Thanks to futurrouge
http://futurrouge.wordpress.com/
Monday, March 8, 2010
Take this book to activists to educate them about the Adivasi and Maoist Struggle in India - order copies now !
A selection of articles from India about the struggle of indigenous tribes against the seizure of their land and resources by transnational companies. The Indian State has launched a major military assault called Operation Green Hunt to try to crush the resistance of these poor and discriminated against people. The Maoist communists, who have long been waging rural armed struggle against the Indian State, are involved in this resistance movement.
The book is 76 pages long and contains articles by Amit Bhattacharyya, Radha D'Souza, Satnam and Buta Singh and interviews with G.N Saibaba on Operation Green Hunt.
There is also the latest interview with Ganapathy General Secretary of CPI Maoist and interviews with Kisenji.
The book contains the full statement issued 14th February 2010 by the Co-ordination Committee of Revolutionary Communists of Britain on Solidarity with India's Indigenous Tribes against Social Discrimination and International Mining Exploitation.
To buy a copy visit here :
http://www.alternativebookshop.com/BookDetails.php?bookid=1579
For Bulk orders of more than 5 copies e mail here:
nickglais@yahoo.co.uk
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Handling Contradictions among Fraternal Parties from New Democratic Party of Sri Lanka - International Relations Study Group
Prelude
The manner in which debates are conducted among some Marxist Leninist organisations and individuals with Marxist Leninist views on issues of varying importance, makes one wonder whether they as Marxist Leninists have learnt much from Mao Zedong on the question of handling contradictions, especially those not concerning the enemy.
Disagreement and dissent are not new or unusual to communists. Yet, seemingly deep divisions of opinion have, more often than not, been healed inside communist parties by thorough discussion and debate, to lead ultimately to greater unity. Splits occur more for lack of dialogue than for sharp ideological differences. Individuals seeking to prevail over others through suppression of discussion and debate have done much harm. Nevertheless, the predominant desire has, as a rule, been to resolve internal contradictions through dialogue or debate as necessary. Criticism and self-criticism constitute an important part of the process.
The method of democratically resolving contradictions within an organisation has also been successful inside broad front organisations as well as short-term alliances led by good communists, because communists do not lose sight of the common cause and persevere to ensure that the common interest prevails over differences, except when the differences stand in the way of attaining the agreed goals or in the face of duplicity.
A reason why splits in left parties take long to come into the open is the practice of democratic centralism. Effort is always made to resolve contradictions through discussion and debate. Not only the great debates within the Soviet and the Chinese Communist Parties but also the debates between them on the questions of Stalin, People’s Communes, and the ‘peaceful path to socialism’ took place in a disciplined manner over a long time. It was after Khrushchev launched a vicious public attack on Comrade Stalin as a pretext for replacing Marxism with revisionism that the existence of serious differences became public knowledge. Even then, efforts continued to resolve the contradictions through discussion based on democratic principles; and it was Khrushchev’s hostile and provocative attitude towards fraternal parties and socialist countries opposed to revisionism which led to acrimony. What is important to note here is that, despite deep divisions and the prospect of reconciliation getting bleaker by the day, Marxist Leninists persevered in internal debate and refused to be provoked until the revisionist camp went on the offensive.
The tendency to split has been strong when the general political climate was not favourable to the left. Ironically so, since that is exactly the kind of situation demanding greater unity and serious effort to resolve the differences, and rebuild the proletarian revolutionary party and the left movement. Marxist Leninists cannot compromise with opportunism or adventurism, and need to be firm against such tendencies. But the way to correct erroneous tendencies is patient discussion and debate rather than hasty confrontation. There is a need for a culture of respect for opposing views – not one of accommodating wrong tendencies and views – in dealing with contradictions so that those who hold the wrong views are corrected while incorrect views are eliminated in a friendly and democratic way.
Intra-Party and Inter-Party Contradictions
Marxist Leninist parties have generally been good at handling internal contradictions. The Marxist Leninist movement in India was splintered in the wake of state repression in the 1970s and in Sri Lanka following the political chaos caused by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) insurrection. Similar problems have been faced by Marxist Leninists elsewhere in the 1970s and 1980s. But, as a whole, the Marxist Leninist movement has demonstrated remarkable resilience to survive the crises and re-establish itself, and in some cases launch successful revolutionary mass struggles.
Marxist Leninist organisations in India are showing a steady growth but have difficulty in uniting as a powerful revolutionary force. In Sri Lanka, active Marxist Leninists among the Tamils and Hill Country Tamils are, in effect, represented by a single organisation, while growth of narrow nationalist politics during the past three decades has not helped the growth of the left – not just the genuine left – among the Muslims and Sinhalese. Emergent narrow nationalism has been a major factor among Muslims in the wake of hostility from Sinhala chauvinism and Tamil narrow nationalism. The strong Trotskyite tradition among the Sinhalese continues to be a divisive force even after the left lost ground to the populist pseudo-left JVP which assimilated the Sinhalese youth to its chauvinist agenda. There are, however, Marxist Leninist groups and individuals who are unable to organise themselves as a political party. Thus Marxist Leninists need to think in terms of a broad front to the exclusion of opportunist politics and opportunist alliances.
Attempts to develop international alliances of Marxist Leninist parties and organisations has had limited success. While the need for developing fraternal relationship between Marxist Leninist parties is urgent, its fulfilment is hampered by difficulties in resolving what would, if handled correctly, be only friendly contradictions.
Stable and healthy relationship needs to be built between fraternal parties, including Marxist Leninist parties with seemingly strong ideological differences, at a party-to-party level. While the relationship between Marxist Leninist parties within a country is mainly about unity and struggle in carrying forward the revolutionary mass movement, that between parties in different countries or even regions of a country, where geography and ethno-linguistic differences stand in the way of close interaction and collaboration, is mostly about mutual support and exchange of thought and experience. Based on past experience, both positive and negative, in the international communist movement, it is important that interaction between parties is fraternal and on an equal footing.
Given the absence of a broad umbrella organisation or a network, fraternal ties between organisations demand mutual understanding and support and the will to treat differences as friendly contradictions. This demands the recognition that conditions differ from country to country and from region to region, and that revolutionary strategy will invariably be unique to each situation, be it a country, a region or different communities within a region, in short the specific context.
One cannot deny a fraternal party the right to comment on the political situation in the country or region of another party; or make general or universal observations; or draw attention to potential dangers and errors. Fraternal relationship is meaningless without such right. But the way in which views are exchanged is important. A Marxist Leninist party, however strong or successful, should show humility and avoid dictating to a fraternal party on matters of policy, tactics and strategy. Equally, a Marxist Leninist party should be receptive to views expressed by a fraternal party as well as other friendly forces, and all parties should be willing to learn from each other.
Insisting on universal solutions to seemingly similar but fundamentally different situations leads to harmful misunderstandings. It will be dogmatic to refuse to recognise differences in approach in their context and to reject the need for different strategies in different situations. Marxist Leninist parties need to be cautious about utterances with unfavourable implications for fraternal parties. Equally, in the event of error, the response, while being uncompromising on principles, should not be hostile. Public debate is best avoided until every possibility of rectifying errors and resolving differences through fraternal dialogue has been exhausted.
Recent International Experience
One unfortunate recent instance concerns the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) – now the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) – which had carried out a successful 10-year long armed struggle. The UCPN(M), besides declaring that they will pursue their goal of establishing a People’s Republic of Nepal peacefully, prescribed it as the way forward for socialism in the 21st Century. The views expressed had adverse implications for the Communist Party of India (Maoist) which has been persevering in armed struggle in several parts of India. Not surprisingly, the revisionist Communist Party of India (Marxist) mischievously demanded that the Indian Maoists should take the cue from their Nepali counterparts. The strong public
response of the Indian Maoists to the Nepali Maoists only helped to strain the relationship between the two parties than to rectify mistakes.
It has already been seen through the recent experience of the UCPN(M) that any decision on a peaceful path for the Nepali revolution is not in its hands but in the hands of the Nepali reactionaries, Indian expansionists and US imperialists who are keen to restore the old order. Thus the declared position of the UCPN(M) has to be understood in the context of India and the US branding it as terrorist and using it as pretext to militarily intervene to restore the old order. Yet there was neither need nor adequate basis to generalise that experience or prescribe it to other countries. That error could have been rectified through dialogue which did not spill over into the media, at least until after its resolution, and allowing the UCPN(M) time to review their new found position.
Nevertheless, there are things for left parties across the world to learn from the Maoists of Nepal. Their ability to resolve internal contradictions through patient and thorough discussion is one of them. While the enemies of the Nepali revolution gleefully speculated that differences on the line of the struggle would lead to a split in the party, the Maoists surprised them by not only resolving their differences but also consolidating party unity. The Maoists achieved it through a long and thorough process of uninhibited discussion, debate, criticism and self criticism.
Thus there is no reason why Marxist Leninist parties within a country cannot find common ground and make it the basis for cooperation in mass struggles against the state. Such cooperation will inspire Marxist Leninist parties in other countries to cooperate with each other nationally and internationally.
There is also the question of how to deal with anti-imperialist and left movements whose political line disagrees with the Marxist Leninist position on the road to socialism. Venezuela is perhaps the most important case today, as it is also used by several reformists as well as frustrated Trotskyites to reject Marxism Leninism. Marxist Leninists know what is keeping the populist left government of Chavez in Venezuela in power amid sustained efforts by the US and the forces of Venezuelan reaction to topple it. Flatterers are seeking to lull the Latin American left into a state of complaisance, and Marxist Leninists have warned against it, especially since the enemies within and without are strong. Marxist Leninists call for the politicisation of the Latin American masses on the basis of class and class struggle and have reservations about the way in which the left is being organised in Venezuela.
More serious concerns exist about the extrapolation of the Venezuelan experience to the whole of Latin America, let alone the world, by some who project it as Socialism for the 21st Century. Yet it is essential to recognise the need for unconditional support for the left and anti-imperialist governments in Latin America in defending themselves against US-led conspiracies. It is equally important for Marxist Leninists and the broad left to be aware of the risks faced by the Latin American left governments and to warn against the risks, especially the dangers of over enthusiasm. But it will be a grave error to denounce the governments in ways that will weaken internal and international anti-imperialist solidarity.
Lessons in Handling Contradictions
Thus the central issue boils down to the correct handling of debates and discussion among fraternal parties and friendly forces. Many of the rules that apply to the correct handling of contradictions within a party apply to the handling of contradictions between fraternal parties. The Communist Party of China, at least until China took the capitalist road, was exemplary in its dealings with fraternal parties. It treated all parties as equal and with respect. The CPC did not dictate to fraternal parties, nor did it seek to advice fraternal parties how they should conduct their affairs. The most one could expect from the CPC was a statement of its experience and general comments indicative of its assessment of a situation, but never prescriptions.
The New-Democratic Party has learnt from friendly Marxist Leninist parties and through its own experience, including serious mistakes. Thus it has been able to avoid friendly contradictions from developing into hostile contradictions. For example, differences have existed between the NDP and most of the Indian Marxist Leninist parties in India on the Sri Lankan national question. The position of the NDP was that the national question should be resolved without recourse to secession, by establishing autonomies for the various nationalities based on the principle of self determination. While denouncing Sinhala chauvinism, it criticised Tamil narrow nationalism, the anti-democratic ways of the Liberation Tigers (LTTE), and its excessive reliance on arms at the expense of mass politics. This approach was at variance with the views held by several Indian Marxist Leninist parties, which were conditioned by the general impression created by the Indian media and other biased sources of information.
The NDP did not fault the Indian Marxist Leninists for what it saw as erroneous positions. Instead it patiently explained its position to each party with which it was in touch. Some took the trouble to understand the position of the NDP by accessing its publications, while there are others who still differ. The NDP, despite its position that the national question is still the main contradiction in Sri Lanka, seeks to prevent differences over that matter from developing into a major contradiction.
Likewise, the NDP has its assessment of conditions in India. It supports all mass struggles against the repressive state and seeks friendly relations with all Marxist Leninist parties and groups in India. It has its overall assessment of the political situation in India, and the political lines and methods of struggle of fraternal parties. It shares its views with the party or group concerned wherever opportunity arises; and it makes its understanding clearer and corrects wrong impressions through exchange of views. It has, on principle, refused to take a public stand on disputes among Marxist Leninist parties and groups. At the same time, when its views are sought, it has expressed them frankly and in a friendly manner.
It is unfortunate that when an NDP delegate attends a function organised by one Marxist Leninist organisation, some other organisations frown upon it, as if it is an unfriendly act. The truth is that the NDP places its relationship with all fraternal parties, nationally and internationally, on an equal footing so that cooperation and support are on a mutual basis and without discrimination between friendly parties, and not siding with one against another. Here, again, the approach is like that of Marxist Leninist parties in the 1960s and 70s towards rival Marxist Leninist organisations from another country, namely one of encouraging the rival parties to resolve their differences amicably and forging closer ties without taking sides.
The Need for a Sound Marxist Leninist Approach
In the final analysis, all Marxist Leninists have to get close to each other, nationally and internationally. One has to be conscious of the fact that the Marxist Leninist line of struggle is based on mass struggle and broad front organisations. That means achieving the broadest possible unity based on a common programme without compromising on basic principles. It is important to strike the correct balance between broad-based unity and being firm on principles. Firmness in principles can go hand in hand with cooperation with others holding different views, provided that the aims are clearly defined and there is no hidden agenda. That was how Marxist Leninists across the world successfully led struggles against colonial rule, fascism, imperialist aggression and various forms of internal oppression.
It merely requires an extension of the above approach to the relationship between fraternal parties to enhance mutual support and cooperation with a view to build strong Marxist Leninist revolutionary movements nationally and internationally.
Contradictions are bound to arise between fraternal parties when policies and practices of one appear to be in conflict with those of the other. Such differences are not difficult, certainly not impossible, to resolve. It is important is to study the conditions under which the seemingly unacceptable decisions are taken and appreciate the reasons for differences in approach. To understand a decision is not to endorse it but to recognise the conditions that lead to that decision. This step should be thoroughly implemented before making critical comments or suggesting more appropriate options.
It is important to remember that contexts differ and that the revolution needs to address specific situations and issues which vary not only from country to country but also from region to region and community to community within a country. That is not to deny universal principles and the primacy of class and class struggle. It is only a call to apply the scientific method of Marxism Leninism to solve a problem rather than redefine the problem to fit a model solution.
What Marxist Leninists should always remember is that all fraternal parties are equal and that party to party relations should emphasise matters that unite fraternal parties and not what seem to divide them. There is a need for unanimity on a wide range of issues concerning mass liberation struggles against imperialism and its lackeys. Such unanimity demands a flexible rather than a rigid approach, comprising firmness in principles and flexibility in handling differences.
Modern communication technology has certainly helped revolutionary struggles in many ways, including exchange of information with speed and establishment of contact with relative ease. But it has also encouraged hasty and ill-considered exchanges of views between individuals and organisations as well as to the spilling over of debates into the public domain before the issues concerned are even understood. The so-called “blogsites” and other such websites of Marxist Leninist organisations and individuals associated with them need to exercise caution and discipline in the handling of political information in the public domain.
We now witness the liberal use of the term ‘self criticism’ by parties to polemical debates demanding that the opponent should self-criticise before he/she or the organisation could comment on a subject. Such conduct is childish and violates the spirit of self-criticism as understood by Marxist Leninists. Indulgence in personal or personalised debates in the public domain can lead to childish petit bourgeois conduct which is certainly not characteristic of a good Marxist Leninist. It is well to remember that it is the enemy and mischief makers who gain when Marxist Leninists indulge in bitter personal attacks in the public domain.
The Marxist Leninist method of rectifying errors has criticism and self-criticism as a central feature by which the organisation seeks to correct erroneous views and actions and not humiliate the holder of a wrong view or doer of a wrong deed. What is needed is support and solidarity among individuals as well as organisations.
Marxist Leninists in Sri Lanka like those in other small South Asian countries look up to mass revolutionary struggles in India as an inspiration. A revolution in India will make the revolutionary task all the more easier for the smaller neighbours; and, in the event of an advancing revolution as in the case of Nepal, Indian revolutionary forces can effectively stop Indian meddling aimed at undermining the revolution and destabilising the country. It is our appeal to Indian Marxist Leninists that they should, irrespective of differences, seek to build and to strengthen ties with Marxist Leninist and anti-imperialist liberation movements in the region and encourage mutual support on matters relating to the common cause of anti-imperialist and anti-hegemonic mass struggles.
Source: http://ndpsl.org/nd/nd36.pdf
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The Task of the British Working class against racism and class oppression and the struggle for Socialism in the 21st century by Nickglais
Above Justice - the first Marxist paper in Britain organ of the Social Democratic Federation
This is the text of a speech given by Nickglais to the meeting in Brixton on Sunday 28th February to Celebrate the Life of Claudia Jones called by George Jackson Socialist League.
I speak here today as part of the Welsh contingent of the British working class - the Welsh being the indigenous peoples of these islands prior to the Anglo Saxon invasions and currently one of the nations in these islands.
The British Working Class like the concept of class itself is a dynamic and its constituent groups change with the passage of time with new groups emerging and older ones receding.The Welsh being one of the earlier constituent groups of the British Working Class.Today the working class is found in call centres and not coal mines has in the past and is not just white but has many complexions.
The working class in Wales was really born in the insurrection in Merthyr in 1831 when the Red Flag was raised in Wales for the first time in Hirwaun when a white cloth was dipped in a calfs blood and the Red Flag raised for the first time in these islands.
Has Professor Gwyn Wiiliams writes the Merthyr Rising was the first time that militia and regular troops like the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were beaten by armed rebel's in British History. More insurrections were to follow in 1839. a planned uprising of 5000 the Chartists in Newport was shot down - in these conditions the ideas of Socialism was born in these Islands.
Parallel to this class struggle in Wales, Marxism was taking birth and by 1848 with the Communist Manifesto the world historic role of the working class in history was revealed and the dynamic role of class struggle in history unfolded.
The Communist Manifesto also proclaimed the essential unity of the working class to overcome the newly emergent industrial capitalism - something we need to heed today when divisions and sectarianism plague the working class movement.
By the end of the 19th Century the working class through trade union and political action decided to form its own Political Party and break with Liberalism and Merthyr figures again in history with Kier Hardie being elected the first Labour MP with the aid of people like Thomas Edward Nicolas or Niclas Y Glais who was his election agent..
However the rise of the Labour party was concurrent with the rise of a Labour Aristocracy what Lenin would call the Labour Lieutenants of capital in the new era of Imperialism and Finance Capital.
Kier Hardie died in 1913 and Niclas Y Glais gave him his funeral oration and the new Labour Party by 1914 embraced Imperialist War under the leadership of the Labour lieutenants of capital and became what Lenin called Social Democracy at that time a stinking corpse.
Niclas Y Glais buried Kier Hardie in 1915 along with the Labour Party.
Niclas Y Glais who had been Kier hardie's agent in Merthyr went on to form the Communist Party in Wales a genuine working class party for at least 30 years.
The First Labour Governments and especially the Labour government of 1929-31 during the World Economic Crisis drove more people off national assistance than did the previous Conservative government and the Communist Party defended the working class against the cuts. In Wales and Scotland and Yorkshire in the early 1930's Red base areas were established in Britain.Scotland elected the first Communist member of parliament in Willy Gallacher in 1935.
Below is a video of Communist Party leadership in the Blaina Riots of 1935
By 1935/6 the Communist party abandoned a lot of its independent party building in favour of Popular Fronts against Fascism and relaxed it opposition to the Labour Party seeking Communist Party affiliation to Labour Party once again.
During the Second World War the CPGB threw its weight behind the struggle against Fascism and tried to limit militancy of the working class but in Wales again by 1944 unofficial miners strikes led by Communist Miners leader Arthur Horner developed. The class struggle was restrained when it should have been developed.
After the Second World war the path was opened up for revision of the basics of Marxism Leninism with adoption of a Parliamentary Road to Socialism called the British Road to Socialism and abandonment of the earlier program for a Soviet Britain.
By the time Claudia Jones arrived in Britain in 1950's the British Party had started its fatal embrace with Khruschevism. The United States Communist Party she has arrived from was abandoning the Black Belt as the basis of Black National Liberation and losing comrades like Harry Haywood who protested the revisionist abandonment of the national question by the CPUSA.
The British revisionist party did not know what to do with Claudia and had no understanding of the dialectic of race and class or the national question and black liberation and she found herself isolated in a white party and like her partner Manchanda moved to realising that sometime was wrong in the Communist Movement even if she did not fully comprehend it like most of us at that time.Manchanda would go on to help found the anti- revisionist movement in Britain after Claudia's death.
Reading Marika Sherwood's biography of Claudia Jones reveals what she calls the instrumentalism rather than principled position of the CPGB 's on the race question in Britain in 1950's and early 1960's ,we already recognise a Party not fit for purpose and like 1914 ended the Labour Party has a vehicle for Socialism in Britain 1956 did likewise for CPGB and the Communist Party deservedly passed into history.
Colonial paternalism aptly describes the Communist Party of Great Britain's relationship with the ethnic national minorities who found in the new Maoist politics of 1960's inclusive type of communism that challenged eurocentrism which dominated CPGB revisionist politics a breath of fresh air. Idris Cox of the CPGB International Committee famously set up a commission on Nigeria that had no Nigerians on it.
Mao was one of the first to identify some of the problems created in the communist and international working class movement and sought to solve them initially by Polemics with the Soviet Party and then by means of Cultural revolution to eradicate capitalist roaders from the Chinese Communist Party.
Mao's contribution was basically five fold
1. Ending Eurocentric Marxism
2. Providing strategic concept of protracted peoples war
3. Providing practical dialectical tool in theory of contradiction
4. Developing a Mass Line and not Commandism
5. Cultural revolution
Understanding Mao's contribution was to take time and it was Chairman Gonzalo in Peru that first understood the significance of Mao's theoretical contributions and this was developed further by Nepalese comrades like Prachanda and Bhattarai in Nepal and Ganapathy in India who clearly understand that revolutions are to be developed in 21st Century and not merely repeated.
The principal contradictions in the world seen through the eyes of the newly emergent Marxist Leninist Maoist movement were :
1 The contradiction between the Oppressed nations and Imperialism
2 The inter imperialist contradictions
3 The capital labour contradictions
The Struggle for Socialism in the 21st has unfolded under the banner of Marxism Leninism Maoism with first our Nepalese comrades breaking on to the stage of world history in 2006 and now in 2010 the battle has commenced in India with the Communist Party of India Maoist defending the Adivasi people from the genocidal onslaught of the Indian State in Operation Green Hunt.
The renewal of the communist movement in the 21st century is being spearheaded by our comrades in South Asia in Nepal , India and Philippines and the reconstitution of new working class and oppressed peoples organisations and parties is proceeding apace and the Co-ordination Committee of the Revolutionary Communists of Britain is one such expression of that reconstitution of the Communist movement in Britain which will once more address the need for a genuine working class party in Britain that has been absent since 1956 to take on the task of fighting class and racial oppression.
I speak here today as part of the Welsh contingent of the British working class - the Welsh being the indigenous peoples of these islands prior to the Anglo Saxon invasions and currently one of the nations in these islands.
The British Working Class like the concept of class itself is a dynamic and its constituent groups change with the passage of time with new groups emerging and older ones receding.The Welsh being one of the earlier constituent groups of the British Working Class.Today the working class is found in call centres and not coal mines has in the past and is not just white but has many complexions.
The working class in Wales was really born in the insurrection in Merthyr in 1831 when the Red Flag was raised in Wales for the first time in Hirwaun when a white cloth was dipped in a calfs blood and the Red Flag raised for the first time in these islands.
Has Professor Gwyn Wiiliams writes the Merthyr Rising was the first time that militia and regular troops like the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were beaten by armed rebel's in British History. More insurrections were to follow in 1839. a planned uprising of 5000 the Chartists in Newport was shot down - in these conditions the ideas of Socialism was born in these Islands.
Parallel to this class struggle in Wales, Marxism was taking birth and by 1848 with the Communist Manifesto the world historic role of the working class in history was revealed and the dynamic role of class struggle in history unfolded.
The Communist Manifesto also proclaimed the essential unity of the working class to overcome the newly emergent industrial capitalism - something we need to heed today when divisions and sectarianism plague the working class movement.
By the end of the 19th Century the working class through trade union and political action decided to form its own Political Party and break with Liberalism and Merthyr figures again in history with Kier Hardie being elected the first Labour MP with the aid of people like Thomas Edward Nicolas or Niclas Y Glais who was his election agent..
However the rise of the Labour party was concurrent with the rise of a Labour Aristocracy what Lenin would call the Labour Lieutenants of capital in the new era of Imperialism and Finance Capital.
Kier Hardie died in 1913 and Niclas Y Glais gave him his funeral oration and the new Labour Party by 1914 embraced Imperialist War under the leadership of the Labour lieutenants of capital and became what Lenin called Social Democracy at that time a stinking corpse.
Niclas Y Glais buried Kier Hardie in 1915 along with the Labour Party.
Niclas Y Glais who had been Kier hardie's agent in Merthyr went on to form the Communist Party in Wales a genuine working class party for at least 30 years.
The First Labour Governments and especially the Labour government of 1929-31 during the World Economic Crisis drove more people off national assistance than did the previous Conservative government and the Communist Party defended the working class against the cuts. In Wales and Scotland and Yorkshire in the early 1930's Red base areas were established in Britain.Scotland elected the first Communist member of parliament in Willy Gallacher in 1935.
Below is a video of Communist Party leadership in the Blaina Riots of 1935
By 1935/6 the Communist party abandoned a lot of its independent party building in favour of Popular Fronts against Fascism and relaxed it opposition to the Labour Party seeking Communist Party affiliation to Labour Party once again.
During the Second World War the CPGB threw its weight behind the struggle against Fascism and tried to limit militancy of the working class but in Wales again by 1944 unofficial miners strikes led by Communist Miners leader Arthur Horner developed. The class struggle was restrained when it should have been developed.
After the Second World war the path was opened up for revision of the basics of Marxism Leninism with adoption of a Parliamentary Road to Socialism called the British Road to Socialism and abandonment of the earlier program for a Soviet Britain.
By the time Claudia Jones arrived in Britain in 1950's the British Party had started its fatal embrace with Khruschevism. The United States Communist Party she has arrived from was abandoning the Black Belt as the basis of Black National Liberation and losing comrades like Harry Haywood who protested the revisionist abandonment of the national question by the CPUSA.
The British revisionist party did not know what to do with Claudia and had no understanding of the dialectic of race and class or the national question and black liberation and she found herself isolated in a white party and like her partner Manchanda moved to realising that sometime was wrong in the Communist Movement even if she did not fully comprehend it like most of us at that time.Manchanda would go on to help found the anti- revisionist movement in Britain after Claudia's death.
Reading Marika Sherwood's biography of Claudia Jones reveals what she calls the instrumentalism rather than principled position of the CPGB 's on the race question in Britain in 1950's and early 1960's ,we already recognise a Party not fit for purpose and like 1914 ended the Labour Party has a vehicle for Socialism in Britain 1956 did likewise for CPGB and the Communist Party deservedly passed into history.
Colonial paternalism aptly describes the Communist Party of Great Britain's relationship with the ethnic national minorities who found in the new Maoist politics of 1960's inclusive type of communism that challenged eurocentrism which dominated CPGB revisionist politics a breath of fresh air. Idris Cox of the CPGB International Committee famously set up a commission on Nigeria that had no Nigerians on it.
Mao was one of the first to identify some of the problems created in the communist and international working class movement and sought to solve them initially by Polemics with the Soviet Party and then by means of Cultural revolution to eradicate capitalist roaders from the Chinese Communist Party.
Mao's contribution was basically five fold
1. Ending Eurocentric Marxism
2. Providing strategic concept of protracted peoples war
3. Providing practical dialectical tool in theory of contradiction
4. Developing a Mass Line and not Commandism
5. Cultural revolution
Understanding Mao's contribution was to take time and it was Chairman Gonzalo in Peru that first understood the significance of Mao's theoretical contributions and this was developed further by Nepalese comrades like Prachanda and Bhattarai in Nepal and Ganapathy in India who clearly understand that revolutions are to be developed in 21st Century and not merely repeated.
The principal contradictions in the world seen through the eyes of the newly emergent Marxist Leninist Maoist movement were :
1 The contradiction between the Oppressed nations and Imperialism
2 The inter imperialist contradictions
3 The capital labour contradictions
The Struggle for Socialism in the 21st has unfolded under the banner of Marxism Leninism Maoism with first our Nepalese comrades breaking on to the stage of world history in 2006 and now in 2010 the battle has commenced in India with the Communist Party of India Maoist defending the Adivasi people from the genocidal onslaught of the Indian State in Operation Green Hunt.
The renewal of the communist movement in the 21st century is being spearheaded by our comrades in South Asia in Nepal , India and Philippines and the reconstitution of new working class and oppressed peoples organisations and parties is proceeding apace and the Co-ordination Committee of the Revolutionary Communists of Britain is one such expression of that reconstitution of the Communist movement in Britain which will once more address the need for a genuine working class party in Britain that has been absent since 1956 to take on the task of fighting class and racial oppression.
PLA chief rubbishes govt suspicion; claims only 50-55 PLA combatants absent from cantonments
Maoist PLA chief Nanda Kishore Pun (File photo)
Maoist People's Liberation Army chief Nanda Kishore Pun 'Pasang' has refuted government claims that large number of UN verified PLA combatants have left the cantonments, claiming that only a fraction of them have done so.
Speaking to a local radio station on Friday, Pun said that only around 50 to 55 of the verified combatants have lefts the camps. He said some of the combatants left the cantonments because they had met with accidents while some left because of personal reasons and few have died.
Pun also said that they have been regularly briefing the government about the situation of combatants and their numbers through UNMIN. The remark from the senior PLA chief comes at a time when the government has been asking UNMIN to provide the actual number and other latest details about PLA combatants, suspecting that many of the 19,000 plus combatants are absent from the cantonments.
In a meeting with Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal on Thursday, UNMIN chief Karin Landgren expressed willingness to provide the "latest information" on the PLA combatants to the government, but reportedly turned down the request to provide the actual number of the combatants living in the cantonments, saying that it was beyond the mandate of her office.
Source: Nepal News
Unified CPN (Maoist) leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara defended the United Nation Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) against government allegations that the UN body did not cooperate on peace process.
Speaking to journalists in Dang on Saturday morning, Mahara claimed allegations clamped on UNMIN are the reflections of Indian interests. He added, India wants its bigger role in Nepal’s politics by ending UNMIN presence here.
Mahara further mentioned, the UML-led coalition government will soon be toppled and a new coalition government under his party’s leadership will be formed. He said even the ruling parties are willing for the change and the process has already been initiated.
Source : Nepal News
Friday, March 5, 2010
KOE salutes the demonstrations, condemns the police attacks, calls for even stronger mobilization against the anti-people government measures
(5/3/2010)
The Communist Organization of Greece (KOE) salutes the combative mass demonstrations that took place yesterday afternoon and today morning all over the country against the new measures adopted by the government of PASOK. These demonstrations must become the starting point of a great uprising of all the workers and of the whole people, obliging the government to pay dearly its effort to impose the barbaric measures imposed by Brussels. Today the Greek people, demonstrating in their dozens of thousands with such an impressive and militant way, send a clear message to the government: The new anti-people measures will go, or this government will go!
The Communist Organization of Greece condemns the coward attack of the special police forces against Manolis Glezos, the 87 years old Hero of our National Resistance against the Nazi Occupation, outside the entrance of the Parliament, which resulted to his injury and hospitalization in Intensive Care Unit. Seven decades after his legendary and symbolic blow against the Nazi Occupation (*), Manolis Glezos is aggressed by the political servants of Brussels and Berlin!
The Communist Organization of Greece also condemns the unprecedented attack of the special police forces against the Parliamentary Group of SYRIZA (Coalition of Radical Left) while the MPs were coming out of the Parliament with their own banner in order to meet the demonstrators. The out of limits behavior of the police forces corresponds very well to the equally out of limits economic and social suffocation imposed on the country by the government of PASOK.
The Communist Organization of Greece denounces the provocation set up in common by the parliamentary speaker of PASOK Christos Papoutsis and by Adonis Georgiadis, MP of the extreme right-wing party LAOS, who targeted KOE and SYRIZA as responsible for the attack of demonstrators against Yiannis Panagopoulos (president of the General Confederation of Labor). This orchestrated attack against KOE and SYRIZA proves that the extreme right-wing LAOS supports the government of PASOK both in the Parliament (**) and in provocations.
It is very well known to all that KOE has a radically different political line than the one followed by the leadership of the General Confederation of Labor – especially today that the workers become the subjects of the wildest attack ever perpetrated by the ruling classes and their governments. But it is also equally very well known that KOE puts in practice this political line as the Left always did: massively and politically, in the working places and in society.
It is shameful that, the very day that PASOK and LAOS bury in the Parliament the conquests of a whole century, the same parties, these shameless representatives and puppets of Brussels, hasten to cover their huge responsibilities with such cheap tricks and provocations against KOE.
The Communist Organization of Greece calls to even bigger and more combative mobilizations. Today we gave a battle, but the struggle continues. Everyone to the streets, until the government’s measures will be cancelled and until the EU Stability Pact will be abolished!
Athens, 5 March 2010
Communist Organization of Greece
(*) On May 30, 1941, Manolis Glezos and Apostolos Santas climbed on the Acropolis and tore down the Nazi Swastika, which had been there since April 27, 1941, when the Nazi forces had entered Athens. That was the first resistance act that took place in Greece, and probably among the very first ones in Europe. He passed 16 years in prisons and in exile, persecuted by the reactionary post-war regimes of Greece.
(**) The new measures were approved today in the Parliament, under a “special urgent procedure” that lasted a few hours, with the votes of the MPs of PASOK (government party) and LAOS (extreme right-wing party).
The Communist Organization of Greece (KOE) salutes the combative mass demonstrations that took place yesterday afternoon and today morning all over the country against the new measures adopted by the government of PASOK. These demonstrations must become the starting point of a great uprising of all the workers and of the whole people, obliging the government to pay dearly its effort to impose the barbaric measures imposed by Brussels. Today the Greek people, demonstrating in their dozens of thousands with such an impressive and militant way, send a clear message to the government: The new anti-people measures will go, or this government will go!
The Communist Organization of Greece condemns the coward attack of the special police forces against Manolis Glezos, the 87 years old Hero of our National Resistance against the Nazi Occupation, outside the entrance of the Parliament, which resulted to his injury and hospitalization in Intensive Care Unit. Seven decades after his legendary and symbolic blow against the Nazi Occupation (*), Manolis Glezos is aggressed by the political servants of Brussels and Berlin!
The Communist Organization of Greece also condemns the unprecedented attack of the special police forces against the Parliamentary Group of SYRIZA (Coalition of Radical Left) while the MPs were coming out of the Parliament with their own banner in order to meet the demonstrators. The out of limits behavior of the police forces corresponds very well to the equally out of limits economic and social suffocation imposed on the country by the government of PASOK.
The Communist Organization of Greece denounces the provocation set up in common by the parliamentary speaker of PASOK Christos Papoutsis and by Adonis Georgiadis, MP of the extreme right-wing party LAOS, who targeted KOE and SYRIZA as responsible for the attack of demonstrators against Yiannis Panagopoulos (president of the General Confederation of Labor). This orchestrated attack against KOE and SYRIZA proves that the extreme right-wing LAOS supports the government of PASOK both in the Parliament (**) and in provocations.
It is very well known to all that KOE has a radically different political line than the one followed by the leadership of the General Confederation of Labor – especially today that the workers become the subjects of the wildest attack ever perpetrated by the ruling classes and their governments. But it is also equally very well known that KOE puts in practice this political line as the Left always did: massively and politically, in the working places and in society.
It is shameful that, the very day that PASOK and LAOS bury in the Parliament the conquests of a whole century, the same parties, these shameless representatives and puppets of Brussels, hasten to cover their huge responsibilities with such cheap tricks and provocations against KOE.
The Communist Organization of Greece calls to even bigger and more combative mobilizations. Today we gave a battle, but the struggle continues. Everyone to the streets, until the government’s measures will be cancelled and until the EU Stability Pact will be abolished!
Athens, 5 March 2010
Communist Organization of Greece
(*) On May 30, 1941, Manolis Glezos and Apostolos Santas climbed on the Acropolis and tore down the Nazi Swastika, which had been there since April 27, 1941, when the Nazi forces had entered Athens. That was the first resistance act that took place in Greece, and probably among the very first ones in Europe. He passed 16 years in prisons and in exile, persecuted by the reactionary post-war regimes of Greece.
(**) The new measures were approved today in the Parliament, under a “special urgent procedure” that lasted a few hours, with the votes of the MPs of PASOK (government party) and LAOS (extreme right-wing party).
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Either the government will sink, or the society will! Communiqué of KOE
(3/3/2010)
Communiqué of the Communist Organization of Greece on the new anti-people measures adopted by the Greek government [*] - March 3, 2010
After the prime minister delivered, yesterday, a hypocritical and cheap speech about “our fatherland” which is at war with “bad guys” who steal the public wealth (!), today he ordered the government’s spokesman to proceed to the most nightmarish statements ever heard by the working people.
The Papandreou government sinks the country. They confiscate the salaries and pensions. They steal our income through exorbitant taxation. At the same time, they don’t take even 1 euro more than before by the rich. They don’t cut back even 1 euro on the military expenses and armament orders. They don’t ask even 1 euro more from the banks, the biggest robbers of the people. The Papandreou government succeeded, in a very short time, to become even more antipopular than the much hated right-wing governments of Mitsotakis and Karamanlis.
Never before, during the whole post-war era, so much lies were told in such a short time span. The Papandreou government, after giving up the power to the money-markets and to Brussels, now behaves as Berlin’s Gauleiter. The government had the possibility to borrow money with lower interests; to tax the big capital; to exact support from Brussels; to defend the already exhausted and impoverished society. Instead, the Papandreou government chose to be applauded by the Financial Times, Goldman Sachs, Frau Merkel and Mister Baroso. And, as today’s statement by Merkel shows, the liquidation of the Greek people will take place without any financial compensation by the EU
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The other Binayak Sens - attack on civil liberties
by Manoj C G
While the government's security offensive against the Maoists, coupled with statements to those extending intellectual support to the insurgents to condemn their violent ways and disassociate with them, continue, civil rights and citizen groups are claiming that it is they who are feeling the heat. For, they claim that labelling a person as a Maoist is increasingly used as a tactic by the security agencies to silence democratic voices of dissent and stop them from raising issues of forced displacement of tribals or farmers, as incidentally these are the same issues being taken up by the Left-wing insurgents.
Human rights groups operating in Naxal-hit states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh as well as in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Maharashtra say several of their activists are being dubbed as Maoists and either harassed or arrested. The latest such case, they point out, is the arrest of PUCL UP state executive member Seema Azad.
"I had filed a PIL in the High Court some time ago seeking a direction to the state government to vacate security forces stationed in 50-odd schools. The government in its affidavit labelled me a Maoist and called the Committee for Release of Political Prisoners, of which I am a member, a frontal organisation of the Naxalites," says Shashi Bhushan Pathak, secretary of the Jharkhand branch of the People's Union for Civil Liberties. Pathak said the argument of the police was that he was a signatory to a petition seeking the release of a woman Naxal leader arrested by the Jharkhand Police. "I was a signatory, so was Mallika Sarabhai and Justice Rajinder Sachar. Are they also Naxals like me?" he asks.
Civil rights groups in Chhattisgarh say the police are trying to create more Binayak Sens in the state. "There are several instances of police arresting activists and dubbing them as Naxalites in Chhattisgarh. The arrest of documentary film-maker Ajay T G, lawyer Satyendra Kumar Choubey and journalist Sai Reddy are before us," trade unionist and civil rights lawyer Sudha Bhardwaj told The Indian Express.
Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Commission general secretary S Seshaiah said one of the joint secretaries of APCLC has been booked under the AP Public Security Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for protesting the alleged rape of tribal women by the personnel of the AP Greyhounds engaged in anti-Naxal operations. "The incidents occurred in Visakhapatnam. He took the victims to a hospital. Now there is a case lodged against him and he has gone underground. We have asked him to surrender before a local court, but he is facing difficulty in reaching the court as the police may arrest him before that," he said.
Even in Azad's case, PUCL secretary Chittaranjan Singh claims that she and her husband Vishwa Vijay became the victims of vendetta for exposing forcible acquisition of land by the Mayawati government for the Ganga Expressway project through her magazine Dastak. Besides, she was also part of the PUCL team's effort to gather information about and protest against the encounter killing of one person in Sonebhadra and raised her voice against the mining mafia in Allahabad and Koshambi districts. "There is no evidence to prove that she is a Maoist," Singh said.
Gautam Navlakha of the People's Union for Democratic Rights and G N Saibaba, who is a member of several civil rights groups in Delhi, are of the view that the police are using "fabricated" disclosure and confessional statements of so-called Maoists arrested by them to harass civil rights activists. "Despite the fact that these confessional statements have no legal standing in a court of law, these documents are being used to intimidate us," Navlakha said. Even in the Home Minister's constituency of Sivaganga, a man was arrested and slapped with sedition charges for distributing leaflets which raised a question as to why a tribal should celebrate the Republic Day when the state has not given anything to him in the last 60 years of Independence, he added.
Rebecca M John, a lawyer who is defending arrested Maoist leader Kobad Ghandy, says confessional or disclosure statements have become the "biggest jokes" in India. "People are made to sign on blank papers and later these so-called statements are added. Very often, people are forced to sign under pressure," she said.
(The Indian Express, 2nd March 2010)
While the government's security offensive against the Maoists, coupled with statements to those extending intellectual support to the insurgents to condemn their violent ways and disassociate with them, continue, civil rights and citizen groups are claiming that it is they who are feeling the heat. For, they claim that labelling a person as a Maoist is increasingly used as a tactic by the security agencies to silence democratic voices of dissent and stop them from raising issues of forced displacement of tribals or farmers, as incidentally these are the same issues being taken up by the Left-wing insurgents.
Human rights groups operating in Naxal-hit states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh as well as in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Maharashtra say several of their activists are being dubbed as Maoists and either harassed or arrested. The latest such case, they point out, is the arrest of PUCL UP state executive member Seema Azad.
"I had filed a PIL in the High Court some time ago seeking a direction to the state government to vacate security forces stationed in 50-odd schools. The government in its affidavit labelled me a Maoist and called the Committee for Release of Political Prisoners, of which I am a member, a frontal organisation of the Naxalites," says Shashi Bhushan Pathak, secretary of the Jharkhand branch of the People's Union for Civil Liberties. Pathak said the argument of the police was that he was a signatory to a petition seeking the release of a woman Naxal leader arrested by the Jharkhand Police. "I was a signatory, so was Mallika Sarabhai and Justice Rajinder Sachar. Are they also Naxals like me?" he asks.
Civil rights groups in Chhattisgarh say the police are trying to create more Binayak Sens in the state. "There are several instances of police arresting activists and dubbing them as Naxalites in Chhattisgarh. The arrest of documentary film-maker Ajay T G, lawyer Satyendra Kumar Choubey and journalist Sai Reddy are before us," trade unionist and civil rights lawyer Sudha Bhardwaj told The Indian Express.
Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Commission general secretary S Seshaiah said one of the joint secretaries of APCLC has been booked under the AP Public Security Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for protesting the alleged rape of tribal women by the personnel of the AP Greyhounds engaged in anti-Naxal operations. "The incidents occurred in Visakhapatnam. He took the victims to a hospital. Now there is a case lodged against him and he has gone underground. We have asked him to surrender before a local court, but he is facing difficulty in reaching the court as the police may arrest him before that," he said.
Even in Azad's case, PUCL secretary Chittaranjan Singh claims that she and her husband Vishwa Vijay became the victims of vendetta for exposing forcible acquisition of land by the Mayawati government for the Ganga Expressway project through her magazine Dastak. Besides, she was also part of the PUCL team's effort to gather information about and protest against the encounter killing of one person in Sonebhadra and raised her voice against the mining mafia in Allahabad and Koshambi districts. "There is no evidence to prove that she is a Maoist," Singh said.
Gautam Navlakha of the People's Union for Democratic Rights and G N Saibaba, who is a member of several civil rights groups in Delhi, are of the view that the police are using "fabricated" disclosure and confessional statements of so-called Maoists arrested by them to harass civil rights activists. "Despite the fact that these confessional statements have no legal standing in a court of law, these documents are being used to intimidate us," Navlakha said. Even in the Home Minister's constituency of Sivaganga, a man was arrested and slapped with sedition charges for distributing leaflets which raised a question as to why a tribal should celebrate the Republic Day when the state has not given anything to him in the last 60 years of Independence, he added.
Rebecca M John, a lawyer who is defending arrested Maoist leader Kobad Ghandy, says confessional or disclosure statements have become the "biggest jokes" in India. "People are made to sign on blank papers and later these so-called statements are added. Very often, people are forced to sign under pressure," she said.
(The Indian Express, 2nd March 2010)
Monday, March 1, 2010
Rights Activists Get Tagged as Maoists
Prashant Bhushan, The Hindu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For every 100 Maoists eliminated, thousands more are created"
"Suppression of dissent is fascist and will escalate into civil war"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW DELHI: Human rights activists, journalists and fact-finding committees were being targeted to intimidate them so that there could be no dissenting voices against the State's alleged war on terror, which had degenerated into a war against the tribals, advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged here over the week-end.
He was speaking at a press conference held to protest against the alleged labelling of civil rights groups and peoples' movements as Maoist front organisations.
Charge-sheet against Ghandy
Reading from the charge-sheet filed against Maoist leader Kobad Ghandy by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police, Mr. Bhushan said: "Their other front organisations like Revolutionary Democratic Front, People's Democratic Front of India, Committee for Release of Political Prisoners, Indian Association of People's Lawyers took up the issues of human rights violation, civil liberties, atrocities by the police... Other civil liberties and human rights organisations i.e. People's Union for Democratic Rights, People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Association for Protection of Democratic Rights also take up the issues of their outfit - CPI (Maoist). These organisations play a very important role to broaden the base of the outfit."
People, who expressed sympathy with human rights activists or exposed and criticised government actions, were accused of being front organisations of the Maoists, he added.
Tribals harassed
Mr. Bhushan said: "The government has done little for the tribals and now they are trying to snatch their land. When tribals agitate peacefully, the State security forces descend on them, harass them and burn their villages.
"About 700 villages have been burnt in the past two years in Chhattisgarh. People are bound to protest and take up arms. For every 100 Maoists eliminated, thousands are created through collateral damage."
The country was turning into a fascist State through suppression of dissent and this would lead to an escalating state of violence resulting in civil war, he added.
Talks favoured
Stressing that the State could not use illegal means to curb violence, retired Justice Rajinder Sachar said: "The State cannot be a terrorist. It is the ultimate repository of law and order.
"Talks should happen between the government and the Maoists in an open atmosphere where there is no fear. Both sides should cease hostilities for dialogue to take place. The Maoist representative should be granted immunity for the period of talks. In case the talks fail, both sides should be able to return to their respective areas." "PUCL will go to court to remove its name from the charge-sheet," he added.
Concurring that the government and Maoists should have talks amid a ceasefire, writer Arundhati Roy said: "Fight for civil liberties, prisoners' rights and mere thoughts are being criminalised. If those who support human rights activists in their struggle are considered front organisations of the Maoists, by the same argument the Home Ministry too should be considered the over ground representatives of big corporations."
(The Hindu, March 1, 2010)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For every 100 Maoists eliminated, thousands more are created"
"Suppression of dissent is fascist and will escalate into civil war"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW DELHI: Human rights activists, journalists and fact-finding committees were being targeted to intimidate them so that there could be no dissenting voices against the State's alleged war on terror, which had degenerated into a war against the tribals, advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged here over the week-end.
He was speaking at a press conference held to protest against the alleged labelling of civil rights groups and peoples' movements as Maoist front organisations.
Charge-sheet against Ghandy
Reading from the charge-sheet filed against Maoist leader Kobad Ghandy by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police, Mr. Bhushan said: "Their other front organisations like Revolutionary Democratic Front, People's Democratic Front of India, Committee for Release of Political Prisoners, Indian Association of People's Lawyers took up the issues of human rights violation, civil liberties, atrocities by the police... Other civil liberties and human rights organisations i.e. People's Union for Democratic Rights, People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Association for Protection of Democratic Rights also take up the issues of their outfit - CPI (Maoist). These organisations play a very important role to broaden the base of the outfit."
People, who expressed sympathy with human rights activists or exposed and criticised government actions, were accused of being front organisations of the Maoists, he added.
Tribals harassed
Mr. Bhushan said: "The government has done little for the tribals and now they are trying to snatch their land. When tribals agitate peacefully, the State security forces descend on them, harass them and burn their villages.
"About 700 villages have been burnt in the past two years in Chhattisgarh. People are bound to protest and take up arms. For every 100 Maoists eliminated, thousands are created through collateral damage."
The country was turning into a fascist State through suppression of dissent and this would lead to an escalating state of violence resulting in civil war, he added.
Talks favoured
Stressing that the State could not use illegal means to curb violence, retired Justice Rajinder Sachar said: "The State cannot be a terrorist. It is the ultimate repository of law and order.
"Talks should happen between the government and the Maoists in an open atmosphere where there is no fear. Both sides should cease hostilities for dialogue to take place. The Maoist representative should be granted immunity for the period of talks. In case the talks fail, both sides should be able to return to their respective areas." "PUCL will go to court to remove its name from the charge-sheet," he added.
Concurring that the government and Maoists should have talks amid a ceasefire, writer Arundhati Roy said: "Fight for civil liberties, prisoners' rights and mere thoughts are being criminalised. If those who support human rights activists in their struggle are considered front organisations of the Maoists, by the same argument the Home Ministry too should be considered the over ground representatives of big corporations."
(The Hindu, March 1, 2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)