The Eighth Summit meeting of BRICS will be held in Goa on October 15 and 16. The heads of state and government of the five member-countries will participate in the meeting. India has also invited the heads of state and government of BIMSTEC for an outreach meeting during the Summit. BIMSTEC is a regional group that brings together Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand as well as Nepal and Bhutan with the objective of technological and economic cooperation among South Asian and South-East Asian countries. The BRICS Summit should be warmly welcomed in Goa. Conferences, political or academic, and cultural events ought to be the mainstay of tourism in this State.

BRICS musters five major emerging economies, comprising more than 43 per cent of the world population and about 37 per cent of the world GDP. The first BRICS Summit was held in Russia in 2009. All five countries have already hosted the annual BRICS Summits. Two were held in Brazil and two in Russia. China hosted the Third Summit in 2011, India the Fourth in 2012 and South Africa the Fifth in 2013.

The New Development Bank is so far the major achievement of BRICS. It should lead to a bigger say of the member-countries in the international financial order. The present international financial order was set up by the Western powers after the Second World War and is centered on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. The World Bank and IMF are controlled by the USA and its Western allies. The New Development Bank is a possible alternative to the IMF-World Bank system.

The New Development Bank (NDB) is based in Shanghai, China. It will have a fund of 100 billion US dollars as well as a 100 billion currency reserve to help the member-countries meet their short-term liquidity requirements. The Bank has begun with a subscribed capital of 50 billion US dollars contributed equally by the five founding members. Within a year this capital will be increased to 100 billion. The first presidency of the NDB for a six-year term is held by India and the first Chief Executive of the Bank is an Indian, K.V. Kamath. India's presidency will be followed by that of Brazil and then Russia. The NDB is open to membership of other countries. However, the share capital of the founding members will not be reduced below 55 per cent.

The NDB intends to assist the developing countries in solving problems faced by them to obtain finance for their development in areas such as agriculture, health, technology, oil and gas exploration and infrastructure development. Investment in infrastructure—such as roads, railways, transport, water supply and sani-tation—is necessary for improving the economic condition in developing countries. The NDB has already started lending.

BRICS started as an economic concept but it is increasingly taking the form of a political entity. It seeks a greater voice and participation in international institutions. It will address two paramount needs, faster and more balanced economic progress in the developing countries and a more equitable world order.



The United Nations was devised to represent equally all countries of the world, but after the dismantling of the Soviet Union, a unipolar world has emerged. The BRICS countries are expected to cooperate closely at the United Nations towards a more equitable world order. We speak of Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism is a reaction to the wars unleashed on Arab countries for control of their resources parti-cularly oil. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a good administrator, absolutely secular and his government provided equal opportunity to all citizens, irrespective of religion or race. Health and education, including studies abroad, were free for all citizens during Saddam Hussein's rule. He was the only major Arab leader who supported India on the question of Kashmir. He made it clear that a country cannot be defined on the basis of religion. He considered that Kashmir under Indian rule should continue as well as Kashmir under Pakistani rule with easy movement of people from one part of Kashmir to another.

I visited Iraq twice during the rule of President Saddam Hussein. I travelled into towns and villages. Minorities enjoyed all the rights and privileges of their Muslim counter-parts. Leaders of the minority communities, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs told me that they were well off and this was because of the protection given to them by Saddam Hussein. They told me that if a war broke out and Saddam Hussein was removed, then the fundamentalists would take over and the minorities would be in great difficulty. This is what actually happened.

Saddam Hussein wanted his country to be truly independent and to decide independently on its natural resources including oil. This did not suit the USA which controlled the oil resources in the Arab world. Hence the war. The US Government claimed that Saddam Hussein had accumulated nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. This was proved to be false. The International Atomic Energy Commission submitted a report which cate-gorically denied that Iraq had any nuclear weapons programme. The war unleashed on Iraq was opposed all across the world, including in the United States itself. More than three lakh people gathered in New York in a demonstration against the war.

In Libya, President Gaddafi and his two sons were murdered in 2011 along with hundreds of their supporters to take over the oil resources and reassert control over Africa and the Arab countries. Similar is the policy followed presently in Syria, Yemen and other Arab countries.

The theme of India's chairmanship of BRICS, which started after the Seventh Summit last year and goes up to December 31, 2016, is “Building Responsive, Inclusive and Collective Solutions”. Apart from the New Development Bank some of the subjects discussed by BRICS during India's chairmanship are a BRICS Agricultural Research Centre, a BRICS Railways Research Centre and a BRICS Sports Council.

In preparation for the Summit several meetings have been held in India during this year. Among them are the Inter Bank Cooperation meeting in Udaipur, a meeting of the Expert Group to establish a Railways Research Centre in Lucknow, Energy Cooperation and Joint Research and Technology Project in Visakhapatnam and the BRICS Youth Summit in Guwahati.

BRICS countries are rich in natural resources and have a rather youthful population. India is the most youthful country in the world today: 800 million Indian citizens are under the age of 35. Amidst the slowdown of the developed economies, the growth of Brazil, Russia, India and China over the last 10 years has been significant. Forecasts suggest that they will continue to be the main countries in global growth throughout the coming decades.

The author is a former Union Minister.

This year is the birth centenary year of Benoy Ghosh, who is a pioneer in writing and documenting the social and cultural history of Bengal. He got attracted to Marxism in his student days. After his graduation in 1937, he started working as a journalist, and worked in some of the leading Bengali dailies and periodicals of the time. After moving away from the CPI in 1948, as many other intellectuals did, he did his Masters in Ancient Indian History and Culture, and established himself as a leading scholar in the field of social and cultural history of Bengal.

His book, Banglar Nabajagriti (Bengal Renaissance), published in 1948, initiated a major debate on the cultural transformation of Bengal in the 19th century. In his preface, he stated that the book was an attempt to write the history of Bengal renaissance, initiated in the 19th century, and its legacy flowing in diverse areas with immense possibilities. He tried to establish the historical foundations of the Renaissance from an orthodox Marxist perspective, and lamented the absence of historical memory among the Bengalis about their glorious past. The sole reason behind writing this book, he argued, was to document the great cultural heritage of Bengal.



In the new edition of the book, published in 1979, he completely revised his position. He argued as early as in 1970 that there is a big gap and flaw in our understanding of the social and cultural history of Bengal, and this cannot be filled up merely by more information collected from the archives or library, without proper historical and social insight. In his self-criticism, he stated that we restricted our analysis about the impact of Western science and philosophy on the minds of a few elites, completely ignoring their impact or possible impact on the ninetyfive per cent of the population. He observed that even on the eve of the last quarter of the 20th century, we find the typical co-existence of progressive and reactionary thought in different spheres of the Bengali society, from the religious guru cult to political Marxism.

In 1978, he characterised the “Bengal Renaissance” as a myth. In this connection, he criticised the Communist Parties in India for their dependence on the urban middle class and for maintaining their existence by becoming part of the system of exploitation. He even criticised many of those who claimed themselves to be real Marxist-Leninist, but whose middle-class world of babu politics and theoretical debates in the Coffee House were far away from the world of the village or the peasants. He stated that during the period 1948-1978, his journey to the villages, and exposure to village life, society and culture made him sceptical about the “Bengal Renaissance”. He concluded by saying that on the basis of Marx's article on the future results of British rule in India, the nabajagriti or renaissance of Bengal in the 19th century cannot be established as a ‘historical truth'.

The 1979-edition of the book is reprinted on the occasion of his birth centenary. The vivid documentation in the book of the composite culture of the Hindus and Muslims in Bengal testifies to the depth of his journey for a different world. He observed that most of the Bengali Muslims were converted lower-caste Hindus. Even after conversion, both the Muslims and Hindus were often found to have the same types of names and titles, and they worshiped the same folk gods and goddesses, such as Satyapir,Manikpir,Kalugaji,Sitala and Rakshyakali. The popular religious cults in Bengal attracted followers from both the religious communities. Ghosh further observed that most of the Muslim women in the villages of Bengal were not found to wear borkhas. Common architectural styles were often found in temples and mosques.

In our age of sectarian politics and crude form of cultural nationalism, reading Benoy Ghosh offers fresh insights for re-imagining Bengali politics and culture.

Prime Minister Modi's bringing up “Balochistan” during his August 15 address was criticised, especially since he omitted to mention the ongoing, acute crisis in Kashmir. While the validity of the criticism of omission may hold good, mentioning Balochistan could be a calculated move to reverse India's traditional passivity against Pakistan's aggressive India policy. India's turning a spotlight on Balochistan has the possible disadvantage of Pakistan telling the international community that it confirms India's hand in fomenting unrest in Balochistan.

Whether true or not, it heightens Pakistan's fears of being reduced to minuscule size if Balochistan, comprising around 40 per cent of Pakistan's present land area, is separated like East Pakistan was in 1971. Further, bringing Balochistan into the picture might change the decades-long India-Pakistan bilateral Kashmir dispute to international intervention, to Pakistan's advantage. It also adds to China's discomfiture as its access to the Gwadar port through Balochistan could be compromised.

But there are possible strategic advantages for India, which however call for careful and calibrated planning to work for our long-term advantage, including whether India handles Kashmir as a political problem or continues with its iron hand whether the gloves are velvet (sadbhavana) or off.

Oil-and-trade security

Noting that the China-built Gwadar port is on Pakistan's Balochistan coast, India's strategy should take into account the increasing India-China friction due to India's lurch into the US embrace for military purchases, economics and foreign policy. Also there is the possibility of China and Pakistan opening up two formal or informal conflict fronts for India, with the shot-in-the-dark guess that it may suit China to enter into military conflict with India to divert its public attention from growingly unmanageable internal dissensions and conflicts. A similar shot-in-the-dark guess may apply to Pakistan as well as India! Either way, the military-industrial complexes of China, India and the USA would profit hugely from increase in conflict levels.

India hastening to sign the LEMOA (Logistic Exchange Memorandum of Agreement) with the USA concerns India gaining logistic access to US-controlled military stations in the Arabian Sea, reciprocally providing the US access to Indian military stations, a politically charged domestic issue. However, the USA is unhappy with India's closer ties with Iran, especially the India-built Chabahar port, which is a mere 72-km west of Gwadar, providing closer watch over the Persian Gulf. Thus, India bringing Balochistan into the equation is a strategic move to counter Chinese influence in the Arabian Sea. It will enhance India's oil security, opening trade routes for India from Chabahar to the Caspian Sea ports, into Russia and Europe, for Central Asian oil and gas for India via the International North-South Transport Corridor. [Ref. 1] Thus, India's “Balochistan initiative” is in furtherance of its strategy of oil-and-trade security.

China's “inner” string-of-pearls vis-á-vis India (Myanmar-Sri Lanka-Gwadar), its “outer” string-of-pearls (from Chongjin (North Korea) to Hambantota (Sri Lanka) to Luanda (Angola)), its land route to Gwadar, and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), enhance China's presence in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, and divert international pressure in the South China Sea. This is all about securing oil sources and opening trade routes into Central Asia and Europe. The growing China-Russia cosiness is about the NATO's growing military threat on Russia's western borders, the RMB-Ruble war against the USD, and also about China's oil-and-trade needs with the Gulf region, Central Asia and Europe.

The oil-and-trade precipice

The strategic manoeuvring by India and China are directed at their oil-and-trade security. These are based upon the holy grail of economic growth centred on industrialisation and consumerism, with utter neglect (especially in India) of people-related social and economic issues. This is based upon failed neoliberal economic policy pursued worldwide, even as IMF has expressed its doubts. [Ref. 2]

The international community has been pursuing neoliberal economic growth in a race towards a social-economic-environment-ecology precipice, unmindful or ignorant of the twin triggers of the so-called “twilight of the oil age” [Ref. 3] and GW-CC (global warming and climate change). When this double-barrelled gun fires, it can pull out the rug from under present oil-and-trade, economic-growth based strategies adopted by all countries.

Indeed, viewing countries as growth-economies rather than the reality of poor-majority, inequality-affected nations plagued by conflict-migration and environment-migration, would possibly undergo change, as seriously lowered oil availability and transportation levels slash international trade and impinge on daily life across continents. Add the imponderables of RMB-Ruble-initiated collapse of the dollar-based international financial system, and nuclear winter following nuclear conflict—whether irresponsibly initiated by the USA-led NATO or Russia or some other agency like ISIS—as possible “collapse scenarios”, and the world's future is bleak.

An international People's Demand for “NO WAR” (conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical or cyber), together with wider political reali-sation of rapidly advancing GW-CC, could be a viable brake to the mindlessly competitive, relentless, lemming-like rush towards the brink of the precipice.

References

1. Jajati K. Pattnaik and R.P. Pradhan, “Chabahar: In the Grand Chessboard of India's Geo-strategic Calculus”, Mainstream, New Delhi, Vol LIV, No. 31, July 23, 2016, pp. 31-35.

2. Vombatkere, S.G., “Neoliberalism: Its Reality Exposed”, Mainstream Weekly, <http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/art...> ; Mainstream, New Delhi, Vol LIV, No. 30, July 16, 2016, pp. 5-9.

3. Louis Arnoux; The Twilight of the Oil Age; “Part-1; Alice looking down the end of the barrel”; <countercurrents.org/2016/07/14/some...> ;“Part-2; Enquiring into the appropriateness of the question”; <countercurrents.org/2016/07/16/some...> ;“Part-3; Standing slightly past the edge of the cliff”; <countercurrents.org/2016/07/21/some...> ; Countercurrents.org.

Major General S.G. Vombatkere, VSM, retired as an Additional DG Discipline and Vigilance in the Army HQ AG's Branch. He is a member of the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM) and People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). With over 500 published papers in national and international journals and seminars, his area of interest is strategic and development-related issues.

Can the Congress Party be retrieved? This was the question posed to me. Another one is: whether or not the party is relevant. Answering the last question first, I said that a 150-year-old organisation, which has loyal members even in the remotest rural areas, cannot be irrelevant. The Congress led the independence movement and has ruled the country for more than five decades. For my generation, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, who were the top two leaders of the Congress, are icons and I cannot forget the sacrifices the people made under their leadership. Their words counted and people would gather at their call whenever or wherever they made. Then, the Congress was India and India was the Congress. The situation began to change after the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri, who succeeded Nehru. I had the privilege of working as the press officer with Shastri. He had doubts about Nehru's succession plans and would often say that unke dimaag meto unki putri hai (he has his daughter in mind). But, Shastri would, add that it would not be easy. This turned out to be true because after the death of Nehru, Morarji Desai was the first one to throw his hat in the ring. Congress President K. Kamaraj did not want Morarji who he considered intractable and not accommodative for a country where it was essential to be conciliatory to take the people of different religions, castes and regions together.

Shastri did succeed Nehru but died early because of a heart attack at Tashkent where he had gone to sign a peace agreement with General Ayub Khan, the Martial Law Administrator of Pakistan. My feeling is that had he lived, relations between India and Pakistan would have normalised. I recall that after hearing the sudden death of Shastri, Ayub came to the dacha where the Russians had put the Indian Prime Minister up.

General Ayub said in my presence that “had he (Shastri) lived Pakistan and India would have become long-lasting friends”. Ayub also became the pallbearer of the coffin that carried Shastri's body to the aircraft which flew it to Delhi. I think Ayub did echo the feelings of Pakistan because when I visited the country subsequently, people recollected Shastri's friendship.

Zulfikhar Ali Bhutto, then Pakistan's Foreign Minister, was the spoiler. He did not want to sign a treaty which would shun violence in settling issues between India and Pakistan. And he flew straight from Tashkent to Islamabad and propagated that Ayub had sold the country to India. What Ayub had conceded was that the differences between India and Pakistan would be settled peacefully.

Shastri had made Ayub to write on the peace draft he had brought along “without resorting to arms”. The hand-written words in the text are retained by the National Archives of India. Although many people in Pakistan doubt this but the fact remains that General Ayub did sign the peace treaty because he, as the Army Chief, knew what devastation the wars caused.

With such a long and big heritage, the Congress Party cannot be written off. In fact, the very history of independent India begins with the movement which helped the country roll back the British Raj. It is true that the Congress has come down from the pedestal it had once occupied but it does not mean that it has become irrelevant. Can the party be retrieved?— is a difficult question to answer. It had two major segments of followers: Dalits and Muslims. Mayawati, the Dalit leader, has cornered the people whom the Hindu religion itself had categorised as shudras (untouchables). In fact, there is no religion in the world which makes discrimination against its own people as part of its traditions.

In fact, if the Hindus were to analyse they would find that the Muslims are converts from Hinduism because it did not treat them as equals, something which Islam did. Today when the RSS raises the banner of ghar wapsi, it should realise that such a thing cannot happen until the Hindus give up untouchability which is rampant in rural India. People of different castes may have begun sitting on the same bed, yet they still have separate wells and separate cremation grounds. The Muslims, after the establishment of Pakistan, have sought a party which is secular. The Congress, however, was not as firm in its ideology as it was during the days of Nehru and Patel. Still the Muslims had no choice because the only alternative available to them after the Congress was the Communist Party. But this did not fit into their scheme of things and was too totalitarian and discipli-narian.

For a religion which has a holy book to follow, there was very little leeway. Islam attracted converts because it gave a sense of equality. Hadeesh (the spoken words) did give room for personal interpretations. But the loyal say that there could be no deviation from the book of roughly 1400 years old because these were the world of Allah.

Yet Islam over the years has changed. If it could severe from the rigid path, Hinduism should have no problems of in overhauling itself in the face of modern challenges. However, discrimination against Dalits is so deep that I do not expect many strides in this field. This is a challenge before the Hindus.

The experience so far has been far from happy. At the time of elections, some appeals are made and even top Hindu leaders from the Congress eat at the houses of Dalits. But all this wears off once the polls are over and people are back to their old moorings of discrimination.

If the Congress wants to retrieve its lost influence, it would have to cleanse its own house. Secularism has become just a word and many Congress leaders are as rabid as the BJP fanatics. Secularism is a commitment, an aptitude of mind. We have included secularism in the Preamble of the Constitution, but we are far from practising it. And, sometimes, I feel that India is trying to follow Pakistan where people wear religion on their sleeves to prove that they are firms Muslims.

The author is a veteran journalist renowned not only in this country but also in our neighbouring states of Pakistan and Bangladesh where his columns are widely read. His website is www.kuldipnayar.com

Is this now a paradise lost

To an ancient contention?

A clanging of frozen wills

Where all is lost and nothing won?

Relentless crones in safe enclaves

Send nubile angels to war

Against an uncaring distant state

That seems light years a far.

Spots of blood on haunted streets

Invite the lurking vulture;

Windows barred in dread and shame

Protect a beleaguered culture.

Faces pelleted with holes

Are stoic in hopeless time;

Flesh and bone come apart

But spirits scream a defiant rhyme.

Love, trust, and covenant

Seem powerless to leap

The contest for ownership

Even if the price be fatally steep,

Lake and stream, Chinar and blossom

All sing a dirge as though

The Paradise belonged wholly now

To the elegy of the weeping willow.

Badri Raina

From N.C.'s Writings

Pressure Counter Pressure

Behind the angry protests and almost interminable complaints of Cease Fire violations, there is a feeling in New Delhi about the overall situation with regard to Pakistan which, though not vocal, is significant.

It is geneally conceded here that a full-scale war between India and Pakistan is practically ruled out for the present. The theory that the cessation of hostilities provided by the Security Council Resolution is being utilised as a breathing space by Pakistan is countermanded by two factors: first, it is not easy for any command to push up the tempo of a military campaign once it is switched off. Secondly, there is a persistent belief in New Delhi about the crisis in the political leadership in Pakistan.

With regard to this second factor, there is a suspicion, widely held in many of the leading quarters in the Capital, that the reports of differences between Ayub and Bhutto as also between the Pakistan High command and the US Government are assisduously spread by the Western sources mainly to get round New Delhi to make concession on the issue of Kashmir, the line of the whisper campaign being that unless Ayub is given some concessions on Kashmir, Bhutto's tough line might prevail and India might have to face the two-pronged offensive of Pakistan and China. It is understood that Mr Arthur Goldeberg also stressed this point in his talks with Sri Parthasarathi.

While it is true that this whisper campaign is being pursued quite widely by Western diplomatic sources both here and in the UN, an important section of informed opinion in the Capital is not prepared to dismiss reports about the Ayub-Bhutto crisis as pure Western fabrication.

The point to note, however, is that New Delhi's appraisal of the situation rules out for the time being a flare-up on a large scale on the Indo-Pak border. The current round of clashes is mainly due to the anxiety of both sides to straighten out some of the inconvenient bulges that could be noticed at many points along the present Cease Fire Line, so that in case of any resumption of full-scale hostilities between the two countries their armies may not be put into difficulty because of the existence of these bulges. It is true that the arrival of the UN Observers' Teams has resulted in slowing down these operations, though they have not yet been able to completely stop them.

All this is happening because of the underlying belief that the present Cease Fire Line will de facto continue to be the border between the two countries, perhaps for a very long time. This means that the possibility of a political settlement of the dispute is hardly in sight. In fact, the three weeks' war has hardened the position on both sides, and has falsified the expectations of those who had counted on a decision by arms for a solution of the Kashmir question. This incidentally is an additional proof of the fact that despite all the patriotic valour churned up by the war itself (which is not of India's making) it has put off the chances of a political settlement between India and Pakistan more than ever before.

In the present context, it is easy to understand why New Delhi has been so critical of U Thant's decision to separate the UN Observers' Team in Kashmir from that for the Indo-Pak frontiers outside Kashmir. Because, New Delhi now regards itself as being placed in a position of advantage in bargaining with Pakistan with regard to the Kashmir situation: it will agree to withdraw its troops from the Pakistani soil from the Sialkot and the Lahore sectors and also from a point in Sind only on condition that Rawalpindi finally recognises that J&K State, as at present constituted, as part of India. To split up the two sectors, namely, the Jammu and Kashmir front and the rest of the Indo-Pak front for the purpose of UN observation, was suspected by New Delhi as a thin end of the wedge, inspired by Pakistan's Western backers which might ultimately grow into a demand that the settlement of the two sectors should be taken up separately; that means the withdrawal of troops on the Indo-Pak front outside the borders of Jammu and Kashmir taking place separately, without reference to any decision on the withdrawal of forces of both sides in the Jammu and Kashmir sector. If such a demand arises, naturally it weakens India's bargaining power: the position of strength that New Delhi holds today will be very much undermined if the bargaining is restricted only to the withdrawal of the Pakistani troops from the Chhamb sector in Jammu in exchange for the Indian troops quitting posts in Haji Pir, Tithwal and Kargil. At the present moment, India would prefer to stick on to the line along the Sialkot sector and Ichhogil canal for the political recognition by Rawalpindi of the J&K State being part of India.

The UN Secretary General's latest decision that General Nimmo would be in overall command of both the UN Observers' Teams, namely, the one for the J&K and the other for the Indo-Pak border outside Jammu and Kashmir, is interpreted here as a partial acceptance of the Indian demand that there should be no split up in the UN teams. There is thus a continuous, though silent, tussle going on in the diplomatic lobbies whether in New Delhi, Rawalpindi or the UN, each side trying to gain as much through back-stairs pressure as it could.

Viewed in this background, it is not surprising that the suggestion for a four-power mission to tackle the Kashmir question would be rejected by New Delhi. Such a mission, it is felt here, would have been heavily weighed against India, and the Soviet Union would have been outvoted in such an outfit. Contraposing this has come the alternate suggestion for a joint US-Soviet move to solve the Kashmir deadlock. This has the advantage that the most rabid of the pro-Pak power, Britain, could be kept out of it.

While it appears that Sri Shastri himself would not object to such an initiative on the part of the two superpowers—since it is expected to silence both his Right and Left critics—there is as yet no evidence to show that the central leadership here has been working out any minimum terms for the settlement of the Kashmir question, the terms which it can get the country in its present mood to agree to and at the same time have the merit of showing the way to a compromise. One is tempted to conclude that the war by itself has provided no way-out of the Indo-Pak dispute on Kashmir; if anything, it has made it more difficult for both sides to come to the conference table.

Political observers in the Capital do concede that in the present climate of Pakistan it is not possible even for a peacemaker politician to go in for any settlement which does not give it a chance to question the present status of the J&K State. It is therefore assumed that there is very little scope for political settlement of the Kashmir dispute coming off in the immediate future. However, if President Ayub agrees to go to Tashkent for the Soviet-sponsored talks with Prime Minister Shastri, or accept a joint US-Soviet mission, then New Delhi will take it that the government in Pakistan has been able to set its own house in order to the extent that it is in a position to go in for a settlement recognising the status of Jammu and Kashmir State as part of the Indian Union. Once this point is accepted by Rawalpindi, there will be no difficulty for New Delhi to withdraw its troops from the Pakistani soil and even to agree to a boundary commission to straighten out the line of demarcation between the present Pak-held Kashmir and the J&K State which is inside the Indian Union.

Apart from the military initiative having been lost by Pakistan in the present phase, there is a feeling here that Rawalpindi has lost considerably in terms of political initiative as well. The backing which Peking offered to Rawalpindi has not amounted to very much, while the present turmoil in Indonesia has also gone against Pakistan in terms of diplomatic advantage. For one thing, Rawalpindi has so long bragged a lot about the support given by Indonesia, particularly by its flamboyant President. Secondly, the fiasco of a policy of dependence on Peking which Indonesia has so long followed has also had an indirect impact on Pakistan's prestige, since it shows up the unreliability of any diplomatic strategy that counts on Peking's support.

The explanation therefore available here for Rawalpindi's extraordinary decision to break-off diplomatic relations with Malaysia is that it is the manifestation of bitter frustration that has at the moment gripped the Pakistani authorities. Malaysia's identification with the Indian case in the present round of the Kashmir debate in the Security Council is interpreted here as a return gesture for India's undeviating support for Malaysia's candidature for the Second Afro-Asian Confeference. Besides, the open support of China for Pakistan has alienated Malaysia which was the first Asian power to condemn China‘s attack on India in October-November, 1962.

A typical example of the Indo-Pak tug-of-war for the purpose of enlisting support by either side is provided by the Malaysian episode itself. While Bhutto's rather unbalanced diplomacy has cost Pakistan the friendship, not to speak of the support, of Malaysia, New Delhi has not been slow at striving to strengthen its own ties with Kuala Lumpur. The visit of Sri Dinesh Singh to Malaysia this week is, therefore, particularly significant. His painstaking efforts at explaining India's case to the Arab diplomats in New Delhi have not been unsuccessful, despite reports circulated to the contrary. There is no doubt that among the junior colleagues of Sri Shastri, Sri Dinesh Singh has made his mark during the present emergency, thereby bringing into sharper relief the almost universally acknowledged ineffectiveness of the Foreign Minister himself.

In the non-aligned world, some of the recent developments are counted as being favourable for New Delhi. Mr Ali Sabry's exit from the UAR Government has not been unwelcome here, since it has long been known that he has been critical of this country in the India-China dispute. The general impression here is that Mr Ali Sabry has mostly thrown has weight in favour of Cairo taking a pro-Peking line in many of the crucial issues of the day.

Another significant gain for New Delhi has been Yugoslavia's forthright stand on Kashmir as officially expressed in the Tito-Radhakrishnan joint communique. It is understood that the original draft of the communique mentioned Kashmir as being “an integral part” of India: President Radhakrishnan's discussions at Brioni led to an improvement in the draft as the communique characterises Kashmir as consti-tuting “an internal affair of India”.

With regard to the West, there are indications here that Britain and the USA have been trying hard to recover from the setback they suffered in New Delhi during the recent crisis. While the demand for quitting the Commonwealth has not slackened in the ranks of the Congress—incidentally, this demand seems to have the blessings of the confirmed pro-US elements in the Capital—quiet diplomacy to restore Indo-British relations has not broken down at all. One of the essential Indian requirements is the supply of spares for defence equipment from Britain. It appears that in the recent talks the demand for the lifting of the arms embargo has been strongly canvassed on behalf of India and it is expected that the UK Government will soon respond to it. Although the Indian Defence forces are in a much better position than Pakistan on this score, it is recognised here that without the supply of essential spares, particularly from Britain, our armed forces will be greatly handicapped, if not paralysed, in some vital sectors. In this sense, the present war has helped to underline the urgency of getting essential components from abroad for our military hardware. Self-sufficiency in Defence is not an easy slogan to realise.

The US circles in New Delhi have not been idle all this time. Reinforcing Mr Chester Bowles' efforts, the pro-US elements in the government have been harping on the immediate need of securing pukka assurance from Washington about regular delivery of PL-480 instalments. Sri S.K. Patil seems to have come out of the wilderness into which he was forced, thanks to his reluctance to take up a firm stand against Pakistan: his claim to closer personal acquaintance with important Washington personalities, and thereby his indispensability in the present crisis, are being sold by some of his lieutenants (including at least one Cabinet Minister). Besides, he holds out the prospect that by his initiative he can prepare the ground for a Shastri-Johnson meeting, which Sri B.K. Nehru is reported to have been pressing for, as an urgent necessity, Out of his proposed explanatory tour in the West, Sri Patil hopes to emerge as an entrenched and indispensable element in the government.

The established lobbies in the Capital have thus been working overtime to regain for the Western powers the positions that were threatened during the recent war. For New Delhi, the arduous battle on the diplomatic frontg has yet to be won despite the sacrifices in blood made on the hills of Kashmir and the plains of Punjab. 

(‘New Delhi Skyline', Mainstream, October 9, 1965)

The Twilight Hour

This is like the twilight hour we are passing through these days in which we are not at war nor at peace. Our soldiers are destroying tanks and our men sabre-jets, but we have still our High Commissioner perched at Islamabad, loose talking in a manner that makes the world wonder which country he is really serving.

Many a time in the past few months it was said that the crucial phase had been reached in the Bangladesh struggle. But never before has it been so true as it is today. In fact, the crucial phase started when the Prime Minister returned from her Western tour with the realisation that the utmost that the Western Powers would do would be to appeal to President Yahya Khan to come to a settlement with the Awami League leaders, and beyond that they would not be prepared to do anything which would usher in an early political settlement so that the millions of refugees could go back to their homeland. It is no secret that hard experience has told New Delhi that the only world power which has stood by India's position is the Soviet Union despite the fact that in the present alignment of world forces that has caused almost a total erosion of Moscow's political leverage in Pakistan.

The diplomatic aftermath of Smt Gandhi's Western tour could be seen in the Belgian move to raise the Bangladesh issue as an Indo-Pak confrontation in the Security Council—a move which could only have been inspired with the connivance, if not the initiative, of Washington. President Nixon's latest proposal has not been very different from what the US authorities have been saying for the last two months, namely, the defusion of the tension by the withdrawal of troops from the frontier. Even what President Yahya Khan tried to sell to Sri Atal was a variant of the same Western brand, namely, the so-called civilian set-up, and not Yahya Khan, could negotiate with Awami League leaders—and Sri Atal, if one goes by indiscreet press interviews, almost fell for it.

Incidentally, this is not the solitary instance of mistaken judgement in Sri Atal's diplomatic career. One has only to recall his insistence on Nehru visiting Turkey, only to find himself in the midst of a political coup. Sri Atal however showed distinction at Addis Ababa as an excellent connoisseur of polo horses.

In a nutshell, the basic issue in the Bangla-desh crisis, namely, an immediate effort at settlement between the Pakistan Government and the Awami League leadership is being meticulously evaded by Washington and its entourage powers. This is obviously not due to the reason that Washington has lost its weight in Islamabad but because Washington does not want to do anything which might jeopardise the stability of the military junta at Islamabad. For, it is part of the global strategy of the Pentagon to prop up the Pak military junta by all means.

One should not forget the strategic location of West Pakistan as a soft underbelly of Soviet Central Asia—the very reason why both Washington and Peking are equally interested in backing Islamabad to the hilt. The additional reason for these two to stand solid by the side of Pakistan is to mislead the Arab world into believing that these two powers are the friends in need of the biggest Muslim state existing, that is, Pakistan.

There is a sizable body of opinion in New Delhi which has for sometime been thinking that China would not come to the side of Pakistan in the event of a military confrontation with India. This school of thought does concede that China would be making a lot of noise in support of Pakistan, but its calculation that there would be no military intervention on the part of Peking is more in the nature of intelligent guess-work than based on solid intelligence data.

However, this calculation may not be very wide of mark because of three reasons: first, the Chinese leadership with all its big-mouth revolutionism in the UN does not want to expose its own military limitation; a full-scale intervention against India might lead to logistic difficulties which might show up the weak-nesses of its Army, already in the throes of a political crisis. Secondly, Peking must have read carefully the terms of the Indo-Soviet Treaty and any armed move against India might land it into a situation where it might have to face counter-pressure on the Soviet border. Thirdly, with the successes of the liberation forces in Bangladesh it will be more and more obvious to the astute Chinese leadership that Bangla-desh as an independent entity is inevitably going to emerge, and any military intervention on its part would earn Peking the open hostility of this new emerging Asian state not far from its own border.

At this stage it is important to assess as a long-range exercise the various phases in New Delhi's strategy with regard to Sino-Pak relations. In the fifties just about the time when Sino-Indian understanding was being strengthened, there came the US-Pak arms pact which openly pronounced its hostility towards the Communist powers, while Pakistan on her part made no secret of her intention to use her increased arms strength with American support for the purpose of grabbing Kashmir. It was no accident that this was the time when the American moves, both subtle and open, were made to mislead Sheikh Abdullah and his group into believing that an independent Kashmir could be formed, dislinked from India. While nipping this move in the bud, New Delhi not only took the initiative in consolidating the forces of non-alignment in the Afro-Asian world, but also made a definite move to come to an understanding with Pakistan: the Nehru-Noon Agreement is an example of this policy and its culmination could also be seen in the Indus Water Treaty which Nehru signed with President Ayub.

It was in this period that Pakisan, obviously at the instigation of Washington, made the suggestion that there should be a joint Indo-Pak defence arrangement against Communist powers—in other words to inveigle India into some offshoot of the military bloc into which Pakistan herself had entered under American allurements and pressures. This was rejected outright by Nehru.

Next came the phase of Sino-Indian antago-nism leading to the Chinese attack on the Indian frontier in 1962. Whatever might have been the lapses in Indian diplomacy in trying to handle this issue—Pandit Sunderlal has of late been giving publicity to this point of view, backing Neville Maxwell's thesis—there is no gainsaing the fact that the Chinese assessment in the late fifties was definitely hostile to India, branding her as having gone over to the Western camp and backed by “Soviet Revisionism”. It is to be noted that about this time Peking's animosity towards the other Communist countries had already begun, evidence of which was furnished at the Moscow conference of the world Communist Parties in late 1960, where one of the charges levelled against the Soviet Communist Party by Peking was that Moscow was backing India against China.

It is worth recalling that on the very morrow of the Chinese attack on the Indian frontier, when Nehru was under fire from the Right Opposition and Sri Krishna Menon had to quit the Cabinet because of the mounting pressure of the US lobby, there came the proposal fully backed by the Western Powers for an Indo-Pak agreement on Kashmir on the basis of a virtual partitioning of the Valley itself. Incidentally, the pro-American elements in the government at that time were even in favour of withdrawal of troops from the Pakistan frontier to draft them against the Chinese.

As soon as New Delhi made it clear that it could not accept such a proposal of partition of Kashmir, the Sino-Pak understanding began to be forged in a very demonstrative way. First came the demarcation of the boundary between Western Tibet and Sinkiang on the one side and the Pak-occupied portion of Kashmir on the other. This was followed by a number of other agreements leading to the Chinese military help to Pakistan even to the point of helping to the setting up of guerilla training centres in the Pakistan-occupied area of Kashmir for the purpose of organised infiltration into the Valley.

During the 1965 Indo-Pak conflict, the Chinese made no secret of their full support of Pakistan; their military experts were known to have helped in the training of the infiltrators who swarmed across the Cease Fire Line into the Kashmir Valley. And at the crucial moment of the war, the Chinese threatened to attack the Eastern frontier. Their calculation at that time was that if the war had spread to East Bengal, then the Chinese would force a wedge through Bhutan and help the depleted Pakistan Army in that sector. Unfortunately for the Chinese, the Indian strategy at that time was to make it clear that there would be no military operation against East Bengal. When the Chinese move was thus foiled, then came the famous threat about the theft of sheep and goats by India which was made into an excuse for an angry threat of war by Peking. If the war had continued longer than it did, one would not have been surprised if the Chinese attack had materialised at least on the Himalayan frontier.

The two options which seemed to have alter-nated in the main in the evolution of Indian policy are: first, whether an Indo-Pak under-standing could be reached in facing the challenge of China; and secondly, whether a Sino-Indian thaw could be maintained while the threat from Pakistan has to be met.

The first trend was re-presented by the pro-US elements in this country: they had long thought if detente could be established with Pakistan then a common front could be built against Communist China. This was the basis of the so-called Indo-Pak reconciliation move-ment sponsored by some of the pro-Swatantra elements in this country. Unfortunately for them, the latest Nixon policy for making up with China has led to the collapse of this plateform. They are now floundering and have caught on to a new slogan that there should be understanding with China as a counter to an understanding with the Soviet Union. In other words, the Indo-Soviet Treaty has become their main target of attack, thereby making it clear that in their estimate, the real Communist threat comes from Moscow and not from Peking.

The other school which thinks that an understanding with China could be possible while Pakistan is the main source of animosity against India, believes that a friendly positive approach to Peking might disrupt or at leas weaken the prevailing Sino-Pak entente. The point to note is that in the present configuration of world forces, both the US and Chinese policies are strongly in favour of propping up Pakistan, if not the whole of it, at least West Pakistan. It will therefore be idle to think that Peking which has already shown its hand in the UN—where it has not shown any hesitation to side with the US against any Soviet proposal, however reasonable it may be—will let down Pakistan in the case of an Indo-Pak confrontation. Every day more and more evidence is mounting about Chinses stand with regard to Bangladesh. The entire attack is directed against India as the instigator of the Bangladesh freedom fighters and this is being linked up even with the Tibetan rebellion and exodus of refugees which came in the wake of Chinese repression of that rebellion. There is room for honest difference of opinion about the wisdom of not immediately answering those charges by Peking, particularly when Peking is in a position to mislead quite a large number of countries in the Afro-Asian world. Whether such silence is really golden, when New Delhi's main concern is not to allow any new advantage to be scored by Pakistan over the Bangladesh crisis, only the future will tell. But it will be rather naive to think that the Chinese could be persuaded to behave in a friendly way by such a gesture of demonstrative silence on the part of New Delhi.

The overall picture is that in standing by the side of the Bangladesh freedom fighters and standing up to the bullying tactics of the Western Powers in defence of Yahya Khan, there is no scope for New Delhi to minimise the dimension of the crisis.

The nation is placed in a state of expectancy and yet there is still a resistance to go in for all-out war because underlying all the calcu-lations, there remains the great imponderable as to the price of a major confrontation in terms of economic, social and political liabilities. One is tempted to recall T.S. Eliot's lines that

“War is not a life: it is a situation,

One which may neither be ignored nor accepted,

A problem to be met with ambush and stratagem,

Enveloped or scattered.”

Nothing better can describe New Delhi's preoccupation today.

(‘Political Notebook', Mainstream, December 4, 1971)

by Vivek Kumar Srivastava

The 17th Non-Aligned Movement(NAM) summit in Venezuela's Margarita Island proved to be a lacklustre affair which it had never witnessed in its so impactful history. About 12 heads of states attended from the 120-member group, which was quite less than the participation at the Iran summit, a signal that the movement is on the decline.

The Indian PM was requested by Venezuela to participate as India was a founder-member of the movement but India rejected the request and the Vice-President attended the meet. The Indian stand is clear—that the days of alliance system and power blocs are over, hence NAM carries not much importance. This viewpoint of the Indian Government can be contested. In fact the Indian Vice-President raised the issue of terrorism at the meet; if the issue would have been raised by the Indian PM then it would have had sharper meaning before the world audience but the opportunity was deliberately missed. The relevance of NAM is self-proven: when issues like terrorism are raised as major global problems, then the NAM platform automatically becomes highly relevant. When NAM deals with newly emerging problems from global warming, debt-affected low income countries to UN reforms, then it establishes itself as a deliberative and coordinating platform for the developing countries, even in the changed global milieu.

The world is more violent and big power rivalries from MENA to the South China Sea have increased in recent times. NAM provides an alternative medium to tackle these issues in fresh and innovative ways but this aspect was lost by several leaders. India too appeared to have shunned the Movement. US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and in recent times Condoleezza Rice always criticised NAM; now India has accepted their arguments and shifted towards the US and that is perceptible. In such a scenario the commitment to NAM was to be diluted and the dilution was made with no considerations for the countries from the South and the needs of the poor nations for whom the support of India was a policy-commitment. However, India deliberately overlooked these points.

The meet was important in the sense that the politically troubled Nicolas Maduro, the Socialist President of Venezuela, with support from Cuban President Castro said that the US onslaught was being experienced in the region. The onslaught was on different aspects of their existence which spanned from politics, economy, and culture to the life of their countries. The recognition of such an onslaught on the region is the need of the hour as global politics is not only the game of power but it has several intertwined dimensions including impacts on the culture, economy and independence of the foreign policy; these dimensions relate to the core pillars of the NAM. When the Venezuelan President feels that the US corporates with the local elements are trying to oust him, then the utility of NAM becomes all the more significant because the US involvement in local politics is a signal of interventionist power politics for the developing countries. Countries like the Philippines have now realised the adverse impact of the US influence in their lives.

The declaration of the 17th summit has highlighted certain relevant issues which cannot be ignored. The problem with analysts and policy-makers is that NAM is treated by them as an organisation of the Cold War age but its next generation evolution has taken place in the age of post-USSR dissolution; the new problems have been adequately addressed by it. Several members may not have placed adherence to the NAM philosophy and activism in their foreign policy as a top priority but it does not mean that the NAM meet was useless or it has no prospect for the future.

New problems are emerging and the new alliance systems are evolving. NAM recognised these and its declaration has several elements which developing nations need to take note of. These included—to decisively address the challenges posed in the areas of peace, economic and social development, human rights and international cooperation, to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with Article 2 and Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as with the UN Resolution 26/25 of October 24, 1970 and international law, to emphasise the sovereign equality of states, the non-intervention in the internal affairs of states, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the abstention from the threat or use of force, adoption of a future Compre-hensive Convention for Combating International Terrorism, Israel's withdrawal from territories occupied since June 1967, in accordance with Resolutions 242, and 338, to recover and strengthen the authority of the General Assembly as the most democratic, accountable, universal and representative body of the Organisation and the reform of the Security Council, in order to transform it into a more democratic, effective, efficient, transparent and representative body, and in line with contem-porary geo-political realities, to fulfil the Agenda's 17 Sustainable Development Goals and its 169 targets for all nations and peoples, to strengthen the multilateral trading system so as to provide an enabling environment for development, by ensuring a level playing field for developing countries in international trade, and to allocate importance of increasing Aid for Trade and capacity building, in order to strengthen the participation of developing countries in the Global Value Chain and promote regional economic integration and interconnectivity, the transfer of technology from developed countries, on favourable terms, in climate change area the developed countries need to fulfill their commitments of providing finance, transfer of appropriate technology and capacity building to developing countries, the reform of the international financial architecture with democratisation of the decision-making institutions of Bretton Woods (IMF and World Bank), to emphasise the South-South Cooperation as an important element of international cooperation for the sustainable development of their peoples, as a complement and not as a substitute to the North-South Cooperation, which allows for the transfer of appropriate technologies, in favorable conditions and preferential terms, to highlight the efforts of the international community to counter and eradicate the spread of various pandemics, among them the Ebola, as well as for confronting the aftermath of natural disasters around the world, to focus global refugee problems and the problems of migrants which mainly affects the women and children and to emphasize the need for information and communication strategies to be deeply rooted in historical and cultural processes and to call on the media of the developed countries to respect the developing countries in the formulation of their opinions, models and perspectives with a view to enhancing the dialogue among civilisations.

These components of the declaration are important for global politics as these issues and problems may accentuate in the near future; hence need is to keep NAM alive and sustainable. India has a specific role in this process.

The next meet will be organised in Baku, the Republic of Azerbaijan, in 2019 as it has been elected as the next President of the movement. Till then NAM as a supporting platform for the global betterment needs to be rediscovered by all its members, mainly its founding members.

Dr Vivek Kumar Srivastava is the Vice-Chairman, CSSP and Consultant, CRIEPS, Kanpur.

by Sudhanshu Tripathi

The Non-Aligned Movement, while holding fast the true spirit of the doctrine of non-alignment, must act as the vanguard of all principal international debates on political, strategic and socio-economic issues and must also suitably modernise itself to remain relevant in the world.

Introduction

The 17th Summit of the Non-Aligned countries of the Third World, spreading over the continents of Asia, Africa and Latin America, was held at the Margarita island in Venezuela during September 13-18, 2016 with all enthusiasm and fervour, though India's Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, could not attend the summit and instead its Vice-President, Hamid Ansari, represented the country, leading the Indian delegation. As the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which began its journey in 1961, during highly tense days of the ongoing fierce Cold War between the two antagonistic blocs led by the USA and the then USSR, as a global movement of just 25 countries, now consists of 120 countries and that proves its continuing popularity and relevance since the origin of the movement after the Second World War.

Obviously the NAM, which is based upon the doctrine of Non-Alignment, known as the brain-child of India's first Prime Minister, late Jawaharlal Nehru, today has enough grounds to stay as well as sustain due to the continued adherence and upholding of its core ideals, namely,“freedom of action” and “independence of judgment” and also “sovereign equality of nation-states”, established by the Peace Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. All these were very popular then among the newly independent countries of the Third World because they had long suffered the agony and trauma of centuries of inhuman and wicked course of colonialism and, therefore, they had the sole desire to protect and preserve their new hard won freedom and also to rebuild themselves as independent nations in the international community.

An Alternative Model of International Behaviour

It was this desire that the late Jawaharlal Nehru sincerely grasped immediately after the Second World War and some other prominent leaders of the Third World, like Marshal Joseph Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, President Garnal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and President Sukarno of Indonesia who proposed an alternative and independent course of action for the newly independent Third World countries in the world divided into two hostile ideological camps of capitalism and communism and each vying for increasing its membership by inviting newly independent countries into their respective folds in a bid to consolidate their strength for establishing their supremacy in the world. Thus this dominant desire of the Third World countries later crystallised into the doctrine of “Non-Alignment” and that was first elaborated by Pandit Nehru on September, 7, 1946 in his radio speech to the nation, even prior to the independence of India. In fact, this desire to remain independent of group rivalry and bloc-politics was a very timely remedy to save the world from another impending World War, which was to be a nuclear holocaust in all likelihood, marred by bitter Cold War tensions and several ongoing regional wars.

In this horrible scenario, the NAM under India's founding leadership, while deriving its strength and sustenance from the country's ancient cultural ethos and deeply religious traditions advocating eternal moral values, made a clarion call for three Ds, namely, Decolonisation, Disarmament and Develop-ment—all for the noble cause of establishing permanent peace in the world which had already been torn by two humanitarian disasters in the form of unfortunate World Wars.

Present Turmoil

Once again, the world is passing through, perhaps, the worst ever phase of terrorism and religious fundamentalism as well various kinds of heinous and macabre crimes of untold and unimaginable magnitude, besides other challenges like economic recession, environ-mental degradation and sustainable development, feudal-monarchic social set-up both at the national and international levels demanding democratisation of international relations and reforming the United Nations, violation of human rights, gender bias, child abuse and sexual crimes and many more, which cannot be honestly tackled simply by formulating laws or concluding international treaties.

These challenges can only be sincerely addressed if a collective global human endeav-our, based upon a value-based and philosophical vision, is initiated under the aegis of the United Nations, representing the global wishes and aspirations. And that vision is truly provided by the doctrine of non-alignment which, indeed, stands for equality, justice, fraternity on equal footing, and global peace, thereby paving
the way for creating a new world order characterised by these eternal and moral values.

India Exhorts

This is why, India's Vice-President, Hamid Ansari, exhorted the movement by his inspiring words: “Our theme for the next three years—Peace, Sovereignty and Solidarity for Development—is in congruence with our founding principles.” He made India's founding position of the NAM clear by emphasising upon peace and sover-eignty being the essential prerequisites for development and cooperation along with ensuring the dignity and development of all humankind.

He also recalled the spirit inherent in the unforgettable words of the late Indian PM, Smt India Gandhi, about the NAM “as the largest peace movement of the world” that she had said during the course of the Seventh NAM Summit at New Delhi in 1983. He further stressed in the summit that the NAM must stand as the vanguard of all substantial international debates on political, social, economic and strategic issues and must also suitably adapt itself to the matching times so as to remain relevant and convincingly responsible towards its members in particular, and the entire humanity upon the mother earth in general.

Final Communiqué

The final communiqué of the Summit made a vigorous call for meaningful UN reforms, perhaps in an apparent reference to the United for Peace Resolutions adopted during the Korean War of the 1950s, when the UN Security Council was torn by the Cold War politics and no substantive decisions could be arrived at due to the mutually antagonistic views of the USA and the then USSR thereby crippling the global body, that may return the glory of the UN General Assembly of yesteryears so that it may function effectively despite hurdles created by the UN Security Council. Similarly it addressed all other prominent issues already pending under the forum of the movement, namely, South-South cooperation, New World Infor-mation and Communication Order, protection of environment and maintaining climate balance, inclusive growth and pending economic reforms for a New World Economic Order, Sustainable Development, Restraining Human Rights Violations, Child Abuse and Gender Bias, Total Conventional and Nuclear Disarmament, and last but not the least, elimination of terrorism of all shades and forms etc.—all with a view to establish a just and rule-based international democratic order ensuring equality, freedom, progress and prosperity for all countries in the world.

Thus the NAM, though often called irrelevant and redundant by the crooked American campaign, because it has no reason to exist after the end of the Cold War, has once again proved its vigour and vitality and also its reasons to exist because there is no end to challenges in the world, which come one after the other, and that will always demand a collective global voice and action. And for that the NAM is always useful and meaningful. What else can be the reason of its existence which is further supported by its consistently rising membership. As a British commentator had said a few decades back, “NAM has come to stay and it will stay as long as Super Power elephants threaten to trample the grass where lesser animals also graze.” It still holds true and will hold so forever.

Conclusion

Though the challenges are grave and threats unimaginable, but there is enough scope for sincere efforts with honest intentions and that one is not alone today as there is no dearth of saner minds and conscientious and God-fearing people. Let us all unite to defeat all evil forces in the world, particularly terrorism in all its forms, besides accomplishing all other goals—was India's clarion call at the Margarita NAM Summit. This is possible because nothing is beyond human endeavour.

Dr Sudhanshu Tripathi is an Associate Professor of Political Science, M.D.P.G. College, Pratapgarh (UP). He can be contacted at e-mail: sudhanshu. tripathi07[at]gmail.com

by Joydeep Biswas

The Citizenship (Amendment Bill), 2016, now before the Joint Committee of the two Houses for a thorough examination, contrary to popular perception, does not guarantee citizenship to the religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. It only seeks to convert the ‘illegal migrants' to ‘legal migrants'.

The Union Home Minister introduced the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 in the Lok Sabha during the recently concluded monsoon session further to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Bill, sent through a floor consensus to the thirty-member Joint Committee of Houses (JPC) on August 11 for a ‘thorough examination' with one-third of its members drawn from the Upper House, contains proposals for bringing in changes to sections 2 and 7, and the Third Schedule of the principal Act.

The Bill, inter alia, states that the persons belonging to the minority communities in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, such as, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, who entered India with or without valid documents, would now onwards cease to be treated as ‘illegal migrants', and, thereby, would be made eligible to apply for Indian citizenship under the provision of naturalisation under Section 6 of the principal Act. In a strict legal interpretation, this proposed piece of legislation is more of a nature of a technical tweaking of the statute book when the vexed issue at hand calls for the exercise of sheer political wisdom rather than mere bureaucratic wrangling.

In the run-up to bringing the Bill in Parliament, the Union Government had issued two orders on September 7 last year. The Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015 and the Passport (Entry into India) Amendment Rules, 2015 were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to regularise the stay of the same section of the people in India by incorporating suitable amendments in the principal rules, namely, the Foreigners Order, 1948 and the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950. Unlike in this Bill the twin orders of the Central Government contain an arbitrarily chosen cut-off date, December 31, 2014. The Home Ministry's notifications also mention that the religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who had arrived at India prior to this date for religious persecution or the fear of it, would be allowed to stay back in India. But, surprisingly enough, those administrative orders were not followed up with the required legislative intervention meaning thereby that the corresponding Acts, namely, the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 have not been amended in tandem to lend teeth to the Home Ministry-level orders.

Infructuous

Even as the Bill covers the whole of India— acquisition and determination of citizenship being a Union subject—its implication is expected to be far more pronounced in Assam than in any other part of the country. Migration from erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and its consequent impact on the society and polity of this North-Eastern State has produced a wide ranging fall-out—from the xenophobic anti-foreigners movement to racial profiling of citizenship to identity-based electoral config-uration.

With more than 1.5 lakh Doubtful Voters on the electoral rolls thanks to an unheard of and dubious directive from the Election Commission of India applicable only in this State, and over one thousand five hundred migrants languishing in six detention camps, Assam exhibits a perfect case-study wherein the rationale behind the Centre's move towards citizenship legislation could be best examined. The precursor to the Bill, the twin orders from the Home Ministry, have so far appeared to be infructuous as neither the State Police nor the judiciary is ready to take cognisance of these administrative orders while dealing with the cases of detection, detention and deportation of the suspected foreigners. The logic behind the administrative orders turning out to be toothless is that the amended provisions are clearly at odds with the principal Acts which have been left unchanged. The net result that follows is that none of the migrants—for whom such orders were promulgated—have got any relief from the two orders.

With these orders proving to be inconse-quential, the next round of expectation of the partition-victim migrants in Assam was the Bill which the BJP had included in its poll promises during the campaigns ahead of the Lok Sabha hustings of 2014 and also the Assembly elections in Assam this year. In fact, the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, had made personal commitments that once in power his government would provide citizenship to the Bengali Hindu migrants from Bangladesh. The Bill, therefore, its all-India coverage notwith-standing, is practically meant to serve the interests of the Bengali Hindu migrants of Assam who have been steadily with the BJP for the last two decades if we go by the electoral arithmetic of the State.

Contradictions

But even a cursory reading of this Bill tells us that the proposed amended provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 are sure to clash with some other Sections of the principal Act, thereby reducing the whole legislative exercise to an attenuated status. While Section 3 of the Citizenship Act covers the acquisition of citizenship by birth for the rest of the country, Section 6 A therein, incorporated by an amendment in 1985, is meant for providing special provisions for citizenship in Assam covered under the Assam Accord. According to this 6 A of the Citizenship Act, read with the provisions in the Schedule under Section 4A (4) of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, any person who crossed over to the Indian territory after March 25, 1971 shall be treated as an illegal migrant. Naturally, such a case of illegal migration would attract the relevant provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964.

At present there are one hundred Foreigners Tribunals operating in Assam where more than two lakhs of cases are pending. The Bill practically proposes to enable the post-1971 stream of migrants apply for Indian citizenship via the route of naturalisation. In order that these people can apply for citizenship under Section 6, they are proposed to be decriminalised by lifting the prefix ‘illegal' before the word, ‘migrants'. While this is indeed an affirmative action towards granting citizenship to this hapless section of migrants, who had to flee their homeland for no fault of theirs, mere easing of the mandatory waiting period of 11 years to six years in the Third Schedule in no way guarantees citizenship to them. The Bill, even if enacted, shall remain as just a piece of enabling legislation. The future governments may very well take shelter under Section 14 of the Citizenship Act in refusing what the present government is seemingly granting—the much coveted citizenship.

One more area of legal contention is the ongoing process of preparation of the National Register of Citizens only for the State of Assam. The arrangement, initiated by a notification of the Registrar General of India (Citizens' Registration) on December 6, 2013, and carried forward under the direct monitoring of the Bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman of the Supreme Court, is expected to come up with the first set of numbers of the actual foreigners in Assam. The moot point in this context is that the cut-off date being used for determination of who would qualify for enrolment in the updated NRC, and who not is also given by that 6 A of the Citizenship Act. This effectively implies that the legal sustainability of the new amendment Bill is still open to close scrutiny.

Brief for JPC

As the Joint Committee of Houses takes up the brief of examining the merit of the Bill, the members therein need to take a hard look at not only the legal nuances, enumerated above, but, more importantly, the political niceties or otherwise of this newly devised communal binary in the matter of awarding of citizenship as well. Within the structure of a secular jurisprudence and an inclusive Constitution, India certainly can ill-afford to offer naturalised citizenship on the basis of the religious identity of migrants. The political compulsion of the BJP under the Sangh Parivar's tutelage has been understandably at work in drawing the fine lines of this Bill. It is one thing to make historical amends by granting citizenship to a section of migrants who were wrongly knifed out through the Radcliffe Line, but it is altogether a different plan to turn India into an Israel for the persecuted Hindus all over the world.

The Bill also needs to be read in conjunction with the nitty-gritty aspects of the process of preparation of the National Register of Citizens presently underway only in the State of Assam. As referred to earlier in this discussion, the NRC update process, once completed with the publication of the final list, will bring on table the exact number of ‘foreigners' or ‘illegal migrants' dwelling on the soil of Assam. Till such time, it effectively means that the Central Government shall remain clueless as to the real cardinal number of the expected beneficiaries from the provisions of the Bill in question. This, to say the least, exposes the government to a complete lack of wit. As per the data released to the press by the NRC authority in Assam, a total of 68.13 lakh families have submitted applications for inclusion of names on the NRC. Based on the population size of the State obtained from the 2011 census figures, arithmetic tells us that 104 per cent of the population have come under the NRC net. And there's no surprise that all such have claimed to be Indian citizens, albeit by self-declaration. A tricky question then surfaces—whose Bill is it anyway? To get that answer, as has been argued earlier, one has to wait till the NRC authority comes up with a flawless register of Indian citizens residing in Assam with March 25, 1971 being taken as the reference time-line. Once this screening is over, and with the full knowledge of the quantum of post-1971 stream of illegal migrants, can the government do its brainstorming on their fate. After all, the dimension of a problem dictates the policy on it! The Bill in that sense is slightly premature.

If the BJP is indeed very sincere in finding a permanent solution to the question of citizenship for the Bengali migrants in Assam, the only option open is to scrap the special provision enumerated under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. This section appears problematic to both the accused and the accusers in Assam. The Bengali in Assam finds that her right to citizenship by birth under Section 3 of the Citizenship Act is notoriously narrowed by the provisions in 6 A. The Assamese nationalists have reservation against this very section from an opposite angle. They maintain that this unique feature in the Citizenship Act has actually disproportionately expanded the connotation of Section 5 to offer deemed citizenship to the post-1951 migrants from across the eastern border of the country. In a significant judgment of the Supreme Court (JJ, R. Gogoi, R.F. Nariman), dated December 17, 2014, while disposing the writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 6 A of the Citizenship Act, the honourable judges considered it a ‘substantial question as to the interpretation of the Constitution' which, they observed, should be ‘decided by a minimum of five Judges under Article 145(3)'. After all, in a dispensation of ‘sabka saath, sabka vikas', India badly needs uniform citizenship provisions throughout the country. The JPC should propose jettisoning this special provision for Assam, and keep the remaining sections of the Citizenship Act unchanged. Only then the Bill can deliver to those for whom it was primarily purported.

Joydeep Biswas, an Associate Professor of Economics at Cachar College, Silchar, is a scholar with the Department of Political Science, Assam University. He can be contacted at e-mail: joydbiswas[at]gmail.com

by Shamsul Islam

PM Modi, a senior seasoned swayamsevak of the RSS who describes himself as a ‘Hindu nationalist', misses no opportunity to denigrate the minorities of India, specially the Muslims. The latest was when on September 25, 2016, while addressing a national level BJP conclave at Kozhikode, Kerala, he did not forget to share his belief with his captive audience about Muslims being ‘other' or ‘different from us' borrowing directly from the RSS archives. For him, Muslims were not like any other citizens of India but a problem and to put across his message with more clarity he quoted a senior ideologue of the RSS, Deendayal Upadhyaya (1916-1968).1 According to Modi:
“Fifty years ago, Pandit Upadhyaya said ‘do not reward/appease (puraskrit) Muslims, do not shun (tiraskrit) them but purify (parishkar) them'. Do not treat Muslims like vote ki mandi ka maal (vote-banks) or ghrina ki vastu (object of hatred). Unhe apna samjho (regard them as your own).”2
This statement of Modi was widely reported by the media. But the most shocking aspect was that the Hindi word ‘parishkar', which means ‘to purify', was changed to ‘empowerment' by the English media and ‘sashaktikaran' by the Hindi media. Even media houses, which are supposed to be objective, did it3 and the same was with the print media4 except a few exceptions like The Tribune and The Telegraph. It is to be noted that in none of the Hindi/Sanskrit to English dictio-naries ‘parishkar' is translated as ‘empowerment'. Why this ‘creativity' was done to change the meaning of a word spoken by PM Modi is not difficult to explain. The media is working overtime to present Modi as a great democrat despite his Hindutva and anti-democratic/secular leanings.
It is to be noted that at a time when Indian defences are being breached by the terrorists from Pakistan (Pathankot and Uri), in which dozens of brave Indian soldiers have laid down their lives, different parts of the country like Haryana and Maharashtra are witnessing caste-wars and Karnataka and Tamil Nadu water-wars; when Dalits and minorities across the country are facing unparalleled persecution, heinous crimes against women have crossed all limits, and unemployment and rise in prices are at an all-time high in the last five years, PM Modi instead of concentrating on talking on the above problems, chose to talk about Muslims.
It is to be noted that Deendayal was not against minorities, specially Muslims and Christians, only. As a Hindutva zealot and ideologue he believed in casteism, converting democratic-secular India into a Hindu state, centralisation of powers and defended non-participation in the anti-British freedom struggle. He propounded the theory of ‘Cultural nationalism' which was Hindu nationalism, a part of the Hindutva ideology.

Muslims as a ‘Complex Problem'

IT is to be remembered that Deendayal throughout his life treated Muslims not as equal citizens and part of the Indian polity but as a ‘complex problem'. According to him,
“after independence many important problems had to be faced by the government, the political parties and the people…But the Muslim problem is the oldest, the most complicated and it assumes ever-new forms. This problem has been facing us for the last twelve hundred years.”5
This hatred for Indian Muslims was, in fact, the continuation of the Hindutva brigade's inimical attitude towards Islam and Muslims. The most prominent ideologue of the RSS, M.S. Golwalkar, who personally groomed Deendayal as a politician, had earlier described Muslims as ‘Internal Threat No. 1'. Christians were declared to be ‘Internal Threat No. 2'.6 According to him, these two communities could not be described as minorities.

Defence of Casteism

DEENDAYAL was a votary of casteism describing it as not only natural but also practical. He went to the extent of equating it with swadharma (one's own religion). In fact, he declared inequality to be natural to human society, thus treating casteism also as a natural institution. Defending casteism he said:
“Even though slogans of equality are raised in the modern world, the concept of equality has to be accepted with discretion. Our actual experience is that from the practical and material point of view, no two men are alike… Considerable bitterness could be avoided if the idea of equality as conceived by Hindu thinkers is studied more carefully. The first and basic premise is that even if men have different qualities and different kinds of duties allotted to them according to their qualities or aptitudes, all duties are equally dignified. This is called swadharma, and there is an unequivocal assurance that to follow swadharma is itself equivalent to the worship of God. So, in any duties performed to fulfill swadharma, the question of high and low, dignified and undignified does not arise at all. If the duty is done without selfishness, no blame attaches itself to the doer.”7

Questioning Freedom Struggle

DEENDAYAL joined the RSS when he was 26 years old and India was facing one of the most brutal repressions unleashed by the British rulers. Like any other leader or cadre of the RSS, Deendayal too did not participate in the freedom struggle for the obvious reason that it was a united struggle of people of all religions for a democratic-secular India and not an exclusive Hindu project. He denigrated the glorious freedom struggle in the following words:
“we were obsessed by the misleading notion that freedom consisted merely in overthrowing foreign rule. Opposition to a foreign government does not necessarily imply genuine love of Motherland… During the struggle for independence great emphasis was laid on the opposition to British rule… It came to be believed that whoever opposed the British was a patriot. A regular campaign was launched in those days to create utter dissatisfaction against the British by holding them responsible for every problem and misery which the people in our country had to face.”8

Only Hindus form the Nation

DEENDAYAL did not subscribe to the idea of Indian nationalism and stood for Hindu nationalism. He refused to accept Muslims and Christians as co-nationalists despite residing in India for hundreds of years. According to him, only Hindus could be the flag-bearers of Indian nationalism as only they worshipped the Motherland. For them Motherland was like the goddess Durga wielding ten weapons. Hindus formed a stable nation as only they had a common view of life. For him,
“Hindutva alone is the basis of nationalism in Bharat […] It is altogether wrong for the Hindus to prove their nationhood by European standards. It has been accepted as axiomatic for thousands of years.”9

Harmful Federalism

DEENDAYAL, like K.B. Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, and Golwalkar loved centralisation of power and hated federalism as an integral part of the Indian Constitution. According to him,
“ethos of Bharat is such that a Unitary form of government would fit in and that in the very first article of the Constitution, a clear statement that ‘Bharat shall be a Unitary State' was essential.”10

Mysterious Death of Deendayal Upadhyaya

ON February 1, 1968, the dead body of Deendayal was found under mysterious circumstances at Mughalsarai railway station in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Late Balraj Madhok, a senior RSS/Bharatiya Jan Sangh (BJS) leader who preceded Deendayal as the President of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, levelled serious allegations against a few of his old colleagues of the RSS/Jana Sangh for conspiring to kill Deendayal. In his autobio-graphy he stated: “He was killed by a hired assassin. But the conspirators who sponsored this killing were those self-seekers and leaders with criminal bent of mind of Sangh-Jan Sangh.”11
He went to the extent of pointing fingers towards former Indian PM Atal Behari Vajpayee and late Nanaji Deshmukh, a senior RSS ideologue, as the main conspirators in the murder of Deendayal.
According to the autobiography, the murder of Deendayal was not undertaken by Communists or some robber but planned by those who were kept out of the leading positions of the BJS by Deendayal as the President. It is to be noted here that Deendayal, after taking over as the President of the BJS from Balraj Madhok in December 1967, had kept out both Atal Behari Vajpayee and Nanaji Deshmukh from important posts.
According to Madhok, Deendayal was murdered because
“he was constantly ensuring that ill-reputed people should get no career advancement in BJS, so that the reputation of the organisation is not tarnished. For this reason, some characterless selfish people were finding him a stumbling block in their path of self-seeking fulfilment.”12
It is really unfortunate that the present RSS/BJP regime in India, led by PM Modi, instead of strengthening the Indian democratic-secular polity, are resurrecting the Hindutva ghosts and ideologies from the past which have been inimical to our polity. Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya's Hindutva politics needs to be consigned to dustbin. However, Deendayal's mysterious murder needs an answer from our PM and the RSS, they should not shy away from sharing facts on this murder with the nation.

Shamsul Islam, a well-known theatre personality, is a former Associate Professor (now retired), Department of Political Science, Satyawati College, University of Delhi. For some of the author's writings in English, Hindi, Urdu and Gujarati see the following link: http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam

by K. Narayana

Ever since the NDA Government of the RSS Parivar or the RSS family rule came to power with absolute numbers in 2014, tricks have been played to show that they are above corruption. The media houses, mostly of the corporate bodies or the ones that depend upon their ads, keep on telling us that there is no corruption in the Modi Government and everything is transparent. Yes, it is transparent for the select few business houses and their nominees in the bureaucracy who prepare documents of policy for the government on the basis of the dictates of the corporates to whom they owe their allegiance.

We have been listening to the kind of skirmishes between the Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, and the Ambani nominee as the Lt Governor of Delhi, Najeeb Jung. Interestingly, there is absolute agreement between the previous government and that of the NDA in matters of economic policy and the issues that follow. In fact the NDA is sincerely implementing what the Congress had been doing for decades with every important Congress-man involved in some scam. The difference is that Modi and his masters, including the RSS, have selected some contractors and corporates only as their nominees to carry on the business. While the Congress used to talk about secularism and go to Ayodhya up to Hanuman's feet, the BJP /RSS direct groups to indulge in all kinds of petty mafia activities like lynching Dalits, Muslims and others to divert the attention of the common man about the economic plunder. You can see that there will be an orchestrated social tension created by the cohorts of the parivar whenever a serious contract of transferring of huge public resources is involved.

Common sense tells us that whenever Modi or Naidu go out on foreign tour they take an entourage of corporates and the bureaucratic clique along with them to get agreements signed not for the country but for the chosen corporates. Once the papers are ready, a signal goes to the RSS headquarters to create issues of diversion in the form of social tension or huge festival or a yagna etc. to divert the attention of the people and the agreements would be signed. Now, the General Budget is going to be introduced along with Railway Budget in February hinting that the government companies are ready for transfer to private companies. They brought some business economists, who were advisers to corporates entities, to do the exercise of privatisation and kept them in the Yojana Bhavan and called it NITI Ayog. Their job is to identify the units, resources that can be given to the corporates. They do the exercise with the help of their paid experts or intellectuals. One important example is one of their members has produced a report to privatise the Railways and now the time has come to do it in the Budget.

It is against this background that several things are happening in the name of agreements and policy-changes involving not billions but trillions of rupees worth of public sector resources. Now Adani is considered to be the most efficient person than hundreds of trained executives in making the coal and oil sectors productive. Therefore, it is reported (The Times of India, September 21) that the Indian Oil Corporation and GAIL are going to invest in Adani's Dhrma project in Orissa worth Rs 5000 crores. If Adani had any problem with capital or incurring losses in his ventures, public sector units are there to come to his rescue and by intelligently showing his prowess, both in financial and government loyalty to him, he would expand his empire. In all his tours Modi, it is alleged, goes with the Gujarati banias. Another impor-tant business deal initiated by the Steel Ministry is that of Laxmi Mittal of the UK; he is in trouble and will be given the responsibility of promoting SAIL through perhaps merger or joint venture.

It is strange that no one is raising the issue of corruption that involved direct Cabinet Ministers in the case of Orissa, Mr Pradhan of the Petroleum Ministry and Mr Singh, Minister of Steel, in the above two issues. It is without shame that the RSS functionaries talk about corruption of others while members of their own parivar are deeply connected with the above economic operations that involve trillions of rupees. It will be known later that these mergers or investments would be under the direct control of the corporates transferring properties acquired with people's money and sacrifices.

The GSPC, the petroleum company of Gujarat, claimed the gas discovery in the Deen-dayal field with exaggerated reserves of over 20 tcf to recklessly spend thousands of crores of public money. It is not difficult to assume that huge kickbacks might have gone to the ruling party. Let us not forget that during that period the GSPC was constantly under the keen supervision of Chief Minister Narendra Modi, and his eyes and ears were the nominated Director of the Board, Urjit Patel, the present RBI Governor. The final approved reserves are slightly over 1 tcf of gas and the Auditor General pointed out the over-spending. The ONGC is now being forced to farm in to the Gujarat company with over Rs 20,000 crores debt.

The kind of transfers and handovers of the government companies and people's resources to individuals is much deeper now than before. The corrupt Congress is silent on the issues as it was they who brought all this and maybe some of their business cohorts are behind these with the tacit understanding of the NDA. We need to expose this cheating in daylight by the NDA Government. How is it that one individual like Adani or Ambani is more intelligent than the whole system of government? It is simply deceit! Let us expose them.

Dr K. Narayana is the Secretary, CPI National Council. He can be contacted at e-mail: narayanacpi[at]gmail.com

by Arun Srivastava

India's surgical operation in Pakistan occupied Kashmir has boosted the personal image of the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, as a strong ruler; but it has nonetheless provided the politically correct ambience to the BJP to refurbish its nationalist image and instil a new sense of nationalism in the people of India.

Modi, whose political initiatives and actions during the two years of his stay as the Prime Minister, have come under public scrutiny in recent months and he was being seen as a “also ruled” Prime Minister, has resurrected himself as the new face of Indian nationalism and the only leader who can take India to new heights. He has ignited the imagination of the Indians. People have come to compare his governance with the last 15 years rule of the Congress and secular parties.

But unfortunately the euphoria over the triumph of the patriotic operation in PoK has met with an checkmate with Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon saying: “The UN Military Observers' Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) has not directly observed any firing across the LoC related to the latest incidents.”

On his part, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's Prime Minister, had also dismissed India's claims that its military conducted “surgical strikes”. Pakistan rejected the claims as an “illusion” but acknowledged the loss of two of its soldiers in the exchange of fire. Sharif strongly condemned “the unprovoked and naked aggression of Indian forces” and pledged that the military was capable of thwarting “any evil design to undermine the sovereignty of Pakistan”.

Pakistan's denial has no element of surprise. It is merely portrayal of fantasy. Why should India make a false claim? The rebuttal of Pakistan has too many holes. Accepting the Army action would amount to acceptance of the fact that terror camps exist in PoK, a charge denied by the Pakistani rulers. The moment Sharif accepts it, Pakistan would be held guilty of patronising terrorism in Kashmir. It would also negate its claim that Kashmir is witnessing homegrown rebellion, not terrorism. In case if Pakistan accepts it, in that situation it has no alternative but to retaliate against India. Any dithering would inflict severe damage to the Pakistani Army which the Pakistani rulers would not accept.

Surgical strikes happened even during the Manmohan Singh regime, but he didn't employ the Twitter army for credit. On the contrary, the people with Right-wing ideology moved in with lightening speed to hurl I-told-you-so jibes at their ‘liberal' enemies. While they heaped praises on Narendra Modi, the pro-saffron media took upon their unfinished task to project a national hero out of Modi. Intriguingly, a TV channel in its report projected Modi as the super-warrior; as if Modi had single-handedly conceived, planned and executed the entire operation.

What was most shocking was that the media conveniently tried to ignore and forget its own report of how the Army during the UPA regime had carried out surgical operations across the LoC. Obviously the question arises: why has the media launched a misinformation campaign? Is it a partner to some kind of deep design to malign the former Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, and his rule?

Hours after Modi and his colleagues started patting their backs for carrying out the “first” surgical operation, the former Army Chief, General Bikram Singh, came on record to say that such strikes by Indian soldiers have taken place, including in the wake of the decapitation of two Indian soldiers in January 2013 when Man-mohan Singh's UPA was in power. The difference, this time, is that Modi made a political call to own the cross-LoC strikes. In 2013, no one knew that such a strike had even taken place.

The only difference between the two has been this: Manmohan Singh never ‘publicised' such operations while Modi removed all stops to create frenzy in his favour. The Congress even did not allow its party leaders to speak in public about these operations. As a result the people did not come to know about the govern-ment's intentions and actions.

In sharp contrast, in the present scenario the BJP and the media were trying to build up an atmosphere to show the UPA Government and the Congress in extremely poor light; as a weak and timid leadership. What is most cynical and harmful to the interest and morale of the Army is that the supporters of Modi, the media and saffron leaders have been playing the nasty game of negating the gains of the Army under General Bikram Singh during the UPA rule. Dr Manmohan Singh owes an explanation to the people of the country and he must come out. It is time to speak up and tell them what always happens and what happened under the UPA. No more official secret is violated.

Significantly, the General, who was holding the news conference to inform about the surgical strikes, made it abundantly clear that the September 29 strikes weren't the first surgical strikes by any stretch of imagination. Even senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh said that the claims of this being the first surgical strike were far from the truth as the Army under the UPA Government too had conducted several cross-border offensives but never ‘hyped' the issue as much as it was being done by the present regime.

The Indian Army conducted at least two surgical strikes between 2007 and 2013 and those were reported too. But unlike this time around, Manmohan Singh did not stay awake or even if he did, he chose not to leak the information to favourable media outlets to seek cheap publicity or felt the need to prove any other point.

The then Indian Army Chief, General Bikram Singh, admitted killing of 10 Pakistani soldiers in a surgical strike. General Singh warned Pakistan that India would respond in equal measure if Pakistan violated any rules. He rejected the perception that the Indian military had not retaliated against the beheading of its soldiers by Pakistani troops. He had said: “Let me assure you that action has been taken...If I can invite the attention to the Geo TV report on December 23 which talked of their one officer and nine soldiers being killed with 12-13 being wounded. This has happened due to firing of your soldiers on ground.”

A nation needs wisdom of patriotism and nationalism is the natural corollary to this. After coming to power the BJP has been consistently harping on patriotism—whenever it is banning beef or implicating the JNU students in sedition case. The BJP along with the Sangh has been creating a psychological pressure on the people, especially on the Dalits and minorities, to submerge their individual identities in a presumed national identity. The RSS tried to preach of one ethnicity, one race, one culture and one system of values that binds the people of India. Based on this ideological orientation the Sangh leaders tried to lay down rules on what one should eat or wear or read or view; they in fact conspired to define the Indian life through their narrow prism of Hindutrva.

The BJP's attempt to define a nationalist as one who will say ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai' was a gross distortion of history. After some protest the Sangh Parivar retreated. But this continued to be on the agenda of the BJP and Sangh. The sad episode of Uri provided the Sangh Parivar the opportunity to exploit the sentiment of the common Indians and reach out to them with their repackaged mission.

It would be purely an act of naivety to believe that the Congress lost only because of corruption and misrule. The manner in which the other secular forces were marginalised and wiped out from the electoral scene underlined that the element of ultranationalism, a far-Right sentiment, has percolated deep down in the psychology of the people, particularly the urban middle class, which witnessed the Congress being pulped. The Congress leadership could not comprehend the changing nature of the polity. Basically this was the prime reason for the worst electoral defeat of the Congress. Like the BJP, the Congress does not have a strong and ideological think-tank to analyse the socio-political developments in the right perspective.

The secular ethos has been basically Centrist in character. It is not a sort of ideology under which the cadres play the decisive role. The regional satraps of the Congress have their own perceptions which imbibe the regional feelings and aspirations. The fact has to be conceded that the Congress and secular forces have provided ultranationalism with the right type of breeding ground.

The BJP coming power after long years marked the blossoming of a perilous ultra-nationalism. For decades the aggressive nationalist forces have been lurking in the shadows. Now they are out in the open and trying to push their agenda with tremendous velocity. No doubt the rise of the extreme Right polity is a reality in India today, but once in power they have been treading cautiously. While they have been assiduously pursuing their programme and ideology, they never give the impression that they are in a hurry. Significantly this task is being performed by Modi with adroitness and with utmost excellence. Modi took upon himself the task to launch an ethnic cleansing of the nation.

The strategic importance of Modi for the Sangh Parivar could be gauged from the simple fact that his jibes and indictments were not taken seriously by the RSS. It helped create the feeling that Modi is a changed person and he was committed to protect the ethical chord and traditions of the country notwithstanding his bitter and harsh criticism of Nehru and the latter's legacy. In the present situation Modi was projected as the man who can redeem India from the curse of terrorism.

At the Delhi meet of March 23, 2016 of the party's National Executive, Amit Shah in his presidential speech had declared that the BJP would take on the “anti-national” elements and echoed the RSS demand that firm action be taken against “anti-national” activities in the universities. At the meet the BJP pushed its version of aggressive nationalism which in reality is Hindu nationalism. The resolution adopted at the meet described refusal to chant “Bharat Mata ki Jai” as disrespect to the Constitution. The BJP had declared that this is not just a slogan but “the reiteration of our constitutional obligation as citizens to uphold its primacy”. Simply through a resolution the BJP turned the chanting of “Bharat Mata ki Jai” into a constitutional obligation.

It is worth mentioning that the BJP had in fact complied to the demand of the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, who had earlier said: “Now, the time has come when we have to tell the new generation to chant ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai'”.

The BJP and RSS have been indulging in the most dangerous game. While the task to present the façade of good governance and vikas has been entrusted upon Modi, the party boss, Amit Shah, and other leaders of the front organisations of the Sangh Parivar have been assigned the task to propagate the Hindu nationalist agenda and the communal campaign against the so-called “anti-national” elements. The operational success of the tasks is regularly monitored by the RSS boss.

Ultranationalism is divisive and not very different from fascism though senior Marxists nurse divergent views and are reluctant to accept the Modi Government as fascist. Fascism is opposed to liberty, and the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the state and of the individual within the state.

The debate on nationalism has also helped the BJP turn the public focus away from the more pressing social and economic issues the country is facing. Incidentally, the Modi Government has not been able to implement any of its policies and keep the promises made to the people during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. Party MPs took out tiranga yatras in their constituencies to celebrate Independence Day, another pet idea of the PM.

True enough, even during the 2014 election campaign Modi had dropped enough hints of the possible course of events that would emerge during the rule of the BJP. That the party would follow the ideology of divisive ultranationalism was clear. The RSS and BJP want to change society so that India becomes a strict Hindu nationalist nation, and dissenters are given short shrift had become obvious. The saffron leadership is aware of the fact the unless a renewed surge of ultranationalism takes place and swallows India's regional and international prospects, the saffron cannot think to survive in India which is basically a Centrist polity.

The RSS is dedicated to the cause of Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism and the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra, or Hindu polity. RSS volunteers played an important part in Modi's campaign. Obviously the RSS and its Parivar members expect him to deliver on the key demands of the RSS. During Modi's rule the core agenda of Hindutva nationalism has become central to the politics of the country. The way in which the BJP is situating itself as a central force in Indian politics might well mean that the coming decade will see the rise of a new saffron hegemony.

By giving too much publicity to the surgical operation, Modi was in fact trying to accomplish the task of the RSS. He was seeking to shake the Hindutva feeling of the people. In a significant move in the post-surgical operation scenario Narendra Modi also invoked Jana Sangh ideologue Deendayal Upadhyaya to say Muslims should not be treated as a votebank. Rather they should be considered “your own” and be “empowered”. Modi said at a time when nationalism was looked at in “negative light” and there were questions on how minorities should be treated, Upadhyaya had suggested a solution.”Don't reward Muslims. Don't rebuke Muslims. Empower them. Don't think of them as votebanks or commodities, think of them as your own,” he quoted Upadhyaya as saying.

The author is a senior journalist and can be contacted at sriv52[at]gmail.com

The Indian journalists must be compulsorily made to read the parting speech by Helen Boaden, Director of the BBC Radio, as she resigned from her position last weekend, on how the scramble for ‘breaking news' is degrading and destroying what used to be a wonderful profession. She valiantly makes a case for ‘slow news'. (Independent)

At issue here is the Indian media coverage of our “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control at Pakistan on September 29. India has been whipped into frenzy by the media. What happened is not good for the health—of indivi-duals or of the nation. Fortunately, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley interjected with perfect timing to take the mind away to the exciting vista of the “biggest disclosure” in independent India's history by tax-evading crooks.

But that crime thriller can make the “surgical strikes” go away only momentarily. According to news from Islamabad, a top aide to PM Narendra Modi contacted a key figure on September 30 to convey to PM Nawaz Sharif India's desire not to ‘escalate'. But then, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar promptly undercut Modi the very next day by just recalling the Caesarean section by India to take out the little Bangladeshi infant out of the Pakistani womb. (The Hindu)

So, Jaitley is passe. The prospect of war with Pakistan is wide open, again. Parrikar must be rather pleased with himself. In fact, he is only being true to himself. Remember his famous statement in June last year that the people of India were losing respect for the Indian Army, because it no longer fought wars! (DNA)

Meanwhile, the “surgical strikes” as such remain an enigma wrapped in mystery. The government has officially stated very little on the actual operation. Almost the entire Indian media coverage is based on off-the-record briefings or hearsay, or, worse still, the fiery imagination of journalists. Spin doctors had a whale of a time.

Two things must be said about Indian Army: one, it takes the business of war very seriously and will not make exaggerated claims; and, two, it is very precise with words. Especially so, the office of the Director-General of Military Operations (DGMO), the transcripts of whose conversations with Pakistani counterparts I have had occasion to read in their dozens while heading the Pakistan Division in the Ministry of External Affairs.

However, in his entire presentation on September 29, DGMO Lt. Gen. Ranbir Singh actually said nothing to corroborate what the media reported. And he read out from a prepared text.

Troubling questions arise.

Not a single American lawmaker—and there could be quite a few who are within the orbit of the Indian embassy's influence—has spoken specifically about our “surgical strikes”. They only speak about India's commitment to counterterrorism. These are of course Congress-men who are willing to speak up for India in real time, rain or sunshine. Why are they so aloof?

The US State Department briefings too neatly sidestepped our “surgical strikes” and stuck to old mantras—supreme importance of India-Pakistan engagement, etc. Nor did the White House read out on the conversation between NSA Susan Rice and her Indian counterpart, Ajit Doval, make reference to “surgical strikes”. (One could argue, perhaps, Doval couldn't be expected to disclose beforehand an imminent James Bond-style operation, but then, Rice represents Washington's ‘defining partnership' with the Modi Government.)

To be sure, Americans have positioned military satellites above India that could spot a bat flying in the dark. And they must be knowing what exactly happened.

Again, Russians too have advanced capabi-lities. In fact, a Russian Army contingent is conducting exercises in Pakistan. Yet, the Russian official media tiptoed around our “surgical strikes”. The RT report pointedly noted: “He (DGMO Ranbir Singh) did not elaborate on the nature of the operations, or whether Indian troops had entered Pakistani territory.”

There were no references to our “surgical strikes” by the FO spokeswoman in Moscow, either. Maria Zakharova, in her briefing on September 29, touched on 12 different topics and took thirteen questions, but there was no take on “surgical strikes”.

Now, the unkindest cut of all is that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon's spokesman disclosed in New York on October 1 that the UN Military Observers' Group in India and Pakistan “has not directly observed any firing across the LoC related to the latest incident (of September 29)”. We simply stonewalled the UN's remark.

It is all becoming rather murky. In the absence of authoritative statements, Pakistani version gains the upper hand—namely, that there were no “surgical strikes” and that Indians simply hyped up artillery exchanges and are hiding heavy casualties.

Perhaps, the MEA spokesman could at least contest the Pakistani version factually. It's anyway ‘slow news' already, as Helen Boaden put it.

Ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

The Pakistan-India Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD) notes with concern the escalation of jingoism both in the use of language as well as actions by India and Pakistan in recent times. The announcement of ‘surgical' strike by the Indian Army across the border inside the territory of Pakistan Administered Kashmir in which it claims to have killed 35 ‘militants', is an unacceptable action in gross violation of established international law and the objectives of the United Nations. Though Pakistan has claimed that the Indian Army's claim of the ‘surgical operation' is a ‘false claim', the truth remains shrouded in propaganda and counter-propaganda which is the hall-mark of a war-like situation, What is known is that villagers from Uri across the LoC and the international border in Punjab in the plains are abandoning their homes and hearths and have started moving from their villages in search of safe sanctuary.

The Indian Government's threat to scrap the Indus Water Treaty is not only a gross violation of the rights of the lower riparian state, its cancellation will create a massive humanitarian disaster leading to collapse of agriculture and supply of drinking water in several parts of Pakistan It will be a crime against humanity as it will punish millions of innocent civilians.

We, the members of Pakistan-India Peoples' Forum for Peace and Democracy, strongly condemn the manner in which both India and Pakistan are using the tragedy of Kashmir as a political weapon to berate each other in the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly. It is an attempt to completely deny the legitimacy of the struggle of the Kashmiri people to protect their cultural, linguistic and social identity and self-rule.

We urge the leaderships of the two countries to restart the process of dialogue as there is no other way to normalising the situation. We also appeal to the people striving for peace to make their voices heard loudly. Let us as citizens of the two countries get together to create an atmosphere where our children can live in peace and not be impelled to take the path to violence.

Asha Hans, Anuradha Bhasin (Co-Chairpersons,PIPFPD India), Jatin Desai (General Secretary,PIPFPDIndia), I.A. Rehman (Chairperson, PIPFPD Pakistan)

EDITORIAL

In both Pakistan and India there have been certain noteworthy developments following the ‘surgical strikes' carried out by the Indian armed forces across the LoC on September 29.

In Pakistan there were mass demonstrations in PoK protesting against the rulers' move to shift the jihadi terrorists into places where they would reside by the side of the common citizens since the terror group members are frequently coming in conflict with the locals. There was also an ugly spat between Shahbaz Sharif, who heads the Punjab Government, and the ISI chief. Also the Pakistan Army Chief, Rahil Sharif, delivered a hard-hitting speech against India pledging a fitting rebuff if New Delhi attempted to attack Pakistan. Is this a precursor to the armed forces under Rahil Sharif taking over the reins of power in our neighbouring state dislodging the elected head of government in Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif? Whether or not such an apprehension would come out to be true, what is indisputable is that instructions have been given to the non-state actors working at the behest of the military to inflict heavy casualties and damages on the Indian Army in Kashmir; the possibility of large-scale terror-acts during the festive season in India is also not being ruled out.

In India, some of the Opposition parties demanded proof from the Modi Government to verify the latter's claim of the special forces having carried out the surgical strikes inside PoK. An undercover operation by a TV channel yesterday has revealed that an SP in PoK (of the Mirpur Range) had admitted of the surgical strikes which, according to his information, had resulted in the death of 20 persons among whom were five Pakistani militarymen. This has put a lid on the controversy in this regard.

However, the strikes have not been able to end cross-border terrorism as the incident in Handwara today, wherein three terrorists were gunned down, shows.

At the same time, Rahul Gandhi has come out openly to accuse the PM and BJP of ‘hiding behind the jawans' and seeking to ‘profiteer on the soldiers' blood'. There has been a huge outcry with the spokesmen of the ruling party assailing such a statement but even non-Congress Opposition parties have been prompt to point to posters in Lucknow comparing Modi to Lord Ram after the surgical strikes and decrying the naked attempt to politicise the Army action for the BJP's petty electoral benefit. Just yesterday Modi had warned his party leaders not to resort to chest-thumping after the successful strikes but the first to violate that directive was his own Defence Minister today at a rally in Agra.

All these bring out the level of politicisation among parties in India and persisting India-Pakistan tensions after the ‘surgical strikes'. And the Kashmir Valley continues to bleed while there is no sign of public alienation from the authorities ending soon.

October 6 S.C.

by Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd

All lovers of equality should celebrate October 5 as the Indian English Day. We declare that ‘English is Indian'. We study in English and preserve our buffalo cultural nationalism as against the unproductive forces of cow nationalism.

English teaching started in Calcutta sometime in October 1817 by gathering a few Brahmin male children both by British educationalists and Indians. In 2017 we need to celebrate the 200th year of English education in India. In the last few years we, the Osmanians at the Osmania University's Monumental Arts College, built by the famous Osman Ali Khan, the last Nizam, celebrate October 5 as the ‘Indian English Day'. Everyone knows that October 5 is the ‘Inter-national Teachers Day'. Some of us thought that it should also be celebrated as the ‘Indian English Day'.

In 1817 English teaching started by imparting English alphabets to some Brahmin children because in those days there was no scope for the Dalit bahujan or even the upper Shudras to study in any school. Even persons like Raja Rammohan Roy, who were associated with these initiatives, were casteists. Roy thought of reforming the Brahmin women's life but never took any initiative for educating the lower castes.

The first educated modern Shudra in India was Mahatma Jotirao Phule, in a Scottish English medium school in Bombay province. That was much later in the 1840s as Phule was born in 1827. The Calcutta province was in the grip of the Britishers and Brahmins. No caste reform movement was initiated by the Bengali Brahmins. A shudra ruler like Shivaji resisted Brahmin hegemony in the Bombay region and initiated some changes there.

Subsequently, his grandson, Sahumaharaj, took a serious step of anti-Brahmin mobilisation of Shudras and Dalits. Thus, English education began in the land of the Dalit bahujan. If Calcutta province represented the Brahmin English, the Bombay province represented the Dalit bahujan English.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar was the first Dalit to get the English medium education and later on a world-class higher education. Even the Muslims of India were pushed back in English education because they were for Persian and Urdu education. Sir Sayyad Ahmmad Khan pushed the ideology of English education into the Muslim community. Now there are several English-educated Muslims in India due to Universities like Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia.

Today the Dalit bahujans and Muslims and other minorities are in the present position because of English education, though they are the least educated. If a person like me, having come from a totally illiterate shepherd family, could challenge the mighty Brahminism that controls the state power, temple power, even the educational power structure, it is because of English (earlier Sanskrit), though learnt under a tree, at a very later age in my village.

The celebration of the Indian English Day is to checkmate the Hindutva forces from confining the SC/ST/OBCs to regional languages and to educate the rich and upper castes in private English medium schools with their money power. Our struggle is to establish common medium and syllabus-based schools for all children—the rich, poor of any caste.

I appeal to all those lovers of equality to cele-brate October 5 as the Indian English Day and tell the diabolical convent and foreign English educated people—you cannot stop us from learning good English education in our village schools with the bogus theory that English is not an Indian language. We declare that ‘English is Indian'. We study in English and preserve our buffalo cultural nationalism as against the unproductive forces of cow nationalism.

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is the Director, Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, at Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad. The views expressed here are his own.

At the start of Trinamul Congress chief Mamata Banerjee's indefinite dharna at Singur on August 24, 2008 on the issue of returning 400 acres of land outside the Tatas' Nano car project (which land is to be used for setting up ancilliary industries) to the peasants from whom it was forcibly acquired, Medha Patkar delivered a speech the gist of which appeared in Dainik Statesman. The following is a rough English translation of whatever appeared in Dainik Statesman (in Bengali) for the benefit of our readers. As many as 21 camps of those offering dharna had been set up in Singur under the banner of Krishi Jami o Jiban-Jibika Raksha Committee (Committee to Protect Agricultural Land, Life and Livelihood) spearheading the demand of the Trinamul chief, and several political parties like the SUC and PDS as well as a large number of mass organisations had joined the dharna. We are also reproducing an article that appeared in Mainstream Republic Day Special 2007 on the Singur peasants' struggle based on interactions with them. Both are of relevance today when the Supreme Court has passed a historic judgement on the Singur issue. Both were published in the September 6, 2008 issue of Mainstream.

The Chief Minister is Lying by medha patkar http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article918.html

Democracy at a Discount: Singur: The Resistance Continues by sumit chakravartty http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article917.html

by samit kar

The recent historic judgement passed by the Supreme Court on the Singur issue has made the Left suffer a terrible blow yet again. After a 34-year stint in West Bengal, nothing seems to be on the right path for them. Subsequent to 2011, the concept of the ‘Left Front' seems to be de jure instead of de facto. The CPI-M is the scapegoat now as they did amass unbridled power when they were in office. The landmark judgement is, no doubt, historical regarding the question of land acquisition in our country. Also critical is to assess why the CPI-M became so infantile to favour the Tatas to set up their motor car industry in Singur in the Hooghly district covering an expanse of about 998 acres of fertile agricultural land.

The Supreme Court judgement categorised the decision of the then Government of West Bengal as illegal and directed that the entire chunk of land be handed over to the peasants without asking them to repay the pecuniary compensation, which they could get nearly 10 years ago. It further observed that the entire process of returning the land had to be settled within six weeks from the day of the judgement. In a landmark statement the judgement noted that the effort of the then Government of West Bengal was uncalled for as a government either at the State or Central level cannot wish to acquire land from the common people and hand it over to a private entrepreneur to establish the latter's profit-seeking business.

This remark was made in the context of the existing law of the land. But Parliament needs to examine in future the existing law to update it since in the era of liberalisation across the world the critical task of poverty reduction and employment generation cannot be accomplished without the endeavour of the private players. When the government has already decided to withdraw itself from its commanding heights position in the economy, how can industriali-sation and expansion of the service sector happen without private venture? Who can deny that a peasant cultivating his or his master's land as an agricultural labourer always desires his descen-dants will have a non-farm livelihood bearing a superior status? The practice of agriculture may indeed provide vital supplement necessary for human survival. But the transition from an agri-cultural to industrial economy is a natural pheno-menon common to all countries across the world. Therefore, the question of industrialisation at the behest of private players is happening everywhere and the Parliament of India as the highest forum of law-making may need to critically discuss the veracity of the vexed issue threadbare.

The SC observation to declare the effort illegal and arbitrary might have been further reinforced due to the complete reluctance of the Tatas to carry forward their mission in Singur for which they sought this huge quantum of fertile land. West Bengal had suffered the severe brunt of partition and the dreaded communal divide. Thus it has become India's most densely populated State with a mammoth unemployed manpower. Some had been very harsh to say that the people out here were not unemployed but simply unemployable. The CPI-M had no option but to go all out to vie for industrialisation by engaging private capital. In 2004, the Congress-led UPA Government came to power and the Left then had a formidable presence with 65 Lok Sabha members. Somnath Chatterjee became the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and prior to the formation of the government, Jyoti Basu suggested the name of Sonia Gandhi as the Prime Minister. Though she declined to accept the offer, Sonia became enamoured of the CPI-M and declared that she was eager to see West Bengal become the most industrially developed State of the country. Soon she appointed Ratan Tata, the Chairman, Investment Commission of India, as the super Industry Minister of our nation and instructed him to work with right earnest to fulfil his dream.

Somnath Chatterjee, in his address as the chief guest at the Sankrail Utsav in December

2005, assured that West Bengal was poised to make a miracle in the sphere of industrialisation. Sankrail was earmarked as an industrial growth centre in the Howrah district adjacent to the National Highway 6 commonly known as the Bombay Road. Prior to 2004, the Tatas did set up a Cancer Hospital in Rajarhat near Kolkata and desired to have more industrial and business units in Kolkata. The advice of Sonia Gandhi raked up Ratan Tara's interest and the CPI-M getting this unbridled opportunity for the first time in West Bengal, lost its prudence and rationality to aid the process.

The then government envisaged to offer non- fertile land to the Tatas in areas like Purulia and Kharagpur to establish their motor car industry. But the Tatas were in no mood to oblige and insisted to get a land as close as possible to Dumdum Airport for their personal convenience. In this way, the huge piece of fertile land in Singur along the Bombay Road was selected. The decision in this regard later proved to be incorrect. But 10 years ago, the CPI-M thought that the decision of the Tatas as the most credible industrial house to set up industries one after another in West Bengal will create a mass euphoria, especially invigorating the youth of Bengal. Understanding this social factor, the Opposition might have decided to protest en masse to thwart the Tatas in Singur. The sluggish approach of the Tatas might have made the entire process go haywire. The Tatas were unable to meet success and so was their much publicised Nano. But we need to under-stand that in order to see a turnaround in West Bengal, the transition from agriculture to industry as the base of the economy and society needs to be accomplished at any cost. The challenge to give a befitting leadership lies with the present policy-planners and that is not a mean task indeed.

The author, now retired, formerly belonged to the Sociology Faculty at the Presidency University, Kolkata.

by arun srivastava

Believing in Marxist ideology and imple-menting it are two different issues. An individual may be an ardent subscriber to the Marxist ideology but he would find it tough to practise the ideology. Marxists in India do not strictly adhere to the basic tenets of Marxism while imple-menting it in the Indian scenario. The failure of the Indian Communists and Marxists is generally viewed in the backdrop of the collapse of the Soviet Union and it is said that with this Marxism lost its relevance and has become redundant.

Irrespective of whether this is a wrong perception and inference, the fact remains that the Indian Marxists are to be blamed for the creation of this situation. The fallacy is that the Indian Marxists, instead of owning up their mistakes or accepting their failures, shift the blame taking recourse to wrong interpretations and analyses of the existing conditions.

Except in Kerala, nowhere else in India was the Marxist ideology implemented in its true and correct perspective. It was their belief in the Marxist tenet that even in 1957 the people of the State elected the first Communist Government in India. The installation of the Marxist Govern-ment there was more relevant and important than a Marxist-Leninist Government taking control of China under Mao Zedong. Kerala's Marxist Government came to power under a democratic structure without a protracted Marxist uprising as had happened in China.

It is the defeat of the Marxists in West Bengal that is being cited as the classical example of the waning of Marxism as an ideology in India. Some intellectuals and academics shed tears that the national footprint of the Left has shrunk. The Left parties, which had won sizeable number of seats in the Lok Sabha in 2004, failed to maintain their tally in the later elections. Today they are restricted to just three States: West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. The Commu-nist Parties have not been able to gain ground over the past few years.

A bourgeois tendency has developed to use the electoral gains or losses to judge the rise or decline of the Communists. True enough, the Marxists are to be blamed. They have popu-larised this concept. The CPI-M winning the Assembly elections in 1977 in West Bengal was portrayed as Bengal turning into a red citadel. People voting against the Congress were showcased as Bengalis becoming Marxists and the State turning into a liberated zone. This kind of interpretation undoubtedly lacked wisdom and vision. How could a person believing in Marxism and dedicated to the class struggle be swayed away by such frivolous gains?

Instead of consolidating the gain the Marxist leaders indulged in disfiguring and bending the Marxist doctrine and its principles. Nothing could illustrate it better than the recent develop-ments in the matter of land acquisition in Singur for the Tatas' Nano project. The Supreme Court on August 30, in its scathing criticism of the way the CPI-M Government in West Bengal acquired land from farmers and leased it to the Tatas, described the acquisition process a “farce”. It went on record: “In Singur the CPI-M Govern-ment exercised its ‘eminent domain power without following the statutory provisions' to acquire the land from farmers. In acquiring the vast extent of lands having immense agri-cultural potential, the government deprived the agricultural occupation of a large number of land owners/cultivators, thereby depriving them of their constitutional and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”

What was most unfortunate was that the CPI-M leadership instead of accepting the failure graciously and promising to undertake a rectifi-cation drive, put the blame on the Land Acqui-sition Act 1894 for the recent upset where the Supreme Court struck down the acquisition of 997 acres at Singur. A statement issued by the CPI-M Polit-Bureau said: “The acquisition process had to be undertaken under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act, which was the only legal instrument available at that time. This was an Act, which did not protect the interests of farmers adequately.” The State Secretary, Surjya Kanta Mishra, ruled out a public apology for land acquisition.

The failure of the Singur project, which led to the downfall of the 34-year-old CPI-M-led Left Front rule in 2011, has been the classical happening in recent years. The CPI-M leadership projected it, at the time of its inception, as the symbol of the revival of industry in West Bengal. The State CPI-M leadership enjoyed the blessings of the then General Secretary, Prakash Karat. Endorsing the process of land acquisition in Singur, Karat had even given a clean chit to Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee's industrial roadmap, saying that the compen-sation and rehabilitation package on offer in Bengal had no match in the country. Karat clarified: “We are working on a general guideline on how to accommodate industry and urbani-sation based on a scientific land use policy. This will apply to all the States including West Bengal.”

Buddha also said: ”We are trying to keep fertile lands out of the project sites, as far as possible. But it isn't possible to set up industry on fallow lands only. For the percentage of fallow lands in Bengal is less than one per cent against a national average of 17 per cent.” Buddha further took moral responsibility for rehabili-tation and finding an alternative livelihood for the affected—the land-losers, bargadars, unre-corded bargadars and wage labourers.

Significantly in the wake of protest by the villagers of Singur, demanding that the West Bengal Government return 400 acres of land acquired from unwilling farmers, Karat had said: “The Tata project has to go on in the interest of West Bengal. The government will sort out the problem.” Later Karat said 70 per cent of the over 11,000 landowners, from whom 997 acres of land was acquired in Singur, had accepted the compensation offered by the West Bengal Government. “The compensation is fair under all standards,” he said. “The issue has now taken the form of a political struggle on whether the project should go on.” However, he said the struggle by those dispossessed of their land in most cases was for better compensation.

“Industrialisation in the long run is inevitable and in the interests of the peasantry. Industriali-sation provides for future needs in a labour-surplus country like ours,” Karat stated. But the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricul-tural purpose like infrastructure projects has to be balanced with the need for food security which is essential for national sovereignty, he added. The matter of the present rural crisis and rural distress is a direct outcome of liberalisation and neo-liberal policies. “We have to ensure that even within the capitalist frame-work poor peasants do not become victims of the brutal process of expropriation,” Karat said. However, Karat's political edifice was demo-lished in one go by the Supreme Court on August 30.

True enough, his political analysis and evaluation of the BJP and Modi Government and refusing to accept them as fascist forces has been his clever strategy to divert the attention of the people from his failure and blunt the criticism against him. Karat, who played a crucial role at the Siliguri party meet in 1991 to distance the party from Gorbachev's line, is not naïve to understand the implications of the Apex Court verdict.

Prakash Karat has come out with his theory that the Narendra Modi Government was “authoritarian” and not “fascist”. This is in sharp contradiction to the line held by the present party General Secretary, Sitaram Yechury, who untiringly connects the Modi Government with Adolf Hitler. Yechury has repeatedly alleged that the BJP-RSS want to convert our democratic republic and secular India into a “fascist HinduRashtra”. What is really surprising is that through his thesis Karat, who is supposed to be the hardline face in the party, seeks to enlighten the “ignorant” Left and liberals. According to Karat, fascism could not be established under the given conditions in the country. Unfortunately he did not elaborate the conditions conducive to establishing fascism.

Invoking the classic definition of fascism, Karat tries to identify the similarity between the Sanghi Modi and Islamist Recep Erdogan of Turkey and says both are authoritarian but not fascist. As if this was not enough, Karat said: “The political struggle against the BJP cannot be conducted in alliance with the other major party (the Congress) of the ruling classes.” Karat has been pleading this line from his days as the General Secretary. But he miserably failed to find a perfect ally. Moreover his stand has forced the party into a state of isolation. Both his theories are nothing but a well-planned attack on the line associated with those supporting the current CPI-M General Secretary, Sitaram Yechury. Karat is aware that once the party comrades are involved in polemics on these two issues, failure of his leadership in Singur would not get attention and be buried forever. Else, what was the need for this analysis at a time when the Marxist role in acquisition of land for industrialisation should have been debated? The Apex Court's verdict should have become the base for a thorough and in-depth polemical debate on the role of the Marxists in land acquisition under a bourgeois and neoliberal economy.

The implications of the Singur judgement go far beyond West Bengal, for the argument made by Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra underlines one thing starkly: the “brunt of development” should not be borne by the “weakest sections of the society, more so, poor agricultural workers who have no means of raising a voice against the action of the mighty State Government”. The SC verdict recognises that ‘growth' and industrialisation' do not come without costs and who pays for those costs remains a key question at the end of the day. In any case, the judgement makes it clear that the Left Front had not even adhered to “the proper procedure as laid down in the Land Acquisition Act”; so it is nothing less than comic to suggest that the party's and government's hands were tied by an archaic law.

While Karat argues that there has to be clarity in defining the character of the BJP, he writes that it has organic links to the RSSwhich has a semi-fascist ideology

.

Obviously the question arises: how could a party having organic links to a fascist organisation be only authori-tarian? This is absolutely misleading.

Yet another reason for not accepting the BJP as a fascist party is that in that case Karat has to do away with his earlier stand that the CPI-M should maintain distance from the Congress. Accepting the BJP as a fascist party would imply that the move to have alliance with the Congress to save democracy is justified.

Indians have always been attracted towards communist ideas. The primary reason for this has been the schism between the rich and poor, which has created hatred towards capitalism. No doubt during the freedom struggle the Congress leadership tried to get the support of the extremely poor and Scheduled Caste population, some leaders at the personal level succeeded in this too, but the Congress at the organisational level as such could not take a big stride in this direction. Besides other factors, such as Ambedkar's political strand, had a major impact.

A closer look at the rise of the Left in Bengal makes it explicit that this was primarily due to the leaders who were associated with the peasant movement at the grassroots. The CPI-M emerging as the dominant Communist Party after the 1964 split was also due to this factor. However, in independent India these leaders could not give shape to their movement. Yet another reason for the CPI-M's inability to consolidate its peasant base was projection of Jyoti Basu as the ultimate leader. He was projected as a Communist from a rich family committed to the poor people's cause. This was a manifestation of middle class Leftist romanticism.

Basu changed the class character of the Marxists. This was clearly visible in the matter of land acquisition for industrialisation in Singur and Nandigram. It is a historical fact that Basu had ordered to shoot innocent peasants in Naxalbari in 1967. Had he been committed to the proletarian cause, he would certainly not have given that order.

The Left's decline in West Bengal must be seen in the backdrop of the political flare-up over land acquisition for industrialisation in Singur and Nandigram. It was after these protests and the death of more than two dozen farmers in police firing in March 2008, that the Left Front suffered a major setback in the panchayat elections of 2008. Since then it has become an unstoppable slide.

While the CPI-M, especially the West Bengal leadership, came under severe criticism for its land acquisition policy within Left circles, the State unit of the party has maintained that the top leadership was not responsible for the turn of events. A document, titled “The Left Front Government in West Bengal: Evolution of an Experience”, adopted by the CPM's West Bengal State Conference held in February 2015, had put the blame on the local leaders. It described the Nandigram events as a result of “unnecessary initiatives of a section of the local leadership”.

The political and ideological struggles of the Left parties have hit a blind alley as correctly emphasised by the political resolutions of the 17th Party Congress of the CPI-M. The leadership miserably failed to identify the main enemy: whether it was the bourgeois forces represented by the Congress or the communal forces led by the BJP. It is an open secret that communal fascism of the Sangh Parivar, with its ideology of the Hindu Rashtra, now poses a grave and unprecedented threat to the secular fabric of Indian democracy.

While the Centrist political parties have no ideology and owe their political survival and existence to caste factors, the Left forces are grossly confused over the strategy to fight fascism. Karat's thesis is a manifestation of this confusion. At the political level this is manifest in their approach to club the Congress and BJP together.

Karl Marx was the first thinker to draw attention to the highly venomous impact of caste on Indian society and its link with the relations of production. In his famous essay on The Future Results of British Rule in India, Karl Marx characterised the Indian castes as “the most decisive impediment to India's progress and power”. Marx correctly argued that the caste system of India was based on the hereditary division of labour, which was inseparably linked to the unchanging technological base and subsistence economy of the Indian village community.

In recent years the younger people across the country tend to keep away from the left political parties and political spectrum. This is in sharp contrast to what was seen in the seventies and even in the early nineties. The youth of today are more socially progressive and are looking for an activist government. Unlike the youth of yester years, today's youth support social spending and are in favour of higher taxes if it means better public services. They desire to have active participation in the power mecha-nism and dynamics.

In 1991 when Laloo Yadav took to fighting against the hegemony of the feudal and upper- caste people, the youth of the backward castes rallied behind him. They responded to Laloo's call on the lines of caste affinity and identifi-cation. Even during those years the Left parties utterly failed to entice and enroll this huge population of youth. It is worth recalling that the hard-core Naxalites belonging to the Yadav caste elected to the State Assembly on the ticket of the IPF, a frontal organisation of the CPI-ML, switched their political allegiance and loyalty to Laloo and joined his RJD since it represented the power dynamics of the Yadav caste.

Apparently this was indicative of the end of the Indian youth's romance with communism. The youth have come to nurse the opinion that communism has lost relevance in the post-liberalisation era. Maoists at their recent Congress emphasised to reach out to the youth. The party lacks new blood and young faces. Maoists ought to do serious introspection as to why the youth were not willing to join them. It is historically correct that the youth were the main force for the Left in India. The roots of the communist movement in India go back to the 1920s when the Communist Party of India was founded as an alternative to the existing Congress-led anti-imperialist movement. The movement was driven by angst against the economic injustice of the rich and wealthy class.

The youth lapped up the new idea of change and power dynamics. What is the reason that the Maoists fail to attract them? The disillusion-ment of the youth also owes to failure of the Communists to bring about revolution. Thousands of youth sacrificed their lives, they were either killed by the police or by the private goons. The Left leaders in fact betrayed these youth by not spearheading the movement on the correct political line.

Communist roots only persisted in Kerala and Bengal, where the aspirations of the youth matched with the ideologies of the Left. Ironically even in these States the Left parties have lost the support of the youth. In Bengal the youth have preferred to rally behind Mamata Banerjee. The primary reason is again the same: the young person perceive these organisations as the symbols of power dynamics. In a neo-liberal economy the young person has become too much conscious of his future and economic viability. He wants to live a good and prosperous life. The recent developments and moreover the once Leftist youth, turning into big corporate honchos, have made them nurse the futility of Left politics and ideology. The Left leaders have not succeeded in making them realise the importance of the Marxist ideology and philosophy.

Yet another factor that ought to be mentioned is that the youth of the bourgeoning middle class are not inclined to lose their economic gains and comfortable life by embracing the ultra-Left. They have learnt the futility of aligning with them. Eminent Left intellectual Prabhat Patnaik felt that the appeal of the communist movement among the youth and society at large had waned, and identified three factors that contributed to it; “One is the ploy of neo-liberalism supporters to direct the failings of the system towards a person or a political party instead of the basic idea itself. For instance, the huge corruption and misgovernance by the UPA is projected as the incompetence of either Prime Minister Manmohan Singh or that of the dynasty of the Congress.” Second, unlike in the past, today's agitated youth have to face many issues. This is a major factor that contributed to the lack of interest among the youth in the communist movement in the country. Finally the Communists should understand that they could still build a social revolution in a country that had long been mired in social evils like the caste system. No doubt some parties are emerging from social movements but it is only the Left parties which can convince the people that they alone can provide space for both social movement and power dynamics, and be a governing option.

The elections in India have been a sort of manifestation of the social protest against the failure of the party in power. The Left parties unfortunately could not accomplish the task of channelising this mood of the people. The reason is that the Left, particularly the Maoist and Naxalite leaders, failed to connect with the common people. After Charu Majumdar, it was Vinod Mishra, the General Secretary of the CPI-ML, who could articulate the feelings of the people and connect with them. The IPF could win a number of seats in the State Assemblies or even Parliament due to this factor. Why did the Left parties, particularly the Naxalites, fail to get those votes? It is a mistake to narrow the answer down to just one reason. But it must be remembered that the Left's messages are not especially popular today.

The Left has also failed to provide a platform to those actively looking for a party, who want parties relevant to their lives and to the power dynamics. Little doubt that India's Communists are losing their touch with the people and fast- changing world around them.

After the first wave of farm reform exhausted its potential, they needed fresh ideas. Land reform had run short of fresh ideas; it has remained a mere rhetoric and farm produce prices were falling. Like the urban middle class, the peasants now also aspired for better lives. With the growing influence of the market forces in the national economy and increasing competition between States to attract private capital, the Communists are in a state of confusion to match their anti-corporate, anti-globalisation rhetoric with the practice of competitive federalism. People prefer to repose their trust in the regional parties. The decline of the Communists possibly means that the “party-society” is now unravelling. Nevertheless functioning in a democracy, the Communist Parties are resumbling social democrats with Stalinist tendencies.

The author is a senior journalist and can be contacted at sriv52[at]gmail.com

From N.C.'s Writings

While there is no doubt a lot on which to attack those in authority for their dereliction in running an orderly system of governance, one has to ask at the same time why there has been such an appalling deterioration in social conscience in most of our public activity. In other words, the corrosion of values in public life is not confined to Ministers and top bureaucrats, but has become all-pervasive, the pollution of morals seem to choke out public service.

If we look around, there is undoubtedly a widespread feeling of being let-down by those in power, those who have been assigned the mandate to rule by the public that has elected them and placed them on the position of authority. It is precisely because of this reason that the Chief Election Commissioner has suddenly become a phenomenon—applauded by the public that expects him to weed out corrupt practices from the business of election, while he is the target of attack largely by those who feel that their citadel of vested interests in the business of vote-collecting is being invaded by Seshan's attempt at weeding out irregularities in the running of the election machinery. Khairnar might be reckless in his charges against Sharad Pawar, but the fact that he, a minor fry in the bureaucratic set-up, could brace up to make such charges of corruption against the Chief Minister, who is patently on the defensive, shows that in the public mind Pawar's reputation cannot smother out such a critic from inside the very government over which is presides. And quite likely there are many more Khairnars waiting to be counted in the months to come. Obviously the ministerial standing for probity has plummeted so much that it cannot make short shrift of critics from within the bureaucracy itself.

If we look back on the immediate past, we find that in the last ten years corruption has become a by-word in our public life and is having a deleterious effect on the stability of the government. The fact that criminalisation of politics has become a serious item of concern for responsible people in politics irrespective of party labels—and not just the exaggerated outburst of some chronic critics of the establishment —shows the dangerous deterioration in our public life. All this has begun to stir the public in general. The shock of the scam, that nobody in authority is prepared to take the responsibility for, has contributed in no small measure towards the sapping of public confidence in the government.

But the government apart, the callous irres-ponsibility of people at different stations of public life is now becoming an issue of intense comment and concern all over the country. The scandal of the capitation fees for entry into educational institutions—and the angry objections at any ban being imposed on this vicious practice—has been widely commented upon and one would not be surprised if this touches off violent protests. It is not merely the crass commercialisation involved in this practice—which is nowadays sanctified by the authorities in the name of worshipping the God of the Market—but the bankruptcy of any coherent education policy of the government that is going to be the target of popular attack.

The mismanagement of hospitals, with large-scale pilferage of medicines, and the mercenary attitude of many of the eminent people in the medical profession bordering on venality, is widely talked about and may one day break out into angry outbursts from the deprived sections of the public. Meanwhile, the hospitals are not only neglected but left almost uncared for in large cases, while these are overcrowded indicating the magnitude of the needs of the people.

While there is a lot of enthusiasm in the community of students and youth, one finds very little effort at harnessing the youth power for gainful public activity. The universities are riddled with factional politics for which all parties are equally guilty, and one finds no effort at providing leadership on the part of the teaching community towards creating a sense of dedication and public service among the students. There are pockets of inspiring initiative on the part of the students in such activities as the mass literacy campaign, but one finds little effort on the part of those in public life to divert youth power to nation-building activity. The political leadership diverts the youth mainly for election purposes, while there is conspicuous absence of any sustained activity for socially relevant issues. While there is a proliferation of high-cost entertainment of the disco and pop types for the rich, there is hardly any concerted move to involve the vast segments of the less affluent and the impoverished among the youth. Whatever gainful activity by way of recreation and healthy social pastime comes to view is mainly through individual and local enterprise.

The sense of public accountability has gone down so miserably in service sectors all over the country where bribery has become the rule. How shocking this has become could be noted by the present writer during a recent visit to Gujarat. A leading member of Mrinalini Sarabhai's Darpana Academy had lost his brother in a car accident. After post-mortem, the body was deposited at the well-known government hospital, Sayajirao General Hospital, Baroda. The mortuary was found to be in a state of utter dilapidation—without any effective cooling arrangement, bodies in a state of decomposition, limbs thrown apart, blood oozing all over the place, and a putrid unbearable smell with insects swarming all over. The locate the body, the staff there extracted a bribe, and to get a piece of cloth to put the dismembered body together, he had to shell out more money. Even the autopsy is carried out in a primitive manner with dismembered parts of the body often found scattered all over the place.

This hideous state of the morgue has long been commented upon by the local people but no action has been taken by the authorities. A local reporter commented:

There is no respect for the dead as the administration has been running the mortuary and the post-mortem department in a most callous maner for the last several years. Time and again, people who come here to claim bodies of their dear and near ones have complained of the appalling condition. But the dead command no priority in this hospital.

Why the dead, the living are relegated to a low priority attention in this allround decadence. While such a state of decomposition in many of the services hits the eye, one cannot help contrasting this decadence with the inspiring and uplifting experience of the work of many of the activist groups all over the country. A conspicuous feature of Indian public life in the last twenty years has been the phenomenal proliferation of what may be called NGO activity in different departments of public life. While the preoccupation of the political parties is almost wholly confined to election politics from the panchayat to Parliament, these activist groups can be found engaged in multifarious activities—from helping in rural-welfare, housing for the poor, literacy and education, environment protection, appli-cation of appropriate technology, popularisation of science, medical services and numerous experiments in cottage industries. Some are groups which are intensely rational in their outlook, others with a religious motivation. Their standards and approaches may be diverse and uneven, but their eagerness to serve the people can hardly be questioned.

But in the arena of power politics, these dedicated soldiers do not figure at all. Here is the basic problem of the Indian reality today: the state of our conventional politics or the silent dedication of the activists—which of these two will finally win?

(Mainstream, September 24, 1994)