Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

[ALOCHONA] Bangladesh allows India to erect 35 military structures within 150 yard of the border



Bangladesh allows India to erect 35 military structures within 150 yard of the border



http://www.amadershomoy1.com/content/2011/08/25/news0309.htm




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Fwd: [KHABOR] Manmohan Singh is Welcome, But Leave Bangladesh Alone



-------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Shahadat Hussaini <shahadathussaini@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:39 PM
Subject: [KHABOR] Manmohan Singh is Welcome, But Leave Bangladesh Alone
 

Manmohan Singh is Welcome, But Leave Bangladesh Alone- People Will Not Forgive the National Betrayers

By Obaid Chowdhury, USA
alaldulal@aol.com

Indian Prime Minister Manmohon Singh is arriving Dhaka on a two-day official visit on September 6, 2011. Welcome, but…!


Earlier, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed made a Ziarat-e-Sukrana to New Delhi in January 2010. It is an open knowledge now that her election victory on December 29, 2008 was orchestrated by India with tacit support from the US Bush administration and others. Please read "Truth Behind Twelve Twenty Nine (12/29/2008) below. The prestigious weekly Economist of London reaffirmed it on July 30, 2011, saying that AL's triumph in the 2008 elections was "helped by bags of Indian cash and advice". The Economist said much more. To know, please visit:

http://www.economist.com/node/21524917

In New Delhi, Hasina's sponsors unveiled the terms of their investment in arranging the Baton of Power for her. Obligingly, she signed at the dotted lines, without caring for a moment what those terms meant for Bangladesh's security and future. Long after the visit, the people of Bangladesh came to know bit by bit that she virtually leased their country out to India. That is not all; she accepted $1 billion dollar Indian bank loan, to be repaid by Bangladesh taxpayers with high interest, to prepare infrastructures for facilitating Indian movements and activities inside Bangladesh. (Please see another article "The Billion Dollar Bait Bangladesh Swallowed" below for details). None of these issues was ever discussed in public or in the parliament, not yet.

Let us walk back a brief history line and see how the relationship between Bangladesh and India came about.

The separation of East Pakistan---today's Bangladesh---from its western half has been an implied but deep-rooted policy in New Delhi since 1947. The first opportunity came in mid 1960s when a small secessionist group, under the leadership of Lieutenant Commander Moazzem Hossain of navy, contacted the Indian Deputy High Commission in Dhaka for help. Indian authorities advised the group to incorporate political elements to have a voice. Most Bengali politicians shunned the idea. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of Awami League reluctantly agreed to provide moral support. Steward Mujibur Rahman and Ali Reza, two trusted comrades of Commander Moazzem, went to Agartala to seek assistance for an armed independence struggle. According to some AL leaders, Sheikh Mujib also went to Agartala.

(Steward Mujibur Rahman died mysteriously in January 1972. Awami hand was suspected in his killing because another Mujibur Rahman needed to be credited for the Agartala trip. Commander Moazzem was gunned down on March 26, 1971 by Pakistanis. Unfortunately, these heroes remained unsung).

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was too preoccupied with India's relations with China, following its debacle in the 1962 war, to commit to 'East Pakistan's internal matter' at that juncture. That became the famous Agartala Conspiracy Case (ACC). In the original charge sheet, Sheikh Mujib was not named. Disturbed with Mujib's 6-Point program for an autonomous East Pakistan, President Ayub Khan wanted to kill Mujib politically by bringing a sedition charge against him. Within a few days, Sheikh Mujib found himself as the No. 1 accused, pushing down Commander Moazzem to No. 2 spot, in the ACC. Ayub's plan backfired and Mujib became a 'fairy tale hero' instead, somewhat by default.

The 1970 elections sent a clear message to the leaders in Islamabad that Bengalis wanted a fully autonomous East Pakistan, but Pakistan military junta's brutal Operation Searchlight on March 25/26, 1971 forced them to fight for an independent Bangladesh. It was an opportunity Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India could not miss to break her archenemy. She provided all possible support to the Bangladeshi fighters. Tajuddin Ahmed, the wartime Prime Minister, had to sign a 7-point agreement with India, nonetheless. Agreements reduced a future Bangladesh into a dependent colony of India. Following were the salient points:

1. Bangladesh will have a para-military force to be organized, equipped and supervised by India.

2. Bangladesh will procure all its military requirements from India.

3. Bangladesh's foreign trade will be controlled by India.

4. Bangladesh's development plans shall be approved by Indian.

5. Bangladesh's foreign relations shall be guided by India.

6. Bangladesh cannot rescind any part of these agreements without prior approval of India.

7. Indian force shall enter into Bangladesh at any time to crush any resistance or uprising.

The Mukti Bahini, Bangladesh's freedom fighters, won victory on December 16, 1971. It was a historic irony that Indian forces, not Mukti Bahini, took the surrender of the defeated Pakistanis. Col M A G Osmany, the C-in-C of the Mukti Bahini, was prevented from joining the surrender ceremony by incapacitating the helicopter that was carrying him to Dhaka.

After Independence, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Indira Gandhi replaced the above treaty in March 1972 with a 25-Year Treaty of Friendship, which retained most of the clauses of earlier one signed by Tajuddin. Details of this treaty remained a state secret.

After the fall of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on August 15, 1975, Indian colonization program came to a halt. President Ziaur Rahman initiated South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) presented a blockade. According to "Amar Phansi Chai" of Motiur Rahman Rentu, onetime aide of Sheikh Hasina, India had a hand in Zia's assassination on May 30, 1981.

After 21 years, Mujib's daughter Hasina came to power, thanks to an active RAW and it agents in Bangladesh. India restarted its hegemony with Bangladesh in all fronts. Hasina's AL was defeated in 2001 and India took a backseat. Army chief General Moeen U Ahmed offered fresh opportunities to India, following his betrayal on 1/11. According to many analysts, Gen Moeen, in fact, acted as India's remote control. As such, the elections on December 29, 2008 were geared and conducted the way India wanted.

Today, Sheikh Hasina is not only repaying the debts for her installation in authority, she is also obeying the dictates she received during her self-exile in India in 1975-81. It is a betrayal of the highest order to the nation, to the people.

The Indian PM is coming to Dhaka to cement the arrangements signed in New Delhi last year, among other things. What are the stakes for Bangladesh? Let us examine a few cases and implications thereof.

The Corridor

According to the Economist, "it is to create an Indian security corridor", connecting Indian mainland with it's largely Maoist seven sisters, thereby attracting guerrilla incursions inside Bangladesh. India could use the corridor to move troops and equipment to support its growing military presence in Arunachal that China claims to be part of its Tibet. If India uses Bangladesh as a "military marshalling yard", Bangladesh's relation with China is bound to sour, even be troublesome and confrontational. Additionally, Hasina administration agreed for the Asian Highway to run through Bangladesh connecting one Indian state (West Bengal) to other Indian states ( Seven Sisters), implying India will use Bangladesh routes for its inter-state traffic. Can Bangladesh afford such high risks? Definitely not.

Water Sharing

Farakka to the left of Bangladesh has already rendered one-third of its land into semi desert with insurmountable adverse consequences in economy, lifestyle, environment and ecology. Since its commission in 1975, India never complied with agreed sharing of waters. Farakka has become a death trap for Bangladesh. Tipaimukh to the right is another trap in the making. It will dry up Surma and Kushyara rivers, bringing in the Farakka-effects to eastern half of the country. Teesta and 52 other rivers that flow into Bangladesh from India face similar fates. Bangladesh cannot allow that. Waters must be shared equitably and according to international norms.

Wire Fencing

India has caged Bangladesh by wire fencing, virtually from all sides. Can we accept such animal-like treatment? No self-respecting nation can do that. And, we play host to the perpetrators!

Border Killing

Killing of innocent Bangladeshis in the border is a daily ritual with the Border Security Forces of India. Nobody forgets the brutality to Felani! The authorities are so sold-out that they cannot even protest. What a shame!

It should, therefore, be the duty of each patriotic Bangladeshi to hoist black flag, wear black badge and demand, during the visit of the Indian PM:

Hands off Bangladesh.

Accept complicity of conspiracy in the 2008 elections, which should be nullified.

Admit complicity in the BDR massacre and compensate.

Compensate for Farakka consequences.

No Tipaimukh.

Waters of joint rivers should be shared equitably.

Stop RAW's anti-Bangladeshi activities.

RAW Agents Beware!

No corridor until further details and implications known to the public.

No transshipment without adequate compensation.

Return Tin Bigha immediately.

Remove navy form South Talpatti.

National Betrayers Beware! Public Trials Awaiting You.

Obaid Chowdhury

NY, USA

August 12, 2011

The Truth Behind Twelve Twenty-Nine (12/29/2008)

The cat is out of the bag. The truth of 12/29---that is the December 29 (2008) Elections in Bangladesh---is now open to the public.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reminded Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh in a tele-talk on January 15 that the 'Madam Prime Minister' should be mindful of the way she came to power. It was an Indian arrangement, supported by then Bush administration of the US. The transcripts of conversation were leaked in the US and found place in a few media outlets in Bangladesh. Some skeptics did doubt the authenticity of the talks; however, to my knowledge no official challenge came from Washington or Dhaka yet. Shafik Rehman of Jai Jai Din fame wrote a very interesting analogy to the reported conversation, which he termed as 'Hillaryleak', drawing a reference from the now famous Wikileak of cyber wizard Julian Assange. For ready reference to Rehman's explanation, please visit the following link:

http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2011/02/02/from-wikileaks-to-hillaryleak/

It is difficult to ignore the reasoning put forward by Rehman.

Apparently, US Ambassador in Dhaka James Moriarty informed his Home Office that the on going investigations and trial process of the War Crimes in Bangladesh were not following the correct procedures; it was geared more to serve partisan interests. US State Department sent Ambassador Stephen Rapp to Bangladesh to ascertain and report on the issue. He confirmed the reports of Ambassador Moriarty and addressed a press conference in Dhaka on January 13, 2011 to say that Bangladesh needed to revise and reform the War Crime Law in keeping with international norms. The unpleasant findings of the two US ambassadors prompted Clinton to make the call to Hasina.

Two things came clear from the Hillaryleak:

1. Sheikh Hasina's administration was following Indian advice, if not agenda, on the much-touted trial of the War Criminals of 1971.

2. The December 29, 2008 election was a deep-rooted conspiracy by India, with the support of the US, to ensure Awami League's victory. And, then army chief, the mastermind behind the almost-military takeover on 1/11, and the so called 'great patriot' General Moeen U Ahmad---who has now found a safe sanctuary in the US---was the front man in the conspiracy.

During the Moeen-sponsored emergency, many people voiced concerns that a conspiracy involving local and international elements was afoot to frustrate the democratic process in Bangladesh with a view to favoring a particular party and a vested group. The result of December 29, 2008 was something the Bangladeshis had never seen since Sheikh Mujib's partisan election in 1973o. In fact, the chief of the Election Commission did brag on presenting a 1973-like elections in 2008. Few missed the joke that Moeen's 'computer-driven military efficiency' and the Election Commission's 'excellence per se' produced a 95-102% voter turnout! Consequently, Awami League led Mohajote bagged a dictatorial majority in the parliament. And, indeed, the party has since been running the show in a virtual autocratic manner that, according to many, surpassed that of Hasina's father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's own in 1972-75.

The result of the past two years' rule in the country confirms the fact that the conspiracy fear was not a mere cry of wolf. The country saw a BDR mutiny---most say a stage-managed one---resulting in the massacre and elimination of scores of brilliant senior army officers. Indian BSF has had a free hand in target shooting the Bangladeshis on a daily basis, not mentioning the 'Felani' brutality, which one cannot even complain. The arrests of many locals who tried to speak for Felani are a case in point. While Bangladesh is being cordoned from all sides by wire fencing, yet it has no crib in allowing Indian legal or illegal border trades. The current administration did not even blink for once to provide the country's ports for Indian use and roads for Indian traffic or transshipment. It swallowed one billion US Dollar bait from an Indian private bank on hard terms to facilitate Indian business and transshipment. Interestingly, all these facilities would be made by India with Indian materials, resources and experts but to be paid by the poor Bangladeshi taxpayers. Most of the 52 rivers of Bangladesh are drying out, because water is diverted upstream in India rendering the lower riparian areas virtually deserts with insurmountable economic, social, ecological and environmental consequences. Bangladesh has no voice to complain for all these, because its destiny does not seem to be in its own hands. The history of the country's liberation war has been re-written to give it a partisan stamp, thanks to an obliging judiciary. The RAW, the Indian intelligence agency, is openly operating in Bangladesh. It ensured that the military, police and other law enforcing agencies, bureaucracy, judiciary, education, business, and in fact all aspects of life, are filled with pro-Indian elements.

Is it not time Bangladeshis wake up and see what game the current administration of Bangladesh and its sponsors are playing? Question arises: who owns this country----Bagladeshis or Sheikh Hasina's oveseas sponsors? Can we call ourselves sovereign under the circumstances?

From the Hillaryleaks, one can assume that the Election of Twelve Twenty-Nine was a farce and conspiratorial. Therefore, the result of the elections was invalid and the follow up government illegal. As such, Bangladesh has been under an illegal administration since January 2009.

To clarify the matter, as well as to challenge the above assertion, the administration should immediately constitute an independent commission to find facts and make available to the public a White Paper on the Election on December 29, 2008. Let the people know the truth of Twelve Twenty-Nine. The people of Bangladesh should not pay for the greed and follies of others, if there was a conspiracy. The country needs to be saved before it is too late!

This may please be read in conjunction to an earlier demand for a White Paper on 1/11. For ready reference, please see below.

Obaid Chowdhury

NY, USA

February 4, 2011

The Billion Dollar Bait Bangladesh Swallowed

Under an arrangement between the External Relations Division (ERD) of Bangladesh Government and Exim Bank of India, Bangladesh agreed to receive one billion US Dollars from India at 1.75% interest, with an additional 0.5% for the unutilized credit, repayable in 20 years.

An effusive Finance Minister AMA Muhit bragged that this was the largest bilateral loan Bangladesh ever received. He, however, did not mention that the terms of the loan were the toughest Bangladesh, a Least Developed Country under the UN development index, ever received. Bangladesh, in fact, falls within the sub-group of the Least LDCs, making it an LLDC and qualifying for mostly grants from developed nations. On large-scale loans, interest rate is usually kept around a low 0.25%; and in most cases, such loans are converted into grants subsequently. Never did Bangladesh receive a loan at such a high rate with so many strings attached.

Only after signing the documents, Bangladeshis could learn that fourteen projects costing $600 million had been agreed between the parties. Nothing is yet known of the remaining $400 million.

According to media sources, following are the 14 projects covered under the loan:

1. $71.7 million: Cost of six dredgers from India.

2. $36.2 million: Cost of construction of an internal container port at Ashuganj on Meghna, to be built by India.

3. $31.5 million: Cost of 10 broad gauge locomotive engine from India.

4. $53.6 million: Cost of 125 Broad Gauge passenger couches from India.

5. 5 & 6. $13.4 million: Cost of 117 railway wagons from India.

7. $120 million: Cost of two railway bridges at Bhirab and Titas to be built by India.

8. $30 million: Cost of 300 double-decker buses from India.

9. $6 million: Cost of 50 luxury buses from India.

10. $33.8 million: Cost of road construction and development of Sarail-Brahmanbaria-Sutlatanpur-Akhura-Sonardi, to be constructed mostly by India.

11. $31.4 million: Cost of two flyovers at rail crossings at Jurain and Malibagh, to be built by India.

12. $14.5 million: Cost of road construction between Ramgarh in Bangladesh and Sabroom in Indian state of Tripura, to be built by India.

13. $150.8 million: Cost of power gridline from Bahrampur in India to Bheramara in Bangladesh, to be built by India.

14. $8.92 million: Cost of research and development for Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institute, the technology support to be provided by India.

As can be seen from the above listing, nearly a quarter billion is meant to purchase Indian goods such as dredgers, locomotives, buses and railway couches. To this, one must add the cost of consultation, expertise, technology, additional machineries etc to be hired from India during and after implementation of the projects. Apart from selling Indian goods, promoting Indian business and arranging jobs for Indian consultants in Bangladesh, the projects are designed to set up the "Connectivity" through Bangladesh---and at Bangladesh's cost---between mainland India and its far fetched and loosely connected Seven Sisters of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.

This is the Third Phase in a series of fast moving steps India has been working on since 1/11 (2007), with a view to achieving its long awaited desire of politically—and perhaps militarily too---integrating Bangladesh with its northeastern region.

In fact, this desire of integration is as old as the departure of the British in 1947; and, the dream almost materialized in 1971 through Bangladesh's independence in which India invested so heavily. Unfortunately, for India, August 15, 1975 came as a stopper, and then President Ziaur Rahman's SAARC (South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation) concept almost jeopardized the plan. That speaks why India never allowed SAARC to take off. At the same time, coercive pressure on a defiant neighbor continued in the stoppage of waters downstream on common rivers, strangling it by wire fencing, illegally occupying South Talpatti island, denying free access to sea by claiming maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal, aiding the miscreants in the tribal areas, just to name a few. Additionally, RAW (Research and Analysis Wing, the intelligence agency of India) continued its overt and covert operations, thanks to its Bangladeshi agents. High profile national betrayers showed up soon and India grabbed the opportunity to force its scheme.

The First Phase of the rejuvenated plan started during the Caretaker administration of Moeen-Fakhruddin that installed India's favorite—some say, puppet--Awami League in the government in January 2009.

The Second Phase witnessed the weakening of Bangladesh's security forces, starting with the massacre of 57 brilliant army officers on February 25/26, 2009 at BDR Headquarters, followed by a systematic cleansing of the military of those elements that did not tow the Awami (or Indian) line. The process of such cleansing continued in the bureaucracy, police, judiciary, educational institutions and other fields. Reportedly, Bangladesh now has Indian commandos and security personnel, ostensibly to 'protect' its prime minister and her family members. It is also learnt that many of the country's thriving garment industries have passed hands to Indians or NRIs (Non-Resident Indians). Many of Bangladesh's private clinics have Indian nurses and technicians working there.

After the grounds have been prepared with the completion of the second phase, India threw in the Billion Dollar bait to Bangladesh. Its protégé, the Hasina administration, has but to swallow, for providing "Connectivity" to India. According to Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, "We are transforming Bangladesh as a regional hub and when the entire region (in effect Bangladesh and the India's Seven Sisters) will be brought under the connectivity, India will have access to its northeastern states, unfettered movement of people and goods will be taking place." One may ask Dr. Moni how she theorized that Bangladesh would become a regional hub by providing connectivity to Indian states alone (Nepal and Bhutan hardly count in this connectivity). During and after completion of these projects, there will surely be sailab (flood) of Indian goods, Indian machineries, Indian professionals and technicians, Indian workers and Indian businesspersons—and perhaps Indian security forces in open or in guise--everywhere in Bangladesh. Sooner, Bangladeshis may even be talking in Hindi, as do the Nepalese and Bhutanese!

Once the Connectivity is complete, the actual drama—the Fourth Phase--will come to play. It will see the never-ending stream of Indian traffic that will perhaps toss out at passing a few doles at the humbling baskets to make Bangladesh "rich overnight" as its current leadership promises to its dismayed people. The connectivity is not likely to confine to road traffic alone, it will surely infiltrate its activities in other spheres aimed at gradual integration of Bangladesh with India. The freedom fighters, as well as the Shaheed ones from heaven, will then keep asking in disgust and shame: Is it what we gave our blood for in 1971?

If the Awami government were to continue, the Fourth Phase leading to total absorption of Bangladesh within the Indian scheme would not be far away.

Is it not yet time for the Bangladeshis to wake up and demonstrate that they did not fight the Pakistanis in 1971 for nothing, and they can fight again for the sovereignty and integrity of their dear country and people, if need be?

A Obaid Chowdhury
NY, USA
E Mail : alaldulal@aol.com

http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=363801




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] A Tribute [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from A K included below]

Dear Editor,

I visit your website and read the contents regularly. Your website truly is a forum where free thinkers from around the world have found a voice. We salute you for running this site.
I will highly appreciate if you kindly consider my article for your website.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Amit K       

Attachment(s) from A K

1 of 1 File(s)


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Request to Forward Information about the 2011 Conference on Child Rights & Sight at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut on September 10 [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from Dr. Brian M. DeBroff included below]

Subject: Request to Forward Information about the 2011 Conference on Child Rights & Sight at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut on September 10
 
Dear Friends

On behalf of Distressed Children & Infants International (DCI), I am very excited to share the news of the upcoming 2011 Conference on Child Rights & Sight. This high impact event will be held on September 10, 2011 at the The Anlyan Center (TAC Building) Auditorium, located at Yale University Medical School in New Haven, Connecticut. The goal of the conference is to create awareness of and publicize DCI's mission and activities to protect and promote child rights, stop child labor, and prevent blindness in Bangladesh and worldwide. It is my hope that each of you will get involved and take an active role in this mission to make it a success. We need your involvement and leadership.

I am cordially inviting you and all the members of your organization to attend our conference. Please find the attached conference flyer. Could I ask you to forward the invitation flyers and DCI website ( http://www.distressedchildren.org/) to your members and request them to join the event? It is our sincere hope that all members will be able to attend the conference to raise awareness on this important issue, so that together we can find the best way to help children in Bangladesh and worldwide.    Please note that we have 50% discounted registration fees for students and groups of 5 or more. 

We would like to thank you in advance for your support. We hope for a long-lasting partnership with you and look forward to working together in this most vital mission. Together we can change the world, one child at a time.

Sincerely yours,

Brian M. DeBroff,  M.D., F.A.C.S.,                                                   
President,
Distressed Children & Infants International                               
Clinical Professor, Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Science                 
Yale University School of Medicine, USA
E-mail:  bdebroff@distressedchildren.org
www.distressedchildren.org
 

Distressed Children and Infants International (DCI) is a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit international child rights organization, established in 2003 with the mission to help impoverished children in Bangladesh, India and throughout the world.  We strive to help underprivileged children lift themselves out of the poverty cycle by providing them basic life necessities, education, healthcare, and family support.  Another unique goal of DCI is to create connections between American youth and less fortunate children of other countries. DCI strives to inspire the children of America to become compassionate world citizens, by promoting their intellectual and leadership capacities through volunteerism.  To learn more about DCI, please visit http://www.distressedchildren.org  

Distressed Children & Infants International (DCI)
Toll Free#866-516-7495, E-mail:dci@distressedchildren.org
Helping Children, Ending Poverty, & Preventing Blindness
(IRS 501(c)(3)Tax Exempt Non-profit charitable organization). 
All Your Contributions to DCI are Fully Tax-deductible ID#810671495.
http://www.distressedchildren.org/
http://www.facebook.com/DCI.International

You can help spread the word about DCI's mission to create lasting change for children in need: forward this e-mail and our DCI website ( http://www.distressedchildren.org) to friends and family.
If you'd prefer not to receive DCI updates, please reply to this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject field and we will remove your e-mail from our mailing list. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.
 

Attachment(s) from Dr. Brian M. DeBroff

1 of 1 File(s)


__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] [Advocate Shahanur Islam (Saikot)] IOL Concerned over deth threat on Shahanur...



[http://www.observatoire-avocats.org/en/2011/08/22/bangladeshi-lawyer-shahanur-islam-receives-death-threats/]




--
Posted By JusticeMakers Bangladesh to Advocate Shahanur Islam (Saikot) at 8/25/2011 04:10:00 AM

__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Book Review: Bolshevik Bengali from Sandwip- late great Muzaffar Ahmad (1889-1973)




Bolshevik Bengali

MUZAFFAR AHMAD (1889-1973)

VIJAY PRASHAD

http://www.flonnet.com/stories/20110909281807500.htm

 

A historian locates the social and political growth of Muzaffar Ahmad in the intellectual byways and the slums of Calcutta. 

 

MUZAFFAR AHMAD (1889-1973) was born on Sandwip, a pirate's island in the Bay of Bengal, and died in Calcutta (now Kolkata), the city that he embraced and that in many ways made him. His remarkable talents pushed against the centuries of hierarchy that would have condemned him to a life at the margins of history. After running away from home, he was able to seize education from unexpected quarters and eventually came to Calcutta in 1913 to become a writer. Like many other young Muslim intellectuals of his social class, Muzaffar wished to become a cultural activist, eager to use his skills for the purpose of social reform among Muslims. The narrowness of this agenda became clear in the light of the nationalist movement and in the upsurge among the working class by the end of his first decade in Calcutta.

 

Muzaffar found the Congress suffocating, largely because it was dominated by people who were not embarrassed of their Hindu bhadralok cultural roots and indeed promoted this tradition in what is now known as Hindu revivalism. Muzaffar was too open-minded in temperament for this, and it of course helped him that his own Muslim heritage was repulsed by the cultural sectarianism of the Congress leadership.

 

What saved Muzaffar was Calcutta. In her remarkable book An Early Communist, the historian Suchetana Chattopadhyay locates the social and political growth of Muzaffar Ahmad in the city, not just in the intellectual byways of College Street but also in the slums of the working class, the area in the centre of the city where many of the streets are now named for Muzaffar Ahmed and his comrades (such as Abdul Halim). Unable to make a living doing radical cultural criticism, Muzaffar and his circle, which included the poet Nazrul Islam, lived in dire poverty, unable to treat their illnesses (Muzaffar had tuberculosis) and often unable to eat (as one police informer put it, "so long as they have got no money even for their food, I don't think that they could do anything").

 

This organic link to the working class that surrounded them was sharpened in the 1920s when the workers in and around Calcutta broke through their isolation in a series of remarkable strikes. Workers in paper mills and jute mills, butlers and chefs at major hotels and restaurants, and scavengers of the municipality seized the initiative as the lower middle-class unions, such as the Employees' Association (of clerical staff workers), vacillated.

 

"Workers disrupted routines of daily life," Suchetana Chattopadhyay writes, "making other classes and class segments aware of labour struggles and politics." Among those now mindful of the subjectivity of the working class and of its capacity to lead struggles was Muzaffar and his circle. These eruptions from the working class, a large number of whom were Muslim, marked Muzaffar.

 

In an essay from 1969, Eric Hobsbawm argues, "Each Communist Party was the child of the marriage of two ill-assorted partners, a national left and the October Revolution." In Europe, older social democratic traditions that emerged out of a host of lineages and had covered considerable ground against feudal social hierarchies found themselves run aground by the Great War (1914-1918).

 

The War itself illuminated the descent of capitalist civilisation: it led to an immense cataclysm, one that discredited both capitalism and the rationality of European modernity. Social democratic parties that carried the ideology and programme of these older traditions collapsed when they walked away from their peace agenda in 1914 and adopted their national prejudices for the war. The October Revolution of 1917 came as a beacon of hope, and many militants and sections of the working class turned to the new communist parties, for "it seemed sensible to follow the recipe of success".

 

Hobsbawm's formula does not easily apply to places such as India or indeed to the colonial world. In the colonial world, the communist parties emerged properly out of the marriage of two other ill-assorted partners, an anti-colonial mass upsurge and the October Revolution. The coincidence between the Bolshevik success in Russia (1917) and the rise of the Gandhian mass movement (1916-1922, in its first phase) is at the centre of things. In India, the anti-colonial movement had to confront the dross of inherited cultural traditions, including undaunted feudal arrogance and increased religious tension.

 

Confrontation with caste

The social reform movements and the peasant struggles of the previous century had made some important advances, but they had been thwarted by the colonial state's commitment to a reinvigorated feudalism after the uprising of 1857. No wonder that the memoirs of Indian communist leaders (such as P. Sundarayya, B.T. Ranadive, P. Ramamurti and E.M.S. Namboodiripad) often open with stories of their confrontation with the heinousness of caste oppression, the hallmark of social hierarchy in Indian society.

 

For Muzaffar, the immediate social issue was the rise of Hindu revivalism, which was the vehicle for the transfusion of the ideology of the landlords into both the Congress and Indian society. Muzaffar's break had to be complex: against colonialism (which was the easiest departure), against bourgeois-landlord nationalism (which was considerably more complex given the allure of Gandhianism) and against capitalism (which was harder in a context where alternatives had not been fully explored).

 

Nationalism's potential was thrilling in the context of the satyagrahas of 1919 and the Non-cooperation Movement of 1920-22. But its limitations became visible with the failure of the industrialists and the Swaraj Party-Congress during the working-class strikes of the 1920s. They would even refuse a demand for a minimum wage. Gandhianism could not exhaust the full imagination of the Indian people.

 

Gandhi's overwhelming influence held together an ensemble of diverse, even contradictory interests. Hindu revivalism gathered with pan-Islamism (Khilafat) in Gandhi's big tent, often at the expense of the broader needs of the people.

 

In the interests of property and propriety, as Suchetana Chattopadhyay puts it, landlords squelched the smallest demands of the cultivators, industrialists denied the claims of their workers and the socially oppressed had to accede to the reforms from their social superiors rather than wrest them through social struggle.

 

In periodicals such as Langal and Ganabani, Muzaffar tried to find a path beyond colonialism, capitalism and bourgeois-landlord nationalism. In an essay from 1926 called Bharat Kano Swadhin Noy (Why Is India Not Free?), Muzaffar constructed the granite block that held back the people: the imperialists who controlled the colonial state, the Indian capitalists, landlords and financiers who wanted to inherit the colonial mantle, and Hindu and Muslim clerics whose narrow ideologies corrupted the social body.

 

There is no sense in combating the latter, he argued in another essay from 1926 (Kothay Protikar, or Where Lies Redressal), by invoking the concept of "Hindu-Muslim Unity". That assumed, as Suchetana Chattopadhyay puts it, that "the interests of ordinary people could only be expressed in religious terms".

 

In 1927, in Ki Kara Chai (What is to be Done?), Muzaffar laid out the agenda of the Peasants and Workers Party of Bengal (PWP), which sought to produce mass consciousness ( jana-gana choitonyo) through militant trade unionism and peasant movements. This alliance of industrial workers and peasants marked the history of Indian communism, even as the PWP and Muzaffar had no luck in the countryside during the 1920s. The communist success in the countryside would come in later decades, validating the insistence that the peasantry be a co-equal social actor with the working class.

 

In the manner of a few years, Muzaffar produced the ideological basis for what would be the main lines of Indian communism. Contact with the literature of Marxism and with the newly emergent Comintern was minimal. Muzaffar seems to have read his Marxism as much from the few primers that came to him via a clandestine network that relied upon sympathetic postal workers as from the anti-communist books produced in cahoots between the colonial state and such reputed publishers as Oxford University Press (namely, Edmund Candler's Bolshevism: the Dream and the Fact, Oxford, 1920).

 

'Unknown path'

It was out of his experiences at places such as the Calcutta Docks and in books such as Lenin's Leftwing Communism (1920) and S.A. Dange's Gandhi vs. Lenin (1921) that Muzaffar charted what Abdul Hamid called their "unknown path". Abani Chaudhuri called Muzaffar Darbeshda since "he resembled a darbesh [dervish]". But Muzaffar was not fully confident, scared that he "was yet to acquire a firm grip over Marxism-Leninism".

 

Nevertheless, what he came up with was unique, his writings on India not unlike those of his Peruvian counterpart, José Carlos Mariátegui (1890-1930), whose 1928 magnum opus is Seven Interpretive Essays in Peruvian Reality. As Suchetana Chattopadhyay puts it, not only did Muzaffar produce "the first systematic attempt to adapt Marxist-Leninist ideas to the Bengal context", but he was first "among the communists in the colonial world…to write on and perceive fascism and imperialism as episodes in the enmeshed lives of class and capital".

 

The work that Muzaffar and the very small party that formed around him did in Calcutta and in a few other parts of Bengal gave them the confidence to push back against any attempt to be directed by the Foreign Bureau of the Third International (Comintern). The shifts in the Comintern line in 1928 (keep distance from bourgeois nationalists) and in 1935 (form a popular front with bourgeois nationalists) did not fully mark the work in Calcutta.

 

Muzaffar was always wary of being subsumed by the Congress, and so the 1928 Comintern diktat had no especial bearing. The communists had already decided to build up their independent presence and to work in principled alliance with the nationalists and agrarian populists when it suited them.

 

Suchetana Chattopadhyay reveals the correspondence between Muzaffar ("Edward") and M.N. Roy, where the former strongly criticised Roy for his flirtation with Hindu revivalism, notably the people around Atmashakti. Muzaffar wrote to Roy in January 1927 to point out that Shapurji Saklatvala, the British communist leader, had refused "to acknowledge the existence" of communists in India during his visit. In their March 1927 report to the Comintern, Mohammad Ali and Clemens Dutt criticised Saklatvala and others for a hierarchical attitude to the Indian communists, and validated the view that Communist Party of India leaders "do not see why they should accept instructions from any outside body". The Comintern agreed. It gives us a sense of the fierce independence of a strand of Indian communism from the centripetal tendencies of Moscow's institutions.

 

Suchetana Chattopadhyay does an exemplary job in constructing the scene of the audacity of the communists. She provides a rich description of the obvious constraints they faced, notably from the colonial state (whose agents tried to isolate and destroy the militants at the same time as they provided a documentary record of their activities). But there are other less obvious, but equally important, constraints that Suchetana Chattopadhyay discusses, which are often elided in histories of communism: the militants often broke social taboos in their personal lives and that not only alienated them from their own class but kept them apart from the working class and the peasantry.

 

Communists are loath to talk about themselves. I remember going to interview veteran communist members in Bengal and being confronted with textbook accounts of history: if asked "what did you do in the strike of 1972", they would say, "In 1972, the owners of the factory refused to…." Their own lives had been subsumed into their party and their struggle; personal destiny was not so significant to them. This is precisely why the memoirs of communists are so frequently without any discussion of personal feelings, and certainly not of personal ambitions.

 

It is to Suchetana Chattopadhyay's credit that we are able to understand so much about the everyday lives of the communists – how they slept, what little they ate, who they met, what they felt. This is not peripheral to the analysis. The early communists were mainly intellectuals from the lower or upper middle class (of the latter, the most interesting example is Soumendranath Tagore). Yet, they associated with the working class and formed friendships with people such as Shamsul Huda (a dock worker from East Bengal), Mastan (a match factory worker), Mohammad Haris (a tobacco worker) and Gulbahar Bibi (a rice-mill worker).

 

In their communitarian housing, Nazrul Islam was prone to break out into song (he wrote Bidrohi during the visit to India of M.N. Roy's associate Nalini Gupta in 1921). A Special Branch officer reported in 1927 that they "were generally disliked by others, on account of their questionable society". Their unique mode of living incubated new forms of sociality. Gandhi's own community drew from well-regarded Hindu traditions of ashram life, but the communists seemed like down-on-heel bohemians rather than ascetics. The cultural gulf that opened up was hard to close, in particular because the communists wished to close it to their advantage.

 

One of their early periodicals, Dhumketu (The Comet), published an essay in 1922 by Mahamaya Debi (Narir Mukti Kon Pathe, or Which is the Road to Women's Emancipation?). This is at a time when Gandhi developed a re-engineered patriarchy, with women to enter the national movement but not as independent actors; they would come in the role of Sita ("it is your image we worship in the temples," he said). The communists' new ideas of social interaction made them both beloved for their eccentricities and for their social generosity but also victims of gossip for their unusual or questionable lifestyles.

 

Writing about Communism

Suchetana Chattopadhyay's history of the early years of Muzaffar Ahmad's career, therefore, becomes as much a history of the early years of the communist movement. It could not be otherwise. Gramsci alerts us, in his Prison Notebooks, that "the history of any given party can only emerge from the complex portrayal of the totality of society and state (often with international ramifications too). Hence it may be said that to write the history of a party means nothing less than to write the general history of a country from a monographic viewpoint, in order to highlight a particular aspect of it."

 

The author's task is not to write the history of the emergence of the Communist Party, but that is precisely what she has done, and she has located it in all of Gramsci's methodological particulars, attending to the dynamic between the people and the political economy, aware of the political formations that stood just outside the optic of the early communists, immersed in the complex battle between Muzaffar's circle, the granite block that opposed anti-colonialism and the nationalists. What we have here is adherence to the Marxist protocol of plotting the dialectical relationship between events and political economy, but written with an enviable elegance.

 

Indian history-writing has typically ignored the activities of the communists. The rise of Hindutva since the 1980s created a flurry of research activity to understand the social roots of Hindu revivalism and then of the way the formations of the Hindu Right prepared the terrain for their electoral explosion in the 1980s. It has been assumed in the first two decades after 1947 that the Hindu Right had been caged, and so history-writing tended to minimise its importance. Much has changed since then, and there is now an overwhelming corpus of work on the Hindu Right and its intellectual life (we have all read M.S. Golwalkar, whereas he would not have been read in his own day, largely because his writing is tedious and his logic is miserable).

 

There is, however, silence on the role of the communists in Indian history. Apart from too few memoirs of communist leaders and a few collections of their writings, as well as the collections of communist public documents, little is written about the parties and their impact. There are, of course, Cold War variety books, and a few books that do their very best to explore the work of the communists but cannot help but be repelled by their own prior prejudices.

 

The impact of the Subaltern Studies Group, one would have thought, might have revived the interest in the Indian Left, but it had the opposite effect: all the fragments of the Indian polity make their appearance, but the analytical fragment of "class" is almost seen as alien to the project as does the institutional formation of the Left. Muzaffar tackled this view in 1926, in an essay called Sreni Sangram (Class Struggle), where he pointed out that class is not a foreign idea, since "class struggle exists in society because classes exist".

 

Trade union activity and communist organising is barely referred to in this scholarship – a gap that is all the more stunning if one knows the immense contribution made by ordinary trade unionists and communists in the lives of the vast majority of the population (into the shadow of history will go people such as Vidya Munshi and M. Singaravelan, B. Srinivasa Rao and Feroz-ud-din Mansur, as well as the remarkable Dada Amir Haidar Khan).

 

Muzaffar's party-building activities were disrupted in 1929 by state repression (he and 30 others were arrested and taken to Meerut for a trial that ran until 1933). Suchetana Chattopadhyay gives us a full sense of the massive intervention by the state into the lives of the radicals – with their mail searched, their friends harassed, informers on their tail, and jail as a constant theme.

 

The Meerut arrests effectively picked up most of the leadership and many of the main organisers. But this did little to stop the commitment of people like Muzaffar and Abdul Halim, one within jail and the other outside. Their relentlessness prepared the terrain for the transference of the allegiance of the peasantry from the agrarian populists and of the working class from the Congress-led unions to the Communist Party and its mass affiliates. That was to come in the period that sits outside this book.

 

Suchetana Chattopadhyay has the historical imagination capable of tackling the crucial period that follows, when the activities of the communists become more central to the life of Bengal, and of course India. I am waiting for that volume.

 



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] KAFILA: Anna Hazares Anti-Corruption Protest a middle class "urban picnic" or a serious movement for "people's power"





A Great Opportunity, A Serious Danger: Signature Campaign on Anti-Corruption Protest

A Statement Issued by some individuals and friends in social movements The Anna Hazare situation invites two common reactions: many dismiss it as a middle class driven "urban picnic"; and others, notably the mainstream media, describe it as just short of a revolutionary movement to establish "people's power." The same divide exists among progressives and those [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post


A Great Opportunity, A Serious Danger: A Statement

August 24, 2011

KAFILA

http://kafila.org/2011/08/24/a-great-opportunity-a-serious-danger-signature-campaign-on-anti-corruption-protest/

 

A Statement Issued by some individuals and friends in social movements

 

The Anna Hazare situation invites two common reactions: many dismiss it as a middle class driven "urban picnic"; and others, notably the mainstream media, describe it as just short of a revolutionary movement to establish "people's power." The same divide exists among progressives and those concerned with social change. Strategies differ on the basis of where one stands on this divide. The problem, however, is that neither of these reactions fully reflects the reality of what is happening.

 

We note that our position below is focused on what can be done in this situation, and is not meant to excuse or defend the government. We condemn the brutal, corrupt and anti-democratic actions of the UPA; we also, it must be noted, condemn the actions of the BJP and its State governments in trying to portray themselves as crusaders against corruption. The dangerous Lokpal Bill that has been presented must be withdrawn, and, as said below, a process initiated for effective institutions of people's control that can be used to defeat corruption. We issue this statement precisely to caution against erroneous tactics that are strengthening the very state that we must fight against.

 

The Opportunity

It is true that the protests so far have been dominated by middle classes, and that they have been exaggerated by the media. But this does not mean that this process becomes meaningless. Precisely because there is no strong organised movement among the working class at the national level, no alternative media, and no consciously projected alternative to the existing system, a hyped up middle class movement can easily grow into something much larger. We can already see that happening, as protests are spreading and diversifying in terms of their mass base. People's anger at this system and at the corrupt nature of the Indian state is hardly a middle class phenomenon alone.

 

For that reason, we cannot and should not dismiss this situation. The more people are willing to see this system for what it is, and to express their anger and disgust with it, the more there is an opportunity to expose it and fight for something new. A crisis is an opportunity for those who are fighting for change.

 

Therefore we cannot agree with those who look at these protests and hunger strikes and see in them a "blackmailing" of Parliament. Parliamentary democracy in this country has never been more than a very limited space. Even this space has been rendered meaningless in recent decades, by precisely the forces who today are shouting about its virtues.

 

For instance, the SEZ Act was passed after barely a day's debate in Parliament. Economic reforms were introduced through stealth, FDI in retail is on the verge of being approved, and the UID project is going ahead – all without a whisper of Parliamentary approval. It is correct to be cynical of neoliberal pro-corporate leaders when they suddenly discover that Parliament is a sacrosanct institution. When people feel that the system is rotten to the core, we should not attempt to dilute that reality by saying that Parliament will deal with the problem.

 

The danger is not to Parliament; it lies elsewhere.

 

The Danger

The fact that people are angry is an opportunity. But it is also a risk, because that anger can be channeled in ways that actually strengthen the existing power structure. In this case, consider:

 

The message being conveyed about these protests – the tactics of the leadership notwithstanding – is that of support to Anna Hazare and his "Team Anna." Beyond the concept of "transparency", the public campaign does not engage at all with the idea of a democratic organisation of the people (as opposed to one "supported" by the people). As such, this raises the question of whether those participating are being asked to fight to build people's power, or whether they are fighting to increase the power of the "good leader."

 

The demand of the campaign too is not about, even in a minimal sense, democratising the Indian state or society. The Jan Lokpal being sought may address some types of corruption, or it may not do so; but it is not intended to give people any greater control over the state. It is projected as effective not because it will be democratic, but because it will be powerful, because it will stand "above" democracy and politics itself. Just as Anna is a good person who deserves support, so the Jan Lokpal will consist of good people who deserve power, and who will use it to "cleanse" the state.

 

Most of those joining these protests are doing so on the basis of media coverage. In practically all areas (with one or two exceptions) the mobilisation lacks any core organisation. At most there are ad hoc groups of urban elites; but in large measure, the place of the organisation has been filled by the mainstream media itself. All the ideas sought to be communicated are therefore seen through the lenses that the media applies to them. As a result, even where elements in the leadership try to talk of popular struggle and democratic principles, they are overridden by an overwhelming focus on attacking the current power holders and replacing them with an even more powerful, more "clean" institution.

 

The net result of all this is that "corruption" becomes defined very narrowly, as the taking of benefit in violation of the law. The ultimate message of this movement is: trust the rules, trust the state, trust the Lokpal; what matters is finding the right leaders and having faith in them. This is the message that is sent by the mobilising instrument, the media, regardless of what the leaders may actually say.

 

This is not only not a democratic message, it is an anti-democratic one. At this moment, in India, it is also dangerous. Brutality, injustice and oppression in this country is not a result of violation of the law alone. Indeed, much of it happens because of the law in the first place. We have a state machinery which has brazenly shown itself to be the servant of predatory private capital. This is the biggest reason for the current boom in corruption: the enormous money generated through superprofits that is then used to purchase the state and generate more superprofits. Sometimes this is exposed as violating some law and gets called a "scam"; but at other times, as in most economic reforms, it simply changes the law. The SEZ Act is again a good example. It triggered a wave of land grabbing across the country, which was only slowed by the global economic crisis; but there was nothing "corrupt" in the Lokpal sense about most SEZ-related actions. Our people are being crushed by a cycle of intensifying capitalist exploitation and repression. Can this be stopped by good leaders with the right powers?

 

Many would answer "Obviously not; a Jan Lokpal cannot address everything." This may be true, but that is not the message actually being sent out. Rather the message is that Lokpal-style solutions and Anna Hazare-style "good leaders" are the answers to people's anger at injustice. When the leadership, Ramdev-style, starts adding on a laundry list of additional issues to its demands – as land acquisition has recently been added – it reinforces this dangerous message. Thus this movement not only does not weaken the state; implicitly, through the message it sends, it builds people's support for making the state and its leadership more powerful. This of course the reason that it attracts support from everyone from Jindal Aluminium to the RSS.

 

What Can Be Done

The mere fact that people are protesting against the government does not mean that they are fighting the state. The Indian state certainly has little to fear – as a state – from a mobilisation whose prime message is that change happens through good leaders. The current power holders are resisting the threat to their position, but the system itself is not under threat. Indeed, the danger is not to the state or its institutions, but to efforts at deeper social change in this society.

 

The dilemma of the current situation cannot be answered by simply joining wholeheartedly, or by withdrawing in silence.

 

Some have declared support for the current movement, while seeking to push it to take up other issues. The sympathies of some in the leadership for left and progressive positions is often cited. But the main engines of these protests – the media and urban elite circles – are actively opposed to any such positions. One has simply to imagine what will happen if this mobilisation does begin to turn towards a more radical stance: the media will instantly change its position from "Anna is India" to "Anna is a power crazed megalomaniac", confusion, slanders and disinformation will start, and the movement will collapse. Given this reality, simply joining at this stage will be counterproductive. People will no longer be able to distinguish between forces who fight for social transformation and those who are upholding the current system; and when the latter fail, they will take down the former with them.

 

But to remain silent is to be irrelevant at an important time. It is also important not to fall into the trap of those who, in their criticism of the anti-democratic tendencies of this movement, start defending the existing state. In our view parliamentary supremacy is not and cannot be the slogan of those who seek social change.

 

What is required therefore is an approach built on two realities. The first is that the current explosion of scams is a direct result of neoliberal policies that have converted the state into the arm of a particularly predatory, criminal form of big capital. Today the real face of the state is more apparent then ever before, and corruption is one glaring sign of it. Therefore, to try to fight corruption without fighting for true people's power over the economy and society is impossible. Therefore, our demands must at present focus on building such people's power over the institutions of the state.

 

The second reality is that the current atmosphere of anger and suspicion of the state offers a chance to raise precisely these issues and to make the link between corruption and the system under which we live. The more political forces, mass organisations and people's struggles do this, while keeping their identity separate from 'India Against Corruption', the more it will be possible to use this opportunity to build and expand radical struggles. If people can see the system is rotten, that can be developed that into an awareness that this rottenness goes far deeper than mere corruption and dishonest leaders. That is the challenge of this moment.

 

Abhay Shukla, Pune

Arvind Ghosh, Nagpur

Asit Das, POSCO Pratirodh Solidarity, Delhi

Bijay-bhai, Adivasi Mukti Sanghatan

Biju Mathew, Mining Zone People's Solidarity Group

C.R. Bijoy, Coimbatore

Kiran Shaheen, Journalist

Pothik Ghosh, Radical Notes

Pratyush Chandra, Radical Notes

Ravi Kumar, Dept of Sociology, South Asian University

Shankar Gopalakrishnan, Campaign for Survival and Dignity

Shiraz Bulsara, Kasthakari Sanghatna

(all signatures are in individual capacity)



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___