Discussion: “Indian State Must Stop Its War Against People”

October 16, 2009 by 1 Comment

In the past few months, the government, by repeatedly asserting its perception of the Maoists as the ‘biggest threat to internal security’, by criminalising the CPI (Maoist), and through a sustained project of trying to build a consensus against various forms of popular upsurge and dissent, has been creating ground for the onslaught that is now in the offing. No matter what they say about using the air force only for surveillance, it is clear enough that in this elaborate plan to wage war against its own people, the state will not, if needed, flinch from aerial bombardment. The idea that the IAF could be allowed to ‘retaliate’ in ‘self-defence’ while carrying out its so-called surveillance tasks is already being contemplated and bandied about in the top echelons of the Indian state and security establishment. Furthermore, the spate of arrests in Kolkata, and even Delhi, has created an atmosphere that resembles, to an alarming degree, the one created by Senator McCarthy’s ‘anti-communist’ witch hunt in the US of the 1940s and 1950s. It becomes important in such a situation to come together and question this sequence of events and the narrative that buttresses it. We invite you to a Press Conference-cum-public meeting – on October 19, 2009, at the Press Club of India, between 12pm and 3pm – in which we seek to discuss the following:

1. The government’s plan to wage war against, and possibly bombard, the people of the concerned area.

2. The arbitrary arrest of dissenting political organisers, dissident intellectuals and student activists in the name of curbing ‘Maoism’.

3. The validity of the idea of outlawing an organisation completely and thereby banning all its activities and, in effect, taking away all forms of expression from its members.

The meeting-cum-press conference is to be addressed by Parthasarathi Ray of Sanhati, writer Arundhati Roy, senior Supreme Court lawyer and civil rights expert Prashant Bhushan and members of the PUDR. You are cordially invited to attend the meeting and participate in the discussion that will follow.

Venue: Press Club of India, Raisina Road (New Delhi)
Date: October 19, 2009
Time: 12.00-3.00 pm

Organisers:
Sanhati
PUDR
Radical Notes
Correspondence

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: ,

Nepal: Comrade Gaurav speaks on Democracy and Cultural Revolution

October 12, 2009 by Leave a Comment

World People’s Resistance Forum (Britain)

Comrade Gaurav has recently been made one of the secretaries in the new Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN[M]) leadership structure. WPRM (Britain and Ireland) activists met him at the party office in Paris Dand (Hill), Kathmandu, where we tried to get deeper into the issue of democracy, specifically the UCPN(M) concept of 21st century democracy, of holding elections under New Democracy, and how this relates to the theory and practice of Cultural Revolution. Following is the transcript of this interview:

“If they don’t change their ideological-political line, we don’t envision that they will be able to take part in those elections. The New Democratic system will not allow this if they don’t change their ideological-political line and behaviour.”

WPRM: In the current situation when the UCPN(M) has its sights set on New Democratic Revolution, it seems more important than ever to understand the party’s idea of 21st century democracy, competitive elections under New Democracy and socialism, can you explain this concept to us?

Comrade Gaurav: Yes we are now in the stage of completing the New Democratic Revolution. The New Democratic system is not a socialist system. It is a bourgeois democratic system. The difference is that the revolution is made under the leadership of the proletariat. The old type of bourgeois democratic revolution took place under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, but the New Democratic Revolution will take place under the leadership of the proletariat. When it is led by the proletariat it will lead towards socialism and communism. On the other hand, if the bourgeois democratic revolution is being led by the capitalist class, it will either consolidate capitalism or, if it develops at all, it will develop towards imperialism. That is the difference. So New Democratic Revolution in this sense is not a socialist revolution, it is a bourgeois democratic revolution but it is led by the proletariat. And, when the proletariat leads this revolution and the revolution is completed, then immediately it will move towards socialism. It will not consolidate bourgeois democracy, it will move towards socialism. This debate was seriously carried out during 1956 in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). People like Deng Xiaoping said that since it is a bourgeois democratic revolution, it is the time to consolidate capitalism. But, Mao said that it should not be consolidated, it should go forward to socialism. This is the basic division between New Democracy and socialism. And, the question of which class is leading is the fundamental question.

So far as elections are concerned, under a New Democratic system there will be a broad anti-feudal and anti-imperialist alliance. This will be the class character of New Democratic Revolution. It is certainly true that not all anti-feudal and anti-imperialist forces are communists. But there should be a broad alliance of the UCPN(M) with different political forces who are anti-feudal and anti-imperialist. We have to recognise the existence of these other political forces, because they are the ally of the proletariat during New Democratic Revolution. Therefore, we have to guarantee their political freedom, and the political freedom of those parties has already been carried out in China also. In China, except for the CCP there were nine other political parties, all of which were anti-feudal and anti-imperialist. They competed and participated in elections with the CCP and some of them became ministers in the government. In our case also we have to recognise those forces. They are not communists but they are the allies of anti-feudal and anti-imperialist forces, and they should be guaranteed political freedom.

When our party talks about multiparty competition or democracy, we are talking about our concept of ‘21st Century Democracy’. The difference here however is that in China there was a condition, all anti-feudal and anti-imperialist forces had to cooperate with the CCP. This was the precondition. But now our party is talking about allowing those political parties to compete even with the UCPN(M). In China there was a precondition, they were not allowed to compete but had to cooperate. In elections they made some sort of compromise or negotiation and they fixed candidates by consensus. In some constituencies the other parties put forward their candidate and the CCP did not. And in most other seats they did not have a candidate but supported the candidate of the CCP. But here in Nepal today we are talking about competition. All those political parties will be allowed to compete with the UCPN(M). We can have direct elections with those parties and the Maoists. That is the difference. We are formulating this kind of thing because the imperialists and the capitalists, who are the enemies of socialism and communism, accuse communist parties of not allowing other parties to compete. They say there is no competition, there is no democracy. And in fact, in the old way there was scope for those political parties to confuse the masses. For example, there is an election but there is only one candidate, and if everybody has to vote for the same candidate what is the meaning of this? It is something like selection. But we will make it clear that people can vote for their own candidates and that there will be more than two candidates for people to choose between.

Furthermore, we should give the people the right of recall. If the candidate elected by them is not competent, or is taking an anti-people road, the people’s right of recall will be assured. This is the type of thing we have to introduce in an electoral system. Only then can we assure the masses that they can vote for the candidate they like and it is a real election where there are many candidates. The election will have a definite meaning. If there is only one candidate then voting is meaningless. This is what we mean by ‘21st Century Democracy’.

WPRM: How will this democracy and use of elections develop as New Democratic Revolution develops into the stage of socialism. Will there be more than one communist party at this time?

Comrade Gaurav: We don’t envision more than one Communist Party because every political party has a class character. The proletariat should have their own party. In the long run, ultimately, there will not be different political parties. When we achieve socialism in that case, we think there will be no necessity for other political parties, because the society will have undergone a big change. There will be no other classes at that time.

WPRM: Do you envision a role for Nepali Congress and CPN (United Marxist-Leninists) after the New Democratic Revolution?

Comrade Gaurav: If they don’t change their ideological-political line, we don’t envision that they will be able to take part in those elections. The New Democratic system will not allow this if they don’t change their ideological-political line and behaviour.

WPRM: Comrade Basanta in Worker #12 has recently written that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China is the pinnacle of application so far in practice of dialectical materialism, the science of revolution. Can you sum up for us the lessons of the Cultural Revolution as formulated by the UCPN(M)?

Comrade Gaurav: We think the Cultural Revolution is the pinnacle of the development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Because Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a science in the process of development, it is not something static. It is in the process of development and this development is interlinked with revolutionary practice. From this practice comes our ideology. And from revolutionary practice, the experiences of the Russian and Chinese revolutions, and from the examples of counter-revolution in those countries, Mao synthesised the whole thing and developed the theory of Cultural Revolution. What Mao developed in his life, was more than that which Lenin did in his time, because for Lenin it was not possible to carry out Cultural Revolution or theorise Cultural Revolution. During his life, in the period of revolution and after that he was trying to develop the whole revolution. He formulated so many ideas and theories regarding revolution. But in the case of Mao, during that time China was not a capitalist country, it was a semi-feudal semi-colonial country. So the responsibility of the CCP was to carry on to accomplish the bourgeois democratic revolution and also to carry on the socialist revolution. It was a historical necessity for the CCP to carry out both these tasks. The CCP, under the capable leadership of Comrade Mao, led these two revolutions and in the process of developing socialism, learned the lessons that Mao took from the capitalist restoration in the USSR and many attempts to reverse the revolution within China itself. These were the materials for Comrade Mao Zedong to develop Cultural Revolution. With all these materials Mao developed our ideology to a qualitatively higher level. And we think the Cultural Revolution is the pinnacle, it solves the problem of revolution in that it can prevent counter-revolution. Many people say that the Cultural Revolution was a Chinese phenomenon, it was done in China, whether right or wrong, so it is a Chinese question. But we think it is not a Chinese question, it is a question of theory and it is a question of ideology. So it is a universal theory. And we uphold Cultural Revolution as the universal theory of communism. It holds good for China, and it holds good for Nepal also.

WPRM: Indeed, Mao said the bourgeoisie is not just outside the party but right within it. How will elections help to uncover the bourgeoisie within the party?

Comrade Gaurav: Elections will not help with this. Through elections you cannot root out the bourgeoisie within the party. To root out the bourgeoisie within the party you have to carry out Cultural Revolution, to find out who are the capitalist roaders within the party. The process of elections will not determine all these things. The process of elections relates to the time when there are other political parties who are the allies of the proletariat. We will compete with those parties only, not with the puppets of feudalism and imperialism. There is no point competing with reactionaries. Competition means to compete with allies, friendly competition only. So dictatorship will still be applied against reactionary political parties, pro-feudal and pro-imperialist parties.

So far as capitalist roaders within the Communist Party are concerned, this question will not be resolved through elections. That is different. Elections are concerned with forming the government and some matters of state. But the party of the proletariat should resolve the contradictions within the party in a different manner. In that case we have to apply Cultural Revolution. Cultural Revolution means the party should be interlinked with the masses. The masses will be given full rights to expose the leaders of the Communist Party. If they are really capitalist-roaders, they have to be exposed. This is the mass line as formulated by Mao. He made the slogan ‘bombard the headquarters’. Headquarters means your own headquarters, not the headquarters of other parties, but the headquarters of the Communist Party. Because in the headquarters there are many capitalist roaders, so people have every right to bombard that headquarters. People should be mobilised to expose the capitalist roaders. Only through Cultural Revolution can we root out capitalist-roaders.

WPRM: The Cultural Revolution involved many examples of the practice of democracy, such as the right to bombard the headquarters, the four great freedoms, big-character posters, the formation of Red Guards, the 3-in-1 committees, and even the Shanghai commune, not to mention the reorientation of health care, education and development towards rural areas. Why do you think elections under New Democracy can best provide democracy to the people?

Comrade Gaurav: Democracy as defined by the capitalists or imperialists is, according to their own definition, only political freedom, or competing in elections. But for us this is not the only characteristic of democracy. Democracy means the rights of the people for food, healthcare, education, all the economic requirements. These are fundamental things for our democracy. So we prefer a different definition of democracy. What Mao put forward in the Cultural Revolution, these are definitely things of democracy. We uphold all these things. But despite all of these requirements, we think elections are also necessary. In the nature of electing the representatives we prefer competition, but only during the stage of New Democracy. When the society changes totally to socialism, then elections will maybe not be necessary. We are talking about New Democracy. When the society has been changed to socialism, the situation will be different. We cannot claim now that the same method of elections will be applied during socialism. When there are various different political parties during the stage of New Democracy then there is competition between the political parties. But in socialism the class character of society will have changed, fundamentally changed. In that case there will be no need for various different political parties. And clearly the existence of political parties will be actually not necessary. They will not exist. In that case elections will not be needed.

WPRM: How will the practice of Cultural Revolution and the holding of elections prevent capitalist restoration? Which will be decisive?

Comrade Gaurav: As I have said, we cannot predict the form of elections under socialism. But the method of elections will definitely not be decisive to prevent capitalist restoration. Only Cultural Revolution can do that.

WPRM: According to Mao, not one but many Cultural Revolutions will be needed during the stage of socialism, which will last for many generations.

Comrade Gaurav: Yes, we very much agree with this principle that the Cultural Revolution should continue. When the Cultural Revolution was terminated in China, the result was capitalist restoration. This history is there for everyone to see. After the death of Mao, the revisionists said the Cultural Revolution was not necessary. They called those ten years a decade of catastrophe, the revisionists, that was their summation. But during the time of Mao the Cultural Revolution was not always directly carried out. Mao was almost bedridden, and immediately after his death it was reversed. If the Cultural Revolution had been carried out further, definitely it would have prevented the restoration of capitalism. So from the practice of China, we can realise that to prevent capitalist restoration we have to continue the Cultural Revolution. In China, the Cultural Revolution was carried out for ten years, but that was not enough. It was only enough for that period. We must directly carry out a continuous process of Cultural Revolution.

WPRM: Elections in imperialist countries at present are a bureaucratic procedure that hide the dictatorial nature of capitalist society. How will elections under New Democracy provide a mechanism for the continuous revolutionisation of the masses as well as mobilisation against the danger of capitalist restoration?

Comrade Gaurav: We think that on the issue of what type of election and how the election will be carried out, there is one fundamental question: who is leading the state? Which class is leading the state? Now the election to the Constituent Assembly was only possible because the state was in some sort of transition. But we are not always in the period of transition. It is a temporary period. In this period the state is not so powerful. It was possible for our party to take advantage of this because of the revolutionary intervention of the masses, during the People’s War and the 2006 People’s Movement. It was possible for our party to win, to be victorious in the elections. But the same situation will not continue for a long time. The state will consolidate itself and its own class character. In that case it cannot be in transition. So it all depends on which class is in power. That is the fundamental question.

This will be defined by the constitution, so now our struggle is concentrated on the question of constitution. What type of constitution will there be? Basically there are two positions: whether it will be a People’s Federal Republic, in short a People’s Republic like that in China but taking into account some particularities of Nepal, or a bourgeois republic, a capitalist republic. Our struggle is concentrated on this point, the major point of struggle in our country at this time. Our party is for a People’s Republic, the other parties are for a bourgeois republic. If a People’s Republic wins, then that means the proletariat will have won, they will be in power and they will hold their elections under those conditions. And since they will already be in power there will be freedom for the people to vote according to their choice. But if the proletariat is defeated, if there is a bourgeois republic in power, then the capitalist class will have won, and definitely they will use the same method that the capitalists of the world use during elections. We are in the transitional period and the constitution will define what type of system there will be in Nepal and which class will be in power. The type of electoral system will also depend on the outcome of this fight or struggle for a new constitution.

WPRM: Now that there is increasing talk of the third People’s Movement and the coming insurrection, can you explain how the UCPN(M) envisions the New Democratic Revolution taking place? Is it possible to do this through elections?

Comrade Gaurav: When we talk about Jana Andolan (People’s Movement) 3 we are talking about mobilising the masses. In the mobilisation of the masses, there are a few things that we have to take into account. In the revolution in Nepal at this present moment, talking about a People’s Republic is not an illegal matter, an illegal political question for accomplishing the revolution. It is a legitimate question. The other political parties can fight for their republic, why can the Maoist party not fight for a People’s Republic? We have every right to fight for the achievement of the people’s revolution. People’s Republic means New Democracy, because when New Democratic Revolution was accomplished in China the state was called a New Democratic Republic. New Democratic Revolution and People’s Republic are the same. There is a chance that through the constitution-making process we can write a new constitution of People’s Republic. But that cannot be achieved without mass upsurge. This is because in the given situation, the Maoist party is in favour of a People’s Republic, but we do not have enough support in the Constituent Assembly to write our type of new constitution. On the other hand, all the other political parties except for the Maoists also don’t have enough support to write their type of republic into the constitution.

In this specific situation in Nepal, only Jana Andolan 3 can resolve the problem of writing a constitution. The new constitution cannot be written only in the Constituent Assembly. This is neither possible for us nor for them. When we have to write the new constitution, only Jana Andolan, a people’s upsurge, can put pressure on and create the situation whereby all the other forces excluding the reactionary forces would support the Maoist proposal. There is thus some possibility of a People’s Republic. But in all cases only the people’s upsurge, or people’s movement, will complete the revolution. And our party is in favour of Jana Andolan 3. Now we call it people’s insurrection, or people’s revolt. But only a people’s revolution can play the decisive role in making New Democratic Revolution.

WPRM: What role do you think Maoists and anti-imperialists around the world can play on these questions of democracy and the construction of socialism, and the successful completion of New Democratic Revolution in Nepal? How can we raise the debate on these questions in the international arena to a higher level ?

Comrade Gaurav: At the present stage we are not going to carry out socialist construction. The present task of the revolution is to accomplish New Democratic Revolution. Only then can we carry out socialist transformation. Now we are in the stage of New Democratic Revolution. And the international proletariat should support the Maoist movement in Nepal to accomplish the New Democratic Revolution. We think that a revolution cannot be replicated, only developed. It cannot be a photocopy of other revolutions. It will not be a stereotype of revolution. The Nepali revolution is based on certain fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but it will have its specific character. In the case of China, Mao called this the ‘Sinification of Marxism’. We have to accomplish the revolution, based not on exactly what has happened with any other revolution of the world, which took place in history under the leadership of a Communist Party. Although the basic and fundamental guiding principles remain the same, there are many different aspects, including the security of that country, the international situation and other developments in the last decades.

Our party thinks that in the given situation the present line of the party can lead to the completion of New Democratic Revolution. So our class internationally should support the forms put forward by our party to accomplish the revolution. They can make suggestions. But we are formulating tactics on how to achieve the revolution and this does not exactly correspond to other revolutions. Our comrades are in different countries. They read the newspapers and the documents and all the other things, and they find the weaknesses and start to say that we are no longer communists, that we are revisionists. From outside analysis they will find differences. But what is the reality? The reality of the situation is quite different. And in the present reality we have to accomplish the revolution. That is the major task of the UCPN(M). We have formulated our line based on the concrete reality of Nepal, the present national and international situation. We think other comrades can make suggestions, because there is danger. When we are in a new experience there is also risk, there is also danger, of deviating towards the right.

Our comrades should give their sincere suggestions, which we will accept. But they should not condemn the revolution. If this revolution will be condemned or will not be cooperated with by our class internationally, it is hard for us to succeed. And we feel that communists will not help on these questions by doing that. In fact we expect from our comrades internationally that they should give suggestions, they should express their political concerns about whether the party or line has been deviated. But it is their responsibility to always support us. Condemning the revolution as a whole, or not making any positive contribution to the revolution, that is not a good thing. That is not proletarian internationalism. And if we succeed then communists around the world should welcome our revolution, and our comrades should celebrate. But more important is to think of what is your own contribution? Making revolution, that is your contribution. Communists have to continue accomplishing their own revolution. And we very humbly request this from the comrades of the world. We are doing our duty to accomplish the revolution in Nepal. We have no other objectives than to accomplish the revolution. We are struggling for that, and we believe we will be successful in making revolution in Nepal. We are confident.

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With:

A Pretext to Impose Brutal Repression: the Government’s “Offensive” Is a Formula for Bloodshed and Injustice

October 12, 2009 by Leave a Comment

The Campaign for Survival and Dignity, a national platform of adivasi and forest dwellers’ mass organisations from ten States, unequivocally condemns the reported plans for a military “offensive” by the government in the country’s major forest and tribal areas. This offensive, ostensibly targeted against the CPI (Maoist), is a smoke screen for an assault against the people, especially adivasis, aimed at suppressing all dissent, all resistance and engineering the takeover of their resources. Certain facts make this clear:

The government tells us that this offensive will make it possible for the “state to function” in these areas and fill the “vacuum of governance.” This is grossly misleading. The Indian state is very, very active in these areas, often in its most brutal and violent form. A vivid example is the illegal eviction of more than 3,00,000 families by the Forest Departments a few years ago. Laws have been totally disregarded; Constitutional protections for adivasi rights blatantly ignored and their rights over water, forest and land (jal, jangal, jamin) glaringly violated. Every month an increasing number of people are jailed, beaten and killed by the police. If this is the picture of what “absence” of the state means, people are terrified of what the “presence” of the state will mean. It can only mean converting brutalized governance into militarized rule, a total negation of democracy.

This is not a war over “development.” People’s struggles in India today are over democracy and dignity – Meaningful development must contribute to strengthening the right of all people to their resources and their production, and thereby to control over their own destiny. For generations, adivasis have fought for their Constitutional rights and entitlements. More recently, mass democratic movements have fought for new laws and policies, such as the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), the Forest Rights Act, the right to work and the right to food, in addition to earlier laws like the Minimum Wages Act, the Restoration of Alienated Lands Acts, and land reform and moneylending laws. These laws make it possible for people to fight for greater control over their lives, their livelihoods, their lands and their forests. However these laws are respected more in the breach; if the government wants “development”, let it first stop the blatant disregard of its own laws. Let people determine the path of their own development, in accordance with their rights over their resources and the type of infrastructure they desire. The Constitution itself requires this kind of planning. The claim that “development” can be provided through military force is both absurd and ridiculous.

This war is not about “national security”; it is about ‘securing’ the interests of global and Indian capital and big business. Any government worried about security would send its troops against mining mafias, the forest mafias, violent vigilante groups like the salwa judum and others. Rather than being curbed, these killers are in fact supported by the police. Have the security forces ever been deployed to defend the people struggling to protect themselves, their forests, their livelihoods and their futures? The answer is no. The notion of “security” being advanced by the government clearly has nothing to do with the people. Rather, it is to enable big business to engage in robbery and expropriation of resources, which they have decided will be one of their main sources of accumulation. Hence, mining, “infrastructure”, real estate, land grabbing, all aimed at super-profits, are being projected as “development” needed by the people. Huge amounts of international and government money are being pumped into so-called “forestry projects” which displace people from their lands and destroy biodiversity (even while they are trumpeted as a strategy for climate change). The UPA is rushing into agreements with the US and other imperial countries to throw open mining and land to international exploitation. But where do the forests, land, water and minerals lie? They are found in the forest and tribal areas, where people – some organised under the CPI (Maoist), some organized under democratic movements, some in spontaneous local struggles, some simply fighting in whatever manner they can – are resisting the destruction of their homes, resources and their lives. The “offensive against the Maoists” is only a subterfuge to crush this citizens’ resistance and to provide an excuse for more abuse of power, more brutality and more injustice.

The government knows perfectly well that it cannot destroy the CPI (Maoist), or any people’s struggle, through military action. How can the armed forces identify who is a “Maoist” and who is not? The use of brute military force will result in the slaughter of thousands of people in prolonged, bloody and brutal guerrilla warfare. This has been the result of every “security offensive” in India’s history from Kashmir to Nagaland. So why do this? And why now? Unless the goal has nothing to do with “wiping out the Maoists” and everything to do with having an excuse for the permanent presence of lakhs of troops, arms and equipment in these areas. To protect and serve whom?

Hence the need for fear mongering and hysteria about Maoist “sympathisers” and their “infiltration” into “civil society.” The government has a very long history of labeling any form of dissent as “Naxalite” or “Maoist.” The Maoists’ politics are known; their positions are public; the only secret aspect of their work is their personal identities and military tactics. We who work in these areas do not fear this bogey of “infiltration” in our groups by Maoists, for the different stands taken by our organizations and theirs are clear, and in some areas there are open disputes. This scaremongering is just an excuse to justify a crackdown on all forms of dissent and democratic protest in these areas, a crushing of all people’s resistance, and the branding of any questioning, any demand for justice, as “Maoist.”

In the final analysis, peace and justice will only come to India’s workers, peasants, adivasis, dalits and other oppressed sections through the mass democratic struggle of the people. A democratic struggle requires democratic space. The conversion of a region into a war zone, by anyone, is unacceptable. In the forest areas in particular, there is now a need for a new peace, one that can only be achieved through a genuine democratic dialogue between the political forces involved. For this to happen, this horrific “offensive” must first be called off. If the government really wishes to claim that it is committed to protecting people and their rights, let its actions comply with the requirements of law, justice and democracy.

Bharat Jan Andolan, National Front for Tribal Self Rule, Jangal Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti (Mah), Adivasi Mahasabha (Guj), Adivasi Jangal Janjeevan Andolan (D&NH), Jangal Jameen Jan Andolan (Raj), Madhya Pradesh Jangal Jeevan Adhikar Bachao Andolan, Jan Shakti Sanghatan (Chat), Peoples Alliance for Livelihood Rights, Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha, Orissa Jan Sangharsh Morcha, Campaign for Survival & Dignity (Ori), Orissa Jan Adhikar Morcha, Adivasi Aikya Vedike (AP), Campaign for Survival and Dignity – TN, Bharat Jan Andolan (Jhar).

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: , ,

What is Happening in Pricol?

October 1, 2009 by Leave a Comment

All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU)

The unfortunate death of the Vice President of the Human Resources Development Department of Pricol Ltd is regrettable indeed. Coming one year after the Graziano incident in Greater Noida in which the local head of an Italian firm had reportedly been beaten to death by sacked employees, it has evoked a lot of passionate comments and demands from the corporate world. Even as workers are being arrested in large numbers and leaders are being framed, employers are demanding a ban on trade union struggles and sections of the corporate media are advocating labour reforms to give a completely free hand to employers.

A single day’s tragic incident is now being deliberately sought to be used to prejudice public opinion against the Pricol workers and suppress the truth of the nearly one thousand days of their united and determined struggle. Among other basic things, a key demand of Pricol workers has been for the recognition of their unions which enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of workers while the management has been constantly pressurizing workers to withdraw from the road of struggle and sever ties with the ‘Marxist-Leninist’/’Maoist’ leadership.

In this long struggle of Pricol workers, the government of Tamil Nadu has repeatedly censured the Pricol management. The state government has issued three advices, passed one government order (GO) prohibiting the continuance of lockout, passed three GOs ordering references, passed two orders under section 10B of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act) 1947.

On 29th of July 2009 the state Labour Minister, while replying to a calling attention motion moved on the floor of the assembly by AIADMK, PMK, Congress, CPI, CPI(M), catalogued the various unfair labour practices indulged in by Pricol Ltd, and stated that the workers had given up their indefinite fast which had been continuing for the 15th day as their demands were accepted by the government. He further assured that the government would not let the workers down.

Have things completely changed in a few months and more particularly on a single day with the unfortunate death of an executive? In the heat and passion generated by this tragic incident, can we allow rational reasoning to become a casualty?

Mr George’s Unfortunate Death was Neither Preplanned Nor the Result of Conspiracy

Mr Kumarasami addressed the general body meeting and one office bearers’ meeting on 19 and 20 September 2009. As a practising labour lawyer in the Madras High Court for nearly three decades and AICCTU’s national and state president, he is conducting all the Pricol cases in Madras High Court as well as the Supreme Court. Going to Coimbatore basically to reassure the workers not to worry about the delay, as the Pricol case would be coming up for hearing on the 29th of September before the Madras High Court, he categorically cautioned the workers not to get provoked by any vindictive action of the management. He also proposed a padayatra from Coimbatore to Chennai to highlight the demand for a trade union recognition Act and several other burning issues of the toiling people. It was also planned to celebrate the 1000th day of the struggle to positively counter the frustration being caused by the delay in legal struggles and the recalcitrant attitude of the management.

Can by any stretch of the imagination these proposals to impart a stronger mass political dimension to the protracted struggle of Pricol workers be construed to be part of any conspiracy, ‘Maoist’ or otherwise?

In this connection it would not be out of place to remember that just the other day, Naresh Goyal of Jet Airways called his pilots who formed a union ‘terrorists’. And he withdrew the terrorist label and embraced them as prodigal sons as soon as they returned to work, leaving aside the issue of union for the time being.

It Will Be Better If the TN Police Consults the TN Labour Department on Pricol Ltd:

Pricol’s track record in the arena of industrial relations has been notorious. Rampant violation of labour laws, court verdicts and government orders has been the trademark of the Pricol management.

• There are vindictive transfers.
• There is refusal to engage in collective bargaining in good faith with the majority union.
• There are illegal partial lockouts.
• There are break-in-service orders.
• There are stoppages of increments.
• More than 1000 employees are terminated.
• There is illegal deduction of wages and incentives running into crores of rupees.
• The management has promised to pay all these withheld dues if the workers leave the unions.
• There is employment of apprentices and contract labour contrary to certified standing orders and the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970.
• Now there is the recent dismissal of 44 workers without any domestic enquiry.

In almost all these issues the state government has intervened under sections 10 (1), 10(3) and 10 B of the ID act 1947.

In fact Comrade Kumarasami was trying to get the Labour Minister convene a meeting at the earliest to resolve the simmering discontent and this fact is known to the Labour Department.

The management does not want Comrade Kumarasami to defend the Pricol workers in the High Court as well as the Supreme Court on the 29th of September and other subsequent dates. This is the main reason for implicating Comrade Kumarasami, the national president of a centrally recognised trade union.

Respect Industrial Democracy, Stop Witch Hunt Against Pricol Workers

If lawyers and TU leaders who defend and guide the workers are framed in conspiracy cases as during British days, the government will only be sending a loud message: “No healthy, strong collective bargaining will be allowed. Industrial relations are back to the pre-1926 colonial days.”

Should we allow the unfortunate death of Mr. George to be turned into a weapon for witch-hunt of workers and suppression of trade union rights – instead of treating it as a poignant issue for remedial action? Let the unfortunate incident motivate all parties to take remedial measures that will help resolve the real underlying issues.

With the Trade Unions Act coming into force from 1926, the country had gradually moved away from lawlessness to the rule of law by instituting a system of collective bargaining. If employers like Pricol Ltd. are allowed to violate the law and make use of an unfortunate death to go in for a witch-hunt, implicating leaders in false cases, and suppressing basic trade union rights, will that not be only sending out the message that there is no place for laws and effective trade unions in independent India in the days of globalisation?

TN government and central government should not act on the basis of one-sided corporate hue and cry. TN government should come to the aid of Pricol workers, their families and their leaders, as it has promised on the floor of the assembly. We appeal to all trade unions and progressive and democratic sections of society who believe in the dignity of labour and rights of workers to support the struggle of Pricol workers and express solidarity by calling upon the TN government to stop the ongoing witch hunt and force the arbitrary Pricol management to respect industrial democracy and implement government orders.

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: , ,

Petition: Release Chhatradhar Mahato and resume talks

September 30, 2009 by 1 Comment

To
The Chief Minister
West Bengal
Writers’ Building
Kolkata-700001

Sir,

CHHATRADHAR MAHATO, spokesperson of the PULISHI SANTRAS BIRODHI JANASADHARANER COMMITTEE, has been arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This is in direct contravention of the previous stand of the West Bengal state government that the Act will apply only to members of the CPI(Maoist). While even this is a debatable policy, Chhatradhar Mahato can in no way fall within its ambit. Moreover, the modus operandi of his arrest was in complete disregard of law and proper procedure. There is no doubt that Chhatradhar Mahato should be released immediately.

In any case, he is the spokesperson of an organization with which the state government was in active dialogue before the government withdrew unilaterally and the joint armed forces were sent in. In this petition we urge you and your government to withdraw the joint armed forces, help create a climate conducive to dialogue, resume talks and sit across the table with Chhatradhar Mahato as a free man.

Please Sign

Mahasweta Devi, the petition sponsor, is a writer, activist and social critic. In this effort aimed at social and political justice for the struggling adivasi people of Lalgarh and adjoining areas in Pashchim Medinipur, West Bengal, she is joined by a large number of citizens deeply worried over the tragic events unfolding in the region.

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: , , ,

Pricol Workers’ Struggle

September 30, 2009 by 4 Comments

All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU)

AICCTU holds the incident leading to the death of Mr. George, Vice-president of Pricol Ltd., Coimbatore to be highly unfortunate. Pricol workers have a history of years of consistently peaceful struggles, and such violent incidents can have no place in the trade union movement. AICCTU demands a high-level enquiry into this incident.

However, we condemn the malicious attempt to target AICCTU and its central leadership in patently false cases in this incident. We demand withdrawal of FIR against S Kumarasami, national President, AICCTU.

Pricol management’s consistent violation of the laws of the land:

* For the last two years, Pricol management has blatantly violated labour laws: a fact recognized by the Labour Minister of TN inside the TN Assembly on 30 June 2009.
* In a Calling Attention Motion on 30 June, raised by MLAs of AIADMK, Congress, PMK, CPI, CPI(M), the Labour Minister of TN replied, accepting that Pricol management had indeed violated labour laws and assuring of action against them. Only after this assurance, a hunger fast by Pricol workers including many women workers, ended on the 16th day.

The Government Order 393 dated 29.06.2009 had raised the following instances of violations of labour laws with the Labour Court Coimbatore under Section 10 (1) of the ID Act 1947:

* Violation of the law against engaging apprentices and contract labour in direct production
* Unilaterally declaring holidays and thereby depriving incentive from the wages of the workers
* Denying DA and Wage increase as per 12 (3) Settlements dated 29.09.2004 and 03.03.2004

Locking out the workers, transferring them, depriving them of their earned wages and other statutory benefits – all had become the hallmark of the vindictive actions of this management. The Pricol management has repeatedly threatened and victimized workers that they must either leave the Union or forego their earned wages and benefits and face transfers. The Pricol Management has been openly refusing to recognize or negotiate with the Union.

While incident like Pricol is highly unfortunate, it must be acknowledged that such incidents are occurring in the context of flagrant violation of labour laws and constitutional rights. As described above, at Pricol,

* Workers are victimized for exercising their right to unionise;
* Management refuses to negotiate with unions;
* Even when workers win legal victories (getting orders passed by Government and Courts) after arduous peaceful struggles including hunger strikes even by women workers, the management continues to flout the orders, and even indulges in violence against workers.

In other words a situation is created whereby workers’ legal unions are ignored, workers are forced to wage long and hard peaceful struggles and legal battles even to get the Government to uphold the most basic labour laws; and yet, the entire institution of Labour Departments and Labour Laws is held hostage by the corporate managements. It is this situation that is directly responsible for the incidents at Graziano and Pricol.

While we strongly disapprove of the unfortunate incident of the death of Vice president of Pricol Ltd., Mr. George, we demand institution of a high level inquiry in this incident along with withdrawal of false and fabricated cases against S. Kumarasami, National President of AICCTU and stopping of arrests and witch-hunt of workers in this case. We also demand that the management particularly the MD of Pricol Ltd. should be brought to book for open violation of labour Laws, govt. orders and court orders regarding the workers of this factory.

(Santosh Rai)
National Secretary,
AICCTU

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: , , ,

Kobad Ghandy – The battle ahead

September 26, 2009 by 1 Comment

Paresh Chandra

The Committee for Release of Political Prisoners (CRPP) in India consists of, to paraphrase CRPP’s general secretary, people from all walks of life and different ideological standpoints. The CRPP does not have a well defined ‘line’ and believes simply, that everybody has the right to his or her own opinion and also the right to express it. The CRPP does not follow or oppose the ideology of the prisoners.

At three pm on 25th September, 2009 the CRPP made its first press release in regard to its involvement with Kobad Ghandy’s case. The CRPP was being represented by SAR Geelani, and Amit Bhattacharya. They were accompanied by Rajesh Tyagi, who is to represent Kobad Ghandy in court. The press release will be put on our website as soon as a soft-copy is obtained. Just to put down the facts made public in brief:

After meeting Mr. Kobad Ghandy in Tihar, the CRPP discovered that contrary to the reports in the media, the latter was arrested not on the 21st of September, but was abducted from the bus terminal at Bhikaji Cama Place at about 4 pm on 17th September. For four days he was kept in illegal detention, during which he was interrogated and tortured. His arrest was finally made official on the 21st when Mr. Ghandy refused both food and medicine in protest, as he could not take recourse to a lawyer unless this was done.

Mr. Ghandy had been in Delhi to take medical advice for a kidney ailment. “On 17/09/09 he had received the PSA report which showed high possibility of prostrate cancer. He was advised to take a tablet for 14 days and return for further PSA tests and a possible biopsy.” (CRPP press release) When he was abducted he had still been taking these tablets. In addition Mr. Ghandy had also been suffering from severe diarrhoea and dysentery because of an Irritable Bowel Syndrome, for which he has had to take long term treatment. He has been advised special food and boiled water, both of which are unavailable at Tihar. The CRPP press release deals in detail with the manner in which the ailing man was mistreated and his ailment ignored by the authorities.

In the press conference, Mr. Rajesh Tyagi, who is to fight Kobad Ghandy’s case, brought to the media’s attention what he called ‘the peculiar’ circumstances of this case. According to him neither Mr. Ghandy, nor Mr. Tyagi has been handed over the FIR, and when Mr. Tyagi tried to speak to senior officials he was told that the FIR has been ‘sealed’. This is strange Mr. Tyagi pointed out because unless the FIR is made public, the grounds on which Mr. Ghandy has been arrested will not be known. Since no cases have ever been filed against Mr. Ghandy’s, refusal to make the FIR public, suggests that the authorities have no ‘case’ against him. It is strange indeed, Mr. Tyagi said, that a person is abducted first, and then a case is filed against him. A petition is going to be put into the Delhi High Court, asking the court to direct the police to make the FIR available to Mr. Ghandy and his lawyer. Mr. Tyagi spoke of the manner in which almost everything about this case is an infringement of constitutional provisions. For instance intelligence agencies do not have the authority to abduct, let alone torture a citizen. Furthermore the manner, in which Mr. Ghandy has been projected as a ‘Maoist leader’ by the authorities, makes it seem as if it is illegal to be ideologically inclined in that direction. Since the FIR has not been shown, it is impossible to tell if Mr. Ghandy has been charged for involvement with the CPI (Maoist).

Following are the demands that the CRPP has put forth:
1. Provide immediate medical care to Kobad Ghandy for all his health problems including cardiac and prostrate cancer.
2. Allow him provision for prescribed diet as provided in the hospitals and safe/boiled water.
3. Stop all attempts to transfer him to other states under false charges as this could endanger his life.
4. Allow a team of specialist doctors to take immediate stock of his medical condition and to continuously monitor his health.
5. Stop all attempts to put him under illegal narco-analysis as this could endanger his life.
6. Shift him to a cell which is not overcrowded.
7. Provide him with material to read and write.
8. Allow him the status of being a political prisoner.

The state’s attempt to manufacture consent against the Maoists, works side by a side with an attempt to destroy any possible support base in the country at large, especially among the intelligentsia. A sort of hysteria about the ‘Maoist threat’ has been created through the media and through other means. Following this the state makes the claim that these are ‘special circumstances’ which need ‘special means’ to safeguard democracy. A series of laws, culminating in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), allow the state to infringe democratic rights of citizens, apparently to protect democracy. People might sympathise with the Maoists because of ideological reasons or on humanitarian grounds, this way or that, they form a support base that is needed for the survival of the movement. The government uses various ‘strong-arm methods’ to destroy this base. This can be seen in the series victimization of left-wing intellectuals (the cases of Binayak Sen and SAR Geelani are only the tip of an iceberg).

The parallels between the situation in India now and US in the McCarthy era are significant. The ease with which the mainstream media can get away with completely nonsensical theories and conclusions is a sign of this. There have been theories for instance of all organizations raising voices against these ‘special laws’ being ‘fronts’ for the Maoists. Ostensibly these laws target people only from certain organizations, but in effect they have very significant implications for anti-hegemonic voices at large. One can be put behind bars, and tortured for having written a pamphlet, or for making a statement, or going to a protest, even if one is not a member of a banned organization. Let alone ideologically motivated dissent, even that on ‘humanitarian’ grounds can lead to trouble. In fact, if we learn from the McCarthy experience, these laws and this atmosphere has implications even for the non-conformist – so those who think that they’re safe, if they take a lukewarm, ‘we are against all violence’ stand, should not be so sure. Eventually they too will be sucked into the mire. A polarization of stands is being aimed at – a situation in which the voices of dissent are so small in number that they can easily be suppressed.

It seems that at the moment at least the battle is being waged mainly on legal grounds. The potential of such a battle (if it remains only this) is limited. This is not to criticize the CRPP in any way of course. This battle is after all very essential, but its importance comes partly from the fact that it gives us a chance to raise this issue as a political question as well. To make it a political question, we will need to look beyond being sympathizers or critics of the Maoists. The anti-democratic nature of the ‘democratic’ state is not a bad thread to pick, since it is an important ‘repressed’ which keeps returning. The totalitarian tendencies of liberal democracy are important to uncover; Carl Schmitt’s sovereign is ever-present in such a state, for it is able to create an eternal state of emergency. The question of our right to dissent can be addressed truly, if and only if we also in the same breath take into account the political nature of problems and the direction of our protest. It is not about condemning or adulating the Maoists, and who are we to do that in any case? We cannot continue to behave as if the Maoists, the state and the state’s hunt for Maoists belong to a different world, and that we can pass judgement on it as if we stand outside it. We breathe the same air, and we need to understand that.

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: ,

Protest against “cash for food” in Delhi

September 25, 2009 by Leave a Comment

Delhi Shramik Sangathan

The Below Poverty Line (BPL) families living in slums areas, J J Colonies & unauthorized colonies are forced to come on the roads to protest against the “cash for food” proposal of Delhi Government. Delhi CM & Minister of Food & Civil Supplies have announced a scheme of providing cash of Rs. 1100/pm to BPL families instead of ration & kerosene oil. They have proposed the scheme to the Planning Commission. The protest is being organized by Delhi Shramik Sangathan and supported by several other organizations, trade unions and individuals. The protests have been organized in series at Traffic signal, Sector-I, R K Puram & Traffic signal, Uttam Nagar on 23rd & 24th Sept’09. The protest was organized at Peera Garhi traffic signal/crossing on 25th sept’09 by the residents of slum communities of Peera Garhi, Paschim Vihar, Sultanpuri & Jwalapuri. The protest was a symbolic protest from 4 pm to 6pm where around 300 affected poor families assembled and formed human chains demanding

1) Abolition of cash for food scheme immediately as it goes against the basic objective of Food Dept to provide subsidized food to the needy & poor families of the state.
2) The income criteria for identifying BPL families to be changed as it is very old, unrealistic and half of the minimum wages of Delhi. We demand income criteria for identifying BPL families should be equal to the minimum wages of the state. The present criterion is reducing the actual number of BPL families & that the Government wants.
3) Universalization of Public Distribution System (PDS) as 80% of the nation population need subsidized food from PDS. (Refer to the Arjun Sen Gupta committee report)
4) Abolition of categorization of Ration cards as it has divided the poor and left many poor out of its purview.
5) Increased participation of poor in making the system more transparent and poor friendly.
6) Strict action against corrupt politicians, Food Dept officials & ration dealers as it will boost the morale of the poor consumers.

The Government arguments that the corruption is the main basis of withdrawing subsidized food from PDS (means closing or reducing the size of Food Dept) & proposing cash scheme and if it becomes the principle of removing corruption from the institutions then DDA, MCD, slum & J J wing, Delhi Police are the most corrupt institutions in Delhi. Why not these institutions should be shut down? Now why Government has opened 22 new police stations? Do they want to legalize the corruption?

If there is corruption in Food Dept, then we want to know that how many desciplinenary actions have been taken by the Government to check the corruption against the bureaucrats & shop keepers. This should be made to the public. DSS and its members have filed hundreds of RTIs & complaints against the corrupt shop keepers & officials and no actions have taken by the Government. What does it indicate?

The hidden agenda is something else which Government does not want to expose & that is withdrawing support from the welfare measures/schemes. This is being done as part of the New Liberal Economic Policy of the Government under the pressure from the International financial institutions. If this experiment becomes successful then the Government can play the same card for education & health sectors.

Another fact is that only 39% of the BPL families have received BPL cards so far in country. The rest 61% identified BPL families are still waiting for the cards. The poor women & children are the victim of malnourishment & hunger. If the subsidized food scheme is closed down then the poor women & children will be the most affected and there would be no control on market, prices on the basic food products etc.

Another question is that who will control this money & for what use? At present, women go to the fair price shop to collect the food grain & kerosene oil but once this scheme is implemented, the slum women have fear that the money might be used for purposes other than ration & kerosene oil.

Delhi Shramik Sangathan is organizing these protests in series from 23rd Sept to 5th Oct’09 at major traffic signals of the city and it will culminate in a mass rally & public meeting on 8th Oct’09 from Mandi House to Jantar Mantar at 10am. We want a debate on the proposed scheme in the city. Please come & cover the news with photographs.

Ramendra/Anita

Contact Add- Flat No- 231, Pocket-A, Sector-13, Phase-II, DWARKA, New Delhi-110075, Ph-011-28031792, 9868815915. Email- delhidss@gmail.com

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: , , ,

Kobad Ghandy

September 24, 2009 by 5 Comments

Kobad Ghandy, the Indian Maoist leader who has been arrested, worked in Chattisgarh state, a main centre of rebel activity. Suvojit Bagchi of BBC Bengali met him last year. The following are excerpts from his interview:

Has the Maoists’ emphasis on educating the poor contributed to their rise in Chattisgarh?

We are trying to give basic education through mobile schools. We are teaching children basic sciences, mathematics and indigenous languages. Teams involved in the process are specialising in designing courses for the people who are backward, so that they can learn faster.

We are taking extra care to improve health facilities, as well. We have told the tribals to boil drinking water. It has reduced diseases and death by 50%. Even independent NGOs have said so. Child mortality decreased because we have managed to empower women to an extent.

The level of under-development in these areas is worse than, as some indicators suggest, sub-Saharan Africa.

Are you saying you are not killing but helping people to live?

Yes. But we are defined by the prime minister as the deadliest virus… (laughs)

Why do you think so?

We have a clear-cut definition of development. We think the society is in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial state and there is a need to democratise it.

The first step is to distribute land to the tiller. So our fight is against land grab and exploitation of the poor, especially focusing on rural India.

Is that why you have managed to consolidate so strongly in Chattisgarh?

One important reason why we have managed to consolidate is because we talk about dignity of work.

For example, villagers here collect tobacco leaves to make local cigarettes. This industry runs into billions of dollars. But the daily wage of these tribals was less than 10 rupees a day before we came to Chattisgarh.

That is far less than the daily wage defined by even the government of India. We have forced these contractors to increase this daily wage – we have managed to push it up by three to four times. That is one reason why people like us.

But you have armed wings, don’t you?

I can’t tell you much about that. Because I don’t deal with that and don’t even know their members.

You are talking about development. Will you be open to the government extending development to these areas?

Why not? We have not opposed developmental works here. For example, we did not oppose the building of some schools. But if they build schools to convert those to army barracks – which India always did in various places – we will oppose.

So you will do politics on basis of guns?

Guns is a non-issue. Some villages of Uttar Pradesh or Bihar have got more guns than the entire Maoist force in the country.

What the government or some section fears is our ideology and the society we seek to build up. So we are projected as criminals.

Do you think it is possible to hold on to your bastions in face of a state-led offensive against you?

It’s a difficult battle. But with capitalism and the government colliding with each other – with American economy going into recession and increase of exploitation – we do hope to consolidate.

Will you ever participate in mainstream politics?

No. Because we believe a democracy which respects people, cannot be established in this country.

Coutrtesy: BBC

Kobad Ghandy – An Introduction

A Khoja-Parsi by birth, Kobad Ghandy completed his schooling in India’s elite Doon school and St Xavier’s College in Bombay. He went to London to pursue studies in chartered accountancy.

His friend PA Sebastian told the BBC that it was in England that Mr Ghandy first became involved in political activities.

After returning to Bombay, he was active during Mrs Gandhi’s emergency (from 1975-1977), when democracy was suspended.

Mr Ghandy set up the leading rights group, the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR), along with activist friends like Mr Sebastian and reformer Asghar Ali Engineer.

Mr Engineer remembers how they used to meet at the convocation hall of Bombay University once a week at six pm after office hours.

“He was a thorough gentleman and was very strong in his convictions even then. He regarded the ruling Congress party as a clever bourgeois and capitalist party.”

Throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s Mr Ghandy’s support of communism seemed to increase.

He married activist-academic Anuradha Shanbag and decided to move to Nagpur with her – dedicating themselves entirely to the cause of tribal rights, women’s issues and campaigns on behalf of lower caste people and women.

Anuradha, also a staunch activist, lecturer and member of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) died in April last year after a bout of cerebral malaria.

Her brother, the well-known theatre personality Sunil Shanbag, remembers how the couple made the difficult decision to leave Mumbai as “they felt they were needed more in those areas”.

“The atmosphere of those days was different. There was a great sense of liberation and all of us were swept in. The CPDR used to book tickets in bulk for our plays and there would [always] be a discussion [afterwards]. There was a bridging at this time between art and politics and Anuradha and Kobad were not narrow-minded ideologues. They were very non-judgmental.”

Mr Shanbag said: “His father Adi Ghandy worked in a pharmaceutical company and they lived in an old sprawling flat in Worli. His father was in fact extremely supportive of the cause. He too led a simple life inspired by his son. Kobad had complete support from his family.”

‘Inequality’

Susan Abraham, another long time friend of the couple, said: “He was committed to the revolution and revolutionary ideals. He came from an upper class background but led a Spartan life. He was tuned with his surroundings. When you see so much inequality, you want so much to change things.

“In the days after the emergency everyone was influenced by activism,” she said, explaining the apparent difference between Mr Ghandy’s background and the life he chose to live.

Activist and writer Jyoti Punwani says it was far from obvious that he had had an elite schooling or foreign education.

“We could not have guessed he was from all these places. His behaviour was very normal and he even laughed about his time spent at the Doon school. They had a huge house but never showed off money. He was leftist and committed to changing the system. He did all his work by himself and did not keep a servant.”

While his jhola (cotton shoulder bag), his self-discipline and his commitment come up often in his friends’ memories, they also mention how he loved mixing with people from all walks of life.

“Kobad and Anuradha gave up their lives to work with the poor but never said anything about it. He was always enthusiastic and he liked to mix with people. He could interact with people from every class and make friends and joke about many things. He is the most unlikely revolutionary, he liked to have fun – he was an ideologue but not an intellectual,” Ms Punwani reminisces.

A police official who has investigated several cases in areas of Maharashtra state where Maoist rebels are active said that Mr Ghandy was also known by the names Kamal and Azad.

“He is a strong ideologue. He has organised demonstrations and written articles and other publicity material,” he said.

“He is a senior in their ranks. Cases are registered against him in Nagpur and Chandrapur. However, charges against him are not of a serious nature,” he said.

Mr Ghandy has been remanded in custody and it is not clear if he will be transferred out of Delhi.

Activists who campaign for the release of political prisoners have started rallying to demand that he is given his legal rights.

Mr Shanbag says some sections of the media may have got it wrong about Mr Ghandy.

“Kobad cannot be called a blood-thirsty terrorist as some in the media are calling him. Somebody has to get real.”

Courtesy: BBC

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With: ,

Condemn President Chavez’s support to Rajapakse

September 24, 2009 by 5 Comments

Latin American Friendship Association (LAFA), Tamil Nadu, India

We, from the Latin American Friendship Association in the Tamil Nadu State of India, strongly condemn the statement made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Libya on 4.9.2009 in appreciation of President Rajapakse of Sri Lanka for “defeating the LTTE Terrorism which was deemed impossible by the world at large. It is a glowing example for the other countries best with the same problem”.

We are sad that President Chavez could believe the Imperialist Media and ignore the fact that what Rajapakse has done in Sri Lanka is the greatest crime against the Tamil Minorities of the Island Nation, killing thousands of people and is now holding 3.5. lakh Tamils in open air barbed wire torture camps where there isn’t electricity, water and food, leave alone medicines and basic sanitary facilities. We don’t believe that Chavez is unaware of the worldwide condemnation of the Sri Lankan State Terrorism on Tamil natives, which is worse than the Nazi holocaust. If Chavez could call the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as terrorists, perhaps he has forgotten the path treaded by him before he was voted to power.

This sends alarming signals to us as we look upon Chavez for liberation from the imperialist yoke, not only of the Latin American Countries, but also of the poor in the third world countries. It is dangerous that the Latin American Leadership which aims at the consolidation of the South against the “Monster in the North” with efficient tools like the ALBA and the Banco De Sur is blind to the following facts:

1. The Tamils in Sri Lanka have been fighting for their rights as citizens for the last 60 years. They have tried out all possible democratic means of fighting but the Sinhala Chauvinist State violently suppressed them by killing them in thousands. The LTTE had no other option except to take up arms to fight for their liberation. Denial of just democratic rights as citizens has given birth to armed struggle in Sri Lanka, whereas in Venezuela, failure of military coup against the oppressive state led Chavez to seek power by democratic means.

2. The Sri Lankan state has so far massacred millions of Tamils in the name of “war on Terror” on the LTTE.

3. About 10 lakh Sri Lankan Tamils live across the globe as refugees.

4. It is four months now after the end of the war on terror, but no media persons are allowed to visit the war zones or the open air barbed wire fenced camps where the displaced Tamils are held in an inhuman state, worse than cattle. Genocide of Tamils was executed with impunity without a witness by the Sinhala Government.

5. U.N. officials have not been allowed to visit the war zones or the camps of the Tamils (The entire world reported the plight of the UN Volunteer who left Sri Lanka yesterday after repeated threats to his life).

6. It is no secret now that young women and men are removed from the camps and are abused and tortured by the army; children are separated from parents and couples are separated and dumped in different camps.

We are disgusted that Chavez could support State terrorism unleashed on Tamils by the Sri Lankan Govt. for whatever gain he is aiming at. If anti-imperialistic moves could include support for state terrorism of individual countries, then the aim is not empowerment of the marginalised, but being selfish in the goal while compromising a poor helpless people for no fault of theirs. It is anachronistic that President Chavez who wants to build 21st century socialism could support and praise Rajapakse who has successfully carried out ethnic cleansing of Tamils in the name of ‘War on terror’. And what is the morality behind his saying ‘wiping out terrorism’ ? Chavez would never want to go down in history as a Terrorist and a Dictator as the Imperialist Media projects him.

We, the Friends of Latin America, are also disappointed by the silence of Latin American Left Intellectuals and left parties for not openly condemning the stand taken by Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela in support of President Rajapakse . How can the left parties of Latin America watch in silence the support extended by their progressive Governments to Rajapakse in wiping out the Tamil race ? Are Tamils excluded from the Socialist world of 21st century being built by Left Parties of Latin America?

We respect the role of President Chavez in the western hemisphere because we go by history and not by what the Imperialist Media projects. We are aware that Chavez has the historical commitment to continue his efforts to make Bolivar’s dream a reality; to continue to honour and strengthen the ethical foundations laid by Jose Marti and Che Guevara in forging international solidarity.

Therefore, we appeal that in aligning themselves with the true spirit of Che’s Internationalism, Chavez, Fidel, Eva Morales and other leftist leaders of Latin America do support and stand by the Tamils of Eelam who have been fighting for their National Liberation for more than six decades and snap their diplomatic ties with the Sri Lankan State, as they have done in the case of Israel.

Filed Under: DIARIES Tagged With:
«Previous Page
Next Page»