Wake by Kabir Kuman

Release Sarkhal and Chatterjee Now !

Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF)

All India Committee

rdfindia@gmail.com,

Press Release

6 October 2009

Raja Sarkhel, all Indian Executive Committee member of Revolutionary
Democratic Front (RDF) and Secretary of the West Bengal State unit and
Prasun Chatterjjee, Executive member of state unit (Gana Pratirodh
Manch) have been arrested by West Bengal police on the evening of 5th
October in Kolkata and implicated them in fabricated cases under the
Unlawful Activities (Amendment) Act 2008 by showing false links with
CPI (Maoist). The West Bengal police have claimed sources of
information regarding the supposed links of these senior people’s
activists with CPI (Maoist) based on false and fabricated confessions
supposedly obtained from Chatradhar Mahoto, the spokesperson of
People’s Committee Against Police Atrocities, who was illegally and
immorally arrested and continuously tortured under illegal police
custody.

Raja Sarkhel is a committed people’s activist for the last three
decades in West Bengal and is well-known to the people of the state
working for various mass movements including Singur, Nandigram and
Lalgarh in the recent years. Prasun Chatterjjee has been actively
working for the people’s cause for more than a decade. While Raja
Sarkhel was picked up from a street while he was returning home,
Prasun Chatterjjee was whisked away by the police from his residence
when he was taking rest after his eyes were treated in a hospital.

The arrest of these two well-known activists of our organisation has
come in the background of a vicious campaign orchestrated against the
progressive and democratic intellectuals in Kolkata by the ruling CPI
(M) leaders, the Chief Secretary, Asok Mohan Chakrabarti, the Home
Secretary, and Mr Ardhendu Sen along with a number of police
officials. Like Dr Binayak Sen who was incarcerated in Chhattisgarh by
the right-wing communal BJP government for more than 2 years for
bringing out the facts to the world outside the worst kind of
atrocities committed on the tribals by Salwa Judum, a state-run armed
mercenaries, these two selfless people’s leaders tirelessly brought
out all the details of the people’s movement of Singur, Nandigram and
Lalgarh including the worst atrocities committed against the
struggling people by the CPI(M) armed goons and the police and
paramilitary forces. This is the crime they committed.

The RDF calls upon the people of this country to defeat CPI (M)’s
fascistic witch-hunt of progressive and democratic writers, artists,
intellectuals and activists of Kolkata by raising voice of protest
collectively. It’s time for all the democratic voices to come together
firmly against the fascistic onslaught of the Indian ruling classes
represented in the Union government or the state governments like that
of CPI (M) led left front government or BJP Government in Chhattisgarh
on the revolutionary and democratic struggles in South Asia.

Revolutionary Democratic Front demands immediate and unconditional
release of Raja Sarkhel and Prasun Chatterjee by withdrawing the
fabricated charges under UAPA act.



Rajkoshore

General Secretary

--
G N SAIBABA

DEMAND KOBAD GHANDY'S UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE!

Kobad Ghandy: The gentle revolutionary

rediff.com

Sheela Bhatt reveals a side of Maoist ideologue Kobad Ghandy -- who the Delhi [ Images ] police arrested on Sunday -- that only members of his family know.

"Kobad is extremely determined, tremendously self-disciplined, and a person with simple habits and lifestyle," says Sunil Shanbag, the well-known theatre personality and Ghandy's brother-in-law.

Ghandy, a member of the Communist Party of India-Maoist Politburo, was arrested in New Delhi on September 21 and has been sent to 14 days judicial custody.

His arrest has created a sensation, given his affluent origins in Mumbai [ Images ] and his elite Doon School -- where he was Congress leader Sanjay Gandhi's [ Images ] classmate -- and London [ Images ] education. Ghandy is an intellectual supporting the Maoists in various ways, and has no criminal record whatsoever.

Shanbag's sister Anuradha married Ghandy in 1983. Sunil has not met Kobad for many years. His sister and her husband were underground for more than 15 years.

Many years ago, Anuradha -- a graduate of Mumbai's Elphinstone College -- had told her family: 'Don't ask me about what I do and where I go.' When she died of malaria last year her family did not even know about it. The Ghandys lived life dangerously and on their own terms. Their commitment to the cause of the deprived classes was total and unshakeable.

Kobad's father was a senior executive at Glaxo, the pharmaceutical family. The Parsi family lived in an apartment on the posh Worli seaface. The Ghandys owned a hotel in Mahableshwar and a sprawling bungalow in Panchgani, both popular hill stations in Maharashtra, as well as the Kentucky's fresh-fruit ice cream brand.

Kobad did his chartered accountancy from London where he was bitten by the revolutionary bug. When his family told him to start practising accountancy he simply said, 'I want to understand my India.' He started visiting Mumbai's slums to understand slumdwellers's issues. It is here he met Anuradha Shanbag, who was also committed to the revolutionary line of thought. ( A book on Anuradha is available from us - Second Wave)

Like him Anuradha too came from a remarkable background. Her parents Ganesh and Kumud Shanbag owned coffee plantations in Coorg. Her father ran away from a life of luxury to join Subhas Chandra Bose's Indian National Army during the freedom struggle.

In the late 1970s Kobad and Anuradha helped set up the Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights in Mumbai and after establishing CPDR the couple shifted to Nagpur in the 1980s where they went underground. Both their families had no idea about their whereabouts.

How did this amazing metamorphosis take place in Ghandy's life?

Says Sunil, "In Europe the 1970s were a turbulent time. There was a wave of hope for those who were fighting for justice. I can only speculate that Kobad must have been inspired while studying in London. During those years he or she could personally continue the struggle, but today it is a difficult situation."

Ghandy is a disciplined individual who would read and write regularly regardless of whether he lived in a jungle or village, even during the years when he suffered from amoebic dysentery. He was strict about his health and exercised regularly.

Anuradha and Kobad decided to not have children so they could devote their life full-time to the cause. His family members say he is gentle and affectionate, and doesn't discuss his revolutionairy work with them.

His arrest is not totally unexpected, and always lurked in the background. "His arrest is a blow, but not unexpected. It was part of our mindspace," says a family member.

Someone who sympathises with him is livid that a television news channel compared him on Tuesday night to Lashkar-e-Tayiba [ Images ] founder Mohammad Sayeed.

"It is ridiculous," this individual said, "TV is helping whitewash the State's violence. There is no comparison between the two. The Maoist movement is against State violence. TV anchors, who do not believe in anything but provocative news, are defending the State's unconstitutional acts. Are they not supporting violence themselves?"

Across India Kobad Ghandy's many supporters and friends are watching the situation closely in the hope that he will not end up the next Binayak Sen. Will he?"



Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi

***********************************************************
COMMITTEE FOR THE RELEASE OF POLITICAL PRISONERS 185/3, FOURTH FLOOR, ZAKIR NAGAR, NEW DELHI
21/09/09

PRESS STATEMENT

PRODUCE MR. KOBAD GANDHI, SENIOR MAOIST LEADER IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE COURT! ALL DEMOCRATIC FORCES SHOULD RAISE THEIR VOICE FOR HIS RIGHT TO A LAWYER AND PROTECTION FROM ALL FORMS OF TORTURE!

The committee for the Release of Political Prisoners views with concern the arrest and continuing illegal detention of Mr. Kobad Gandhi senior Maoist leader as is being reported by the press. He has been arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police as per the press reports. The press has quoted the police as saying that he is member of the Polit Bureau of the CPI (Maoist). They have also revealed that Mr. Kobad Gandhi heads the publication division of the CPI (Maoist) and also it’s Sub-Committee on Mass Organizations. The CRPP strongly demands that Mr. Kobad Gandhi be immediately produced before the court as we fear for the safety of his life. We also demand that he should be given the lawyer of his choice as per the law of this land. We at the CRPP call upon all democratic forces, civil rights groups and people’s organizations to raise their voice to defend the rights of Mr. Kobad Gandhi against all forms of torture and threat to his life.

Statement by Progressive Indian Intellectuals against Indian Governments military offensive against the Maoists

Friends,

A collective of activists/academics who have been working in solidarity with peoples' movements in India by providing information and analysis (www.sanhati. com) have taken the initiative in circulating a statement against the Indian government's proposed military offensive against alleged Maoist rebels.

The statement has been drafted/endorsed by progressive intellectuals like Arundhati Roy, Sandeep Pandey, Amit Bhaduri, Manoranjan Mohanty, Gautam Navlakha, Prashant Bhushan and others in India and your endorsement will lend it more weight and make the voice of democratic protest stronger. Along with the statement, there is also attached below a background noteon the current situation.

Kindly send a reply to this email address -
sahatiindia@ sanhati.com
you would like to endorse the statement. Also, please circulate as widely as possible.

The endorsed statement will be sent to the Indian and international media in an effort to build public opinion against this disastrous move of the Indian government.

http://sanhati.com/

TEXT OF THE STATEMENT

To
Dr. Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister,
Government of India,
South Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi,
India-110 011.

We are deeply concerned by the Indian government's plans for launching an unprecedented military offensive by army and paramilitary forces in the adivasi (indigenous people)-populated regions of Andhra Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Orissa and West Bengal states. The stated objective of the offensive is to "liberate" these areas from the influence of Maoist rebels. Such a military campaign will endanger the lives and livelihoods of millions of the poorest people living in those areas, resulting in massive displacement, destitution and human rights violation of ordinary citizens. To hunt down the poorest of Indian citizens in the name of trying to curb the shadow of an insurgency is both counter-productive and vicious. The ongoing campaigns by paramilitary forces, buttressed by anti-rebel militias, organised and funded by government agencies, have already created a civil war like situation in some parts of Chattisgarh and West Bengal, with hundreds killed and thousands displaced. The proposed armed offensive will not only aggravate the poverty, hunger, humiliation and insecurity of the adivasi people, but also spread it over a larger region.

Grinding poverty and abysmal living conditions that has been the lot
of India's adivasi population has been complemented by increasing
state violence since the neoliberal turn in the policy framework of the Indian state in the early 1990s. Whatever little access the poor had to forests, land, rivers, common pastures, village tanks and other common property resources has come under increasing attack by the Indian state in the guise of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and other "development" projects related to mining, industrial development, Information Technology parks, etc. The geographical terrain, where the government's military offensive is planned to be carried out, is very rich in natural resources like minerals, forest wealth and water, and has been the target of large scale appropriation by several corporations. The desperate resistance of the local indigenous people against their displacement and dispossession has in many cases prevented the government-backed corporations from making inroads into these areas. We fear that the government's offensive is also an attempt to crush such popular resistances in order to facilitate the entry and operation of these corporations and to pave the way for unbridled exploitation of the natural resources and the people of these regions. It is the widening levels of disparity and the continuing problems of social deprivation and structural violence, and the state repression on the non-violent resistance of the poor and marginalized against their dispossession, which gives rise to social anger and unrest and takes the form of political violence by the poor. Instead of addressing the source of the problem, the Indian state has decided to launch a military offensive to deal with this problem: kill the poor and not the poverty, seems to be the implicit slogan of the Indian government.

We feel that it would deliver a crippling blow to Indian democracy if the government tries to subjugate its own people militarily without addressing their grievances. Even as the short-term military success of such a venture is very doubtful, enormous misery for the common people is not in doubt, as has been witnessed in the case of numerous insurgent movements in the world. We urge the Indian government to immediately withdraw the armed forces and stop all plans for carrying out such military operations that has the potential for triggering a civil war which will inflict widespread misery on the poorest and most vulnerable section of the Indian population and clear the way for the plundering of their resources by corporations. We call upon all democratic-minded people to join us in this appeal.

Signed by -

Arundhati Roy
Amit Bhaduri
Sandeep Pandey
Prashant Bhushan
Manoranjan Mohanty
Gautam Navlakha
Sumanta Banerjee
Colin Gonzalves
Swapna Banerjee-Guha
Madhu Bhaduri
Arundhati Dhuru

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------

BACKGROUND NOTE

It has been widely reported in the press that the Indian government is planning an unprecedented military offensive against alleged Maoist rebels, using paramilitary and counter-insurgency forces, possibly the Indian Armed Forces and even the Indian Air Force. This military operation is going to be carried out in the forested and semi-forested rural areas of the states of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Maharashtra, populated mainly by the tribal (indigenous) people of India. Reportedly, the offensive has been planned in consultation with US counter-insurgency agencies.

To put the Indian government's proposed military offensive in proper perspective one needs to understand the economic, social and political background to the conflict. In particular, there are three dimensions of the crisis that needs to be emphasized, because it is often overlooked: (a) the development failure of the post-colonial Indian state, (b) the continued existence and often exacerbation of the structural violence faced by the poor and marginalized, and (c) the full-scale assault on the meager resource base of the peasantry and the tribal (indigenous people) in the name of "development" . Let us look at each of these in turn, but before we do so it needs to be stressed that the facts we mention below are not novel; they are well-known if only conveniently forgotten. Most of these facts were
pointed out by the April 2008 Report of the Expert Group of the
Planning Commission of the Indian Government (headed by retired civil servant D. Bandopadhyay) to study "development challenges in extremist affected areas".

The post-colonial Indian State, both in its earlier Nehruvian and the more recent neoliberal variant, has failed miserably to solve the basic problems of poverty, employment and income, housing, primary health care, education and inequality and social discrimination of the people of the country. The utter failure of the development strategy of the post-colonial State is the ground on which the current conflict arises.

To recount some well known but oft-forgotten facts, recall that about 77 percent of the Indian population in 2004-05 had a per capita daily consumption expenditure of less than Rs. 20; that is less than 50 cents by the current nominal exchange rate between the rupee and the US dollar and about $2 in purchasing power parity terms. According to the 2001 Census, even 62 years after political independence, only about 42 percent of Indian households have access to electricity. About 80 percent of the households do not have access to safe drinking water; that is a staggering 800 million people lacking access to potable water.

What is the condition of the working people in the country? 93 percent of the workforce, the overwhelming majority of the working people in India, are what the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) called "informal workers"; these workers lack any employment security, work security and social security. About 58 percent of them work in the agricultural sector and the rest is engaged in manufacturing and services. Wages are very low and working conditions extremely onerous, leading to persistent and deep poverty, which has been increasing over the last decade and a half in absolute terms: the number of what the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) called the "poor and vulnerable" increased from 811 million in 1999-00 to 836 million in 2004-05.

Since majority of the working people still work in the agricultural sector, the economic stagnation in agriculture is a major cause for
the continued poverty of the vast majority of the people. Since the Indian state did not undertake land reforms in any meaningful sense, the distribution of land remains extremely skewed to this day. Close to 60 percent of rural households are effectively landless; and extreme economic vulnerability and despair among the small and marginal peasantry has resulted in the largest wave of suicides in history: between 1997 and 2007, 182,936 farmers committed suicide. This is the economic setting of the current conflict.

But in this sea of poverty and misery, there are two sections of the population that are much worse off than the rest: the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) population. On almost all indicators of social well being, the SCs and STs are worse off than the general population: poverty rates are higher, landlessness is higher, infant mortality rates are higher, levels of formal education are lower, and so on. To understand this differential in social and economic deprivation we need to look at the second aspect of the current crisis that we had alluded to: structural violence.

There are two dimensions of this structural violence: (a) oppression,
humiliation and discrimination along the lines of caste and ethnicity
and (b) regular harassment, violence and torture by arms of the State. For the SC and ST population, therefore, the violence of poverty, hunger and abysmal living conditions has been complemented and worsened by the structural violence that they encounter daily. It is the combination of the two, general poverty and the brutality and injustice of the age old caste system, kept alive by countless social practices despite numerous legislative measures by the Indian state, that makes this the most economically deprived and socially marginalized section of the Indian population. This social discrimination, humiliation and oppression is of course very faithfully reflected in the behavior of the police and other law-enforcing agencies of the State towards the poor SC and ST population, who are constantly harassed, beaten up and arrested on the slightest pretext. For this population, therefore, the State has not only totally neglected their economic and social development, it is an oppressor and exploiter. While the SC and ST population together account for close to a quarter of the Indian population, they are the overwhelming majority in the areas where the Indian government proposes to carry out its military offensive against alleged Maoist rebels. This, then, is the social background of the current conflict.

This brings us to the third dimension of the problem: unprecedented
attack on the access of the marginalized and poor to common property resources. Compounding the persistent poverty and the continuing structural violence has been the State's recent attempt to usurp the meager resource base of the poor and marginalized, a resource base that was so far largely outside the ambit of the market. The neoliberal turn in the policy framework of the Indian state since the mid 1980s has, therefore, only further worsened the problems of economic vulnerability and social deprivation. Whatever little access the poor had to forests, land, rivers, common pastures, village tanks and other common property resources to cushion their inevitable slide into poverty and immiserization has come under increasing attack by the Indian state in the guise of so-called development projects: Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and other "development" projects related to mining, industrial development, Information Technology parks, etc.

Despite numerous protests from people and warnings from academics, the Indian State has gone ahead with the establishment of 531 SEZs. The SEZs are areas of the country where labour and tax laws have been consciously weakened, if not totally abrogated by the State to "attract" foreign and domestic capital; SEZs, almost by definition, require a large and compact tract of land, and thus inevitably mean the loss of land, and thus livelihood, by the peasantry. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no serious, rigorous cost-benefit analysis of these projects to date; but this does not prevent the government from claiming that the benefits of these projects, in terms of employment generation and income growth, will far outweigh the costs of revenue loss from foregone taxes and lost livelihoods due to the assault on land.

The opposition to the acquisition of land for these SEZ and similar projects have another dimension to it. Dr. Walter Fernandes, who has
studied the process of displacement in post-independence India in
great detail, suggests that around 60 million people have faced
displacement between 1947 and 2004; this process of displacement has involved about 25 million hectares of land, which includes 7 million hectares of forests and 6 million hectares of other common property resources. How many of these displaced people have been resettled? Only one in every three. Thus, there is every reason for people not to believe the government's claims that those displaced from their land will be, in any meaningful sense, resettled. This is one of the most basic reasons for the opposition to displacement and dispossession.

But, how have the rich done during this period of unmitigated disaster for the poor? While the poor have seen their incomes and purchasing power tumble down precipitously in real terms, the rich have, by all accounts, prospered beyond their wildest dreams since the onset of the liberalization of the Indian economy. There is widespread evidence from recent research that the levels of income and wealth inequality in India has increased steadily and drastically since the mid 1980s. A rough overview of this growing inequality is found by juxtaposing two well known facts: (a) in 2004-05, 77 percent of the population spent less than Rs. 20 a day on consumption expenditure; and (b) according to the annual World Wealth Report released by Merrill Lynch and Capgemini in 2008, the millionaire population in India grew in 2007 by 22.6 per cent from the previous year, which is higher than in any other country in the world.

It is, thus, the development disaster of the Indian State, the
widening levels of disparity and the continuing problems of social
deprivation and structural violence when compounded by the all-out
effort to restrict access to common property resources that, according to the Expert Group of the Planning Commission, give rise to social anger, desperation and unrest. In almost all cases the affected people try to ventilate their grievances using peaceful means of protest; they take our processions, they sit on demonstrations, they submit petitions. The response of the State is remarkably consistent in all these cases: it cracks down on the peaceful protestors, sends in armed goons to attack the people, slaps false charges against the leaders and arrests them and often also resorts to police firing and violence to terrorize the people. We only need to remember Singur, Nandigram, Kalinganagar and countless other instances where peaceful and democratic forms of protest were crushed by the state with ruthless force. It is, thus, the action of the State that blocks off all forms of democratic protest and forces the poor and dispossessed to take up arms to defend their rights, as has been pointed out by social activists like Arundhati Roy. The Indian government's proposed military offensive will repeat that story all over again. Instead of addressing the source of the conflict, instead of addressing the genuine grievances of the marginalized people along the three dimensions that we have pointed to, the Indian state seems to have decided to opt for the extremely myopic option of launching a military offensive.

It is also worth remembering that the geographical terrain, where the government's military offensive is planned, is very well-endowed with
natural resources like minerals, forest wealth, biodiversity and water
resources, and has of late been the target of systematic usurpation by several large, both Indian and foreign, corporations. So far, the
resistance of the local indigenous people against their displacement and dispossession has prevented the government-backed corporates from exploiting the natural resources for their own profits and without regard to ecological and social concerns. We fear that the
government's offensive is also an attempt to crush such democratic and popular resistance against dispossession and impoverishment; the whole move seems to be geared towards facilitating the entry and operation of these large corporations and paving the way for unbridled exploitation of the natural resources and people of these regions.

Police Repression Continues in India - Sorkhel and Chatterjee arrested

Oct. 6: Police cracked down on Maoist “sympathisers” in the city today, arresting the owner of a press that printed a banned rebel magazine as well as its publisher.

The police said they found books and leaflets on Maoists in the Calcutta Graphics press in the Manicktala Industrial Estate. The press prints the People’s March magazine, a banned publication.

The police claimed they found a copy of the magazine in the house of Raja Sorkhel, an alleged Maoist sympathiser who was arrested yesterday in the city along with Prasun Chatterjee.

Sorkhel, 46, and Chatterjee, 34, run an outfit called the Ganatantrik Adhikar Manch.

Four others were also detained tonight when the owner of the press, Sadananda Singha, and the publisher of People’s March, Swapan Dasgupta, were arrested. Dasgupta stays in Paschim Balia, Garia.

The police also detained Bhanu Sarkar and Ramesh Das, members of an organisation called Bandi Mukti Committee. They were picked up from College Street.

Chatterjee and Sorkhel were arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Today, they were remanded in police custody for 14 days by a Jhargram court.

Public prosecutor Suman Das Mahapatra said the two had been charged under seven sections of the UAPA for terrorist activity, raising funds for terror activity, conspiracy for terror activity, offence relating to membership in a terror organisation and supporting such an organisation.

They have also been charged under IPC sections for attempt to murder, waging a war against the state, sedition, conspiracy against the state as well as the Explosives Substances Act.

Mahapatra claimed that on September 26, the day Chhatradhar Mahato was arrested, the Maoists tried to trigger a blast in Lalgarh when security forces were returning after patrolling. He said Chatterjee and Sorkhel had planned the blasts. “They were arrested following the interrogation of Chhatradhar Mahato, Sukhshanti Baskey (a treasurer of the People’s Committee Against Police Atrocities) and three others,” said the public prosecutor.

In Calcutta, CID officials said investigations had revealed that Chatterjee and Sorkhel had collected and given Rs 1.5 lakh to the tribal committee. “The committee is supported and guided by the Maoists,” an officer said. “So providing funds to the committee amounts to funding the Maoists. They organised medical camps for Maoists in Lalgarh.”

“Chhatradhar said the meetings in Lalgarh — on funds collection — had representatives from three sections: the Maoists, the people’s committee and some Calcutta- based organisations like the Manch,” another officer said. TT

Fighting to Change Reality - Kobad Ghandy - Free him now !

Fighting to change reality
Posted by Indian Vanguard on October 5, 2009

The media hype around Kobad Ghandy, the top Naxalite arrested in Delhi, revolves around one factor alone: his affluent background and the anomaly that someone like him could be a leader of the CPI(Maoist), a party dubbed by the government as the biggest terrorist threat to the country. But the apparent contradiction makes perfect sense to those who know Kobad well and the many who were influenced by him. Indeed, at the time Kobad Ghandy was attracting youngsters to Marxism, ie, the early ’70s, it was not at all uncommon to find people from his background in Left circles. The Vietnam War was on, the Paris student revolt a source of inspiration, the Bangladesh war had been fought and won, Charu Mazumdar, the founder of the Naxalite movement, had just died in custody.Famine had struck Gujarat, where the students’ Navnirman Andolan had dethroned the corrupt Congress government of Chimanbhai Patel. In Bihar, Jaiprakash Narayan’s anti-corruption movement had attracted hundreds of educated youth, many of them from middle-class ‘upper-caste’ families, who decided to drop their caste names. This was also when the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha was formed by Shibu Soren and A K Roy — rebels fighting to transform the lives of the poorest Adivasis.

In Maharashtra, then witnessing a terrible famine, the Dalit Panthers had burst on the scene, shaking the Marathi literary world, and with it, conventional attitudes towards Dalits even in politics. Experimental theatre was flowering; Vijay Tendulkar was shocking viewers with his path-breaking plays. Adil Jussawala’s New Writing In India held up a mirror to the ferment going on all over the country. Then came the Great Railway Strike led by George Fernandes, and Emergency, followed by the Janata Party government. Human rights became a household term, and in Mumbai, Kobad, along with Bohra reformist Asghar Ali Engineer, Krishnaraj, editor of the Economic and Political Weekly, and wife Anuradha, set up the Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights. Vijay Tendulkar later became its president. The cream of Mumbai’s intellectuals spoke in its programmes; Naseeruddin Shah and Om Puri signed its petitions.Young people were at the centre of this ferment; so was the media. Investigative journalists were uncovering not just scams, but also the medieval exploitation in villages. This was also the theme of many new wave films that had captured the imagination of the young.

This was the backdrop against which Kobad and other Marxist intellectuals in Mumbai began attracting young people, who felt they needed to do something apart from leading privileged lives. Many of them joined the Progressive Youth Movement (PROYOM); its magazine Lalkaar, had on its editorial board, names such as poet Adil Jussawala and Oxford University Press head Navroz Mody.Kobad was an ideologue, well-read in the classics of Marxism. Along with professors J P Dixit and Oza of St Xavier’s College, he brought out a magazine called People’s Power which could be digested only by Marxist scholars. But despite his intellectual capabilities, his love for reading and writing, Kobad is no ‘intellectual’. He is the very antithesis of the stereotype. Always ready for a laugh, sometimes comical in a low-brow kind of way; genuinely interested in knowing you as a person, and unassuming to a fault. He embodies Mao’s ‘comrade’, the antithesis of the ‘intellectual’ who looks down on the unlettered masses.

In the study circles he conducted, Kobad would speak repeatedly of the need to ‘serve the people’.For him, that was no empty phrase. That was the reason he inspired so many. Some of those who attended the study circles often felt lost, unable to understand the economics that lay at the heart of Marxist theory. But they didn’t give up for a variety of reasons, all of which had to do with the kind of person Kobad is. At the end of the session, you could shake your head in defeat, and he would neither pass judgment, nor force you to persist. But persist you did, because you knew if you wanted to change things, in whatever little way, these were the people you could do it with.Many of them were very well-off, but neither ashamed of their wealth, nor revelling in it. Most of their time was spent doing what they believed in — changing the lives of those at the very bottom.

They weren’t social workers who visited slums while servants looked after their homes. From sweeping to washing up, these wealthy 20-somethings did it all themselves.Not everyone of course, could — or even wanted to — live like this. ‘Toughening up’ for the revolution (that it would come about seemed a certainty) took up a lot of time then — the long hikes up the hills outside Mumbai; the study camps in spartan surroundings, where we had to sleep on a mat, and wash up after eating. But Kobad knew few of us would take the plunge that he and his wife Anuradha Shanbag had already decided on. Yet, they created the space for us to do what we enjoyed the most, be it in PROYOM or CPDR. For them, revolution wasn’t only class war, in which few wanted to participate, sacrificing our comfortable lives, facing police bullets. If you wanted to change the unequal system, you could make your two-bit contribution wherever you worked, and Kobad would make it seem important.

Those formative years left most of us with some basic premises that have stayed with us: the state was exploitative; the police oppressive; elections rarely changed the lives of the majority of people for whom democracy meant little — these, have been substantiated again and again. Anuradha and Kobad were committed to changing that reality. Anuradha was a brilliant academic, but equally passionate about theatre and films, a trained dancer. She could as easily talk to George Fernandes as to theatre director Satyadev Dubey or Dalit writer Namdeo Dhasal. Both also loved children; Kobad specially would clown around with them. They gave up Mumbai to work with contract workers and miners, live among the Dalits, set up women’s organisations, go to jail, and finally work in Bastar, learning the tribals’ language, eating their food. Kobad had always had amoebic dysentery; Anu developed systemic sclerosis.

When the Naxalite movement began, also led by youngsters who left privileged homes, the newspapers portrayed them as mindless anarchists. This view was challenged by the mainstream media in the ’70s and ’80s; now, the wheel has come full circle. Today, the continuous, systematic deprivation faced by the tribals with whom the Ghandys worked, doesn’t make news. What makes headlines is the violent resistance to such deprivation by the Maoists, news mostly fed to the media by the police, who are one side of this conflict. Then along comes a Kobad Ghandy. To a media obsessed with politicians, terrorism and celebrities, he is a freak.About the author:Jyoti Punwani is a Mumbai-based journalist and political commentator. Express

Stop repression in India - Free Kobad Ghandy Now !

“India’s status as the world’s largest democracy is undermined by a police force that thinks it is above the law,” Brad Adams, Asia Director of Human Rights Watch (HRW),

Condemn strongly the malicious media trial of Chhatradhar Mahato!

COMMITTEE FOR THE RELEASE OF POLITICAL PRISONERS

185/3, FOURTH FLOOR ZAKIR NAGAR, NEW DELHI-25

Condemn strongly the malicious media trial of Chhatradhar Mahato!

The West Bengal Government cannot violate laws and procedures to deny Chhatradhar Mahato his right to all legally guarenteed safeguards until proven guilty!

The Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners notes with great concern that the government of West Bengal has started unleashing a vivcious character assassination campaign against Chhatradhar Mahato, the leader of the People’s Committee Against Police Atrocities, that have been spearheading the Lalgarh movement. It is this vicious media trial indulged in by sections of the media and the administration, particularly by Bhupindar Singh, DG Police, Ardhendu Sen, Home Secretary and Ashok Mohan Chakraborty, Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, ever since he was abducted and arrested by the Special Task Force of WB police on 26 September 2009 from Lalgarh.



While arresting him, the police had broken law on two grounds. It had violated section 50-A of the Cr.PC by arresting him without providing the arrest memo, explaining reasons of arrest and nine other things which are mandatory under Supreme Court order(Justice D.K. Basu vs. Government of West Bengal, 1996); by posing themselves as scribes which is not permissible under the law, thereby acting as imposters which is punishable under the law; and by planting 20 to 22 cooked-up cases against him and booking him under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The CRPP strongly condemn such actions made by the administration and assert that the WB government is indulging in such slander campaigns with the aim of maligning the Lalgarh movement that had already drawn universal acclaim from different parts of the world.



Very recently, it has started another vicious campaign—that of character assassination of this leader of the people’s movement. The information that police claimed to have got from Chhatradhar are:

1) Mahato has a life insurance policy of Rs.1 crore;

2) He owns a house in Mayurbhanj in Orissa;

3) That the PCAPA has a bank account;

4) A person from Calcutta donated Rs.1.25 lakhs to Mahato’s committee;

5) Police have got names of 160 sympathizers of the committee, including over 50 from Kolkata.



The DGP said that Mahato made these confessions in custody and also admitted to Maoist links. Rights activists and intellectuals in Kolkata were quick to debunk the claim, saying that the ‘confessions’ were extracted through coercion(The Times of India, 01-10-09; The telegraph, 01-10-09).



It goes against the law of this land to leak to the press the so-called confessions made by Chhatradhar Mahato. No confession can stand in a court of law as evidence against the accused. So it is the criminal intent of the senior police officials and the home secretary and the chief secretary to influence the court and the public opinion even before the commencement of the legal proceedings on Mahato in the court of law. This is nothing but condemning someone as guilty through the media even before he is given a chance to defend himself. Besides the violation of the law of the land it is also violation of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights to which India is also a signatory. This vicious media trial would stigmatize the right of Chhatradhar Mahato to be presumed innocent until proven guilty on charges before a court of law. CRPP strongly condemn such vicious propaganda of the state and demand criminal proceedings against all such elements who have misused their positions of power to incriminate illegally a leader of a people's movement. We also demand legal action against all such media houses who have facilitated this despicable act of the governemnt with criminal intent.



Many of these ‘charges’ that the administration in a despicable manner have been raising through a section of the media have been proved to be patently false with the facts about Chhatradhar Mahato pouring in. First, Chhatradhar does not have such an insurance policy. He himself owns some bighas of ancestral land and used to sell saal leaves. His hut is a broken one; the tube-well in front of his house, like many other tube-wells, hardly works. As he got busy with the movement, he was forced to send his two sons—one reading in Class VI and VII—to sell leaves, which means that the business was not going well. He has an ancestral house in Mayurbhanj. It is a two-storied house, and after division among the members, he was left with only one room in that house. There were times when he literally had to depend on monetary help from the committee to have daily meals. He wears spectacles, one band of which got broken, and he had to go without glasses for days until the committee helped him with money to buy a fresh pair of bands. Journalists who went to his house in Amlia village know how ‘rich’ he is. Second, that the committee has a bank account is quite natural and only betrays its transparency. It was well-known and there was nothing secretive about it. Third, the Lalgarh Manch(forum) has categorically declared at a press conference held on 1 October in Kolkata that they did try to express their solidarity with the movement by various means, besides sending some money; they are sorry to say that they could not do more. Didn’t people send assistance to Spain during the fight against fascist Franco, or to Cuba or to Vietnam? What is illegal then about sending money or medicine to Lalgarh? Fourth, if Mahato maintained contact with the Maoists before ban was imposed on the Maoist party, there was nothing illegal about it. What the administration is actually trying to do is somehow to establish the link between Mahato/PCAPA and the Maoists and then to extend that link with the urban intellectuals , students and the Maoists.



That vicious game became clear in the last one or two days. The government officials went on declaring that some Kolkata intellectuals had assisted Mahato not only by donating money, but also by giving advice on the direction of the movement. Those intellectuals would be called for questioning, to be brought to book and might be booked under the UAPA. These are pure threats, acts of intimidation which should not go unprotested and unchallenged. In fact, the WB government has taken the cue from P.Chidambaran, Central Home Minister, who had recently threatened those who, in his eyes, are sympathetic to the cause of the Maoists and arrogantly declared that the government would utilize the services of the media to start a vilification campaign to show how cruel and bad the Maoists are. That is why they have picked up Mahato and through him are trying to tie the link between the urban intellectuals and the Maoists. In this way they have started a sinister campaign not only to demean the Lalgarh struggle but also to force the intellectuals to dissociate themselves from the people's movement in Lalgarh by constant threats of arrests and other forms of intimidation.



The CRPP strongly denounces such despicable attempts launched against the Lalagarh people and the urban intellectuals and calls upon the people both in India and abroad to raise their voice against such attempts and put pressure on the government to release Chhatradhar Mahato and all others prisoners from Lalagarh.



In Solidarity,


Amit Bhattacharyya

Secretary General

S A R Geelani

Vice- President

Rona Wilson

Secretary, Public Relations

Democracy and Class Struggle Television on Indian Maoism

visit Democracy and Class Struggle TV
http://www.livestream.com/democracyandclassstruggle

Interview of Prachanda, Chairman, UCPN (Maoist) by Anand Swaroop Verma

Following is the transcript of an interview of Prachanda, Chairman of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

Q : There has been a sudden stop in the political process of the country which was witnessed after 12 point agreement of November 2005 till announcement of republic. Confusion has gripped both the countries, Nepal and India and it appears that the process of development has been caught in a bind. Who is responsible for it and what is the road to come out of it?

A: Thanks. You have asked important question. The main aim of the 12 point agreement was to establish a new democratic constitution through constituent assembly. At that time the main aim of the peoples movement was to have a joint struggle against the autocratic monarchy. This is clear that monarchy was abolished and democracy could be brought in. We succeeded in our immediate task. The election to the constituent assembly was accomplished and the Maoists emerged as the single largest party. The government was also formed under the leadership of the Maoists. But while we were moving forward to take the peace process to a logical conclusion and working with an all round strategy to write the constitution, a debate on the issue of the supremacy of the military and the people erupted. What ever orders I issued on behalf of the government, the army general repeatedly violated those instructions of an elected government. He refused to accept them. He challenged them. This created a piquant situation for me. If the army refused to accept the supremacy of an elected government, the supremacy of the peoples, and does not come under the peoples’ government then a major problem would crop up. And for this reason I decided to remove the army general. Other people meaning the Nepali Congress and UML supported the army’s supremacy. As a result the situation acquired a complicated shape. This is the reason that a debate is still going on: should it be civilian supremacy or military supremacy? We have been consistently telling the parties which claim to uphold the supremacy of parliamentary system that since you talk of parliamentary supremacy then on the issue of army general and the unconstitutional steps taken by the President in this connection should be debated in the parliament. But they are not ready for this. They are completely going against the democracy, peace process and drafting of constitution. Obviously those persons who favour the army general and oppose the peoples government are responsible for this situation.

Q : Yesterday I talked to prime minister, Mr Madhav Nepal and sought to know his views on this issue. He told that there was no provision in the constitution under which the parliament could debate the steps taken by the President. Is it so?

A : Certainly not. This is not a monarchy where in the decision of the king could not be debated in parliament. During the days of monarchy no debate in parliament could be permitted on any step of king. There is no such provision now in the constitution. We can debate about President. There is no problem. These people are intentionally pursuing dogmatism.

Q : The prime minister, Mr Madhav Nepal has assured you people that he would rectify the unconstitutional decision of the President and for this he had sought one month’s time so that you should allow the parliament to function. What the government so far has done in this direction.?

A : We talked to him with responsibility and he in the parliament told that he would evolve a consensus on this issue after talking to various political parties within a month and try to solve the problem. This was the assurance of the prime minister and it was our expectation too that it would be solved within a month. But so far he did nothing. After five days were left I told him emphatically that it is imperative to talk or else the problem would continue to exist. However one talk was held with the leaders of Nepali Congress and UML but the prime minister does not appear to be keen to solve this. Today is the last day of the time frame. Since nothing substantial has emerged we would now be raising this issue in parliament and on streets. We are raising this issue in a peaceful and democratic manner. But these people are not showing any seriousness.

Q : I have been witnessing since the days of Raja Tribhuvan that the politics of Nepal has been to a major extent India centric. Whoever has been in power while taking a decision looked towards India. This was for the first time that you refused to accept the dictate of India. The disappointment of India could be understood but other political parties did not support you either. Do you think that the politics of Nepal being India centric has been the prime reason for most of the problems?

A : Your question is of strategic importance. Not only from the days of King Tribhuvan instead this situation has been prevailing when British ruled India. You will recall that a war took place between British India and Nepal and following that in 1815 the Sugauli Treaty was signed. After that the influence of ruling elite of India continued to increase here. Nepal is an independent country but the fact is after the Sugauli treaty it turned like a semi colony of India. When the peoples movement was going on against Ranas (Ranashahi) at that time King Tribhuvan took shelter in India and with the help of India through the " Delhi agreement" the rule of Rana was abolished. This helped strengthen the rule of Shah dynasty. India played a major role. After that in the move for bringing democracy, which started in Nepal, the Nepali Congress often adopted a stance of compromise, understanding and surrender towards India. In this backdrop democracy was installed but its functioning continued to follow the old pattern. The moment the main leader of the Nepali Congress Mr B P Koirala started talking of little freedom he was ousted. India encouraged the autocratic move of the King. The autocratic panchayati system, independent authoritarian establishment could keep its identity in Nepal only due to the support extended by India. Due to the struggle of CPN (Maoist) the process of major transformation of Nepal’s economic, social and political condition has emerged. Now when the Maoists emerged as the major political party in the constituent assembly elections to address this process of transformation then again problem has cropped up. On my tour to India I had in specific words told that there was imperative need to address this transformation. Nepal has undergone a major political change and with this there is need for some change in our historical relation with India. I had told in clear words that people of Nepal are not happy with the 1950 friendship treaty. They view it as unequal treaty. This needs to be changed as it is not based on equality. We don’t want any bitterness with India instead we long for good relation. But keeping in view the revolutionary change that is going on in Nepal the relation between the two countries should be changed, should be developed accordingly. Only then we can improve the relations between the two countries. Our special economic, political, geographical, cultural and historical relations should be rearranged according to the prevailing time. But unfortunately this is not happening. Delhi has a psychology that Nepal has to obey what India dictates. No change has taken place in the psyche though a number of changes have taken place in India. End of the British rule and strengthening of India through sustained economic growth did not have desired impact on the mind set of the ruling class of India. The amount of change which should have taken place has not occurred. Nepal has witnessed a major political change but India is not serious to understand this and also to reshape the relation between the two countries in the perspective of the changed scenario. This is the reason problems keep on emerging. I wish the India Nepal relation should be redefined in the background of the recent political and socio-economic changes. This should be developed further.

Q : After you formed the government in August 2008 it appeared that the government of India has accepted the situation and its attitude towards your government was quite cordial and cooperative. But its displeasure on the Katwal issue came out openly. What mistake did you commit during your rule that changed the approach of India? Were you careless while dealing with China that made India unhappy?

A : I don’t think so. My party and I too seriously thought over this. But the more I think, the more I am clear that neither my party nor me committed any mistake. When my government was installed, in the neighbouring country China Olympic games were on. On the inaugural day my government was formed. The President of Nepal was invited to participate at the inauguration but he could not go. Before the Olympic concluded my government was formed and I was invited to participate at the closing ceremony. I thought it would not look nice if being the neighbouring country I would not had participated at the event where American President, Mr Bush, Ms. Sonia Gandhi and her family from India, the Prime Minister of UK and rulers of many other countries would be present. What mattered most was being the leader of the party, which had brought about such a change in Nepal it was proper to go there for interacting and meeting with more people. Nepal has a tradition that after swearing in of the government the Prime Ministers undertake their first visit to India. I did not give so much of credence to that tradition. I felt this was not a good tradition. But it did not imply that I have first visited China. Any visit should be in conformity to the necessity. According to need we can go to India first and even to China. I felt the Olympics closing ceremony was being held for which I have been invited and so I should go there. In fact some people had put pressure on me that I should not go to China, it would break the tradition, India will feel bad etc. But I sought to know why the relation with India sour? If Mr Bush and Ms. Gandhi could go why cannot I? China is our neighbouring country and I decided to go and went. When I turn back and look at the event I have the feeling that this had a some psychological impact on India. In my perception what happened was a natural development but the ruling elite of India did not like it. Besides this before formation of my government one major incident had taken place in Tibet. Some incidents of vandalism had taken place. Some people had died in Lhasa. Chinese government nursed the impression that people active in creating disturbances in Tibet were using the land of Nepal. I feel that in view of that incident some intellectuals and officials of China started frequently visiting Nepal. They wanted to know that the political changes that were taking place in Nepal whether would benefit China. China from the beginning has been supporting monarchy as it felt stability in Nepal could be possible through monarchy. From the days of Mao Tse Tung China maintained a cordial relation with monarchy. Now we have uprooted monarchy and created a new political set up. However India felt that since Maoists have come to power in Nepal the flow of the Chinese visitors to Nepal had increased and Maoists were tilting towards China. But these were mere coincidences: end of monarchy, vandalism in Tibet and Maoists coming to power in Nepal. And even if the Chinese have been frequently coming to Nepal to understand the changes that took place it should not have been enough to become suspicious. According to me it is wrong. Because this was happening not due to us, but due to them. I repeatedly made it clear that I would strive to maintain the good relations between the two countries. Besides I did not want to do any thing in haste. I was firmly committed to address the aspirations of the people. I was gradually and steadily moving in the direction of giving a concrete shape to the peoples’ aspiration of change. People wanted a reform in security sector. Keeping this in view I brought about certain changes in the police department and armed constabulary department. Naturally in this background the issue of Katwal cropped up before me. People were aware of the fact that Katwal was not in favour of change, he was not in favour of integration of army, he was not in favour of constitution, he was not in favour of democracy and was regularly challenging the government. Obviously some action has to be taken against him. May be some of my friend did not like it. I don’t think that I ever took any action which should have been the factor for straining the relations with India. I tried to develop the relations with China and India keeping in view the needs of the Nepali people and Nepali nation.

Q : Do you think that you adopted liberal stance in the matter of Katwal? Did you agree that just after becoming prime minister if you had acted on the Raymajhi Commission report and removed Katwal then in that case you would had received massive public support? What was the reason?

A : Girija Babu’s government was in power when the Raymajhi Commission report came. I had raised this question but Girija Babu was not ready to take action. Of course people ask me why I did not take action soon after I came to power. My endeavour was to evolve a consensus among the coalition partners before taking any action. I tried but other parties did not agree. I held with other parties giving consent the task would be easier; particularly with giving consent by the UML. I was having talks with the UML. They told me to wait till their Congress. After the Congress concluded a serious talk was held with their president Jhalnath Khanal, vice president Bamdeo Gautam and general secretary Ishwar Pokhrel and all of them gave their consent. They told me to take action against Katwal and assured me of their help. Once UML supported, the Madhesi forum also agreed. After this Sadbhavana Party and others also consented and then only I took action. Had I known that they would succumbed to the internal and external pressures and retreat from their positions then in that case I would have taken action within a month of my becoming the prime minister. Even children of Nepal know from where the pressure was coming.

Q : Yesterday I had asked prime minister Madhav Nepal that your party president had given his consent for removal of Katwal and I had also read a statement purporting to it. But he refused and said that his party president never gave consent for it.

A : He is misleading. Now it is clear to the parliament also.

Q : On the issue of integration of both the armies nearly one month back I had read the statement of Indian ambassador, Mr Rakesh Sood in which he said that there is no reference to integration of two armies in the peace accord and integration meant integration of the PLA soldiers in the Nepali society. Recently Mr Girija Prasad Koirala also repeated the same line. In this background are you apprehensive of peace process getting derailed?

A ; This is the reason that I have been repeatedly saying that the unconstitutional step taken by the President was not his own instead it is a part of the well thought out strategy against the peace process and also against the process for creation of constituent assembly. That is why I have been consistently saying that till the issue of civilian supremacy is not resolved, till the wrong step taken by a ceremonial president, who has been pretending to work as the functional president is not rectified, this issue could not be resolved. I am saying this only for the reason that this action was against democracy and also against the democratic traditions. But these people are not ready to take any corrective measure. They intend that the issue of army integration should be completely dropped as in the detailed peace agreement it is specifically mentioned that the army integration and rehabilitation would take place. Army integration meant unification of both armies. This is clearly written in the agreement. But when people like Rakesh Sood, Girija Prasad Koirala speak one language, speak against the peace accord and resort to distorted arguments on the issue of integration of army as the integration of soldiers in the society and try to create confusion in the world then it obviously implied that we are left with no other option but to resort to movement. Which is why we have decided to go for movement; inside the parliament and also outside. If they go against the peace accord and oppose the interim government, democratic values and supremacy of the people then we are left with no option but to start movement and we are actually doing that from today. But side by side we would keep on talking to other parties. We would continuously strive to evolve a national consensus on this issue. Our stand is there is only one solution to this issue: we should be allowed to place our views in the Parliament. A formal atmosphere should be created inside the house to debate our issue. We are saying only this much but they are not agreeing to this proposal. It simply meant that they want confrontation. They don’t want peace. They don’t want democracy. Instead they want autocracy.

Q : The central committee of your party had decided for national government of general consensus which would be led by the Maoists. How is it possible in the present situation?

A : The central committee of our party debated various aspects of this issue and we reached at the conclusion that we should firmly stand in the favour of the peace process and in the creation of constituent assembly and form a national government with general consensus under the leadership of Maoists. We feel this is possible. The first thing is the question does not arise to form the government with any party which justifies the unconstitutional action of the President. If they don’t agree to rectify the presidential action then in that case we will not take in the new government. They have to change their old stand on the issue of army general. In spite of this we visualize the possibility of the government as majority of the members of parliament of UML are opposed to the President’s step. They want to debate the issue in the Parliament as they are aware that the majority would be in the favour of the Maoists. We believe even if they are not agreeable for a debate we can protest the step of President with the help of the MPs of UML and other parties. The Madhesh parties will also join us and by then we will come into the position of forming the government. We have majority in parliament.
Q : Does it imply that the issue of civilian supremacy is the biggest issue for you?

A : Certainly. Civilian supremacy in comparison to the military supremacy is the biggest issue.

Q : Two line struggle has often been going in your party. Without trying to know who represents which line I would like to ask what are the two lines.

A : The reply is complicated. It is not so easy, even then I will explain about the two lines. Certainly our party had two line struggle and the just concluded central committee meeting had a long discussion. At this meeting through discussion the two line issue has been resolved. Now based on a new foundation a new unity has developed in the party. In fact a good number of comrades were sceptical whether the party was following in the lines of UML. Is it drowning in parliamentarism? Is it moving towards reformism? They were quite disturbed due to these questions. Our cadres were seriously anxious. This was a bigger problem. We were telling them that we were advancing only after making a thorough analysis of the basic principles of Marxism; concrete analysis of the concrete situation. We were advancing keeping in view our socialist and communist ideals and also our strategy for peoples revolution. One section held this view. Other section felt that instead of moving towards revolution we were inching towards compromise and parliamentarism. This is the essence of debate. But after my resignation our comrades have come to believe that there was no deviation in the party. They felt that the party in the correct manner was progressing towards revolution by taking the people alongwith it. From outside my resignation would appear to be a negative step but whereas the unity of the party and the confusion in the party are concerned this has left a significant positive impact. Comrades who nursed the feeling that the leadership has developed lust for power are now feeling relieved. Their misconceptions have been removed. I had resigned with the commitment to struggle against the counterrevolutionary and reactionary elements and not to surrender to the dictates of foreign lords. I had told that I would not tolerate any kind of foreign intervention. This has created an atmosphere inside the party that the leadership was pursuing the correct line towards revolution. As a result of this not only the unity of the party has been strengthened but also credibility amongst the people has enhanced. After my resignation even the urban middle class has come to realize that our party could protect the national interest and preserve its sovereignty and pride.

Q: Your critics say that you have abandoned the base areas and disarmed the Janamukti Sena (PLA). How far is it correct?

A : This is not true. When we came in peace process and also came for democracy then it broadly implied that we were successful. We dislodged monarchy, constituted the constituent assembly and emerged as the biggest party in the constituent assembly. Obviously I don’t find any weakness. As for as the issue of base area and PLA are concerned; PLA is in the cantonment and the arms are with them. The keys of the boxes having the guns are with the PLA. This makes clear that we have not surrendered the arms. If the other side is willing to abide the peace accord then we are also ready for integration of the army. But we are not for surrender. Which is why the people who criticize us on this count are wrong. They fail to understand the true situation prevailing in Nepal. They are not able to comprehend the development of the revolution and its dynamics. They look at the entire scene in a narrow and mechanical manner. Our base areas are intact and the people in those areas are firm. The organization in those areas is also strong. I in fact believe that we have succeeded in expanding our base areas. It has been spread through out the country. At present in a way the whole country has become our base area. Our victory and the manner in which we have amalgamated with the people, for me this is expansion of the base area. For this reason I don’t believe that we have left our base areas.

Q: If the integration of the army takes place and if a unified National Army is constituted as the result of the merger of the Nepali army and the PLA, in that case are you conscious of the impending dangers? What I want to say cannot that army be used against you once you are out of power? The reason for this is what is the guarantee that the army constituting of the revolutionary cadres of the PLA and regular armymen nursing feudal would stand in the favour of people?

A; That danger is there, but we have faith in people. I have faith in integration of the army. If the integration of the army takes place then it should be viewed as the victory of the situation created through the peoples struggle. Obviously the entire army will stand in favour of the people. The army will stand in favour of the nation. And under the leadership of the party we could lead the country in a better way. This is my belief. Just some time back you wanted to know why the Indian ambassador, Mr Rakesh Sood and Mr Girija Prasad Koirala of Nepali Congress has been opposed to integration of army. Do you think they would have opposed this if the reactionary forces have visualized that the integrated army would stand in favour of reactionary forces? Once the integration takes place this army would ceased to be theirs. This would be completely the army of the people. Which is why they are speaking against it and trying to create hurdles. One should realize that the integration of army is not against Maoists. This is not against the people. This is in favour of people. This is the reason that the reactionary forces outside the country and also inside quite active against it. One should understand this.

Q: What is the programme for insurrection? And what should be its character?

A : I believe that Nepal would not have that nature of insurrection that took place in Russia under Lenin or the peoples revolution that was witnessed in China under Mao Tse Tung. A new type and new form of insurrection is possible in Nepal. We cannot import any revolution in a mechanical manner. We would have to show the courage and strength of developing it. We are striving in this direction. And for this we are advancing in the right direction by pursuing a completely new style, in our own way and keeping in view the global situation. We have to chalk out the programme and strategy of the Nepali revolution keeping in view the global and regional balance of power and also in the background of relations with China and India. We are striving in this direction. Which is why we do not understand the insurrection in a mechanical way. I don’t think proper to speak more than this on this issue at this stage.

Q : The movement which you are going to launch may create the law and order situation, the government would also resort to repressive measures and the people may also take to resistance movement. In this background do you visualize that the movement may turn violent? Do you think that the situation would go to such extent that you would be forced to take to armed struggle of the days of the peoples’ war?

A : The programmes of movement that we have announced are of peaceful nature. We would steer it in constitutional and peaceful manner inside and outside the parliament. In case the government resorts to repression then in that situation the people would come to realize that the Maoists intended to place their views in a peaceful manner but were not being allowed. The Maoists has been struggling for democracy and civilian supremacy through the constitutional means. The people would also see that the Maoists have been demanding to have a debate on this inside the parliament. If the government resorts to repression the people would find out their own way to resist. We are talking of ‘Jan Andolan 3’ (third peoples’ movement). We will proceed through peoples’ movement and they would be forced to accept the peoples’ demand. We don’t have any plan to resort to violent or arms struggle. The people will certainly resist in case the state perpetrates violence and repression. In this situation the Maoists would support the peoples’ resistance movement.
Q: Don’t you think this is hindering the process of drafting of the constitution for which you people have been elected.?

A : No. The work of drafting of constitution is going on smoothly. Both the movement and drafting of constitution will continue. We will not create any obstruction in the task of constitution drafting. We are obstructing its parliamentary part. There are separate committees for drafting of constitution with different functioning and we are not creating any obstruction in that. We would continue to take active part.
Q: How do you visualise the future of Nepal in coming days?

A : The people of Nepal will win. We are trying for taking forward the revolution of the country in a different manner and confident of getting success.

(Published in the October 2009 issue of Hindi journal Samkalin Teesari Duniya, New Delhi.)

SOURCE; Maoist Revolution