PRAGOTI

Dear comrades,
I am deeply dismayed at the public censure of Comrade VS Achuthanandan by CPI(M). I join you and endorse the statement in solidarity with com. VS.

Harsh Kapoor/ sacw.net

To the now anonymous Mr. Khan, I should reply that my brief analysis of the Eurozone crisis is not about drawing any parallel between Britain's colonization of India, but, yes, it is about a 'deliberate omission' of EU's peace-making role. I am simply asking for contextualizing a Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 with the current eurozone crisis, which is in my view as much a creation of the EU's financial speculators as that of a US based world casino system. Nowhere in my response I claim that there was a surplus extraction between Greece and western countries in the way it was between Britain and India- my reference to Marx was just to show the internal contradictions of an EU policy which Mr. Khan admits to be exploitative and manipulative in the Third World, but hails on the grounds that it has generated peace in EU. This latter claim, I felt, was the central point of contestation. The Olympian broad brushes with which the official EU academy legitimises itself as a peace-making body are then irrelevant, nothing but the purest ideological deceptions ever under the garb of pseudo-internationalism.

Contrary to what Mr. Khan would like me to believe, the putting of the crisis 'in a larger frame instead of hurling of specifics' seems very much the way of shrugging of the EU's responsibility for the crisis. The only 'larger framer' which he has to offer is that fiscal debt is not shared among EU countries. I totally agree. But 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? If as Mr. Khan says, 'THIS IS WHY the SGP was agreed upon to keep the deficit/debt under check (3/60% of the GDP)', then the question arises why this 3% limit so fixed when it is detrimental to everyone's interest? What Mr. Khan thinks to be the end of story is just the beginning. SGP was not for preventing overborrowing but it is what induced the Greek government ( a postpolitical technocracy) to borrow from the financial markets. All of it suits the financial market, of whose representative is EU. One wonders if there can be an iota of evidence to show that EU's official bureaucracy is planning about sharing debt among its members. In Khan's account, this reluctance to share debt is ascribed due to German nationalism. What if this 'German nationalist sentiment' is very much a part of the EU's bureaucracy, which has allowed Germany (and also France) to have a higher fiscal debt and has even relaxed the rules in 2005 to allow them a higher deficit- crucial for their so-called industrial development? The same relaxations were not given to the so-called PIIGS countries. Why should not the fiscal deficit that France and Germany had give them an undue advantage over countries which are now denied to spend on employment and social services as part of 'austerity measures'? France and Germany also cannot print Euros unlike UK and USA can print pounds and dollars. And, 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')? All over modern history, western countries have manipulated terms of trade to favour their own development, not just in the era of IMF and GATT but also in the era of colonialism (who can forget the infamous Opium Wars?).

Second, to the neo(n)-liberal mind of Mr. Khan any mentioning of word 'competitiveness' seems to be thrillingly. So, I am made to 'admit' that Germany had higher competitiveness than Greece. The point, however, is that Germany had acquired this so-called competitiveness by compressing domestic wages, even at the cost of the health of its own working population, and Greece had been overwhelmed because speculators found its position suitable. It is not so much the case of nationalist selfishness on part of Germany but the interests of match-fixers and speculators which are anyway free of any nationalist attachment. The 'larger frame' is what is to be rejected: binding countries in a zero sum competitive game which ultimately ruins most of them.

If the point of historical self-deceptions of EU is indeed so relevant, then it must be made clear that in the post-WWII scenario there was simply no chance that Germany could overwhelm France in a war. Germany had been divided step by step into two or even three parts. As late Prof. Hobsbawm writes in his Age of Extremes, any realistic anti-soviet (NATO) plan in Europe had to be based upon a German re-armament, which was contrary to what the French would have liked. The 'European Coal and Steel Community' was definitely proposed by the French to neutralize the German threat, but it was simultaneously created by and against USA. To quote Hobsbawm, 'even though the USA was unable to imposed its politico-economic plans on the Europeans in detail, it was strong enough to dominate their international behaviour'. The only US-independent world policy which western Europe pursued was aborted in 1956 (the Suez) and the best an alliance partner could do was to evade complete integration into USA's plans without leaving the alliance (de Gaulle). The foreign policy of western countries was simply a US policy, and a war between Germany and France was highly unlikely, let alone a world war like the WWII in which Germany would face USA and France together. USSR's chief adversary position was simply incontestable. What peace-making role a bankers' union could play when one is profoundly dependent upon the US. Honestly speaking, the Nobel Peace Prize for maintaining peace between Germany and France should be given to USA!

-Marxistly
Pavel Tomar

For the first 400 days of the protest none from the CPIM had ever visited the protest site, Instead their party organ Theekathir was up in arms calling the Ameican money, Church driven protest against a wonderful Russian initiative. The party ws just in a shoot them out or in the voice of George Bush, 'Smoke the Out' thru the 400 days. They brick batted the protestors on a dialy basis thru the 400 days and all of a sudden after the police attack last month they started shedding tears. We have been on the ground for the past 425 days. Its good u all read what the left had to say about kudankulam in this article: Indian Left And The Nuclear Hypocrisy available at
http://amuthukrishnan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50:indian-left-and-the-nuclear-hypocrisy&catid=9:english&Itemid=30

Tamilselvam
Kancheepuram
 
PS: Received over email

Please don't be so naive as to suggest that there are no similarities in the ideological-political deviations in the party in west bengal and kerala. they are for all to see.

Dear Srini, Since you have signed the petition. I would like to draw your attention to your own Facebook update of September 17. It says "Prakash Karat explains his party's position on the Kudankulam power plants. I agree with the position." What do you want to say? Abdul

PT, your reply suffers from a deliberate omission and selective exaggeration.

You deliberately omit the singular role played by the EU and its various institutions to bring reconciliation and peace between France and Germany (and other member-states), and respect for human rights and spread of democracy in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe and Balkans. You brush it aside it by calling “historical imagery EU's official academics offers”. It would have enriched and further facilitated the debate, had you provided the analysis offered by Marxist academicians. There is little left to argue after this.

However, your selective exaggeration of the Greek and the Eurozone crisis, blamed all on the EU through an extremely erroneous example of British colonisation of India needs to be cut down to size. And, no less the criticisms of EU’s external policies.

It will be better if the Eurozone and Greek sovereign debt crises are put in a larger frame instead of hurling of specifics. Eurozone is a monetary union without being a fiscal union. This is unprecedented and unusual. If one looks at the deficit/debt of the UK and the US, these were/are not much different. But since Greece’s central bank is no more the lender of the last resort it can’t print Euro unlike the US’s Fed and UK’s Bank of England to pay off their respective countries debt. This is why the SGP was agreed upon to keep the deficit/debt under check (3/60% of the GDP). Now, the Greeks made two mistakes. First, they over-borrowed, second, they became uncompetitive as you agree, PT. Over-borrowing made further borrowing prohibitively costly while un-competiveness led to contraction and unemployment. Now, what you appear to suggest is to punish the Germans/Dutch/Finns etc. for their competitiveness vis-à-vis the PIIGS because if there is a rise in their wages without corresponding rise in productivity, the businesses will flee leading to job losses. This is what happens when the French car companies relocate to relatively low-wage Central European countries. While sputtering Marxist bias and preferences, there is an absence of the solution in your reply. The solution is a correction of the first and real mistake i.e. establishment of a fiscal union along with the monetary union. However, nationalism is such an evil, you know PT, even when it doesn’t manifests itself in the form of war, it rises in the form of apathy towards other people and country. While Germans know that their prosperity comes from being part of the Single Market and the EMU, they aren’t ready to even partly mutualise the Eurozone’s debt like through the issuance of a common bond. Merkel is too hesitant and minded by the polls. Anyway! For the moment, Greeks need to try to become competitive and frugal. But again harshly imposed frugality isn’t really working, it seems. So, I think that the Greeks need more time to become relatively competitive and frugal which also help the Golden Dawn reach the dusk. However, in the long run the Eurozone needs to converge towards a fiscal union.

Regarding the external policies of the EU, I am wondering, what is the Marxist position on the European agricultural policy. Anyway, EU’s support to dictators in North Africa can’t really be generalised as you would prefer. However, the EU has done many good too on foreign front. Along with the member-states, it gives more than ½ of the total ODA. The same is true for the humanitarian aid. It gives duty and quota free access to all the LDCs. It gives preferential access to imports from many developing countries. It has helped in the management of crisis and maintenance of peace in many non-EU countries (see: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations). It has abolished the death penalty and working for the same in many countries. It has the most progressive stance on climate change. It has helped for the abolition of the use of anti-personnel landmines. If, it has supported dictators in North Africa, Middle East and yes Pakistan, then it has poked and pushed them in Belarus, Burma and Africa. The point of all these is that I see the “causal link” which you want me see as you should see the good efforts too. But the positives of the EU far exceed its negatives.

VS Achuthanandan's position is also "in consonance" with Sitaram Yechury's position opposing nuclear power. as you argue, Sitaram's position is "in consonance" with Prakash Karat's, who is opposed to the proliferation of nuclear power. That means VS is "in consonance" with Prakash Karat's position too. The question is why has VS been censured then??

The discussion of whether the need nuclear energy or not would be primary point of discussion, rather the plant has to go through an independent safety approval. Acceptance of KNPP passing and safety auditing wouldn’t make any difference in the people livelihood there. I would rather see a campaign against nuclear energy which will be creating issues to people in any aspect, rather a debate of passing the independent safety approval would portrait the nuclear energy as the only effective alternate source.

awantika

Antony Kochi

It seems that you have got inside information within the Party apparatus on the happenings vis-a-vis VS in the party structure. You seem to point out that VS has accepted his mistakes and agreed with the criticism. However, no solid verified reports have appeared anywhere on this matter. Also, the report in Mangalam daily, you seem to be hinting at, is not gaining any facevalue. In fact, the report here on Indiavision points to a totally different picture. http://www.indiavisiontv.com/2012/10/16/123223.html

It clearly points to the intense pressure being exerted by the party leadership at the state-level, which is steeped with yes-men of the State Secretary, on VS to force him to backtrack from his consistent stands on not only Kudankulam, but also on TP Chandrashekaran's killing and make him publicly say that he stands with the party's position. Similarly, the party also is hell-bent on making VS apologize on his political statements vis-a-vis Pinarayi Vijayan being compared with Dange. This is nothing but show of sheer might and brute force to throttle dissent from within. Instead of looking within and correcting the wrong understandings, this is only aimed at accentuating the malaise further.

Anand

The above comment by "Antony, Kochi" is a nonsensical comment by clearly a bureaucratic apparatchik who has no understanding of a mass struggle or the concept of a mass leader.

The statement clearly empathises with the protestors of Kudankulam and the Communist Leader VS Achuthanandan for his solidarity, support and intentions to join the protest movement against the commissioning of the KKNP. 

The hypocrisy and vendetta has been displayed by the CPI(M) leadership by censuring the leader who understood the pulse of the people and went to show political solidarity with them. Without fullest safety controls and mechanisms, a nuclear reactor has the potential of bringing about disastrous consequences in the case of an accident or a natural disaster. What is unscientific in pointing that dangers out openly? It was no reason for a censure. The censure of a leader who was showing solidarity with the protestors and going to join them, before being prevented from doing so by the TN police, exposes the hypocrisy of the CPI(M) leadership's positions on the issue. 

Instead of finding fault with the clearly anti-protestors' position (through the censure and lip service to their cause) - something that has been called into attention by the Kudankulam protestors themselves - Antony, Kochi indulges in trying to slander those who protest the censure of VS and the CPI(M)'s inadequate support for the protestors at Kudankulam. 

The agenda of people like Antony, Kochi is quite crystal clear. In the name of "discipline" and "pro-scientific position", they indulge in supporting any position that ultimately results in distancing the left from the people and renders it hypocritical or anti-people in the eyes of the masses. With such "yes men" in the midst who continue to defend the indefensible why does the Left need enemies?

Dear Mr Srinir, I must profusely thank you for your frank posting in reply to me. Knowingly or unknowingly, you have let the cat out of the bag. I had said in my last post that "your letter on VS is inspired by considerations alien to the CPI (M)'s position on the matter. They may be narrowly political,or based on vested interests". I stand vindicated now.

1) Your post has more points on Bengal and Buddhadeb than on Kudankulam, which reveals your real intentions. Your post makes it clear that your petition has nothing to do with the brave protestors at Idinthakarai. For you, they and their struggle are just instruments to further your narrow and personal agendas vis-a-vis the CPI(M).

2) I have not made any misinterpretation of VS' remark. If you do not understand Malayalam, ask some of your friends for help, rather than cutting a sorry figure like this. VS' opposition to Kudankulam and his trip to Idinthakarai were NOT based on any demand to allay safety fears. He stated clearly in his article: "അതു കൊണ്ട് ഈ ആണവബോംബ് നമുക്കു വേണ്ട. നിലയത്തിനുള്ള നീക്കങ്ങള്‍ കേന്ദ്രസര്‍ക്കാര്‍ ഉടന്‍ നിര്‍ത്തിവെക്കണം." Or, "We do not need this Atom Bomb [the Kudankulam plant]. The central government should stop its steps to establish the plant". He has said the same in TV interviews also. That is, VS was taking a totally anti-scientific anti-technology position and asking the government to shut down the plant permanently. PLus, he called Prakash Karat's position "stupid", which is totally unbecoming of a senior leader. You think there is "consonance" between VS and party because it is convenient for your wrong position. Not because that is the truth.

3) Now, to today's news: there is news that in today's State Secretariat meeting of the CPI(M) in Trivandrum, VS has accepted that his position was wrong and has self-critically accepted his mistake. Please see it at: http://mangalam.com/index.php?page=detail&nid=607936&lang=malayalam. Now, please allow VS the "agency" to decide for himself, and withdraw the letter to save your face.

4) Finally, people like me, who have worked in the party from childhood and fought both the police and political opponents in Kerala, do not need yesterday's kids like you to come in and call us "Yes-men". Please understand that your own position accounts for nothing but "yes-to-myself" and nothing else. That is a deeply undemocratic, self-centered and arrogant line. I rest me case there, now that you yourselves have accepted openly that your petition was driven more by your frustrations on Bengal and CPI(M), rather than the suffering people of Idinthakarai.

Antony, Kochi