PRAGOTI

Dear Anonymous,
Nestle was a political blunder that we committed and I, as a part of the leadership then, have always owned it up. In the recently concluded SFI conference in JNU, I said as much in case you were present there. The difference between a mistake and an incorrect political understanding is whether you learn from them (and not repeat them) or whether you think that's the way forward. SFI in JNU understood its mistake on Nestle and acknowledged it as such. They have never repeated it.
 
I am not sure, however, how is it relevant for me signing an appeal against an unjust move by the all India SFI leadership? Are you suggesting that I have no right to take a political position ever in my life just because of this one mistake? Come on, comrade!

I am still quite surprised that except for name calling, there has been no justification for why this step was taken. That convinces me even more about the vacuity of the claims of conspiracy. It is the lack of political argument either on the presidential elections or on dissolution that is leading certain comrades to get into the business of name calling.

Dear Anonymous,
 
My public resignation letter dated 10th February, 2007 (pasted in various JNU walls) clearly mentioned about my dissent and protest against the political issues of forcible land acquisition from a section of peasants in Singur and similar plan for the proposed SEZ in Nandigram apart from giving tax concessions to big corporates and implementing Section 144 by the state police to avoid political resistance against displacement. Secondly, I also cited the reason of socio-economic backwardness of Muslim minorities in West Bengal and the lack of any perspective of the Left Front on that count even after three decades of its otherwise impressive record in land reforms and Panchayati Raj. You must be aware that the issues of Singur-Nandigram and the Muslim question in West Bengal became important as far as the electoral debacle of the Left Front is concerned that started right from the panchayat elections in May 2008. The people were faced with an historic irony that it was the same Left Front which now expropriates their land, livelihood and peasant economy for the cause of ‘corporate model of industrial development’, once implemented ‘operation barga’ by redistributing land among the people. This expropriation of land by the Left from the people was coupled with a sense of humiliation and disrespect on the part of the people that it felt strongly against an arrogant Left leadership.
 
Personally, I have never regretted the decision to resign from SFI at that time because my protest was against the Singur-Nandigram issues. During that time, the SFI in JNU was not prepared to publicly criticize and condemn those issues, although in private, a number of SFI-JNU members had strong reservations against Singur-Nandigram. After 2007 till now, I have always been a sympathiser of the Left and have tried to contribute in my own little way, particularly during the 2008 Delhi assembly election campaign for the CPI(M), the 2009 Lok Sabha election campaign for the Left Front in West Bengal and in the 2011 West Bengal Assembly election campaign for the Left Front in West Bengal.
 
The reasons for my concerns about the SFI-JNU as a former executive committee member of the unit are of the following:
(1) Recently, the SFI-JNU has not only taken a principled political stand on political issue like the Presidential election but has also argued about the autonomous character of mass organisations, which have never been seriously debated within the Indian Left in the recent past. This is a moment when the issue of autonomy of the mass organisations should have been maturely handled by the CPI(M) and the national and Delhi SFI leadership. Instead, they have resorted to crass authoritarianism where there is almost a physical-intellectual labour dichotomy in such organisational procedures, i.e. the top party leadership would only decide about larger political and policy issues whereas the local units are only meant to implement the political-tactical line decided by the leadership. I think this is not only a top down anti-democratic approach but also elitist in nature. 
 
(2) The SFI-JNU has recognised the fact that the political issues of Singur-Nandigram has also affected its electoral prospects in the JNU campus apart from some organisational lapses and they have done so in a self-critical manner.
 
(3) The SFI unit in JNU was one of the oldest SFI units in the country with a glorious history of student movement in India. One cannot just surrender such a platform for all kinds of wrong reasons like in the name of disciplinary action that is also murky since SFI-JNU has articulated its political position by keeping with the tone and tenor of article 2.13 of SFI constitution.
 
(4) Resignations and expulsions from party and mass organizations are nothing new. However, it is unfortunate how the party and its all-India student leadership have reacted to the political disagreements and dissents of those who were defending the party against all kinds of odds till the very other day. The CPI(M) constitution itself points out that "even where disciplinary measure has been taken, the efforts to help the comrade to correct himself shall continue." (Party Discipline: Article XIX, Clause 14 of the party constitution). In this context, it was expected that the CPI(M) leadership would follow its own party constitution after the recent resignations and subsequent expulsions of its valuable activists like comrades in SFI-JNU. On the contrary, it is not considering any such matured and sympathetic approach and rather engaged in crass authoritarianism, which is unfortunate and would further harm the party like the increasing revisionist tendencies within the CPI(M). In this respect, many including those who are now outside the party were fighting an inner-party struggle against the revisionist tendencies within the CPI(M). After successive electoral debacles, many people thought that good sense would prevail on the CPI(M) leadership. But alas, the presidential election only proved that the CPI(M) leadership is hardly taking any lessons from its past mistakes of allowing revisionist tendencies to dominate its political thinking. In this respect, there is a breaking point and one has to take a call when one is unable to further defend such revisionist tendencies of the CPI(M). That breaking point was early for someone and later for anybody else. Thus, my concern is more of solidarity for the SFI-JNU.
 
(5) Finally, it is an issue of two different perspectives of how the Left in India can be strengthened. The official line of the CPI(M) on the Presidential election is a path of short cut tactics with a possibility of further deepening the revisionist tendencies within the party, which a section of the CPI(M) thinks is the way to make a comeback in West Bengal. By contrast, the opposition to the official decision is based on the argument that such a tactic is not only violation of the agreed political-tactical line of the recently held 20th Party Congress but would also harm the party by further isolation from people and erosion of its mass base. The second view asserts in sticking to the agreed political-tactical line of keeping distance from both the Congress and the BJP and rather make independent initiatives of sustained militant mass mobilizations and carry forward left-democratic movements and struggles on various issues of the day. The first position is that of an easy way out while the second one might be slow but a steady and healthy one. In this context, one has to choose a path and decide where does one stand in this milieu of important debates within the Indian Left. In this respect, the appeal also signifies showing of solidarity to the second view.
 
If you would have done the ethical act of naming yourself instead of putting comments anonymously, then one could have identified how much contributions you have made in the SFI-JNU or in the Left movement in general apart from recognising where do you stand in the polarised political debate between opportunism-sectarianism on one hand and an imaginative and radical path of intensified struggle on the other.  
               
 

and who is this 'prominent' person giving certificates of 'split strategy, not a genuine expression of faith in sfi'?

you can do a counter signature campaign upholding the dissolution of the JNU Unit and see how many signatures you get. it would help you make a genuine assessment of the extent of your own delusions and maybe also understand in the process how deep the anguish caused by this undemocratic and vindictive decision is.

stop trying to appropriate sensible and committed people for your petty, partisan and blinkered ends. if you have even an iota of concern for the future of the SFI, join this effort to put an end to this destructive dissolution.

Albeena Shakil, Anubhuti Maurya, Arani Sinha, Dhananjay Tripathi, Divya Cherian, Harish Wankhade, Jyotsna Singh, Rohit, Sejuti Dasgupta are some of the prominent names (that you want to see; without drawing hierarchy between them) of JNU politics (elected representative and otherwise) for you. Jayati ghosh is also there. As for others not signing may be entirely due to their upholding of 'disciplining' mechanism they may be still bound to (and they think it is too soon to break it). On contrary to what you say, they may all be in support of this democratization of SFI (and so they do still have hope from SFI) being led by SFI-JNU against the authoritarian high handedness of SFI CEC (symptomatic of right deviation). So please do not try to offer your ready-made conclusion (arising out of allegiance to right deviation in the party) and mislead people here. So your loyalty to powers that be elsewhere.

good that some people have at least seen through this childish game of disrupting the Left! Even ex-secy of SFI, JNU unit, Subhanil Chowdhury has managed to take a correct position on this by not signing.