In continuation with the ongoing debates in the Left student movement in JNU, here are some more insights from SFI activists and sympathizers in JNU
Where the leaders of “SFI-JNU” Erred - Part Two
13.07.2012
Failure to engage in consultations
We would like to explain a point that we made in our earlier pamphlet further. Why didn’t the leaders of the erstwhile JNU unit of SFI engage in wider consultations before evolving the line to be discussed at the GBM? Did the erstwhile leadership explore all available avenues before pushing their line? Four members of the Delhi State Committee were part of the unit here, including two State Vice-Presidents and the State President himself who could have convened a State Committee meeting. They could have easily forced the Delhi State Committee to take a stand on the issue and to send it to the Central Executive Committee, of which the State President was a permanent invitee. Not only was this option NOT exercised, but the Delhi State Committee was not even convened for a full one and a half years. Lamenting the higher leadership’s intervention after all these happened cannot be taken seriously.
From Tailism to Opportunist Consensus
While the AISA welcomed Prasenjit Bose’s resignation and concentrated on attacking the organised Left (as they have been doing for a long time), the erstwhile leadership sought to insulate the JNU unit of SFI from the larger movement precisely over the same reasons. They failed to realise that the choice before the Left in the Presidential elections was between NDA-backed Kalam and a Congress-backed candidate. The formulation “support to the secular candidate with the widest possible acceptance” was crucial in forcing the withdrawal of the former from the Presidential elections.
Moreover, several SFI members pointed out at the GBM that regardless of one’s opinion on the Presidential polls, this issue was not one that merited the disruption of the unity of the organisation itself. As has been noted by several sympathisers, unless the erstwhile leaders believed that this is an issue that could arouse the masses into action and contribute to a revival of class politics in the country, the haste in which the course of action they adopted raises serious questions. If the unit decides to withdraw from the larger left movement on such a pretext, it can only be called “left-wing childishness” if not to bolster the viewpoints of an individual who has resigned.
Lack of class bias
The lack of class bias evident in the pamphlets issued by “SFI-JNU” was best exemplified in their approach to the legacy of the working class movement in Idukki in Kerala, where M M Mani was the district secretary of the CPI(M). M M Mani’s statement was reprehensible and needs to be condemned. Having denounced his statement and called for action against him, the leadership should also have made an attempt to talk about the working class movement in Idukki without in any manner justifying Mani’s statement. The movement of the working class in the district was built up in the face of ruthless repression from the ruling classes and the state machinery. Thousands of workers who were employed in big cardamom estates like Kaanthippaara, Venkalappaara, Aanachaal and a number of others in Idukki were subject to inhuman exploitation. The efforts to organise these workers during the 1970s and 80s were met with such brutal violence that trade union leaders had to go underground. That was taken as an opportunity by the goons of the big estate owners and the goons of the Congress to unleash violence on activists who remained behind, to molest women and so on in an attempt to get them to leave CITU and to force them to join the pliant INTUC. All these were done with the full backing of the repressive police machinery – K Karunakaran of the Congress was the Chief Minister then.
One particularly gruesome incident was when the notorious Congress goon Mullanchira Mathai dragged out a woman member of the CITU from her home when she refused to leave CITU. She was eight months pregnant. Mathai sat on her stomach and said, “Wow, it’s nice sitting on your stomach, woman. It’s softer than a mattress.” There was also another incident when Mathai and other goons attacked Thilothama Soman (currently member of the Saanthanpaara Area Committee of the CPI(M)) at her home and threw her six-month old child on the road. The popular resistance to ruling class oppression in Idukki involved fighting goons like Mathai. This resistance was broad-based and not confined to just one political party. It was this popular resistance that finally facilitated open trade union activity and enabled the working class movement to stand on its own.
Instead of making even a feeble attempt to talk about the fighting legacy of the working class movement in Idukki, the “SFI-JNU” leaders chose to abdicate the responsibility of politicising the students (the vast majority of which are obviously not aware of the history of the labour movement in Idukki). The stance they adopted instead of taking on this responsibility was nothing but a position of convenience. It is apt remembering Mao’s words in this context: “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous.”
We understand that the present political confinement of the erstwhile leaders of SFI’s JNU unit has forced them to resort to desperate remarks like “We will not let the new SFI ad-hoc committee to function in the campus”. We urge the unit organising committee of the SFI in JNU to forge a larger political unity within the organisation in order to strengthen the left and democratic students’ movement.
Sd/-
T. Lakshmi Narayana, Manu M R, Rajeev Kumar, Siddik Rabiyath, Subin Dennis.
Down with Liquidationism!!
Long Live the Students Federation of India!!!
The PDF is also attached
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Where the leaders of SFI-JNU Erred - Part Two.pdf | 23.26 KB |
Comments
Yesterday AISA was accused of
Yesterday AISA was accused of “left-wing childishness” - and now the SFI-JNU rebel unit too is being branded as the same. This is the CPIM's habit of branding all criticism from a Left perspective as anarchist.
how does SFI (pranab
how does SFI (pranab mukherjee) explain the resignation of the state secretary of delhi sfi for lack of consultation before dissolving such an important unit as JNU?
those making appeals to the
those making appeals to the SFI Unit OC are the same as the members of the OC. Why make appeals to yourselves comrades?
everybody is able to read
everybody is able to read pamphlets from both sides. who is adopting a political position and who is mentioning some politics but ultimately resorting to spreading lies and slander that can create confusion among those who are not part of JNU.
think the official sfi pamphlets are less for consumption by students within JNU and more for creating confusion among comrades all over the country through petty lies sneaked in between political rhetoric.
again appeal to comrades not to give up on politics...but to engage in political debates. we can all benefit from robust political-ideological debates. political dissent doesn't make us enemies. nor does it warrant the need for distortions.
so the 67 members who
so the 67 members who endorsed the second resolution of SFI-JNU in another GBM yesterday are all doing so to 'bolster the viewpoints of an individual who has resigned'? Wonder how many more supporters he has.
Please keep on insulting the political consciousness of JNU SFI members in this manner. it seems you believe in 're-electing the people'.
the sympathizers (they cannot
the sympathizers (they cannot be called official SFI yet or can they?) are pointing out that the CPI(M) may be wrong on certain issues but what about its correct practices?
the SFI-JNU seems to be saying that they are already with the correct mass movements, struggles and sacrifices of the CPI(M) but refuse to defend some of its indefensible practices any more.
Some more questions to the "official" SFI
"They failed to realise that the choice before the Left in the Presidential elections was between NDA-backed Kalam and a Congress-backed candidate. " Really? Abstention was not an option at all? Oh, wait, that would side the party with the TMC, though CPI and RSP decided to do so.
"Moreover, several SFI members pointed out at the GBM that regardless of one’s opinion on the Presidential polls, this issue was not one that merited the disruption of the unity of the organisation itself. "
But the All India leadership took the issue so seriously that they dissolved an entire unit for having a different opinion. In this regard, I would like to quote from Part 1 of your detailed analysis as well - "We would like to point out that taking a political stand that goes contrary to the position adopted by the national leadership of the left movement SFI is partisan towards is not a trivial matter. "
I said in my earlier comment that the SFI All India secretary has been recorded saying on TV (multiple times within the same debate) that SFI has no obligation to defend CPM's positions.
You see the double speak?
- Sharanya
The SFI all India leadership
The SFI all India leadership certainly erred in hastily dissolving the JNU Unit as according to their own logic 'Presidential election' can not be an issue to disrupt the Left unity. However, with regard to SFI-JNU's decision to conduct the GBM to oppose CPM's position, a thought inevitably come to mind whether 'SFI-JNU' unit will henceforth call for GBMs every now and then to take a position on tactical political lines of communist parties in India? Certainly, were there not other ways to express dissatisfaction with CPM's position on Presidential issue? Also, there are no evidences to suggest that demand to express opposition to CPM's support to Pranab Mukherjee came from below, from its ranks. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the diktat for the same came from above, as usual.
Another question that comes to mind is 'why no other SFI unit in the entire country; even where vibrant organizational set up exist like in the state of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra or Himachal Pradesh; came out openly against CPM on the issue of Presidential election? Why not any unit of any other mass organization reacted in the same way?
There has certainly been short-sightedness and also case to believe about score-settling from 'leadership' of 'SFI-JNU' and leadership of All India SFI against each-other.
It is also unbelievable that All India SFI is acting without consultation with the CPM Polit Bureau. If that is so, and certainly it is like that, one doesn't see any chance of efforts on its part to bring back many of its dedicated cadres and members to the fold of SFI. All India SFI will do gross mistake if it thinks that it can rebuild the unit without winning back majority of members currently rallied with 'JNU-SFI.'
For all those who have suddenly discovered "partisanship"
A famous Urdu poet while doing one of his many jail sentences said
सच अच्छा सच अच्छा, सच के लिए कोई और मरे तो और भी अच्छा (Truth is good, truth is good. If somebody else dies for the truth even better)
Those in the "erred" category and many more defended the party with real conviction all this while rather than to prove some loyalty to the "leadership".
It is amusing to see the others who had "drawn their conclusions" earlier suddenly wanting to belong. Loyal fence sitters are indeed a "new insight" to the left and the SFI.
Real danger
Much better than the earlier one.... The SFI state committee's non-activeness was serious matter and needs explanation. What was the role of In-charge of students' fraction of Delhi CPM in it? The brief history of Idduki's working class movement is educative and nicely contextualise.... The real danger of 'SFI-JNU's' position is possibility of its alienation from mainstream left movement in the country. After taking position against CPM and also claiming to be different from NGO-style approach of AISA, it becomes challenging for the leadership of 'SFI-JNU' to ensure organic linkage of its base with wider left movement in the country. I wish there will evolve some ways to reconcile the differences and ensure 'one united SFI' in JNU campus, for the sake of its 40 years' legacy of study and struggle and for the progressive future of the campus.
Study and struggle seem to be
Study and struggle seem to be doing very well in JNU without much help from the SFI
my way or high way! that is
my way or high way! that is what dogmato-revisionists like you seem to believe. now that the Delhi State President and Secretary have both been expelled, it seems that a blanket licence has been granted to say anything and everything about their past. in short, there is still a denial that this is a political dissent and desperate attempts are being made to attribute other motivations.
why ask questions? why don't
why ask questions? why don't you elaborate on the role of the in-charge of student's fraction of delhi cpm? maybe we can learn some more details and add to the muck that is already flying around through whisper campaigns...
Questions to the "official" SFI in JNU
After reading just the first paragraph, I have 2 questions to ask the signatories of this pamphlet.
a.) The SFI All-India General Secretary has been declaring on public forums that it is not the SFI's job to defend the CPI (M)'s decisions. This piece of insight was missing from the duties of the mass organization when unit members, willingly or not, were defending Nandigram and Singur to all and sundry. Then why was an entire unit dissolved for passing a resolution, in a democratic GBM, that said the Party was wrong in its decision to support Pranab? Why, if you consider the issue too trivial for a Left Party to fight over, "left-wing childishness" as you have described it, was a unit which has 40 years of blood, sweat and tears behind it, dismantled over it?
b.) You have argued that the expelled leaders did not "explore all available avenues before pushing their line". Did the All India leadership explore all avenues to convince the unit that the Party's decision was the right one? After convening a hastily called meeting, instead of allowing the expelled members to explain their stand, other members (even reluctant ones) were forced to take a decision on such an important issue in a single afternoon! Is dissolving a unit that dared to say the Party took a wrong decision such a simple thing that the leadership only required a few hours to decide that there was no alternative?
-Sharanya
Give me 5
I wish they had some more names to add to this..... the reality is that only 5 are left (out). Really sad....