[Marxism] Violence on the Left: Nandigram and the Communists of West Bengal
marxistfront at yahoo.co.in
Mon Jun 30 11:44:12 MDT 2008
Violence on the Left: Nandigram and the Communists of West Bengal
AFTER A PERIOD of relative impotence, the Hindu-supremacist right in India has rebounded, with the December reelection of Bharatiya Janata Party candidate Narendra Modi as chief minister in Gujarat. Modi’s role in the mass murders of Muslims in that state in February 2002 has long been so well documented that he has been denied a visa to enter the United States. Recently, moreover, extensive corroboration of his role was elicited by a hidden-camera inquiry conducted by the news-magazine Tehelka. Despite overwhelming evidence that he is a mass murderer extraordinaire—or perhaps, because of it—Modi defied media predictions, and even exit polls, to win by a landslide, a victory in which fund-raising and politicking by Indians residing in the United States (40 percent of Indian Americans are Gujarati) played a large role. Because the rival Congress Party, which controls the central government in a coalition, understands well the intense hatred of
Muslims that animates many Gujarati Hindus, leading politicians tiptoed around the issue of sectarian violence, hoping to defeat the BJP in Gujarat on its weak economic record. Only Sonia Gandhi, courageously and repeatedly, denounced Modi’s reign of blood. (American Gujaratis responded with an e-mail campaign denouncing Gandhi in abusive language.) Hitler is revered as a hero in school textbooks in Gujarat. In Modi, those who worship at that shrine seem to have found the type of leader they seek. Let’s hope that the nation as a whole does not embrace his charismatic call to hate.
Meanwhile, however, violence has been in the news from a very different part of the Indian political spectrum. People connected to the Communist government of West Bengal have been guilty of some extremely vile actions, including rape and murder, toward dissident peasants, in a struggle over land acquisition, and the government has done nothing to prevent these terrible things. This struggle has split the Indian left, between those who think that people on the left must maintain solidarity in the face of right-wing threats and those who insist on calling murder murder no matter who does it. It’s a conflict from which we can learn a lot, not only about Indian politics but also about what stance a contemporary left movement can reasonably and morally take on rural development issues.
West Bengal’s Communist Regime
Communist parties played a significant role after independence in two Indian states, West Bengal and Kerala, but they rose to power only in the late 1960s. The Communist Party of India split in 1964 over the Sino-Indian War. The party currently dominant in West Bengal, known as the CPI(M) (Communist Party of India, Marxist) backed China and initially opposed democratic nationalism. Nonetheless, despite grumbling about “bourgeois democracy,” the party gradually came to accept a nation-friendly parliamentary role, espousing democracy, if with less than wholehearted enthusiasm. Significantly, Stalinism was never formally repudiated. Economist Amartya Sen tells of explaining to his daughter, around 1975, who that mustached man was on the huge posters in Howrah station, Kolkata: “Look at him carefully, Indrani, since you will not see his picture anywhere else in the world any more.” In 1977 the CPI(M) gained a majority in West Bengal, and it has ruled
ever since. Jyoti Basu served as chief minister from 1977 until his retirement in 2000, when he was succeeded by the current chief minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee.
FULL ARTICLE AT: http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1157
Lal Salam (Red Salute)
marxistfront at yahoo.co.in
"When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I
asked why the poor were hungry, they called me a communist."
--Dom Helder Camara
--- On Mon, 30/6/08, Walter Lippmann <walterlx at earthlink.net> wrote:
From: Walter Lippmann <walterlx at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
To: "Marxist India" <marxistfront at yahoo.co.in>
Date: Monday, 30 June, 2008, 9:20 AM
Why speculate in the abstract if one doesn't have information
on which to base what is being discussed? Fidel Castro was too
big a figure, so what should be done, put in term limits? They
need an organization with more structure and a more collective
leadership. So what should be done? Tell Chavez to speak less?
Give duller speeches? Leave his charisma outside the TV studio?
Brecht had a few words about this question:
If the above paragraph is true, this is not a good thing.
Even if there are loss of "allies", the revolution should
not become over-centralized in one individual. That is not
Of course, I don't know whether "Venezuela's government has
become a one-man show. He takes almost every decision
himself" is true or simply bourgeois propaganda.
Los Angeles, California
"Cuba - Un Paraíso bajo el bloqueo"
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
From Chandigarh to Chennai - find friends all over India. Go to http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups/citygroups/
More information about the Marxism