Faculty, Institute of Development Studies Kolkata
Nandan doesn't seem to convey the whole contours of leninism to the working class or the peasants of india that he is talking about. I challenge him if any one of the millions of indian working class or peasants understand the contours of Leninism. Then to whom he wants to convey about leninism or Marxism. Tell me a one concept that has no roots in india. Tell me one dharma that has no roots in india. Tell me one ideology that has no roots in india. All the ideologists of the west, far east, middle east, china, russia have visited india at different times & wondered india of the past & taken a leaf out of it to develop as their own ideology. I request Nandan maniratnam to do research on indian cultural roots and sanadana dharma and write in a way the so called indian working class understand what he has written.
I know it's kind of late to be replying on this page..but... Has Antony's obsessive adherence to the party line given him such a blinkered vision that he can't see the answers in Rohit's post? He just explained the structures in the Latin American parties and how various documents are proposed and presented before one is finally chosen through a vote. Is Antony so used to taking orders from the CC and the PB that he wil be able to read that only when someone from the much hallowed PB points it out to him?
this is an excellent presentation. very comprehensive. makes a compelling case for why the nuclear option is not a viable energy option for india.
here is the link to know what DD Kosambi said on Atomic energy
There is a clear difference between the anti-nuclear position and the party position. The article does not mention it. This should be debated. CPI(M)'s position and action is otherwise consistent on the issue. I am not in favor of nuclear power plants in the first place.
Thanks for being one of thsoe few Kolkatans who still feel for freedom. Let us all unite and teach these Todis a lesson, such communities have always been and will continue being a curse for Kolkata unless they are taught some hard lessons. It was a pity that the state government and the police licked money and became their slaves.
Why do we have to copy decadent western capitalist material for education; Marxist materisl ia available free of cost? It is twentyfirst century! punish the west by not reading their books.
You're only strengthening the CPIM's position unwittingly by quoting Lenin's "Freedom to Criticise and Unity in Action".Thanks ,Swati.
This is what Com Prakash Karat too, in his article on "Democratic Centralism" appeared in Pragoti dated 31/10/2010 aptly stated :
"There can be no fixed ratio of centralism and democracy in
democratic centralism. When the party is formulating its policies, at
the time of conferences etc., there will be democracy in action, free
discussions within the party forums. Once a call for action is given,
the aspect of centralism will predominate. When the party subjects its
actions to self-critical review, democracy will assert itself again."
Yes, Swathi, Freedom to criticise the party's formulations on various issues within the party forum/fora but stand united
while the party's formulations are put into action.
Thanks , Swathi ,once again for quoting Lenin to strengthen the CPI(M's position on censuring Com VS.
mr.mani, can you specifically articulate your problems with the anti-nuclear activists. for instance here is an article by praful bidwai: http://www.sacw.net/article2919.html this is also pasted in the comments below. can you refute his arguments?
the signatories of the statement are well aware of the cpim's, vs as well as their own positions on kudankulam issue. they are in solidarity with the protesters in kudankulam - unlike the dogmatic/lampost CPIM supporters like you who are hell bent on exposing your hypocrisy, double standards and confusion in a public platform. if you are in solidarity with the kudankulam protests please go and express your solidarity with them properly rather than spewing venom against the signatories of this statement. the leader of the kudankulam protests, mr. udaykumar has explicitly criticised the CPIM for siding with the central and TN governments. please try to convince him. or do you think he also represents a "foreign hand"?
This Kudankulum article is a mess. The author did not do enough work to
check the differences between the CPIM's position and VS's statements.
Some of the signatories are anti-nuclear activists, while most of the others are confused. R. Maran makes all this clear.
VS was wrong in trying to join the Koodankulam agitators and the party was right in issuing a public censure. He is a great leader and has a political and moral obligation to play this role.
I am in broad agreement with the stand taken by Prakash Karat in his article on Kudankulam and the CPI(M) stand on nuclear power in general. However these needs improvement: "NO FURTHER IMPORT OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, SPEED UP INDIAN PROGRAM, AND TAKE PEOPLE INTO CONFIDENCE!" will be a far more appropriate slogan.
It is clear from the ongoing discussion that the participants are totally ignorant about the existence of an indigenous nuclear power development of our own. Bourgeoisie media do not like to discuss and debate on the Indian program. The country has invested billions of Rupees in this national program and with good results, despite imperialist, especially, US interventions and blockades. Like the space program the country should feel proud of its successes on the nuclear front.
Today, only five countries, US, France, Russia, China and India have the total capability with regard to nuclear power plants; from fuel technology to design and manufacture and safe operations. All other countries, even the members of the so called Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), including the developed ones, are dependent on US technology. NSG is outside the UN framework and is a US handmaiden. Even IAEA, whose founding objective was international cooperation, is ill-used by USA as a global policeman for enforcing its non-proliferation policies.
The need and desirability of nuclear electricity were under debate for long. Thanks to the dwindling reserves of fossil fuels and hydro energy as well as the high cost and continuing non-conventional nature of solar and wind energy nuclear electricity is seen as an inevitable option for grid power development in the near future. Nuclear power plants are mostly confined to developed capitalist countries: barring the CIS countries including Russia, China, S Korea and Argentina no countries outside the OECD/imperialist camp has nuclear power. USA and France are the leaders among OECD countries and the earlier starters like Canada and and UK have dropped out of the nuclear electricity race, due to resource constraints.
USA had never taken into confidence Germany, Japan and Italy in the development of nuclear technologies: These former axis powers, unlike US, Russia, France, India and China are dependent on US license wrt nuclear technologies. There exists a possibility for an independent initiative by BRICS countries and it is time for the Left to embark on a wholesome policy statement on nuclear power, taking into all these technological as well as political realities, global as well as national.
in solidarity with com.v.s.achuthanandan on koodankulam issue
CPI M's Koodankulam stand was not a one of action, it was of political passiveness, in a large scale, one of opportunism. One cannot wait for another party congress to correct wrong decisions and if there is such a perception that would be
the greatest blunder which a communist party could make.
In this regard it would be better if everyone can go through Lenin's following significant amendment which he put forward at a meeting of RSDLP. - '' Freedom to Criticise and Unity of Action ''
Fight must be for ensuring safeguards and not for scrapping the project, according to CPI(M). Is it your argument that since much amount has been spent, the people should not ask for scrapping the projects. even if they have genuine apprehensions about their safety. Is this stand applicable for all projects or only for Kudankulam. In fact, the fight continues because the people are skeptical about the safety measures, especially after the Japanese disaster and not willing to accept the assurance of the Government and its agencies like AERB.
When was the CPI(M) sent its MLA or delegation is immaterial. When the issue started drawing more and more attention and no signs of dying, all political parties will have to say or do something. The point is all through CPI(M) has been repeating the lies of the Central Government, in highlighting the role of foreigners, Americans, Churches etc. This motivated propaganda of the CPI(M) is to justify their support to the government on the ground that the agitations are aided by foreign funds.
With the ‘VS’ admitting his ‘mistakes’ the internal organisational problem of CPI(M) would have been resolved, but not the issue of safety and the people’s agitation.
The spectre of America is haunting Marxists of all hues. Sometimes the fear may be genuine and sometimes an excuse to justify their unjustifiable positions as in the case of Kudankulam. It has driven them to the company of Centre/Congress in many occasions on issues of liberation struggles going on in the country and nearby(Srilanka) or into the hands of communal forces as in the case of FDI etc.
I agree to your demand that to oppose the activation of the plant till safety concerns are addressed or to be assessed by a 3rd party consulting group(I am not sure how that would provide a 'satisfactory' response), i hope the party at Kudankulam or tamilnadu is active on mobilizing people or opposing the repression that is unleashed by the government. I do not think there is any issue with party leadership for pressing that demand. How ever, VS' criticism was not related to your point. It seems that his statement was for outright rejection of the nuclear power generation itself. There are lot of discussions happening related to this. I do not think party has adopted this stand. his public censure was not only related to the kudankulam visit issue or the statement which had very derogatory or nonconstructive elements - we can understand the constructive criticism, call for action or agitation etc. but this or these were not of that types - His actions over past few years were very problematic and had serious implications on the party's image and functioning. any body who has closely observed might have noticed the factional methods he follow to fulfill his narrow needs and cheap publicity. To summarize,VS is a crass opportunist that the communist movement of the country has ever seen. It is quite unfortunate that the party is keeping him inside. It is a mistake to take him seriously, and i hope that you got the point by this time. it seems that you have sided with VS Achuthanandan, which is WRONG!
"His apologies on all three issues, made at a press conference convened for the purpose, were accompanied by riders that seemed to suggest that he stood firm in his position on all three issues. On Kudankulam, Mr. Achuthanandan seemed to suggest that the party, which was not opposed to the Kudankulam project, had come round to the position that commissioning of the plant should wait till sufficient safety measures were taken. The latest resolution on the subject, adopted by the party Central committee on Sunday, also wanted an end to the repressive measures against the popular agitation in Kudankulam. It wanted the State to withdraw cases against the agitators, including that for treason. “I accept the resolution. The party is not against the people who are waging a struggle against the power plant,” he said."
Mr. Achuthanandan termed his visit to the RMP leader’s home on the day of the by-election a ‘sheer coincidence,’ but agreed that he should not have done so. The same applied to his remark about Mr. Vijayan, which came in response to persistent questioning at a news conference. He was confident that party general secretary Prakash Karat’s assurance to the Central Committee that stern action would be taken if any party worker was found involved in the murder would be carried out in full, the former Chief Minister said."
While VS seems to have been pressurized by his party to take up this position publicly, it must be mentioned that his credibility in front of the public will be lowered if he continues to succumb to the satraps in his party on principled issues.
On the TP Chandrasekaran case, it is imperative that the CPI(M) conducts an internal inquiry as its general secretary had promised once after the incident. One hopes VS continues to articulate that as a leading figure in his party.
Dear Signatories ,
Com V S has come on record with a public self criticism of his stand on the issues raised in your statement . Can one expect a
reaction from you individually or collectively ?
Hope Pragoti will also carry the full text of the party resolution censuring Com V S and the statement of self criticism released
to the media by him in the interest of a democratic debate .
For the right wingers and right wing media, it is quite well known, any stick had been and is good enough to beat the CPI(M) with. They cleverly mix up issues conveniently to suit their line of argument. Unfortunately , the latest to join this bandwagon are some of the left wingers too. Your letter is a clever juxtaposition of two different issues with selective words to suit your style, a la Advani and other right wingers when they conducted Ram Janmabhoomi movement in right wing style.
You neither cared to read the Kozhikode political resolution nor the CC resolution censuring Com VS.
Let me quote the relevant portion from the political resolution adopted at the Party's Kozhikode Congress “
“ 2.77 The two reactors set-up in Koodankulam and purchased from Russia much before the nuclear deal falls in a different category. The local people have various apprehensions about the safety and the impact on the environment of these reactors, especially after the Fukushima accident. It is necessary to conduct an independent safety review and allay the apprehensions of the people before commissioning the plant.”
The CC resolution censuring Com VS too states , referring to the Party Congress resolution :
"In the case of the Kudankulam reactors, the resolution has made an exception as the agreement for these reactors were signed two decades before the Indo-US nuclear deal, at a time when the US and other western countries had imposed sanctions on India. Since then, two reactors from Russia have already been constructed at considerable cost and they are at the final stage before commissioning. However, the resolution has stressed that given the local people’s apprehensions about their safety and livelihood after the Fukushima accident in Japan, these concerns should be met. There should be an independent safety audit and necessary safety measures must be put in place before the reactors are commissioned.”
Such an independent safety review has not been conducted. In the meantime, the people protesting at Kudankulam have been subjected to police repression and a large number of cases have been foisted against them. The Party has condemned the repression and demanded that the cases of sedition and other charges be withdrawn."
It is obvious the CPI(M) is not for operationalising the plant before issues are addressed. It is also clear that the CPI(M) condemns the repression against the local people . As such, it is not anti-people, as you seek to project the CPIM.
Com VS is certainly party to this resolution , whatever may be his views inside the party forum and as part of the CC, he is expected not to flout party stand publicly. Since he continued to take public stand that amounts to demanding closure of the KNPP , contrary to the party stand, the CPI(M) was left with no alternative but to censure him publicly.
Where is the question of hypocrisy” here?
The CPIM does not support the scrapping of the KNPP in toto and at the same, it recognizes the genuine apprehensions of the people regarding the safety of the plant. Both are two different issues. That is the reason why the CPIM expects the safety issues be addressed before commissioning the plant. But VS stands for the total shut-down of he plant itself which is contrary to the party stand. If VS had only wanted to express solidarity with the people who were facing repression by the police, the CPIM has no issue with VS.
I would like to point out to you that the CPIM MLA Com Nagai MALI had indeed gone to Koodankulam sometime in June or July to hear from he people of the atrocities against them. Again, in the aftermath of Sept police firing in Idinthakarai, a CPIM delegation consisting of the party state secretariat member Com K Kanagaraj and CPIM MLA from Madurai East Com R Annadurai and party’s Nellai District Secy Com Bhaskaran visited the spot and met with the local people including Mr Jesuraj, one of the leading members of the anti KNPP movement there . Elaborating on the CPIM delegation findings, State CPIM secy G Ramakrishnan condemned the police action and demanded that the state and central govts take steps to allay the apprehensions of the people ,even as the CPIM is not against the plant itself per se.
If Com VS had wanted to confine his association within this frame work , the CPIM had no reason to censure him publicly. But as Anthony of Kochy , on this forum .has neatly elaborated , Com VS was bent upon violating the party stand in media and through his actions as well. If one of your members keep on violating your own organizational norms, what will you do ?
Any person with little political understanding can understand the stand taken by the CPI(M). It is not necessary that you have to agree with the CPIM. But the CPIM expects its senior leader like VS not to flout the party stand that has been collectively arrived at, while he has every right to fight for his stand within the party fora .
Your stand is akin to logic of George Bush: Either with us or with them .
You too invoke the same logic: Be with the anti-KNPP movements leadership or be counted as anti-people .
If you don’t join USA ,the you are with the terrorists, as per George Bush. But You don’t have to be with USA to fight the terrorists. Likewise, you don’t have to be with the anti KNPP movement (whose demand is not for stringent safety standards but for scrapping the plant itself) in order to address peoples genuine apprehensions.
What intrigues me is that at least two of the signatories to your letter were
Delegates to the Kozhikode Party Congress that adopted the Political Resolution in which the issue of the Nuclear Plants including KNPP has been deliberated . What stand did they take vis-à-vis KNPP mentioned in the political resolution, both at draft stage and at the time of passing the resolution?
Pavel instead of contesting the main point i.e. the EU deserves the prize because of reconciliation and peace it brought between France and Germany (and other member-states) and for helping the consolidation of respect for human rights and spread of democracy in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe and Balkans, you dodged it again. So, as I said in the last reply there isn’t much left to discuss because these are the reasons why the Nobel committee gave the prize in the first place. However, in the end of your reply quoting Hobsbawm you try to deal with it. What you say is partially true i.e. “[t]he 'European Coal and Steel Community' was definitely proposed by the French to neutralize the German threat” and the role of the US for reconciliation between France and Germany, but only if you are a Realist. What you say and suggest is hardly a Marxist analysis. So watch out incoherence in your analysis!
Coming back to your obduracy to contest EU’s merit for the prize on the basis of present mess in Southern Europe, there is an important point, which needs to be made. It is that you are jumping over the role of the EU to bring reconciliation and peace for half-a-century (1952-ECSC to 2002-EMU). You are neglecting almost whole of the post WW2 European history and EU’s role for peace on the continent. One single but pertinent example is the role of the EU for reunification of Germany. It was very plausible that after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, former East Germany would have been a separate country but for the crucial role of the EU. The British and French were reluctant for the unification but a compromise was found through the EU. The newly unified and obviously strong and dominant Germany was bound to the EU more tightly through more transfers of national powers and competences (including those in foreign and security matters) of the member-states to the EU supranational institutions when the Maastricht Treaty was agreed in 1992.
Regarding the mess in the PIIGS, it would have much better had you explained who are “the “EU’s financial speculators” and how they created this crisis, how EU is the representative of the financial markets and how the EU is shrugging off it responsibility. What you did again is hurling of incoherent questions. Hereunder are they and let me answer them.
1st, “[b]ut the question is that why the 3% rule was not imposed on Germany and France. Is not the gap between fiscal and monetary an institutional failure of EU itself?” When a sovereign nation breaks a rule of an institution, there is little the institution can do other than name and shame, and drag to court and fine, if the institution is powerful enough like the WTO or even the EU. Well, in case of SGP many countries broke it and at the same time. So, it was just not respected and became ineffective. France and Germany were not given special exemption as you allude.
2nd, “then the question arises why this 3% limit so fixed when it is detrimental to everyone's interest?” Well, this is the healthy rate of deficit unless you want to burden your future generations to pay for you, or if you don’t intend to pay back at all. You can’t borrow endlessly.
3rd, “[o]ne wonders if there can be an iota of evidence to show that EU's official bureaucracy is planning about sharing debt among its members”. Lol, had it been in the hands of EU’s bureaucracy they would have done it long time before. Every institutions and bureaucracy wants more influence and power including the European Commission, the bureaucratic arm of the EU. They are crying for it day and night in the name of solving the crisis (though rightly) but the national politicians doesn’t want to cede their power, under the pretext of national interest and sovereignty. Recently speaking the European Parliament, Barroso said that the way out of sovereign debt crisis is move towards a federation. And, he is not the first and only one to say and want it. All the EU institutions want it and since the beginning though also for the sake of more powers in their own hand.
4th, “[t]he same relaxations were not given to the so-called PIIGS countries”. PIIGS deficit is above 3% since long and way high in a hawkish monetary-sans-fiscal union to the extent they may not be able to pay it back. That is way PIG are bailed out and talks of the same for Italy and Spain.
5th, “[a]nd, why ignore the fact that all over the world powerful countries have imposed a highly immoral fiscal conservatism upon the developing world (India 'self-condemned' itself under UPA I with the FRBM act) while keeping their own fiscal deficits burgeoning to astronomical scales (USA being the prime example')?”. If you are following the US presidential elections, then you should know that the state of US economy is the biggest issue. Unemployment and deficit/debt are the main planks on which the election is being contested. Ryan, an ultra fiscal conservative is the running mate of Romney. Hollande is trying to balance the French books and conservative Cameron won the election on the same issue in 2010 and trying for the same since then.
The larger frame or the solution, which you suggest i.e. to reject “binding countries in a zero sum competitive game” isn’t zero sum. If a product is made cheaply then all the consumers gain if allowed the access. Different people can do different jobs demanding different skills in the same job. Moreover, economy isn’t run on one single sector. If the Germans are competitive in automobile then the Greeks can be in tourism, French in cosmetics, Brits in banking etc. etc. The idea is to think smart and work hard, :).
Jairaj Banaji and Rohini Hensman cleverly juxtapose two different things in a typical a la Advani style.
If you both mean Sitaram Yechury participating in a rally against FDI in retail along with BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi and Nititn Gadkari in jantar manatar in New Delhi and then juxtapose that with as though joining hands with communal forces,then I am sure you are trying to resort to cheap politics. The rally in Delhi was called by All india Traders Association against FDI in retail. As a mass organisation, they invited leaders of all political parties . As the CPI(M) is also oppsoed to FDI in retail, it sent Com Sitaram YECHURY to express solidairty with the traders. If the CITU and AITUC and even pro CPIML AICCTU can join hands with pro BJP BMS and yet dont stand accused of "publicly fraternizing with communal and authoritarian elements", why should Siatarm Yechury be accused of "fraternizing" with such elements, because he participated in a rally also addressed by some BJP leaders.?
Clearly, a rally against FDI in retail is sought to be equated by both of you as a pro Communal rally ,just because two BJP leaders also participated in that rally. Expressing solidarity with the traders in their struggle against FDI is sought to be equated as rubbing shoulders with communal elements. Clearly, you are only echoing the right wing media propaganda against the CPIM , while posing yourselves as Leftists. What a shame !!!!!!!!!!
I agree with what Mr Ganesh has expressed regarding VS violating party discipline.VS has got every right to have his own view in respect of Nuclear power projects ,particularly about KNPP.But he cant violate the party stand publicly, airing his own view too often publicly . Disciplining any member of the party is not bureaucratic logic . On the other hand ,your logic of comparing with Haryana events is irrational.
you dont have to be a rocket scientist to differentiate between issues where there is no difference of opinion and issues where you have difference of opinion. In respect of atrocities in Haryana, when there is no difference of opinion in condemning the events , you are free to air your views as per the party understanding of the issues.Even then, if VS wants to go to Haryana and hold a rally there, he is expected to take the Haryana unit of the CPI(M) into confidence and proceed further . It is a basic organisational principle expected to be followed by any leader , leave alone VS. But on an issue where VS holds a different view from the officially adopted stand of the CPI(M), how can he go on adopting apublic stand that is different from the stand adopted by the Party Congress and the Central Committee of which VS is a member?
How can he go to another state and join hands with those whose views are different from the Party to critically comment on the CPI(M) stand? No oragnisation worth its name can be expected to keep watching its important leader frequently violating the organisational norms of the CPI(M). Imagine for a moment that an important leader of the party holding views in support of Khap panchayat in Haryana, airing that view publicly , trying tovgo to Haryana and address meetings in support of khap panchayat there . Will you say that the CPI(M) should not take disciplinary actionagainst that CPI(M) leader. I know you will be the first person to ask the CPI(M) to resort to " beauracratic logic " of taking action against that leader. So, dont try to look from your narrow prism of anti-CPI(M) logic.
After all , the Communist parties only have got guts to take disciplianary action against any leader ,however tall he or she may be , if they violate the party norms ,after giving them enough opportunities to correct themselves.
Robert Rahman Raman