rural employment and alleviate poverty had huge funds. The leaders allegedly took advantage of lack of monitoring by the government.

“Pandey minted money the way he liked,” said a former panchayat officer in West Midnapore. According to him, the leaders’ lavish lifestyle is just a reflection of the vast fortune they made. “Where will they put the money in? All cannot trust their relatives and deposit it in their names. So they have to spend money on their lavish lifestyle,” he said.

If leaders in Lalgarh and Nandi-gram flourished on the Central funds, in Haldia township, about 40 km away, the labour movement made many comrades millionaires.

S.K. Muzaffar, CPI(M) councillor in the Haldia municipality, controls the workers’ union of the Haldia dock and allegedly runs the dock’s labour market. He has a godown, a cargo trading agency and a logistic agency in the dock. About 1,500 labourers work under him.

A school dropout, Muzaffar was a worker in the dock in the 1970s. Later he became an employee of Haldia municipality which he left to become a CPI(M) leader. “For him, becoming a communist was more profitable than being a worker in the municipality,” said a local Congress leader.

After the CPI(M) rose to power in the state, Muzaffar started getting more and more contracts, and became a councillor in the municipality. His one son is studying in London and another helps him in business. Another son has a fascination for car racing. Muzaffar does not see anything wrong in being a communist and a businessman at the same time. “Tell me where it is written that communists cannot become businessmen and become rich. It’s the propaganda of frustrated people,” he said.

Ashok Patnaik and Ananta Bera, two other Marxist bigwigs in Haldia, also have thriving businesses. Patnaik quit his job as a primary schoolteacher and joined the party. He soon became chairman of a cooperative society which gave him direct contact with the business community. As the chairman of a council in the Haldia Development Authority, he looked after the major land deals in the Haldia township, which was a pet project of former chief minister Jyoti Basu.

“Basu wanted to make Haldia an industrial hub and spent crores for its development. Leaders like Patnaik benefited from it,” said a local CPI(M) leader. When the Haldia port was upgraded, Patnaik, like Muzaffar, seized the opportunity. Now, he is one of the richest contractors in the Haldia dock. “He drives almost all cars available in the market. He is one of the richest communists in India,” said a local CPI(M) leader.

Bera also made it big with the port. Hailing from a poor family in Contai, East Midnapore, he moved to Haldia with his wife, also a CPI(M) member, in the late 1970s. He hugely benefited from the party’s decision to make Haldia an industrial hub for car and petrochemicals.

“They are successful businessmen and CPI(M) leaders as well. They have changed the meaning of communism,” said a senior CPI(M) leader on condition of anonymity. These leaders, however, are unfazed. Said Muzaffar: “Not only are we successful businessmen, but we have also given employment to a lot of poor people. We are the true communists. Let the jealous be jealous.”

Many other communist leaders have relied on muscle power to amass wealth. Tapan Ghosh and Sukur Ali from Garbeta are CPI(M) district committee members in West Midnapore. The CBI arrested them after 11 Trinamool Congress workers were burnt alive in Chotoangaria, Birbhum, 10 years ago. But the CBI failed to establish their links with the carnage and they walked free. They still remain powerful and even ministers are not sure of winning elections without their help. “That is the only reason why the CPI(M) has not taken any action against them despite numerous allegations against them,” said a local CPI(M) leader.

Ghosh was a schoolteacher and Ali a small-time farmer. After joining the party, they started making lucrative business deals as potato growers. “In Garbeta, they control the cold storage and agro businesses,” said Aurobinda Sain, a local Congress leader.

These creamy layers in the CPI(M) have led to an identity crisis in the party, especially when a good number of its leaders still remain committed to the ideology. “After coming to power, the Left Front government did many things to empower the underprivileged. After a few years, leaders began asking people to pay them back. This is unfortunate for a party which talks of class struggle,” said Abhirup Sarkar, economist at Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata. He said the party no longer had the strength to take action against these leaders.

CPI(M) state secretary Biman Bose, a leader known for his austerity, recently wrote in a party note: “The biggest challenge for the party today is to prevent a good number of leaders from becoming non-communist. They should withdraw from all non-communist activities.”

But it is easier said than done. The leadership is well aware how idealistic young leaders have become fat cats over the decades. Former MPs, Lakshman Seth of Haldia and Mainul Hasan of Murshidabad, drive SUVs that cost around Rs 17 lakh each, though Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee lives in a one-room apartment. Both Seth and Hasan are the blue-eyed boys of the chief minister and the party.

Many ordinary partymen also take pride in their leaders’ ‘achievements’. Balai Sabui and Dibakar Koley of Singur are neighbours and used to roll bidis together. Sabui is now chief of the Hooghly district’s Krishak Sabha, the peasant wing of the CPI(M). He is also a district transport secretary, who issues permits to vehicles. He played a lead role in submitting reports on land acquisitions in Singur. Though he struggled to make ends meet earlier, Sabui is a rich man now. He has a two-storey house at Singur and a Bolero jeep.

Koley, still a poor bidi roller, is proud of his neighbour. “He has become a success story for poor men like us. We are proud to know that even a former bidi worker could have a car or a big house,” he said. But what Koley does not realise is that Sabui’s legitimate income is less than what he earns as bidi worker.

Followers