Nepal is in the front line of Indian expansionism - demonstrate on 15th February 2010 against Indian expansionism and its war on its own People

　
Nepal is in the front line of Indian Expansionism and today we have reported that that more than hundreds of thousands of hectares of Nepal's land is being encroached upon by the Indian state. In many places, Nepal's land is being inundated by illegal dams constructed by India on the nearby Nepal-India border.

For over the past 40 years, thousands of Indian military personnel have been stationed in Mahakali occupying a large section of Nepalese land.

We have received a letter from the Progressive Nepalese Forum stating the following

"the Indian ruling class is the single biggest threat not just for Nepal as a whole but also as regards the prosperity, development, and peace of the whole South Asian region including its own people.

As a clear evidence, India has fought wars with its immediate neighbours, China and Pakistan, and has had so many border clashes with Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan even with the Maldives.

Furthermore, it has been unleashing a military offensive against its own masses with the disappearances of journalists, civil society activists, politicians, environmentalists, human rights activists, and even ordinary people, murdering of thousands of Indian people every year.
　
To my knowledge, there is no such other single nation like India which has dozens of so-called 'separatist groups' fighting their own national liberation wars. So I do believe that all of South Asian people and nations must unite against Indian expansionism for the sake of prosperity, development, freedom and peace"

The Nepalese Society UK,and would like to request all of you very sincerely to participate in the following forthcoming protest rally against Indian expansionism:

Date: 15 (Monday) February 2010
Venue: The rally will start at Trafalgar Square, North Terrace and march towards
the Embassy of India.
Time: 12 PM sharp

Nepal's three Maoist parties join in anti Indian Expansionism Campaign

Kathmandu: Three Maoist parties in Nepal have come together for an anti-India protest, seeking the abrogation of all unequal treaties with New Delhi and withdrawal of Indian troops from disputed territories between the two neighbours.


The CPN-Maoist led by Matrika Yadav, Revolutionary Communist Party Nepal led by Mani Thapa and Nepal Communist Party Unified led by Rishi Kattel are splinter groups of the main Opposition Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist headed by former prime minister Prachanda.

At a press conference in the capital yesterday, the Maoists announded their plan to hold protest in front of the Indian Embassy on March 12, apart from a nationwide general strike on April 24 and handing over a memorandum to prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal on February 8. Their eight-point demands include annulment of all unequal treaties between Nepal and India, including 1950 treaty and withdrawal of Indian Army from the disputed Kalapani region, the tri-junction between Nepal, India and China.

They have also sought the return of encroached land by India in Susta and ethnic and regional autonomy with right to self-determination.

UCPN-Maoist chairman Prachanda, who earlier accused India of naked interference in Nepal's internal affairs, has also demanded the scrapping of the 1950 Indo-Nepal Peace and Friendship Treaty along with all other unequal pacts with India and sought the ending of special relationship with its southern giant neighbour.

Source Nepal News but edited by Democracy and Class Struggle

Oppose Indian Intervention against the Nepalese Revolution - Oppose Indian State's war on its Tribal People !

OPPOSE INDIAN INTERVENTION AGAINST THE NEPALESE REVOLUTION!

OPPOSE INDIAN STATE'S WAR ON ITS TRIBAL PEOPLE!



RALLY AT TRAFALGAR SQUARE




MARCH TO INDIAN HIGH COMMISSION OFFICE, ALDWYCH, HOLBORN





MONDAY 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 , 12 NOON


Meeting organised by Nepalese diaspora in the UK

Supported by

World Peoples Resistance Movement - Britain

South Asia Solidarity forum

Second Wave Publications

Democracy and Class Struggle

Co-ordination Committee of Revolutionary Communists of Britain

Binyak Sen on Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate: Dr Binayak Sen on State vs Maoists

Karan Thapar: Dr Sen, the Prime Minister has often referred to the Maoists or the Naxalites as the single greatest threat facing the Indian state. In fact, he has gone on record to say that it's an even greater threat than the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. Clearly, yours must be a very different view. So let me begin by asking you how do you view the Maoist trouble?

Dr Binayak Sen: Firstly, as human rights workers, we decry all forms of violence, whether it is the violence of the state or those opposing the state.

Karan Thapar: In this instance, which in your mind is the first violence? Which is the greater?

Dr Binayak Sen: I would explain that with reference to the context of the situation in the country today. Firstly, there is a chronic famine abroad in the land and this famine envelops, according to the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau, which is a government organization, 33 percent of the people in this country who have a clinically demonstrable chronic under-nutrition. And that includes 50 percent of the Scheduled Tribes and 60 percent of the Scheduled Castes.

Karan Thapar: So is the Maoist struggle in your view in response to the chronic malnutrition?

Dr Binayak Sen: It’s a response to chronic poverty of which malnutrition is only a part. These communities, which are suffering from this chronic famine that is abroad in this land, have thus far survived because of a fragile and tenuous equilibrium that they have established with their ecosystem and which they are able to maintain because of their access to common property resources like land, water and forests.

Karan Thapar: So, when land is acquired from them and they are dispossessed, their fragile existence itself is threatened. Is that the point that you are making?

Dr Binayak Sen: Yes, their fragile existence is threatened to the point where conditions are being created which would fall well within the ambit of the United Nations definitions of genocide.

Karan Thapar: In other words, you are saying that the Maoists are fighting on behalf of the people to get them justice--to fight against dispossession which you interpret as a form of genocide?

Dr Binayak Sen: Their resistance to this dispossession is the only possible response that would enable these communities which are suffering from this famine to survive.

Karan Thapar: You are saying, aren't you, and I am repeating this because it's important to clarify and understand that the “Maoist struggle is a struggle for justice. It’s a resistance against unfair and wrong dispossession". Am I right?

Dr Binayak Sen: It is a struggle against the conditions which would lead to genocide.

Karan Thapar: You mean genocide?

Dr Binayak Sen: I mean genocide

Karan Thapar: You are not using that word irresponsibly?

Binayak Sen: I am not using the word irresponsibly. Everybody thinks that the word ‘genocide’ has to do with direct killing but the United Nations Convention’s definitions on genocide include the creation of conditions--mental and physical conditions--which would render the survival of these communities under question, and we already have a situation of chronic famine as I have already told you and which is getting worse over time. It is not getting better, it is getting worse.

Karan Thapar: You interpreted for me how you view the Maoist struggle; you said it’s a resistance against dispossession--

Dr Binayak Sen: I am not talking on behalf of the Maoists. I am talking from the point of view of a human rights worker

Karan Thapar: You have interpreted the Maoist struggle as a resistance against dispossession, as a fight for justice, as an attempt to resist genocide. The problem is that that is not the only thing the Maoists are seeking to do. The Maoists are also seeking to overthrow the Indian political system. Do you endorse that position as well?

Dr Binayak Sen: As a human rights worker, I am committed to the Constitution of India and at the same time, as I said right in the beginning, I decry all forms of violence.

Karan Thapar: But this is not (just about) violence. Forgive me I am interrupting you but this is not violence, this is something else. Let me quote what Kishenji said to Tehelka on 21st of November. He said, "The first goal...the first goal is to gain political power in order to establish a new democracy" and then he adds, "…to create a new democratic state one has to destroy the old one."

Now, as a human rights activist, do you endorse that demand and belief.

Dr Binayak Sen: We condemn this kind of killings under all circumstances.

Karan Thapar: The problem is that you may condemn it under all circumstances but the fact is that Maoists believe that such killing is not just acceptable and justified, they believe that it is a part of their system. I am going to quote to you again Kishenji speaking--

Dr Binayak Sen: --I am not going to defend or decry what Kishenji said--I am not. I am here to answer for myself. Please don't pin me down to talking about the Maoists. I am talking about famine in this country. These are the huge issues that we are addressing.

Karan Thapar: I am asking you the question which many in the audience would interpret as difficult and awkward for you to answer. Rather than let me finish the question, you are interrupting it, deflecting it.

Let me finish and then you answer because I think it is important as a human rights activist that your position on the policy of annihilation should be heard. The annihilation policy has been defended by Kishenji in Tehelka in the following words: “we say annihilation”--

Dr Binayak Sen: --I decry annihilation. I do not agree with annihilation. State is also practicing annihilation. I decry the violence of the state. Mahatma Gandhi said that when the state resorts to violence, the legitimacy of the state is destroyed--

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

Dr Binayak Sen: We decry all forms of violence--

Karan Thapar: --but name the Maoists.

Dr Binayak Sen: No, I am not going to name any party. What I am saying is that the Maoists violence is a consequence and not the cause. The cause is the violence of the state. The violence of not only the bullets but (also) the violence of genocide, which I am evoking as a responsible human rights worker.

Karan Thapar: I am going to stop you at this point because you have made a very important statement. You said that in fact Maoists violence is the consequence; it’s not the cause. In other words, it is something that happens as a result of the state violence; it is provoked by state violence.

That is the confusion that many people say the human rights activists make which leads them to be sympathetic to the Maoists and perhaps blind to the human rights atrocities inflicted by the Maoists on security personnel.

You are saying that in fact, Maoist violence is a consequence, its not a cause. In other words, it’s provoked by state violence. I put it to you by that explanation, to many people, you are in danger of either justifying or exonerating Maoist violence.

Dr Binayak Sen: I am not interested in justifying any violence. As a human rights worker, I decry all forms of violence; the violence of the state as well as those opposing the state. Now, let me finish. We have large issues to address here. We have the issue of famine in this country.

Karan Thapar: Dr Sen, don't deflect me again. You did it so often in part one (of the interview). I don't want you to do it again. The audience want to hear a human rights activist explain why he equates Maoist violence with state violence but seems to exonerate Maoist violence because you see it as a consequence of state violence.

Let me push this further. Let me take your own example. No doubt you were wrongly charged; no doubt you were wrongly held in jail for perhaps as long as two years but at the end of the day it was the courts that released you. There was a due process that went through-you did get bail.

Look at Francis Induwar, and this week Sanjoy Ghosh. There was no due process, they were killed and beheaded in cold blood. There the Maoists were judge; jury, executioner and hangman in one go. How can you equate the two?

Dr Binayak Sen: Despite the decline in the integrity of the institutions of state power, I believe that it is for human rights activists as well as for civil society as a whole to hold the state to its commitment to the institutions of democratic governance. This is absolutely clear.

Karan Thapar: I would applaud that but say "not only should you hold the state to its democratic and constitutional commitment, should you not similarly hold the Maoists to commitment of humanity."

Let me pause, you rightly, justifiably criticised the state where the human rights of the Maoists and the dispossessed are trampled upon. You call it genocide, maybe you are right. Why are you silent when the human rights of the security personnel are trampled upon by the Maoists.

Dr Binayak Sen: We are not silent. We have said it again and again that we decry this activity. You talked about Francis Induwar's case, we condemned that.

Karan Thapar: But, why have you not condemned Sanjoy Ghosh. It was repeated on Tuesday.
Dr Binayak Sen: The news has just come in the paper today.

Karan Thapar: How long are you going to wait?

Dr Binayak Sen: It is corollary that if I am condemning Francis Induwar's case, then I also condemn the beheading of Sanjoy Ghosh.

Karan Thapar: But it is a silent corollary. You are not making the point. You are assuming that others will take it for granted whereas you don't assume that when you criticise the security force. You are upfront, forthright and unequivocal when criticizing the government. You are silent when it comes to the Maoists.

Dr Binayak Sen: When Shodhi Sambhu is shot in the thigh, when the Dantewada people are witness to executions carried out by the security forces, we do not hear any word from the powers that be in the state; from the ministers who are in charge.

Karan Thapar: So, is your judgment and the criticism conditioned by what the government says on the other side.

Dr Binayak Sen: I am not saying that. Do we conclude that these activities have the endorsement of the government? Of the ministers involved? We do not conclude that.

Karan Thapar: Are the standards of a human rights activists set by the government that he criticises. Because, that’s how you are justifying your behaviour.
Dr Binayak Sen: My standards are clear. I have already condemned that.

Karan Thapar: But, this is the point. The reason I am questioning you closely on this is because many people turn around and say that human rights activists take one view of atrocities committed against the Maoists and a completely different view of the atrocities committed against security personnel. They say, it is double standards

Dr Binayak Sen: There is no double standards. We decry violence of all kinds. But, now, let me come to the point of famine and genocide. There is a famine abroad in this land. Thirty three percent of our adult population, according to the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau, has clinically demonstrable chronic under-nutrition; a body mass index below 18.5 and the conditions that are being created as a result of widespread massive state acquisition of their land.

Displacement from their access to the ecosystem is creating a condition for genocide that will come well within the ambit of UN Convention on genocide.

Karan Thapar: The issue I want to ask you is simple one. Do you think that this famine--do you think that even government policies that in your eyes justify and create the famine justify in turn armed liberation struggle, virtually a civil war against not just the state but the people of India? Does one justify the other?

Dr Binayak Sen: Violence is not a legitimate way of inducting a social change.

Karan Thapar: In this case, why don't you turn to the Maoists, with whom you have an influence, with whom you have a certain measure of understanding and sympathy and say to them: 'look you have a just cause and hundreds and millions of Indians would agree with that, but don't ruin it by trying to tackle it by violence. Give up the violence. ' The government says they are prepared to have the widest ranging talks, all that they are asking is abjure violence in return.

Dr Binayak Sen: We can only speak for ourselves. We do not speak for anyone else. We are a part of the Citizen's Initiative for Peace. We are taking all efforts to talk to whoever will listen in a bid to bring about peace. But the peace cannot be in acquiescence of a gentler, kindler genocide--that cannot be peace. The peace has to be a peace with justice that will enable these communities to access the guarantee of equity in the Constitution.

Karan Thapar: Peace with justice can only happen when talks begin and the government has committed itself to the widest ranging talks on one condition--abjure violence. Do you know the response from the Maoists? That this is an absurd and irrational condition and it is a betrayal of the people--

Dr Binayak Sen: --I am not here to talk for the Maoists.

Karan Thapar: Then, will you criticise them for not abjuring violence so that talks can start. Will you criticise them for that?

Dr Binayak Sen: We are talking to all parties whoever will listen because we want to bring about peace--

Karan Thapar: You are sidestepping my question, do you criticise the Maoists for not giving up violence?

Dr Binayak Sen: Nobody is giving up violence. Neither the state nor the Maoists are giving up violence. I am interested in furthering my cause, which is the cause of peace with justice.

Karan Thapar: Do you see peace happening at all because both sides are locked in a standoff? Do you see the situation changing?

Dr Binayak Sen: The duty of a social activist is to be optimistic. I am optimistic about peace; I hope for peace; I believe in peace; I believe that we all have to work and struggle. Not just human rights activists, the whole of society has to work for peace, has to set up a cry for peace. Peace with justice.

Karan Thapar: On that note, we both agree. It's a pleasure talking to you even if at times it seemed I was quarreling with you

Silent procession with Swapan Dasgupta Peoples March editor’s body

Kolkata: A silent funeral procession was taken out on Wednesday with the body of Swapan Dasgupta, editor of a banned Maoist magazine, by politicians and activists who had a custodial death.

Dasgupta, who was arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) four months ago, died Tuesday at the SSKM hospital where he was admitted with asthma and respiratory complications on December 17, the hospital superintendent Debashish Bhattacharya said.

Dasgupta was the editor of the Bengali version of the Maoist magazine ‘People’s March’. Among those who took part in the march Wednesday were Trinamool Congress MP Kabir Sumon and theatre personality Bivas Chakra borty.

Suman, who courted controversy for opposing anti- Maoist operations in West Midnapore district and bringing out an album of songs on Chhatradhar Mahato, the jailed Peoples Committee against Police Atrocities leader, says that Dasgupta was killed in custody and demanded a probe.

"The government allowed him to die. When he was shifted from jail to the SSKM hospital on December 17, he was not given a bed and was forced to lie on the floor. Even after he was detected with blood cancer, blood was not provided as requisitioned," Sujato Bhadra, Secretary of human rights NGO APDR, told an agency.

The funeral procession to the Keoratala burning grounds was followed by marchers carrying placards describing Dasgupta as ‘the first martyr of the UAPA’.

Report on MLM Meeting in Paris 30-31 January 2010 !

Good success for participations and representativities:

Debate-unity- struggle about building communist mlm parties in imperialist countries and in the world, from Italian, French, Turkish, Peruvian interventions and messages of Solidarity from India Britain, Bangladesh.

Useful interventions and talking also with ml parties and organisations - Turkish MLKP and Austria / strong interventions of Italian Maoist youth red block and the Women of mfpr-italy / report from Nepal for French-Nepalese commitee/ two intervention from Sans papiers movement/ importants propositions about different aspects of class struggles.

An international review- first publishing acts of Paris meeting,
a joint May Day 2010. Realize a common mlm declaration,
a proposition for a red relief proletarian international. A text for
proposition and debate and the most important decision:

an International campaign and International commitee for supporting peoples war in India.

The first two months for birth commitees in all countries-after three
months campaign in all countries a possibility.

As comrades can see.. a good result in Paris and a best work to do !

Maoist Communist Party Of Italy
(PCm-Italy)
1st February 2010

Swapan Das Gupta - the first Unlawful Activities Prevention Act prisoner in India attained martyrdom today.

Dear friends,

With profound grief we infirm you that Com Sapan das Gupta Editor of Bangla People's March, the first Unlawful Activities Prevention Act prisoner in India attained martyrdom today.

The callous attitude of 'Indian Democracy' snuffed out his life.

I would like to recall the day 19th July 2009 when I met him and stayed with
him for a few days. The way he was carrying out his work selflessly together with nursing his 35 year old 90% mentally retarded (from child birth)
sister.

This is nothing but State murder.


P.Govindan kutty
Editor, People's March

Who is more dangerous – the BNP or the Labour Party?

from Fight Racism Fight Imperialism
http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/

In the June 2009 election to the European Parliament, the openly racist British National Party (BNP) won 6.2% of the vote, giving it two seats. On 22 October BNP leader Nick Griffin appeared on BBC television debating show Question Time alongside Labour Party Minister of Justice Jack Straw. Griffin’s appearance was greeted with widespread and understandable outrage. At a series of meetings around the country the RCG posed the question ‘Who is more dangerous – the BNP or the Labour Party?

Anti-racists, the Muslim community and all progressive people were right to be angry that the overtly racist BNP was given public air time but, by concentrating entirely on Griffin, Unite Against Fascism (UAF), which organised the demonstration outside the BBC on 22 October, allowed Straw and the others to get away without any criticism of their own racist programmes.

Griffin and Straw have both made headlines with their hostility to immigrants, Muslims and Travellers. The BNP demands the deportation of illegal immigrants and ‘foreign criminals’, financial incentives for immigrants to return to their countries of origin, an end to new immigration except in exceptional circumstances and the rejection of the applications of asylum seekers who have passed through safe countries to get to Britain. But most of these demands have already become law during the Labour administration in which Jack Straw has played a leading role. The latest round of restrictions on economic migration was announced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown on 12 November.

While Griffin was grilled by the Question Time panel and audience, Jack Straw sat unchallenged. Yet Straw was Foreign Secretary when Britain invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and Home Secretary when 58 Chinese immigrants died in the back of a lorry trying to get past punitive immigration laws he was responsible for introducing. He allowed murderous Chilean dictator General Pinochet to escape extradition, vetoed publication of documents that could have proved the illegality of the Iraq war, refused to call for the US torture camp in illegally occupied Guantanamo, Cuba, to be closed and covered up British government collusion in torture. As Minister of Justice, he presides over a massively overcrowded prison system and an immigration service which boasts of deporting one person every eight minutes.

Unite Against Fascism

The European election saw Labour come third behind the Conservatives and the United Kingdom Independence Party and the next general election looks increasingly likely to be won by the Conservatives. This is causing a panic on the left, mainly taking the form of calls for unity and a focus on ‘defeating the Nazis’. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the driving force behind the UAF, has put out the call for ‘the broadest possible unity in action to isolate and drive back the BNP’. (Socialist Review July/August 2009). In essence the SWP and its fellow travellers are building an electoral bloc to support a future Labour vote.

UAF sponsors include nearly 60 Labour MPs, nine MEPs, 20 trade unions, the editors of Tribune, Red Pepper and the Morning Star and political editor of the Daily Mirror, as well as Ken Livingstone, Tony Benn, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber and Leroy Logan of the Black Police Association. Its main spokesperson Weyman Bennett is a leading SWP member. The UAF national statement says that the BNP builds on racism, the attack on multi-culturalism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia and the vilification of refugees and asylum seekers. It warns that an electorally successful BNP would be a threat ‘to all those dedicated to freedom and democracy’.

Labour’s lack of freedom and democracy

However UAF is silent on the record of the last 12 years of Labour government on ‘freedom and democracy’ and, in fact, protects Labour and covers up this record. This Labour Party in power, like those of the past, is a loyal servant of British imperialism. The militaristic and parasitic character of British imperialism defines its relations with the rest of the world. We are living in the longest period of British military mobilisation for a hundred years.

Draconian immigration laws, accompanied by increasingly strident racism and hostility, are used to contain and control asylum seekers, who are the victims of Britain’s imperialist wars, and to regulate the supply of cheap migrant labour, encouraging temporary immigration when needed and expelling it when no longer required by capitalism. But former immigration minister Tony McNulty was invited onto the UAF platform at the mobilisation against the English Defence League (EDL) in Harrow on 11 September (see FRFI 211).

Despite legislation against race discrimination and the creation of an entire ‘race relations industry’, a handful of facts show that the double oppression of black and Asian people, racially and as workers, continues. The all-round rate of employment for white people of working age is 75%, for those of African-Caribbean origin it is 60% and for Pakistanis or Bangladeshis it is less than 50%. In the London Borough of Tower Hamlets two-thirds of Asian children live below the official poverty line.

British income inequality is the highest in the EU – higher than under Thatcher and the highest ever recorded. Labour’s years in power are concluding with a massive bail-out of the banking system topped off by big cuts in public spending and unemployment predicted to reach three million, with 18-24 year-olds hardest hit. The unemployment rate for black men, already higher than for white men, has risen over the past year to 18.2% – for white men, it has risen from 5.2% to 8.3%.

Jobseeker’s Allowance has been reduced by 25% in relation to average wages over the past 12 years; as few as 130 council houses have been built in each year of the 21st century and the chaos of privatisation, deregulation and outsourcing continues to channel public funding to Labour’s business friends. The prison population has increased by 20,000 since 1997 with 27% of prisoners from minority ethnic groups compared to 11% of the overall population.

In representing the interests of imperialism, Gordon Brown plays a two-faced role – placating the electorate while acting in support of British capital’s international interests. So he signs up to extend the movement of cheap labour from Eastern Europe, on the one hand, and calls for British jobs for British workers on the other.

Labour has not needed to be pushed to the right by the BNP. It is Labour that uses police to harass black people and Muslims. It is Labour that is driving asylum seekers to destitution, incarcerating and deporting them. It is Labour that colluded in rendition flights and sanctioned torture in the name of ‘the war on terror’. Yet this state racism is ignored by UAF and anyone who insists on talking about it as part of confronting the BNP is put down as sectarian and against ‘unity’.

The British National Party

The UAF not only fails to acknowledge institutional state racism, it also fails to explain any racism whatsoever, despite saying that racism has risen sharply ‘in the last decade’. It displaces all responsibility for the rise of racism onto the ‘Nazi’ BNP and makes no attempt to explain the shift in class forces that has given it electoral support.

The BNP has undoubtedly taken root among sections of the working class as unemployment rises and public spending is cut. Its platform is essentially petit bourgeois, in so as far as it is spelt out. White supremacy is at its core although it was forced to back down when legally challenged on its whites-only membership policy. The BNP romanticises small-nation capitalism. It wants industrial jobs for British workers. It calls for repatriation of immigrants from Britain, repatriation of capital investment back to Britain and state control of the banks and finance sector which it regards as being dominated by Jewish interests. It is authoritarian in tone, promoting a strong law-and-order line, as if the 3,600 new criminal laws introduced in the course of the Labour government and increasing restrictions on civil rights were not enough.

Fascism and capitalism

The thuggish BNP are not the inheritors of Hitler and Mussolini, whatever delusions of grandeur Griffin and others may harbour about themselves. Historically, fascism arises in times of impasse between the competing interests of the ruling and working classes. Proletarian mass movements hinder imperial expansionism, which is capital in search of profitability, and challenge the power and authority of the capitalist class. The working class is not strong enough to seize power but the ruling class cannot crush it. The state responds by unleashing fascist gangs and other forces of reaction onto the streets and the capitalist state takes on the form of the fascist state.

We are not in that situation today. British financial capital reached such a position of dominance in the global economy that the City of London became the leading money centre in the world. British financial capital is parasitic to an unprecedented degree and Britain’s major ‘industries’ are banking, insurance and financial services, producing nothing and living off the sweat and raw materials of people across the globe. The protectionist ‘small island’ nationalism of the BNP is irrelevant to the interests of the ruling class. However, this does not mean that we should stand around idly while the thugs of the BNP, EDL and others carry out attacks. We support the slogan ‘self-defence is no offence’ and salute those who saw off the EDL in Birmingham and Harrow.

Although the state does not need auxiliary racist forces to defend it at this stage, it will inevitably move to crush any serious resistance against fascist groups. Black people, Asian youth and anti-racists will therefore find themselves once again up against the police, the courts and the media. The need for defence campaigns in support of those arrested is, as always, a central task for the left.

Banning orders – whether instigated directly by the state or as a result of misguided interventions such as that of ‘Hope Not Hate’ which campaigned for an EDL demo in Luton to be banned, resulting in a three-month ban on all demos – will be used to silence protest and an increasing part of the struggle will be to insist on the right to demonstrate at every level.

Large sections of the British working class benefit from British imperialism’s extraction of super-profits from the oppressed nations of the world. The standard of living, terms of employment and welfare state are rewards imperialism has allocated to the better-off sections of the working class. This is why the British trade union movement continues to be loyal to the Labour Party (with the notable exceptions of the RMT and FBU). The unions provide over 70% of Labour’s funding. The GMB has given £5.8m since the last election; between January 2008 and September 2009 Unite donated £6.5 million.

However, as the crisis deepens the capitalists need to drive down the standards of the working class as a whole. They target migrant workers first and then move on to attack further sections of the working class. Divisions within the working class are extraordinarily useful to the capitalist class. The Labour Party has been adept at encouraging sectional interests. They have turned the population into consumers with competitive interests.

No unity with the murderous state

FRFI will work with any organisation that stands against racism at any and every level and we supported the demonstration outside the BBC during Question Time. However, experience has shown us that no socialist movement can go forward that does not challenge its own ruling class. It is dishonest and cowardly to displace responsibility for racism from the government onto a political fragment – from the Labour Party to the BNP. In the end, it is a question of power. The imperialist British state has the power. The Labour government directs that power. The BNP are abhorrent racists but they are far from being the greatest danger or threat in Britain today.

Ann Eliot and Nicki Jameson

From the latest peace process to the present: on party’s problems and Weaknesses -Self criticism by UCPN Maoist

"Conscientious practice of self-criticism is still another hallmark distinguishing our Party from all other political parties. As we say, dust will accumulate if a room is not cleaned regularly, our faces will get dirty if they are not washed regularly. Our comrades' minds and our Party's work may also collect dust, and also need sweeping and washing."

- Mao Tse-tung, On Coalition Government, Selected Works, Vol. III, pp. 316-17.

This is an extract from a recent document of the UCPN Maoist which follows the good Maoist practice of self - criticism Present Situation and Historical Task of the Proletariat - the full version is available from WPRM site

http://www.wprmbritain.org/

From the viewpoint of class struggle as a whole and the objective political initiative there has been a good advance. But, from the subjective and organizational point of view there have been scores of serious problems and weaknesses. If we could not develop concrete policy plan and programme to identify the problems, reasons behind them and the ways to resolve them howsoever bright future may be seen objectively in fact no achievement can be obtained even if these are not implemented in practice. In this context, first of all problems should be discussed.

a) MLM has taught us and we have clearly understood that it is not possible to lead revolution to a decisive victory without the leadership of a militant and disciplined communist party, vanguard of the proletariat, based on the unity of ideology and resolve. In spite of numerous limitations and weaknesses, for the whole period of people’s war party’s principal aspect was militant political vanguard of the proletariat. There was dominance of high proletarian spirit of ideological consistency, resolute unity, voluntary discipline and sacrifice. But, after the peace process and mainly after the party has come open, unfortunately the party not only did not remain a militant and disciplined political vanguard of the proletariat but also a danger of it being gradually transformed into an anarchic crowd has come into sight. The process of achieving new unity on a new basis by means of ideology-centred debate and unity-struggle-transformation is being gradually replaced by the danger of individual interest-centred unhealthy competition and new factions and splits. Bringing this situation to an end, we must allot utmost emphasis to drive the party forward as a political vanguard of the proletariat in a true sense.

b) Today party committee system is going towards the direction of becoming lethargic, burdensome, chaotic and messy. The committee system of a communist party ought have been swift, orderly and proficient to provide lively leadership to the committee, organizations and masses of the people under one’s responsibility, but our committees have become so huge that firstly there can be no meeting and secondly very difficult to take up decisions in case there is meeting. Consequently, the position of collective decision and individual responsibility, the organisational concept of MLM, is being occupied by individual decision and collective responsibility. This situation must be changed. Committee system cannot be improved without reactivating the method of conducting committees based on the organizational principal of democratic centralism and making them lively and strong by way of criticism and self-criticism. In a genuine communist party, in case there is no practice of regular criticism and self-criticism from the central committee to the cell committees, naturally different kinds of confusions, whisperings, propaganda, factionalism and anarchism emerge within the party and they make the party hollow and indolent.

c) Now, there has been rapid deterioration in party’s proletarian conduct and working style. The competition of individual concern, interest and return is trying to replace collective concern, initiative and sacrifice for party and revolution. Mutual help, reverence and healthy criticism among comrades is gradually being replaced by the trends of non-cooperation, intolerance and unhealthy criticism. The economic anarchy and opacity, on the one hand, is rapidly making the party slide down from the communist ideals and, on the other, it is making the mutual relation among comrades very much suspicious and unhealthy. A communist system of unconditionally depositing cash or appliances obtained from any source by a comrade of any level of the party has been disappearing and a very bourgeois process of piling up and using them personally by those whoever can is burgeoning. From this, thousands of honest and revolutionary cadres have been victims of desperation, humiliation and discomfort, for they are entrapped in the problems of solving their own daily subsistence, minimum supply of daily necessities, family problems and basic problems of the local people, where as a trend of taking individual benefit by a few party officials and some ‘actives’ is growing. This situation has created wide dissatisfaction among the revolutionary cadres and it has time and again given rise to natural unrest and fury before the party leadership and the party centre. In order to bring this situation to an end, there is no other way than sorting out plan to develop proletarian conduct and working style and implementing them firmly in the party.

d) Regular ideological and political training and schooling, which is very much necessary, has become messy. Daily political events, parliamentarian tug-of-wars and their ebb and tide and premeditated materials that are publicized by big media houses, controlled by reactionaries, have become the major political training materials for the entire party ranks and supporters. Naturally, as a result of this, proletarian ideology, politics and strategic issues are falling under shadow and everyone is running behind the daily events and is getting confused by it. By bringing this situation to an end, and taking publication, publicity, political training and schooling seriously it is necessary to push the tasks forward in a planned way.

e) The great people’s war gave birth to thousands of professional revolutionary fighters. In the course of people’s war, a huge number of fulltime and part-time cadres were actively involved in party works, people’s liberation army, militia, war front, democratic state, people’s courts, communes and democratic schools. Thousands of martyr’s families, disappeared fighters, wounded fighters and their families had active participation in either of the aforesaid tasks. After we entered into the peace process, as a result of dissolution of people’s power, people’s court and militia, and centering of PLA in cantonments and no formation of local bodies after the constituent assembly election also, thousands of district and local level cadres had to become unemployed. Also the lack of management of fulltime cadres, families of martyrs, disappeared and wounded fighters and regular plans and programmes of mass mobilization and struggle, caused to develop obvious confusion, doubt and dissatisfaction among the cadres. On the one hand, emergence of that situation in absence of plan and programme in the local level and, on the other, differences in opinion among the responsible members of the central committee broadly also caused to emerge symptoms of pessimism. Without raising to a new height the process of management and mobilization through correct policy, plan and programme this problem will have no real solution.

f) Thousands of youths, in the course of people’s war, involved in revolution by leaving their study in campuses and schools. Even after the Party-led government was formed after the constituent assembly election academic certificate became compulsory in governmental and non-governmental jobs and when they saw their age-group friends studying in different levels, naturally apprehension about their study and future started growing. Besides, uneasiness has widely grown after some of the cadres, by any means, started reading and taking examinations. Although party had brought forward a concept of Open University and tried to solve it but that has not yet been effective. Now, party has certainly taken up some concrete initiatives on behalf of the government to teach sons and daughters of martyrs and disappeared fighters and it has given a positive impact too. But, party should take up clear policy on education of the whole cadres.

g) Inability to push forward the tasks related to four preparations and that of government, legislature and the street also increased distrust and doubt within the party. In the days to come, it is necessary to carry forward these tasks in a planned way.

Behind the aforesaid problems, the acts like, ‘loose talking’, ‘back biting’, ‘rude comment’ against this or that comrade of the party leadership contrary to the party system of democratic centralism have become in itself a serious problem before the party. It has been urgent to resolve these problems through open discussion and criticism and self-criticism. While doing so, even if there remain differences in opinion in certain issues, there must be commitment to conducting ideology-centred debate in a systematic way and implementing the decision in a unified manner.

Behind increment of the aforesaid kinds of problems in the party, our attention should focus on the following main reasons.

a) To jump into this complex front without developing, as far as possible, clear policy, plan and programme on the organizational and practical problems that could arise while coming from war to peace, seems to be one of the main reasons behind the aforesaid problems. After coming into this front, it was apparent that there would have been compulsion on the part of main leadership to engage in day to day national and domestic works. By having prior estimation of that kind of situation, clear concept and overall work division must have been done on the tasks of party, army, state power, mass organizations, front etc.

b) After party acquired victory in the constituent assembly election in contrary to domestic and foreign reactionaries’ analysis, estimation and expectation, our inability to pay adequate attention to maintain uniformity, through thorough discussion in the CC meeting, on the issues like — whether the party should join government or not, in case it was decided to join what could be the overall plan, what could be the party policy, plan and programme to mobilise masses compatible with the programmes of the government, how to crush conspiracy and encirclement on the part of imperialism, expansionism and domestic reaction after the government was formed etc. caused the aforesaid problems to arise.

Owing to aforesaid main reasons, no concrete plan to resolve aforesaid problems including the management of cadres could be developed. Consequently, a contradictory situation, in which there was enthusiasm among the people but mistrust among the cadres, arose. Chairman should take the main responsibility for such situation to arise in the party and then other comrades respectively, in accordance with their hierarchical status, should do. And, refraining from such weaknesses in the future, planned initiative should be taken up to make the party go ahead.

On the Perspective of the Resistance against Operation Greenhunt

A Perspective on the Resistance to Operation Green Hunt - By Comrade Ajith, Secretary - Communist Party Of India (Marxist - Leninist) Naxalbari (Participant in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement)

The Central government has deployed a huge military force targeting a wide area ranging from Jharkhand to Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra to West Bengal - Odisha. This is the spearhead of a massive attack to suppress and eliminate the revolutionary movement advancing in this area, led by the CPI (Maoist). This suppression campaign has been named Operation Greenhunt. The Home Minister P. Chidambaram and top officials of the Manmohan Singh government have openly talked about using the Air Force and carryingout so-called surgical strikes. There are reports that advanced military-technical support and equipment from the US and Israel is being used.

These murderous plans of the UPA government has the open support of most parliamentary parties. The Congress, BJP and CPM are its main proponents. They are united in an unholy alliance against the people. This unity of ruling class parties and their anti-people suppression campaign has, on the other hand, triggered off an unprecedented polarisation. A wide range of progressive, democratic forces and personages have come forward to condemn and oppose Operation Greenhunt. They are joining up, along with revolutionary forces, to form broad platforms to mobilise people and resist the government's plans. They have rightly judged that Operation Greenhunt is nothing other than a “War on the People”. This development is a very important advance. It has already forced the Central government to change its offensive public stance, even though it continues with the suppression campaign.

There are many reasons motivating such a wide array of forces and people with differing political views and interests to come together against Operation Greenhunt. The most important one among them is the recognition that this suppression campaign, though immediately directed against the revolutionary war led by the CPI (Maoist), is the spearhead of a broader plan to attack and eliminate a wide range of resistance movements going on all over the country. They include movements against privatisation, displacement, environmental destruction, and many others.

They are obstacles in the plans of the UPA government to open up the whole country to the ravages of globalisation. This is why, the Central and State governments devote funds and forces to suppress them evenwhile they cut down on social services with the plea of resource shortage. The struggling masses are aware that they are fighting crucial battles. So they keep up stiff resistance despite facing repeated state attacks. This is also why these struggling forces, their supporters and democratic, progressive sections quickly understood the deeper implications of Operation Greenhunt and joined up against it. This is the crucial political significance of the broad countrywide movement emerging against the “War on the People”. It carries the potential to develop into a broad alliance against the people's enemies, internal as well as external. The question of its perspective thus becomes all the more important.

The dominant perspective right now is one that considers the need to clear out the Maoists and their followers from these mineral rich regions as the main motivation behind Operation Greenhunt. It is argued that their strong presence is holding up several crores of mining and power projects lined up by TNC's and Indian compradors. Hence the huge push to drive out the Maoists and secure these regions. This view is influential within the Maoist camp also.

Well, it is certainly true that a number of monopolies like Tata, Mittal and Vedanta are just waiting to plunder the resources of these areas. A good part of it is slated for export as raw material to imperialist countries. The only thing preventing this right now is the people's war and politicised Adivasi masses led by the CPI (Maoist). But to reduce Operation Greenhunt to this or even mainly consider it from this angle would be wide off the mark. It is like missing out US imperialism' s world strategic aims in the Iraq war and seeing it mainly as a war done for oil. The question of control over resources is certainly involved. But this is neither the sole issue, nor even the main one. The important thing to be grasped is the political, strategic aim of Operation Greenhunt. What is the ground reality?

The Adivasi masses of these regions have established control not just over its resources. They have taken control of their destiny, their lives, into their own hands. They are building a different society- vibrant with their tribal traditions, yet modern enough to imbue new values. They are not doing this for their own selves alone. No, they see it as part of a larger project concerning the whole country. They have been able to do this and achieve such a lofty vision with the force of arms, led by a communist party guided by Marxism-Leninism- Maoism.

We, as Maoists, believe that this is precisely why all this became possible. Therefore, for us, the resistance to the “War on the People” is a matter of defending this people's war by all means. But, obviously, this is not how it is viewed today by quite a number of forces and individuals who have courageously stepped forward to resist. Defence of the people's war cannot be made a basis for a broad unity that includes them. Does this mean that protection of resources or Adivasi rights remain as the only basis? No. We could make the real state of affairs existing in the Adivasi regions of India as a starting point.

Protection of scheduled Adivasi areas was promised by the Indian Constitution six decades ago. Later, the Panchayat Raj Constitutional ammendment promised a large dose of autonomy. All of this has been blatantly violated by the Central and State governments. Such Constitutional safeguards have become empty shells under which the most inhuman trampling of Adivasi way of living and habitats take place. Even the highest courts have either failed to prevent this or promoted it, as seen in the Narmada dam agitation. But here, in a large part of India, tribal peoples are making control over land, resources and society a reality, through struggles. This is an immediate fight to end exploitation, oppression and block aggressive moves of big corporates and the state. More importantly, it is a long term struggle projecting a different type of living.

What is this life? Sustainable development; people's friendly education; growing emancipation of women; a halt to domination and plunder of foreign and Indian exploiters; a new culture that rebuilds Adivasi traditions anew instead of mocking them. The illuminating fact is that all of this is being created by Adivasi tribes who are despised as 'primitives' by so-called mainstream society. The 'backwards' are teaching the 'forwards'. This hits at the very pillars of Brahmanism, the core of all reactionary anti-people thinking in our country. The motivation this could give to the numerous oppressed and exploited sections in the country is a real threat for the rulers.

Leaving out or minimising this political significance and limiting the resistance to a defence of resources or Adivasi human rights is not good. Unity should be achieved on the highest possible level. The country and the people need it. While all can debate on the rights or wrongs of the particular forms of struggle or political colouring, the defence of the achievements made by the Adivasi people, of the way of life they are building, can certainly be incorporated in the basis of a resistance forum against Operation Greenhunt. This much is already evident from the articles, media discussions and comments of notable intellectuals. We owe it to the future generations to defend the right of a people to decide their own destiny.