Download

KASHMIR: BLOOD IN VALLEY |2QUESTIONS CONCERNING TIBET |3 NUKE DEAL |20

SOCIAL FASCISM |7SUPER POWER DREAM|4

GORKHALAND |6

CLASS ANALYSIS OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE |13

THE OTHER VOICE

OF THE PEOPLEA NEW D AWNTOWARDS

VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2008|RS 10

E“…How many years can some people exist

Before they’re allowed to be freeYes, how many times can a man turn his head

Pretending he just doesn't see……”

The road-roller of globalization is suddenly on a verge of decadence- the balloon of share market has reduced its size, the oil shock and inflation has taken most household commodity beyond the reach of millions of people around the globe. Even the US and European countries are facing the music of crisis of global capital. Europeans are reinventing their bicycles, which has remained long forgotten in the garages, the fuel price have really hit them that hard. (are they going back to the medieval period?)

But Indian ruling class has kept their finger on their lips. Tata is going to launch the Nano and it is through the hands of “Communist” Chief Minister of West Bengal Buddhadeb Bhattacharya who emphasizes that private capital will pave the path for socialism (recollect the slogan that echoed throughout the CPI (M) rally in Singur- Long Live Marxism, Long Live Ratan Tata). The other states of India are also busy fighting over their share of private capital investment. The state governments are proactively conspiring to sell off the water, land and forest resources; even human resources are being sold to the foreign masters according to plan drawn by the Indian capitalists. From Congress to BJP and CPI (M) to BSP- all are involved in the business of jobless 'growth', industrialization and modernization.

A glaring crash in the Dalal Street, unprecedented inflation rate are revealing the skeletons of national economy and political bankruptcy of the mainstream parties. Various mass movements throughout the nation are attacking the existing system harder and harder each day - multicolored ruling parties are increasingly finding the answer to these questions only in bullets. The most recent example of this is the firing in Noida by government of (dalit leader) Mayavati on the deprived peasants. It is becoming evident that as the finance capital facing crisis its vanguard political ruling class is resorting to violence.

Another Lok Sabha election is knocking at the door soon the leaders will get busy trying to dupe the masses yet again in a shower of false promises and false hopes. The solution to eighty crores marginal, poor Indians will be penned down in manifestos of all colors and shapes. But we have seen that change never comes on a platter. Kings come and kings go, but kingdoms remain in darkness for ever.

It gives us hope when we see resistance of the people of Singur-Nandigram-Posco-Kalinganagar, resistance against all odds in basic demand of bread and employment, when we see people fighting against land acquisition in Kashmir raising slogans in the favor of freedom. Their demand for their right to self-determination and the demand for economic freedom of the downtrodden people of Indian are but opposite sides of same coin. As A.G.Frank an economist had said “development and underdevelopment are opposite sides of same coin, development of the first world was and still is due to underdevelopment of the third world.” In this scenario if people stand in “favor of change”, it means standing for these struggles for survival and existence.

The early days of the 1990s saw the beginning of a militant insurgency in Kashmir. The insurgency had immersed few years before it exploded fully. In November 1947, immediately after Kashmir's accession to India, Jawaharlal Nehru; the Indian Prime Minister, declared that, “the question of the state's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.” But the proposed plebiscite did never take place. The Indian state, for the next 40 years, not only denied the right to self determination of the Kashmiris, but also by constitutional manipulations transformed the status of Kashmir like that of any other Indian province. In 1987, five youths in jail, with a view to liberate Kashmir from Indian hegemony, formed an organization, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). They were Yasin Malik, Asfaq Wani, Abdul Hamid, Sheikh Ijaj, Ahmed Dar and Javed Mir. They declared that, in order to establish the right of the Kashmiris, popular discontent should be turned into an armed struggle for liberation. The demand for 'Azadi' echoed everywhere in the valley. The days of peaceful protest int hevalley came to an end and the situation became rife for an armed insurrection. Brutal state repression had been unleashed by the Indian state to suppress the protagonists of the right to self determination. Ruthless violation of human rights has, in fact, questioned the civilized entity of India.

The Indian state had legalized its brutality by introducing a number of repressive laws in the valley. Public Safety Act, 1978, was extensively used throughout the 1990s to curb the activities of the supporters of 'azadi'. It is a kind of preventive detention act which allows two years detention without trial. The years between 1990 and 1995 saw the indiscriminate use of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), 1985 in the valley. This draconian act had the provision of appointing designated courts, where victims were tried not in a public place, but in absolute concealment. The designated courts framed under TADA could even pronounce the death sentence. The valley also saw the rampant use of the Armed Forces Special Power Act. The Act empowered the armed forces to use force “to the point of causing death' to any person inspected for committing any “cognizable offence”. These undemocratic and repressive acts encouraged the Indian army as well as the paramilitary forces to commit thousands of extra judicial murders in the valley. An Amnesty International Report (January 1995) observed, “The brutality of torture in Jammu and Kashmir defies belief. It has left people disabled and mutilated for life.” An army officer proudly stated in April 1993 “We don't have custodial deaths here, we have alley deaths.” Even the women and the children were not spared. A Women's Fact Finding Commission observed in October 1997, “The atmosphere prevalent in the valley is that of fear and gloom. Women face constant humiliation and insecurity.” It has been roughly estimated that about 60,000 people had been killed in the 1990s by the Indian Security Forces in Kashmir.

The state terrorism fell heavily on the human rights activists as well Hriday Nath Wangchoo, Dr. F.A. Ashai, Dr. Abdul Ahad Gun and Jalil Andrabi were among the prominent victims. Wangchoo, a trade unionist and a retired IAS officer tiled a writ petition against extra-judicial execution in Kashmir. On 5 December, 1992, he was killed. It was reliably believed that BSF was behind his murder. Dr. Ashai and Dr. Guru were the physicians who had treated thousands of torture victims. Both of them supplied necessary information on terror and atrocities perpetrated by the Indian Security Forces. They were murdered in 1993. Jalil Andrabi, a prominent lawyer worked for the families of hundreds who mysteriously “disappeared” after being taken to the custody. He was killed in March 1996, when he was detained by Rashtriya Rifle soldiers. “He was so successful in his dangerous and difficult work that he had to be savagely silenced.” Read the obituary of Jalil Andrabi in the pages of Kashmir Times.

In reality, stern and human attitude of the Indian armed forces, encouraged by the rulers, has absolutely alienated the people of Kashmir. Pro-Pakistani militants have come forward to exploit the situation. Battle for 'Azadi' launched by the Kashmiris has three phases. In the early 1950s, Sheikh Abdullah and his National Conference tried to achieve right to self-determinationby way of a peaceful protest. The Government of India refused to ascribe any importance to this peaceful demand of the Kashmiris. Waiting for about 40 years, the Kashmiris took arms to fight the Indian armed forces and their atrocitites. They raised the banner of 'Kashmiriyat' in their fight for the right to self determination. But excess of the Indian armed forces committed against the fighters for Azadi as well as against the Kashmiris in general. The alienation of the Kashmiris became so crucial that pro Pakistani elements, backed by Islamic fundamentalists came to dominate the movement. The activities of the Islamic fundamentalists, in fact, provided the Indian state with an opportunity of calling the upsurge of Kashmir an anti-national movement.

Use of force in the valley by the protectors of law and order is often sanctioned by a persistent campaign on behalf of the Indian state that Pak-sponsored terrorism forms the crux of the problem in Kashmir. But this presents only a part of the entire picture. The valley is actually confronted with the problem related to unfulfilled hopes and aspirations of the Kashmiris. The Indian rulers should give up the policy of perceiving the people's protest in Kashmir as a mere law and order problem instigated by Pakistan and alight from the high pedestals of military might to recognize the popular will of the valley.

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008

DITORIAL

2

Blood in the Valley: State Terrorism in Kashmir in the 90s

-Sidharta Guha Roy The Kashmir valley just retorted again. The dispute began after the Kashmir government promised to give forest land to a trust that runs Amarnath, a cave shrine visited by Hindu pilgrims. At least 23 people have been killed and over 500 injured in clashes between Muslim protesters and police till now, hospital records show. The government then rescinded its decision, which in turn provoked BJP backed Hindus in Jammu who attacked lorries carrying supplies to Kashmir valley and blocked the region's highway, the only surface link with the rest of India. BJP and RSS making mess of situation, turning the communal riots and whipped up Hindu emotions. We are focusing on the historical expansionism of Indian State over Kashmir, to understand the inherent dissent of Kashmir people-- Editor

Write to us at - [email protected]

3

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

QUESTIONS CONCERNING TIBET

Amit Bhattacharyya

(Author's note: In March 2008, all leading Indian newspapers and TV channels published and telecast news of a rebellion in Tibet, which incidentally was the fiftieth year of the “free Tibet” rebellion in 1959. Almost immediately after that, most of the media, as if all of them were expecting such an event to happen, started publishing news about how bad the Chinese authorities are, how the Chinese Communist Party, since the days of Mao Tse-tung, had suppressed the genuine aspirations of the Tibetan people in China for freedom, how the PRC encouraged Han chauvinism and above all, how China had occupied Tibet, which was, according to them, never part of the Chinese territory. Not only leading newspapers, but many periodicals in both English and Bengali, if not also in other vernacular languages, started a slander campaign against China and Communism. Many eminent personalities belonging to different professions, while criticizing the forcible suppression of the protest movements inside Tibet, also poured their venom on the Communist ideology. However, what is significant is that all of them kept total silence on the Tibetan serfdom associated with the Dalai Lama rule and the fundamental socialist transformation brought about by the CPC in association of the people of Tibet in the 1950s. Most of the writers, in their haste to denounce the recent bloodbath, only betrayed a profound ignorance of the historical relations between China and Tibet and the part played first by the British and then by the US imperialism as also by the then Indian prime minister, Pandit J.N.Nehru. While dealing with the question concerning Tibet, one should strictly adhere to facts; one should keep in mind the fact that China of today is totally different from what it had been during the time Mao Tse-tung was at the helm of affairs, that today's China has deviated so much from Mao's policy and the ideology of Communism associated with him that it had become a capitalist power long time back. So the policy pursued by the present-day government of China can never be the same as that pursued earlier. This essay seeks to analyze the events right from the ancient period and will continue until the late 1970s, after which, along with the change in the colour of China in the post-Mao phase, there might have been changes in the policy towards Tibetans and other small nationalities.

“Most of the kaloons* of the Tibetan local government and the reactionary clique of the upper social strata colluded with imperialism, gathered together rebellious bandits, rebelled, wrought havoc among the people, held Dalai Lama under duress, tore up the 17-article Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, and on the night of 19 March, directed the Tibetan local army and rebels in an all-out attack against the People's Liberation Army garrison at Lhasa. Such acts which betray the motherland and disrupt the unification of the country cannot be tolerated by the law…”(Premier Chou En lai's 'Order of the State Council of the People's Republic of China' dt. March 28,1959; *The local government of Tibet is called kasha and its six members are called kaloons in Tibetan). The rebellion was crushed within three days by 22 March. According to official reports, about five thousand armed rebels were killed; the number of casualties on the PLA side is not known. In March 2008, on the fiftieth anniversary of that rebellion, sections of the Tibetan population rebelled against the Chinese government and raised the “Free Tibet” slogan. The movement spread to some other areas and countries including India. Within a few days the movement was quelled in China.

This movement raised a hue and cry in some quarters both in India and abroad and brought into the focus some questions, some of which are historical in nature while some others are directly related to the present situation in China. The following questions are being raised: whether Tibet was historically part of China; what was the policy of the People's Republic of China and the stand of Mao Tse-tung towards small nationalities in general and Tibet in particular; the policy of the PRC towards Tibet after 1949; what happened in 1959; what was the role of US imperialism and the government of India led by Nehru towards the issue of Tibet etc. What is evident from the discussions that have come up since March 2008 and available in India is that some pertinent questions have virtually not been dealt with at all, or only in passing. One is the historical relationship between China and Tibet; the other is the nature of the dark, cruel serf system in Tibet that was uprooted by the Chinese Communists and how a new socialist society was created there.For the sake of convenience, I propose to divide the whole discussion into the following sections: 1) Was Tibet historically an integral part of China? 2)

thBritish imperialist designs on Tibet(Early 19 century--1949); 3) Tibet in the China-USA-India Relationship; 4) Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai on the question of small nationalities in China; 5) Background of the Rebellion of 1959; 6) Nehru and Tibet; 7) Why are foreign powers such as the USA

interested in Tibet? 8) Tibetan serfdom 9)Transformation of Tibet from a feudal country into a socialist one; 9)Is China a threat by example?

Section 1: Was Tibet historically an integral part of China?

China, admittedly one of the largest countries of the world, is the home of fifty-six nationalities. Nearly 94% of her people belong to the Han nationality. Besides the Han, there are many minority nationalities such as the Mongol, Hui, Tibetan, Uighur, Chuang, Miao, Yi, Kirghiz, Tatar and others. The interesting point is that the population of the minority nationalities in China is small, but the area they inhabit is large. The Han people comprise 94% of the total population--an overwhelming majority, but they are settled in about 40 to 50 per cent of the total land area in China. On the other hand, the other 50 to 60 per cent of the land area is, as we can well understand, very sparsely populated by the other 55 small nationalities of China. All these nationalities contributed through long years of cooperation and interaction, to its formation as a united country.

Relations between China and Tibet were established on a firm basis during the rule of the Tang dynasty in China(618-907 AD), though contacts and exchanges between the Han and Tibetan nationalities and between their ancestors, antedate written history. During the Tang rule, there were no less than 100 missions exchanged between the two countries and eight treaties concluded by them. In 641, Emperor Tai Tsung of the Tang dynasty married Princess Wen Cheng to the Tibetan king, Sron-tsan Gampo. She took with her silk-worm eggs and a large number of Han craftsmen specializing in brewing, rice-milling, paper and ink-making. This helped in promoting the economic and cultural development of Tibet at that time. According to Buston, the historian of Tibet, the Chinese princess was largely responsible for the introduction of Buddhism in Tibet and the Tibetan looked upon her as an incarnation of the Divine Mother(Tara). When Emperor Tai Tsung died and Emperor Kao Tsung was enthroned, king Sron-tsan Gampo wrote to the Tang prime minister, saying: “On this occasion of the enthronement of the emperor, if there are subordinates who show disloyalty I am willing to dispatch troops to join in the expedition against them”. The new emperor bestowed on him many titles of honour. Such close relationships between the Tibetan and Han nationalities became further strengthened in 710 AD, when another Han princess, Chin Cheng, was married to the then Tibetan king Tridetsogtan during the reign of the Tang emperor Chung Tsung. Thousands of pieces of silk and brocade, Han acrobats and musical instruments as also copies of classic works were sent to Tibet. All these helped in facilitating further access of the Tibetans to the handicrafts, techniques of production, music, scholarship and culture of the Hans. In 729 AD again, the Tibetan king Tridetsogtan wrote a memorial to the Tang emperor Hsuan Tsung in which he said: “I, a relative of the former emperor, also have the honour to be married to Princess Chin Cheng and we are thus members of one family, and the common people throughout the land live in happiness and prosperity”(italics ours). This is a document of historical importance as Tibet and the Tang empire were described as “members of one family”. Thus matrimonial bonds helped promote social, economic, technological and cultural contacts of a profound nature between the Tibetan and Han nationalities. Large numbers of Tibetan emissaries were frequently sent to the Tang court; they presented tributes and applied for trade. The Tibetans thus were not treated as “men from afar” as was the attitude towards the foreigners during the rule of the Manchu dynasty, but one of their own.

thIn the middle of the 9 century when the Tang rule was coming to a close, the Tibetan king Lang Darma of Tibet was killed by the upper strata of the lamas and chaos reigned supreme. During that long period of turmoil, a general, in response to a proposal from some quarters to install a new Tsanpu, declared: “How can a new Tsanpu be installed without the conferment of the title by the great Tang dynasty.?” The French scholar Grenard, in his book Le Tibet put forward the view that the Tibetan ruler Sron-Tsan Gampo had already recognized the Chinese emperor's sovereignty over Tibet.

During the period of Sung rule in China(960-1279 AD), Tibet became weak and divided and the Sungs, faced with internal problems, could hardly devote any attention to Tibet. Thus there was a weakening of the link between the two nationalities. Tibetan-Chinese relations took a definite turn with the rise of the Mongol dynasty(Yuan) from 1271 to 1368 AD, following the great conquests of Jenghis Khan and his grandson Kublai Khan, who ruled as emperor of China. Its consequence on Tibet-China relations was of the most far-reaching nature. Kublai Khan enforced the pacification of Tibet with even greater energy and ferocity than his predecessor Monga, who had already set up pacification bureau along the western border of Szechuan. Kublai set up a

contd. to page 10


SUPERPOWER DREAM COMES CRASHING

- Sumit Chowdhury

'India is shining splendid. The stupor is over and the sleeping giant has woken up. The day is not far off when this great beloved India of ours will be an economic superpower, at par with the best and the brightest in the world. Sare jahan se achcha. Chak de India.' So were pronouncing, with a great deal of relish, the power-crazy politicians, in power or not, and the government's neoliberal policymakers and propagandists barely six months ago. So were articulating the wool-in-the-eye but all-knowing scribes and idiot-box commentators, echoing the over-the-moon sentiments of the astronomical wage-earning corporate managers and their super-profit-accumulating employers. Bankers, stockbrokers and all the other go-getters of the world were on a high like never before. And they did not utterly go wrong, at least on the surface of it. The annual GDP growth rate had been ascending at a frenzied pace; both industry and agriculture had been keeping the health of Olympic athletes, on both counts of productivity and aggregate production – the latter in large part due to a more than a decade of good rains; the bag holding foreign exchange had begun to show a bulge – though not quite bursting at the seams; and the sensitivity metre of share prices had been hovering to hit the roof of the tall tower in Dalal Street. It was, let there be no doubt, the happiest hour for India's super-rich and the ever-burgeoning HIG yuppies. But the whistle blows when it is least anticipated. The spectacle freezes just when the firecrackers are to rent the sky. The trumpeters of neoliberalism stop blowing, the bugle brigade of corporatism halts their march and the spectators who had come all the way to see the colourful pageant of a society on the soaring freeway of a free-market-induced economic growth leave in a huff. All of a sudden, the wheels of the grand chariot of 'shining India' look wobbly and made of some very brittle stuff.

The party is overTo get a close-up snapshot of a carousing party ending in a whimper, let us turn our gaze at some tellingly symptomatic figures: In the first week of January this year, the authoritative forecast was that India's real GDP growth rate would touch 8.5 percent – one of the highest in the world, next only to that of China – by the end of the year. It was a prediction that was not without some merit. The GDP has been, in truth, growing by leaps and bounds for the past half a decade (after having remained a steady 4.7 percent in the three-year period of 2001-03) and its multiplier effect, and even the 'trickle down,' could be felt by all sections of the society, particularly the 'feeling good' middle classes. But 'April', wrote TS Eliot, 'is the cruellest month.' And by the time the heat and dust of an Indian summer settled down in April, the picture did take an unexpectedly Eliotian turn. Belying all the hype about an impending economic boom, the GDP growth – geared by runaway inflation, yawning trade deficit, stock market downslide and slowdowns in the industrial and service sector growths – went on a reverse trail. If in January, India had already taken a giant stride forward towards an economic paradise, by April, the country had gone two strides back towards an economic purgatory. And the drive backwards continues even in the full monsoon month of August, at breakneck speed, apparently without a brake. In the week ending January 5, 2008, the Wholesale Price Index (WPI)-based inflation rate in the economy was a mere 3.8 percent. Today, on the eve of

stIndia's 61 Independence Day, the rate has gone up to an unprecedented 12.89 percent, raising fears that it may touch a gruelling 14 or even15 percent before the onset of the festive season. As is always the case in an economy marked by deep income disparities, the working people, the petty producers, the self-employed and the salaried classes are the worst-hit by the phenomenal price rise triggered by this upward inflationary movement. A trip to the roadside vegetable vendor or the grocery around the corner nowadays inevitably raises the flow of blood to one's head. The picture is as bleak apropos the industrial landscape. The rate of growth for industry, which was assumed to be around 12 percent by the end of the year, dipped dramatically from a moderately high annual average of 8.9 percent a year ago to about 3.5 percent in April this year, the lowest in several years. According to official data released on August 12, the industrial growth in the second quarter (April-June) of this year plummeted to 5.4 percent as against 9.8 percent in the same period the year before. The main reason attributed to such traumatic decline has been a less-than-poor performance of manufacturing and the core infrastructure industries. Growth in the manufacturing sector, which accounts for more than two-thirds

Manufacturing, it may be recalled, had exhibited a similar trend in the first quarter (January-March) of 2008 as well, growing by a rather poor 5.6 percent compared with 11.1 percent in 2007. As regards infrastructure, the growth rate of the core industries – crude oil, petroleum refinery products, cement, finished steel, coal and electricity – fell to 3.5 percent in the second quarter as against 6.4 percent during the corresponding period the previous year. Only coal (and thus, mining) fared reasonably well, registering a growth of 3.5 percent in relation to a negative growth of 3.6 percent last year (the mining sector bounced back to post 2.9 percent growth compared with 1.5 percent) even as electricity did the worst, falling to 2.6 percent against 6.8 percent a year ago. Such appalling feat on the industrial front has sent shivers and shockwaves down the midriff of the once-buoyant industry circles. The service sector, too, has not fallen behind in this mad slide downwards. Software trade, financial services, real estate, automobiles, air travel, tourism, hospitality, advertising and even entertainment – all of these are showing either stagnation or decline in growth rates, putting an abrupt end to the merrymaking of the last few years. The party, clearly, is over and an air of gloom appears to be descending on the high-spirited crowd of professionals and service-peddlers. The confusion is further compounded by the simultaneous occurrence of extraneous events such as the sudden surge in international crude oil prices. Because of such record rise in crude prices, India has had to expend 50 percent more of her foreign exchange reserves in the current fiscal year (2008-09) than in the previous fiscal year (2007-08). Government data on August 1 revealed that the country spent $25.5bn on oil imports in the first quarter this fiscal, more than 50.2 percent from $16.9bn spent in the same quarter the previous year. In June alone, the oil bill was $9bn, up by 53 percent from what was spent in the same month the year before. The result is a cavernous chasm in the country's balance of payments, the deficit in crude oil trade itself rising by 42 percent from a year ago, from $21.4bn to $30.4bn (although exports at an average of $118.50 per barrel during the quarter swelled by 22.3 percent in dollar terms, imports rose by 29.7 percent). The effect on the already downsliding economy as a whole has been, to say the least, debilitating. It is the common man who has had to pay for the lack of vision displayed by our economic thinkers in blindly aping the capitalist west and going the whole hog for an oil-driven economy; the oil-dependent lifestyles the urban globalised classes have adopted for themselves are equally to blame. The globalised chattering classes, flush with credit cards, bombarded with titillating temptations of free gifts and discount purchases, served with a barrage of offers of car loans, loans for penthouse apartments and luxury vacations and with the holding out of a vast vista of investment opportunities in ULIPs and mutual funds are developing a mindset never seen before. It is a mindset that has not only dedicated itself wholeheartedly to unrestrained consumerism but also, more so, bred an irresistible craving for acquiring, through the mediations of stock and real estate markets, capital assets that grow rapidly in size on account of the high rates of appreciation in values. This is, what may be termed as, 'new capitalism' – the capitalism of finance – in which paper value is seen to be the true indicator of economic strength. India, for this new breed of asset-stockpiling Indians, resident or non-resident, has arrived in the global market, not so much because of the presence of Indian goods and services in the world market but because it is they who have arrived, as reflected in the sharp increase in their paper wealth. An insane paper chase without parallel in India's business history! But the market, which they hold so dear to their hearts, has, after the magical spell of the past few years, shattered the illusion, as only the market can. Business Line (July 6) reports: between January 8-July 8, 2008, the sensex nosedived from a peak of 20,873 to 13,454 or by 35 percent. Measured in dollar terms, the market capitalisation of Indian stocks went down by 46 percent in the period January 1-July 8, one of the highest in the world when compared with the similar downslides in South Korea (25 percent), Hong Kong (24 percent), Brazil (3 percent) and Mexico (0.5 percent). Vietnam is the only country in Asia that fared worse than India; China followed close behind India with a 42 percent decline. Business line also reports in its issue the day before (July 5): On January 8, 2008, there were 522 billionaires in India, many among the Forbes list of the world's richest. But by July 4, the number had come down to 421 as 101 erstwhile billionaires suffered 20-65 percent erosion in their net worth. All because of a 35 percent fall in sensex. Anil Dhirubhai Ambani endured a heavy loss that nearly halved his wealth from Rs253,567 crore to Rs115,878 crore while his estranged brother Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani lost more than 30 percent. The party, it may be asserted with the risk of repetition, is over for India's paper-money capitalists. The band has stopped playing, it's pack-up time and everyone's going home.

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

4

contd. to page 5

SUPER POWER DREAMThe collapse of a 'bubble economy'The collapse of India's shortlived economic boom was predictable from the very beginning. One saw it coming once one saw through the layers of cheap, artificial gloss it had padded itself up with. It had no real basis in strong fundamentals and the inevitable bust was only a matter of time. The bubble had to burst and it did. The roller-coaster ride took off on the belief that growth, and unbridled growth alone, can end India's age-old poverty and herald economic prosperity. The credo became the country's official policy in the mid-80s when it emerged as the official diktat of the US-created and US-controlled international financial institutions for the developing world. The obsession over growth has been persisting since then.In order to augment the growth rate, the first task was to shed the caustic 'Hindu rate' (a measly 3 percent per annum) tag that got stuck to it during Nehru's fuzzy 'mixed economy' and his daughter's hypocritical 'Garibi hatao' days. When Nehru's grandson took over the country's reins, he, on the instructions of the World Bank and IMF, set about lifting all those things that stifled the free growth of both market and monopoly. Later, when a former World Bank economist took charge of the country's financial affairs in 1991, he spent no time in launching the 'reform' era at the command of the Bretton Woods twins. Since then, the growth rate has been steadily moving upwards, breaking into a free steeplechase run when the same distinguished economist of the World Bank vintage became India's premier in 2004. The partying had begun. The growth rate could take such a steep trajectory in the last four years or so because the 'reform' agenda carried out primarily on the basis of neoliberal prescriptions promoted the development of a speculative economy. Towards this end, productive investments were given the short shrift and the doors of the capital and financial markets were opened to all and sundry. The idea was to generate a generous growth of demand in the virtual market, so as to compensate for its deficiency in the real market owing to lack of purchasing capacity of the vast exploited, enslaved masses. The government went to town to develop the rather exploratory and non-productive financial market. Since the government itself could not indulge in speculative activity, it went on a 'privatisation' spree, in tune with the bogus 'free market' philosophy and making it easy for the entry of big, monopoly players, Indian or foreign, into the Indian economy in controlling positions. Public sector banks were privatised, government share in even profit-making companies were withdrawn, the cap on the voting rights of private shareholders in private banks were taken off, pension funds were diverted into the stock market for investments and insurance companies were allowed 100 percent foreign ownership. This was 'finance capitalism,' pure and simple, at its pre-eminent standing. In order to mop up the available resources for the financial market and generate an artificial demand for its products (which was all on paper), a credit-fuelled, consumerist economy was conceived and a number of avenues were provided to involve cash-rich citizens in the paper chase. Shopping malls were coming up a dozen a day dotting the skyline of each and every city or town, big or small, and bank credit for everything from housing to jewellery was just waiting to be picked up. According to the Economic Survey, 2006-07, outstanding bank credit to housing rose from Rs89,449 crore at end-March 2004 to Rs224,481crore at end-March 2007. The real estate boom had, in turn, spurred a boom in other sectors such as steel, cement, tiles, glass and various types of fittings such as electrical, plumbing, furnishing, and consumer durables like fans, air-conditioners, kitchen ranges, so on. The production of passenger cars (including MUVs), too, grew from 0.67m in 2001-02 to 1.5m in 2006-07 and two-wheelers from 4.3m to 8.2m; outstanding credit for the purchase of cars and two-wheelers has risen from Rs46,020 crore in 2002-03 to Rs108,840 crore in 2006-07;. 89 percent of the new cars sold in 2006-07 were bought with credit, with loans covering 79 percent of the value of the purchase. The opening up of the financial market allowed a flood of capital flows into the country through several channels and under various labels such as foreign institutional investments (FII) in the share market, foreign direct investment (FDI) – especially in the form of 'private equity' which behaves much like FII – and external commercial borrowings by Indian commercial firms. There are also unexplained inflows in the balance of payments data – under the head 'other capital' – which indicate that individuals have been bringing in funds for speculation. As an aside, it may be mentioned that ever since the occupation of Iraq by the US armed forces, petroleum companies are raking in huge profits by arbitrarily raising oil prices over and again. The surplus funds thus generated can no longer be ploughed in safe and productive investment channels or used in straightforward trading because of dwindling demand. Therefore, they move into speculation. This is typical of capitalism in crisis, when surplus

capital has little investment potential and rush into speculation. And this is precisely what is happening in India. The deluge of capital inflows has shown itself in the abnormal rise in stock prices in the in the last one and a half years. The sensex closed at about 10,000 on June 21, 2006, rose rapidly thereafter, and despite odd fluctuations, touched over 20,000 on December 11, 2007. The doubling of the index in less than 18 months was obviously symptomatic of a great surge in speculation driven partly by FII inflows, consisting entirely of capital from such entities as hedge funds and exploiting the participatory routes to speculate in the share market. But an entire economy cannot live in a bubble. It has to give at some stage. That stage has arrived, blowing out India's neoliberal economic edifice like a house of cards. It will need some taking before it can be put back into some shape.

Tailpiece The bubble has burst. India's superpower dream has come a cropper. But the pundits and pugilists of 'free-market,' 'neoliberalism' and 'growth' are not to be easily undone. Disregarding the hiccups being experienced by a perverse economic order, they are now clamouring for a greater freedom for the market, pitching in for an even higher rate of openness and a higher rate of growth. All the dilettantes of the media world are at one with them. They have, perhaps, forgotten that four years ago the Indian electorate had categorically shown the door to the 'shining India' dream merchants. Indians are now wiser by four eventful years.

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

5

contd. from page 4

GORKHALANDGorkha population especially in Terai and dooars have changed dramatically. Thousands of tribal population comprising sandals-kols-mundas was brought into the Terai Dooars region to be exploited for the newly flourishing Tea Industry. Then after and during partition thousands of refugees from what became Bangladesh came into the region to settle. All these people were victims of mindless colonial policies of the British. However, these historic migrations have completely changed the ethnicity of the population in the Terai-Dooars region since the Sinngouli Treaty. In spite of the large presence of the Gorkha population and their strong historical bond and claim to the Terai-Dooars region they are by no means a majority as far as population is concerned. Thus the political claim of this region by the Gorkhas as part of their proposed Gorkhaland has to be patently debated and discussed.

Secondly it has to be bourn in mind that just as the political vacuum created new leaders who gave voice to the Gorkhas basic demands, it also provides a fertile ground for opportunists to usurp the power, the grand example being Subhas Ghising.

Thirdly the entire demand of a separate state cannot be confined to achieving ethnic identity; the question of development has to be addressed seriously and sincerely. Jharkhand is the classic example of shattered dreams of ordinary Jharkhandi tribal people to walk with head held high. Blind emulation of capitalist development has led to huge populations being evicted, dispossessed of land livelihood and capitalists being gifted lands, forests and mines for pitifully low prices. This in term have given rise to regional mafia, who runs by the cut money of every project and the political patronage of ruling parties. The Jharkhandi dream of self determination and identity has become the reality for a handful of elite.

The Struggle thus demands active participation of the Gorkha masses from the beginning to its end. A lot depends on whether the mass participates or simply follows. This struggle essentially against the oppression has the potential to unite the hills and the plains. The struggling Gorkhas must be most aware of the issues, they must be already facing a lot of larger questions, the struggle will put them in their path and at some point will give them the solution as well.

contd. from page 6


A NEW D AWNTOWARDS


GORKHALAND : DARJEELING AND DOOARS TURMOIL

-Ashrujit NandyThe right to self determination or the right to self governance in a

political sense has been always reciprocated with tremendous repression from the ruling class. The movement of the Gorkhas some 20 years ago was no exception. They were 'paid back in their own coin'. Some 1200 participating Gorkhas were murdered, the misuse of the platform of their movement by the Congress and the CPI (M), and finally the gradual corruption of the movement leadership (the burning example being Subhas Ghising). The picture as a whole is not dissimilar to the betrayal of many tribal movements of Bengal. But then like the phoenix, time and again hope rises from the ashes. Demands of self determination on the basis of language, ethnicity and culture raise its head in form of agitations, dissents, protests, movements and then struggle. Demand for Gorkhaland could not be any different as is not.

The Background to the Demand of Gorkhaland:During the period of 1814-1815, after the Anglo-Nepal war, the

Sinngouli Treaty brought portions of Darjeeling and Doors under the British which were transferred to Sikkim by the terms of the Tittoliya Treaty. But after the Anglo-British war, in 1864, according to Minchula Agreement, they were annexed into the British Indian map.The British tanks had forcefully annexed territories, joined them and divided them at will in order to satisfy their political ambitions. The British called it the British Indian Empire and this collection of annexed territories were named India and Pakistan after 1947. Similarly the forceful forging of Darjeeling into Bengal by the British military was enough for free India to take for granted the Darjeeling-Doors-Kalimpong region as 'inseparable part of Bengal'.The basis of Indian Constitution was largely the colonial 'Indian Administration Act' formulated by the British. There India was defined as not a country but United States. The western concept of United States (America, Canada, Russia and Australia) is based on joining together of several independent States due to their mutual dependence. In India however the states were never independent and the union of them was not based on their free decision but on the decision of the British Parliament. It was forged just to materialize the colonial designs of British. The states were formed not on the basis of Ethnicity or Language, but purely arbitrarily, to instill hatred on the minds of divided Indians.The division was no less arbitrary in 'free India'. The pressure of mass movements resulted in the 1957 act declaring the restructuring of the states based on language, and the problem persisted. The government has been time and again forced to carve out new states in face of movements lasting across decades. As much due to British, the problems of partition and issue of refugees was ill handled by the Congress as well as undivided Communist revisionists, just to further their own narrow political cause. India became a prison for the diverse cultures and languages. And later in the hands of the newly turned Social Fascists like CPI (M) the tribal movements and movements for Gorkhaland were brutalized.

The History of the demand for Gorkhaland:

First time the demand for autonomy of Gorkhaland was raised was in 1907. The British Government paid no heed. The Hill Men's Association failed in 1917, 1930, 1934 to pressurize the British to give them autonomy. In 1946 during Constituent Assembly the demand was placed by 'Akhil Bharitiya Gorkha League' that on the basis of being a minority community, the Gorkhas be given the right to proportional representation in the government. The demand was not taken seriously yet again. After repeated failures and after the death of Gorkha leader D.S.Gurung, the next leader Randhir Subba called for a movement demanding separate State.

thIn 1947 6 April members of undivided Communist Party Ganesh Lal Subba and Ratan Lal Brahmin went to see Jawahar Lal Neheru to demand a separate state of 'Gorkhastan' constituting areas of Darjeeling and Sikkim. Later the CPI demanded autonomy of Darjeeling even within Bengal. Gorkha league demanded that Darjeeling be deemed a territory directly under the rule of Centre. But till 1985, no demanded of the Gorkhas were ever given importance, they remained completely ignored. For 80 years and till 40 years after 'Indian independence' the Gorkhas received nothing but ignorance.The undivided CPI and later the CPI (M) since 1964 always spoke of the autonomy of the Gorkhas and the Gorkhas reciprocated by providing unquestioned support. But nothing more materialized. This gradually drained out any leftover belief of the Gorkhas that a party from the plains will ever

This was the first major movement in demand of Gorkhaland which was reciprocated by the social fascist government by a vulgar Bengali nationalism and severe repression. When the few party cadres and hired mercenaries who were appointed to create trouble simply blew away in front of a united Gorkha mass, the government resorted to BSF oppression lead by the 'iron man' Superintendent of Police Handa.The Congress could not let go of such a golden opportunity to fill in the political vacuum in the Hills. On one had they gladly met the demand of central armed forces placed by the CPI (M) government and on the other they showed sympathy with the Gorkha leadership and managed to usurp the MP seat from the hills with the blessing of the Gorkha leaders. Thus the two governments in the centre and in the state played the dual role of suppressing the movement and misdirecting the movement. In the end by forming the Hill Council partial 'autonomy' was granted to the Gorkhas.The CPI (M) on the other hand continued their game plan of pressurizing and indulging the Hill Council. Their funding was held back, the leaders were given indulgence to their corrupt activities. The Council leaders who were about to be thrown out by the Gorkhas were reinstated by the government by an eyewash of 'Sixth Schedule'. They hope to create another political vacuum in the Hills, which was rightly formed but before the CPI (M) could capitalize on that the Gorkhas saw the underlying design. They felt that the attempt to achieve autonomy within Bengal had failed, and was in fact not possible. New leaders came up and gave voice to the demand of Gorkhaland in no uncertain terms.

The present Situation:

Honestly speaking rarely does a Bengali of the plains thinks of a Gorkha as anything but Nepali and still rarer is any Gorkha who calls himself a Bengali. Language, culture, literature, demography, history, lifestyle, mentality and in every other aspect the Gorkhas are unique and have a distinct identity. The Bengalis of the plains relates to Darjeeling as a place for business, good tea and great tourist spot. They are least bothered to look into the environment and the richness of culture, history of the people of Darjeeling.The Bengalis and Gorkhas have just shaken hands at times, their lives have never met. The opportunity was always there for the undivided CPI and CPI (M). The Gorkhas had given them unquestioned support only in hope that their demand of autonomy would be given a voice. But their hopes were betrayed by the revisionist party line. The movement of the Gorkhas which could have formed a bridge with the plains through the party never materialized, the cracks widened and turned to gorges. The only reason for the Gorkhas to believe today that they cannot achieve autonomy within Bengal is the policy of Congress at the centre and CPI (M) in the state.The demand of a different state is neither 'separatism' nor Bengal partition as it will not have an effect on our lives as the British Bengal Partition nor the 1947 partition had. It will not divide or separate the lives of the Bengalis. The lives with which Bengalis will be separated will be the ones for whom they had never felt courtesy the fascist policies, vulgar nationalistic attitude and conspiracies of the parties in power.The Gorkhas who never got their share of development and self identity in Bengal can only unite with the Bengalis in a common struggle to overthrow the fascism that both have faced for too long now. The fascist leadership of the CPI (M) knows only one way of keeping the territory united, that of repression and conspiracy, their policy in 1985-87 of letting loose the mercenary cadres have changed this time round. Now they are waking up the sleeping giant of vulgar Bengali Nationalism. The groups like 'Amra Bangali', 'Jana Jagaran-Jana Chetana' has called for strikes to starve the hills. These groups take up different names in different places, comprise the same people, they sometimes form biker's gangs, massacring peasants of Nandigram, Singur, they rule the villages, towns, and ports of Bengal with generous blessings form the ruling party.It is just a matter of time before another conspiracy brews for the people of the hills in the name of All Party Meeting. As a result of the government policy, the people of hills have learnt well that it is impossible for them to achieve their own identity within Bengal. The question now is whether they find it impossible to gain their legitimate recognition, identity and development within India at all. In a country of diverse ethnicity, the demand for right to self determination is most democratic and natural. What form of self determination is chosen is based on the ethnic group and the political experience they gain. However the right is reserved by the concerned ethnic group only and no one else, which is for sure.

Some essential and related issues:

When the British wrestled away Darjeeling, Terai and Dooars from Nepal, the Gorkhas were the dominant population of the region. How ever with the change in economic and political activity in the region the distribution of the

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

6 contd. to page 5

AN APPROACH TOWARDS SOCIAL FASCISM

- Binayak Bhattacherjee

From the ruling class perspective, brutal measures in defense of its interests are nothing new. They are prepared to take the most ruthless action in defense of their power and economic interests. But the turn towards fascism marked a decisive stage, a qualitative change in the attitude of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is a special form of reaction connected to the death agony of capitalism. For capitalism under 'normal' conditions, the best form of government is its cheapest form: bourgeoisie democracy. Capitalism in crisis, however, forces the bourgeoisie to drive down wages to below subsistence levels, to force the worker into a semi-slave existence. Democratic rights won by the proletariat - freedom of speech, the right to organise, to strike, to vote - become obstacles to the capitalist class in their effort to drive down conditions. Unlike other forms of reaction, fascism is the mass movement of the ruined middle class who have been organised as a human battering ram against the mass movement. The crisis of capitalism completely crushes the petty bourgeois and drives them into a frenzy or in a hysteria. In Germany unemployment rose to four million in 1931, five million in 1932 and over six million in the following year. Inflation had earlier thrown whole layers of the middle class into penury. Many professionals, mostly belonging to petty-bourgeoisie class fell below the level of the skilled worker. A professor was paid less than an ordinary worker. Not a small number were turned into vagabonds. After 1923, 97% of Germans were without any capital, resulting in a startling polarisation of wealth. In the past, sections of the middle class were pushed into the ranks of the working class, but now, with mass unemployment, they were turned into paupers. This situation resulted despair of the petty bourgeoisie, its yearning for change, the mass neurosis of the petty bourgeoisie, its readiness to believe in miracles, its readiness for violent measures; and the growth of its hostility to the proletariat, which has deceived its expectations. The fascists fed the frustrations and the despair of the ruined peasants, the unemployed youth, the devastated small business people crushed by the monopolies, and the criminals. In semi feudal-semi colonial countries like India, the power is exercised by Feudal & Comprador Bourgeoisie in combination within the shed of imperialism. In the absence of independent Bourgeoisie class,(whatever it may be monopolistic) the classical fascism- like in Germany,Italy or other capitalist countries- does not take place here in a customary style. Actually the pre-matured capitalism co-existing with feudalism always bear a dormant embryo in her very structure. These root causes often come out in different forms in different times-like racial riots, military junta or Hindu fascism. So, the attitudes & bearings of fascism are not quiet unlikely in countries like India. The feudal approach, to maintain the feudal values in a crude, rotten way often become expressive.Evolution of the term in HistoryFacts were evident to the international Communist leaders. At the Sixth Congress of the Commintern in 1928, the end of capitalist stability and the beginning of the "Third Period" was proclaimed. The end of capitalism, accompanied with a working class revolution, was expected, and social democracy was identified as the main enemy of the Communists. This Commintern's theory had roots in Grigory Zinoviev's argument that international social democracy is a wing of fascism. This view was accepted by Joseph Stalin who described fascism and social democracy as "twin brothers", arguing that fascism depends on the active support of the social democracy and that the social democracy depends on the active support of fascism. After it was declared at the Sixth Congress, the theory of social fascism became accepted by the world Communist movement. At the same time, Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), under leadership of German chancellor Hermann Müller, agreed with anti-communist parties that "red equals brown".This led to mutual hostility between social democrats and communists, which were additionally intensified in 1929 when Berlin's police, under control of the SPD government, shot down communist workers demonstrating on May Day (Berlin's Bloody May). This, and the repressive legislation against the communists that followed, served as further evidence to communists that social democrats were indeed "social fascists". But in Indian context, this term rises in a different fashion in different times. Indeed in 1937,CPI termed Congress Socialist Party as social fascists.Again in late or mid 80s,leader of Left Front partner RSP, Debabrata Banerjee termed CPI(M) as social fascists in viewing the violence unleashed by them in polls. Fascist or semi-fascist rule is not sparse in India. But the existence of social fascism in Indian context deserves a period of genesis. This entity itself would be unique in style or nature because of the distinct societal context. This phenomenon might seem strange to an onlooker that this very transformation here taken place in a state where the heritage of democratic movements is quiet affluent Actually, the social contradictions of various social layers laid

the basement of this erosive societal experiment, which is yet to be conceived properly.The Postscripts of A TurmoilLet us start from a remarkable period of history of India in post 1947 period. In the mid-1960s, India was already in crisis. The optimism which accompanied the early years of independence had gradually faded. Economic development seemed to be permanently jeopardized by the incapacity of agriculture to support industrialization, and of the external balance to support the required volume of industrial imports. In the last half of the 1960s, real factory wages declined by seven per cent. The central government cut public investment radically, and this afflicted most severely heavy industry in Kolkata. Between 1965 and 1969, some 100,000 people were sacked in the registered factory sector of the Kolkata Metropolitan (and, on the trend line of 1951 to 1965, 326,000 jobs were lost). Inflation accelerated and there was a sporadic but severe crisis in basic food supplies.This is the background to the rapid escalation in class war. In West Bengal the number of workers in dispute as a percentage of all workers in registered factories rose from an average of fourteen to fifteen in the 1950s, to eighteen in 1966, thirty-two in 1967 and 1968, and fully eighty-five in 1969. The figures illustrate imperfectly the persistent militancy of workers in eastern India.The economic crisis and the class battles placed an intolerable strain on India's fragile political order. Congress split in 1969. The CPI had divided into two parties in 1964. These events of led to form the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), CPI(ML) in 1969. The CPI(ML) embarked on a course of action designed to achieve power by revolution. The split in the CPI(M) was impelled by the party's participation in the United Front government of West Bengal & tussle between pro-revolutionaries & main leaders. It fell in late 1968, and after a short period of President's rule, new elections in February 1969 produced a CPI(M)-led coalition. This survived until March 1970 (when another period of President's rule ensued).This led to large violence which felt a long impact in history. This period also include a qualitative change in all spheres of society. The phenomenon, which led to these metamorphoses is famous Naxalite Movement. The movement got a setback after tremendous repression, nevertheless, a long lasting impression was sowed into the life world of Indian Social order, especially in West Bengal. We shall not discuss it here.Summing up the period In the immediate post Congress period (after 1967) and after the setback of Naxalite Movement(1972-73) & fragmentation of CPI(ML) party into many fractions, the bulk of politically and socially irritated people looked towards the left organizations other than CPI(ML) who were still grumbing about revolution in a “different way” as a way forward. CPI(M) was the mostly available alternative of this kind. It is undeniable that CPI(M) cadres also faced severe repression during Congress regime in 1972-77 period. This also carried a sympathetic feelings towards them. Through anti-capitalist demagogy especially after a series of revolts & movements in 1960s & 70s,they pulled this despairing mass together, imbued it with a mission of salvation [not through the bloody path practiced just before by CPI(ML)], and filled it full of illusions in overthrowing the system. Due to its intermediate social position and heterogeneous make-up, the middle class is incapable of playing an independent political role: it is forced to either support the Congress-CPI led group or the Left Front led by CPI(M). The mass are disenchanted by the actions of politicians who stand for the maintenance of the status quo. The ruling class therefore has to shape a new weapon to dupe the middle class. It finances the social fascists, builds them up, and uses them to exploit the problems and discontent of the petty bourgeois & other toiling classes. The futility of the revolutionary parties to transform the situation drove them back towards the embryonic social fascists. CPI(M) was the most suitable alternative for people who were deeply engrossed with the frantic violence for a decade. Ascertaining the actual mood and inner contradictions of social system, CPI(M) had slowly started to metamorphose the societal paradigm. Not unveiling all of its sorcery at once, CPI(M) started to enshroud the dismantled sections of society. This social fascist formation originates in largely and vividly spectacular formats. These layers are formed on the basis of CPI(M)s so called “cadre” strength. This human trash, mixed up with the lumpen forces & controllable political elements who genuinely believed their political lines. Using the vacuum very profoundly they have become a serious mass force under special circumstances. Not only must there be deep economic crisis, and disillusionment with the other parties, but they need in particular the financial and political backing of the ruling class. There was no feasible alternative for them other than CPI(M) also.

The Grip tightened GraduallyThirty-one years ago, in 1977, CPI(M) joined with other left allies to take power over West Bengal's state government. With a great deal of promise, with great expectations which were hitherto unfulfilled. Left went to work

7

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS


contd. to page 8

with a modest mandate, keeping the land question at the forefront. In 1971, CPI(M) leader P. Sundarayya wrote, "It is only by developing a powerful mass movement culminating in land seizure that we will ultimately get 'the land to the tiller,'"- government took office in 1977, telling the press, "We must be content to make whatever small improvements we can in the lives of the poor people, to make life more live able." Still now we hear the shear cry by the leftists about the land reforms. Actually the waves of mass movements in 60s & 70s were led to several steps taken by the ruling class seeing the agony among masses. The Indira Govt in centre as well as the Siddhartha Roy while crushing all sorts of protests & oppositions in West Bengal also took various steps to reform. According to the statistics given by the Bureau of Applied Statistics & Economics shows lakhs of acres of land were distributed among the landless peasants during this period. Actually this amount even higher than that done by Left Front. Indeed, the reforms started with a planning generated by some Big Brother continued its aftermath in Left Front regime. In 1978 Operation Barga bill was produced. The landless who got lands then needed assistance, mainly the capital. This process started as “assistance” with Panchayet & numerous co-operative societies, which were mainly bestowed by CPI(M). There was the key & and the root of a new power, genesis of a entirely new class, an amalgamation of old reactionaries & new socio-political “vanguards”. The Kisan Sabha [peasant wing of CPI(M)] units quickly strengthened its base in almost 90% villages in the state. The feudal power took its new shape in the shell of a political party,the CPI(M).All the economic activities in countryside is carried by local governance-namely the Panchayet-which mostly holds by the party. Almost all other social institutions were gradually taken under control of the party. The Local Committees of CPI(M) emerged as a new centre of micro-power in Bengal, specifically in rural areas. The gradual integration developed a new social order. Also increased strength of govt employees with due benefits produced a sympathetic tide towards CPI(M).Togthering these a socio-political nexus between Party-Panchayet-Police produced a immense control over village life. Actually the repeated win of Left Front in all election stands upon this base. The abstract psychological presence of an “ultra state” or “state within the state” perverted the political culture of rural Bengal. Instead of the old type of a class, a party took the steering of social mobility & social control using its tentacles. The question of alternative often spoken by the analysts requires to go through this way. This hyper-state actually has grown powerful day to day and reached its peak in late 80s & early 90s. By the mid-90s, new contradictions emerged in the Bengali countryside. Neo-liberal agricultural polices on the global stage decreased the prices for agricultural goods, at the same time as neo-liberal economic polices of the Indian government, obviously followed by (with a thin curtain) CPI(M) led Left Front Govt has worn out the ability of the state to intervene on behalf of small and middle farmers who face an across the board crisis. The rate of poverty eradication began to slow down as agricultural production itself declined. In 1993, a committee set up the West Bengal government reported that agricultural stagnation was inevitable, as the land reform agenda had been exhausted. In state after state in India, including West Bengal which had embraced neo-liberalism with missionary zeal, the price is being paid by farmers, particularly small farmers. In some places, like the Vidharba region of Maharasthra (as P. Sainath continues to document), farmers' suicides have assumed near epidemic proportions. These farmers are the casualties of the global offensive of neo-liberalism on petty production in the agrarian sector. It is, therefore, no coincidence that in country after country in Latin America, the the situation has made a resurgence through the struggles of the small farmers' discontent and aspirations. At some point, global trends were bound to catch up. In addition, new problems, with their root in the land reforms, have cropped up. The aspect of industrial sector was quiet similar. In place of Kisan Sabha,there was CITU guided by the Local Committee. Here in urban areas, control of local authorities like clubs & puja committees plays an important role. Using the “clean” & “intellectual” image of young cadres,they gained abodes. After the terrible experience in Siddhartha Roy regime & the emergency, the CPI(M) workers were most suitable alternative for the urban petty-bourgeoisie. Their Left legacy drawn a large number of intellectuals in favour of their activities. In other social sectors like service sector, education was not free from this political convergence. The stick & carrot policy with a softer way was the method for urban middle class. Actually the horror of 1972-77 period was so inflammatory in mind, people was not ready to think anything expect CPI(M). also, the economic processes serving the interest of feudal-bourgeoisie authority were tightening grip gradually. Local Industrial co-operatives and the public sector was slowly minimized in favor of Corporate industrialization. One can understand how registered factory production in West Bengal declined from about 10% in 1977 to 6% in 1990 (in 1947, West Bengal accounted for 30% of all industrial production). By the late 1980s, the industrial working class, it seemed, had lightly begun to shift its allegiance from the Left to the Congress. In 1994, the Left Front produced a new industrial policy document, in viewing the scenario that the working-class unemployment and a general inability to

create jobs for a rural population whose demand had been largely increased. The 1994 document argued, "The State Government welcomes foreign technology and investments.” This is remarkable, from this stage CPI(M) gradually started to unmask his actual face. The new industrial policy no longer puts industrialization by cooperatives or by the public sector at center stage. Neo-liberal pressures and from trends in the world impinge on the document, which now accommodates corporate industrialization. The fuming unrest in rural Bengal started to come out by late 90s. The main opposition party Congress divided in the agenda of fighting CPI(M). Some of the rural belts were becoming impetuous in tussle between CPI(M) & oppositions. A societal polarization was sharply taking place. The outbreak of violence in post 1998 period showed the despairing scenario of basic democratic rights & livelihood of rural people. By the year 2001, a small presence of Maoist forces were felt. The indigence in almost all spheres of life in remote parts of the state laid a fertile ground for any radical force. Actually, the Maoists –by attacking the party CPI(M) both theoretically & politically- started to catalyse the entire fiery situation towards a distinct political object. A considerable number of intellectuals also started to rethink the very character of CPI(M)-the entity-rather than a party.

The Period of Nadigram

The incidents of Nandigram struggle are well known now, the important case is the lessons here in respect to fight against social fascism. Actually the methodology to combat social fascism is now in a formative stage. In history, at the Seventh Congress of the Comintern in 1935, G.Dimitrov outlined the new policy of the "Popular Front" or “United Front” in his address “For the Unity of the Working Class Against Fascism”.Where he stated in the section entitled United Proletarian Front or Anti-Fascist Popular Front:Comrades, just picture to yourselves a devotee of cut-and-dried theories of this kind, gazing upon our resolution and contriving his pet scheme with the zeal of a true pedant:First, local united proletarian front from below;Then, regional united front from below;Thereafter, united front from above, passing through the same stages;Then, unity in the trade union movement;After that, the enlistment of other anti-fascist parties;This to be followed by the extended Popular Front, from above and from below. After which the movement must be raised to a higher level, politicized, revolutionized, and so on and so forth.The fight against social fascism demands vividity in this tactics. Conscious effort as well as spontaneous upsurge is equally draws importance. As far the Nandigram struggle goes, the unity of mass in general achieved in some extent. But the basic tactics requires more effectiveness in approach, particularly in finding the methodology.Nandigram in particular started the process to find this methodology. If we go through the period of entire struggle(which is yet to be completed) may observe serious efforts to hit the tentacles of social fascism. The fight once started to save land later became a strive for democracy. The important fact is this, the essence of the struggle was carried through the basic instinct of democracy. In a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country, particularly in the era of social fascism, where the democratic sense was on a peak in previous history, the demand for democracy is the basic propensity. That aquisition of farmland for purposes industrial is not acceptable to the farming community as well as the general mass of the state became abundantly clear as the results of the panchayat polls. The CPI(M) led Left Front was in for a rude shock in two areas, Nandigram and Singur, where land acquisition had become a contentious issue. Also this aquisition or the “The Industrilalisation” phenomenon just sparked the explosives. We may watch a number of spontaneous upsurges during this one & half year period-like PDS disputes, like Rizwanur issue etc. The fury of people is just spattering hither & thither. In every event, the huff of people is targeting the every symbol of this so-called “hyper-state”. So the mob in Nandigram or especially in Ration Revolt were targeting the political symbol of the latter-the party offices of CPI(M). Mamata Banerjee led Trinamool Congress made a sizable dent and defeated candidates of the Left in these two areas. Not only in these two regions, in respect of elections,CPI(M) received a severe blow in several districts. There are not much alternatives present to the people, henceforth the outburst of the rage is just coming out through the electoral results. Actually people have nothing to do with these results, they are exercising all possible & all achievable processes they came to know. The struggle gave the bitterness a way to outcome. Results are actually signifies the intensity of the situation. The Nandigram struggle just catalysed the entire circumstances. Whoever wants to observe this situation as an onlooker or as an conscious political activist, must ascertain this particular socio-political dynamics of the present paradigm. Democracy is the basic tenor of the present stream of events. The structural or super structural orientation need to be revamped according to this. We may here conclude this discussion with a comment made by Lenin:It would be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the struggle for democracy can divert the proletariat from the socialist revolution, or obscure or overshadow it, etc. On the contrary, just as socialism cannot be victorious unless it introduces complete democracy., so the proletariat will be unable to prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie unless it wages a many-sided, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy.

V. I. Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 1338

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

contd. from page 7

SOCIAL FASCISM

debate has not taken place on it, but a tendency considers that it will make no difference if we accept the seven-point demand of the NC. The tendency to be liberal towards these demands is not a revolutionary tendency; it helps the interests of the NC.

Compromise is an unusual condition for revolution. Things seem peaceful in the period of agreement and negotiation but it is just an illusion. Two rival thoughts, tendencies and forces are fighting terribly behind a thin curtain. They both are trying to win under the cover of compromise. Each wants to destroy the other; one becomes bigger than the other, a process of swallowing begins. When the one about to be swallowed isn't safe, then it breaches the norms of accord and begins to protect itself through struggle. If protecting itself becomes impossible by defending itself, it is obliged to start the confrontation between revolution and counter-revolution. Then the compromise will end and the balance of two opposed forces breaks down. This has happened previously in our country. Until now, the NC and the imperialists thought that they would be able to destroy the CPN (M) before the election. The masses and the fraternal parties and organisations of the world had thought that somewhere the CPN (M) would be swallowed! But in the election, the people protected the CPN (M) like their own children, and the NC and the imperialists failed in their mission. As a result, the NC has now put forward its seven point demand. We have defeated the NC in the election, but if we cannot protect the revolution, we will be ruined in no time. This conflict, indeed, is related to the series of compromises we have made. Now, we should direct our attention towards the defence of the revolution by ending the situation of compromise.

The issue of compromise is a common issue related to the world revolution, if we accept that the Nepalese revolution is a part of the world revolution. If we want to learn the lessons from communist states of the past century, the issue of compromise must be a common topic for all the revolutionaries of the world. It means that we should think deeply and develop a new ideology and knowledge to solve the problems before us and for the protection of the Nepalese revolution. Even though it has not been enough to tackle , the present necessities and possibilities to this date, we have been encouraged by the suggestions and participation of the RIM committee, the RCP and the CPI (Maoist).

In short, compromise is possible in a revolution, but revolution is not possible only through compromise. The imperialists and reactionaries want to push the revolution towards counter revolution, but revolutionary communists want to change the compromise into revolution. The conspiracy to change compromise into counter revolution is vigorously going on in Nepal. We should make this conspiracy fail by uniting the revolutionary forces of the world. Fighting against the reactionary forces, we should defeat them. Any revolution in any part of the world is a part of the world revolution. Likewise, any compromise also a part of the world revolution. Therefore, the revolutionaries of the world should make a joint effort to change the compromise into revolution. Revolution is compulsory but the 'negotiationism' is impossible.

- Biplop is a member of secretariat, Central Committee, CPN (Maoist).

(This article was published in 'The Red Star' (Vol - I, Issue - 10, June 16-30, 2008).We are reprinting the article admitting that 'the question has not yet been finalised whether the revolution will be accomplished through compromise or it will be pushed towards counter-revolution.' There are some thorny question about contour of so called 'PRACHANDA PATH' and the practice of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in post revolutionary Nepal; But definitely a 'Two Line Struggle' will thrive. This article may indicate.)

REVOLUTION AND COMPROMISE - Netrabikram Chand 'Biplap'

Our revolution is in the stage of negotiation and our party sees compromise as

another aspect of the class struggle. The question has not yet been finalised

whether the revolution will be accomplished through compromise or it will be

pushed towards counter-revolution. There is an incessant and fierce struggle

between two different world outlooks that is attracting attention nationally

and internationally.

Marxism accepts the possibility of making compromises; however, it

considers impossible to accomplish a revolution through too many

compromises. Compromise can be useful at a point in the revolution to obtain

state power, but it is impossible to secure state power for the proletarian class

only through compromise. On the contrary, opportunist and reformist

tendencies not only consider compromise as necessary, but consider

compromise as everything. They believe that society and state power can be

changed and transformed through compromise rather than through

revolution, through 'negotiationism'. These two tendencies are gradually

coming to a head in our country.

Our party, the CPN (Maoist), and the Nepali Congress (NC) are at logger

heads over the issue of negotiation. From the point of view of class struggle,

the NC doesn't see or believe in the necessity of a revolution in Nepal. The

NC, according to its viewpoint, wants to negotiation with the CPN (M), the

CPN (UML) and other parties by dividing the ministries. According to the

NC's outlook, it is enough to progress economically. Political revolution is

not necessary.

According to the NC's outlook, the logical debate and planning of revolution

is an activity of extremists. They suggest that the CPN (Maoist) should not do

the revolution and be satisfied with a share in the government. But the

ultimate goal of the CPN (M) is Communism through a People's Republic and

through the stage of socialism. For that, the state must be under the leadership

of a Communist party. Therefore, we, the Maoist, should oppose

'negotiationism', though we are not against making particular compromises

per se.

Due to the impact of class struggle, different views on compromise and

'negotiationism' are surfacing within the party; this should not be a surprise.

Frankly speaking, the tendency of 'negotiationism' is spreading like a viral

disease within our party. This type of tendency developing within the party is

hundred times more dangerous than the 'negotiationism' of the NC. This

tendency, through the so called economic 'revolution' and power sharing

seeks to end the political revolution here. We would consider that it is an

extremity of 'negotiationism' to depend upon hostile elements by neglecting

the compulsory foundations for securing state power.

The NC wants to push the country into counter-revolution. The NC desires

that a scientific communist party and the proletarian revolution should sink

down into status-quo establishment and into the stagnant pool of the old state.

Therefore, it has put forward a seven point demand that includes the

dissolution of the YCL, the PLA and a rollback of all the gains made during

the Peoples War.

If CPN (M) accepts these preconditions, it can be in the government, if it

doesn't, then it cannot. The purpose of these preconditions is to push the

country towards counter-revolution. To accept these conditions is to end the

revolution.

We, Maoists, desire to change this compromise into revolution and strengthen

the revolution against the counter-revolution. For this, we should expand the

means and the foundations of the revolution. Let us consolidate the party, the

PLA and the United Front and take them to a new level. Let us establish a clear

political and economic outlook and take state power.

We have already dissolved our local people's power centres. We dissolved the people's courts and the peoples' militia. Our co-operatives, communes, health posts and educational institutions, established during the war, are now becoming weaker. In this situation, if we accept the seven-point demand of NC, directly or indirectly, we would declare that the revolution is over. A big

9

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS


7,468 Custodial deaths in last five yearsClose to four custodial deaths a day has been reported in the country in the

past five years, says a study by the Asian Centre for Human Rights

(ACHR). A large number of these deaths are a results of torture, it points

out.

In a report "Torture in India 2008: A State of Denial"– the first ever

nationwide assessment of the use of torture in the nation, the ACHR

alleges that 7,468 persons – on an average of 1,494 a year – died or killed

in prison and police custody durling 2002-2007.

10

new pacification bureau in the frontier of Tibet in 1269 enabling him thus to dominate its two most important provinces of U and Tsang. Tibet was also divided into administrative districts as in China proper and a system of local government established.

The Tibetans who retained traces of their earlier martial spirit were not the easiest of people to rule and Kublai Khan felt that Buddhism was as good an instrument as any to induce docility among his spirited subjects. Since Buddhism had already taken root in Tibet, this move, from the point of view of the Chinese state, was a master stroke of policy. Thus the system of merging political and religious rule into one entity was introduced in 1275 during the reign of Kublai Khan. As a first step, Kublai invited Sakya Pandita, head of the great Sakya monastery to his court and thereby gained his support to carry forward his plans for the promotion of Buddhism in Tibet. Later, Sakya Pandita's nephew Phaspa was similarly invited and he made a great impression on Kublai Khan, who rewarded him for his adaptation of the Tibetan and Brahmic script to the existing Mongolian language. Moreover, as C.A.Bell writes in his Tibet Past and Present, Kublai Khan himself “became a convert to Lamaism and gave the sovereignty of Tibet to his visitor. Thus began in Tibet the rule of the priest-kings”. The Sakyapa Lamas were to rule Tibet since then as a theocracy.

It is pertinent to point out in this connection that events in India also played an important part in cementing the Tibetan-Chinese relationships. Towards the

thend of the 12 century, the last pro-Buddhist dynasty in India—the Palas of Bengal and the Senas after them—were swept away by the Muslim invasion. Fugitive monks fled to Tibet taking with them their precious Sanskrit manuscripts which were translated into Tibetan. Quite naturally, the Tibetans were alarmed at the growing expansion of Islam in India and its possible consequences for them should the power breach the Himalayan wall. Thus Tibet came to lean even more on the Mongolian court. The decline of Buddhism in India and the stopping of the Tibetan route to Bengal merely intensified this trend. The attempted invasions of Tibet by Ikhtiyar-ud-din of

th thBengal in the 13 century and Muhammad-bin-Tughlug in the 14 century proved that Tibetan fears were not baseless.(In the modern period, Rahul Sankrityayana was one of the very few who braved all hardships and natural obstacles of an apparently insurmountable nature to go to Tibet on foot and mules more than once).

Meanwhile, there were also some economic and administrative factors which helped in cementing the Sino-Tibetan relationships. First, Tibet sent tribute missions to China and likewise in appreciation of the tribute, got gifts which sent in value those which he received. Second, the bartering of Tibetan horses for Chinese tea was common and restrictions put on it often evoked tribal uprisings. Third, hereditary Chinese titles given to the Tibetans made a powerful impression on them. Fourth, single system of administrative divisions, military garrisons and currency(including paper currency) prevailed throughout China, including Tibet where Yuan banknotes were being found even in the 1980s.

Friendly contact between the Tibetan people and the other nationalities of China was developed further during the Ming dynasty(1368-1644). The Ming rulers favoured the Kargyu(White) Lamaist Sect, to whose high clerics it gave political appointments. It is in fact untrue to maintain, as some Western writers do, that ties with the rest of China were severed under the Ming or that Tibet was linked only with the minority nationalities but not with the majority Han nationality. In the Ming period, the appointments of Tibetan officials from China's capital continued. The statistics of the Board of Rites of the Ming dynasty show that in the 1450s, about three to four hundred Tibetans came to Peking to present tributes every year, and in the 1460s, the number reached four thousand. Economic exchanges also grew. The museums and archives of Peking and Lhasa abound in evidence of all this. In Tibet the Kargyu local rulers, who rose with the Ming, also fell with them. But the links did not break.

When the Ming dynasty was on the verge of collapse, the rule of the King of the Law of the Kagyud Sect in Tibet also tottered. Another lamaist group, the Gelug or Yellow Sectled by its pontiff, the Dalai Lama, became important. After the troops of the Manchu dynasty(1644-1911) pushed forward south of the Great Wall, the Fifth Dalai Lama came to Peking from Tibet in 1652 to congratulate and asked emperor Shun Chih to confer titles of honour on him. In 1653, when the fifth Dalai returned to Tibet, the Emperor conferred upon him the title of Dalai Lama which was officially established from then on. The functions, powers and organization of the Tibetan local government(kasha)

were defined by Emperor Chien Lung of the Manchu(Ching) dynasty—a system that continued till 1959. Relations between the Tibetan and other nationalities in China became closer during the Ching rule. In 1791, the Gurkhas from Nepal launched a large-scale aggression against Tibet on the pretext of a minor incident on the Tibet-Nepal border. The troops of the local Tibetan government were defeated by the invaders and it was felt that all Tibet would fall victim to the Gurkha invasion. The Dalai and Panchen appealed to Peking for help. With the support of the Tibetan people, the Ching troops succeeded in driving out the invaders from Tsang in May 1792. Thus were the southwestern frontiers of the China consolidated and the Tibetan people brought to understand from their personal experience the value of the great support given them by the central government. Thus the fraternal feelings between the Tibetan people and other nationalities, including the Han, were consolidated further. It thus goes without saying that the sending of troops had far-reaching significance in cementing the bond between the Tibetans and the Hans. When the first Chinese republic was founded in 1911 after the end of the Ching rule, its multinational colour was emphasized in the new flag of five strips, one of which stood for the Tibetan nationality.

The period starting from the first Opium War(1840-42) and the signing of the Treaty of Nanking(1842)—the first of a series of unequal treaties the weak Chinese government was forced to sign—witnessed the penetration of foreign capitalist/imperialist powers in a very big way. The internal crisis of China intensified further in the years after 1911. Throughout China, imperialist-backed warlords, of whom Chiang Kai-shek was historically the last, ran riot. And it was then that the British imperialist rulers of India, seizing their advantage, became bolder in inciting separatism in Tibet. Thus from the historical point of view, Tibet was an integral part of China and there was nothing unnatural or unjustified in the entry of the PLA into Tibet after revolution was complete in China in 1949.

Section:2 British imperialist designs on Tibet

The British capitalists showed a keen interest in Tibet long before China was defeated in the First Opium War(1840-42) and was forced to sign in 1842 the Treaty of Nanking—the first of a series of humiliating treaties with the Western intruders. The British-Indian authorities sent two missions to Tibet

thin the last quarter of the 18 century, led respectively by George Bogle and Turner. The purpose was three-fold.

First, they wanted Tibetan authorities to exercise their influence to curb the marauding activities of the Bhutanese hillmen in Coochbehar whose ruler was an ally of the East India Company. The British wanted to utilize the relationship woven round old cultural, religious, trading and political ties between Tibet and the Himalayan borderlands(Spiti, Lahul, ladakh, Sikkim, Bhutan and Assam Himalaya) for their own benefit.

Second, as mercantilism was the order of the day, the East India Company was very much concerned at the outflow of the specie from Britain to China in order to pay for Chinese tea, silk, porcelain and brocade. They were keen to find a local source for the specie. Tibet was a likely source. They were interested in the gold of Tibet. According to S.Camman(Trade through the Himalayas), “The gold of Tibet has been proverbial since the days of Herodotus, who spoke of the great ants in the desert north of India who threw up sandheaps full of gold. Gold is found in the sands of most of the rivers flowing out of Tibet, such as the Indus, the Yellow River and the Upper Yangtse. In fact, the latter, in its upper reaches, is even named 'the river of golden sands'(Chin-sha-kiang)”.

Third, Tibet occupied a very special place in the Chinese tributary system because of its unique position as the centre of Lamaistic Buddhism. The Ching rulers sought to strengthen their position in Mongolia--where Lamalism held sway—with the help of the Tibetan high authorities such as the Tashi or Panchen Lama. It was thus felt by the E.I.Company that a good word put in by him to the Chinese would make conditions of trade and commerce at Canton easier for the British. About the overall nature of the Chinese-Tibetan relationship, Bogle wrote: “The Emperor of China is acknowledged as the sovereign of the country; the appointment to the first offices in the State is made by his order, and in all measures of consequence, reference is first had to the Court of Peking, but the internal government of the country is committed to natives”.

thBy the mid-19 century, however, circumstances changed substantially to the advantage of the aggressive designs of the British capitalists. India had, by then been brought under the firm control of British rulers. Moreover, China

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

TIBETcontd. from page 3

contd. to page 11

were jettisoned and the notorious Simla Conference of 1914 convened after much pressure on the Chinese government. The Chinese delegate merely initialled its provisions and his action was promptly repudiated by his government. Thus, in law the convention was null and void. It also recognized the traditional status of Tibet. Article II stipulated that “the Governments of Great Britain and China recognized that Tibet is under the suzerainty China…”.

Section: 3 Tibet in China-India-US Relations

With the end of British colonial rule over India, the Chinese expected an easing of tension in the Himalayas. However, the Chinese soon learnt to their dismay that the Government of India continued with the policies of its British imperialist predecessors, not only in Tibet, but also in Bhutan and Sikkim. Early in 1947, when India was still a Colony, an Asian Conference was convened in New Delhi to which both Chinese and Tibetan delegations were invited. A huge map of Asia displayed in the conference hall put Tibet outside the boundaries of China. Only after an immediate protest by George Yeh of the Chinese Foreign Office was a correction made somewhat reluctantly. What motivated the organizers to make such a cartographic aggression? The answer seems to lie in the expansionist designs of the would-be Indian ruling classes and their political representatives.

On 25 April1947, when India was still a British colony, the external affairs department of the government of India, of which Nehru was in charge as a member of the viceroy's 'interim government', informed the British secretary of state for India that “Government of India now wish to be represented in Tibet…and should be grateful to know whether His Majesty's Government desire to retain separate Mission there in future. If they donot, it would seem feasible to arrange transition from 'British Mission' to 'Indian Mission' without publicity and without drawing too much attention to change, to avoid i f p o s s i b l e a n y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e b e i n g r a i s e d b y China”(N.Mansergh,editor-in-chief, Constitutional Relations between Britain and India: The Transfer of Power 1942-7(Documents released by the British Government), Vols.I-XII, London, 1971-1983, Vol.X,p.430). At that time, civil war had been raging in China, and Nehru and his associates, who claimed to be the champions of democracy, sought to resort to surreptitious methods to grab the land of other people to fulfil their expansionist designs. In fact, when World War II was drawing to a close, the Indian ruling classes cherished wild dreams to become a zonal power in Asia—from the east coast of Africa to Pacific—under the umbrella of the Anglo-American powers. Nehru, the top political representative of the Indian ruling classes and the future prime minister of India nourished ambitions to become the fourth big power in the world, besides USA, USSR and China, her empire spreading from the Middle East to near Australia, including Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim. After the end of direct British rule in India, the Indian rulers devoted their attention to India's northern neighbours: the Himalayan kingdoms of Kashmir, Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim and Tibet. Even before the end of direct colonial rule, the Nehrus wanted to annex Kashmir at a time when Jammu and Kashmir(J&K) was a native state under British paramountcy. Although a plebiscite or referendum was to be held before a final decision on the “ceding of Kashmir to the Indian Union” was to be taken, the Indian ruling classes did not allow the people of J and K to decide their own fate through a fair plebiscite. Thus J and K was torn into two parts—about one third under the occupation of Pakistan and the rest under the virtually military occupation of India—and ravaged by hostile forces.

It is pertinent to refer to the observation made by Neville Maxwell in his India's China War: “In the case of Sikkim, India in 1949 seized the opportunity of a local uprising against the ruler to send in troops and bring the state into closer dependence as a protectorate than it had formally been under the British(and in 1974 Nehru's worthy daughter and then India's prime minister Indira Gandhi marched Indian into Sikkim and annexed it into India); in the same year(1949) India signed a treaty with Bhutan, in whichshe took over Britain's right to guide Bhutan in foreign affairs. New Delhi's influence in Nepal continued to be paramount, and was increased in 1950 when the Indian Government helped the King of Nepal to break the century-old rule of Rana clan. The new Government thus took over and consolidated the 'chain of protectorates', as Curzon had described the Himalayan states”(pp.67-68).Needless to mention, India and the US were also interested in Tibet, which was an integral part of China. As we know, China in the last years of the 1940s had been passing through an intense civil war and the victorious PLA under the leadership of Mao Tse- tung had been giving telling blows to the Japanese

had been defeated in the Opium Wars and that exposed her weakness to the foreigners. To add to these, the competition between Britain and Russia for supremacy in Asia became more acute than ever before. Then the end of the Napoleonic wars boosted the strength of Britain to a large extent. In the light of all these developments, the Himalayan regions fell prey to British aggression—the Kumaon, Garwal, Lahul, Spiti, Ladakh, Bhutan and Sikkim. In view of the continuing pattern, an assault on Tibet became inevitable. On 25 April, 1873, a deputation from the Royal Society of Arts put pressure on the Duke of Argyll, Secretary of State for India, to promote a more active policy towards Tibet both on commercial and strategic grounds. However, because of the intense Anglo-Russian rivalry that had been going on during that time, Britain looked upon China as a possible bulwark against Russian attack. Thus at the Anglo-Chinese “Convention relative to Burma and Tibet”(24 July, 1886), the British agreed to deal with Tibet through China only. The Sikkim Convention of 1890 was thus negotiated directly between British and Chinese representatives.

All this, however, underwent a transformation with China's defeat in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 and the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895. Thus to the British policy-makers, the possibility of China being treated as a bulwark against Russian expansion became non-starter. The pressure against Tibet began in earnest to open a second trademart in Tibet. Deep commercial interests of the British were involved. The coming of Lord Curzon as Viceroy of India merely exacerbated the situation. China's relationship with Tibet was no longer treated as an internal affair of China, but described as a piece of “constitutional fiction”. Bazaar gossip about Russian intrigues in Lhasa, emotive words like 'prestige' were brought into play in a calculated manner, to heighten tension, and then to launch the aggressive assault. The 'crime' of the Tibetan authorities, it seemed, was their refusal to open relations with the British-Indian government.

Francis Younghusband embarked on his notorious expedition and crossed into Tibet. The Chinese and the Tibetans could offer no more than passive resistance, but their offers to negotiate were haughtily brushed aside, on one plea or the other, until finally their dash to Lhasa was made and a Convention imposed by the victors upon the vanquished. The slaughter of the helpless Tibetans—a needless act of cruelty and barbarism—made a mockery of its supposedly peaceful intentions. Taraknath Das in his book, British Expansion in Tibet, has related various acts of vandalism, foremost of which was the looting of monasteries. The Lhasa Convention(1904)- imposed upon the Tibetans, contained a heavy indemnity clause(article 6), while article 9, had it been carried out, would have reduced Tibet to the status of a British protectorate. The designs of British imperialism were clearly expressed in the words of Captain V.F.O'Connor, who served for a time with the British mission in Peking before returning to the Imperial CivilService in India: “Tibet includes the sources of the Yangtse-kiang, the Mekong and the Jalween, and borders on the great Szechuan province—the most thickly populated and one of the richest in China. Our influence exerted from so commanding a position would certainly facilitate future negotiations regarding such questions as the trade of the Yangtse Valley and Yunnan, the construction of railways from Burmah and elsewhere through these and adjacent provinces, and the treatment of the Europeans generallyover the whole of Southern China”.

However, as a result of the demands of international diplomacy, involving the need toplacate Russia in Asia in order to meet the growing threat of Germany in Europe, Britain modified for a time her expansionist policy towards Tibet. To get China's signature to the Lhasa Convention, the indemnity was drastically reduced and the offensive article 9 was made specifically inapplicable to China. The Anglo-Chinese Adhesion Convention was signed in Peking in 1906 and reaffirmed China's suzerain rights in Tibet. Later Article II of the Anglo-Russian Convention(31 August 1907) pointed out that: “Conforming with the admitted principle of the suzerainty of China over Tibet, Great Britain and Russia engage not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese government”. We are reproducing these statements only to show that the changes in the Western imperialist attitude towards the relationship between Tibet and China from time to time were determined by their own aggressive designs. We will see that they would change their own stand again and again in future. The Chinese government took measures to make this suzerainty effective as they realized it quite well that unless this were done, the foreign devils would again try to isolate Tibet from China. As a result of these measures the Dalai Lama, who had designs of his own, fled the country and sought refug in Darjeeling. Meanwhile, with the fall of the Manchus in China in 1911, an expansionist policy was instituted once again. Previous treaties with China

11

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 TIBET

contd. to page 12

contd. from page 10

aggressors and Chiang Kai-shek's troops. The US imperialists had been supporting Chiang's rotten regime against the Communists. They trained and transported 4,80,000 of Chiang's troops from the south to Manchuria and north China. Still, the US could neither 'save' China nor its lackey Chiang who fled the Chinese mainland to Taiwan in 1949. The US was also engaged inespionage and sabotage in China's far-flung provinces of Sinkiang and Tibet and conspired against the Communist revolutionary movement. When the Sinkiang troops rose against the Kuomintang, the US vice-consul tried to escape to India through Tibet and was shot by the Tibetan guards. The US consul fled with his men to India and was received in Sikkim by an official of the US embassy in Delhi. L.Natarajan in his American Shadow over India noted: “These reports indicate that the unusual US activities in Sinkiang could not have been possible without the acquiescence of the Indian Government”(p.181).

Meanwhile, taking advantage of the civil war, the Tibetan government of serf-owners established contacts with the US government as early as 1946(The readers will find a discussion on Tibetan serfdom in a separate section in this paper). The pretension of the government of the Tibetan serf-owners to independence was encouraged by the US imperialists. An American, Lowell Thomas, visited Tibet in 1949 and handed over a letter from president Truman to Dalai Lama. Returning from Tibet, he declared in Calcutta on 10 October 1949 that “the Tibetan authorities wanted outside help to hold back the progress of Communism and that India would have a major role to play in lending such help. He suggested that US might find some way to supply modern arms and give advice on guerrilla warfare, and also disclosed that he in fact carried scrolls and oral messages from the Tibetan rulers to president Truman and Dean Acheson, the secretary of state(Natarajan,pp.186-87).

What were the Nehrus doing by then? On 27 July 1949, the Reuters reported that Nehru was planning to visit Lhasa in near future. On 29 July, the London Times reported from Delhi: “Neutral observers are cautiously disposed to interpret recent signs of closer liaison between the Government of India and the Dalai Lama's Government in Tibet as a gratifying indication that an important new bulwark against spread of Communism westward is being created”(Quoted in Natarajan,pp.187-88). It was reported that H.S. Dayal, India's political officer in Sikkim, left on a special mission to Lhasa in August1949. An American news agency reported on 10 January 1950 that “accord has been reached between India, the United Kingdom and the United States on measures aimed at preserving Tibetan autonomy”. That such an accord, according to Natarajan, had been reached was denied by a spokesman of the external affairs ministry in New Delhi days later but it was not denied that consultations took place. The Lhasa government also sent a “goodwill mission” to visit India, the USA and other countries, but not to the China. Natarajan holds that “the Lhasa aristocracy was actively canvassing for foreign help to fight China. The Anglo-American powers were anxious to keep Tibet separated from China, and Indian policy was aiding their effort”(p.188). Thus it is evident that it was the US imperialists who had been quite blatantly interfering in the internal affairs of China and hatched conspiracy to cut off Tibet from China. In that nefarious game, Nehru-led Indian government was a willing accomplice. In fact, the developments in Tibet had much to do with the India-China War of 1962. More on the US-India role later.

Section 4: Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai on the question of NationalitiesOn 1 October 1949, Mao Tse-tung, on behalf of the people of China and the Communist Party, proclaimed the victory of the New Democratic Revolution and the establishment of the People's Republic of China. On that day, he declared: “The Chinese people have stood up…nobody will insult us again…”

What was the attitude of the Chairman of the CPC and the Premier of the People's Republic of China towards the small nationalities of China? Did they favour the policy of subjugating small nationalities by the imposition of the control of the dominant Han nationality? Did they incite Han chauvinism against the rest, as some Western scholars and Indian writers both yesterday and tomorrow sought and are seeking to argue? We will see that both in theory and practice, they upheld the equal rights of nationalities and opposed Han chauvinism.

Mao Tse-tung was quite conscious of the presence of Han chauvinism within the Chinese society and sought to combat it throughout his life. He knew that these were reactionary ideas of the landlord class and the bourgeoisie fed by the Kuomintang and that these generated a policy of discrimination towards

12

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

contd. from page 11

contd. to page 17

TIBET

the small nationalities. Similarly, Chou En-lai, the Chinese Premier, in many of his statements, criticized such an attitude and made the government stand clear and also implemented that policy to the best of his ability. Let us refer to some relevant statements which would make the stand of both the CPC and the PRC clear.

In a Party policy statement entitled On Coalition Government made to the Seventh National Congress of the CPC on 24 April 1945, Mao Tse-tung categorically explained Party policy regarding minority nationalities. He wrote: “The anti-popular clique of the Kuomintang denies that many nationalities exist in China, and labels all excepting the Han nationality as “tribes”. It has taken over the Governments of the Qing(i.e, Manchu) Dynasty and the Northern warlords in relation to the minority nationalities, oppressing and exploiting them in every possible way. Clear cases in point are the massacre of the Mongolians of the Ikhchao League in 1943, the armed suppression of the minority nationalities in Xinjiang since 1944 and the massacres of the Hui people in Kansu province in recent years. These are manifestations of a wrong Han-chauvinistic ideology and policy”.

Mao went on to say: “In 1924, Dr. Sun Yat-sen wrote in the 'Manifesto of the First National Congress of the Kuomintang that 'the Kuomintang's Principles of Nationalism has a two-fold meaning, first, the liberation of the Chinese nation, and second, the equality of all nationalities in China', and that 'the Kuomintang solemnly declares that it recognizes the right to self-determination of all the nationalities in China and a free and United republic of China(a free union of all nationalities) will be established when the anti-imperialist and anti-warlord revolution is victorious”.Then Mao wrote: “The Communist Party of China is in full agreement with Dr. Sun's policy on nationalities as stated here. Communists must actively help the people of all the minority nationalities to fight for it, and help them,…to fight for their political, economic and cultural emancipation and development… Their spoken and written languages, their manners and customs and their religious beliefs must be respected”. Then Mao referred to the correct attitude of the Shansi-Kansu-Ninghsia border regions and the liberated areas in northern China towards the Mongolian and Hui nationalities (SW, Vol.III, 1965,pp.205-68). The policy towards Tibet was not different from this one.

After four years, in Article 50 of the Policy towards Nationalities Chapter VI in the Common Programme of the Chinese People's Political Representative Conference(1949) which, until 1954, served as the provisional constitution of the PRC, it is stated: “All nationalities within the boundaries of the People's Republic of China are equal. Unity and mutual help shall be effected among them to oppose imperialism and the public enemies within these nationalities, so that the People's Republic of China will become a big fraternal and cooperative family of all nationalities. Greater Han nationalism and chauvinism shall be opposed. Acts of discrimination, oppression and splitting the unity of the various nationalities shall be prohibited…”(SW, Vol.III,pp.205-68).

Then in an inner-Party directive entitled Criticize Han Chauvinism dt. 16 March 1953, Mao drew the attention of the party members to guard and fight against such mentality. He observed: “In some places the relations between nationalities are far from normal. For Communists, this is an intolerable situation. We must go to the root and criticize Han chauvinistic ideas which exist to a serious degree among many Party members and cadres, namely, the reactionary ideas characteristic of the Kuomintang, which are manifested in the relations between nationalities. Mistakes in this respect must be corrected at once…

“Judging from the mass of information on hand, the Central Committee holds that wherever there are minority nationalities the general rule is that there are problems calling for solution, and in some cases very serious ones…What has come to light in various places in the last two or three years shows that Han chauvinism exists almost everywhere. It will be very dangerous if we fail now to give timely education and resolutely overcome Han chauvinism in the Party and among the people…In other words, bourgeois ideas dominate the minds of those comrades and people who have no Marxist education and have not grasped the nationality policy of the Central Committee. Therefore, education must be assiduously carried out so that this problem can be solved step by step. Moreover, the newspapers should publish more articles based on specific facts to criticize Han chauvinism openly and educate the Party members and the people”.

It is quite natural that after the revolution of 1949, the CPC and the PRC would devote their attention to the national and socialist unification of the motherland. The Preamble to the First Constitution of the People's Republic

another trading class whose interests were subordinate to interest of British capital. They used to collect cheap raw materials from the distant corners of the country for supplying them to British and sell commodities produced in British industry at high price. In this way the value created by working people in this region was transferred to British and hence accumulation of capital in the Indian region was hindered. So in essence,1) British rulers retained the feudal relation and modified it to serve t h e i r interest,2) abolished the indigenous trade and industries to the extreme,3) encouraged a trading class associated with the interest of British capital,4) obstructed the process of capital accumulation by choking the

surplus. Only when the ever increasing accumulation in the developed

countries including British gave rise to monopoly in place of free competition, there has been some new development by the pressure of surplus capital in the developed countries. Surplus capital means capital which do not find profitable investment in its own country. From that time, there was a tendency of exporting capital to backward countries and in this new atmosphere there appeared some industries in India by Indian capitalist in collaboration with British capital.

But this capitalist class was not small commodity producer in earlier time (as happened in Europe). Small commodity producers have been marginalized by the British. They came from the same traders who used to serve British interest. The mere transformation of some traders into capitalist did not give rise to any capitalist revolution with the aim of throwing feudalism and colonial power. Rather in the main British used to pamper this capitalist class and this class was correlated in thousand ways with feudal relation.

Keeping in mind this path of development in India we shall discuss over the basic economic structure that is prevalent in Indian agriculture.

Some Marxist proposition regarding capitalist development in agriculture

No doubt, a growth in “consumption” and “distribution” (i.e. growth in the home market) is an indication of the growth of capitalist relations in production but the important question is that what is its impact on production relations, and, even with this growth of commodity production which of the two modes of production (i.e., capitalist and feudal) is predominant in Indian agriculture ? This can only be done by taking an overall picture of production relations and not merely by picturing the growth in “consumption” and “distribution”. Lenin has said, “that the economists who have discoursed at length on the inadequate attention paid by the classical economists to 'distribution' and 'consumption' have not been able to give the slightest explanation of the most fundamental problems of 'distribution' and 'consumption'. That is understandable, for one cannot even discuss 'consumption' unless one understands the process of the reproduction of the total social capital and of the replacement of the various parts of the social product... It is not with 'production' that political economy deals, but with the social relations of men in production, with the social system of production. Once these social relations have been analysed, the place in production of every class, and consequently, the share they get of the national consumption is thereby defined.” (Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin) Capitalism does not merely entail commodity production. As Lenin has said, “Capitalism is commodity production at its highest stage of development, when labour power itself becomes a commodity.” (Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin) Besides, when the CRC, Communist League, etc., speak of increasing “consumption” and “distribution” they forget Marx's basic theory of realization which states that: “According to the general law of capitalist production, constant capital grows faster than variable capital” and that “capitalist production, and, consequently, the home market, grow not so much on account of articles of consumption as on account of the means of production. In other words, the increase in means of production outstrips the increase in articles of consumption.” (Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin) In other words, while dealing with the growth of commodity production and capitalist relations in India, there is a need to picture the nature of the growth - in which spheres is it confined to, and to what extent is it confined to consumer items and to what extent capital items. Is it the sphere of productive consumption that is increasing in agriculture or is it the sphere of consumer expenditure that has increased ?

While analysing the mode of production in Indian agriculture it is necessary to do so based on the laws of capitalist production as discovered by Marx and further developed by Lenin. These scientific laws of capitalism and imperialism are not time bound. They neither get out-dated nor change from country to country. The conditions may change in time and space but the basic laws of capitalism and imperialism remain unchanged. To understand the

CLASS ANALYSIS OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE

- Abhijnan SarkarThe question and its backgroundIn the communist movement of India, the status of class relation in Indian agriculture has always been a subject of debate. The main point of the debate centers around whether the major relation existing in agriculture is capitalistic or it remains semi-feudal. People who consider it to be capitalistic try to emphasize certain features of capitalist relations like reinvestment of surplus, production for market, existence of agricultural labors and wage-capital relation etc.

Why this debate at all? This debate has no meaning for the mainstream economy (also called neo-classical economy) which sees the classification among the countries in term of developed and underdeveloped countries as if the underdeveloped countries has less capital, less technology and less efficient human resource. It does not see the society to have certain relation among people which may be class relation and which has evolved historically. It pictures the society to consist of individuals which may be owner of various factors of production like capital or land or labour. With their factors they enter in the market and try to maximize their utility. Through the market competition an equilibrium is reached where the factors of production are optimally utilized for the society. So according to this ideology market force should be given full liberty and there should not be any interference with the market by the state. If there is stringent labour laws, restriction on capital investment, capital will not flow and development will be curbed. So it is no surprise that the main stream economists would suggest the underdeveloped countries to import technology and invite capital from developed countries for their own development.

The debate is due to fundamental discovery of Marx. Marx for the first time discovered that production of necessaries are the most fundamental activity of human society. At the same time, production does not take place in abstract but happens in the context of definite human relation which is called production relation. This production relation is the base of a society upon which rest all the other human activity like culture, politics, state, arts etc. This production relation is not something static but it has a dynamics which is dependent on development of productive force (capacity of members of a society to transform nature). The development of productive force (at least up to the level where one can produce surplus above one's own subsistence) once broke the ancient communist society and established slave society based on class exploitation. The slave society also disintegrated at a certain stage of development of productive force giving rise to feudal society. It is the feudal society where apart from the feudal exploitation of surplus, the commodity production (production for exchange) gradually becomes a significant phenomena. Commodity production and commerce has certain features which gives rise to a new kind of production relation in the feudal society itself. This new kind of production relation is nothing but the much discussed capitalist relation of production which is the latest class relation that emerged in human society.

The emergence of capitalist relation in the feudal society and ultimate establishment of capitalist society on the ruin of feudal structure is a universal law of development of society if not fettered by some external force. This transition from feudalism to capitalism covers the history of

th thEurope from 15 century to 18 century. The most important feature of this transition is the capture of political power by the capitalist class from feudal class by organizing other working people including peasants. After the power capture, there occurred a homogeneous development of productive power for a certain period.

As we told that in every feudal society, capitalists relation grows depending on the growth of commodity production, the same also happened in Indian region. Specially the commodity production and export business were much developed in this region. There were seed of capitalist production in certain regions. But this process was hindered by its transformation into a colony by British. Though at that time, British had not achieved all round capitalist development, they used to represent a developed relation of production in its embryonic form. They were a part of a nation not to be assimilated with local people as happened for other intruders in the past. They belonged to a nation and a country and their aim was to develop their home country by sending surplus from this region. This surplus accumulation could ignite the fire of industrial revolution in 1760 in their home country which made British the most powerful capitalist country in the world.

British, while destroying the indigenous industries (the most important being the destruction of cotton industries in Bengal, Surat and Madras), did not adopt a process to abolish feudalism with its particular structure of caste system prevalent in the Indian region. Rather in some region they created a more ferocious feudal class by replacing the old one and their

13

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS


contd. to page 14

mode of production in India it is no use negating these laws, as the some Naxalite groups do, but utilise them to understand the mode of production in India.

Regarding the question of capitalism in agriculture an important principle outlined by Lenin was that, “it is the development of capitalism in the manufacturing industry that is the main force which gives rise to, and develops, capitalism in agriculture.”

“the socialisation of labour by capitalism is manifested in the following process :

Firstly, the very growth of commodity production destroys the scattered condition of small economic units that is characteristic of natural economy and draws together the small local markets into an enormous national (and then world) market. Production of oneself is transferred into production for the whole of society: and the greater the development of capitalism, the stronger becomes the contradiction between this collective character of production and individual character of appropriation.

Secondly, capitalism replaces the former scattered production by an unprecedented4d concentration both in agriculture and in industry.

Thirdly, capitalism eliminates the forms of personal dependence that constituted on inalienable component of preceding systems of economy ...

Fourthly, capitalism necessarily creates mobility of the population, something not required by previous systems of social economy and impossible under them on anything like a large scale.

Fifthly, capitalism constantly reduces the proportion of the population engaged in agriculture and increases the number of large industrial centres.

Sixthly, capitalist society increases the population's need for association, for organisation, and lends these organisations a character distinct from those of former times. While breaking down the narrow, local social-estate associations of medieval society and creating fierce competition, capitalism at the same time splits the whole society into large groups of persons occupying different positions in production and gives a tremendous impetus to organisation within each such group.Seventhly, all the above mentioned changes effected in the old economic system by capitalism inevitably lead also to a change in the mentality of the population. The spasmodic character of economic development, the rapid transformation of the methods of production and the enormous concentration of production, the disappearance of all forms of personal dependence and patriarchalism in relationships, the mobility of population, the influence of the big industrial centres, etc., all this cannot but lead to a profound change in the very character of the producers.” (Development of Capitalism in Russia, by VI Lenin) With this brief introduction on the approach to the problem, let us now turn to study the relations of production in Indian agriculture.While studying the relations of production in Indian agriculture we will examine it under three heads :a) Growth of Commodity Production, b) Differentiation of the peasantry,c) Impact on social relation

The growth of commodity production in agriculture can be assessed by the extent of utilisation of inputs and the growth of outputs produced for the market. The 'green revolution', which was introduced by the World Bank in Third World countries in the mid-1960s, was part of the imperialist policy to penetrate the countryside for markets. This 'green revolution' has led to certain changes in agriculture which must be analysed. This section will be classified under the following sub heads : 1) 'Green Revolution', 2) Inputs, 3) Credit, 4) Output and Productivity Trends, and 5) Utilisation of Surplus.1) Green Revolution

Also, while talking of the transformation of pre-capitalist forms of production to capitalism, Lenin has said that :

A. GROWTH OF COMMODITY PRODUCTION

The Green Revolution in India was a imperialist dictated reform introduced in the middle of 1960's at a time when anti feudal democratic struggle was becoming intense in the country side of India and elsewhere. This reform was based not on any basic changes of class structure and land relation in the country side, but on the intensification of credit and purchased inputs like chemical fertilizers and pesticides and finally high yielding seed. It was based not on self-reliance, but on dependence on imported agricultural inputs from imperialist monopoly capital of United States. It was based not on diversity but uniformity. Advisors and experts came from America to shift India's agricultural research and agricultural policy from an indigenous and ecological model to an exogenous, and high input one, finding, of course, partners in sections of the elite, because the new model suited their political priorities and interests. There were three groups of international agencies involved in transferring the Green revolution model of agriculture to India - the private American Foundations, the American government and the World

Bank. Due to introduction of this model there have been some significant increase in agricultural production in some parts of Punjab and Hariyana, specially in wheat production. A section of rich peasants arose along with a section of agricultural labourer (mainly seasonal) in the background of over all (semi) feudal mode of production. At the same time, due to heavy use of tractor, large scale irrigation, and costly inputs, a large section of share-croppers and small farmers were marginalized in this process and they did not find any employment in industry which could happen in earlier capitalist development in west. So somehow they remained dependent on agriculture giving much scope to retention of semi feudal relation. From then on the main permanent feature of this development has been increasing dependence on inputs from imperialist countries. And this feature slowly spreads to some other part of the country but the development of capitalist relation did not go deep. Rather land still remain the principal means of production (feature of semi feudalism). This truth would be verified by various factors in the following. 2) Inputs Though irrigation may have increased, out of the 350 million acres of net cropped area, barely 50 million acres, or 14%, is cultivated more than once a year (VI Five Year Plan figures). If one crop takes on an average four months, 86% of India's agricultural land remains idle for 66% of the time per year. To put it differently, nearly 60% of the cropped area is not at all used. If agriculture was to be put on a capitalist footing and capitalist farming was to predominate in India, there would not be such a gigantic wastage of land utilisation and such a slow growth of irrigation facilities. But besides the modernisation, the number of wooden ploughs increased from 37.5 million in 1956 to 43 million in 1966 and further to 44.5 million (i.e. during the green revolution period) in 1972.3. Credit It has been found that till 1978 as much as 71% of the population depended on non-institutional credit - on money-lenders, traders, landlords, etc. It is thus clear that the stranglehold of usurious capital still dominates all sections of the rural populace. But usurious is an indication of pre-capitalist, feudal relations of production, which sucks up the surplus and prevents it from seeking productive channels. Besides, this usurious capital is increasing day by day. Marx has said that, “Usurer's capital as the characteristic form of interest bearing capital corresponds to the predominance of small scale production of the self-employed peasant and small master craftsman”, “Usury centralises money wealth where the means of production are dispersed. It does not alter the mode of production, but attaches itself firmly to it like a parasite and makes it wretched. It sucks out its blood, enervates it and compels reproduction to proceed under even more pitiable conditions.” (Karl Marx, Vol. III, Chapter 36, pp594) Also with a large section of the peasantry having turned to HYV, (and now unable to turn back to the traditional varieties) and caught in a crisis with diminishing returns for their output, the peasants are dependent on large capital inputs each year which they are now unable to finance. This is forcing them to seek larger and larger loans. With the peasantry unable to even pay their interest on their cooperative loans, they are turning more and more back to the moneylender. This trend is bound to increase enormously in the coming years as the crisis in agriculture deepens.4. Output and Productivity trends In fact, the annual rate of growth of production of all agricultural crops actually dropped in the second period; while it was 3.2% in the 1951-52 to 1964-65 period, it was just 2.6% in the 1964-65 to 1983-84 period. This was because the increase in area under crops increased phenomenally in the first period at an annual rate of 1.7%, while in the second period the annual increase was just 0.4%. In other words, much better results in agricultural production could have been achieved by increasing the area under cropping than by introducing HYV. The economic and scientific research foundation has estimated that soil erosion and deforestation has been so acute that India looses about 1% of its cultivable land every year to deserts. It is said that out of a total of 306 million hectares of cultivable land, 145 million hectares are either threatened with erosion or badly in need of soil and water conservation measures. Generally, it can be summed up that production and yield of cropping has increased, with small increase towards cash crops, indicating some growth in capitalist relations. This is indicated through the change in some pockets of agriculture to capitalist farming and growth in commodity relations in large tracts of semi-feudal production, which continue their semi-feudal existence with enhanced contradictions caused by this lopsided growth of commodity relations within it. Productivity trends continue to indicate a backward mode of production with large farms being the least productive. Also with the increase in value of output being nowhere commensurate with the increase in value of inputs, it is clear that the growth in commodity production is lopsided, with this growth merely facilitating the dumping of commodities of the imperialists and comprador big bourgeoisie into the rural sector without significant returns to the farmer. This has led to a new set of contradictions in agriculture which are bound to intensify.5) Utilisation of Surplus This, in fact, is one of the factors in the determination of capitalist growth, as a fundamental law of capitalism is that

14

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

contd. from page 13

contd. to page 15

INDIAN AGRICULTURE

constant capital (i.e., production of means of production) must grow at an increasingly fast rate. Therefore, in capitalist farming the kulak must reinvest his surplus in the farm in improved technology. Thereby he would increase the productivity of his farm and the surplus value extracted from it. Besides this low generation of surplus in agriculture, even that generated goes primarily to other spheres. With the return on money-lending and trading far more profitable, a large proportion of this surplus is not re-invested in agriculture, instead finds its way in such spheres of activity. In fact, as long as usury continues to dominate the countryside as a most profitable sphere of investment, it will restrict the growth of capitalist development. Of course, with the inception of the 'green revolution' things have somewhat changed; but the limited extent to which it has generated capitalist farming can be seen from the poor levels of capital investment in agriculture taken as a whole. Also 'capital goods' imports into the rural areas also began to increase, though at a much slower rate, in the same period.SUMMARY From the entire section on the growth of commodity production it will be seen that this growth is definite whether in the sphere of inputs, outputs, credits utilisation of surplus - all sections have to some extent been affected, thereby having an impact on the production relations in the rural economy. But the question is to what extent has it been able to change the rela-tions of production in agriculture to capitalist ? To get a comprehensive answer to this question it is necessary to analyse the differentiation of the peasantry and all its related aspects. Meanwhile, it must be remembered that even by 1971-1972 only roughly 35% of grain production actually comes into the market. The bulk, over 65%, is consumed by the peasantry without ever reaching the market. This proportion of marketed grains has not changed perceptively in the last decade.B. DIFFERENTIATITION OF THE PEASANTRY

The differentiation of the peasantry means the break up of the rural populace into a rural bourgeoisie and a rural proletariat. Lenin has said that for Russia, “two main lines of its development and outcome are objectively possible : either the old landlord economy, bound as it is by thousands of threads of serfdom, is retained and turns slowly into purely capitalist, 'junker' economy. The basis of the final transition from labour service to capitalism is the internal metamorphosis of feudalist landlord economy. The entire agrarian system of the state becomes capitalist and for a long time retains feudalist features. Or the old landlord economy is broken up by revolution, which destroys all the relics of serfdom, and large land ownership in the first place. The basis of the final transition from labour service to capitalism is the free development of small peasant farming, which has received a tremendous impetus as a result of the expropriation of the landlord estates in the interests of the peasantry. The entire agrarian system becomes capitalist, for the more completely the vestiges of serfdom are destroyed the more rapidly does the differentiation of the peasantry proceed.” (Preface to the II edition of Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin) To do so (ie. examine the differentiation of the peasantry and the growth of commodity production resulting from it) we will analyse it under the following sub-heads :1) Rural-Urban Divide, 2) Agricultural Labour Vs. Kulak 3) Land Holding-Land Reforms4) Household Industry 5) Home Market

1. Rural-Urban Divide Lenin has said that, “the development of commodity economy

means the divorcement of an ever-growing part of the population from agriculture, i.e., the growth of the industrial population at the expense of the agricultural population.” In explaining the entire process, Marx clarifies, “it is in the nature of capitalist production to continually reduce the agricultural population as compared to the non-agricultural, because in industry the in-crease of constant capital in relation to variable capital goes hand in hand with an absolute increase, though relative decrease, in variable capital, on the other hand in agriculture the variable capital required for the exploitation of certain plot of land decreases absolutely; it can thus only increase to the extent that new land is taken into cultivation, but this again requires as a pre-requisite a still great growth of the non-agricultural population.”2. Agricultural Labourers vs rural bourgeoisie

Also, the productivity of farm workers in India, on the average, is very low and the instruments of production little developed. And very often, the labourer is not divorced form the instruments of production as he has to use his own implement while working on someone else's farm. One important aspect of capitalism is that wage power must be divorced from the instruments of production.

So though a greater number of the peasantry may be disposed from the means of production and land and though wage labour may have increased with the 'green revolution', the bulk of the labour does not take on the form of regular free wage labour. So the clear differentiation of a rural

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

15

proletariat and a rural bourgeoisie is yet to coalesce, except in few pockets. The result will be greater amount of labour turning into a commodity coupled withy further impoverishment of the peasantry. Yet this sale of labour power will more take the form of simple commodity production rather than capitalist production. For, say, a middle peasant is unable to carry out his farming operations with family labour and so hires three to four workers during the season.

Yet, if the bulk of the produce his family consumes, his exploitation of wage labour gives him no surplus value and so takes the form of simple commodity production even if his produce is a cash crop - say cotton. Much of the labour power sold in the Indian countryside takes this form, and though because of it commodity production expands, the home market grows and there is some change in agrarian relations, but fundamentally it takes the form of simple commodity production with a growth of small-scale farming without generating capitalism or a rural bourgeoisie. Also, it will be observed that labour-service in the form of share cropping and family cooperation co-exist and continue together with the emerging wage-labour system in Indian agriculture.

As regards the extent of growth of the rural bourgeoisie (Kulak) only a general picture can be got from the extent of capital formation in agriculture and the extent of the absorption of the means of production in agriculture. These various estimations are given in other sections. The particular extent of its existence can only be ascertained by specific area studies. The following are some general guidelines to assess whether a farmer comes within the category of rural bourgeoisie or continues as a rich peasant-landlord.

a) The bulk of the surplus must be extracted by the exploitation of labour power. He must employ more wage labour than the labour of his family.

b) The major part of the surplus value generated must be utilised in developing the means of production (machinery) and not in usury, trading, purchase of land, etc.

c) Labour power used must be free wage labour and the labourer should be divorced from the instruments of production - i.e., the implements for working should not be brought by the labourer, but instead provided by the owner of the farm. Payment should be in cash and not in kind.

d) The capitalist farmer must not give his land on rent, on the contrary, he may lease in land.

e) The capitalist farmer must produce for sale. So that bulk of his produce must be sold in the market and not consumed by him and his family.

f) The capitalist farmer should produce for profit - i.e., he must accumulate capital continuously. He must plan his production in such a manner that it enhances profit through agricultural operations

By taking these six criteria into account we can roughly estimate the class character of the farmer - whether he belongs to the category of rural bourgeoisie or rich peasant-landlord class. Studies may show that a large number of such farmers may be found more to be in a transitional stage not having fully coalesced into a rural bourgeoisie and thereby meeting only some of the above mentioned six criteria.3) Land holdings - land reforms

A full ten years after the so-called 'green revolution' the state of operational holdings in the country remained basically the same. Firstly, there occurred extensive parcellisation of the land where 10.7% of the cultivable land (of 17.6 million hectares) is distributed amongst 44.5 million holdings (families) of under one hectare each. Besides, this fragmentation is contin-uing with the average size of holdings having dropped from 2.28 to 2 hectares between 1970-71 and 1976-77. But this is not all very rare is that a peasant has his entire plot in one contiguous area. In fact, the bulk of the plots are further fragmented, with each plot being divided into a number of small parcels which can vary from anything from 2 to 10 parcels of land per plot.

The estimated minimum number of agricultural plots in India, thus, was in the region of 215 million in 1951 which increased to 355 million in 1971-72. That is, a 67% increase. This greater parcellisation can be further assessed from the fact that a holding in the size group of 2.5-5 acres, on the average, has 6.3 fragments with an average area of 0.57 acres each. The average area of fragments in the lower size groups was even less than that of the 2.5-5 acres size group.

This enormous fragmentation of land is an indication of a most backward mode of production and retards the growth of capitalist relations. Marx has said that, “small landed property pre-supposes that the overwhelming majority of the population is rural, and that not social but isolated labour predominates; and that, therefore, under such conditions wealth and development of reproduction, both of its material and spiritual pre-requisites, are out of question, and thereby also the pre-requisites for rational cultivation.” Marx adds that, “proprietorship of land parcels by its very nature excludes the development of social productive forces of labour,

contd. to page 16

VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 contd. from page 14INDIAN AGRICULTURE

social forms of labour, social concentration of capital, large-scale cattle-raising and the progressive application of science.”So this parcellisation and fragmentation of land is continuing apace, and if, within it, a certain amount of commodity production has been introduced with the help of HYV, cooperative loans, etc., it can lead to only simple commodity production and not capitalist relations of production.

Thus it will be seen that the main trend in agricultural land holding is continuing concentration of land in the hands of a few coupled with extensive small-scale farming. In between lie a class of rich peasantry (15-25 acres) who comprise 3.4% of the households and own 16.2% of land whose number has remained virtually static over the years. It is this section that has, of late, been more vocal as a result of 'green revolution.’

This exposes the glaring existence of labour service in Indian agriculture. The continuing prevalence of tenancy, share-cropping, etc., is a further indication of the perseverance of feudal mode of production.

The estimates of cash rent and rent-in-king may not be too accurate and estimates vary from study to study. Other estimates put the rent-in-kind around 25%. But, one important point is that the content of the rent, whether in cash or kind, takes the form of pre-capitalist rent and not capitalist rent, as it involves distribution of surplus product and not of surplus value. The very tenancy acts themselves fix the proportion of distribution of the product between the landlord and serf. If it was to be capitalist rent the distribution would be assessed on the profit generated and not on the basis of the whole product.4) Household Industry

Caste-based hereditary labour, according to the 1971 Census, increased over that of 1961 and stood at : barbers 7.11 lakhs, dhobies 9.47 lakhs, fishermen 6.01 lakhs, weavers and spinners 34.03 lakhs, shoemakers 5.97 lakhs, carpenters 12.64 lakhs, blacksmiths 10 lakhs, jewelry and precious metal workers (incl. goldsmiths) 5.76 lakhs, masons 15.35 lakhs, potters 9.66 lakhs, and tanners 0.53 lakhs.

If capitalist industry were to grow and break feudal relations it should first and foremost oust these ancient and backward forms of production and service. But these continue to co-exist, and even expand together with industrial growth. Also a differentiation of the peasantry would simultaneously see the collapse of the household sector, coupled with the growth of modern indigenous industry. Lenin has said that, “Domestic industries are a necessary adjunct of natural economy, remnants of which are nearly always retained where there is a small peasantry.” (Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin)

In India, not only does the caste based household labour continue, but the household industries are propped up by the state and comprador big bourgeoisie. For example, in the year 1981-82 the total grants plus outstanding loans to the Khadi and Village industries was Rs. 338 crore - Khadi Rs. 208 crore and village industries Rs. 130 crore -given by the government. The very fact that this sector not only continues to exist but is propped up even in the face of expanding industrial production, is a clear example of the compromise struck by imperialism and the comprador big bourgeoisie with the backward pre-capitalist modes of production which they use as a social base for their existence.

The overall picture of Khadi and Village Industries in India and their trend, indicates that the maximum growth in these areas took place in the decade of the 1970s. Surprisingly this was the same period when capitalist relations grew fastest.

The continued existence and growth of this household sector is a clear indication of a backward pre-capitalist mode of production wherein over three million families (or three per cent of the population) continue their existence as artisans5) Home market

The differentiation of the peasantry will lead to an expansion of the home market. In India, as already mentioned, though there has been a continuous increase in food grain production, the percentage finding its way into the market has been static at around 30% to 35%. A more recent estimate put that no more than the top 10% of the land-owning peasant household has able to produce marketable surpluses on any scale.

Also it will be found that the gross domestic capital formation as a percentage of the total has been virtually static in the decade of 1970s. It increased from 18% of the total (compared to registered manufacturing of 20%) in 1970-71 to 19% of the total (compared to registered manufacturing of 24%) in 1980-81. With little growth in percentage of capital formation in the rural areas it would reflect little growth in capitalist relations there during that period.

Another estimate of the growth in the rural market and of capi-talism can be gauged by tracing the flow of commodities from urban to rural

areas - and that too specifically in the sphere of production.It is to be noted that, except for the early 1950s, in the entire

period prior to the 'green revolution' there was a net flow of commodities from rural to urban areas, indicating a highly stagnant rural economy. From the 'green revolution' period this process was reversed and there has been a successively increasing net inflow of commodities into the rural areas indicating a growth in the rural market. No doubt, in the earlier year this growth was quite large - in 1967-68 it was Rs. 390 crore, which increased to Rs. 784 crore in 1970-71.

This factor is also observable from the fact that the percentage of producer goods to consumer goods (which consists mostly of necessities like salt, tea, etc.) imported into rural areas jump-ed from 17% in 1967-68 to 25% in 1970-71 - indicating thereby a larger inflow of intermediary producer goods (like fertilisers, pesticides, etc.) primarily and also a small quantity of means of production like farm machinery.

Also, during the entire period of the 1950s and 1960s there was a massive shrinking of the percentage of per capita consumer expenditure spent on industrial goods in the rural areas (and also urban areas). In other words there was a relative shrinking of the home market in that period with a larger and larger amount of the families' incomes being devoted to the necessities of life. There was a perceptible reversal of this process in the rural areas from 1968-69 indicating some growth of market from the time of the 'green revolution.'

This entire section shows that there has been a very slight differentiation of the peasantry. The basic forms of pre-capitalist production relations has remained intact, with land concentration continuing as before and small scale petty farming dominating the bulk of the rural population. It is within this existing framework that commodity production and the agrarian market has been increased by the imperialists through the 'green revolution', thereby enhancing capitalist relations within the semi-feudal framework.

Thus, from this section we find that the 'green revolution' period has definitely witnessed a rise in commodity production. This is reflected in : a growth of the urban population, growth of the rural market, growth of banking and institutional finance in the rural areas, a slight increase in constant capital in agriculture, the widespread prevalence of HYV types, and a slight growth in productivity. But at the same time all the pre-capitalist institutions continue to co-exist, if not increase. So we find, no change in land holdings and the growth of backward small scale farming, the traditional wooden and iron ploughs and bullock carts continued, widespread prevalence of household industry, the bulk of food grain production still being produced for consumption and not for market, the bulk of the surplus still not going to increase constant capital but for usury, trading, etc. no scientific utilisation of agriculture with productivity de-creasing with increasing size of farm, the continuing prevalence of tenancy, share-cropping, etc. the bulk of the population continuing to be dependent on land, little differentiation of the peasantry with little growth in the agricultural labour,

With the labour generated continuing to be not free labour but attached and that which is free labour is being more of a seasonal type, an the continuing caste-based division of labour of handicrafts and services. It is clear from this that the growth in capitalist relations has merely been super-imposed on the existing semi-feudal structure and has not proceeded to smash it.

No doubt, this increased capitalist penetration will enhance the contradictions within the rural economy, undermining to some extent traditional feudal relations and have its own impact on the class antagonisms in the countryside. One effect of this has been the mass upsurges of the middle and rich peasantry in many HYV areas. Though also some pockets of bourgeois farming will have developed (its limit can be seen in the excessively low increase in constant capital and particularly of the means of production, within Indian agriculture taken as a whole) the major impact of the 'green revolution' has been to enhance simple commodity production and not capitalist production.

Simple commodity production has existed since slave society, while capitalism, as already mentioned, “is commodity production at its highest stage of development, when labour power itself becomes a commodity.” Simple commodity production is present when constant capital remains static with little or no surplus value being generated with the bulk of the produce being utilised to sustain the person and his family. Capitalist production, on the other hand, entails a continuing increase in constant capital and a generation of surplus value which is utilised to enhance the means of production.

So, whether it is a petty farmer, utilising even some limited wage labour, or whether it is a handicrafts man or some household industry, or whether it may be any other petty producer - they may all produce

SUMMARY

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

16

contd. from page 15

contd. from page 17

INDIAN AGRICULTURE

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

17

commodities but neither do they generate surplus value not do they develop or increase constant capital. This form of simple commodity production can continue for generations with out having much impact on the social relations of production. Capitalist production, on the other hand, revolutionises the mode of production and by a continuous increase of the constant capital leads to the ruination and destruction of the small producer. The primary impact of the 'green revolution', except developing a rural bourgeoisie in certain pockets, has led to the growth of simple commodity production on the lakhs of small fragmented farms through the widespread utilisation of HYV.

Also, the enhancement in sale of labour power utilised in simple commodity production may extend the market but will not be a measure of the growth of capitalist relations. In India, though the percentage of agricultural labourers may not have increased much in the last decade, there has been an increase in sale of wage labour primarily because of the vast expansion of uneconomical small holdings of the poor and even lower middle peasantry. But the bulk of this wage labour is involved in simple commodity production with little effect on the growth of capitalist relations.

Finally, it is manufacturing industry that is the main force which develops capitalism in agriculture. Though industry has been growing, it has been doing so as an off-shoot of finance capital and therefore has been unable to generate that employment that is necessary to absorb any differentiation of the peasantry that may take place in the countryside. So the growth of the manufacturing industry within the imperialist framework, has not acted as that force to develop capitalism in agriculture. On the contrary, we have seen, as with the house hold industry, it even allies itself with the pre-capitalist sectors of production. The result of such warped industrial growth is a massive unemployment in the urban areas together with even larger under-employment in the rural areas.

Thus, the overall agrarian picture in India continues to be semi-feudal within which there has been a certain growth of capitalist relations.

C. IMPACT ON SOCIAL RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION

To sum up, the chief characteristics of the present day rural India area) Fragmentation of agricultural land and in consequence the

predominance of small scale agriculture and subsistence farming, b) Leasing out of land by deeds and by word of mouth for the

performance of labour service, i.e., tenancy, share cropping, etc.c) Primitive instruments of productiond) Prevalence of caste and hereditary division of laboue) Preponderance of household industryf) Continuance of household industryg) Limited growth of market with bulk of food grains maintained for

consumption and much payment in kind.h) Attachment of the overwhelming proportion of the population to

land.i) Limited differentiation of the peasantryj) Growth of commodity circulation on a small scale, andk) Continuation of the patriarchal family, caste relations and diverse

personal dependence.That is, a continuation of the semi-feudal mode of production with

an enhanced amount of commodity circulation within it resulting in some growth of capitalist relations. The main impact has been to enhance simple commodity production and create pockets of a rural bourgeoisie within a predominantly semi-feudal structure.

Its impact on the social relations of production have been :1) To reduce the traditional feudal methods of oppression,2) To create a powerful rich peasant section3) With HYV to force vast sections of the rural population into

market4) To further perpetuate the fragmentation and parcellisation of land

thereby increasing the poor and middle peasant population enormously.5) To greatly impoverish the landless, poor and even middle

peasants, forcing them to sell their labour power in order to eke out an existence

6) Greater imperialist loot of the entire rural population leading to a crisis in the agriculture with a continuing reduction in surplus being generated (i.e., after the first decade of 'green revolution')

7) To a growth of simple commodity production and small pockets of rural bourgeoisie

8) To a continuation of all the other feudal forms of exploitation, viz., usury, trading, etc.

The result of this has been to enhance the contradictions within agriculture :

i) Due to further impoverishment, heightening the contradiction between the landless and poor peasants on the one hand and the rich peasants and landlords on the other,

ii) With vast sections being brought under HYV and within the

market, and with the value of output dropping and fluctuating enormously with fluctuations in weather and fluctuations in the market - i.e., a crisis situation developing, an increased contradiction with this vast masses and the imperialist-comprador bourgeoisie and government.

iii) With the accumulation of certain wealth by the rich peasants and a section of landlords due to the 'green revolution' the growth of more powerful and vocal rich peasant lobby, and

iv) With the crisis of the 'green revolution' due to high prices of inputs and a falling price of outputs a growing contradiction between the rich peasantry, a section of landlords (who have taken to HYV) and the middle peasantry on the one hand and the government, imperialism and comprador big bourgeoisie on the other.

The article has been reproduced form the archive: www.naxalrevolution.googlepages.com/vg_agri_article.doc with a short introduction.

contd. from page 16

contd. from page 12


of China(1954) reads as follows: “…All nationalities of our country are united as one great family of free and equal nationalities. This unity of China's nationalities will continue to gain in strength, founded as it is on ever-growing friendship and mutual aid among themselves and on the struggle against imperialism, against public enemies of the people within these nationalities and against both dominant-nation chauvinism and local nationalism. In the course of economic and cultural development, the state will concern itself with the needs of the different nationalities, and, in the matter of socialist transformation, pay full attention to the special characteristics in the development of each…”

Here attention has been drawn both to Han chauvinism and the chauvinism of small nationalities. In his essay entitled On the Ten Major Relationships(25 April 1956), Mao pointed out: “…We put the emphasis on opposing Han chauvinism. Local-nationality chauvinism must be opposed too, but generally that is not where our emphasis lies…”(SW, Vol.V,pp.284-306).

In Article 3, General Principles, Chapter 1 of the First Constitution, it is written that

“the People's Republic of China is a single multi-national state. All the nationalities are equal. Discrimination against, or oppression of any nationality and acts which undermine the unity of the nationalities are prohibited.“All the nationalities have freedom to use and foster the growth of their spoken and written languages and to preserve or reform their own customs or ways.“Regional autonomy applies in areas where people of national minorities live in compact communities. National autonomous areas are inalienable parts of the People's Republic of China…”

The idea of combatting both Han chauvinism and local-nationality chauvinism was expressed by Mao also in his On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People(27 February 1957). Closely related to it is the question: why China, instead of adopting the policy of autonomous republics like the USSR, went for the creation of autonomous regions.

Autonomous republics in the USSR, why autonomous regions, and not autonomous republics in China?: Chou En-lai answers

Chou En-lai also talks about chauvinism of two types—Han chauvinism and minority(local) chauvinism. Han chauvinism can develop into a tendency towards discrimination and minority chauvinism can develop into a tendency towards separatism. This socialist China, in the words of Chou En-lai “is not to be monopolized by any one nationality. It belongs to all the more than 50 nationalities in our country, to the entire people of the People's Republic of China”(Questions relating to our Policies towards China's Nationalities, 4 August 1957, SW, Vol.II, Beijing 1989,pp.253-54).

Chou En-lai in that essay dealt with the question of regional autonomy. Why did the PRC opted for the policy of autonomous regions, rather than that of autonomous republics? This question is relevant for the purpose of our present discussion. In China, self-government takes the form of autonomous regions, prefectures, counties or townships, whereas in the USSR, there were autonomous republics and small administrative units, such as oblasts and so on. The forms of autonomy in the two countries differ not only in name, but also in substance. The right to self-government was enjoyed by the nationalities in both the cases. In fact, the differences lie in the way

TIBET

contd. to page 19

INDIAN AGRICULTURE

18

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

America bombs Somalia Thirty people died including several women and children when a small villa and adjacent traditional mud houses in a Somalia village. The target was the house of Aden Hashi Ayro, a military leader of al-Shabab. Al-Shabab controls much of the country but is not recognized by the US, who is currently backing the transitional government in Somalia. US has long alleged that al-Shabab is a part of Al-Qaeda, which is however unsubstantiated. The US officially denied disclosing their target and whether it was successful. The precision missile was launched from their offshore base in Indian Ocean. Al-Shabab spokesperson warned that there would be retaliatory attacks against the US interests in Somalia and also the US backed puppet government of Ethiopia. He however reiterated that Al-Shabab had no links to Qaeda and was entirely a Somali issue. Al-Shabab began as a military wing of Somali Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) which controlled much of Somalia during 2006. But by the end of the year, US backed Ethiopian army invaded Somalia and disbanded the group. Later al-Shabab emerged as an insurgent group of Somali youths.

US Terror Report The terror report released by Washington states that Venezuela is

supporting terrorism. The acquisition is being remarked upon by Venezuela as 'almost ridiculous'. This inclusion is the newest in American list which already includes other major oil producers like Iran. The state security department accused the Chavez regime of supporting the Colombian guerillas that often use Venezuelan territory to rest and regroup. Chavez has been often involved in negotiating release of prisoners taken by major Colombian left wing guerilla group FARC. Venezuela even mobilized its national army in March, to Colombian borders after it violated its border with Ecuador and killed a FARC leader. The terror report also expectedly mentions Iran as the biggest state sponsor of terror, accused of funding, sheltering and training of Islamic militants operating in Iraq. The report also mentioned Syria as the other supporter of Islamic extremism. The problem in Somalia, which saw American missile strikes have also been mentioned.

France faces massive strike 21 May, 08: France faces yet another massive strike as workers, teachers and students united to protest the reforms proposed by president Sarkozy, which indicated that a worker has to work till he is 41, one year more than the previously decided age, before he can avail the benefits of the provident fund managed by the government. Sarkozy have been involved in many such controversial decisions which resulted in massive strikes which have managed to stall the nation. The unions clearly stated that the president is trying to impose his neo-liberal agenda in the nation which will be wholeheartedly countered by the united working class of France.

Columbia isolated after FARC crackdown The national government of Columbia is getting more and more

isolated amongst its Latin American neighbors ever since it violated international border and carried out an attack on the FARC rebels camped into Ecuador Territory. Recently after prolonged discussions the Ecuador president Rafael Correa decided to indefinitely postpone any idea to restore diplomatic ties with Columbia. This comes in face of adverse comments being made by Columbian president Alvaro Uribe who claimed that computer recovered from the FARC camps reveal that Ecuador was helping them directly. The lack of relations with neighbours is hurting the nation which is becoming increasingly dependant on US support. The term of the Uribe government is supposed to end by 2010.

Delhi raises its voice in Solidarity with the Bhopalis June 14 , 4-7pm, Jantar Mantar, New Delhi

·Artists and bands to perform in Support of Bhopalis They include:

Rabbi Shergill, Jigri group, Susmit Bose, Abhay Sharma and others..

·112 Days on Road, 77 Days at The Dharna-sthal! PM Turns A Blind

Eye To Justice. Police turn violent on protestors.

23 long years on the path to justice! Despite 77 days of struggle, the Prime Minister is yet to meet the people of Bhopal and their demands. They have tried all possible means from silent peaceful protests to street theatre to demonstrations and even 'chaining themselves up', to try and convince the PM to meet them. Activists of Delhi

In Brief

have held their hands in support. Ministers, Members of Parliament and eminent people from the city have assured them of their support and promised them justice. On 9 June,2008, 33 people, women, children and men, who were staging a peaceful protest in front of the PMs Office were arrested. Rather than meet their demands promptly, the Government has ignored their march from Bhopal to Delhi , met their 2 month-long dharna with empty promises, and dealt with their non-violent protests with beatings and jailing. Pregnant women and three people on indefinite fast continue to be in jail. The attitude of the authorities clearly shows that they "want to teach the protestors a lesson." It seems to be a coordinated effort to discourage democratic protest. Since 10 June, nine activists, including gas survivors are on an indefinite hunger strike seeking justice. They demand: An Empowered Commission on Bhopal by endorsing the bill proposed by survivors organizations and committing to introducing it in the Parliament in the monsoon session; committing the funds required to allow the Commission to function for 30 years for medical, economic, social and environmental rehabilitation, and Immediate legal action against Dow Chemical and Union Carbide. Supporters from different parts of the world, including Booker Prize nominated author Indra Sinha, are on a fast. Prime Minister's response to the struggle so far has been vague and tentative, without any genuine effort to meet the demands of an industrial disaster, 23 years old! 23 years of waiting, they refuse to be led on with false promises anymore. Background: 23 years after the 1984 Union Carbide Industrial Disaster in Bhopal , justice still eludes the Bhopalis. On 3rd December 1984 the Union Carbide Subsidiary plant at Bhopal , released 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) and other toxic gases into the night air of the city. This resulted in the death of over 23,000 people. 5, 72,000 suffer ill effects of the toxic gas till date, 120,000 more suffer from chronic ailments. Children are being born with cerebral palsy and congenital ailments. 10 to 15 of the gas affected people die every month! The gas leak also has caused a permanent damage to the environment. The ground water is heavily contaminated, causing respiratory, skin, eye and abdominal morbidity. The Government of India (GOI) has through the years tried following the 'piecemeal' justice principle. The GOI had promised a commission to evaluate the damages caused and decide on the provisions of justice in 2006. Till date there has been no systematic sustainable medical, economic, environmental or social relief provisions made for them. No criminal and civil liabilities too have been unresolved. The prime accused Union Carbide Corporation of USA and Dow Chemical is still scott free! 77 days later, non-responsive government, depleting resources… the protestors need our support!! Join the Bhopalis and Unite for Justice!

Rally and Demonstration against CZM NotificationThe streets of Tuticorin vibrated with the thousands who thronged, 20 June 2008 The Rally in Tuticorin against the proposed CZM Notification became an historic event, as over five thousand of coastal community people from the coastal villages of Tirunelveli and Tuticorin thronged around Cruz Fernando's statute and started off a rally which ended at Sub collector's office. The rally called by the fisher community associations, mechanised and country craft operator's associations in Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Districts.The rally that was started at around 10.30 am on 20th June, went through the many streets of Tuticorin town, was lead by the leaders of various fisher community associations and leaders of the traditional boats and mechanised boats operators. National Union of Fishermen, Tamilnadu Pondy Fisher people federation, Unorganised labourers trade union, veeranganai women's movement, Christian liberation movement were among those who also participated.

Forward Bloc nod to contract farmingContract farming in the state W.B. is finally set to get green light from Left Front constituent Forward Bloc, albeit with some modifications. The party had opposed its introduction in Bengal a few years ago.The Bloc-run West Bengal Marketing Board will allow contract farming by corporates only if the deal is with a farmers' cooperative.The board has also carved out a regulated corporate entry route in the field of marketing. At present, direct purchase of agricultural produce from the 46 regulated markets and the 150 sub-markets by corporate firms is not allowed. The Reliance Industries Ltd. applied for the APMC licence but was denied by teh board earlier. Under the present scheme of things, corporates floating a joint venture with the state-run marketing board, will get this licence.

VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

19

After the Bill for the N-Deal was passed in the US Congress, when reporters questioned Karat whether they were against the Bill, Karat ignored the question and Yechuri clarified, “We are neither in favour nor against this Bill. Decision will be taken after considering the situations.” (Ananda Bazar Patrika, 12.12.2006)

In this very pre-planned way they avoided this critical ideological stand point and strategised to rely sometimes on Sonia Gandhi and Pranab Mukherji's own sweet wills, only to make way for the Deal to be materialised. Not only that, the foreign and National Corporate Giants who are looking at this Deal as an opportunity for great profit by using the New Economic Policy as a potential weapon, but the Leftists in Power have also turned out to be the architect of the very same Economic Policy. Essentially, these ruling Leftists are keeping the masses in darkness regarding the real picture behind the Nuclear Power and Nuclear Deal and combating the Central Government with such a subtle strategy so that this deal is materialised and yet they do not have to be a part of this Deal.

In such a situation where the masses have been left in darkness and a filthy game has started for and against this Deal, we demand:

1) Restoring dignity to the Democratic opinion, India withdraws from the Deal.

2) At the same time, we need a healthy debate at the state level on the efficacy of the need of our country to venture into this highly risky and costly generation of Nuclear Power.

3) Indian Nuclear Research should not be interfered with by any Western power and should remain sovereign in its approach.

contd. from page 20

contd. from page 17

contd. to next issue

administrative lines were drawn in the two countries and in the particular rights and powers delegated to the autonomous areas. Chou En-lai had attributed the difference partly to difference in historical backgrounds of the two countries and partly to differences between the situation in China in 1949 and that of Russia during the days of the October Revolution.

thDuring the 19 century, Russia had already developed, despite the presence of strong feudal features, into a capitalist country. Moreover, it had also become an imperialist power which had a number of colonies. The rule of tsarist Russia was essentially colonialist with respect to nationalities. Added to these was the fact that nationalities in Russia were geographically separated, each living in its own area.

China, on the other hand, was historically placed differently. In China, there was mutual interdependence among the nationalities, especially in the interior. For long periods, the Han nationality dominated the heartland of China and extended its rule to areas inhabited by other nationalities. However, there were also times when minority nationalities moved into the interior and even established their control over the heartland. That naturally resulted in multi-national settlements, and that is why during the 1949 revolution, there were, unlike the Soviet Union, few, if any, areas in China inhabited by a single nationality. As for example, the population of Tibet is fairly homogenous; but the Tibetan people also live in other areas in mixed communities with other nationalities. As a matter of fact, the historical development in China created conditions favourable for many nationalities to intermingle and mix together. The Han nationality could have so large a population because it had assimilated other ethnic groups.

Another example of mutual assimilation is provided by the Manchu people, a nationality which emerged from the Changbai Mountains in northeast China. By degrees, and particularly during the peak period of the Manchu or Ching dynasty, their population rose to between four and five millions. After the fall of the Manchus in 1911, they continued to exist, but they adopted the Han culture including both the spoken and the written languages. Intermarriages became more frequent after 1911, whereby ethnic differences no longer appeared to be insuperable barrier. After 1949, the Manchus were formally recognized as a nationality. When census forms were filled in, many Manchus who had married Hans registered themselves and their children as Hans rather than as Manchus, although they had been given the right to choose between the two nationalities. This, according to Chou En-lai, was an assimilation that was not the result of any violent suppression of one nationality by another, but the result of voluntary intermingling among two nationalities for the sake of achieving common prosperity. While the Manchus adopted the Han language, some of the Manchu vocabulary had also been assimilated into the Han language.

Another case is that of the Hui nationality. After the Hui people came to China from Arabia and Asia Minor about 1000 years ago, they spread so widely throughout the country that there is not a single province and probably not a single county, where Hui people cannot be found. Their number had grown because they had absorbed other ethnic groups. This was another case of voluntary assimilation. Chou also dealt with the cases of the Mongols, Zhuang, Yao and other nationalities.

Thus Chou En-lai argues: “Owing to historical circumstances, many of our nationalities live in mixed communities, with mutual assimilation and mutual influence. Since China has so many nationalities that are widely distributed and mostly living in mixed communities, we cannot consider adopting the Soviet Union's system of autonomous republics. Such a system presupposes that the overwhelming majority of each of the country's nationalities is concentrated in a certain region and capable of functioning as a separate economic unit”(p.262)

The specific situation between the Soviet Union and China during the revolutionary period was also different. During the October Revolution, the Russian working class rose and seized political power, first in the cities, then in the countryside, including regions inhabited by minority nationalities. Since Russia was an imperialist country, all kinds of colonialist relations had to be smashed. So the task before Lenin and others was to integrate the struggle of the nationalities against tsarist oppression with the struggle of the working class and the peasantry against the capitalists and the landlords. That is why Lenin stressed the rights of nationalities for self-determination and recognized their right to separation. They could either join the USSR or themselves set up their own independent republics. Chou writes: “…at that time, if the first socialist state was to get a firm foothold politically, it had to stress the right of nationalities to self-determination, leaving them the option

of separation. That was the only way to break with all the old political relationships characteristic of imperialism and to make the new socialist state…secure. The specific circumstances demanded that the Russian proletariat take this approach”(.p265).

In China, however, history moved in a different direction. China, unlike tsarist Russia, was not an imperialist country. It was a feudal country, which became semi-feudal and semi-colonial after the signing of the treaty of Nanking in 1842 and parts into a colony after the Japanese invaded China in 1931. In old China, although the northern warlords and later the Kuomintang, imposed a reactionary, oppressive rule on the toiling people and on all nationalities, the entire Chinese nation had been suffering under imperialist aggression and control. Under these circumstances, the Chinese people won their liberation. Unlike the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communist revolutionaries seized political power not by launching uprisings first in industrially developed major cities, but by establishing liberated areas so as to be able to wage a protracted struggle. During those years of intense struggle, various nationalities of China forged close ties with one another. In fact, some of the bases were set up in Inner Mongolia; in Xinjiang people launched revolutionary movements against the Kuomintang; in southwest China, many people of the minority nationalities carried on guerrilla warfare under the leadership of the CPC; in the interior, people belonging to many nationalities joined the People's Liberation Army; during the Long March, when the Red Army passed through the southwest regions inhabited by minority peoples, it left seeds of revolution; it is also known that a number of minority also joined the Red Army.

Thus, externally, the Chinese nation was oppressed by different imperialist powers. Internally, through sharing hardships in the revolutionary and anti-Japanese national liberation wars and finally winning liberation, all the nationalities developed intimate relationships of comrades-in-arms. According to Chou, these external and internal relations made it unnecessary for the Chinese people to adopt the policy of granting self-determination with the option of separation, as the USSR had done during the October Revolution. Thus the particular historical development in China determined the policy of regional autonomy through cooperation between all nationalities. The Chinese did not advocate right of self-determination as that might, according to Chou En-lai, lead to interference by imperialist powers. That there was basis in such statements is testified by the events during the revolutionary war, when the Chinese warlords were backed and instigated by one imperialist power or another.

TIBET

NUKE DEAL

VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2008|RS 10


Editor : Room No. 20, B-Block, Jadavpur University Main HostelKolkata-700 032, Ph.: 98362 62819Printed & Published by Abhijnan SarkarPrinted at Printing Art, 32A, Patuatola Lane, Kolkata- 700 009

Abhijnan Sarkar

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

A NEW D AWNTOWARDS

20

SAY NO TO THE INDO-US NUKE DEAL AND UNMASK THE PSEUDO- LEFTISTS IN POWER

As a reaction to the Left withdrawing support from the centre, the

Petroleum & Natural Gas Ministry of India has invested a few crores of government money on the media to launch an advertisement campaign in favour of the Indo-US Nuke Deal. Their advertisement prophesied “Nuclear energy is the most effective, eco-friendly and a non-hazardous source of energy. It generates more energy than any other source and moreover it is renewable.” In this campaign, the scientific truth is completely marred and unfair tactics have been employed to cumulate mass response in favour of the Deal.

The discovery of Nuclear Energy has thrown open a new avenue of an alternative source, where it is possible to convert the mass of matter to generate tremendous amount of thermal energy. The amount of thermal energy obtained by destroying a mass of 1gm is far greater than that obtained from the combustion of 1gm of coal. But this scientific truth does not necessarily imply that this generated thermal energy can easily be converted into electrical energy in a nuclear reactor. The present scenario is that only a fraction of this thermal energy generated can be effectively converted to electrical energy and the entire process is a complex one involving a lot of money. It is important to note that the very same United States of America, who's a party to the N-Deal, has not set up even a single nuclear reactor since the year 1973.

Plutonium is obtained as a nuclear waste after Uranium is used as a fuel in the nuclear plants. Plutonium is not just one of the major ingredients of the nuclear bomb but as a nuclear waste it is also alarmingly hazardous for the environment. The radioactive substances released in course of the process of mining, extraction and refining of the Uranium Ore pollutes the atmosphere, land masses, water bodies, flora and fauna, and poses a severe threat to mankind and the environment as a whole. Moreover, the lifetime of these radioactive substances is exceptionally long. Especially, once this radioactive substance Plutonium is formed, it continues to pollute the environment for the next 24,000 years. Every reactor produces 20-30 tons of nuclear waste energy every year. Until and unless this nuclear waste disintegrates of its own, no possible methods have been invented for its safe disposal, thereby, protecting the environment against its hazards.

Energy obtained from the nuclear power plants contribute only a small fraction to the net power production of the world. The European countries who had large scale productions of electricity from nuclear energy are gradually decreasing their production under the pressure of mass consensus. Now, let's dig through history in an Indian context. In the year 1962, Homi Bhabha, the Founder of the Indian Nuclear Programme, expected that by the year 1987, 20,000-25,000 MW of electricity would be generated in our nuclear power plants. His successor, Vikram Sarabhai, claimed that by the year 2000, the amount of electricity generated from nuclear plants would reach 43,000 MW. Even after the enormous expenditure on Nuclear Research Programmes in the last 50 years, the result has been the generation of mere 3900 MW of electricity from the nuclear power plants, which nears only a meek 2.8% of the Net Power Supply of our country. Even if the Department of Atomic Energy's current promises that after the Indo-US N-Deal, the electricity produced from the Nuclear Power Plants would be 20,000 MW by the year 2020, materialises, still, it would not exceed even 7% of the Net Power Demand.

Other than this, to legitimise the Deal, misguiding campaigns are being launched from time to time. The possibility of exhaustion of coal in the next 40 years and the issue of environmental pollution caused by the green house gases emitted due to the usage of coal and petroleum are being highlighted. The irony of the fact is that according to the future scenario of electrical energy in our country as envisioned by the Planning Commission (Source: Draft Report of the Expert Committee on Integrated Energy Policy, Planning Commission, Government of India), the electricity generated from the Nuclear Power Plants will fulfill only 6-7% of the demand and more than 50% will be generated from coal itself. Since the demand for electricity will go on increasing, so will be the cost of coal increase manifold as compared to its present price. Hence, the situation which stands is as follows:

Guruprasad Kar

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT THE MOST EFFECTIVE SOURCE

ECOLOGICALLY MOST HAZARDOUS

IT IS A FALSE CLAIM THAT NUCLEAR ENERGY IS THE MOST PRODUCTIVE SOURCE

1) If we assume that the coal reserves will be exhausted within next 40 years, then according to the governmental statistics, it is completely impossible for nuclear power to fulfill the demands for electricity, people will have to dwell in darkness.

2) The propaganda that its possible to reduce the emission of green house gases is nothing but a blatant life.

The economic depression lasting for a decade and the contemporary sub-prime crisis has devastated the monopolistic capital of US trade. The share of US capital in the total world investment has come down to 19%. There is a lethal nexus to create a vast domain of business through Nuclear power and technology to work in favour of US monopolistic capital, consistent with the process of globalisation, which prioritises profit and engulfs everything within the domain of business. The renowned scientists of the famous US University M.I.T, have been assigned this tall task. They have published drafts called, 'The Future of Nuclear Energy' which states that though no process of disposing the nuclear wastes produced by Nuclear reactors has been invented, yet to avoid the environmental pollution caused by the green house gas (CO2) produced in the generation of electricity form coal, it is advisable to install a great number of nuclear reactors and generate electricity. And since generation of electricity from nuclear reactors is expensive, they have proposed to impose more taxes on gas and carbon to make Nuclear Power more competent in the market, which in turn will induce interest among businessmen to set up nuclear power plants nationally and internationally. The fact that the green house gases are emitted in the complete process of the generation of Nuclear Power has been craftily hushed up in this draft to expand nuclear related business and maximise profit through it.

US organisations in the Power Sector are anticipating the possibility of business of almost 100 billion dollars and more in India. Meanwhile Tata and Reliance of India have already expressed their interest as middlemen in this trade. To implement this, the necessary changes that have to be made in the Indian Law have already started being considered. As a consequence to this, crores and crores of rupees of such a poor country like ours would be embezzled to satisfy the hunger of monopolistic capital.

The Hyde Act to which Indian must conform to, in order to obtain Nuclear fuel and technology, states that,

1) Foreign Policy has to be made consistent with the US foreign policy. Meanwhile the Government of India has already taken its first step in this direction by voting unethically against Iran and the International Nuclear Energy Commission. US government is interested to place India in its global strategy of dominating the world in general and South Asia in particular and in this direction joint military exercises are taking place frequenly.

2) The right to reprocess fuel will be restricted as a result of which the research and application of the three-stage process by using Thorium (which is found in abundance in India) as a fuel in the Nuclear furnace, invented by Indian Scientists will be effectively abandoned.

But it is extremely important to understand the real stand of the ruling Leftists regarding the Nuke Deal in the context of the present complex scenario. First, let's quote a few statements by the Chief Minister of our state, for a better understanding of the situation: The section which is making people conscious about the limitations of Nuclear Power Plants generating electricity as opposed to the vast expenses incurred during this process and the hazards involved in this process, has been attacked by the Chief Minister, who commented, “Many a rumours are being spread. The generation of nuclear power will affect marine life and water bodies will be contaminated, such false publicities are being encouraged.” (Ganashakti, 20.11.06). Besides this he has proudly announced, “In spite of the objections of the Opposition Party, we are determined to set up the Nuclear Power Plant.” (Ganashakti, 25.11.06).

SO WHERE DOES THE ACTUAL SITUATION STAND?

contd. to page 19

Download

Documents

indian state

people kashmir

downtrodden people of

indian hegemony

indian capitalists

indian province

indian ruling class

people of singur