[Marxism] MLIN [March-April 2008] Gates Visit | Terrorism Witch-Hunts | Rape in Gujrat | SEZ | CPM Congress and More (text)

["CPI \(ML\) Intl Liaison Office" <cpiml_elo@xxxxxxxxx>]

ML International Newsletter
March-April 2008

***********************************************************************

An update on news and ideas from the revolutionary
left in India. 
Produced by: Communist Party of India
(Marxist-Leninist) Liberation international team 
***********************************************************************

Websites: mlint.wordpress.com and www.cpiml.org
Emails: cpiml_elo@xxxxxxxxx and cpimllib@xxxxxxxxx

Table of Contents

1)      No to the Indo-US ?Logistics Support Agreement?
2)      Aftab Ansari?s Story: Demanding Justice for Victims
of Witch-hunts
3)      Patan Reveals Pandora?s Box of Rape in Modi?s
Gujarat
4)      Saffron Experiment in Orissa Laboratory
5)      The Parliamentary Left of Sri Lanka and the
Nationalist Trap
6)      Ganga Expressway : ?Corporate Hitay, Sarvajan
Dukhay?
7)      Protest Against Land Grab at Nalanda
8)      Draft Political Resolution for CPI(M)?s 19th
Congress
9)      ?People?s Assertion Rally? in Siwan
10)     7-yr Jail Term for Bant Singh?s Attackers
11)     AICCTU Achieves Recognition as Central Trade Union
Organization
12)     Long Live Comrade Ramakant Dwivedi ?Ramta?

Imperialism and South Asia

Go Back Gates ! No to the Indo-US ?Logistics Support
Agreement?

- Kavita Krishnan, Liberation, March, 2008.

On February 25, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates is
due for a visit to India, to ink in a ?Logistics
Support Agreement? (LSA) between the two countries. It
is yet another indicator that far from being on hold,
the Indo-US ?civilian? Nuke Deal and all its attendant
military deals are all well on track.  

This LSA?s implications are more far-reaching and
comprehensive than the port call by the USS Nimitz or
the joint naval exercises. The US Ambassador has
described the LSA as ?aimed at improving
interoperability between the militaries of the two
countries,? while the External Affairs Minister, in
Parliament, described it last year as ?a facilitating
framework for mutual logistical support when deploying
defence resources in disaster relief operations or
joint exercises and without commitment for assistance
in situations of armed conflict.? In spite of these
bland assurances, it is clear that there is more than
meets the eye. The LSA is essentially a barter of
goods and services between the Armed Forces of both
countries, but it will effectively oblige the Indian
Armed Forces to provide a range of services to the US
Armed Forces. This will turn the Indian forces into
mercenaries of sorts, and is also a backdoor method of
enlisting India into a North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO)-type alliance. 

Interestingly, the LSA is actually nothing but a
version of the Acquisition and Cross Servicing
Agreement (ACSA) (under a US statute that was formerly
known as ?NATO Mutual Support Act?). These ACSAs were
intended to simplify exchanges of logistic support,
supplies, and services between the United States and
other NATO forces, though the law was subsequently
amended to permit ACSAs with the governments of
non-NATO countries. In India?s case, the ACSA is
termed the ?LSA? on special request by the Indian
Government which is eager to mask its true purpose.
Under US law, such an Agreement is only possible with
a non-NATO country if it (1) has a defence alliance
with the United States; (2) permits the stationing of
members of the US Armed Forces or the home porting of
US naval vessels in such a country; (3) has agreed to
pre-position US material in such a country; (4) serves
as host country for US Armed Forces during exercises
or permits other US military operations in such a
country. Clearly the LSA, if signed, will imply that
India has agreed to the above criteria and is
therefore for all practical purposes tied to a
?defence alliance? with the USA. 

The LSA was mooted first by the Vajpayee Government
and during Bush?s visit in March 2006, the Joint
Statement issued by Manmohan Singh and Bush indicated
that it was underway. Under the LSA, India will be
obligated to provide services such as refuelling and
port facilities to US warships, bombers, aircraft etc.
and even ?billeting? (accommodation to soldiers), food
etc. In countries like the Philippines where a similar
Agreement was signed in 2002, people have demanded
that their Congress conduct an enquiry into the
presence of US troops on Philippine soil, apprehending
that the Agreement was being used as an excuse to
allow the country to function as a US base in the
region. Why would India be any different? While Pranab
Mukherjee assured Parliament that the LSA contained no
?commitment? of assistance in ?situations of armed
conflict?, the LSA does not rule out such assistance.
With such an Agreement in place India will certainly
provide refuelling and other services to US warships
and aircraft used to conduct war or maintain
occupation of countries like Iraq or Iran. Also recall
that recently, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
has affirmed that the Indo-US Nuke Deal would be
acceptable to the US only if it complied fully with
the Hyde Act ? thus giving the lie to Manmohan Singh?s
assurances in Parliament that the Hyde Act is
extraneous to the Deal! Pranab?s assurances on the LSA
are surely as hollow and misleading as Manmohan?s on
the Hyde Act.       

The LSA actually fits into the US? urgent needs for
alternate logistical back-up in Afghanistan and Iraq,
in the backdrop of the crisis in Pakistan and the
reluctance of USA?s European NATO partners for deeper
involvement in Afghanistan. Just a few months back,
the Pentagon expressed its need for ?back-up plans? as
the unrest in Pakistan begins to affect the flow of
supplies to American troops fighting in Afghanistan.
About 75 percent of the supplies to Afghanistan,
including 40 percent of vehicle fuel supplies, either
go through or over Pakistan; these supply lines are
threatened by the unrest in Pakistan?s tribal areas.
The US also fears that hostilities with Iran may
expose its supply lines to Iraq to the danger of
attacks by Shiite militias backed by Iran. On more
than one occasion in the recent past, the selfsame
Robert Gates has rebuked the European NATO allies for
not sharing enough of the burden in Afghanistan. A US
LSA with India must be seen in the light of these
urgent needs of the US military, and its strategic
plans for alternative logistic supply lines for
protecting oil supplies and pipelines and to counter
the growing maritime might of China.        

Along with the Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture and
the Indo-US Nuke Deal, the LSA is also a part of the
web of ?strategic? relations with the US being spun by
the Manmohan Government. It will irrevocably
compromise India?s sovereignty and bind India to the
humiliating and shameful status of an ally in the US?
many military aggressions and occupations. The US
Defence Secretary must be greeted with nation-wide
protest during his visit, and the UPA Government must
hear the resounding ?No? to the move to sign the LSA. 
  

Struggles in India

Aftab Ansari?s Story: Demanding Justice for Victims of
Witch-hunts

- Radhika Krishnan, Liberation, March, 2008.

After the serial bomb blasts in November in various
courts in Uttar Pradesh (UP), the Muslim community in
the state is constantly living under the shadow of
unfortunate stereotyping and witch-hunt. Aftab Alam
Ansari, a worker of the Calcutta Electricity Supply
Corporation (CESC), is one such young innocent who was
branded a dreaded terrorist and accused for collusion
in a blast case. He was arrested by the UP Special
Task Force (STF) and the Criminal Investigation
Department (CID), and overnight an innocent man?s
world turned into a nightmare of torture and
interrogation. 

For days, the police tortured Aftab and tried to force
a confession out of him that was
Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) area commander
Mukhtar alias Raju Bengali. 22 long days later, when
he determinedly refused to succumb to their torture,
Aftab was finally released and he was declared
innocent by the court. 
Recently, Aftab was in Delhi, joined by the Jawaharlal
Nehru University (JNU) Students? Union and the Forum
for Democratic Initiatives (FDI), to highlight his
demand for compensation and justice. He recounted how
his petitions for compensation and for punishment of
the guilty police officials ? both in the UP and West
Bengal police force ? have been ignored. 

Aftab?s story is not unusual, it finds echoes not just
in UP and West Bengal, but all over the country. These
states, particularly UP, are merely the latest
?hotbeds? for suspected terrorists, the most recent in
a long list. For years thousands of innocent Muslims
have been similarly targeted in Kashmir, picked up
without even a formal charge by the Indian army
operating under the protective shield of the Armed
Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), after which they
simply add to the long and growing list of  the
?disappeared?.  Maharashtra too has a long track
record. After every blast, the Mumbai police routinely
descend on the entire Muslim community without any
defendable explanation. In Modi?s Gujarat, encounter
killings aka Sohrabuddin Sheikh have been frequently
observed; but also in Congress-ruled Maharashtra.  

While the actual terrorists rarely get punished, most
of these ?suspected terrorists? either disappear from
the face of the earth, or languish in jails waiting
indefinitely for a ?free? and ?fair? trail. In some
rare cases, they are declared innocent after a
harrowing period of interrogation and torture. For the
Aftabs in India, there are many stumbling blocks in
the fight for compensation. From a legal point of
view, Section 197 of the Indian Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C.) provides the state with a comfortable
loophole to protect state machinery from punitive
action. According to provisions of Section 197,
prosecution of State and Central government officials
requires permission from the same State or Central
government! 

Obviously, the first step towards justice is that this
Section ought to be scrapped. Such provisions cannot
exist in a democratic society; if everyone is equal in
the eyes of the law, then there can be no immunity
from prosecution and the police must be liable to
legal action as any ordinary citizen. 

Another problem is an ambiguous definition of what
exactly constitutes torture. India is a signatory to
the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT).
It has however not yet ratified the CAT, and the
existing provisions in the Indian law have not been
amended to incorporate the mandate of the CAT. The
Convention specifically prohibits the use of torture.
There is however no definition under the Indian law of
what exactly constitutes ?torture?.

In this project of minority witch-hunting, what is
particularly disturbing is the role of the media and
the judiciary. Both often cooperate enthusiastically
with the police in framing innocents. Recently, 5
youth from Azamgarh and Mau in UP were picked up and
paraded before the media as the ?terrorists?
responsible for the Sankatmochan bomb blasts. What
followed was a public trial where the media blissfully
portrayed them as terrorists rather than as the
accused. And the judiciary wasn?t far behind. An
institution like the UP bar council refused on
?ethical? grounds to fight cases in defence of these
suspected terrorists. All of them were later released
for lack of conclusive evidence. But the denial of
their right to legal representation, and their
demonisation by the media, went unremarked.  

Another striking aspect is the contrast with the state
machinery?s response to genocide or hate campaigns
launched by public figures holding responsible
positions. The Maharashtra Government, for instance,
is only too willing to pick up any young Muslim on
scant or non-existent evidence as a suspected
terrorist; but the same Government declares that there
isn?t ?enough evidence? to prosecute Bal Thackeray
despite the Srikrishna Commission?s findings of his
role in the 1992-93 Mumbai riots ? this, despite the
pages of Shiv Sena mouthpiece Saamna full of
exhortations to violence. 

When Mohd. Haneef was illegally detained by the
Australian government, many Australian citizens (both
expatriate Indians and Australians), as well as the
Indian government (though after some delay and under
considerable public pressure!) came out in his
support. The Chief Minister of Karnataka gave Haneef a
hero?s welcome, and offered to ensure him a job in
India, in an attempt to compensate for the injustice
Haneef had faced.  When will the Indian State accept
that there are hundreds of Haneefs in India, thanks to
its attitudes and actions? When will it ensure
compensation and justice? 

Women?s Struggles

Patan Reveals Pandora?s Box of Rape in Modi?s Gujarat

- Dwarika Nath Rath, Liberation, March, 2008.

The gang rape of Bilkis Bano and so many others in
Gujarat 2002 was part of a cold-blooded campaign of
genocide, justified as a ?reaction? to Godhra. One
wonders how Modi would explain the systematic and, it
would seem, habitual rape of poor dalit women students
in his glorious, ?growing? Gujarat.      

At Patan PTC College, a dalit young women from a poor
family was a victim of gang rape by six male teachers
of the college. Using the threat of internal marking,
they took the advantage of her poverty, and raped her
14 times in four and half months inside the college
and in the village. It came to be known that this
woman was not the only victim; rather the sexual
exploitation was rampant for a decade, and was
patronised by local Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP)
leaders. 

Ms. Anandiben Patel, the present Revenue Minister in
the cabinet hails from this constituency, and had been
the Education Minister of Gujarat for the same past
decade when the sexual exploitation took place. The
Patan PTC College is situated in the outskirt of the
city with 8 feet high boundary walls and controlled by
District Institute of Educational Technology (DIET).

The victim comes from a very poor background from
Jetalvasana village of Visnagar Taluka of Mehsana
district. She scored 89% in 10th class and 70% in 12th
class. Her father, a daily labourer encouraged her to
study. She wanted to be a doctor, but lack of funds
made her opt for the PTC teachers? training course.
She was admitted to Patan PTC College July 07.

In less than two months after her admission, on
11-9-2007, she was summoned by a teacher to a
classroom and subjected to gang rape. She was
intimidated into silence by the teachers with threats
of releasing pornographic photos of hers. This
continued on several occasions; and the rapists
included Prof. Atul Patel, an influential man known to
be close to Anandiben Patel. He headed the election
campaign of Anandi Ben Patel in 2002, and is said to
be the kingpin in this sex racket. The teachers spread
the word that she was possessed by an evil spirit in
order to explain her fainting fits and disturbed state
of mind. The sole woman teacher, Prof. Bhartiben
Patel, was appointed in 1997 but was transferred to
Palanpur in 2001, because she complained about the
sexual harassment of the students. 

When the victim told her story on 30 January, and
medical examination confirmed rape, 97 other women
students filed a complaint in a signed memorandum to
the Principal on 31 January. They were joined by
parents in their protest, and on 4 February, the PTC
students assaulted the accused lecturers with sticks,
bricks, and damaged their bikes. 25,000 people of
Patan joined in a protest rally. Patan town remained
closed for two days. The protesting students and
parents have demanded a probe into the role of
Education Minister Ramanlal Vora; dismissal of all
accused and scrapping of the internal examination
system.

The students along with the parents went to
Gandhinagar on 7 February but were not allowed to meet
either the Chief Minister or the Education Minister.
The personal assistant to Education Minister
trivialised the incidents, saying ?such things go on?.
Anandiben Patel claimed that as Education Minister,
?no complaint sexual harassment had ever reached her.?
But the fact is that in 2004, one Draksha Parmar filed
a complaint against teacher Manish Parmar. The case
was sealed by the then Principal J.N. Chaudhary and
hushed up. 
The BJP is conspicuously silent on this matter. The
Sangh Parivar and its outfits are absent from the
scene. The Chief Minister has avoided visiting Patan,
merely ordering a magisterial enquiry which is widely
perceived as a cover up job. 

The National Commission of Women team which visited
Patan suspects more women were raped. There had been
recommendations to scrap the internal marks in PTC
College after a case of molestation of a girl student
in Rajkot private PTC College in 2005 when Ms.
Anandiben Patel was the Education minister. It was
recommended to reduce the internal marks from 40% to
15% to 10%, but this decision was not taken. It is
believed that the sexual harassment has become
commonplace in PTC Colleges. In Meghraj Taluka, a
Patan-type incident took place 22 years back where 15
women were victims. 

There are 65000 PTC teachers unemployed in the state
and this year more than 30000 will join their ranks.
There are 16000 women studying in 134 women?s PTC
colleges in Gujarat. In most of these colleges, there
are no lady lecturers or even women wardens; though it
is compulsory to stay in the hostel. 

To run a PTC College is becoming a big business.
National Council of Teachers? Education [NCTE]
introduced the policy of Self Finance in PTC. There
are 431 PTC colleges, most of them self financed. The
appointments are made on political grounds. There was
not a single female teacher in 13 members? staff for
the past six years in Patan. There are 16 DIET
colleges for men and six for women. 

The Patan incident is just a tip of an iceberg. If
such rampant sexual exploitation can happen in the
DIET colleges then one can imagine what may be
happening in the self financed colleges run by
influential people in power. It is necessary to have a
thorough investigation of all these self finance
colleges, and to ensure implementation of the SC
Visaka Judgement guidelines to stop sexual harassment
in the workplace.

CPI (ML) Investigation Report

Saffron Experiment in Orissa Laboratory

- D. P. Bakshi, Liberation, February, 2008.

Kalinganagar in January 2006 and now Kandhamal in
December 2007 ? in both episodes we can see the twin
faces of Navin Patnaik?s Biju Janata Dal (BJD) -
Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) Government in Orissa, in
which the most vulnerable sections of the state?s
people ? adivasis and dalit minorities ? are subjected
to corporate land grab and police brutality on the one
hand and communal pogroms on the other. Heady with
Narendra Modi?s victory, the Sangh Parivar seems all
set to make Orissa the next saffron laboratory.       
 

Kandhamal is one of the most backward districts of
Southern Orissa. This is also culmination of the
violence which has been simmering in Orissa since a
coalition government led by the BJP came to power in
1998. 1999 saw the gruesome murder by Bajrang Dal
activists of the Australian missionary Graham Staines
and his two young sons. This was followed by other
sporadic attacks and murders. An investigation into
religious communalism in Orissa by the Indian People?s
Tribunal, led by Justice K.K. Usha in 2006 noted the
?spread of communal organizations in Orissa, which has
been accompanied by a series of small and large events
and some riots?such violations are utilized to
generate the threat and reality of greater violence,
and build the infrastructure of fear and
intimidation.?

Bloody Christmas at Kandhamal 
On 23 December 2007, Sangh outfits marched through
Barakhama village, Kandhamal, ?Stop Christianity, Kill
Christians?; on 24 December despite police promises to
control the situation, Sangh Parivar organisations
shut down shops and, at night, cut power and telephone
lines and felled trees to build road blocks; on 25
December, Christmas Day, a mob of 400 people armed
with trishuls, swords, rods, and some guns ? rampaged
through the area, breaking down the doors of churches,
attacking people at prayer, burning down a total of
seven churches, looting and torching Christian houses,
hospitals, convents, hostels, and other institutions,
and injuring hundreds and killing at least eleven
people. 

Colonial and Feudal Legacy of Tensions in Kandhamal 
Kandhamal (formerly Phulbani) is an area with a
colonial and feudal legacy of social tensions.
Historian Biswamoy Pati notes that in the 19th
century, colonial officials and feudal landed classes
recruited tribals of Kandhamal as forced labour, and
took up a drive of converting a section of them to
Hinduism. The Sangh Parivar?s claim that they seek to
?reconvert? the Christian tribals ?back? to Hinduism
are therefore false; the Hindus in this region too
were converts from tribal animism to Hinduism. With
time the Hinduised Kandhas began to assert their
majoritarian identity, and by the 1950s, tribal
Kandhas began converting to Christianity in good
numbers to defy Hindu domination. Sections of the
dalit Panas too converted to Christianity in the 1950s
as a ?survival strategy?. Panas were not only
discriminated in the feudal caste hierarchy; they were
also stigmatized by the colonial regime as a ?criminal
caste?. Writes Pati, ?Unlike the sections of the
affluent Kandhas and other tribal groups who could get
integrated into the caste formation, the poorer
sections were ?integrated? through terror as
outcastes.? In the 1990s, the Hindu converts among
Kandhas also began intimidating the dalit Panas to
prevent their entry into temples, and clashes ensued.
Converted tribals and Panas both are known at the
receiving end of the terror campaigns by the Sangh
Parivar in the name of ?reconversion? or ?protests
against forced conversion?.     

While the Christian population from both dalit and
adivasi backgrounds (only 2.3% in Orissa today) is
declining, it is the Sangh Parivar who are involved in
aggressive proselytization - converting Adivasis to
Hinduism. All along the tribal belt, from Dangs in
Gujarat in the West to Orissa in the East, Hindu
Samgams, or congregations, are being held, and
thousands of Adivasis threatened and intimidated into
attending. 

The attack on Christians at Kandhamal was orchestrated
by Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) leader Swami
Lakhanananda Saraswati, one of main organizer of
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Orissa (wanted by police
in a case related to communal violence in Rourkela)
and founder of a big Ashram in Kandhamal as a joint
venture of VHP and Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad. Just one
year back a big conference of VHP was organised in
this Ashram participated by 50,000 from different
parts of our country and overseas Indians from
different foreign countries. Dara Singh concentrated
his operations in the North-Western part of Orissa
(Keonjhar-Mayurbhanj district), while Saraswati
selected Kandhamala for his hate campaign. 

Another factor was the Kui Samaj, an organisation of
Kui-speaking Kandha Adivasis who for over a decade
have been opposing the Pana Dalit Christians?s demand
for Scheduled Tribe status. Since 2002 ?Kuis? have
achieved Scheduled Tribe (ST) status; but the
contention is over whether ?Kuis? should be
interpreted as Kui speakers and thus include Panas or
not. Though the Kui Samaj does not directly associate
itself with the Sangh outfits, its Kandha members have
often been mobilised by the RSS and its affiliates,
and its leader Lambodar Kanhar is another of the key
organizers of the December violence.  

The Build-Up 
Reports suggest that 25-30 busloads of people were
brought from Kandhamal to Bhubaneswar on 21 December
2007 to attend a Yagya programme. Under the cover of
the Yagya all the Presidents of RSS from caste
panchayats of Kandhamal district had a secret meeting
from 11 AM to 6 PM at an unknown place on 22 December.
On 23 December the Yagya was over and all of them went
back to their respective places.

Even before that, on 9 December, Swami Lakhanananda
came to Bamunigan and had a secret meeting with
Bighneswara Banika Sangh affiliated with RSS and VHP.
Since then, the situation in Bamunigan was tense, with
threats mounting against Christmas celebrations. 

Meanwhile the Kui Samaj had given a call for a bandh
on December 25 and 26 against the granting of ST
certificates to Panas. Apprehensive of this bandh
coinciding with Christmas, the Christian Jan Kalyan
Samaj of Kandhamal met the Collector and
Superintendent of Police (SP) on 23 December with a
written statement against the bandh, demanding that
arrangements be made to guarantee the security of
Christians celebrating Christmas. The SP visited
Bamunigan, but did not care to deploy any force there.

On 23 December itself Ambedkar Banika Sangh of
Bamunigan together with 6 Sarpanches of the area also
appraised the situation and sent a fax message to the
SP, and met him at Bamunigan. They also went to the
police station to discuss the tense situation and
reported that the Swami planned to perform a Yagya in
front of the Church.


On 24 December early morning 6 Sarpanches together
along with village heads went to the police station
and requested to allow the market to be opened; the
RSS and Bajrang Dal opposed this. The ASI came to the
market and told the people to open the market. Still
Sangh activists forced the traditional weekly market
(Haat) to close and attacked the market goers, and
also destroyed Christmas pandals on the road. Two
Christians (Sillu & Avinash) were shot and injured.

At 2 pm rumours were spread about an ?attack? on the
Swami, and he got himself admitted to a local
hospital. Some TV channels also promoted this report
with an inflammatory ?interview? with the Swami,
though they failed to show any footage of the
?injuries? sustained by the Swami. 

At about 7:30 pm a 400-strong Sangh mob, raising
slogans of ?Jai Sri Ram? and armed with guns, swords
and other lethal weapons opened the gate of Balligude
Church and abused the Christian youths who were busy
decorating for Christmas. They came running, shouting
?kill the Christians and destroy the Church.? The
youths together with priests, nuns, and hostel
residents ran to the jungle to save their lives. The
mob then collected furniture, worship materials and
all other belonging of the hostel and set them on
fire.

This was followed by a chain of violent attacks on
churches, convents, Christian hostels and Christian
people for two days. There was at least one
retaliatory action in which Christians attacked a
Hindu hamlet. 
Initially the police stayed silent spectators and
later clamped curfew. The Navin Government made some
ridiculous attempts to spread the fantastic theory
that it was ?Maoists? who were responsible for the
attack. 
For the first time since 1947, some 3,000 Christian
men, women and children are forced to live in two
refuge camps. And even now older people and some
women, unable to flee, remain in the villages living
in sheer terror. 

The similarities with Gujarat are many: the rumour of
an ?action? (the ?attack? on the Swami) to justify a
?reaction; the mobilisation of adivasis on a communal
plank; systematic setting of minority establishments
on fire; and forcing minorities to flee the villages
and live in refugee camps, for instance.    

All left, democratic forces in Orissa raised strong
voices of protest against this heinous attack of
saffron forces on religious minorities and against the
tacit collusion of the BJD-BJP Government with the
Sangh Parivar. CPI (ML) organised a powerful protest
march on 28 December at Bhubaneshwar and Rayagada. The
State Government and administration did not allow any
visit by opposition political parties, in the name of
?preventing? any new tension or provocation. 

In London, the South Asia Solidarity Group, which has
vigilantly campaigned against the covert foreign
funding of Sangh outfits in India, issued a strong
statement of protest. Holding that the Judicial Review
Commission set up by the Navin Government to
investigate the violence did not inspire any
confidence of justice, SASG demanded that the Centre
set up a CBI enquiry; sufficient relief to the
refugees in camps and safe and speedy return and
rehabilitation; and also that the Centre institute an
independent inquiry into the Sangh Parivar?s
?infrastructure of fear, intimidation and violence in
Orissa?. SASG also demanded that the British
Government ?investigate the international arms of the
Sangh Parivar organisations in Britain who support and
fund the criminal activities of Hindutva groups in
India?. 

Events of the last decade reveal that Orissa may be
the third major experimental ground after Gujarat and
Jharkhand, where the Sangh Parivar strives to develop
a strong base among tribal people. As the BJD-BJP
Government seeks to grab land from adivasis and the
poor to hand over to corporates, and also looks the
other way as the Sangh increases its influence, the we
face the urgent challenge of building up a powerful
people?s resistance, both against the policies of
liberalisation and loot as well as against the
communal hate campaign.

Politics in South Asia

The Parliamentary Left of Sri Lanka and the
Nationalist Trap

- S. Sivasegaram. 

The Sri Lankan left has several features that
distinguish it from the left in India. The first
Marxist party, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP),
formed much later than that in India in 1935, was
Trotskyite dominated. The Communist Party of Ceylon
(CP) was formed following the expulsion of
?Stalinists? in 1940. Hostility to Stalin also meant
that the LSSP would not support the war against
fascism when the Soviet Union was dragged into World
War II. Also, the CP was less under the influence of
the Communist Party of Great Britain than was its
Indian counterpart, a factor that is said to have
helped in the struggle against revisionism in Sri
Lanka in the early 1960s. The CP, although weaker than
the LSSP in electoral politics, had a strong working
class base and more influence than the LSSP among the
Tamil and Muslim left intellectuals and oppressed
masses.

The LSSP and the CP were a world apart from their
social democratic predecessor, the Ceylon Labour Party
with roots in the fledgling trade union movement and
an anti-communist agenda that deteriorated into
chauvinist politics aimed at workers of Indian origin
by 1930. The LSSP had a split in 1945, and a merger
and a split in 1950 so that there were two Trotskyite
parties until 1956. The weaker, VLSSP (revolutionary
LSSP), went into an alliance called Mahajana Eksath
Peramuna (MEP or People?s United Front) with the
Sinhala chauvinist Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) in
1956. The alliance fell apart in 1958, but the VLSSP
inherited the name MEP as well as its Sinhala
chauvinism. 

The opportunism of the VLSSP may seem the first
betrayal of the minority nationalities by the left,
but its roots lie in the remarkable performance of the
left in the elections to the first parliament in1947.
The hopes that the LSSP leaders nurtured about being
elected to power faded since the elections of 1952,
partly because the Citizenship Act of 1948
disenfranchised the Hill Country Tamils, constituting
around a tenth of the population. Although the left as
a whole opposed the Act, the left leadership, the LSSP
in particular, since then, began to neglect political
work among the Hill Country Tamils, constituting a
backward but the most numerous section of the working
class. The political weakness of the LSSP leadership
has been traced to the propertied class origin of the
bulk of its leadership, and it took less than two
decades for the LSSP to switch from ultra-left
Trotskyism to parliamentary social democracy. 

While there is no doubt about the opportunism of the
left parties, the charge that the left betrayed the
Tamils on the language issue is not quite correct,
since the LSSP and the CP voted against the Sinhala
Only Act in 1956. The shift in language policy towards
one of protection of Tamil language rights within the
framework of the Sinhala Only Act occurred well after
the Federal Party, the main Tamil nationalist party
then, expressed willingness in 1957 to find a solution
within the framework of the Sinhala Only Act. 

The real betrayal was the class betrayal in 1963, when
the LSSP, CP and MEP formed the United Left Front
(ULF) and planned a powerful trade union campaign
based on twenty-one demands, which put fear into the
national bourgeois SLFP government of the day. The
LSSP leadership was tempted in 1964 by a cabinet post
for its leader; and the ULF fell apart as did the
trade union campaign. The LSSP split later in the
year, but the rebels who formed the LSSP(R) were
politically weak. The CP also split in 1964, based on
the international debate on the road to socialism, and
the Marxist Leninist faction that rejected the
parliamentary path was politically strong and had with
it the bulk of the party?s trade union membership.
Although subsequently weakened by a combination of
factors including the rise of nationalist politics,
Marxist Leninists remain a significant political force
among the Tamils and the Hill Country Tamils.

The degeneration of the LSSP and CP was inevitable
since their opportunistic alliance with the SLFP,
which eroded their vote bank and their trade union
base. Squabbles with the SLFP led to parting company
in 1975-76 and contesting the elections as a left
alliance in 1977. The result was a humiliating defeat
for the SLFP and the decimation of the parliamentary
left, which crawled back to the SLFP nest in the late
1980s to ensure its parliamentary presence. The Nava
Sama Samaja Party (NSSP) ? its subsequent factions
included ? split from the LSSP only after the
electoral disaster of 1977. 

The case of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP,
meaning People?s Liberation Front), mistakenly or
mischievously dubbed Marxist, is different. Despite
the origins of several founder-leaders in the two
factions of the CP, it rejected the working class as a
revolutionary force. Its chauvinism was so blatant
that it labelled the Hill Country Tamils an extension
of Indian expansionism. It attracted a sizeable
section of left-inclined youth whom it misled into the
misadventure of April 1971. It was revived as a
political force in 1978 with help from the
pro-imperialist United National Party (UNP)
government, which wielded unprecedented power from1977
until its defeat in 1994, and the blessings of a
Trotskyite Fourth International. With the planned
aggravation of the national question by the UNP
government, the JVP became increasingly chauvinistic.
It rejected the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 to stage
an uprising because the Accord offered some autonomy
to the Tamils, and murdered left and centre-left
leaders who supported the Accord for its positive
features in addressing the national question. Marxist
Leninists, it may be noted, criticised the Accord for
its inadequacies and its accommodation of Indian
hegemonic interests, issues that the JVP was not in
the least concerned with.

The decimation of all but one member of the JVP
Politburo by state terror in 1989 meant that the JVP
had to wait until the defeat of the UNP in 1994 for
its second resurrection. The JVP grew at the expense
of the old left in the South which was by then a spent
force, but slowly. However, the combination of a
chauvinistic agenda and an opportunistic coalition
with the People?s Alliance led by the SLFP in 2004
helped it to secure 34 (or 15%) of the 225
parliamentary seats, despite a less than 7% share of
the vote nationally when it contested independently.
The emergence of the right-wing Sinhala chauvinist
Jathika Hela Urumaya as a political force with 9 seats
has made the JVP even more chauvinistic and
obstructive in its approach to the national question.

In fairness to the CP and the LSSP, they cannot be
said to uphold a chauvinistic ideology. But they have
consistently failed to protest in the slightest
against the chauvinistic agenda of the SLFP, their
major political partner, or against the pursuit of war
by the present government in which they are partners.

The lesson for the left movement as a whole is that
opportunism of any kind only morally weakens a left
party and inevitably leads to its degeneration into a
centre-left reformist party that would participate,
passively or even actively, in acts of national
oppression and compromise with imperialism. Even
worse, it could be compelled to do the dirty work for
a repressive state in the name of combating
?terrorism? and separatism.

Struggles in India

Ganga Expressway : ?Corporate Hitay, Sarvajan Dukhay?

- Sunil Yadav, Liberation, March, 2008. 

>From Greater Noida to Balia, the Ganga Expressway is
around 1000 km. long. This 8-lane road passes mainly
through the left bank of Ganga, though in Varanasi and
Chandauli it has to pass on the right bank of Ganga.
For this Expressway worth Rs 40000 crore, 631 sq. km
land is to be acquired in 36 tehsils of 19 districts.
More over, nearly 30000 acres of land around the
Expressway is to be acquired in the name of
?Development Zones.? In all, around 64000 hectares of
land is to be acquired for the Expressway Project.
Perhaps, it is the largest one stroke land acquisition
in Indian history. Of these 64000 hectares, only 5%
land belongs to the Government, while 25% land is
sandy, barren land with low productivity. And 70%
land, the most fertile land of UP situated on the
banks of Ganga, is to be acquired from peasants.

Presented as Mayawati?s birthday gift to the people of
the state, it is claimed that this ?dream project? of
the Chief Minister will link the backward region of
eastern Uttar Pradesh (UP) with the developed Noida
region adjoining Delhi; rejuvenate the traditional
industries in Bhadohi, Kanpur, Kannauj and Khurja;
boost tourism and commercial activities in historical
cities like Varanasi, Mirzapur and Bithur. Also,
vehicles may run at the speed of 120 Kms. per hour on
jam-free roads.   

The Game of Public-Private Partnership
Public-private partnership is being presented as
Mayawati?s magical economic formula. It is claimed
that thanks to public-private partnership,
construction of the 1000 km. long road will not cost a
single pie from the Government exchequer. The entire
cost of the construction will be borne by one private
company ?JP Associates?. In the process of land
acquisition also, Government will only play the role
of facilitator.

However the facts reveal that in the name of public
private partnership, private capital is being allowed
to reap unbridled profit at the cost of the public. JP
Associates are given the right to collect toll tax on
the Expressway for 35 years. Moreover, in the name of
?Development Zones?, 30000 acres of land is being
handed over to JP Associates. They will be free to
engage in real estate business on this tract of 30000
acres, and also on other profitable parts of the
expressway. It is the same JP Associates which was
given the contract for the construction of Taj
Expressway during the earlier Bahujan Samaj Party
(BSP) ? Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) regime; a project
that was put in cold storage amidst accusations of
scam and loot. JP is also notorious for firing by
security guards on the agitating workers of the Golf
Course at Noida. Obviously scams and loot make the
road construction costlier. The honest, young engineer
Satyendra Dubey had raised the issue of similar scams
in Vajpayee?s Golden Quadrilateral Project for which
he had to pay with his life. The cost of the Golden
Quadrilateral road was assessed to be Rs. 6.34 crore
per km. However surpassing all records of investment
cost in road construction, the cost for Mayawati?s
Ganga Expressway is assessed to be 30 crores per km:
slated to be the costliest ever road in India.
 
Recipe for Environmental Devastation 
The BSP Government boasts that such a mega project has
been conceptualized only in a short period of 6
months. However the biggest casualty is the
environmental devastation involved in such a huge
project. Not only has the BSP Government ignored these
concerns, the Congress- United Progressive Alliance
(UPA) government at the Centre too did not find it
necessary to address the long-term issues of flood,
pollution and environment. BJP too, has started
communalizing the issue in the name of faith, blunting
the edge of rational-scientific aspects of the
environmental concerns related with Ganga. But in all
likelihood, BJP will not succeed in its design of
linking the Ganga Expressway to the Ram Sethu issue.

However, according to river engineers and
environmentalists, the construction of this road as an
embankment to the Ganga will affect the natural flow
of the river. It will distort the flow of tributaries,
canals and other natural flows. Consequently there may
be disastrous floods in newer areas, sand logging on
fertile land, changes in soil conservation and water
level. The water ecology of the Ganga itself, as well
as agriculture and the people dependent on it may be
caught in this cycle of environmental devastation.

UP: Emphasis on Roads, Neglect of Surplus
It is said that in contrast to average national growth
rate of 9%, UP?s growth rate is around 5% while the
growth rate of eastern UP is around 2.5 to 3%. The
agricultural and industrial surplus in extremely
backward eastern UP does not really require a new
road. The density of road network in UP is not lesser
than national average. Also the districts through
which Ganga Expressway passes are already connected to
national highways and railways.

Many economists believe that instead of one more road
in UP, if investment could be increased in power
sector, education, health and agriculture etc and
weaving, tannery and brass industry could be helped,
it would have increased the surplus of agricultural
and industrial production as well as the purchasing
power of the people. Without this, just by creating
some ?development zones? near Ganga Expressway, there
can be no development of the state. Such development
zones will be ?islands of development? for some
corporate houses. Such islands of development can only
give us the mirage of sensex celebrations and
misleading growth rates.

SEZ, Mega SEZ and Agrarian Crisis
With acute agrarian crisis engulfing the country, per
capita food grain availability has already come down
to 444 grams in 2004-2005 from 503.1 grams in 1996-97.
In such a scenario, the acquisition of 64 thousand
hectares of land for the Ganga Expressway which is the
largest-ever acquisition so far, will definitely
adversely affect the availability of food grains and
accentuate the agrarian crisis.

In fact the idea of development through Ganga
Expresway is similar to the idea of corporate
development via special economic zone (SEZ). This SEZ
model only means super profits for real estate
business and corporate land grab in the name of
industries and infrastructure building. The SEZ model
is counterproductive because it targets agriculture
land, which cannot be reproduced. In this age of
increasing imperialist pressure on India, the issue of
agricultural land and self-reliance in the field of
food grains cannot be ignored. But oblivious of all
these considerations, Mayawati has imposed this Mega
SEZ on the people of UP in the name of Ganga
Expressway. Compared to 55000 hectares of land covered
by all 362 SEZ proposals cleared till July 2007, the
land to be acquired for the Mega SEZ of Ganga
Expressway is 64000 hectares!

Mass Struggles Against Official Surrender
Governments have crossed all limits of brutality to
defend corporate land grab at Kalingnagar and
Nandigram. When the SEZ Act 2005 was passed in
Parliament all parties of diverse hues, in a unique
show of solidarity, showed complete consensus. It is
the people who are challenging this anti-national,
anti-peasant SEZ Act. SEZ proposals are being scrapped
under the pressure of people?s movements. The new
outpost of the victorious march that started from
Nandigram is now in Goa. All SEZs had to be scrapped
in Goa under the pressure of mass agitation. Mulayam
has already tasted the bitter fruit of his attempt to
grab land of farmers in Dadri. One can safely predict
that people will not accept Ganga Expressway, the Mega
SEZ of Mayawati. BSP?s slogan of ?Sarvajan Hitay,
Bahujan Sukhay? is actually turning out to be
?Corporate Hitay, Bahujan Dukhay?! It is need of the
hour to consign the Ganga Expressway, dream project of
hypocritical BSP and rapacious corporate houses, to
the dustbin of history. 

CPI (ML) Investigation Report

Protest Against Land Grab at Nalanda

- Rajendra Patel, Liberation, March, 2008.

On February 8, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar
visited Pilkhi village of Nalanda (his home district)
along with Ex-President Kalam to show him the proposed
site for Nalanda University. Thousands of peasants,
angry at the forced acquisition of their land at
throwaway prices, assembled there and started raising
slogans. It is alleged that the agitated peasants
threw stones at the Chief Minister, injuring him on
his head. Thus Nitish Kumar became the fourth chief
minister (CM) ? after KB Sahai, Jagannath Mishra and
Bhagawat Jha Azad, to be humiliated by the masses. A
CPI (ML) Investigation Team visited Pilkhi to find out
truth and understand the reasons behind the agitation
and anger of the peasants. The team comprised CPI (ML)
central committee (CC) Member KD Yadav, All India
Kisan Sangharsh Samiti President Raja Ram Singh, Bihar
Pradesh Kisan Sabha State Secretary Rajendra Patel,
State Committee Member Pal Bihari Lal and CPI (ML)
district committee Member Anil Patel.

According to peasants, land is being acquired in 18
villages in the name of setting up Nalanda University.
Sale and purchase of land has been legally banned in
these villages. And under the area to be acquired fall
residential areas as well as the cremation ground,
public toilets and other public places. The land to be
acquired is fertile three-crop land and apart from
wheat and rice, commercial crops like potato, onion,
garlic and spices are also produced here. With their
hard labour peasants have irrigated the land. For
example, there are 70 families in village Mudaffarpur
who possess 50 hand pumps and 5 transformers.
Obviously the Government?s claim that all land is
unirrigated is false. While the market rate of the
land is generally nowhere less than Rs. 22000 per
kattha, the government is providing only Rs. 7750 per
kattha for all types of land.

One more glaring fact was reported to the
investigation team that Rs. 38 crore was issued from
the Government treasury for compensation to the
peasants but instead of distributing it to the
farmers, the district magistrate (DM) deposited this
money in his own account to reap a handsome interest.
And when the programme for Ex-President?s visit was
declared, a compensation camp was set up in a hurry on
February 6. This was also one reason behind the anger
of the peasants and the resultant pandemonium. The DM
and superintendent of police (SP) of Nalanda, known as
CM loyalists, are also notorious for brutal
suppression of democratic movements. 

Returning back to Patna, Nitish Kumar said that he was
not aware of the peasants? resentment. This was an
obvious lie as the peasants were consistently
agitating for the last one year, organizing
demonstrations and dharna at district HQ as well as
Patna.

The acquisition will result in landlessness of a large
number of peasants. In many villages the entire
population dependent on agriculture will be deprived
of their only means of livelihood. Agricultural
workers will be the worst hit, losing their dwellings
and employment. However in utter disregard for the
popular opposition, the Chief Minister arrogantly
declared that the proposed plans in Nalanda will be
completed at any cost.

Regarding the official propaganda about ?planned
conspiracy of murderous assault on the CM?, peasants
said that it was patently false and fabricated. They
said that no stone was thrown as there were no stones
at all in the vicinity. They said that it is possible
that someone among the agitated villagers threw mud,
as the soil was wet there. False cases under Article
307 (attempt to murder) have been lodged against 25
villagers, and this has further angered the peasants.
It is interesting to note that the agitating peasants
have mainly been voters of Janata Dal (United) [(JD)
(U)].

Whatever Nitish Kumar may claim, acquisition of so
much land in Rajgir seems to be part of the special
economic zone (SEZ) model of ?development?, through by
the backdoor. Such a large tract of land could not be
required just for a university and a police camp.
Peasants are also wondering what good the Nalanda
University will do for their lives. Why should they
accept homelessness and joblessness for a University
where their own children won?t be able to study?

Politics in India

Draft Political Resolution for CPI(M)?s 19th Congress:
Reconciling ?Anti-imperialist? Rhetoric with
?Neo-liberal Constraints? 

- Liberation, March, 2008.

The draft political resolution released by the CPI (M)
for its ensuing 19th Congress provides quite a
revealing commentary on the opportunist political
trajectory of the party. The resolution is
characteristically elaborate about the description of
the international and national situation. But when it
comes to spelling out the concrete positions and role
of the party, the resolution is rather vague and
evasive. And as for the debate that the party now
increasingly faces in its own circles, the resolution
dismisses everything as a big anti-CPI (M) conspiracy!


The draft resolution devotes several paragraphs to the
global economic situation under imperialist
globalization and the US-led ?war on terror?. It calls
for a mighty worldwide anti-imperialist resistance
that combines both anti-war and anti-globalisation
sentiments and struggles on a global scale. But what
task does the CPI (M) derive for itself from this
global analysis and advocacy? The answer sounds pretty
innocent ? ?rousing the anti-imperialist sentiments of
the Indian people and mounting pressure on the Indian
government to pursue a steadfast role in promoting
multipolarity, defending sovereignty of nations and
the non-aligned movement.? 

Let us probe a little deeper. The CPI (M) resolution
quite correctly identifies imperialist globalization
and the global war on terror as the two principal
prongs of the global offensive spearheaded by US
imperialism. Now, where do the Indian ruling classes
stand in relation to these key components of the
imperialist agenda? There can be no denying the fact
that in both economic and foreign policy spheres the
Indian ruling classes are moving towards ever closer
integration with imperialism in general and US
imperialism in particular. And this integration is
increasingly assuming a strategic and military
dimension as well. This policy course has remained
unchanged through all the periodic changes of
governments over the last two decades and the UPA
government has officially embarked on a course of
strategic partnership with the US. Yet the CPI (M)
resolution talks of mounting pressure on the Indian
government to promote ?the non-aligned movement?!

The CPI (M) never offered any serious opposition to
the Indo-US strategic partnership. The official
announcement regarding the partnership was made during
Manmohan Singh?s US visit in July 2005. ?Non-aligned?
India also voted duly with the US against Iran at the
IAEA, not once but twice.  The CPI (M) did nothing
?commensurate with its strength and stature? except
making some noise in the media. It was only when
negotiations over the nuclear deal entered the
near-final stage that the CPI (M) stepped up its
opposition. That too was diluted in the wake of
Nandigram and the government was allowed to proceed
with the ?nuclear safeguard? negotiations in the IAEA.
While the UPA government binds India into ever closer
strategic integration with the US, the CPI (M) voices
only piecemeal opposition from time to time. So much
for the CPI (M)?s claimed contribution to the
anti-imperialist consciousness of the Indian people.

What about the CPI (M)?s role in ?resisting?
imperialist globalization? Its governments in West
Bengal and Kerala are now routinely borrowing funds
and ?vision? from imperialist funding agencies and
consultancy firms. Asian Development Bank (ADB),
Department for International Development (DFID),
McKinsey are not only well-known names in the CPI
(M)-ruled states but they are increasingly the last
word in the CPI (M)?s new-found discourse of
?development?. Regarding the economic direction to be
pursued by the Left Front government of West Bengal,
the draft resolution calls upon the government to
maintain a careful balance without accepting wholesale
privatization in all economic and social spheres. How
is this talk of ?careful balance? and moderated,
calibrated privatization any different from the
economic policy advocated by governments of other hues
in other states or at the Centre? 

The CPI (M) resolution claims credit for ?slowing
down? the pace of neo-liberal reforms. Insofar as
neo-liberal policies have to co-exist in India with a
parliamentary democratic framework and the ruling
classes have to renew their license every five years,
an element of moderation or cautious calibration is
built into the very scheme of things. The credit for
slowing down of reforms should go to the popular
protests that are building up against the predatory
policies of the government and it is no secret that in
CPI (M)-ruled states such protests have to face stiff
resistance from the party and the government. 

Let us take some recent examples. The SEZ Act was
passed unanimously in Parliament in 2005. The CPI (M)
owes an answer to the people of India why its
forty-plus MPs voted in favour of the Act; or for that
matter, under what ?compulsion? its model government
in West Bengal had to anticipate the Central Act with
its own 2003 version of the same land-grabbing
legislation. If the UPA government has now been forced
to introduce some elements of ?moderation?, it has
been in the wake of the people?s resistance at
Nandigram and popular mobilization against SEZs
elsewhere in the country. And the whole country knows
what role the CPI (M) has played at Nandigram ? it has
only perpetrated and patronized massacres at regular
intervals in a desperate bid to thwart the resistance
of the people. Likewise, if there is now talk of
amending the Land Acquisition Act 1894, it is all
because of the debate that has been generated by what
has happened at Kalinganagar and Singur. It is indeed
strange that a party that fraudulently uses an
arbitrary law like the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 to
acquire one thousand acres of fertile land for
monopoly capital should wax eloquent about the need
for ?amending and updating? this antiquated
legislation! We know how CPI (M) ideologues
rationalize this hypocrisy. To them it is simply a
case of ?distinction? between a state government
operating under ?neo-liberal constraints? and a
communist party applying its ?freedom of expression?,
and if we are not able to grasp this distinction we
are guilty of ?inversion of reason?! 

?Liberalism? in economics is always complemented by
illiberalism in governance. The deepening of
neo-liberal reforms in almost every sector of the
economy has been matched by a proliferation of special
legislations of control to incriminate every form of
public dissent and protest. The so-called ?national
security? doctrine of the UPA government is fast
degenerating into a gospel of unmitigated state
repression and systematic truncation of democracy. The
CPI (M)?s critique of neo-liberalism is remarkably
reticent, if not silent, about this growing danger.
Even when it comes to the demand for repeal of the
most draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the
CPI (M) merely advocates replacing the AFSPA ?with a
suitable law which can enable the army to be deployed
in disturbed areas to combat insurgency that will do
away with the draconian features of the existing law!?
Obviously, one will look in vain for any word of
criticism in the CPI (M) document regarding the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act that has
incorporated several features of the POTA or draconian
state laws like the Chhattisgarh Special Public
Security Act which is being invoked by the BJP
government in the state to trample upon press freedom
and civil liberties. The CPI (M)?s opposition to the
BJP revolves only around the issue of communalism,
with very little attention paid to the fundamental
question of democracy.

For the last four years the CPI (M) has been actively
associated with a government at the Centre. How does
the CPI (M) describe its association? The CPI (M) is a
signatory to the Common Minimum Programme which is the
ruling UPA?s commonly drafted and commonly monitored
manifesto of governance. Yet the CPI (M) would have us
believe that its association with the government is
only selective. In fact while it claims credit for
legislations on rural employment guarantee (will the
CPI (M) tell us if it has been instrumental for the
NREGA, why the rural poor in CPI (M)-ruled states have
not even got ten days? employment a year instead of
the assured 100 days?), right to information and
prevention of domestic violence, and for the presumed
slowing down of reforms, it blames the Congress for
everything neo-liberal and pro-imperialist in UPA
policies! Whatever may be the CPI (M)?s formula for
apportioning credit and blame, the fact remains that
the CPI (M) cannot hide its actual status as a
participant and major stakeholder in the UPA
government. 

The draft resolution boldly rules out any alliance or
united front with the Congress. In state after state
the CPI (M) enters into electoral adjustments with the
Congress (Gujarat was the most recent example), and at
the Centre the CPI (M) underwrites a Congress-led
coalition government, albeit without any ministerial
portfolio. The resolution would like us to believe
that it is a one-way relationship where the Congress
depends on the CPI (M) with the latter remaining
completely independent! Jyoti Basu was clearly closer
to the truth when he had once famously described this
relationship as one of mutual interdependence. The CPI
(M) has no problem with sharing a common minimum
programme of governance with the Congress and with
having seat adjustment wherever possible, yet it
claims to be steering clear of any ?united front? with
the Congress. 

With Lok Sabha elections approaching, the CPI (M) will
of course now be more in the denial mode regarding its
relations with the Congress. A typical expression of
this denial mode is the renewed advocacy of a third
alternative. The notion of the third front would come
in handy particularly in states like Andhra Pradesh
and Assam where the CPI (M) may well seek electoral
adjustments with regional parties like the Telugu
Desam Party (TDP) and Assam Gan Parishad (AGP). Never
mind if the CPI (M) had teamed up with the Congress
against the TDP in the last Lok Sabha and Assembly
elections in Andhra Pradesh ? the draft resolution
describes the TDP as a regional party that seeks
cooperation with the Left! In a way the draft
resolution marks a near-complete liberalization of the
CPI (M)?s political line where ideology, elections and
governance are neatly compartmentalized. Phrases like
?left and democratic unity? and ?third front? are used
more for ideological posturing and political
consumption while policies regarding electoral
adjustment and governance are sought to be
rationalized in the name of ?neo-liberal constraints?
and ?constitutional compulsions?!

The draft resolution calls upon the entire party to
?defend the Left-led governments from the attacks
coming from the ruling classes, right wing
reactionaries and the ultra-Left.? The call must be
read in the context of the countrywide opposition and
criticism that the CPI (M) has had to face following
the forcible land acquisition at Singur and the
massacres at Nandigram. Now this opposition has come
primarily from the affected and aggrieved people of
Singur and Nandigram which in turn has found
widespread support from the broad democratic opinion
not only in West Bengal but in every corner of the
country. In the case of Nandigram, the local people
who opposed the West Bengal government?s move to set
up a chemical hub were all long-standing supporters
and activists of the CPI (M) itself. But a rattled CPI
(M) establishment could not tolerate this unexpected
resistance from within its own base and responded with
a series of massacres. 

The violence naturally evoked all-round condemnation.
Yet instead of paying any heed to the voice of protest
senior CPI (M) leaders took it upon themselves to
justify the killings ? following the third massacre in
November 2007 the Chief Minister openly said that
trouble-makers had been ?paid back in their own coin?
? while heaping scorn and ridicule on whoever
condemned the killings and questioned the CPI (M)?s
discourse of corporate-led ?industrialisation? and
neo-liberal ?development?. Even a thoroughly partisan
Prabhat Patnaik who had questioned the neo-liberal
direction of West Bengal was dismissed by the Chief
Minister as an armchair economist devoid of any
connection with reality! An eminent Marxist historian
became an enemy of the people in the eyes of Prakash
Karat simply because he had drawn a parallel between
Gujarat and Nandigram! This paranoid arrogance has now
been made Party policy in the draft resolution. 

The CPI (M) may club the ruling classes, rightwing
reactionaries and the revolutionary left (ultra-left
in its vocabulary) as its common enemy. This does not
however prevent the CPI (M) from doing brisk business
with significant sections of the ruling classes and
their oldest political party, the Congress! In sharp
contrast to this arrogant sectarianism of the CPI (M),
the revolutionary left knows how to distinguish
between the ruling classes and the opportunist left.
The CPI (ML) has serious differences with both the CPI
(M) and the self-styled Maoists, but it never
subscribes to the anti-communist tirade of the ruling
classes and their ideologues. Inside West Bengal, the
CPI (ML) has been the only party to have always
maintained its independence and demarcation from the
entire spectrum of rightwing forces, working
consistently for a Left and democratic alternative.
The misdeeds and arrogance of the CPI (M) are
providing a fertile ground for the right and the CPI
(ML) is there to counter this process in the best
interest of the Left movement. The CPI (ML) does not
have to indulge in any exercise to malign the CPI (M),
but it is certainly the political responsibility of
the CPI (ML) to counter the negative impact of the CPI
(M)?s utterly indefensible acts like Singur and
Nandigram. And this is not a separate task for the CPI
(ML), but only an integral part of its overall
mission: ?people?s resistance, left resurgence?.


Resistance in India

?People?s Assertion Rally? in Siwan

- Liberation, March, 2008.

On February 18, CPI (ML) organized a massive ?Jan
Davedari Rally? (People?s Assertion Rally) in Gandhi
Maidan, Siwan. More than 10, 000 participated in the
rally. Addressing it as the main speaker Comrade
Dipankar Bhattacharya, General Secretary, CPI (ML),
spoke of the struggles of Siwan that had defied the
terror of mafia dons and criminal gangs patronised by
those in power. He said that the Nitish Kumar
government had been unable to provide good governance
to Bihar even in 30 months, let alone in 3 months as
claimed by him when he was sworn in as Chief Minister.
Nitish?s humiliation at the hands of agitating
peasants in his own home district amply demonstrates
the deeper resentment accumulating against him.
Comrade Dipankar called upon people to participate in
CPI (ML)?s ?Pol Khol? Rally in Patna on March 18.
Others who addressed the rally were Comrades Rameshwar
Prasad, central committee (CC) Member and National
President All India Agricultural Labour Association
(AIALA), Dhirendra Jha, CCM and General Secretary
AIALA, Amar Yadav, State Committee member and member
of legislative assembly (MLA), Satya Dev Ram, State
Secretary AIALA, Javed Beg, Co-convener, Inquilabi
Muslim Conference and All India Progressive Women?s
Organisation (AIPWA) leader Comrades Sohila Gupta.
Comrade Ghughali Prasad presided over the meeting.

Resistance in India

7-yr Jail Term for Bant Singh?s Attackers

- Liberation, March, 2008.

Seven of the attackers of Bant Singh Jhabbar,
responsible for the assault in January 2006 that cost
him three of his limbs, have been sentenced by a local
court to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The
court also handed out a fine of Rs 7,000 to each
accused. 

The verdict, however, while being an acknowledgement
of the assault, is far from satisfactory or adequate.
The bench took a very narrow interpretation of the
scheduled caste/scheduled tribe (SC/ST) Act, and
refused to apply it, holding that Bant in his initial
statement had not claimed it to be a caste assault.
This interpretation negates the complex social reality
of class, caste and political identity. The attack on
Bant was an act of intimidation to him as a Dalit
agricultural labour leader, cultural activist and CPI
(ML) activist, fighting for justice for his raped
daughter, to ?punish? him for confronting the feudal
forces of Mansa; and also a gruesome warning against
others of his class and caste against political
assertion.
      
The CPI (ML) has decided to appeal against the mild
verdict in the high court, demanding life imprisonment
for the attackers. 

Trade Union 

AICCTU Achieves Recognition as Central Trade Union
Organization

- Rajiv Dimri, Liberation, March, 2008.

Founded in 1989 in its Chennai conference, the All
India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU) has
achieved the status of a recognized Central Trade
Union Organization (CTUO). AICCTU represents the trend
of revolutionary trade unionism in the working class
movement in India and is the trade union mass
organisation of CPI (ML) Liberation.

As per the finally verified membership of CTUOs (on
the basis of membership as on 31 December 2002),
AICCTU has recorded a membership of 639,962 (6 Lakh
Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Two)
spread over 32 of 50 scheduled industries (including
miscellaneous) and 11 states. It has a total number of
165 unions. The pattern of spread of membership shows
that apart from making a notable expansion in the
unorganized/informal sector which constitutes more
than 90% of the total workforce of our country, AICCTU
has made considerable expansion in the organized
sector too. Among the unorganized sector workers,
AICCTU has registered an expansion in all the
important sectors like agriculture, plantations,
construction, power-loom, and others. The most notable
expansion has been among agricultural workers, mainly
in Bihar, with a total membership of more than 5 lakh
followed by tea plantation workers (mainly in Assam)
with a membership of more than 25,000. Among organized
sector workers, AICCTU has made considerable expansion
in coal mining (mainly in Jharkhand) with a membership
of more than 50,000, followed by Road Transport
(mainly in Delhi and Bihar) and local bodies (mainly
in Bihar). The expansion of AICCTU continues in last
five years (2003-07), most notably among agricultural,
tea plantation, construction and brick kiln workers in
the unorganized sector and contract/casual workforce
employed in organized sector, apart from permanent
workforce, particularly in coal, steel and local
bodies and companies owned by corporate houses.

The status of recognized CTUO was accorded by the
government to AICCTU on the basis of General
Verification of membership of registered trade unions
affiliated to CTUOs with 31.12.2002 as the date of
reckoning (i.e. membership as on 31 December 2002)
conducted under the Ministry of Labour, Government of
India. AICCTU participated in this exercise for the
first time. The last verification was conducted in
1996. 

According to the procedure adopted, the CTUOs having
verified membership of at least 5 lakh and spread over
at least four states and four industries were to be
recognized by the government as CTUOs. The recognized
unions are given representation in International and
National conferences, Committees, Councils, etc. As
per the final results of verification issued by
Ministry of Labour, 12 CTUOs including AICCTU have
been declared as recognized accounting for a combined
trade union membership of around 2.5 crore (25
million). Apart from AICCTU, the other recognized
unions are BMS, INTUC, CITU, AITUC, HMS, UTUC (LS),
LPF, UTUC, TUCC, NFITU-Dhanbad and SEWA. BMS has
emerged as the largest CTUO among all and AITUC has
emerged as the largest CTUO among left unions.
Interestingly for the first time, a NGO called SEWA
has also been accorded the status of recognized CTUO. 

AICCTU thanks all its affiliated unions for their
cooperation in the membership verification exercise
that has led to its successful recognition as a
central trade union. AICCTU's Seventh National
Conference is due to be held this year. The status of
central trade union brings new responsibilities and
challenges in its wake. AICCTU must gear up to meet
these challenge, expand its base amongst the working
class, fight the reactionary, legalistic, and
economistic trends within the working class, and
orient the working class movement not only to defend
workers' rights in this age of all-round assaults, but
also to take on the political task of resisting
pro-imperialist policies, fighting the communal
fascist forces, and defending the nation's
sovereignty. Encouraged by its growing appeal, AICCTU
is committed to rising up to this challenge. 

Culture

Long Live Comrade Ramakant Dwivedi ?Ramta?

- Liberation, March, 2008.

Freedom fighter and popular revolutionary poet in both
Bhojpuri and Hindi, Comrade Ramakant Dwivedi ?Ramta?
passed away on January 24, 2008, at the age of 90 in
Patna. 

Ramtaji was born in October 1917 ? that epoch-making
month and year marking the Russian Revolution. All his
life, he remained dedicated to the struggles of the
deprived. He was approaching his 91st spring; and yet
he was full of the indomitable spirit and
revolutionary energy of youth. His life inspired many
generations to walk the path of revolutionary
struggles. 

As a young man, Ramtaji threw himself enthusiastically
into the freedom struggle. His political life began
with the dream expressed in his song ?A charkha in
each and every Indian?s home?. In 1932 he was jailed
during the Salt Satyagraha. In 1941 he was jailed
again, but by then he was disillusioned with the
Gandhian movement. In a poem written in July 1941, he
declared, ?I am marching on the path of
revolution/Swiftly breaking the bonds of restraint,
here I come?. In the Quit India movement of 1942,
young people really did break the bonds of restraint;
Ramtaji too was at the forefront of that movement and
was again arrested and tortured in 1943. In a poem of
1943, he indicated his future path, ?I am off on the
path taken by Bhagat Singh and
Azad/Khudiram-Sukhdev-Bismil Ramprasad?. 

He was never taken in by the promises of the post-1947
regimes of independent India. In one Bhojpuri song he
wrote, ?I said so right from the start that the
?Suraj? (freedom/good rule) would turn into ?Kuraj?
(misrule)/ Those whom we looked towards with hope and
trust betrayed us.? Since then his attraction towards
Left politics grew, and initially he joined the CPI
(M). While in CPI (M) he was jailed during a Bihar
Bandh in 1966. Soon after that he joined the CPI (ML).
In 1980-81, he became a formal member of the CPI (ML)
and remained active with the party?s activities and
movements all his life. He faced jail terms many times
in the course of active struggles. 

He was one of the founder members of the ?Bihar Rajya
Janwadi Deshbhakta Morcha? which was formed during the
early 80s, and was elected the President of IPF in its
founding conference. Ramta ji was also elected the
member of Central Control Commission of the CPI (ML)
in its Varanasi Congress. 

CPI (ML) was home for Comrade Ramta ji. When he came
to Ara just a week before his death he insisted on
being taken to the Party office, despite his fragile
health, saying ?take me home?. In spite of his failing
health he was very keen on attending the Party
Congress at Kolkata, and was dissuaded with great
difficulty. When CPI (ML) General Secretary Comrade
Dipankar was arrested in Jharkhand and a protest was
held there, he too arrived there along with the
contingent from Bihar. He was one of those senior
comrades who played an important role in establishing
the Party?s roots in Bhojpur?s soil. 

The tradition of people?s songs established by Ramtaji
was developed by Gorakh Pandey and Vijendra Anil.
Ramtaji?s song on Kunwar Singh has a sharp and popular
political perspective, and in this song we can see the
backdrop of the political debates surrounding 1857.
Ramtaji?s songs were popular and sung even by
activists from other Left and democratic streams,
often without the knowledge that he was the author of
the songs. Some of Ramtaji?s best known songs are:
?Rajniti sabke bujhe ke, bujhave ke pari/desh phasal
bate jaal mein, chhodave ke pari?( All must understand
and explain politics/The country is caught in a trap,
we must free it); his satire on Emergency and Indira
Gandhi whom he lampooned as ?Dilli wali raniya? (queen
of Delhi); ?Hamar suni?; and many others. The spirit
of his defiant and bold creativity is captured in his
lines, ?Kranti ke ragini ham ta gaibe karab/Kehu ka na
sohal ta ham ka kari/ Lal jhanda hava mein udaibe
karab/ Kehu jarike butala ta ham ka kari? (I?ll sings
the songs of revolution come what may/ If anyone
objects there?s nothing I can do/ The red flag with
fly high in the wind/ if it bothers anyone what can I
do??     

Red Salute (Laal Salaam) to ?Ramta ji?!




Regards,

CPI (ML) Intl. Liaison Office


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism