VOL.

1 ISSUE 2 AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2008|RS 10

TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN THE OTHER VOICE
OF THE PEOPLE

KASHMIR: BLOOD IN VALLEY |2 GORKHALAND |6

QUESTIONS CONCERNING TIBET |3 NUKE DEAL |20
SUPER POWER DREAM|4 SOCIAL FASCISM |7
CLASS ANALYSIS OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE |13
TOWARDS VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008
A NEW D AWN
E DITORIAL
“…How many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free
Yes, how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn't see……”
The road-roller of globalization is suddenly on a verge of decadence- the
balloon of share market has reduced its size, the oil shock and inflation has
taken most household commodity beyond the reach of millions of people
around the globe. Even the US and European countries are facing the music
of crisis of global capital. Europeans are reinventing their bicycles, which
has remained long forgotten in the garages, the fuel price have really hit
them that hard. (are they going back to the medieval period?)
But Indian ruling class has kept their finger on their lips. Tata is going to
launch the Nano and it is through the hands of “Communist” Chief Minister
of West Bengal Buddhadeb Bhattacharya who emphasizes that private
capital will pave the path for socialism (recollect the slogan that echoed
throughout the CPI (M) rally in Singur- Long Live Marxism, Long Live
Ratan Tata). The other states of India are also busy fighting over their share
of private capital investment. The state governments are proactively
conspiring to sell off the water, land and forest resources; even human
resources are being sold to the foreign masters according to plan drawn by
the Indian capitalists. From Congress to BJP and CPI (M) to BSP- all are
involved in the business of jobless 'growth', industrialization and
modernization.
A glaring crash in the Dalal Street, unprecedented inflation rate are
revealing the skeletons of national economy and political bankruptcy of the
mainstream parties. Various mass movements throughout the nation are
attacking the existing system harder and harder each day - multicolored
ruling parties are increasingly finding the answer to these questions only in
bullets. The most recent example of this is the firing in Noida by
government of (dalit leader) Mayavati on the deprived peasants. It is
becoming evident that as the finance capital facing crisis its vanguard
political ruling class is resorting to violence.
Another Lok Sabha election is knocking at the door soon the leaders will get
busy trying to dupe the masses yet again in a shower of false promises and
false hopes. The solution to eighty crores marginal, poor Indians will be
penned down in manifestos of all colors and shapes. But we have seen that
change never comes on a platter. Kings come and kings go, but kingdoms
remain in darkness for ever.
It gives us hope when we see resistance of the people of Singur-Nandigram-
Posco-Kalinganagar, resistance against all odds in basic demand of bread
and employment, when we see people fighting against land acquisition in
Kashmir raising slogans in the favor of freedom. Their demand for their
right to self-determination and the demand for economic freedom of the
downtrodden people of Indian are but opposite sides of same coin. As
A.G.Frank an economist had said “development and underdevelopment are
opposite sides of same coin, development of the first world was and still is
due to underdevelopment of the third world.” In this scenario if people stand
in “favor of change”, it means standing for these struggles for survival and
existence.
Blood in the Valley: State Terrorism in Kashmir
in the 90s
-Sidharta Guha Roy
The Kashmir valley just retorted again. The dispute began after the
Kashmir government promised to give forest land to a trust that runs
Amarnath, a cave shrine visited by Hindu pilgrims. At least 23 people have
been killed and over 500 injured in clashes between Muslim protesters and
police till now, hospital records show. The government then rescinded its
decision, which in turn provoked BJP backed Hindus in Jammu who attacked
lorries carrying supplies to Kashmir valley and blocked the region's highway,
the only surface link with the rest of India. BJP and RSS making mess of
situation, turning the communal riots and whipped up Hindu emotions. We
are focusing on the historical expansionism of Indian State over Kashmir, to
understand the inherent dissent of Kashmir people--
Editor
2
The early days of the 1990s saw the beginning of a militant
insurgency in Kashmir. The insurgency had immersed few years before it
exploded fully. In November 1947, immediately after Kashmir's accession to
India, Jawaharlal Nehru; the Indian Prime Minister, declared that, “the
question of the state's accession should be settled by a reference to the
people.” But the proposed plebiscite did never take place. The Indian state,
for the next 40 years, not only denied the right to self determination of the
Kashmiris, but also by constitutional manipulations transformed the status of
Kashmir like that of any other Indian province. In 1987, five youths in jail,
with a view to liberate Kashmir from Indian hegemony, formed an
organization, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). They were Yasin
Malik, Asfaq Wani, Abdul Hamid, Sheikh Ijaj, Ahmed Dar and Javed Mir.
They declared that, in order to establish the right of the Kashmiris, popular
discontent should be turned into an armed struggle for liberation. The demand
for 'Azadi' echoed everywhere in the valley. The days of peaceful protest int
hevalley came to an end and the situation became rife for an armed
insurrection. Brutal state repression had been unleashed by the Indian state to
suppress the protagonists of the right to self determination. Ruthless violation
of human rights has, in fact, questioned the civilized entity of India.
The Indian state had legalized its brutality by introducing a number
of repressive laws in the valley. Public Safety Act, 1978, was extensively used
throughout the 1990s to curb the activities of the supporters of 'azadi'. It is a
kind of preventive detention act which allows two years detention without
trial. The years between 1990 and 1995 saw the indiscriminate use of the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), 1985 in the valley. This
draconian act had the provision of appointing designated courts, where
victims were tried not in a public place, but in absolute concealment. The
designated courts framed under TADA could even pronounce the death
sentence. The valley also saw the rampant use of the Armed Forces Special
Power Act. The Act empowered the armed forces to use force “to the point of
causing death' to any person inspected for committing any “cognizable
offence”. These undemocratic and repressive acts encouraged the Indian
army as well as the paramilitary forces to commit thousands of extra judicial
murders in the valley. An Amnesty International Report (January 1995)
observed, “The brutality of torture in Jammu and Kashmir defies belief. It has
left people disabled and mutilated for life.” An army officer proudly stated in
April 1993 “We don't have custodial deaths here, we have alley deaths.” Even
the women and the children were not spared. A Women's Fact Finding
Commission observed in October 1997, “The atmosphere prevalent in the
valley is that of fear and gloom. Women face constant humiliation and
insecurity.” It has been roughly estimated that about 60,000 people had been
killed in the 1990s by the Indian Security Forces in Kashmir.
The state terrorism fell heavily on the human rights activists as well
Hriday Nath Wangchoo, Dr. F.A. Ashai, Dr. Abdul Ahad Gun and Jalil
Andrabi were among the prominent victims. Wangchoo, a trade unionist and
a retired IAS officer tiled a writ petition against extra-judicial execution in
Kashmir. On 5 December, 1992, he was killed. It was reliably believed that
BSF was behind his murder. Dr. Ashai and Dr. Guru were the physicians who
had treated thousands of torture victims. Both of them supplied necessary
information on terror and atrocities perpetrated by the Indian Security Forces.
They were murdered in 1993. Jalil Andrabi, a prominent lawyer worked for
the families of hundreds who mysteriously “disappeared” after being taken to
the custody. He was killed in March 1996, when he was detained by Rashtriya
Rifle soldiers. “He was so successful in his dangerous and difficult work that
he had to be savagely silenced.” Read the obituary of Jalil Andrabi in the
pages of Kashmir Times.
In reality, stern and human attitude of the Indian armed forces,
encouraged by the rulers, has absolutely alienated the people of Kashmir. Pro-
Pakistani militants have come forward to exploit the situation. Battle for
'Azadi' launched by the Kashmiris has three phases. In the early 1950s,
Sheikh Abdullah and his National Conference tried to achieve right to self-
determinationby way of a peaceful protest. The Government of India refused
to ascribe any importance to this peaceful demand of the Kashmiris. Waiting
for about 40 years, the Kashmiris took arms to fight the Indian armed forces
and their atrocitites. They raised the banner of 'Kashmiriyat' in their fight for
the right to self determination. But excess of the Indian armed forces
committed against the fighters for Azadi as well as against the Kashmiris in
general. The alienation of the Kashmiris became so crucial that pro Pakistani
elements, backed by Islamic fundamentalists came to dominate the
movement. The activities of the Islamic fundamentalists, in fact, provided the
Indian state with an opportunity of calling the upsurge of Kashmir an anti-
national movement.
Use of force in the valley by the protectors of law and order is often
sanctioned by a persistent campaign on behalf of the Indian state that Pak-
sponsored terrorism forms the crux of the problem in Kashmir. But this
presents only a part of the entire picture. The valley is actually confronted
with the problem related to unfulfilled hopes and aspirations of the
Kashmiris. The Indian rulers should give up the policy of perceiving the
people's protest in Kashmir as a mere law and order problem instigated by
Pakistan and alight from the high pedestals of military might to recognize the
popular will of the valley.
Write to us at - towardsdawn@gmail.com

QUESTIONS CONCERNING TIBET
Amit Bhattacharyya
(Author's note: In March 2008, all leading Indian newspapers and
TV channels published and telecast news of a rebellion in Tibet, which
incidentally was the fiftieth year of the “free Tibet” rebellion in 1959. Almost
immediately after that, most of the media, as if all of them were expecting such
an event to happen, started publishing news about how bad the Chinese
authorities are, how the Chinese Communist Party, since the days of Mao Tse-
tung, had suppressed the genuine aspirations of the Tibetan people in China
for freedom, how the PRC encouraged Han chauvinism and above all, how
China had occupied Tibet, which was, according to them, never part of the
Chinese territory. Not only leading newspapers, but many periodicals in both
English and Bengali, if not also in other vernacular languages, started a
slander campaign against China and Communism. Many eminent
personalities belonging to different professions, while criticizing the forcible
suppression of the protest movements inside Tibet, also poured their venom
on the Communist ideology. However, what is significant is that all of them
kept total silence on the Tibetan serfdom associated with the Dalai Lama rule
and the fundamental socialist transformation brought about by the CPC in
association of the people of Tibet in the 1950s. Most of the writers, in their
haste to denounce the recent bloodbath, only betrayed a profound ignorance
of the historical relations between China and Tibet and the part played first by
the British and then by the US imperialism as also by the then Indian prime
minister, Pandit J.N.Nehru. While dealing with the question concerning
Tibet, one should strictly adhere to facts; one should keep in mind the fact that
China of today is totally different from what it had been during the time Mao
Tse-tung was at the helm of affairs, that today's China has deviated so much
from Mao's policy and the ideology of Communism associated with him that it
had become a capitalist power long time back. So the policy pursued by the
present-day government of China can never be the same as that pursued
earlier. This essay seeks to analyze the events right from the ancient period
and will continue until the late 1970s, after which, along with the change in
the colour of China in the post-Mao phase, there might have been changes in
the policy towards Tibetans and other small nationalities.
“Most of the kaloons* of the Tibetan local government and the reactionary
clique of the upper social strata colluded with imperialism, gathered together
rebellious bandits, rebelled, wrought havoc among the people, held Dalai
Lama under duress, tore up the 17-article Agreement on Measures for the
Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, and on the night of 19 March, directed the
Tibetan local army and rebels in an all-out attack against the People's
Liberation Army garrison at Lhasa. Such acts which betray the motherland
and disrupt the unification of the country cannot be tolerated by the
law…”(Premier Chou En lai's 'Order of the State Council of the People's
Republic of China' dt. March 28,1959; *The local government of Tibet is
called kasha and its six members are called kaloons in Tibetan). The rebellion
was crushed within three days by 22 March. According to official reports,
about five thousand armed rebels were killed; the number of casualties on the
PLA side is not known. In March 2008, on the fiftieth anniversary of that
rebellion, sections of the Tibetan population rebelled against the Chinese
government and raised the “Free Tibet” slogan. The movement spread to
some other areas and countries including India. Within a few days the
movement was quelled in China.
This movement raised a hue and cry in some quarters both in India and abroad
and brought into the focus some questions, some of which are historical in
nature while some others are directly related to the present situation in China.
The following questions are being raised: whether Tibet was historically part
of China; what was the policy of the People's Republic of China and the stand
of Mao Tse-tung towards small nationalities in general and Tibet in particular;
the policy of the PRC towards Tibet after 1949; what happened in 1959; what
was the role of US imperialism and the government of India led by Nehru
towards the issue of Tibet etc. What is evident from the discussions that have
come up since March 2008 and available in India is that some pertinent
questions have virtually not been dealt with at all, or only in passing. One is
the historical relationship between China and Tibet; the other is the nature of
the dark, cruel serf system in Tibet that was uprooted by the Chinese
Communists and how a new socialist society was created there.
For the sake of convenience, I propose to divide the whole discussion into the
following sections: 1) Was Tibet historically an integral part of China? 2)
British imperialist designs on Tibet(Early 19th century--1949); 3) Tibet in the
China-USA-India Relationship; 4) Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai on the
question of small nationalities in China; 5) Background of the Rebellion of
1959; 6) Nehru and Tibet; 7) Why are foreign powers such as the USA
TOWARDS
VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 A NEW D AWN
interested in Tibet? 8) Tibetan serfdom 9)Transformation of Tibet from a
feudal country into a socialist one; 9)Is China a threat by example?
Section 1: Was Tibet historically an integral part of China?
China, admittedly one of the largest countries of the world, is the home of
fifty-six nationalities. Nearly 94% of her people belong to the Han
nationality. Besides the Han, there are many minority nationalities such as the
Mongol, Hui, Tibetan, Uighur, Chuang, Miao, Yi, Kirghiz, Tatar and others.
The interesting point is that the population of the minority nationalities in
China is small, but the area they inhabit is large. The Han people comprise
94% of the total population--an overwhelming majority, but they are settled
in about 40 to 50 per cent of the total land area in China. On the other hand, the
other 50 to 60 per cent of the land area is, as we can well understand, very
sparsely populated by the other 55 small nationalities of China. All these
nationalities contributed through long years of cooperation and interaction, to
its formation as a united country.
Relations between China and Tibet were established on a firm basis during
the rule of the Tang dynasty in China(618-907 AD), though contacts and
exchanges between the Han and Tibetan nationalities and between their
ancestors, antedate written history. During the Tang rule, there were no less
than 100 missions exchanged between the two countries and eight treaties
concluded by them. In 641, Emperor Tai Tsung of the Tang dynasty married
Princess Wen Cheng to the Tibetan king, Sron-tsan Gampo. She took with her
silk-worm eggs and a large number of Han craftsmen specializing in brewing,
rice-milling, paper and ink-making. This helped in promoting the economic
and cultural development of Tibet at that time. According to Buston, the
historian of Tibet, the Chinese princess was largely responsible for the
introduction of Buddhism in Tibet and the Tibetan looked upon her as an
incarnation of the Divine Mother(Tara). When Emperor Tai Tsung died and
Emperor Kao Tsung was enthroned, king Sron-tsan Gampo wrote to the Tang
prime minister, saying: “On this occasion of the enthronement of the emperor,
if there are subordinates who show disloyalty I am willing to dispatch troops
to join in the expedition against them”. The new emperor bestowed on him
many titles of honour. Such close relationships between the Tibetan and Han
nationalities became further strengthened in 710 AD, when another Han
princess, Chin Cheng, was married to the then Tibetan king Tridetsogtan
during the reign of the Tang emperor Chung Tsung. Thousands of pieces of
silk and brocade, Han acrobats and musical instruments as also copies of
classic works were sent to Tibet. All these helped in facilitating further access
of the Tibetans to the handicrafts, techniques of production, music,
scholarship and culture of the Hans. In 729 AD again, the Tibetan king
Tridetsogtan wrote a memorial to the Tang emperor Hsuan Tsung in which he
said: “I, a relative of the former emperor, also have the honour to be married to
Princess Chin Cheng and we are thus members of one family, and the common
people throughout the land live in happiness and prosperity”(italics ours).
This is a document of historical importance as Tibet and the Tang empire were
described as “members of one family”. Thus matrimonial bonds helped
promote social, economic, technological and cultural contacts of a profound
nature between the Tibetan and Han nationalities. Large numbers of Tibetan
emissaries were frequently sent to the Tang court; they presented tributes and
applied for trade. The Tibetans thus were not treated as “men from afar” as
was the attitude towards the foreigners during the rule of the Manchu dynasty,
but one of their own.
In the middle of the 9th century when the Tang rule was coming to a close, the
Tibetan king Lang Darma of Tibet was killed by the upper strata of the lamas
and chaos reigned supreme. During that long period of turmoil, a general, in
response to a proposal from some quarters to install a new Tsanpu, declared:
“How can a new Tsanpu be installed without the conferment of the title by the
great Tang dynasty.?” The French scholar Grenard, in his book Le Tibet put
forward the view that the Tibetan ruler Sron-Tsan Gampo had already
recognized the Chinese emperor's sovereignty over Tibet.
During the period of Sung rule in China(960-1279 AD), Tibet became weak
and divided and the Sungs, faced with internal problems, could hardly devote
any attention to Tibet. Thus there was a weakening of the link between the two
nationalities. Tibetan-Chinese relations took a definite turn with the rise of
the Mongol dynasty(Yuan) from 1271 to 1368 AD, following the great
conquests of Jenghis Khan and his grandson Kublai Khan, who ruled as
emperor of China. Its consequence on Tibet-China relations was of the most
far-reaching nature. Kublai Khan enforced the pacification of Tibet with even
greater energy and ferocity than his predecessor Monga, who had already set
up pacification bureau along the western border of Szechuan. Kublai set up a
contd. to page 10
3
TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN
SUPERPOWER DREAM COMES
CRASHING
- Sumit Chowdhury
'India is shining splendid. The stupor is over and the sleeping giant has woken
up. The day is not far off when this great beloved India of ours will be an
economic superpower, at par with the best and the brightest in the world. Sare
jahan se achcha. Chak de India.'
So were pronouncing, with a great deal of relish, the power-crazy politicians,
in power or not, and the government's neoliberal policymakers and
propagandists barely six months ago. So were articulating the wool-in-the-
eye but all-knowing scribes and idiot-box commentators, echoing the over-
the-moon sentiments of the astronomical wage-earning corporate managers
and their super-profit-accumulating employers. Bankers, stockbrokers and
all the other go-getters of the world were on a high like never before.
And they did not utterly go wrong, at least on the surface of it. The annual
GDP growth rate had been ascending at a frenzied pace; both industry and
agriculture had been keeping the health of Olympic athletes, on both counts
of productivity and aggregate production – the latter in large part due to a
more than a decade of good rains; the bag holding foreign exchange had
begun to show a bulge – though not quite bursting at the seams; and the
sensitivity metre of share prices had been hovering to hit the roof of the tall
tower in Dalal Street. It was, let there be no doubt, the happiest hour for India's
super-rich and the ever-burgeoning HIG yuppies.
But the whistle blows when it is least anticipated. The spectacle freezes just
when the firecrackers are to rent the sky. The trumpeters of neoliberalism stop
blowing, the bugle brigade of corporatism halts their march and the spectators
who had come all the way to see the colourful pageant of a society on the
soaring freeway of a free-market-induced economic growth leave in a huff.
All of a sudden, the wheels of the grand chariot of 'shining India' look wobbly
and made of some very brittle stuff.
The party is over
To get a close-up snapshot of a carousing party ending in a whimper, let us
turn our gaze at some tellingly symptomatic figures:
In the first week of January this year, the authoritative forecast was that
India's real GDP growth rate would touch 8.5 percent – one of the highest in
the world, next only to that of China – by the end of the year. It was a
prediction that was not without some merit. The GDP has been, in truth,
growing by leaps and bounds for the past half a decade (after having remained
a steady 4.7 percent in the three-year period of 2001-03) and its multiplier
effect, and even the 'trickle down,' could be felt by all sections of the society,
particularly the 'feeling good' middle classes.
But 'April', wrote TS Eliot, 'is the cruellest month.' And by the time the heat
and dust of an Indian summer settled down in April, the picture did take an
unexpectedly Eliotian turn. Belying all the hype about an impending
economic boom, the GDP growth – geared by runaway inflation, yawning
trade deficit, stock market downslide and slowdowns in the industrial and
service sector growths – went on a reverse trail. If in January, India had
already taken a giant stride forward towards an economic paradise, by April,
the country had gone two strides back towards an economic purgatory. And
the drive backwards continues even in the full monsoon month of August, at
breakneck speed, apparently without a brake.
In the week ending January 5, 2008, the Wholesale Price Index (WPI)-based
inflation rate in the economy was a mere 3.8 percent. Today, on the eve of
India's 61st Independence Day, the rate has gone up to an unprecedented 12.89
percent, raising fears that it may touch a gruelling 14 or even15 percent before
the onset of the festive season. As is always the case in an economy marked by
deep income disparities, the working people, the petty producers, the self-
employed and the salaried classes are the worst-hit by the phenomenal price
rise triggered by this upward inflationary movement. A trip to the roadside
vegetable vendor or the grocery around the corner nowadays inevitably raises
the flow of blood to one's head.
The picture is as bleak apropos the industrial landscape. The rate of growth
for industry, which was assumed to be around 12 percent by the end of the
year, dipped dramatically from a moderately high annual average of 8.9
percent a year ago to about 3.5 percent in April this year, the lowest in several
years. According to official data released on August 12, the industrial growth
in the second quarter (April-June) of this year plummeted to 5.4 percent as
against 9.8 percent in the same period the year before.
The main reason attributed to such traumatic decline has been a less-than-
poor performance of manufacturing and the core infrastructure industries.
Growth in the manufacturing sector, which accounts for more than two-thirds
4
Manufacturing, it may be recalled, had exhibited a similar trend in the first
quarter (January-March) of 2008 as well, growing by a rather poor 5.6 percent
compared with 11.1 percent in 2007.
As regards infrastructure, the growth rate of the core industries – crude oil,
petroleum refinery products, cement, finished steel, coal and electricity – fell
to 3.5 percent in the second quarter as against 6.4 percent during the
corresponding period the previous year. Only coal (and thus, mining) fared
reasonably well, registering a growth of 3.5 percent in relation to a negative
growth of 3.6 percent last year (the mining sector bounced back to post 2.9
percent growth compared with 1.5 percent) even as electricity did the worst,
falling to 2.6 percent against 6.8 percent a year ago. Such appalling feat on the
industrial front has sent shivers and shockwaves down the midriff of the once-
buoyant industry circles.
The service sector, too, has not fallen behind in this mad slide downwards.
Software trade, financial services, real estate, automobiles, air travel,
tourism, hospitality, advertising and even entertainment – all of these are
showing either stagnation or decline in growth rates, putting an abrupt end to
the merrymaking of the last few years. The party, clearly, is over and an air of
gloom appears to be descending on the high-spirited crowd of professionals
and service-peddlers.
The confusion is further compounded by the simultaneous occurrence of
extraneous events such as the sudden surge in international crude oil prices.
Because of such record rise in crude prices, India has had to expend 50
percent more of her foreign exchange reserves in the current fiscal year
(2008-09) than in the previous fiscal year (2007-08). Government data on
August 1 revealed that the country spent $25.5bn on oil imports in the first
quarter this fiscal, more than 50.2 percent from $16.9bn spent in the same
quarter the previous year. In June alone, the oil bill was $9bn, up by 53 percent
from what was spent in the same month the year before. The result is a
cavernous chasm in the country's balance of payments, the deficit in crude oil
trade itself rising by 42 percent from a year ago, from $21.4bn to $30.4bn
(although exports at an average of $118.50 per barrel during the quarter
swelled by 22.3 percent in dollar terms, imports rose by 29.7 percent). The
effect on the already downsliding economy as a whole has been, to say the
least, debilitating. It is the common man who has had to pay for the lack of
vision displayed by our economic thinkers in blindly aping the capitalist west
and going the whole hog for an oil-driven economy; the oil-dependent
lifestyles the urban globalised classes have adopted for themselves are
equally to blame.
The globalised chattering classes, flush with credit cards, bombarded with
titillating temptations of free gifts and discount purchases, served with a
barrage of offers of car loans, loans for penthouse apartments and luxury
vacations and with the holding out of a vast vista of investment opportunities
in ULIPs and mutual funds are developing a mindset never seen before. It is a
mindset that has not only dedicated itself wholeheartedly to unrestrained
consumerism but also, more so, bred an irresistible craving for acquiring,
through the mediations of stock and real estate markets, capital assets that
grow rapidly in size on account of the high rates of appreciation in values.
This is, what may be termed as, 'new capitalism' – the capitalism of finance –
in which paper value is seen to be the true indicator of economic strength.
India, for this new breed of asset-stockpiling Indians, resident or non-
resident, has arrived in the global market, not so much because of the
presence of Indian goods and services in the world market but because it is
they who have arrived, as reflected in the sharp increase in their paper wealth.
An insane paper chase without parallel in India's business history!
But the market, which they hold so dear to their hearts, has, after the magical
spell of the past few years, shattered the illusion, as only the market can.
Business Line (July 6) reports: between January 8-July 8, 2008, the sensex
nosedived from a peak of 20,873 to 13,454 or by 35 percent. Measured in
dollar terms, the market capitalisation of Indian stocks went down by 46
percent in the period January 1-July 8, one of the highest in the world when
compared with the similar downslides in South Korea (25 percent), Hong
Kong (24 percent), Brazil (3 percent) and Mexico (0.5 percent). Vietnam is
the only country in Asia that fared worse than India; China followed close
behind India with a 42 percent decline.
Business line also reports in its issue the day before (July 5): On January 8,
2008, there were 522 billionaires in India, many among the Forbes list of the
world's richest. But by July 4, the number had come down to 421 as 101
erstwhile billionaires suffered 20-65 percent erosion in their net worth. All
because of a 35 percent fall in sensex. Anil Dhirubhai Ambani endured a
heavy loss that nearly halved his wealth from Rs253,567 crore to Rs115,878
crore while his estranged brother Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani lost more than
30 percent.
The party, it may be asserted with the risk of repetition, is over for India's
paper-money capitalists. The band has stopped playing, it's pack-up time and
everyone's going home.
contd. to page 5

contd. from page 4
SUPER POWER DREAM
The collapse of a 'bubble economy'
The collapse of India's shortlived economic boom was predictable from the
very beginning. One saw it coming once one saw through the layers of cheap,
artificial gloss it had padded itself up with. It had no real basis in strong
fundamentals and the inevitable bust was only a matter of time. The bubble
had to burst and it did.
The roller-coaster ride took off on the belief that growth, and unbridled
growth alone, can end India's age-old poverty and herald economic
prosperity. The credo became the country's official policy in the mid-80s
when it emerged as the official diktat of the US-created and US-controlled
international financial institutions for the developing world. The obsession
over growth has been persisting since then.
In order to augment the growth rate, the first task was to shed the caustic
'Hindu rate' (a measly 3 percent per annum) tag that got stuck to it during
Nehru's fuzzy 'mixed economy' and his daughter's hypocritical 'Garibi hatao'
days. When Nehru's grandson took over the country's reins, he, on the
instructions of the World Bank and IMF, set about lifting all those things that
stifled the free growth of both market and monopoly. Later, when a former
World Bank economist took charge of the country's financial affairs in 1991,
he spent no time in launching the 'reform' era at the command of the Bretton
Woods twins. Since then, the growth rate has been steadily moving upwards,
breaking into a free steeplechase run when the same distinguished economist
of the World Bank vintage became India's premier in 2004. The partying had
begun.
The growth rate could take such a steep trajectory in the last four years or so
because the 'reform' agenda carried out primarily on the basis of neoliberal
prescriptions promoted the development of a speculative economy. Towards
this end, productive investments were given the short shrift and the doors of
the capital and financial markets were opened to all and sundry. The idea was
to generate a generous growth of demand in the virtual market, so as to
compensate for its deficiency in the real market owing to lack of purchasing
capacity of the vast exploited, enslaved masses.
The government went to town to develop the rather exploratory and non-
productive financial market. Since the government itself could not indulge in
speculative activity, it went on a 'privatisation' spree, in tune with the bogus
'free market' philosophy and making it easy for the entry of big, monopoly
players, Indian or foreign, into the Indian economy in controlling positions.
Public sector banks were privatised, government share in even profit-making
companies were withdrawn, the cap on the voting rights of private
shareholders in private banks were taken off, pension funds were diverted
into the stock market for investments and insurance companies were allowed
100 percent foreign ownership. This was 'finance capitalism,' pure and
simple, at its pre-eminent standing.
In order to mop up the available resources for the financial market and
generate an artificial demand for its products (which was all on paper), a
credit-fuelled, consumerist economy was conceived and a number of avenues
were provided to involve cash-rich citizens in the paper chase. Shopping
malls were coming up a dozen a day dotting the skyline of each and every city
or town, big or small, and bank credit for everything from housing to
jewellery was just waiting to be picked up.
According to the Economic Survey, 2006-07, outstanding bank credit to
housing rose from Rs89,449 crore at end-March 2004 to Rs224,481crore at
end-March 2007. The real estate boom had, in turn, spurred a boom in other
sectors such as steel, cement, tiles, glass and various types of fittings such as
electrical, plumbing, furnishing, and consumer durables like fans, air-
conditioners, kitchen ranges, so on. The production of passenger cars
(including MUVs), too, grew from 0.67m in 2001-02 to 1.5m in 2006-07 and
two-wheelers from 4.3m to 8.2m; outstanding credit for the purchase of cars
and two-wheelers has risen from Rs46,020 crore in 2002-03 to Rs108,840
crore in 2006-07;. 89 percent of the new cars sold in 2006-07 were bought
with credit, with loans covering 79 percent of the value of the purchase.
The opening up of the financial market allowed a flood of capital flows into
the country through several channels and under various labels such as foreign
institutional investments (FII) in the share market, foreign direct investment
(FDI) – especially in the form of 'private equity' which behaves much like FII
– and external commercial borrowings by Indian commercial firms. There are
also unexplained inflows in the balance of payments data – under the head
'other capital' – which indicate that individuals have been bringing in funds
for speculation.
As an aside, it may be mentioned that ever since the occupation of Iraq by the
US armed forces, petroleum companies are raking in huge profits by
arbitrarily raising oil prices over and again. The surplus funds thus generated
can no longer be ploughed in safe and productive investment channels or used
in straightforward trading because of dwindling demand. Therefore, they
move into speculation. This is typical of capitalism in crisis, when surplus
TOWARDS
VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 A NEW D AWN
capital has little investment potential and rush into speculation. And this is
precisely what is happening in India.
The deluge of capital inflows has shown itself in the abnormal rise in stock
prices in the in the last one and a half years. The sensex closed at about 10,000
on June 21, 2006, rose rapidly thereafter, and despite odd fluctuations,
touched over 20,000 on December 11, 2007. The doubling of the index in less
than 18 months was obviously symptomatic of a great surge in speculation
driven partly by FII inflows, consisting entirely of capital from such entities
as hedge funds and exploiting the participatory routes to speculate in the share
market.
But an entire economy cannot live in a bubble. It has to give at some stage.
That stage has arrived, blowing out India's neoliberal economic edifice like a
house of cards. It will need some taking before it can be put back into some
shape.
Tailpiece
The bubble has burst. India's superpower dream has come a cropper. But the
pundits and pugilists of 'free-market,' 'neoliberalism' and 'growth' are not to
be easily undone. Disregarding the hiccups being experienced by a perverse
economic order, they are now clamouring for a greater freedom for the
market, pitching in for an even higher rate of openness and a higher rate of
growth. All the dilettantes of the media world are at one with them.
They have, perhaps, forgotten that four years ago the Indian electorate had
categorically shown the door to the 'shining India' dream merchants. Indians
are now wiser by four eventful years.
contd. from page 6
GORKHALAND
Gorkha population especially in Terai and dooars have changed dramatically.
Thousands of tribal population comprising sandals-kols-mundas was
brought into the Terai Dooars region to be exploited for the newly flourishing
Tea Industry. Then after and during partition thousands of refugees from what
became Bangladesh came into the region to settle. All these people were
victims of mindless colonial policies of the British. However, these historic
migrations have completely changed the ethnicity of the population in the
Terai-Dooars region since the Sinngouli Treaty. In spite of the large presence
of the Gorkha population and their strong historical bond and claim to the
Terai-Dooars region they are by no means a majority as far as population is
concerned. Thus the political claim of this region by the Gorkhas as part of
their proposed Gorkhaland has to be patently debated and discussed.
Secondly it has to be bourn in mind that just as the political vacuum created
new leaders who gave voice to the Gorkhas basic demands, it also provides a
fertile ground for opportunists to usurp the power, the grand example being
Subhas Ghising.
Thirdly the entire demand of a separate state cannot be confined to achieving
ethnic identity; the question of development has to be addressed seriously and
sincerely. Jharkhand is the classic example of shattered dreams of ordinary
Jharkhandi tribal people to walk with head held high. Blind emulation of
capitalist development has led to huge populations being evicted,
dispossessed of land livelihood and capitalists being gifted lands, forests and
mines for pitifully low prices. This in term have given rise to regional mafia,
who runs by the cut money of every project and the political patronage of
ruling parties. The Jharkhandi dream of self determination and identity has
become the reality for a handful of elite.
The Struggle thus demands active participation of the Gorkha masses from
the beginning to its end. A lot depends on whether the mass participates or
simply follows. This struggle essentially against the oppression has the
potential to unite the hills and the plains. The struggling Gorkhas must be
most aware of the issues, they must be already facing a lot of larger questions,
the struggle will put them in their path and at some point will give them the
solution as well.
TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN
Write to us at -
towardsdawn@gmail.com
5
TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN
GORKHALAND : DARJEELING AND
DOOARS TURMOIL
-Ashrujit Nandy
The right to self determination or the right to self governance in a
political sense has been always reciprocated with tremendous repression
from the ruling class. The movement of the Gorkhas some 20 years ago was
no exception. They were 'paid back in their own coin'. Some 1200
participating Gorkhas were murdered, the misuse of the platform of their
movement by the Congress and the CPI (M), and finally the gradual
corruption of the movement leadership (the burning example being Subhas
Ghising). The picture as a whole is not dissimilar to the betrayal of many
tribal movements of Bengal. But then like the phoenix, time and again hope
rises from the ashes. Demands of self determination on the basis of language,
ethnicity and culture raise its head in form of agitations, dissents, protests,
movements and then struggle. Demand for Gorkhaland could not be any
different as is not.
The Background to the Demand of Gorkhaland:
During the period of 1814-1815, after the Anglo-Nepal war, the
Sinngouli Treaty brought portions of Darjeeling and Doors under the British
which were transferred to Sikkim by the terms of the Tittoliya Treaty. But
after the Anglo-British war, in 1864, according to Minchula Agreement, they
were annexed into the British Indian map.
The British tanks had forcefully annexed territories, joined them and divided
them at will in order to satisfy their political ambitions. The British called it
the British Indian Empire and this collection of annexed territories were
named India and Pakistan after 1947. Similarly the forceful forging of
Darjeeling into Bengal by the British military was enough for free India to
take for granted the Darjeeling-Doors-Kalimpong region as 'inseparable part
of Bengal'.
The basis of Indian Constitution was largely the colonial 'Indian
Administration Act' formulated by the British. There India was defined as not
a country but United States. The western concept of United States (America,
Canada, Russia and Australia) is based on joining together of several
independent States due to their mutual dependence. In India however the
states were never independent and the union of them was not based on their
free decision but on the decision of the British Parliament. It was forged just
to materialize the colonial designs of British. The states were formed not on
the basis of Ethnicity or Language, but purely arbitrarily, to instill hatred on
the minds of divided Indians.
The division was no less arbitrary in 'free India'. The pressure of mass
movements resulted in the 1957 act declaring the restructuring of the states
based on language, and the problem persisted. The government has been time
and again forced to carve out new states in face of movements lasting across
decades. As much due to British, the problems of partition and issue of
refugees was ill handled by the Congress as well as undivided Communist
revisionists, just to further their own narrow political cause. India became a
prison for the diverse cultures and languages. And later in the hands of the
newly turned Social Fascists like CPI (M) the tribal movements and
movements for Gorkhaland were brutalized.
The History of the demand for Gorkhaland:
First time the demand for autonomy of Gorkhaland was raised was in 1907.
The British Government paid no heed. The Hill Men's Association failed in
1917, 1930, 1934 to pressurize the British to give them autonomy. In 1946
during Constituent Assembly the demand was placed by 'Akhil Bharitiya
Gorkha League' that on the basis of being a minority community, the Gorkhas
be given the right to proportional representation in the government. The
demand was not taken seriously yet again. After repeated failures and after
the death of Gorkha leader D.S.Gurung, the next leader Randhir Subba called
for a movement demanding separate State.
In 1947 6th April members of undivided Communist Party Ganesh Lal Subba
and Ratan Lal Brahmin went to see Jawahar Lal Neheru to demand a separate
state of 'Gorkhastan' constituting areas of Darjeeling and Sikkim. Later the
CPI demanded autonomy of Darjeeling even within Bengal. Gorkha league
demanded that Darjeeling be deemed a territory directly under the rule of
Centre. But till 1985, no demanded of the Gorkhas were ever given
importance, they remained completely ignored. For 80 years and till 40 years
after 'Indian independence' the Gorkhas received nothing but ignorance.
The undivided CPI and later the CPI (M) since 1964 always spoke of the
autonomy of the Gorkhas and the Gorkhas reciprocated by providing
unquestioned support. But nothing more materialized. This gradually drained
out any leftover belief of the Gorkhas that a party from the plains will ever
6
This was the first major movement in demand of Gorkhaland which was
reciprocated by the social fascist government by a vulgar Bengali nationalism
and severe repression. When the few party cadres and hired mercenaries who
were appointed to create trouble simply blew away in front of a united Gorkha
mass, the government resorted to BSF oppression lead by the 'iron man'
Superintendent of Police Handa.
The Congress could not let go of such a golden opportunity to fill in the
political vacuum in the Hills. On one had they gladly met the demand of
central armed forces placed by the CPI (M) government and on the other they
showed sympathy with the Gorkha leadership and managed to usurp the MP
seat from the hills with the blessing of the Gorkha leaders. Thus the two
governments in the centre and in the state played the dual role of suppressing
the movement and misdirecting the movement. In the end by forming the Hill
Council partial 'autonomy' was granted to the Gorkhas.
The CPI (M) on the other hand continued their game plan of pressurizing and
indulging the Hill Council. Their funding was held back, the leaders were
given indulgence to their corrupt activities. The Council leaders who were
about to be thrown out by the Gorkhas were reinstated by the government by
an eyewash of 'Sixth Schedule'. They hope to create another political vacuum
in the Hills, which was rightly formed but before the CPI (M) could capitalize
on that the Gorkhas saw the underlying design. They felt that the attempt to
achieve autonomy within Bengal had failed, and was in fact not possible.
New leaders came up and gave voice to the demand of Gorkhaland in no
uncertain terms.
The present Situation:
Honestly speaking rarely does a Bengali of the plains thinks of a Gorkha as
anything but Nepali and still rarer is any Gorkha who calls himself a Bengali.
Language, culture, literature, demography, history, lifestyle, mentality and in
every other aspect the Gorkhas are unique and have a distinct identity. The
Bengalis of the plains relates to Darjeeling as a place for business, good tea
and great tourist spot. They are least bothered to look into the environment
and the richness of culture, history of the people of Darjeeling.
The Bengalis and Gorkhas have just shaken hands at times, their lives have
never met. The opportunity was always there for the undivided CPI and CPI
(M). The Gorkhas had given them unquestioned support only in hope that
their demand of autonomy would be given a voice. But their hopes were
betrayed by the revisionist party line. The movement of the Gorkhas which
could have formed a bridge with the plains through the party never
materialized, the cracks widened and turned to gorges. The only reason for the
Gorkhas to believe today that they cannot achieve autonomy within Bengal is
the policy of Congress at the centre and CPI (M) in the state.
The demand of a different state is neither 'separatism' nor Bengal partition as
it will not have an effect on our lives as the British Bengal Partition nor the
1947 partition had. It will not divide or separate the lives of the Bengalis. The
lives with which Bengalis will be separated will be the ones for whom they
had never felt courtesy the fascist policies, vulgar nationalistic attitude and
conspiracies of the parties in power.
The Gorkhas who never got their share of development and self identity in
Bengal can only unite with the Bengalis in a common struggle to overthrow
the fascism that both have faced for too long now. The fascist leadership of the
CPI (M) knows only one way of keeping the territory united, that of
repression and conspiracy, their policy in 1985-87 of letting loose the
mercenary cadres have changed this time round. Now they are waking up the
sleeping giant of vulgar Bengali Nationalism. The groups like 'Amra
Bangali', 'Jana Jagaran-Jana Chetana' has called for strikes to starve the hills.
These groups take up different names in different places, comprise the same
people, they sometimes form biker's gangs, massacring peasants of
Nandigram, Singur, they rule the villages, towns, and ports of Bengal with
generous blessings form the ruling party.
It is just a matter of time before another conspiracy brews for the people of the
hills in the name of All Party Meeting. As a result of the government policy,
the people of hills have learnt well that it is impossible for them to achieve
their own identity within Bengal. The question now is whether they find it
impossible to gain their legitimate recognition, identity and development
within India at all. In a country of diverse ethnicity, the demand for right to
self determination is most democratic and natural. What form of self
determination is chosen is based on the ethnic group and the political
experience they gain. However the right is reserved by the concerned ethnic
group only and no one else, which is for sure.
Some essential and related issues:
When the British wrestled away Darjeeling, Terai and Dooars from Nepal, the
Gorkhas were the dominant population of the region. How ever with the
change in economic and political activity in the region the distribution of the
contd. to page 5
 TOWARDS
VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 A NEW D AWN
AN APPROACH TOWARDS SOCIAL
the basement of this erosive societal experiment, which is yet to be conceived
FASCISM properly.
- Binayak Bhattacherjee The Postscripts of A Turmoil
Let us start from a remarkable period of history of India in post 1947 period.
From the ruling class perspective, brutal measures in defense of its interests
In the mid-1960s, India was already in crisis. The optimism which
are nothing new. They are prepared to take the most ruthless action in defense
accompanied the early years of independence had gradually faded. Economic
of their power and economic interests. But the turn towards fascism marked a
development seemed to be permanently jeopardized by the incapacity of
decisive stage, a qualitative change in the attitude of the bourgeoisie. Fascism
agriculture to support industrialization, and of the external balance to support
is a special form of reaction connected to the death agony of capitalism. For
the required volume of industrial imports. In the last half of the 1960s, real
capitalism under 'normal' conditions, the best form of government is its
factory wages declined by seven per cent. The central government cut public
cheapest form: bourgeoisie democracy. Capitalism in crisis, however, forces
investment radically, and this afflicted most severely heavy industry in
the bourgeoisie to drive down wages to below subsistence levels, to force the
Kolkata. Between 1965 and 1969, some 100,000 people were sacked in the
worker into a semi-slave existence. Democratic rights won by the proletariat -
registered factory sector of the Kolkata Metropolitan (and, on the trend line of
freedom of speech, the right to organise, to strike, to vote - become obstacles
1951 to 1965, 326,000 jobs were lost). Inflation accelerated and there was a
to the capitalist class in their effort to drive down conditions. Unlike other
sporadic but severe crisis in basic food supplies.This is the background to the
forms of reaction, fascism is the mass movement of the ruined middle class
rapid escalation in class war. In West Bengal the number of workers in dispute
who have been organised as a human battering ram against the mass
as a percentage of all workers in registered factories rose from an average of
movement. The crisis of capitalism completely crushes the petty bourgeois
fourteen to fifteen in the 1950s, to eighteen in 1966, thirty-two in 1967 and
and drives them into a frenzy or in a hysteria. In Germany unemployment rose
1968, and fully eighty-five in 1969. The figures illustrate imperfectly the
to four million in 1931, five million in 1932 and over six million in the
persistent militancy of workers in eastern India.The economic crisis and the
following year. Inflation had earlier thrown whole layers of the middle class
class battles placed an intolerable strain on India's fragile political order.
into penury. Many professionals, mostly belonging to petty-bourgeoisie class
Congress split in 1969. The CPI had divided into two parties in 1964. These
fell below the level of the skilled worker. A professor was paid less than an
events of led to form the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist),
ordinary worker. Not a small number were turned into vagabonds. After 1923,
CPI(ML) in 1969. The CPI(ML) embarked on a course of action designed to
97% of Germans were without any capital, resulting in a startling polarisation
achieve power by revolution. The split in the CPI(M) was impelled by the
of wealth. In the past, sections of the middle class were pushed into the ranks
party's participation in the United Front government of West Bengal & tussle
of the working class, but now, with mass unemployment, they were turned
between pro-revolutionaries & main leaders. It fell in late 1968, and after a
into paupers. This situation resulted despair of the petty bourgeoisie, its
short period of President's rule, new elections in February 1969 produced a
yearning for change, the mass neurosis of the petty bourgeoisie, its readiness
CPI(M)-led coalition. This survived until March 1970 (when another period
to believe in miracles, its readiness for violent measures; and the growth of its
of President's rule ensued).This led to large violence which felt a long impact
hostility to the proletariat, which has deceived its expectations. The fascists
in history. This period also include a qualitative change in all spheres of
fed the frustrations and the despair of the ruined peasants, the unemployed
society. The phenomenon, which led to these metamorphoses is famous
youth, the devastated small business people crushed by the monopolies, and
Naxalite Movement. The movement got a setback after tremendous
the criminals. In semi feudal-semi colonial countries like India, the power is
repression, nevertheless, a long lasting impression was sowed into the life
exercised by Feudal & Comprador Bourgeoisie in combination within the
world of Indian Social order, especially in West Bengal. We shall not discuss
shed of imperialism. In the absence of independent Bourgeoisie
it here.
class,(whatever it may be monopolistic) the classical fascism- like in
Summing up the period In the immediate post Congress period (after 1967)
Germany,Italy or other capitalist countries- does not take place here in a
and after the setback of Naxalite Movement(1972-73) & fragmentation of
customary style. Actually the pre-matured capitalism co-existing with
CPI(ML) party into many fractions, the bulk of politically and socially
feudalism always bear a dormant embryo in her very structure. These root
irritated people looked towards the left organizations other than CPI(ML)
causes often come out in different forms in different times-like racial riots,
who were still grumbing about revolution in a “different way” as a way
military junta or Hindu fascism. So, the attitudes & bearings of fascism are
forward. CPI(M) was the mostly available alternative of this kind. It is
not quiet unlikely in countries like India. The feudal approach, to maintain the
undeniable that CPI(M) cadres also faced severe repression during Congress
feudal values in a crude, rotten way often become expressive.
regime in 1972-77 period. This also carried a sympathetic feelings towards
Evolution of the term in History
them. Through anti-capitalist demagogy especially after a series of revolts &
Facts were evident to the international Communist leaders. At the Sixth
movements in 1960s & 70s,they pulled this despairing mass together, imbued
Congress of the Commintern in 1928, the end of capitalist stability and the
it with a mission of salvation [not through the bloody path practiced just
beginning of the "Third Period" was proclaimed. The end of capitalism,
before by CPI(ML)], and filled it full of illusions in overthrowing the system.
accompanied with a working class revolution, was expected, and social
Due to its intermediate social position and heterogeneous make-up, the
democracy was identified as the main enemy of the Communists. This
middle class is incapable of playing an independent political role: it is forced
Commintern's theory had roots in Grigory Zinoviev's argument that
to either support the Congress-CPI led group or the Left Front led by CPI(M).
international social democracy is a wing of fascism. This view was accepted
The mass are disenchanted by the actions of politicians who stand for the
by Joseph Stalin who described fascism and social democracy as "twin
maintenance of the status quo. The ruling class therefore has to shape a new
brothers", arguing that fascism depends on the active support of the social
weapon to dupe the middle class. It finances the social fascists, builds them
democracy and that the social democracy depends on the active support of
up, and uses them to exploit the problems and discontent of the petty
fascism. After it was declared at the Sixth Congress, the theory of social
bourgeois & other toiling classes. The futility of the revolutionary parties to
fascism became accepted by the world Communist movement. At the same
transform the situation drove them back towards the embryonic social
time, Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), under leadership of
fascists. CPI(M) was the most suitable alternative for people who were
German chancellor Hermann Müller, agreed with anti-communist parties that
deeply engrossed with the frantic violence for a decade. Ascertaining the
"red equals brown".This led to mutual hostility between social democrats and
actual mood and inner contradictions of social system, CPI(M) had slowly
communists, which were additionally intensified in 1929 when Berlin's
started to metamorphose the societal paradigm. Not unveiling all of its
police, under control of the SPD government, shot down communist workers
sorcery at once, CPI(M) started to enshroud the dismantled sections of
demonstrating on May Day (Berlin's Bloody May). This, and the repressive
society. This social fascist formation originates in largely and vividly
legislation against the communists that followed, served as further evidence
spectacular formats. These layers are formed on the basis of CPI(M)s so
to communists that social democrats were indeed "social fascists". But in
called “cadre” strength. This human trash, mixed up with the lumpen forces &
Indian context, this term rises in a different fashion in different times. Indeed
controllable political elements who genuinely believed their political lines.
in 1937,CPI termed Congress Socialist Party as social fascists.Again in late or
Using the vacuum very profoundly they have become a serious mass force
mid 80s,leader of Left Front partner RSP, Debabrata Banerjee termed CPI(M)
under special circumstances. Not only must there be deep economic crisis,
as social fascists in viewing the violence unleashed by them in polls. Fascist
and disillusionment with the other parties, but they need in particular the
or semi-fascist rule is not sparse in India. But the existence of social fascism
financial and political backing of the ruling class. There was no feasible
in Indian context deserves a period of genesis. This entity itself would be
alternative for them other than CPI(M) also.
unique in style or nature because of the distinct societal context. This
phenomenon might seem strange to an onlooker that this very transformation The Grip tightened Gradually
here taken place in a state where the heritage of democratic movements is Thirty-one years ago, in 1977, CPI(M) joined with other left allies to take
quiet affluent Actually, the social contradictions of various social layers laid power over West Bengal's state government. With a great deal of promise,
with great expectations which were hitherto unfulfilled. Left went to work
contd. to page 8
7
TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN contd. from page 7
SOCIAL FASCISM
with a modest mandate, keeping the land question at the forefront. In 1971,
CPI(M) leader P. Sundarayya wrote, "It is only by developing a powerful
mass movement culminating in land seizure that we will ultimately get 'the
land to the tiller,'"- government took office in 1977, telling the press, "We
must be content to make whatever small improvements we can in the lives of
the poor people, to make life more live able." Still now we hear the shear cry
by the leftists about the land reforms. Actually the waves of mass movements
in 60s & 70s were led to several steps taken by the ruling class seeing the
agony among masses. The Indira Govt in centre as well as the Siddhartha Roy
while crushing all sorts of protests & oppositions in West Bengal also took
various steps to reform. According to the statistics given by the Bureau of
Applied Statistics & Economics shows lakhs of acres of land were distributed
among the landless peasants during this period. Actually this amount even
higher than that done by Left Front. Indeed, the reforms started with a
planning generated by some Big Brother continued its aftermath in Left Front
regime. In 1978 Operation Barga bill was produced. The landless who got
lands then needed assistance, mainly the capital. This process started as
“assistance” with Panchayet & numerous co-operative societies, which were
mainly bestowed by CPI(M). There was the key & and the root of a new
power, genesis of a entirely new class, an amalgamation of old reactionaries
& new socio-political “vanguards”. The Kisan Sabha [peasant wing of
CPI(M)] units quickly strengthened its base in almost 90% villages in the
state. The feudal power took its new shape in the shell of a political party,the
CPI(M).All the economic activities in countryside is carried by local
governance-namely the Panchayet-which mostly holds by the party. Almost
all other social institutions were gradually taken under control of the party.
The Local Committees of CPI(M) emerged as a new centre of micro-power
in Bengal, specifically in rural areas. The gradual integration developed a
new social order. Also increased strength of govt employees with due benefits
produced a sympathetic tide towards CPI(M).Togthering these a socio-
political nexus between Party-Panchayet-Police produced a immense control
over village life. Actually the repeated win of Left Front in all election stands
upon this base. The abstract psychological presence of an “ultra state” or
“state within the state” perverted the political culture of rural Bengal. Instead
of the old type of a class, a party took the steering of social mobility & social
control using its tentacles. The question of alternative often spoken by the
analysts requires to go through this way. This hyper-state actually has grown
powerful day to day and reached its peak in late 80s & early 90s. By the mid-
90s, new contradictions emerged in the Bengali countryside. Neo-liberal
agricultural polices on the global stage decreased the prices for agricultural
goods, at the same time as neo-liberal economic polices of the Indian
government, obviously followed by (with a thin curtain) CPI(M) led Left
Front Govt has worn out the ability of the state to intervene on behalf of small
and middle farmers who face an across the board crisis. The rate of poverty
eradication began to slow down as agricultural production itself declined. In
1993, a committee set up the West Bengal government reported that
agricultural stagnation was inevitable, as the land reform agenda had been
exhausted. In state after state in India, including West Bengal which had
embraced neo-liberalism with missionary zeal, the price is being paid by
farmers, particularly small farmers. In some places, like the Vidharba region
of Maharasthra (as P. Sainath continues to document), farmers' suicides have
assumed near epidemic proportions. These farmers are the casualties of the
global offensive of neo-liberalism on petty production in the agrarian sector.
It is, therefore, no coincidence that in country after country in Latin America,
the the situation has made a resurgence through the struggles of the small
farmers' discontent and aspirations. At some point, global trends were bound
to catch up. In addition, new problems, with their root in the land reforms,
have cropped up. The aspect of industrial sector was quiet similar. In place of
Kisan Sabha,there was CITU guided by the Local Committee. Here in urban
areas, control of local authorities like clubs & puja committees plays an
important role. Using the “clean” & “intellectual” image of young
cadres,they gained abodes. After the terrible experience in Siddhartha Roy
regime & the emergency, the CPI(M) workers were most suitable alternative
for the urban petty-bourgeoisie. Their Left legacy drawn a large number of
intellectuals in favour of their activities. In other social sectors like service
sector, education was not free from this political convergence. The stick &
carrot policy with a softer way was the method for urban middle class.
Actually the horror of 1972-77 period was so inflammatory in mind, people
was not ready to think anything expect CPI(M). also, the economic processes
serving the interest of feudal-bourgeoisie authority were tightening grip
gradually. Local Industrial co-operatives and the public sector was slowly
minimized in favor of Corporate industrialization. One can understand how
registered factory production in West Bengal declined from about 10% in
1977 to 6% in 1990 (in 1947, West Bengal accounted for 30% of all industrial
production). By the late 1980s, the industrial working class, it seemed, had
lightly begun to shift its allegiance from the Left to the Congress. In 1994, the
Left Front produced a new industrial policy document, in viewing the
scenario that the working-class unemployment and a general inability to
8
create jobs for a rural population whose demand had been largely increased.
The 1994 document argued, "The State Government welcomes foreign
technology and investments.” This is remarkable, from this stage CPI(M)
gradually started to unmask his actual face. The new industrial policy no
longer puts industrialization by cooperatives or by the public sector at center
stage. Neo-liberal pressures and from trends in the world impinge on the
document, which now accommodates corporate industrialization. The
fuming unrest in rural Bengal started to come out by late 90s. The main
opposition party Congress divided in the agenda of fighting CPI(M). Some of
the rural belts were becoming impetuous in tussle between CPI(M) &
oppositions. A societal polarization was sharply taking place. The outbreak of
violence in post 1998 period showed the despairing scenario of basic
democratic rights & livelihood of rural people. By the year 2001, a small
presence of Maoist forces were felt. The indigence in almost all spheres of life
in remote parts of the state laid a fertile ground for any radical force. Actually,
the Maoists –by attacking the party CPI(M) both theoretically & politically-
started to catalyse the entire fiery situation towards a distinct political object.
A considerable number of intellectuals also started to rethink the very
character of CPI(M)-the entity-rather than a party.
The Period of Nadigram
The incidents of Nandigram struggle are well known now, the important case
is the lessons here in respect to fight against social fascism. Actually the
methodology to combat social fascism is now in a formative stage. In history,
at the Seventh Congress of the Comintern in 1935, G.Dimitrov outlined the
new policy of the "Popular Front" or “United Front” in his address “For the
Unity of the Working Class Against Fascism”.Where he stated in the
section entitled United Proletarian Front or Anti-Fascist Popular Front:
Comrades, just picture to yourselves a devotee of cut-and-dried theories of this
kind, gazing upon our resolution and contriving his pet scheme with the zeal of
a true pedant:
First, local united proletarian front from below;
Then, regional united front from below;
Thereafter, united front from above, passing through the same stages;
Then, unity in the trade union movement;
After that, the enlistment of other anti-fascist parties;
This to be followed by the extended Popular Front, from above and from below.
After which the movement must be raised to a higher level, politicized,
revolutionized, and so on and so forth.
The fight against social fascism demands vividity in this tactics. Conscious
effort as well as spontaneous upsurge is equally draws importance. As far the
Nandigram struggle goes, the unity of mass in general achieved in some
extent. But the basic tactics requires more effectiveness in approach,
particularly in finding the methodology.Nandigram in particular started the
process to find this methodology. If we go through the period of entire
struggle(which is yet to be completed) may observe serious efforts to hit the
tentacles of social fascism. The fight once started to save land later became a
strive for democracy. The important fact is this, the essence of the struggle
was carried through the basic instinct of democracy. In a semi-feudal, semi-
colonial country, particularly in the era of social fascism, where the
democratic sense was on a peak in previous history, the demand for
democracy is the basic propensity. That aquisition of farmland for purposes
industrial is not acceptable to the farming community as well as the general
mass of the state became abundantly clear as the results of the panchayat
polls. The CPI(M) led Left Front was in for a rude shock in two areas,
Nandigram and Singur, where land acquisition had become a contentious
issue. Also this aquisition or the “The Industrilalisation” phenomenon just
sparked the explosives. We may watch a number of spontaneous upsurges
during this one & half year period-like PDS disputes, like Rizwanur issue etc.
The fury of people is just spattering hither & thither. In every event, the huff of
people is targeting the every symbol of this so-called “hyper-state”. So the
mob in Nandigram or especially in Ration Revolt were targeting the political
symbol of the latter-the party offices of CPI(M). Mamata Banerjee led
Trinamool Congress made a sizable dent and defeated candidates of the Left
in these two areas. Not only in these two regions, in respect of
elections,CPI(M) received a severe blow in several districts. There are not
much alternatives present to the people, henceforth the outburst of the rage is
just coming out through the electoral results. Actually people have nothing to
do with these results, they are exercising all possible & all achievable
processes they came to know. The struggle gave the bitterness a way to
outcome. Results are actually signifies the intensity of the situation. The
Nandigram struggle just catalysed the entire circumstances. Whoever wants
to observe this situation as an onlooker or as an conscious political activist,
must ascertain this particular socio-political dynamics of the present
paradigm. Democracy is the basic tenor of the present stream of events. The
structural or super structural orientation need to be revamped according to
this. We may here conclude this discussion with a comment made by Lenin:
It would be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the struggle for democracy can
divert the proletariat from the socialist revolution, or obscure or overshadow it,
etc. On the contrary, just as socialism cannot be victorious unless it introduces
complete democracy., so the proletariat will be unable to prepare for victory over
the bourgeoisie unless it wages a many-sided, consistent and revolutionary
struggle for democracy.
V. I. Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 133

REVOLUTION AND COMPROMISE
- Netrabikram Chand 'Biplap'
Our revolution is in the stage of negotiation and our party sees compromise as
another aspect of the class struggle. The question has not yet been finalised
whether the revolution will be accomplished through compromise or it will be
pushed towards counter-revolution. There is an incessant and fierce struggle
between two different world outlooks that is attracting attention nationally
and internationally.
Marxism accepts the possibility of making compromises; however, it
considers impossible to accomplish a revolution through too many
compromises. Compromise can be useful at a point in the revolution to obtain
state power, but it is impossible to secure state power for the proletarian class
only through compromise. On the contrary, opportunist and reformist
tendencies not only consider compromise as necessary, but consider
compromise as everything. They believe that society and state power can be
changed and transformed through compromise rather than through
revolution, through 'negotiationism'. These two tendencies are gradually
coming to a head in our country.
Our party, the CPN (Maoist), and the Nepali Congress (NC) are at logger
heads over the issue of negotiation. From the point of view of class struggle,
the NC doesn't see or believe in the necessity of a revolution in Nepal. The
NC, according to its viewpoint, wants to negotiation with the CPN (M), the
CPN (UML) and other parties by dividing the ministries. According to the
NC's outlook, it is enough to progress economically. Political revolution is
not necessary.
According to the NC's outlook, the logical debate and planning of revolution
is an activity of extremists. They suggest that the CPN (Maoist) should not do
the revolution and be satisfied with a share in the government. But the
ultimate goal of the CPN (M) is Communism through a People's Republic and
through the stage of socialism. For that, the state must be under the leadership
of a Communist party. Therefore, we, the Maoist, should oppose
'negotiationism', though we are not against making particular compromises
per se.
Due to the impact of class struggle, different views on compromise and
'negotiationism' are surfacing within the party; this should not be a surprise.
Frankly speaking, the tendency of 'negotiationism' is spreading like a viral
disease within our party. This type of tendency developing within the party is
hundred times more dangerous than the 'negotiationism' of the NC. This
tendency, through the so called economic 'revolution' and power sharing
seeks to end the political revolution here. We would consider that it is an
extremity of 'negotiationism' to depend upon hostile elements by neglecting
the compulsory foundations for securing state power.
The NC wants to push the country into counter-revolution. The NC desires
that a scientific communist party and the proletarian revolution should sink
down into status-quo establishment and into the stagnant pool of the old state.
Therefore, it has put forward a seven point demand that includes the
dissolution of the YCL, the PLA and a rollback of all the gains made during
the Peoples War.
If CPN (M) accepts these preconditions, it can be in the government, if it
doesn't, then it cannot. The purpose of these preconditions is to push the
country towards counter-revolution. To accept these conditions is to end the
revolution.
We, Maoists, desire to change this compromise into revolution and strengthen
the revolution against the counter-revolution. For this, we should expand the
means and the foundations of the revolution. Let us consolidate the party, the
PLA and the United Front and take them to a new level. Let us establish a clear
political and economic outlook and take state power.
We have already dissolved our local people's power centres. We dissolved the
people's courts and the peoples' militia. Our co-operatives, communes, health
posts and educational institutions, established during the war, are now
becoming weaker. In this situation, if we accept the seven-point demand of
NC, directly or indirectly, we would declare that the revolution is over. A big
TOWARDS
VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 A NEW D AWN
debate has not taken place on it, but a tendency considers that it will make no
difference if we accept the seven-point demand of the NC. The tendency to be
liberal towards these demands is not a revolutionary tendency; it helps the
interests of the NC.
Compromise is an unusual condition for revolution. Things seem peaceful in
the period of agreement and negotiation but it is just an illusion. Two rival
thoughts, tendencies and forces are fighting terribly behind a thin curtain.
They both are trying to win under the cover of compromise. Each wants to
destroy the other; one becomes bigger than the other, a process of swallowing
begins. When the one about to be swallowed isn't safe, then it breaches the
norms of accord and begins to protect itself through struggle. If protecting
itself becomes impossible by defending itself, it is obliged to start the
confrontation between revolution and counter-revolution. Then the
compromise will end and the balance of two opposed forces breaks down.
This has happened previously in our country. Until now, the NC and the
imperialists thought that they would be able to destroy the CPN (M) before
the election. The masses and the fraternal parties and organisations of the
world had thought that somewhere the CPN (M) would be swallowed! But in
the election, the people protected the CPN (M) like their own children, and
the NC and the imperialists failed in their mission. As a result, the NC has now
put forward its seven point demand. We have defeated the NC in the election,
but if we cannot protect the revolution, we will be ruined in no time. This
conflict, indeed, is related to the series of compromises we have made. Now,
we should direct our attention towards the defence of the revolution by ending
the situation of compromise.
The issue of compromise is a common issue related to the world revolution, if
we accept that the Nepalese revolution is a part of the world revolution. If we
want to learn the lessons from communist states of the past century, the issue
of compromise must be a common topic for all the revolutionaries of the
world. It means that we should think deeply and develop a new ideology and
knowledge to solve the problems before us and for the protection of the
Nepalese revolution. Even though it has not been enough to tackle , the
present necessities and possibilities to this date, we have been encouraged by
the suggestions and participation of the RIM committee, the RCP and the CPI
(Maoist).
In short, compromise is possible in a revolution, but revolution is not possible
only through compromise. The imperialists and reactionaries want to push
the revolution towards counter revolution, but revolutionary communists
want to change the compromise into revolution. The conspiracy to change
compromise into counter revolution is vigorously going on in Nepal. We
should make this conspiracy fail by uniting the revolutionary forces of the
world. Fighting against the reactionary forces, we should defeat them. Any
revolution in any part of the world is a part of the world revolution. Likewise,
any compromise also a part of the world revolution. Therefore, the
revolutionaries of the world should make a joint effort to change the
compromise into revolution. Revolution is compulsory but the
'negotiationism' is impossible.
- Biplop is a member of secretariat, Central Committee, CPN (Maoist).
(This article was published in 'The Red Star' (Vol - I, Issue - 10, June 16-30,
2008).We are reprinting the article admitting that 'the question has not yet
been finalised whether the revolution will be accomplished through
compromise or it will be pushed towards counter-revolution.' There are some
thorny question about contour of so called 'PRACHANDA PATH' and the
practice of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in post revolutionary Nepal; But
definitely a 'Two Line Struggle' will thrive. This article may indicate.)
7,468 Custodial deaths in last five years
Close to four custodial deaths a day has been reported in the country in the
past five years, says a study by the Asian Centre for Human Rights
(ACHR). A large number of these deaths are a results of torture, it points
out.
In a report "Torture in India 2008: A State of Denial"– the first ever
nationwide assessment of the use of torture in the nation, the ACHR
alleges that 7,468 persons – on an average of 1,494 a year – died or killed
in prison and police custody durling 2002-2007.
9
TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN contd. from page 3
TIBET
new pacification bureau in the frontier of Tibet in 1269 enabling him thus to
dominate its two most important provinces of U and Tsang. Tibet was also
divided into administrative districts as in China proper and a system of local
government established.
The Tibetans who retained traces of their earlier martial spirit were not the
easiest of people to rule and Kublai Khan felt that Buddhism was as good an
instrument as any to induce docility among his spirited subjects. Since
Buddhism had already taken root in Tibet, this move, from the point of view
of the Chinese state, was a master stroke of policy. Thus the system of
merging political and religious rule into one entity was introduced in 1275
during the reign of Kublai Khan. As a first step, Kublai invited Sakya Pandita,
head of the great Sakya monastery to his court and thereby gained his support
to carry forward his plans for the promotion of Buddhism in Tibet. Later,
Sakya Pandita's nephew Phaspa was similarly invited and he made a great
impression on Kublai Khan, who rewarded him for his adaptation of the
Tibetan and Brahmic script to the existing Mongolian language. Moreover, as
C.A.Bell writes in his Tibet Past and Present, Kublai Khan himself “became a
convert to Lamaism and gave the sovereignty of Tibet to his visitor. Thus
began in Tibet the rule of the priest-kings”. The Sakyapa Lamas were to rule
Tibet since then as a theocracy.
It is pertinent to point out in this connection that events in India also played an
important part in cementing the Tibetan-Chinese relationships. Towards the
end of the 12th century, the last pro-Buddhist dynasty in India—the Palas of
Bengal and the Senas after them—were swept away by the Muslim invasion.
Fugitive monks fled to Tibet taking with them their precious Sanskrit
manuscripts which were translated into Tibetan. Quite naturally, the Tibetans
were alarmed at the growing expansion of Islam in India and its possible
consequences for them should the power breach the Himalayan wall. Thus
Tibet came to lean even more on the Mongolian court. The decline of
Buddhism in India and the stopping of the Tibetan route to Bengal merely
intensified this trend. The attempted invasions of Tibet by Ikhtiyar-ud-din of
Bengal in the 13th century and Muhammad-bin-Tughlug in the 14th century
proved that Tibetan fears were not baseless.(In the modern period, Rahul
Sankrityayana was one of the very few who braved all hardships and natural
obstacles of an apparently insurmountable nature to go to Tibet on foot and
mules more than once).
Meanwhile, there were also some economic and administrative factors which
helped in cementing the Sino-Tibetan relationships. First, Tibet sent tribute
missions to China and likewise in appreciation of the tribute, got gifts which
sent in value those which he received. Second, the bartering of Tibetan horses
for Chinese tea was common and restrictions put on it often evoked tribal
uprisings. Third, hereditary Chinese titles given to the Tibetans made a
powerful impression on them. Fourth, single system of administrative
divisions, military garrisons and currency(including paper currency)
prevailed throughout China, including Tibet where Yuan banknotes were
being found even in the 1980s.
Friendly contact between the Tibetan people and the other nationalities of
China was developed further during the Ming dynasty(1368-1644). The
Ming rulers favoured the Kargyu(White) Lamaist Sect, to whose high clerics
it gave political appointments. It is in fact untrue to maintain, as some Western
writers do, that ties with the rest of China were severed under the Ming or that
Tibet was linked only with the minority nationalities but not with the majority
Han nationality. In the Ming period, the appointments of Tibetan officials
from China's capital continued. The statistics of the Board of Rites of the
Ming dynasty show that in the 1450s, about three to four hundred Tibetans
came to Peking to present tributes every year, and in the 1460s, the number
reached four thousand. Economic exchanges also grew. The museums and
archives of Peking and Lhasa abound in evidence of all this. In Tibet the
Kargyu local rulers, who rose with the Ming, also fell with them. But the links
did not break.
When the Ming dynasty was on the verge of collapse, the rule of the King of
the Law of the Kagyud Sect in Tibet also tottered. Another lamaist group, the
Gelug or Yellow Sectled by its pontiff, the Dalai Lama, became important.
After the troops of the Manchu dynasty(1644-1911) pushed forward south of
the Great Wall, the Fifth Dalai Lama came to Peking from Tibet in 1652 to
congratulate and asked emperor Shun Chih to confer titles of honour on him.
In 1653, when the fifth Dalai returned to Tibet, the Emperor conferred upon
him the title of Dalai Lama which was officially established from then on. The
functions, powers and organization of the Tibetan local government(kasha)
10
were defined by Emperor Chien Lung of the Manchu(Ching) dynasty—a
system that continued till 1959.
Relations between the Tibetan and other nationalities in China became closer
during the Ching rule. In 1791, the Gurkhas from Nepal launched a large-
scale aggression against Tibet on the pretext of a minor incident on the Tibet-
Nepal border. The troops of the local Tibetan government were defeated by
the invaders and it was felt that all Tibet would
fall victim to the Gurkha invasion. The Dalai and Panchen appealed to Peking
for help.
With the support of the Tibetan people, the Ching troops succeeded in driving
out the invaders from Tsang in May 1792. Thus were the southwestern
frontiers of the China consolidated and the Tibetan people brought to
understand from their personal experience the value of the great support
given them by the central government. Thus the fraternal feelings between
the Tibetan people and other nationalities, including the Han, were
consolidated further. It thus goes without saying that the sending of troops
had far-reaching significance in cementing the bond between the Tibetans
and the Hans. When the first Chinese republic was founded in 1911 after the
end of the Ching rule, its multinational colour was emphasized in the new flag
of five strips, one of which stood for the Tibetan nationality.
The period starting from the first Opium War(1840-42) and the signing of the
Treaty of Nanking(1842)—the first of a series of unequal treaties the weak
Chinese government was forced to sign—witnessed the penetration of
foreign capitalist/imperialist powers in a very big way. The internal crisis of
China intensified further in the years after 1911. Throughout China,
imperialist-backed warlords, of whom Chiang Kai-shek was historically the
last, ran riot. And it was then that the British imperialist rulers of India, seizing
their advantage, became bolder in inciting separatism in Tibet. Thus from the
historical point of view, Tibet was an integral part of China and there was
nothing unnatural or unjustified in the entry of the PLA into Tibet after
revolution was complete in China in 1949.
Section:2 British imperialist designs on Tibet
The British capitalists showed a keen interest in Tibet long before China was
defeated in the First Opium War(1840-42) and was forced to sign in 1842 the
Treaty of Nanking—the first of a series of humiliating treaties with the
Western intruders. The British-Indian authorities sent two missions to Tibet
in the last quarter of the 18th century, led respectively by George Bogle and
Turner. The purpose was three-fold.
First, they wanted Tibetan authorities to exercise their influence to curb the
marauding activities of the Bhutanese hillmen in Coochbehar whose ruler
was an ally of the East India Company. The British wanted to utilize the
relationship woven round old cultural, religious, trading and political ties
between Tibet and the Himalayan borderlands(Spiti, Lahul, ladakh, Sikkim,
Bhutan and Assam Himalaya) for their own benefit.
Second, as mercantilism was the order of the day, the East India Company
was very much concerned at the outflow of the specie from Britain to China in
order to pay for Chinese tea, silk, porcelain and brocade. They were keen to
find a local source for the specie. Tibet was a likely source. They were
interested in the gold of Tibet. According to S.Camman(Trade through the
Himalayas), “The gold of Tibet has been proverbial since the days of
Herodotus, who spoke of the great ants in the desert north of India who threw
up sandheaps full of gold. Gold is found in the sands of most of the rivers
flowing out of Tibet, such as the Indus, the Yellow River and the Upper
Yangtse. In fact, the latter, in its upper reaches, is even named 'the river of
golden sands'(Chin-sha-kiang)”.
Third, Tibet occupied a very special place in the Chinese tributary system
because of its unique position as the centre of Lamaistic Buddhism. The
Ching rulers sought to strengthen their position in Mongolia--where
Lamalism held sway—with the help of the Tibetan high authorities such as
the Tashi or Panchen Lama. It was thus felt by the E.I.Company that a good
word put in by him to the Chinese would make conditions of trade and
commerce at Canton easier for the British. About the overall nature of the
Chinese-Tibetan relationship, Bogle wrote: “The Emperor of China is
acknowledged as the sovereign of the country; the appointment to the first
offices in the State is made by his order, and in all measures of consequence,
reference is first had to the Court of Peking, but the internal government of the
country is committed to natives”.
By the mid-19th century, however, circumstances changed substantially to the
advantage of the aggressive designs of the British capitalists. India had, by
then been brought under the firm control of British rulers. Moreover, China
contd. to page 11

TIBET contd. from page 10
had been defeated in the Opium Wars and that exposed her weakness to the
foreigners. To add to these, the competition between Britain and Russia for
supremacy in Asia became more acute than ever before. Then the end of the
Napoleonic wars boosted the strength of Britain to a large extent. In the light
of all these developments, the Himalayan regions fell prey to British
aggression—the Kumaon, Garwal, Lahul, Spiti, Ladakh, Bhutan and Sikkim.
In view of the continuing pattern, an assault on Tibet became inevitable. On
25 April, 1873, a deputation from the Royal Society of Arts put pressure on
the Duke of Argyll, Secretary of State for India, to promote a more active
policy towards Tibet both on commercial and strategic grounds. However,
because of the intense Anglo-Russian rivalry that had been going on during
that time, Britain looked upon China as a possible bulwark against Russian
attack. Thus at the Anglo-Chinese “Convention relative to Burma and
Tibet”(24 July, 1886), the British agreed to deal with Tibet through China
only. The Sikkim Convention of 1890 was thus negotiated directly between
British and Chinese representatives.
All this, however, underwent a transformation with China's defeat in the
Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 and the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895. Thus
to the British policy-makers, the possibility of China being treated as a
bulwark against Russian expansion became non-starter. The pressure against
Tibet began in earnest to open a second trademart in Tibet. Deep commercial
interests of the British were involved. The coming of Lord Curzon as Viceroy
of India merely exacerbated the situation. China's relationship with Tibet was
no longer treated as an internal affair of China, but described as a piece of
“constitutional fiction”. Bazaar gossip about Russian intrigues in Lhasa,
emotive words like 'prestige' were brought into play in a calculated manner, to
heighten tension, and then to launch the aggressive assault. The 'crime' of the
Tibetan authorities, it seemed, was their refusal to open relations with the
British-Indian government.
Francis Younghusband embarked on his notorious expedition and crossed
into Tibet. The Chinese and the Tibetans could offer no more than passive
resistance, but their offers to negotiate were haughtily brushed aside, on one
plea or the other, until finally their dash to Lhasa was made and a Convention
imposed by the victors upon the vanquished. The slaughter of the helpless
Tibetans—a needless act of cruelty and barbarism—made a mockery of its
supposedly peaceful intentions. Taraknath Das in his book, British
Expansion in Tibet, has related various acts of vandalism, foremost of which
was the looting of monasteries. The Lhasa Convention(1904)- imposed upon
the Tibetans, contained a heavy indemnity clause(article 6), while article 9,
had it been carried out, would have reduced Tibet to the status of a British
protectorate. The designs of British imperialism were clearly expressed in the
words of Captain V.F.O'Connor, who served for a time with the British
mission in Peking before returning to the Imperial Civil
Service in India: “Tibet includes the sources of the Yangtse-kiang, the
Mekong and the Jalween, and borders on the great Szechuan province—the
most thickly populated and one of the richest in China. Our influence exerted
from so commanding a position would certainly facilitate future negotiations
regarding such questions as the trade of the Yangtse Valley and Yunnan, the
construction of railways from Burmah and elsewhere through these and
adjacent provinces, and the treatment of the Europeans generally
over the whole of Southern China”.
However, as a result of the demands of international diplomacy, involving the
need toplacate Russia in Asia in order to meet the growing threat of Germany
in Europe, Britain modified for a time her expansionist policy towards Tibet.
To get China's signature to the Lhasa Convention, the indemnity was
drastically reduced and the offensive article 9 was made specifically
inapplicable to China. The Anglo-Chinese Adhesion Convention was signed
in Peking in 1906 and reaffirmed China's suzerain rights in Tibet. Later
Article II of the Anglo-Russian Convention(31 August 1907) pointed out
that: “Conforming with the admitted principle of the suzerainty of China
over Tibet, Great Britain and Russia engage not to enter into negotiations with
Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese government”. We are
reproducing these statements only to show that the changes in the Western
imperialist attitude towards the relationship between Tibet and China from
time to time were determined by their own aggressive designs. We will see
that they would change their own stand again and again in future.
The Chinese government took measures to make this suzerainty effective as
they realized it quite well that unless this were done, the foreign devils would
again try to isolate Tibet from China. As a result of these measures the Dalai
Lama, who had designs of his own, fled the country and sought refug in
Darjeeling. Meanwhile, with the fall of the Manchus in China in 1911, an
expansionist policy was instituted once again. Previous treaties with China
TOWARDS
VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 A NEW D AWN
were jettisoned and the notorious Simla Conference of 1914 convened after
much pressure on the Chinese government. The Chinese delegate merely
initialled its provisions and his action was promptly repudiated by his
government. Thus, in law the convention was null and void. It also recognized
the traditional status of Tibet. Article II stipulated that “the Governments of
Great Britain and China recognized that Tibet is under the suzerainty
China…”.
Section: 3 Tibet in China-India-US Relations
With the end of British colonial rule over India, the Chinese expected an
easing of tension in the Himalayas. However, the Chinese soon learnt to their
dismay that the Government of India continued with the policies of its British
imperialist predecessors, not only in Tibet, but also in Bhutan and Sikkim.
Early in 1947, when India was still a Colony, an Asian Conference was
convened in New Delhi to which both Chinese and Tibetan delegations were
invited. A huge map of Asia displayed in the conference hall put Tibet outside
the boundaries of China. Only after an immediate protest by George Yeh of
the Chinese Foreign Office was a correction made somewhat reluctantly.
What motivated the organizers to make such a cartographic aggression? The
answer seems to lie in the expansionist designs of the would-be Indian ruling
classes and their political representatives.
On 25 April1947, when India was still a British colony, the external affairs
department of the government of India, of which Nehru was in charge as a
member of the viceroy's 'interim government', informed the British secretary
of state for India that “Government of India now wish to be represented in
Tibet…and should be grateful to know whether His Majesty's Government
desire to retain separate Mission there in future. If they donot, it would seem
feasible to arrange transition from 'British Mission' to 'Indian Mission'
without publicity and without drawing too much attention to change, to avoid
if possible any constitutional issue being raised by
China”(N.Mansergh,editor-in-chief, Constitutional Relations between
Britain and India: The Transfer of Power 1942-7(Documents released by the
British Government), Vols.I-XII, London, 1971-1983, Vol.X,p.430). At that
time, civil war had been raging in China, and Nehru and his associates, who
claimed to be the champions of democracy, sought to resort to surreptitious
methods to grab the land of other people to fulfil their expansionist designs. In
fact, when World War II was drawing to a close, the Indian ruling classes
cherished wild dreams to become a zonal power in Asia—from the east coast
of Africa to Pacific—under the umbrella of the Anglo-American powers.
Nehru, the top political representative of
the Indian ruling classes and the future prime minister of India nourished
ambitions to become the fourth big power in the world, besides USA, USSR
and China, her empire spreading from the Middle East to near Australia,
including Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim. After the end of direct
British rule in India, the Indian rulers devoted their attention to India's
northern neighbours: the Himalayan kingdoms of Kashmir, Nepal, Bhutan,
Sikkim and Tibet. Even before the end of direct colonial rule, the Nehrus
wanted to annex Kashmir at a time when Jammu and Kashmir(J&K) was a
native state under British paramountcy. Although a plebiscite or referendum
was to be held before a final decision on the “ceding of Kashmir to the Indian
Union” was to be taken, the Indian ruling classes did not allow the people of J
and K to decide their own fate through a fair plebiscite. Thus J and K was torn
into two parts—about one third under the occupation
of Pakistan and the rest under the virtually military occupation of India—and
ravaged by hostile forces.
It is pertinent to refer to the observation made by Neville Maxwell in his
India's China War: “In the case of Sikkim, India in 1949 seized the
opportunity of a local uprising against the ruler to send in troops and bring the
state into closer dependence as a protectorate than it had formally been under
the British(and in 1974 Nehru's worthy daughter and then India's prime
minister Indira Gandhi marched Indian into Sikkim and
annexed it into India); in the same year(1949) India signed a treaty with
Bhutan, in whichshe took over Britain's right to guide Bhutan in foreign
affairs. New Delhi's influence in Nepal continued to be paramount, and was
increased in 1950 when the Indian Government helped the King of Nepal to
break the century-old rule of Rana clan. The new Government thus took over
and consolidated the 'chain of protectorates', as Curzon had described the
Himalayan states”(pp.67-68).
Needless to mention, India and the US were also interested in Tibet, which
was an integral part of China. As we know, China in the last years of the 1940s
had been passing through an intense civil war and the victorious PLA under
the leadership of Mao Tse- tung had been giving telling blows to the Japanese
contd. to page 12
11
TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN contd. from page 11
TIBET
aggressors and Chiang Kai-shek's troops. The US imperialists had been
supporting Chiang's rotten regime against the Communists. They trained and
transported 4,80,000 of Chiang's troops from the south to Manchuria and
north China. Still, the US could neither 'save' China nor its lackey Chiang who
fled the Chinese mainland to Taiwan in 1949. The US was also engaged
inespionage and sabotage in China's far-flung provinces of Sinkiang and
Tibet and conspired against the Communist revolutionary movement. When
the Sinkiang troops rose against the Kuomintang, the US vice-consul tried to
escape to India through Tibet and was shot by the Tibetan guards. The US
consul fled with his men to India and was received in Sikkim by an official of
the US embassy in Delhi. L.Natarajan in his American Shadow over India
noted: “These reports indicate that the unusual US activities in Sinkiang
could not have been possible without the acquiescence of the Indian
Government”(p.181).
Meanwhile, taking advantage of the civil war, the Tibetan government of
serf-owners established contacts with the US government as early as
1946(The readers will find a discussion on Tibetan serfdom in a separate
section in this paper). The pretension of the government of the Tibetan serf-
owners to independence was encouraged by the US imperialists. An
American, Lowell Thomas, visited Tibet in 1949 and handed over a letter
from president Truman to Dalai Lama. Returning from Tibet, he declared in
Calcutta on 10 October 1949 that “the Tibetan authorities wanted outside help
to hold back the progress of Communism and that India would have a major
role to play in lending such help. He suggested that US might find some way
to supply modern arms and give advice on guerrilla warfare, and also
disclosed that he in fact carried scrolls and oral messages from the Tibetan
rulers to president Truman and Dean Acheson, the secretary of
state(Natarajan,pp.186-87).
What were the Nehrus doing by then? On 27 July 1949, the Reuters reported
that Nehru was planning to visit Lhasa in near future. On 29 July, the London
Times reported from Delhi: “Neutral observers are cautiously disposed to
interpret recent signs of closer liaison between the Government of India and
the Dalai Lama's Government in Tibet as a gratifying indication that an
important new bulwark against spread of Communism westward is being
created”(Quoted in Natarajan,pp.187-88). It was reported that H.S. Dayal,
India's political officer in Sikkim, left on a special mission to Lhasa in August
1949. An American news agency reported on 10 January 1950 that “accord
has been reached between India, the United Kingdom and the United States
on measures aimed at preserving Tibetan autonomy”. That such an accord,
according to Natarajan, had been reached was denied by a spokesman of the
external affairs ministry in New Delhi days later but it was not denied that
consultations took place. The Lhasa government also sent a “goodwill
mission” to visit India, the USA and other countries, but not to the China.
Natarajan holds that “the Lhasa aristocracy was actively canvassing for
foreign help to fight China. The Anglo-American powers were anxious to
keep Tibet separated from China, and Indian policy was aiding their
effort”(p.188). Thus it is evident that it was the US imperialists who had been
quite blatantly interfering in the internal affairs of China and hatched
conspiracy to cut off Tibet from China. In that nefarious game, Nehru-led
Indian government was a willing accomplice. In fact, the developments in
Tibet had much to do with the India-China War of 1962. More on the US-
India role later.
Section 4: Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai on the question of
Nationalities
On 1 October 1949, Mao Tse-tung, on behalf of the people of China and the
Communist Party, proclaimed the victory of the New Democratic Revolution
and the establishment of the People's Republic of China. On that day, he
declared: “The Chinese people have stood up…nobody will insult us
again…”
What was the attitude of the Chairman of the CPC and the Premier of the
People's Republic of China towards the small nationalities of China? Did they
favour the policy of subjugating small nationalities by the imposition of the
control of the dominant Han nationality? Did they incite Han chauvinism
against the rest, as some Western scholars and Indian writers both yesterday
and tomorrow sought and are seeking to argue? We will see that both in theory
and practice, they upheld the equal rights of nationalities and opposed Han
chauvinism.
Mao Tse-tung was quite conscious of the presence of Han chauvinism within
the Chinese society and sought to combat it throughout his life. He knew that
these were reactionary ideas of the landlord class and the bourgeoisie fed by
the Kuomintang and that these generated a policy of discrimination towards
12
the small nationalities. Similarly, Chou En-lai, the Chinese Premier, in many
of his statements, criticized such an attitude and made the government stand
clear and also implemented that policy to the best of his ability. Let us refer to
some relevant statements which would make the stand of both the CPC and
the PRC clear.
In a Party policy statement entitled On Coalition Government made to the
Seventh National Congress of the CPC on 24 April 1945, Mao Tse-tung
categorically explained Party policy regarding minority nationalities. He
wrote:
“The anti-popular clique of the Kuomintang denies that many nationalities
exist in China, and labels all excepting the Han nationality as “tribes”. It has
taken over the Governments of the Qing(i.e, Manchu) Dynasty and the
Northern warlords in relation to the minority nationalities, oppressing and
exploiting them in every possible way. Clear cases in point are the massacre
of the Mongolians of the Ikhchao League in 1943, the armed suppression of
the minority nationalities in Xinjiang since 1944 and the massacres of the Hui
people in Kansu province in recent years. These are manifestations of a wrong
Han-chauvinistic ideology and policy”.
Mao went on to say: “In 1924, Dr. Sun Yat-sen wrote in the 'Manifesto of the
First National Congress of the Kuomintang that 'the Kuomintang's Principles
of Nationalism has a two-fold meaning, first, the liberation of the Chinese
nation, and second, the equality of all nationalities in China', and that 'the
Kuomintang solemnly declares that it recognizes the right to self-
determination of all the nationalities in China and a free and United republic
of China(a free union of all nationalities) will be established when the anti-
imperialist and anti-warlord revolution is victorious”.
Then Mao wrote: “The Communist Party of China is in full agreement with
Dr. Sun's policy on nationalities as stated here. Communists must actively
help the people of all the minority nationalities to fight for it, and help
them,…to fight for their political, economic and cultural emancipation and
development… Their spoken and written languages, their manners and
customs and their religious beliefs must be respected”.
Then Mao referred to the correct attitude of the Shansi-Kansu-Ninghsia
border regions and the liberated areas in northern China towards the
Mongolian and Hui nationalities (SW, Vol.III, 1965,pp.205-68). The policy
towards Tibet was not different from this one.
After four years, in Article 50 of the Policy towards Nationalities Chapter VI
in the Common Programme of the Chinese People's Political Representative
Conference(1949) which, until 1954, served as the provisional constitution of
the PRC, it is stated: “All nationalities within the boundaries of the People's
Republic of China are equal. Unity and mutual help shall be effected among
them to oppose imperialism and the public enemies within these nationalities,
so that the People's Republic of China will become a big fraternal and
cooperative family of all nationalities. Greater Han nationalism and
chauvinism shall be opposed. Acts of discrimination, oppression and splitting
the unity of the various nationalities shall be prohibited…”(SW,
Vol.III,pp.205-68).
Then in an inner-Party directive entitled Criticize Han Chauvinism dt. 16
March 1953, Mao drew the attention of the party members to guard and fight
against such mentality. He observed: “In some places the relations between
nationalities are far from normal. For Communists, this is an intolerable
situation. We must go to the root and criticize Han chauvinistic ideas which
exist to a serious degree among many Party members and cadres, namely, the
reactionary ideas characteristic of the Kuomintang, which are manifested in
the relations between nationalities. Mistakes in this respect must be corrected
at once…
“Judging from the mass of information on hand, the Central Committee holds
that wherever there are minority nationalities the general rule is that there are
problems calling for solution, and in some cases very serious ones…What has
come to light in various places in the last two or three years shows that Han
chauvinism exists almost everywhere. It will be very dangerous if we fail now
to give timely education and resolutely overcome Han chauvinism in the
Party and among the people…In other words, bourgeois ideas dominate the
minds of those comrades and people who have no Marxist education and have
not grasped the nationality policy of the Central Committee. Therefore,
education must be assiduously carried out so that this problem can be solved
step by step. Moreover, the newspapers should publish more articles based on
specific facts to criticize Han chauvinism openly and educate the Party
members and the people”.
It is quite natural that after the revolution of 1949, the CPC and the PRC
would devote their attention to the national and socialist unification of the
motherland. The Preamble to the First Constitution of the People's Republic
contd. to page 17

CLASS ANALYSIS OF INDIAN
AGRICULTURE
- Abhijnan Sarkar
The question and its background
In the communist movement of India, the status of class relation in Indian
agriculture has always been a subject of debate. The main point of the debate
centers around whether the major relation existing in agriculture is
capitalistic or it remains semi-feudal. People who consider it to be capitalistic
try to emphasize certain features of capitalist relations like reinvestment of
surplus, production for market, existence of agricultural labors and wage-
capital relation etc.
Why this debate at all? This debate has no meaning for the
mainstream economy (also called neo-classical economy) which sees the
classification among the countries in term of developed and underdeveloped
countries as if the underdeveloped countries has less capital, less technology
and less efficient human resource. It does not see the society to have certain
relation among people which may be class relation and which has evolved
historically. It pictures the society to consist of individuals which may be
owner of various factors of production like capital or land or labour. With
their factors they enter in the market and try to maximize their utility. Through
the market competition an equilibrium is reached where the factors of
production are optimally utilized for the society. So according to this
ideology market force should be given full liberty and there should not be any
interference with the market by the state. If there is stringent labour laws,
restriction on capital investment, capital will not flow and development will
be curbed. So it is no surprise that the main stream economists would suggest
the underdeveloped countries to import technology and invite capital from
developed countries for their own development.
The debate is due to fundamental discovery of Marx. Marx for the
first time discovered that production of necessaries are the most fundamental
activity of human society. At the same time, production does not take place in
abstract but happens in the context of definite human relation which is called
production relation. This production relation is the base of a society upon
which rest all the other human activity like culture, politics, state, arts etc.
This production relation is not something static but it has a dynamics which is
dependent on development of productive force (capacity of members of a
society to transform nature). The development of productive force (at least up
to the level where one can produce surplus above one's own subsistence) once
broke the ancient communist society and established slave society based on
class exploitation. The slave society also disintegrated at a certain stage of
development of productive force giving rise to feudal society. It is the feudal
society where apart from the feudal exploitation of surplus, the commodity
production (production for exchange) gradually becomes a significant
phenomena. Commodity production and commerce has certain features
which gives rise to a new kind of production relation in the feudal society
itself. This new kind of production relation is nothing but the much discussed
capitalist relation of production which is the latest class relation that emerged
in human society.
The emergence of capitalist relation in the feudal society and
ultimate establishment of capitalist society on the ruin of feudal structure is a
universal law of development of society if not fettered by some external
force. This transition from feudalism to capitalism covers the history of
Europe from 15th century to 18th century. The most important feature of this
transition is the capture of political power by the capitalist class from feudal
class by organizing other working people including peasants. After the power
capture, there occurred a homogeneous development of productive power for
a certain period.
As we told that in every feudal society, capitalists relation grows
depending on the growth of commodity production, the same also happened
in Indian region. Specially the commodity production and export business
were much developed in this region. There were seed of capitalist production
in certain regions. But this process was hindered by its transformation into a
colony by British. Though at that time, British had not achieved all round
capitalist development, they used to represent a developed relation of
production in its embryonic form. They were a part of a nation not to be
assimilated with local people as happened for other intruders in the past. They
belonged to a nation and a country and their aim was to develop their home
country by sending surplus from this region. This surplus accumulation could
ignite the fire of industrial revolution in 1760 in their home country which
made British the most powerful capitalist country in the world.
British, while destroying the indigenous industries (the most
important being the destruction of cotton industries in Bengal, Surat and
Madras), did not adopt a process to abolish feudalism with its particular
structure of caste system prevalent in the Indian region. Rather in some region
they created a more ferocious feudal class by replacing the old one and their
TOWARDS
VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 A NEW D AWN
another trading class whose interests were subordinate to interest of British
capital. They used to collect cheap raw materials from the distant corners of
the country for supplying them to British and sell commodities produced in
British industry at high price. In this way the value created by working people
in this region was transferred to British and hence accumulation of capital in
the Indian region was hindered. So in essence,
1) British rulers retained the feudal relation and modified it to serve t h e i r
interest,
2) abolished the indigenous trade and industries to the extreme,
3) encouraged a trading class associated with the interest of British
capital,
4) obstructed the process of capital accumulation by choking the
surplus.
Only when the ever increasing accumulation in the developed
countries including British gave rise to monopoly in place of free
competition, there has been some new development by the pressure of surplus
capital in the developed countries. Surplus capital means capital which do not
find profitable investment in its own country. From that time, there was a
tendency of exporting capital to backward countries and in this new
atmosphere there appeared some industries in India by Indian capitalist in
collaboration with British capital.
But this capitalist class was not small commodity producer in earlier
time (as happened in Europe). Small commodity producers have been
marginalized by the British. They came from the same traders who used to
serve British interest. The mere transformation of some traders into capitalist
did not give rise to any capitalist revolution with the aim of throwing
feudalism and colonial power. Rather in the main British used to pamper this
capitalist class and this class was correlated in thousand ways with feudal
relation.
Keeping in mind this path of development in India we shall discuss
over the basic economic structure that is prevalent in Indian agriculture.
Some Marxist proposition regarding capitalist development in
agriculture
No doubt, a growth in “consumption” and “distribution” (i.e. growth
in the home market) is an indication of the growth of capitalist relations in
production but the important question is that what is its impact on production
relations, and, even with this growth of commodity production which of the
two modes of production (i.e., capitalist and feudal) is predominant in Indian
agriculture ? This can only be done by taking an overall picture of production
relations and not merely by picturing the growth in “consumption” and
“distribution”. Lenin has said, “that the economists who have discoursed at
length on the inadequate attention paid by the classical economists to
'distribution' and 'consumption' have not been able to give the slightest
explanation of the most fundamental problems of 'distribution' and
'consumption'. That is understandable, for one cannot even discuss
'consumption' unless one understands the process of the reproduction of the
total social capital and of the replacement of the various parts of the social
product... It is not with 'production' that political economy deals, but with the
social relations of men in production, with the social system of production.
Once these social relations have been analysed, the place in production of
every class, and consequently, the share they get of the national consumption
is thereby defined.” (Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin)
Capitalism does not merely entail commodity production. As Lenin has said,
“Capitalism is commodity production at its highest stage of development,
when labour power itself becomes a commodity.” (Imperialism the Highest
Stage of Capitalism, Lenin) Besides, when the CRC, Communist League,
etc., speak of increasing “consumption” and “distribution” they forget Marx's
basic theory of realization which states that: “According to the general law of
capitalist production, constant capital grows faster than variable capital”
and that “capitalist production, and, consequently, the home market, grow
not so much on account of articles of consumption as on account of the means
of production. In other words, the increase in means of production outstrips
the increase in articles of consumption.” (Development of Capitalism in
Russia, Lenin) In other words, while dealing with the growth of commodity
production and capitalist relations in India, there is a need to picture the nature
of the growth - in which spheres is it confined to, and to what extent is it
confined to consumer items and to what extent capital items. Is it the sphere of
productive consumption that is increasing in agriculture or is it the sphere of
consumer expenditure that has increased ?
While analysing the mode of production in Indian agriculture it is
necessary to do so based on the laws of capitalist production as discovered by
Marx and further developed by Lenin. These scientific laws of capitalism and
imperialism are not time bound. They neither get out-dated nor change from
country to country. The conditions may change in time and space but the basic
laws of capitalism and imperialism remain unchanged. To understand the
contd. to page 14
13
TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN contd. from page 13
INDIAN AGRICULTURE
mode of production in India it is no use negating these laws, as the some
Naxalite groups do, but utilise them to understand the mode of production in
India.
Regarding the question of capitalism in agriculture an important
principle outlined by Lenin was that, “it is the development of capitalism in
the manufacturing industry that is the main force which gives rise to, and
develops, capitalism in agriculture.”
Also, while talking of the transformation of pre-capitalist forms of production
to capitalism, Lenin has said that :
“the socialisation of labour by capitalism is manifested in the following
process :
Firstly, the very growth of commodity production destroys the scattered
condition of small economic units that is characteristic of natural economy
and draws together the small local markets into an enormous national (and
then world) market. Production of oneself is transferred into production for
the whole of society: and the greater the development of capitalism, the
stronger becomes the contradiction between this collective character of
production and individual character of appropriation.
Secondly, capitalism replaces the former scattered production by an
unprecedented4d concentration both in agriculture and in industry.
Thirdly, capitalism eliminates the forms of personal dependence that
constituted on inalienable component of preceding systems of economy ...
Fourthly, capitalism necessarily creates mobility of the population,
something not required by previous systems of social economy and
impossible under them on anything like a large scale.
Fifthly, capitalism constantly reduces the proportion of the population
engaged in agriculture and increases the number of large industrial centres.
Sixthly, capitalist society increases the population's need for
association, for organisation, and lends these organisations a character
distinct from those of former times. While breaking down the narrow, local
social-estate associations of medieval society and creating fierce
competition, capitalism at the same time splits the whole society into large
groups of persons occupying different positions in production and gives a
tremendous impetus to organisation within each such group.
Seventhly, all the above mentioned changes effected in the old economic
system by capitalism inevitably lead also to a change in the mentality of the
population. The spasmodic character of economic development, the rapid
transformation of the methods of production and the enormous concentration
of production, the disappearance of all forms of personal dependence and
patriarchalism in relationships, the mobility of population, the influence of
the big industrial centres, etc., all this cannot but lead to a profound change in
the very character of the producers.” (Development of Capitalism in Russia,
by VI Lenin) With this brief introduction on the approach to the problem, let
us now turn to study the relations of production in Indian agriculture.
While studying the relations of production in Indian agriculture we will
examine it under three heads :
a) Growth of Commodity Production,
b) Differentiation of the peasantry,
c) Impact on social relation
A. GROWTH OF COMMODITY PRODUCTION
The growth of commodity production in agriculture can be assessed by the
extent of utilisation of inputs and the growth of outputs produced for the
market. The 'green revolution', which was introduced by the World Bank in
Third World countries in the mid-1960s, was part of the imperialist policy to
penetrate the countryside for markets. This 'green revolution' has led to
certain changes in agriculture which must be analysed. This section will be
classified under the following sub heads : 1) 'Green Revolution', 2) Inputs, 3)
Credit, 4) Output and Productivity Trends, and 5) Utilisation of Surplus.
1) Green Revolution
The Green Revolution in India was a imperialist dictated reform introduced
in the middle of 1960's at a time when anti feudal democratic struggle was
becoming intense in the country side of India and elsewhere. This reform was
based not on any basic changes of class structure and land relation in the
country side, but on the intensification of credit and purchased inputs like
chemical fertilizers and pesticides and finally high yielding seed. It was based
not on self-reliance, but on dependence on imported agricultural inputs from
imperialist monopoly capital of United States. It was based not on diversity
but uniformity. Advisors and experts came from America to shift India's
agricultural research and agricultural policy from an indigenous and
ecological model to an exogenous, and high input one, finding, of course,
partners in sections of the elite, because the new model suited their political
priorities and interests. There were three groups of international agencies
involved in transferring the Green revolution model of agriculture to India -
the private American Foundations, the American government and the World
14
Bank.
Due to introduction of this model there have been some significant increase in
agricultural production in some parts of Punjab and Hariyana, specially in
wheat production. A section of rich peasants arose along with a section of
agricultural labourer (mainly seasonal) in the background of over all (semi)
feudal mode of production. At the same time, due to heavy use of tractor, large
scale irrigation, and costly inputs, a large section of share-croppers and small
farmers were marginalized in this process and they did not find any
employment in industry which could happen in earlier capitalist development
in west. So somehow they remained dependent on agriculture giving much
scope to retention of semi feudal relation. From then on the main permanent
feature of this development has been increasing dependence on inputs from
imperialist countries. And this feature slowly spreads to some other part of the
country but the development of capitalist relation did not go deep. Rather land
still remain the principal means of production (feature of semi feudalism).
This truth would be verified by various factors in the following.
2) Inputs Though irrigation may have increased, out of the 350 million acres
of net cropped area, barely 50 million acres, or 14%, is cultivated more than
once a year (VI Five Year Plan figures). If one crop takes on an average four
months, 86% of India's agricultural land remains idle for 66% of the time per
year. To put it differently, nearly 60% of the cropped area is not at all used. If
agriculture was to be put on a capitalist footing and capitalist farming was to
predominate in India, there would not be such a gigantic wastage of land
utilisation and such a slow growth of irrigation facilities. But besides the
modernisation, the number of wooden ploughs increased from 37.5 million in
1956 to 43 million in 1966 and further to 44.5 million (i.e. during the green
revolution period) in 1972.
3. Credit It has been found that till 1978 as much as 71% of the population
depended on non-institutional credit - on money-lenders, traders, landlords,
etc. It is thus clear that the stranglehold of usurious capital still dominates all
sections of the rural populace. But usurious is an indication of pre-capitalist,
feudal relations of production, which sucks up the surplus and prevents it
from seeking productive channels. Besides, this usurious capital is increasing
day by day. Marx has said that, “Usurer's capital as the characteristic form of
interest bearing capital corresponds to the predominance of small scale
production of the self-employed peasant and small master craftsman”,
“Usury centralises money wealth where the means of production are
dispersed. It does not alter the mode of production, but attaches itself firmly to
it like a parasite and makes it wretched. It sucks out its blood, enervates it and
compels reproduction to proceed under even more pitiable conditions.” (Karl
Marx, Vol. III, Chapter 36, pp594) Also with a large section of the peasantry
having turned to HYV, (and now unable to turn back to the traditional
varieties) and caught in a crisis with diminishing returns for their output, the
peasants are dependent on large capital inputs each year which they are now
unable to finance. This is forcing them to seek larger and larger loans. With
the peasantry unable to even pay their interest on their cooperative loans, they
are turning more and more back to the moneylender. This trend is bound to
increase enormously in the coming years as the crisis in agriculture deepens.
4. Output and Productivity trends In fact, the annual rate of growth of
production of all agricultural crops actually dropped in the second period;
while it was 3.2% in the 1951-52 to 1964-65 period, it was just 2.6% in the
1964-65 to 1983-84 period. This was because the increase in area under crops
increased phenomenally in the first period at an annual rate of 1.7%, while in
the second period the annual increase was just 0.4%. In other words, much
better results in agricultural production could have been achieved by
increasing the area under cropping than by introducing HYV. The economic
and scientific research foundation has estimated that soil erosion and
deforestation has been so acute that India looses about 1% of its cultivable
land every year to deserts. It is said that out of a total of 306 million hectares of
cultivable land, 145 million hectares are either threatened with erosion or
badly in need of soil and water conservation measures. Generally, it can be
summed up that production and yield of cropping has increased, with small
increase towards cash crops, indicating some growth in capitalist relations.
This is indicated through the change in some pockets of agriculture to
capitalist farming and growth in commodity relations in large tracts of semi-
feudal production, which continue their semi-feudal existence with enhanced
contradictions caused by this lopsided growth of commodity relations within
it. Productivity trends continue to indicate a backward mode of production
with large farms being the least productive. Also with the increase in value of
output being nowhere commensurate with the increase in value of inputs, it is
clear that the growth in commodity production is lopsided, with this growth
merely facilitating the dumping of commodities of the imperialists and
comprador big bourgeoisie into the rural sector without significant returns to
the farmer. This has led to a new set of contradictions in agriculture which are
bound to intensify.
5) Utilisation of Surplus This, in fact, is one of the factors in the
determination of capitalist growth, as a fundamental law of capitalism is that
contd. to page 15
 contd. from page 14
INDIAN AGRICULTURE
constant capital (i.e., production of means of production) must grow at an
increasingly fast rate. Therefore, in capitalist farming the kulak must reinvest
his surplus in the farm in improved technology. Thereby he would increase the
productivity of his farm and the surplus value extracted from it. Besides this
low generation of surplus in agriculture, even that generated goes primarily to
other spheres. With the return on money-lending and trading far more
profitable, a large proportion of this surplus is not re-invested in agriculture,
instead finds its way in such spheres of activity. In fact, as long as usury
continues to dominate the countryside as a most profitable sphere of
investment, it will restrict the growth of capitalist development. Of course,
with the inception of the 'green revolution' things have somewhat changed;
but the limited extent to which it has generated capitalist farming can be seen
from the poor levels of capital investment in agriculture taken as a whole.
Also 'capital goods' imports into the rural areas also began to increase, though
at a much slower rate, in the same period.
SUMMARY From the entire section on the growth of commodity production
it will be seen that this growth is definite whether in the sphere of inputs,
outputs, credits utilisation of surplus - all sections have to some extent been
affected, thereby having an impact on the production relations in the rural
economy. But the question is to what extent has it been able to change the rela-
tions of production in agriculture to capitalist ? To get a comprehensive
answer to this question it is necessary to analyse the differentiation of the
peasantry and all its related aspects. Meanwhile, it must be remembered that
even by 1971-1972 only roughly 35% of grain production actually comes into
the market. The bulk, over 65%, is consumed by the peasantry without ever
reaching the market. This proportion of marketed grains has not changed
perceptively in the last decade.
B. DIFFERENTIATITION OF THE PEASANTRY
The differentiation of the peasantry means the break up of the rural
populace into a rural bourgeoisie and a rural proletariat. Lenin has said that
for Russia, “two main lines of its development and outcome are objectively
possible : either the old landlord economy, bound as it is by thousands of
threads of serfdom, is retained and turns slowly into purely capitalist, 'junker'
economy. The basis of the final transition from labour service to capitalism is
the internal metamorphosis of feudalist landlord economy. The entire
agrarian system of the state becomes capitalist and for a long time retains
feudalist features. Or the old landlord economy is broken up by revolution,
which destroys all the relics of serfdom, and large land ownership in the first
place. The basis of the final transition from labour service to capitalism is the
free development of small peasant farming, which has received a tremendous
impetus as a result of the expropriation of the landlord estates in the interests
of the peasantry. The entire agrarian system becomes capitalist, for the more
completely the vestiges of serfdom are destroyed the more rapidly does the
differentiation of the peasantry proceed.” (Preface to the II edition of
Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin) To do so (ie. examine the
differentiation of the peasantry and the growth of commodity production
resulting from it) we will analyse it under the following sub-heads :
1) Rural-Urban Divide,
2) Agricultural Labour Vs. Kulak
3) Land Holding-Land Reforms
4) Household Industry
5) Home Market
1. Rural-Urban Divide
Lenin has said that, “the development of commodity economy
means the divorcement of an ever-growing part of the population from
agriculture, i.e., the growth of the industrial population at the expense of the
agricultural population.” In explaining the entire process, Marx clarifies, “it
is in the nature of capitalist production to continually reduce the agricultural
population as compared to the non-agricultural, because in industry the in-
crease of constant capital in relation to variable capital goes hand in hand with
an absolute increase, though relative decrease, in variable capital, on the other
hand in agriculture the variable capital required for the exploitation of certain
plot of land decreases absolutely; it can thus only increase to the extent that
new land is taken into cultivation, but this again requires as a pre-requisite a
still great growth of the non-agricultural population.”
2. Agricultural Labourers vs rural bourgeoisie
Also, the productivity of farm workers in India, on the average, is
very low and the instruments of production little developed. And very often,
the labourer is not divorced form the instruments of production as he has to
use his own implement while working on someone else's farm. One important
aspect of capitalism is that wage power must be divorced from the
instruments of production.
So though a greater number of the peasantry may be disposed from
the means of production and land and though wage labour may have
increased with the 'green revolution', the bulk of the labour does not take on
the form of regular free wage labour. So the clear differentiation of a rural
TOWARDS
VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 A NEW D AWN
proletariat and a rural bourgeoisie is yet to coalesce, except in few pockets.
The result will be greater amount of labour turning into a commodity coupled
withy further impoverishment of the peasantry. Yet this sale of labour power
will more take the form of simple commodity production rather than capitalist
production. For, say, a middle peasant is unable to carry out his farming
operations with family labour and so hires three to four workers during the
season.
Yet, if the bulk of the produce his family consumes, his exploitation
of wage labour gives him no surplus value and so takes the form of simple
commodity production even if his produce is a cash crop - say cotton. Much of
the labour power sold in the Indian countryside takes this form, and though
because of it commodity production expands, the home market grows and
there is some change in agrarian relations, but fundamentally it takes the form
of simple commodity production with a growth of small-scale farming
without generating capitalism or a rural bourgeoisie. Also, it will be observed
that labour-service in the form of share cropping and family cooperation co-
exist and continue together with the emerging wage-labour system in Indian
agriculture.
As regards the extent of growth of the rural bourgeoisie (Kulak) only
a general picture can be got from the extent of capital formation in agriculture
and the extent of the absorption of the means of production in agriculture.
These various estimations are given in other sections. The particular extent of
its existence can only be ascertained by specific area studies. The following
are some general guidelines to assess whether a farmer comes within the
category of rural bourgeoisie or continues as a rich peasant-landlord.
a) The bulk of the surplus must be extracted by the exploitation of
labour power. He must employ more wage labour than the labour of his
family.
b) The major part of the surplus value generated must be utilised in
developing the means of production (machinery) and not in usury, trading,
purchase of land, etc.
c) Labour power used must be free wage labour and the labourer
should be divorced from the instruments of production - i.e., the implements
for working should not be brought by the labourer, but instead provided by the
owner of the farm. Payment should be in cash and not in kind.
d) The capitalist farmer must not give his land on rent, on the
contrary, he may lease in land.
e) The capitalist farmer must produce for sale. So that bulk of his
produce must be sold in the market and not consumed by him and his family.
f) The capitalist farmer should produce for profit - i.e., he must
accumulate capital continuously. He must plan his production in such a
manner that it enhances profit through agricultural operations
By taking these six criteria into account we can roughly estimate the
class character of the farmer - whether he belongs to the category of rural
bourgeoisie or rich peasant-landlord class. Studies may show that a large
number of such farmers may be found more to be in a transitional stage not
having fully coalesced into a rural bourgeoisie and thereby meeting only
some of the above mentioned six criteria.
3) Land holdings - land reforms
A full ten years after the so-called 'green revolution' the state of
operational holdings in the country remained basically the same. Firstly, there
occurred extensive parcellisation of the land where 10.7% of the cultivable
land (of 17.6 million hectares) is distributed amongst 44.5 million holdings
(families) of under one hectare each. Besides, this fragmentation is contin-
uing with the average size of holdings having dropped from 2.28 to 2 hectares
between 1970-71 and 1976-77. But this is not all very rare is that a peasant has
his entire plot in one contiguous area. In fact, the bulk of the plots are further
fragmented, with each plot being divided into a number of small parcels
which can vary from anything from 2 to 10 parcels of land per plot.
The estimated minimum number of agricultural plots in India, thus,
was in the region of 215 million in 1951 which increased to 355 million in
1971-72. That is, a 67% increase. This greater parcellisation can be further
assessed from the fact that a holding in the size group of 2.5-5 acres, on the
average, has 6.3 fragments with an average area of 0.57 acres each. The
average area of fragments in the lower size groups was even less than that of
the 2.5-5 acres size group.
This enormous fragmentation of land is an indication of a most
backward mode of production and retards the growth of capitalist relations.
Marx has said that, “small landed property pre-supposes that the
overwhelming majority of the population is rural, and that not social but
isolated labour predominates; and that, therefore, under such conditions
wealth and development of reproduction, both of its material and spiritual
pre-requisites, are out of question, and thereby also the pre-requisites for
rational cultivation.” Marx adds that, “proprietorship of land parcels by its
very nature excludes the development of social productive forces of labour,
contd. to page 16
15
TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN contd. from page 15
INDIAN AGRICULTURE
social forms of labour, social concentration of capital, large-scale cattle-
raising and the progressive application of science.”
So this parcellisation and fragmentation of land is continuing apace,
and if, within it, a certain amount of commodity production has been
introduced with the help of HYV, cooperative loans, etc., it can lead to
only simple commodity production and not capitalist relations of
production.
Thus it will be seen that the main trend in agricultural land holding
is continuing concentration of land in the hands of a few coupled with
extensive small-scale farming. In between lie a class of rich peasantry (15-
25 acres) who comprise 3.4% of the households and own 16.2% of land
whose number has remained virtually static over the years. It is this section
that has, of late, been more vocal as a result of 'green revolution.’
This exposes the glaring existence of labour service in Indian
agriculture. The continuing prevalence of tenancy, share-cropping, etc., is a
further indication of the perseverance of feudal mode of production.
The estimates of cash rent and rent-in-king may not be too accurate
and estimates vary from study to study. Other estimates put the rent-in-kind
around 25%. But, one important point is that the content of the rent, whether
in cash or kind, takes the form of pre-capitalist rent and not capitalist rent, as
it involves distribution of surplus product and not of surplus value. The very
tenancy acts themselves fix the proportion of distribution of the product
between the landlord and serf. If it was to be capitalist rent the distribution
would be assessed on the profit generated and not on the basis of the whole
product.
4) Household Industry
Caste-based hereditary labour, according to the 1971 Census,
increased over that of 1961 and stood at : barbers 7.11 lakhs, dhobies 9.47
lakhs, fishermen 6.01 lakhs, weavers and spinners 34.03 lakhs, shoemakers
5.97 lakhs, carpenters 12.64 lakhs, blacksmiths 10 lakhs, jewelry and
precious metal workers (incl. goldsmiths) 5.76 lakhs, masons 15.35 lakhs,
potters 9.66 lakhs, and tanners 0.53 lakhs.
If capitalist industry were to grow and break feudal relations it
should first and foremost oust these ancient and backward forms of
production and service. But these continue to co-exist, and even expand
together with industrial growth. Also a differentiation of the peasantry
would simultaneously see the collapse of the household sector, coupled
with the growth of modern indigenous industry. Lenin has said that,
“Domestic industries are a necessary adjunct of natural economy,
remnants of which are nearly always retained where there is a small
peasantry.” (Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin)
In India, not only does the caste based household labour continue,
but the household industries are propped up by the state and comprador big
bourgeoisie. For example, in the year 1981-82 the total grants plus
outstanding loans to the Khadi and Village industries was Rs. 338 crore -
Khadi Rs. 208 crore and village industries Rs. 130 crore -given by the
government. The very fact that this sector not only continues to exist but is
propped up even in the face of expanding industrial production, is a clear
example of the compromise struck by imperialism and the comprador big
bourgeoisie with the backward pre-capitalist modes of production which
they use as a social base for their existence.
The overall picture of Khadi and Village Industries in India and
their trend, indicates that the maximum growth in these areas took place in
the decade of the 1970s. Surprisingly this was the same period when
capitalist relations grew fastest.
The continued existence and growth of this household sector is a
clear indication of a backward pre-capitalist mode of production wherein
over three million families (or three per cent of the population) continue
their existence as artisans
5) Home market
The differentiation of the peasantry will lead to an expansion of the
home market. In India, as already mentioned, though there has been a
continuous increase in food grain production, the percentage finding its
way into the market has been static at around 30% to 35%. A more recent
estimate put that no more than the top 10% of the land-owning peasant
household has able to produce marketable surpluses on any scale.
Also it will be found that the gross domestic capital formation as a
percentage of the total has been virtually static in the decade of 1970s. It
increased from 18% of the total (compared to registered manufacturing of
20%) in 1970-71 to 19% of the total (compared to registered manufacturing
of 24%) in 1980-81. With little growth in percentage of capital formation in
the rural areas it would reflect little growth in capitalist relations there
during that period.
Another estimate of the growth in the rural market and of capi-
talism can be gauged by tracing the flow of commodities from urban to rural
16
areas - and that too specifically in the sphere of production.
It is to be noted that, except for the early 1950s, in the entire
period prior to the 'green revolution' there was a net flow of commodities
from rural to urban areas, indicating a highly stagnant rural economy.
From the 'green revolution' period this process was reversed and there has
been a successively increasing net inflow of commodities into the rural
areas indicating a growth in the rural market. No doubt, in the earlier year
this growth was quite large - in 1967-68 it was Rs. 390 crore, which
increased to Rs. 784 crore in 1970-71.
This factor is also observable from the fact that the percentage of
producer goods to consumer goods (which consists mostly of necessities
like salt, tea, etc.) imported into rural areas jump-ed from 17% in 1967-68
to 25% in 1970-71 - indicating thereby a larger inflow of intermediary
producer goods (like fertilisers, pesticides, etc.) primarily and also a small
quantity of means of production like farm machinery.
Also, during the entire period of the 1950s and 1960s there was a
massive shrinking of the percentage of per capita consumer expenditure
spent on industrial goods in the rural areas (and also urban areas). In other
words there was a relative shrinking of the home market in that period
with a larger and larger amount of the families' incomes being devoted to
the necessities of life. There was a perceptible reversal of this process in
the rural areas from 1968-69 indicating some growth of market from the
time of the 'green revolution.'
SUMMARY
This entire section shows that there has been a very slight
differentiation of the peasantry. The basic forms of pre-capitalist
production relations has remained intact, with land concentration
continuing as before and small scale petty farming dominating the bulk of
the rural population. It is within this existing framework that commodity
production and the agrarian market has been increased by the imperialists
through the 'green revolution', thereby enhancing capitalist relations
within the semi-feudal framework.
Thus, from this section we find that the 'green revolution' period
has definitely witnessed a rise in commodity production. This is reflected
in : a growth of the urban population, growth of the rural market, growth of
banking and institutional finance in the rural areas, a slight increase in
constant capital in agriculture, the widespread prevalence of HYV types,
and a slight growth in productivity. But at the same time all the pre-
capitalist institutions continue to co-exist, if not increase. So we find, no
change in land holdings and the growth of backward small scale farming,
the traditional wooden and iron ploughs and bullock carts continued,
widespread prevalence of household industry, the bulk of food grain
production still being produced for consumption and not for market, the
bulk of the surplus still not going to increase constant capital but for usury,
trading, etc. no scientific utilisation of agriculture with productivity de-
creasing with increasing size of farm, the continuing prevalence of
tenancy, share-cropping, etc. the bulk of the population continuing to be
dependent on land, little differentiation of the peasantry with little growth
in the agricultural labour,
With the labour generated continuing to be not free labour but
attached and that which is free labour is being more of a seasonal type, an
the continuing caste-based division of labour of handicrafts and services.
It is clear from this that the growth in capitalist relations has merely been
super-imposed on the existing semi-feudal structure and has not
proceeded to smash it.
No doubt, this increased capitalist penetration will enhance the
contradictions within the rural economy, undermining to some extent
traditional feudal relations and have its own impact on the class
antagonisms in the countryside. One effect of this has been the mass
upsurges of the middle and rich peasantry in many HYV areas. Though
also some pockets of bourgeois farming will have developed (its limit can
be seen in the excessively low increase in constant capital and particularly
of the means of production, within Indian agriculture taken as a whole) the
major impact of the 'green revolution' has been to enhance simple
commodity production and not capitalist production.
Simple commodity production has existed since slave society,
while capitalism, as already mentioned, “is commodity production at its
highest stage of development, when labour power itself becomes a
commodity.” Simple commodity production is present when constant
capital remains static with little or no surplus value being generated with
the bulk of the produce being utilised to sustain the person and his family.
Capitalist production, on the other hand, entails a continuing increase in
constant capital and a generation of surplus value which is utilised to
enhance the means of production.
So, whether it is a petty farmer, utilising even some limited wage
labour, or whether it is a handicrafts man or some household industry, or
whether it may be any other petty producer - they may all produce
contd. from page 17
 contd. from page 16
INDIAN AGRICULTURE
commodities but neither do they generate surplus value not do they develop
or increase constant capital. This form of simple commodity production can
continue for generations with out having much impact on the social relations
of production. Capitalist production, on the other hand, revolutionises the
mode of production and by a continuous increase of the constant capital leads
to the ruination and destruction of the small producer. The primary impact of
the 'green revolution', except developing a rural bourgeoisie in certain
pockets, has led to the growth of simple commodity production on the lakhs
of small fragmented farms through the widespread utilisation of HYV.
Also, the enhancement in sale of labour power utilised in simple
commodity production may extend the market but will not be a measure of the
growth of capitalist relations. In India, though the percentage of agricultural
labourers may not have increased much in the last decade, there has been an
increase in sale of wage labour primarily because of the vast expansion of
uneconomical small holdings of the poor and even lower middle peasantry.
But the bulk of this wage labour is involved in simple commodity production
with little effect on the growth of capitalist relations.
Finally, it is manufacturing industry that is the main force which
develops capitalism in agriculture. Though industry has been growing, it has
been doing so as an off-shoot of finance capital and therefore has been unable
to generate that employment that is necessary to absorb any differentiation of
the peasantry that may take place in the countryside. So the growth of the
manufacturing industry within the imperialist framework, has not acted as
that force to develop capitalism in agriculture. On the contrary, we have seen,
as with the house hold industry, it even allies itself with the pre-capitalist
sectors of production. The result of such warped industrial growth is a
massive unemployment in the urban areas together with even larger under-
employment in the rural areas.
Thus, the overall agrarian picture in India continues to be semi-
feudal within which there has been a certain growth of capitalist relations.
C. IMPACT ON SOCIAL RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION
To sum up, the chief characteristics of the present day rural India are
a) Fragmentation of agricultural land and in consequence the
predominance of small scale agriculture and subsistence farming,
b) Leasing out of land by deeds and by word of mouth for the
performance of labour service, i.e., tenancy, share cropping, etc.
c) Primitive instruments of production
d) Prevalence of caste and hereditary division of labou
e) Preponderance of household industry
f) Continuance of household industry
g) Limited growth of market with bulk of food grains maintained for
consumption and much payment in kind.
h) Attachment of the overwhelming proportion of the population to
land.
i) Limited differentiation of the peasantry
j) Growth of commodity circulation on a small scale, and
k) Continuation of the patriarchal family, caste relations and diverse
personal dependence.
That is, a continuation of the semi-feudal mode of production with
an enhanced amount of commodity circulation within it resulting in some
growth of capitalist relations. The main impact has been to enhance simple
commodity production and create pockets of a rural bourgeoisie within a
predominantly semi-feudal structure.
Its impact on the social relations of production have been :
1) To reduce the traditional feudal methods of oppression,
2) To create a powerful rich peasant section
3) With HYV to force vast sections of the rural population into
market
4) To further perpetuate the fragmentation and parcellisation of land
thereby increasing the poor and middle peasant population enormously.
5) To greatly impoverish the landless, poor and even middle
peasants, forcing them to sell their labour power in order to eke out an
existence
6) Greater imperialist loot of the entire rural population leading to a
crisis in the agriculture with a continuing reduction in surplus being generated
(i.e., after the first decade of 'green revolution')
7) To a growth of simple commodity production and small pockets of
rural bourgeoisie
8) To a continuation of all the other feudal forms of exploitation, viz.,
usury, trading, etc.
The result of this has been to enhance the contradictions within
agriculture :
i) Due to further impoverishment, heightening the contradiction
between the landless and poor peasants on the one hand and the rich peasants
and landlords on the other,
ii) With vast sections being brought under HYV and within the
TOWARDS
VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 A NEW D AWN
market, and with the value of output dropping and fluctuating enormously
with fluctuations in weather and fluctuations in the market - i.e., a crisis
situation developing, an increased contradiction with this vast masses and the
imperialist-comprador bourgeoisie and government.
iii) With the accumulation of certain wealth by the rich peasants and
a section of landlords due to the 'green revolution' the growth of more
powerful and vocal rich peasant lobby, and
iv) With the crisis of the 'green revolution' due to high prices of
inputs and a falling price of outputs a growing contradiction between the rich
peasantry, a section of landlords (who have taken to HYV) and the middle
peasantry on the one hand and the government, imperialism and comprador
big bourgeoisie on the other.
The article has been reproduced form the archive:
www.naxalrevolution.googlepages.com/vg_agri_article.doc with a short
introduction.
TIBET contd. from page 12
of China(1954) reads as follows: “…All nationalities of our country are
united as one great family of free and equal nationalities. This unity of China's
nationalities will continue to gain in strength, founded as it is on ever-growing
friendship and mutual aid among themselves and on the struggle against
imperialism, against public enemies of the people within these nationalities
and against both dominant-nation chauvinism and local nationalism. In the
course of economic and cultural development, the state will concern itself
with the needs of the different nationalities, and, in the matter of socialist
transformation, pay full attention to the special characteristics in the
development of each…”
Here attention has been drawn both to Han chauvinism and the chauvinism of
small nationalities. In his essay entitled On the Ten Major Relationships(25
April 1956), Mao pointed out: “…We put the emphasis on opposing Han
chauvinism. Local-nationality chauvinism must be opposed too, but
generally that is not where our emphasis lies…”(SW, Vol.V,pp.284-306).
In Article 3, General Principles, Chapter 1 of the First Constitution, it is
written that
“the People's Republic of China is a single multi-national state. All the
nationalities are equal. Discrimination against, or oppression of any
nationality and acts which undermine the unity of the nationalities are
prohibited.
“All the nationalities have freedom to use and foster the growth of their
spoken and written languages and to preserve or reform their own customs or
ways.
“Regional autonomy applies in areas where people of national minorities live
in compact communities. National autonomous areas are inalienable parts of
the People's Republic of China…”
The idea of combatting both Han chauvinism and local-nationality
chauvinism was expressed by Mao also in his On the Correct Handling of
Contradictions among the People(27 February 1957). Closely related to it is
the question: why China, instead of adopting the policy of autonomous
republics like the USSR, went for the creation of autonomous regions.
Autonomous republics in the USSR, why autonomous regions, and not
autonomous republics in China?: Chou En-lai answers
Chou En-lai also talks about chauvinism of two types—Han chauvinism and
minority(local) chauvinism. Han chauvinism can develop into a tendency
towards discrimination and minority chauvinism can develop into a tendency
towards separatism. This socialist China, in the words of Chou En-lai “is not
to be monopolized by any one nationality. It belongs to all the more than 50
nationalities in our country, to the entire people of the People's Republic of
China”(Questions relating to our Policies towards China's Nationalities, 4
August 1957, SW, Vol.II, Beijing 1989,pp.253-54).
Chou En-lai in that essay dealt with the question of regional autonomy. Why
did the PRC opted for the policy of autonomous regions, rather than that of
autonomous republics? This question is relevant for the purpose of our
present discussion. In China, self-government takes the form of autonomous
regions, prefectures, counties or townships, whereas in the USSR, there were
autonomous republics and small administrative units, such as oblasts and so
on. The forms of autonomy in the two countries differ not only in name, but
also in substance. The right to self-government was enjoyed by the
nationalities in both the cases. In fact, the differences lie in the way
contd. to page 19
17
TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN
In Brief
America bombs Somalia
Thirty people died including several women and children when a
small villa and adjacent traditional mud houses in a Somalia village. The
target was the house of Aden Hashi Ayro, a military leader of al-Shabab. Al-
Shabab controls much of the country but is not recognized by the US, who is
currently backing the transitional government in Somalia. US has long
alleged that al-Shabab is a part of Al-Qaeda, which is however
unsubstantiated. The US officially denied disclosing their target and whether
it was successful. The precision missile was launched from their offshore
base in Indian Ocean. Al-Shabab spokesperson warned that there would be
retaliatory attacks against the US interests in Somalia and also the US backed
puppet government of Ethiopia. He however reiterated that Al-Shabab had no
links to Qaeda and was entirely a Somali issue. Al-Shabab began as a military
wing of Somali Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) which controlled much of
Somalia during 2006. But by the end of the year, US backed Ethiopian army
invaded Somalia and disbanded the group. Later al-Shabab emerged as an
insurgent group of Somali youths.
US Terror Report
The terror report released by Washington states that Venezuela is
supporting terrorism. The acquisition is being remarked upon by Venezuela
as 'almost ridiculous'. This inclusion is the newest in American list which
already includes other major oil producers like Iran. The state security
department accused the Chavez regime of supporting the Colombian
guerillas that often use Venezuelan territory to rest and regroup. Chavez has
been often involved in negotiating release of prisoners taken by major
Colombian left wing guerilla group FARC. Venezuela even mobilized its
national army in March, to Colombian borders after it violated its border with
Ecuador and killed a FARC leader. The terror report also expectedly
mentions Iran as the biggest state sponsor of terror, accused of funding,
sheltering and training of Islamic militants operating in Iraq. The report also
mentioned Syria as the other supporter of Islamic extremism. The problem in
Somalia, which saw American missile strikes have also been mentioned.
France faces massive strike
21 May, 08: France faces yet another massive strike as workers,
teachers and students united to protest the reforms proposed by president
Sarkozy, which indicated that a worker has to work till he is 41, one year more
than the previously decided age, before he can avail the benefits of the
provident fund managed by the government. Sarkozy have been involved in
many such controversial decisions which resulted in massive strikes which
have managed to stall the nation. The unions clearly stated that the president
is trying to impose his neo-liberal agenda in the nation which will be
wholeheartedly countered by the united working class of France.
Columbia isolated after FARC crackdown
The national government of Columbia is getting more and more
isolated amongst its Latin American neighbors ever since it violated
international border and carried out an attack on the FARC rebels camped
into Ecuador Territory. Recently after prolonged discussions the Ecuador
president Rafael Correa decided to indefinitely postpone any idea to restore
diplomatic ties with Columbia. This comes in face of adverse comments
being made by Columbian president Alvaro Uribe who claimed that
computer recovered from the FARC camps reveal that Ecuador was helping
them directly. The lack of relations with neighbours is hurting the nation
which is becoming increasingly dependant on US support. The term of the
Uribe government is supposed to end by 2010.
Delhi raises its voice in Solidarity with the Bhopalis
June 14 , 4-7pm, Jantar Mantar, New Delhi
· Artists and bands to perform in Support of Bhopalis They include:
Rabbi Shergill, Jigri group, Susmit Bose, Abhay Sharma and others..
· 112 Days on Road, 77 Days at The Dharna-sthal! PM Turns A Blind
Eye To Justice. Police turn violent on protestors.
23 long years on the path to justice!
Despite 77 days of struggle, the Prime Minister is yet to meet the people of
Bhopal and their demands. They have tried all possible means from silent
peaceful protests to street theatre to demonstrations and even 'chaining
themselves up', to try and convince the PM to meet them. Activists of Delhi
18
have held their hands in support. Ministers, Members of Parliament and
eminent people from the city have assured them of their support and promised
them justice.
On 9 June,2008, 33 people, women, children and men, who were staging a
peaceful protest in front of the PMs Office were arrested. Rather than meet
their demands promptly, the Government has ignored their march from
Bhopal to Delhi , met their 2 month-long dharna with empty promises, and
dealt with their non-violent protests with beatings and jailing. Pregnant
women and three people on indefinite fast continue to be in jail. The attitude
of the authorities clearly shows that they "want to teach the protestors a
lesson." It seems to be a coordinated effort to discourage democratic protest.
Since 10 June, nine activists, including gas survivors are on an indefinite
hunger strike seeking justice. They demand: An Empowered Commission on
Bhopal by endorsing the bill proposed by survivors organizations and
committing to introducing it in the Parliament in the monsoon session;
committing the funds required to allow the Commission to function for 30
years for medical, economic, social and environmental rehabilitation, and
Immediate legal action against Dow Chemical and Union Carbide.
Supporters from different parts of the world, including Booker Prize
nominated author Indra Sinha, are on a fast. Prime Minister's response to the
struggle so far has been vague and tentative, without any genuine effort to
meet the demands of an industrial disaster, 23 years old!
23 years of waiting, they refuse to be led on with false promises anymore.
Background: 23 years after the 1984 Union Carbide Industrial Disaster
in Bhopal , justice still eludes the Bhopalis.
On 3rd December 1984 the Union Carbide Subsidiary plant at Bhopal ,
released 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) and other toxic gases into the
night air of the city. This resulted in the death of over 23,000 people. 5, 72,000
suffer ill effects of the toxic gas till date, 120,000 more suffer from chronic
ailments. Children are being born with cerebral palsy and congenital
ailments. 10 to 15 of the gas affected people die every month! The gas leak
also has caused a permanent damage to the environment. The ground water is
heavily contaminated, causing respiratory, skin, eye and abdominal
morbidity.
The Government of India (GOI) has through the years tried following the
'piecemeal' justice principle. The GOI had promised a commission to
evaluate the damages caused and decide on the provisions of justice in 2006.
Till date there has been no systematic sustainable medical, economic,
environmental or social relief provisions made for them. No criminal and
civil liabilities too have been unresolved. The prime accused Union Carbide
Corporation of USA and Dow Chemical is still scott free!
77 days later, non-responsive government, depleting resources… the
protestors need our support!!
Join the Bhopalis and Unite for Justice!
Rally and Demonstration against CZM Notification
The streets of Tuticorin vibrated with the thousands who thronged,
20 June 2008
The Rally in Tuticorin against the proposed CZM Notification became an
historic event, as over five thousand of coastal community people from the
coastal villages of Tirunelveli and Tuticorin thronged around Cruz
Fernando's statute and started off a rally which ended at Sub collector's office.
The rally called by the fisher community associations, mechanised and
country craft operator's associations in Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Districts.
The rally that was started at around 10.30 am on 20th June, went through the
many streets of Tuticorin town, was lead by the leaders of various fisher
community associations and leaders of the traditional boats and mechanised
boats operators. National Union of Fishermen, Tamilnadu Pondy Fisher
people federation, Unorganised labourers trade union, veeranganai women's
movement, Christian liberation movement were among those who also
participated.
Forward Bloc nod to contract farming
Contract farming in the state W.B. is finally set to get green light from Left
Front constituent Forward Bloc, albeit with some modifications. The party
had opposed its introduction in Bengal a few years ago.
The Bloc-run West Bengal Marketing Board will allow contract farming by
corporates only if the deal is with a farmers' cooperative.
The board has also carved out a regulated corporate entry route in the field of
marketing. At present, direct purchase of agricultural produce from the 46
regulated markets and the 150 sub-markets by corporate firms is not
allowed. The Reliance Industries Ltd. applied for the APMC licence but was
denied by teh board earlier. Under the present scheme of things, corporates
floating a joint venture with the state-run marketing board, will get this
licence.
 contd. from page 17
TIBET
administrative lines were drawn in the two countries and in the particular
rights and powers delegated to the autonomous areas. Chou En-lai had
attributed the difference partly to difference in historical backgrounds of the
two countries and partly to differences between the situation in China in 1949
and that of Russia during the days of the October Revolution.
During the 19th century, Russia had already developed, despite the presence of
strong feudal features, into a capitalist country. Moreover, it had also become
an imperialist power which had a number of colonies. The rule of tsarist
Russia was essentially colonialist with respect to nationalities. Added to these
was the fact that nationalities in Russia were geographically separated, each
living in its own area.
China, on the other hand, was historically placed differently. In China, there
was mutual interdependence among the nationalities, especially in the
interior. For long periods, the Han nationality dominated the heartland of
China and extended its rule to areas inhabited by other nationalities.
However, there were also times when minority nationalities moved into the
interior and even established their control over the heartland. That naturally
resulted in multi-national settlements, and that is why during the 1949
revolution, there were, unlike the Soviet Union, few, if any, areas in China
inhabited by a single nationality. As for example, the population of Tibet is
fairly homogenous; but the Tibetan people also live in other areas in mixed
communities with other nationalities. As a matter of fact, the historical
development in China created conditions favourable for many nationalities to
intermingle and mix together. The Han nationality could have so large a
population because it had assimilated other ethnic groups.
Another example of mutual assimilation is provided by the Manchu people, a
nationality which emerged from the Changbai Mountains in northeast China.
By degrees, and particularly during the peak period of the Manchu or Ching
dynasty, their population rose to between four and five millions. After the fall
of the Manchus in 1911, they continued to exist, but they adopted the Han
culture including both the spoken and the written languages. Intermarriages
became more frequent after 1911, whereby ethnic differences no longer
appeared to be insuperable barrier. After 1949, the Manchus were formally
recognized as a nationality. When census forms were filled in, many Manchus
who had married Hans registered themselves and their children as Hans rather
than as Manchus, although they had been given the right to choose between
the two nationalities. This, according to Chou En-lai, was an assimilation that
was not the result of any violent suppression of one nationality by another, but
the result of voluntary intermingling among two nationalities for the sake of
achieving common prosperity. While the Manchus adopted the Han
language, some of the Manchu vocabulary had also been assimilated into the
Han language.
Another case is that of the Hui nationality. After the Hui people came to China
from Arabia and Asia Minor about 1000 years ago, they spread so widely
throughout the country that there is not a single province and probably not a
single county, where Hui people cannot be found. Their number had grown
because they had absorbed other ethnic groups. This was another case of
voluntary assimilation. Chou also dealt with the cases of the Mongols,
Zhuang, Yao and other nationalities.
Thus Chou En-lai argues: “Owing to historical circumstances, many of our
nationalities live in mixed communities, with mutual assimilation and mutual
influence. Since China has so many nationalities that are widely distributed
and mostly living in mixed communities, we cannot consider adopting the
Soviet Union's system of autonomous republics. Such a system presupposes
that the overwhelming majority of each of the country's nationalities is
concentrated in a certain region and capable of functioning as a separate
economic unit”(p.262)
The specific situation between the Soviet Union and China during the
revolutionary period was also different. During the October Revolution, the
Russian working class rose and seized political power, first in the cities, then
in the countryside, including regions inhabited by minority nationalities.
Since Russia was an imperialist country, all kinds of colonialist relations had
to be smashed. So the task before Lenin and others was to integrate the
struggle of the nationalities against tsarist oppression with the struggle of the
working class and the peasantry against the capitalists and the landlords. That
is why Lenin stressed the rights of nationalities for self-determination and
recognized their right to separation. They could either join the USSR or
themselves set up their own independent republics. Chou writes: “…at that
time, if the first socialist state was to get a firm foothold politically, it had to
stress the right of nationalities to self-determination, leaving them the option
TOWARDS
VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 August- September 2008 A NEW D AWN
of separation. That was the only way to break with all the old political
relationships characteristic of imperialism and to make the new socialist
state…secure. The specific circumstances demanded that the Russian
proletariat take this approach”(.p265).
In China, however, history moved in a different direction. China, unlike
tsarist Russia, was not an imperialist country. It was a feudal country, which
became semi-feudal and semi-colonial after the signing of the treaty of
Nanking in 1842 and parts into a colony after the Japanese invaded China in
1931. In old China, although the northern warlords and later the Kuomintang,
imposed a reactionary, oppressive rule on the toiling people and on all
nationalities, the entire Chinese nation had been suffering under imperialist
aggression and control. Under these circumstances, the Chinese people won
their liberation. Unlike the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communist
revolutionaries seized political power not by launching uprisings first in
industrially developed major cities, but by establishing liberated areas so as to
be able to wage a protracted struggle. During those years of intense struggle,
various nationalities of China forged close ties with one another. In fact, some
of the bases were set up in Inner Mongolia; in Xinjiang people launched
revolutionary movements against the Kuomintang; in southwest China,
many people of the minority nationalities carried on guerrilla warfare under
the leadership of the CPC; in the interior, people belonging to many
nationalities joined the People's Liberation Army; during the Long March,
when the Red Army passed through the southwest regions inhabited by
minority peoples, it left seeds of revolution; it is also known that a number of
minority also joined the Red Army.
Thus, externally, the Chinese nation was oppressed by different imperialist
powers. Internally, through sharing hardships in the revolutionary and anti-
Japanese national liberation wars and finally winning liberation, all the
nationalities developed intimate relationships of comrades-in-arms.
According to Chou, these external and internal relations made it unnecessary
for the Chinese people to adopt the policy of granting self-determination with
the option of separation, as the USSR had done during the October
Revolution. Thus the particular historical development in China determined
the policy of regional autonomy through cooperation between all
nationalities. The Chinese did not advocate right of self-determination as that
might, according to Chou En-lai, lead to interference by imperialist powers.
That there was basis in such statements is testified by the events during the
revolutionary war, when the Chinese warlords were backed and instigated by
one imperialist power or another.
contd. to next issue
contd. from page 20
NUKE DEAL
After the Bill for the N-Deal was passed in the US Congress, when
reporters questioned Karat whether they were against the Bill, Karat ignored
the question and Yechuri clarified, “We are neither in favour nor against this
Bill. Decision will be taken after considering the situations.” (Ananda Bazar
Patrika, 12.12.2006)
In this very pre-planned way they avoided this critical
ideological stand point and strategised to rely sometimes on Sonia Gandhi
and Pranab Mukherji's own sweet wills, only to make way for the Deal to be
materialised. Not only that, the foreign and National Corporate Giants who
are looking at this Deal as an opportunity for great profit by using the New
Economic Policy as a potential weapon, but the Leftists in Power have also
turned out to be the architect of the very same Economic Policy. Essentially,
these ruling Leftists are keeping the masses in darkness regarding the real
picture behind the Nuclear Power and Nuclear Deal and combating the
Central Government with such a subtle strategy so that this deal is
materialised and yet they do not have to be a part of this Deal.
In such a situation where the masses have been left in
darkness and a filthy game has started for and against this Deal, we demand:
1) Restoring dignity to the Democratic opinion, India
withdraws from the Deal.
2) At the same time, we need a healthy debate at the state level
on the efficacy of the need of our country to venture into this highly
risky and costly generation of Nuclear Power.
3) Indian Nuclear Research should not be interfered with by
any Western power and should remain sovereign in its approach.
19
TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN
SAY NO TO THE INDO-US NUKE DEAL
AND UNMASK THE PSEUDO- LEFTISTS
IN POWER
Guruprasad Kar
As a reaction to the Left withdrawing support from the centre, the
Petroleum & Natural Gas Ministry of India has invested a few crores of
government money on the media to launch an advertisement campaign in
favour of the Indo-US Nuke Deal. Their advertisement prophesied “Nuclear
energy is the most effective, eco-friendly and a non-hazardous source of
energy. It generates more energy than any other source and moreover it is
renewable.” In this campaign, the scientific truth is completely marred and
unfair tactics have been employed to cumulate mass response in favour of the
Deal.
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT THE MOST EFFECTIVE SOURCE
The discovery of Nuclear Energy has thrown open a new avenue of
an alternative source, where it is possible to convert the mass of matter to
generate tremendous amount of thermal energy. The amount of thermal
energy obtained by destroying a mass of 1gm is far greater than that obtained
from the combustion of 1gm of coal. But this scientific truth does not
necessarily imply that this generated thermal energy can easily be converted
into electrical energy in a nuclear reactor. The present scenario is that only a
fraction of this thermal energy generated can be effectively converted to
electrical energy and the entire process is a complex one involving a lot of
money. It is important to note that the very same United States of America,
who's a party to the N-Deal, has not set up even a single nuclear reactor since
the year 1973.
ECOLOGICALLY MOST HAZARDOUS
Plutonium is obtained as a nuclear waste after Uranium is used as
a fuel in the nuclear plants. Plutonium is not just one of the major
ingredients of the nuclear bomb but as a nuclear waste it is also alarmingly
hazardous for the environment. The radioactive substances released in
course of the process of mining, extraction and refining of the Uranium
Ore pollutes the atmosphere, land masses, water bodies, flora and fauna,
and poses a severe threat to mankind and the environment as a whole.
Moreover, the lifetime of these radioactive substances is exceptionally
long. Especially, once this radioactive substance Plutonium is formed, it
continues to pollute the environment for the next 24,000 years. Every
reactor produces 20-30 tons of nuclear waste energy every year. Until and
unless this nuclear waste disintegrates of its own, no possible methods
have been invented for its safe disposal, thereby, protecting the
environment against its hazards.
IT IS A FALSE CLAIM THAT NUCLEAR ENERGY IS THE MOST
PRODUCTIVE SOURCE
Energy obtained from the nuclear power plants contribute only a
small fraction to the net power production of the world. The European
countries who had large scale productions of electricity from nuclear energy
are gradually decreasing their production under the pressure of mass
consensus. Now, let's dig through history in an Indian context. In the year
1962, Homi Bhabha, the Founder of the Indian Nuclear Programme, expected
that by the year 1987, 20,000-25,000 MW of electricity would be generated in
our nuclear power plants. His successor, Vikram Sarabhai, claimed that by the
year 2000, the amount of electricity generated from nuclear plants would
reach 43,000 MW. Even after the enormous expenditure on Nuclear Research
Programmes in the last 50 years, the result has been the generation of mere
3900 MW of electricity from the nuclear power plants, which nears only a
meek 2.8% of the Net Power Supply of our country. Even if the Department of
Atomic Energy's current promises that after the Indo-US N-Deal, the
electricity produced from the Nuclear Power Plants would be 20,000 MW by
the year 2020, materialises, still, it would not exceed even 7% of the Net
Power Demand.
Other than this, to legitimise the Deal, misguiding campaigns are
being launched from time to time. The possibility of exhaustion of coal in the
next 40 years and the issue of environmental pollution caused by the green
house gases emitted due to the usage of coal and petroleum are being
highlighted. The irony of the fact is that according to the future scenario of
electrical energy in our country as envisioned by the Planning Commission
(Source: Draft Report of the Expert Committee on Integrated Energy Policy,
Planning Commission, Government of India), the electricity generated from
the Nuclear Power Plants will fulfill only 6-7% of the demand and more than
50% will be generated from coal itself. Since the demand for electricity will
go on increasing, so will be the cost of coal increase manifold as compared to
its present price. Hence, the situation which stands is as follows:
20
VOL. 1 ISSUE 2 AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 2008|RS 10
1) If we assume that the coal reserves will be exhausted within next 40
years, then according to the governmental statistics, it is completely
impossible for nuclear power to fulfill the demands for electricity, people will
have to dwell in darkness.
2) The propaganda that its possible to reduce the emission of green
house gases is nothing but a blatant life.
S O W H E R E D O E S T H E A C T U A L S I T U AT I O N S TA N D ?
The economic depression lasting for a decade and the contemporary sub-
prime crisis has devastated the monopolistic capital of US trade. The share of
US capital in the total world investment has come down to 19%. There is a
lethal nexus to create a vast domain of business through Nuclear power and
technology to work in favour of US monopolistic capital, consistent with the
process of globalisation, which prioritises profit and engulfs everything
within the domain of business. The renowned scientists of the famous US
University M.I.T, have been assigned this tall task. They have published
drafts called, 'The Future of Nuclear Energy' which states that though no
process of disposing the nuclear wastes produced by Nuclear reactors has
been invented, yet to avoid the environmental pollution caused by the green
house gas (CO2) produced in the generation of electricity form coal, it is
advisable to install a great number of nuclear reactors and generate electricity.
And since generation of electricity from nuclear reactors is expensive, they
have proposed to impose more taxes on gas and carbon to make Nuclear
Power more competent in the market, which in turn will induce interest
among businessmen to set up nuclear power plants nationally and
internationally. The fact that the green house gases are emitted in the
complete process of the generation of Nuclear Power has been craftily hushed
up in this draft to expand nuclear related business and maximise profit
through it.
US organisations in the Power Sector are anticipating the possibility
of business of almost 100 billion dollars and more in India. Meanwhile Tata
and Reliance of India have already expressed their interest as middlemen in
this trade. To implement this, the necessary changes that have to be made in
the Indian Law have already started being considered. As a consequence to
this, crores and crores of rupees of such a poor country like ours would be
embezzled to satisfy the hunger of monopolistic capital.
The Hyde Act to which Indian must conform to, in order to obtain
Nuclear fuel and technology, states that,
1) Foreign Policy has to be made consistent with the US foreign policy.
Meanwhile the Government of India has already taken its first step in this
direction by voting unethically against Iran and the International Nuclear
Energy Commission. US government is interested to place India in its global
strategy of dominating the world in general and South Asia in particular and
in this direction joint military exercises are taking place frequenly.
2) The right to reprocess fuel will be restricted as a result of which the
research and application of the three-stage process by using Thorium (which
is found in abundance in India) as a fuel in the Nuclear furnace, invented by
Indian Scientists will be effectively abandoned.
But it is extremely important to understand the real stand of the ruling
Leftists regarding the Nuke Deal in the context of the present complex
scenario. First, let's quote a few statements by the Chief Minister of our state,
for a better understanding of the situation: The section which is making
people conscious about the limitations of Nuclear Power Plants generating
electricity as opposed to the vast expenses incurred during this process and
the hazards involved in this process, has been attacked by the Chief Minister,
who commented, “Many a rumours are being spread. The generation of
nuclear power will affect marine life and water bodies will be contaminated,
such false publicities are being encouraged.” (Ganashakti, 20.11.06). Besides
this he has proudly announced, “In spite of the objections of the Opposition
Party, we are determined to set up the Nuclear Power Plant.” (Ganashakti,
25.11.06). contd. to page 19
TOWARDS
A NEW D AWN
Editor : Abhijnan Sarkar
Room No. 20, B-Block, Jadavpur University Main Hostel
Kolkata-700 032, Ph.: 98362 62819
Printed & Published by Abhijnan Sarkar
Printed at Printing Art, 32A, Patuatola Lane, Kolkata- 700 009
Write to us at - towardsdawn@gmail.com